The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHoonah Energy Projects Concept Design Report - May 2009 - REF Grants 7040036, 7030019Hoonah Energy Projects May 29, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has been prepared by Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E) for the Alaska Energy Authority / Rural Energy Group (AEA/REG). The purpose of this study is to provide a concept design and construction cost estimate for the following potential local energy projects for the community of Hoonah: Diesel Power Plant Replacement. Three Potential Hydroelectric Generation Projects. Diesel Generation Heat Recovery System. Excess Hydroelectric Energy Recovery Participants in the project include the City of Hoonah and the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC). On Thursday October 19 and 20, 2006, David Lockard of the Alaska Energy Authority / Rural Energy Group (AEA/REG) and John Dickerson of Alaska Energy and Engineering (AE&E) traveled to Hoonah. The purpose of this site visit was to meet with local officials as well as representatives of local and regional organizations to identify and discuss potential energy infrastructure projects within the community as well as to gather reconnaissance level information for preparation of a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) for any identified energy infrastructure projects. The IPEC (originally THREA) power plant was constructed in 1977 and was partially renovated after a fire in 1990. Existing generator No. 1 is an antiquated Caterpillar model 398. Generators No. 2 and 3 are Caterpillar model 3512's with approximately 75,000 total hours each. The interior walls are covered with painted plywood up to a height of 8' with vinyl-encased fiberglass batt insulation exposed above the plywood and across the ceiling. The exterior metal siding is in fair condition but the exterior paint is in very poor condition and is peeling badly. The area around the plant is poorly drained and the plant is prone to flooding, especially during spring breakup. A new power plant is proposed to be constructed on a raised gravel pad next to the existing power plant. The new power plant will include two new generators, one existing low-hour generator, one existing high-hour generator in good condition (3,100kW total), state of the art automatic start/stop/paralleling switchgear, remote radiators with variable speed control, a fire suppression system, critical grade exhaust silencers and all required engine coolant piping and ventilation equipment. Three potential hydroelectric generation facilities are identified, one on Gartina Creek, one on Water Supply Creek as well as one that is located on both Gartina Creek and Water Supply Creeks (Combined G&WS Hydro). The proposed site locations are all in close proximity to each other and are all located within four miles of the community of Hoonah on or near existing gravel logging roads. Each proposed hydroelectric facility includes: diversion structure(s); penstock(s); hydroelectric power house(s); programmable automatic start/stop/paralleling switchgear; approximately four miles of 12.5kV three-phase overhead transmission line with fiber optic communication cable; and access roads to the power house(s) and diversion structure(s). The proposed generation heat recovery project would deliver recovered generation heat to the swimming pool/gymnasium, school classroom building, fire hall, senior center, senior apartments, and clinic, offsetting as much as 57,000 gallons of space heating diesel fuel annually. The project would include a total of approximately 6,500 feet of buried 4” diameter arctic pipe as well as heat exchangers, pumps and associated equipment located in the power plant and the six identified community buildings. Hoonah Energy Projects May 29, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering ii The proposed excess hydroelectric energy recovery system would capture otherwise wasted hydroelectric potential by using an electric boiler to add heat to the diesel heat recovery system during times when excess hydroelectric potential is available. The proposed power plant and heat recovery system project schedule calls for design and permitting to be completed by November 2009 and for construction to occur between April and November 2010, with the new power plant fully functional by December 2010. The proposed hydroelectric facility and transmission line project schedule calls for design and permitting to be completed by July 2011 and for construction to occur between March and November 2012, with the hydroelectric facility fully functional by December 2012. Separate cost estimates have been prepared for the Power Plant Replacement and Diesel Generation Heat Recovery System as well as each of the three potential Hydroelectric Generation projects and the Excess Hydroelectric Energy Recovery System. The estimated total project cost including all design, supervision, inspection, permitting, with a 15% to 25% contingency for each component is: $2,791,000 Power Plant Replacement (3,100kW @ $900/kW) $905,000 Generation Heat Recovery System $4,710,000 Gartina Creek Hydroelectric Project (600kW) $4,078,000 Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project (600kW) $8,645,000 Combined G&WS Hydroelectric Project (1,300kW) $100,000 Excess Hydroelectric Energy Recovery System The following table summarizes the avoided fuel costs and simple payback periods for the potential hydroelectric projects with and without energy recovery: AVOIDED FUEL COST & SIMPLE PAY BACK OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS Project Project Cost Annual Avoided Fuel, Gallons Annual Value of Avoided Fuel, $/Year (1) Simple Pay Back Period Fuel Cost Avoided Over 30 Years Excess Hydro ER $.10M 12,500 $62,000 1.6 yrs $1.88M Diesel HR $.91M 57,000 $285,000 3.2 yrs $8.55M Gartina Hydro $4.71M 130,000 $650,000 7.3 yrs $19.5M Gartina Hydro w/ Diesel HR $5.61M 176,000 $881,000 6.4 yrs $26.4M Water Supply Hydro $4.08M 134,000 $670,000 6.1 yrs $20.1M Water Supply Hydro w/ Diesel HR $4.98M 180,000 $900,000 5.5 yrs $27.0M Combined Hydro $8.65M 215,000 $1,075,000 8.0 yrs $32.2M Combined Hydro w/ Diesel HR & Excess Hydro ER $9.65M 257,000 $1,285,000 7.5 yrs $38.5M 1) Assume a future fuel cost of $5.00/Gallon Hoonah Energy Projects May 29, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering iii INDEX Executive Summary......................................................................................Page i Index .........................................................................................................Page iii Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................Page v 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................... Page 1 1.1 Program Overview......................................................................... Page 1 1.2 Community Description ................................................................. Page 2 1.3 Site Investigation ........................................................................... Page 3 1.4 Code Analysis & Deficiencies........................................................ Page 3 2.0 Existing Facilities.................................................................................. Page 4 2.1 Power Plant................................................................................... Page 4 2.2 Power Distribution ......................................................................... Page 5 3.0 Community Power Demand ................................................................. Page 5 3.1 Estimated Future Load Growth...................................................... Page 5 3.2 Alternative Energy/Efficiency Improvements ................................. Page 5 4.0 Proposed Energy Infrastructure Project Descriptions........................... Page 6 4.1 Diesel Power Plant Replacement .................................................. Page 6 4.1.1 Generator Selection ................................................................ Page 7 4.1.2 Switchgear & SCADA.............................................................. Page 8 4.1.3 Power Plant Fuel System........................................................ Page 9 4.2 Three Potential Hydroelectric Projects .......................................... Page 9 4.2.1 Gartina Creek.........................................................................Page 10 4.2.2 Water Supply Creek...............................................................Page 11 4.2.3 Combined Gartina and Water Supply.....................................Page 11 4.2.4 Hydroelectric Power Utilization...............................................Page 12 4.2.5 Permitting...............................................................................Page 12 4.3 Heat Recovery System.................................................................Page 14 5.0 Site Selection & Control ......................................................................Page 15 5.1 Power Plant Site...........................................................................Page 15 5.2 Hydroelectric Project Area............................................................Page 15 5.3 Hydroelectric Intertie Route ..........................................................Page 15 5.4 Heat Recovery Pipeline Route......................................................Page 16 5.5 Site Control ...................................................................................Page 16 6.0 Permitting and Spill Response ............................................................Page 16 6.1 Environmental Assessment..........................................................Page 16 6.2 Fire Code......................................................................................Page 17 6.3 Spill Response..............................................................................Page 17 Hoonah Energy Projects May 29, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering iv 6.4 Air Quality Permit..........................................................................Page 17 6.5 Hydroelectric Project Permitting ...................................................Page 17 7.0 Construction Plan................................................................................Page 18 7.1 Local Job Skills.............................................................................Page 19 7.2 Local Equipment...........................................................................Page 19 7.3 Material Sources...........................................................................Page 19 8.0 Schedule .............................................................................................Page 19 8.1 Power Plant Replacement & Heat Recovery System Schedule ..Page 20 8.2 Hydroelectric Project Schedule.....................................................Page 20 9.0 Cost Estimate......................................................................................Page 20 Concept Design Drawings.....................................................................Appendix A Construction Cost Estimates.................................................................Appendix B Site Control Documents ...................................................................... Appendix C Electrical Load Data............................................................................. Appendix D 2007 Hydroelectric Analysis and Revised Cost Estimate by HDR Inc............................................................................................Appendix E 2002 Reconnaissance of Three Potential Hydro Sites Near Hoonah by HydroWest Group LLC...............................................Appendix F Supplement to June 2002 Hydroelectric Study By AP&T.....................Appendix G Hoonah Energy Recovery Worksheet and Graphs.............................. Appendix H Community Correspondence .................................................................Appendix I Hoonah Energy Projects May 29, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADCCED AK Department of Commerce, Community and Econ. Development ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation AEA/REG Alaska Energy Authority/Rural Energy Group AIDEA Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority CDR Conceptual Design Report COE U. S. Army Corps of Engineers DC Denali Commission DOT (Alaska) Department of Transportation and Public Facilities EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency F Degrees Fahrenheit FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GPM Gallons Per Minute HUD Housing and Urban Development IBC International Building Code ICDBG Indian Community Development Block Grant IFC International Fire Code NEC National Electric Code NFPA National Fire Protection Association NFS Non-frost susceptible RPSU Rural Power System Upgrade SHPO State Historic Preservation office SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures USCG United States Coast Guard USCOE United States Army Corps of Engineers USS United States Survey Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared by Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E) for the Alaska Energy Authority / Rural Energy Group (AEA/REG). The purpose of this study is to provide a concept design and construction cost estimate for the following potential local energy projects for the community of Hoonah: Diesel power plant replacement. Four potential hydroelectric generation projects. Generation heat recovery system. Participants in the project include the City of Hoonah and the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC). 1.1 Program Overview The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Rural Energy Group is pursuing grant funds to upgrade rural bulk fuel tank farms and electric power systems. All project components are dependent on available funding. Following is a brief outline of the program: Most of the funds are federal and provided through the Denali Commission (DC). Other federal funding may be available from HUD (ICDBG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Additional funds may be available from the State of Alaska, USDA, and loan financing. In order to receive grant funds, each community must demonstrate that the proposed facility will be sustainable by accepting a business plan. The business plan shall describe who will own the facility, and how it will be operated, maintained and replaced. New energy projects are funded, designed, and constructed in three phases: Phase 1, Conceptual Design; Phase 2, Design Completion; and Phase 3, Construction. During Phase 1, Conceptual Design, staff from AEA will visit a community, discuss the program, and work with residents and the local government to select sites for the new facilities. At the completion of Phase 1 Conceptual Design, the community will be requested to review and approve the location, capacity, and basic configuration of the facilities as well as a draft business plan. During Phase 2, Design Completion, the design for the new energy projects will be completed. An environmental assessment will be prepared and site control documented. A business plan will be prepared for signing. Each community will be requested to provide “in kind” contributions as available. Project may include local hire and construction trade training programs, subject to Denali Commission funding. If the Denali Commission approves the business plan it will be circulated for signature and construction procurement will start. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 2 Ineligible Projects: Funding is not available through AEA for buildings, propane facilities, fuel tank trucks or trailers, fuel to fill the tank farm, operation & maintenance costs, or residential tank upgrades. Loans for fuel tank trucks and trailers may be available through USDA. Training Available: AEA has several training programs available for communities. 1.2 Community Description Hoonah is located on the northeast coast of Chichagof Island, 40 air miles west of Juneau. It lies at approximately 58.11° North Latitude and -135.44° West Longitude. (Sec. 28, T043S, R061E, Copper River Meridian.) The area encompasses 6.6 sq. miles of land and 2.1 sq. miles of water. Hoonah's maritime climate is characterized by cool summers and mild winters. Summer temperatures average 52 to 63; winter temperatures average from 26 to 39. Temperature extremes have been recorded from -25 to 87. Annual precipitation averages 100 inches, with 71 inches of snowfall. The population was estimated at 861 residents in 2005. Local governments include a first class city and an IRA council. Hoonah is located in the Sitka Recording District, the Hoonah City School District, and the Sealaska Regional Native Corporation but is not within an organized borough. LOCATION MAP Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 3 1.3 Site Investigation On Thursday October 19 and 20, 2006, David Lockard of the Alaska Energy Authority / Rural Energy Group (AEA/REG) and John Dickerson of Alaska Energy and Engineering (AE&E) traveled to Hoonah. The purpose of this site visit was to meet with local officials as well as representatives of local and regional organizations to identify and discuss potential energy infrastructure projects within the community as well as to gather reconnaissance level information for preparation of a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) for any identified energy infrastructure projects. In addition to the field investigations, available information was obtained and analyzed from the following sources: Gartina Creek Project Reconnaissance Report, Harza Engineering, 1979 Concept Review Report, Gartina Creek Hydroelectric Project, HDR, 1998 Reconnaissance of Three Potential Hydroelectric Sites Near Hoonah Alaska, Hydro West Group, LLC, 2002 Gartina Creek Hydrology & Power spreadsheet, AP&T, 2002 Comprehensive Renewable Energy Feasibility Study for Sealaska Corporation, Springtyme Company, LLC, 2005 Hoonah Power Cost Equalization (PCE) fuel use data, FY2005-2007 Hoonah Power Plant SCADA system data, IPEC, 2005-2007 AEA Rural Utility Circuit Rider Field Trip Report Other relevant data. Additional information and input was obtained from the following individuals: Windy Skaflestad, Mayor, City of Hoonah 945-3633 David Richards, Administrator, City of Hoonah 945-3663 Jan Supler, Vice President Retail Operations, Wards Cove (206) 323-3200 Steve Brown, General Manager, Hoonah Trading 945-3211 Tim McLeod, General Manager, AEL&P 463-6317 Corry Hildenbrand, Energy Resource Developer, AEL&P 463-6317 Jody Mitchell, General Manager, IPEC 789-3196 Keith Berggren, Generation Manager, IPEC 789-3196 Peter Bibb, Distribution Manager, IPEC 789-3196 Bob Butera, P.E., HDR 644-2000 Larry Coupe, P.E., AP&T (360) 385-1733 1.4 Code Analysis & Deficiencies The following is a summary of existing power plant code analysis and deficiencies observed during the site investigations. Poor site drainage at existing power plant building causing seasonal flooding. Antiquated / inefficient diesel genset #1 – expensive to maintain and operate. Extremely high hours on gensets #2 & #3 – due for replacement soon. Manual paralleling switchgear only. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 4 Exposed interior vinyl-encased fiberglass batt insulation absorbs oil vapors, is difficult to clean and is a potential fire hazard. No operational fire suppression system Power plant building previously incurred severe fire damage The concept design for all energy projects have been prepared to meet current code and regulatory requirements, which include: The 2006 Edition of the International Building Code (IBC). The 2006 Edition of the International Fire Code (IFC) and currently adopted Alaska State Fire Marshal Fire and Safety Regulations. The 2006 Edition of the National Electrical Code (NEC). The 2006 Edition of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). 40 CFR, Part 112.1-12, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Spill Prevention Requirements 2.0 EXISTING FACILITIES The existing power plant and electrical distribution system were visually examined to determine suitability for re-use. The following paragraphs summarize findings for the community. 2.1 Power Plant The IPEC (originally THREA) power plant was constructed in 1977 and was partially renovated after a fire in 1990. It is located on the eastern edge of town at the intersection of Gartina Highway and White Alice Site Road. The building is a 40'Wx100'L metal-sided, pre-engineered steel frame structure that houses three generators, an office and a warehouse. The interior walls are covered with painted plywood up to a height of 8' with vinyl-encased fiberglass batt insulation exposed above and across the ceiling. The exterior metal siding is in fair condition but the exterior paint is in very poor condition and is peeling badly. The concrete foundation, steel frame members and horizontal steel girts appear to be in fair condition. According to the operator, the finish grade around the plant does not drain well and the plant is prone to flooding, especially during spring breakup. Previous attempts at grading the site to improve drainage have been thwarted by the shallow bedrock associated with the rock quarry bottom on which the plant was built. There are three Caterpillar generators currently installed in the power plant. Unit #1 is a model 398 with a capacity of 600kW at 1,200RPM. The 398 is an antiquated pre-combustion design with poor fuel economy and increasingly difficult availability of parts. This unit is used for emergency backup only and is slated for replacement. Unit #2 is a model 3512 with a prime capacity of 1,100kW at 1,200RPM. Unit #3 is a model 3512 with a prime capacity of 855kW at 1,200RPM. Units #2 and #3 each have approximately 75,000 total engine hours. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 5 Engine cooling is with three remote radiators located outside at the front of the power plant. Each generator is on a stand-alone cooling system with one radiator. There is currently no generation heat recovery equipment installed. Station service is provided by a metered 480V three phase load center as well as an un-metered 120/208V three phase load center. The 5kV manual paralleling switchgear was installed new in 1990 after a fire in the power plant damaged the existing switchgear and one of the generators. The switchgear includes a section for each of the three generators and a feeder/station service section. 2.2 Power Distribution Power generation is currently at 4160V 3-phase and distribution is at 7200/12.47kV 3-phase. There are two separate community feeders with a 750kVA bank of pole-mounted transformers feeding the community grid to the east of the power plant and a 750kVA pad-mount step-up transformer feeding the community grid to the west of the power plant. The transformers and main community feeder pole are located within the fenced area adjacent to the power plant. These transformers appear to be original equipment with visible surface rust and are probably due for replacement. Overall, the community overhead distribution system is in good condition and no other distribution deficiencies were identified. 3.0 COMMUNITY POWER DEMAND Power consumption data was obtained from the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program and from the IPEC SCADA system for fiscal years 2005 through 2007. Graphs are included in Appendix D. During these years total annual generation ranged between 5.1 and 5.5 million kWhrs with an average annual load of between 607kW and 628kW. Annual fuel consumption averaged 366,000 gallons. According to the SCADA data daily peak demand in FY 2007 ranged from a low of 832kW to a high of 920kW. Daily minimum (nighttime) loads in FY 2007 ranged between 340kW and 460kW. Monthly and peak data were not available for FY 2008 from either source. According to available PCE data, total annual generation for FY 2008 was 5.0 million kWhrs. 3.1 Estimated Future Load Growth It is important to evaluate the impact of planned infrastructure improvement projects on an existing power generation system. New construction and other community improvements can adversely impact the adequacy of existing facilities. Steady growth in Hoonah's summer peak loads and annual generation are likely over time due to expected increases in tourism, a planned new subdivision development and possible increases in the local wood processing industry. It is possible that annual generation requirements could grow to over 6,000,000kWH and peak demand loads could reach 1,000kW within five years. 3.2 Alternative Energy / Efficiency Improvements Careful sizing and selection of new generators with advanced technology in conjunction with the installation of new fully automatic paralleling switchgear and Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 6 a continuous off-line engine preheat system will maximize the fuel efficiency of the new diesel power plant. An analysis of four potential hydroelectric projects is included in Section 4.2. Analysis of a potential energy recovery/district heating project is included in Section 4.3. Used motor oil from a variety of sources including the power plant is currently used for space heating at the City shop building. The Alaska Energy Authority/Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority published a draft Rural Alaska Energy Plan dated December 31, 2002 as a follow-up report to the previously released Screening Report of Alaska Rural Energy Plan dated April 2001. The Screening Report evaluated a dozen alternative energy technologies other than diesel engine heat recovery. Only wind energy was identified as alternative energy technology warranting further evaluation in the draft Rural Alaska Energy Plan. According to the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States the community of Hoonah is located within a class 3 wind regime and is not a viable candidate for a wind energy program using currently available technologies. There are no other known practical energy sources, such as solid fuel or natural gas, currently available at Hoonah. At this time, it appears that supplemental hydroelectric generation, generation heat recovery and possibly additional end- use conservation are the only viable fuel-saving technologies available for Hoonah. 4.0 PROPOSED ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS The following proposed facility descriptions are separated into three sections: Section 4.1, "Diesel Power Plant Replacement" describes the proposed construction of a new IPEC diesel power plant including a new building new and refurbished generation equipment, switchgear, and controls. Section 4.2, "Potential Hydroelectric Projects", describes three potential local hydroelectric projects located near Hoonah. It also describes a potential excess hydroelectric energy recovery system. Section 4.3, "Diesel Generation Heat Recovery System", describes a potential generation heat recovery project serving the school complex and other community buildings. 4.1 Diesel Power Plant Replacement Historically, the IPEC power plant has been the sole source of power generation for Hoonah and it will likely continue to be the prime power source even if hydroelectric or other alternative energy projects are developed. Due to the age, condition and drainage issues of the existing building as well as the total hours on the existing generators and equipment, the power plant should be replaced. Keeping the existing plant on-line during construction of the new plant will provide power to the community and will eliminate the project cost of providing temporary power during construction. The new power plant building Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 7 will be a pre-engineered metal building with concrete slab-on-grade foundation co-located on the same lot and approximately 50 feet southwest of the existing power plant. The operator’s room, switchgear room, and bathroom will be located in the north end of the building. Radiators will be located on the west side of the building beneath a covered area. An area site plan, power plant floor plan and typical section are provided in Appendix A. The following proposed items will modernize the power plant and the reliability, fire prevention/protection, noise control, and operations of the electric utility: Provide new electronically controlled diesel-generating units. Provide new automatic paralleling switchgear and SCADA system with load sharing/control capabilities for possible integration of hydroelectric generation. Provide critical grade silencers on all generators. Provide sound-insulated air intake and exhaust fan ducting. Provide new radiators with variable speed motor controls. Provide heat recovery / engine cooling system. Provide redundant generator cooling systems to enhance plant reliability. Provide fire suppression system. Provide sound insulated control room. A new code compliant 12,000-gallon double wall day tank with overfill protection was installed in 2007 and will be used at the new plant. 4.1.1 Generator Selection IPEC was recently notified that the have been awarded an RUS grant of approximately $735,000 for purchase of a new generator for the Hoonah power plant. It is our recommendation to apply these funds to the installation of a new Caterpillar 3512C generator. If funding is available for spring 2010 construction it would be most cost effective to install this unit directly into the new IPEC Hoonah power plant. These grant funds could be considered a like-kind contribution by IPEC to the RPSU project. Proper sizing and selection of the diesel generators is critical to meet the electric loads while minimizing fuel consumption. To meet the anticipated future electric demands and to optimize the use of future hydroelectric power (if constructed), the new diesel power plant will be equipped with four diesel generators. Based on the projected loads the following generating units have been selected: Unit No. 1: 550 kW, Caterpillar C18 Marine (new) Unit No. 2: 550 kW, Caterpillar C18 Marine (new) Unit No. 3: 1000 kW, Caterpillar 3512C (new RUS funded unit) Unit No. 4: 1000 kW, Caterpillar 3512 (best unit from old power plant) Benefits of this new generator combination include: Provides adequate capacity to meet current and future peak loads. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 8 Units #1 or #2 will operate efficiently for nighttime loads as well as operating efficiently in parallel with potential future hydroelectric. Units #1 and #2 in parallel will meet present and near future peak loads. Units #1 and #2 produce recoverable heat due to wet manifolds. Units #2 or #3 are both capable of independently meeting the present and near term peak load. Any combination of generators can be operated in parallel to meet high future peak loads. Commonality of parts between units. 4.1.2 Switchgear & SCADA The switchgear will be metal-clad switchgear with draw-out vacuum circuit breakers consisting of six separate 36” wide sections. There will be one section for each of the four generating units. The upper compartment will house the generator controls and relays and the lower compartment will house the vacuum breaker. There will be one separate section for the two feeders with the feeder breakers “stacked”. There will also be one separate master section with the master controls and metering. The new switchgear will provide automatic paralleling and load control of the four generating units. The load control system will monitor the electrical demand on the generators and provide automatic selection of the most efficient generating unit or combination of generating units to meet the demand. The switchgear will automatically start the most suitable engine, bring it up to speed, automatically synchronize the unit, and close the engine circuit breaker. When a unit is taken off line, either for maintenance or due to a reduction in electric load, the switchgear will automatically remove the unit from the bus and allow the engine to cool down before shutdown. Generator controls and relaying will provide complete protection and monitoring of each engine and generator. The new switchgear controls and distribution connection will be designed for incorporation and communication with any future alternative energy sources. IPEC has recently standardized on a common utility supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system for all of its facilities. The new switchgear will include the IPEC standard SCADA system for generation and distribution monitoring. A desktop PC will be provided in the new plant operator’s office to allow operator access and control of the different systems. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 9 4.1.3 Power Plant Fuel System Based on historic fuel use and estimated future electric loads, it is proposed that the power plant fuel storage system provide a nominal 7-day fuel supply based on the following: HOONAH POWER FUEL CONSUMPTION Current Average Daily Use for Peak Month in Gallons (1) 1,200 Current Peak 7 Day Use in Gallons (1) 8,400 Approximate Net Usable Capacity of 12,000 Gallon Day Tank (2) 10,000 (1) From Hoonah Power FY07 PCE data – peak month August. (2) 90% Maximum Fill, 12" Minimum Fuel Level. The existing 12,000-gallon double wall day tank, piping and appurtenances, installed new in summer 2007, will be reused for the new power plant. The day tank is a shop built double wall, horizontal, welded steel tank built and labeled in accordance with UL 142 and equipped with steel saddles and skids. The tank is equipped to comply with EPA requirements for redundant overfill protection for alternative secondary containment systems, and is equipped with a fill limiter, clock gauge, gauge hatch, pressure vacuum whistle vent, and emergency venting. The tank is top filled and equipped with a ground-level quick connect and spill catch basin. The tank will be truck filled from the Wards Cove tank farm typically once per week. All piping will be schedule 80 steel. Each isolated section of piping will be provided with pressure relieving devices to account for thermal expansion of product caused by temperature fluctuations. Provisions for movement of the piping caused by thermal expansion and contraction will be included. All valves will be steel body industrial grade valves intended for use with fuels. The new power plant, tanks, and piping will be enclosed within a chain link fence with barbed wire top. Two each three foot wide man gates will be provided for ingress and egress. 4.2 Potential Hydroelectric Projects In June, 2002, Larry Coupe, P.E. of HydroWest Group, LLC, a subsidiary of AP&T, published a report titled "Reconnaissance of Three Potential Hydroelectric Sites Near Hoonah, Alaska". This report was commissioned by the City of Hoonah and is included in Appendix F of this report. It was preceded by a previous study titled "Gartina Creek Project - A Reconnaissance Report" performed in 1979 by Harza Engineering for the Alaska Power Authority. A review and update of the 1979 report titled "Concept Review Report, Gartina Creek Hydroelectric Project" was performed in 1998 by HDR for the City of Hoonah. The three hydroelectric prospects included in the 2002 HydroWest report are identified as Gartina Creek, Water Supply Creek and Elephant Falls. Water Supply Creek and Elephant Falls are both tributaries of Gartina Creek. All flow data for these three drainages is transposed from the stream gage records of the Kadashan River drainage near Tenakee which is very similar in geology, precipitation, orientation and elevation to the three Hoonah sites. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 10 All available data regarding these potential hydroelectric projects, including the mentioned reports, was forwarded to hydroelectric generation specialist Bob Butera, P.E. at HDR, Inc. Mr. Butera was tasked with analyzing the information along with available stream data and providing a cursory opinion on the feasibility, constructability and reliability for each of the proposed projects. He was also tasked with providing an updated and inflation adjusted cursory budgetary cost estimate for the hydroelectric projects. The HDR, Inc. analyses and revised 2009 cost estimates are included in Appendix E of this report. After analyzing the reconnaissance studies and the HDR report, another potential hydroelectric project was identified. The new project is a combination of Gartina and Water Supply projects described in the 2002 HydroWest report with additional modifications. Larry Coupe of AP&T performed an analysis and cost estimate of this potential project in May, 2009. His report titled “Supplement to the June 2002 Hydroelectric Study” is included in Appendix G of this report. The following sections contain a cursory description of the three potential hydroelectric projects identified as the most feasible and cost effective to construct. The Elephant Falls site mentioned in the HydroWest report is not being considered for development at this time primarily due to the fact that it is located in the Tongass National Forest. This would require a land swap with the federal government and necessitate FERC licensing, both of which would add delay and cost to the project. 4.2.1 Gartina Creek The Gartina Creek project as described in the 2002 HydroWest report consists of the following components: A fifteen feet high concrete and rockfill diversion dam. A concrete intake structure and sluiceway A 54-inch diameter steel pipeline approximately 200 feet long from the intake structure to the powerhouse. A 20'x20'x25' high two level reinforced concrete powerhouse A single turbine with 600kW three-phase generator. Programmable automatic paralleling switchgear with remote control and unattended operation capability. A pad-mount disconnect switch and step-up transformer bank adjacent to the powerhouse. Approximately four miles of 12.5kV three-phase overhead transmission line to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport. An approximately 0.3 mile long access road to the intake structure and powerhouse from an existing Forest Service road. The Gartina Creek site is estimated to have an average annual flow of around 66 CFS, a maximum divertible flow of 140 CFS and a net head of 61 feet. Using a flow-duration method, the maximum potential annual generation of Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 11 this site was estimated in the HydroWest report to be 1,880,000kWH. The estimated construction cost for the Gartina Creek site is $5.63 million based on 2012 construction. See “Hoonah Hydroelectric Study Review”, Appendix E and “2002 Reconnaissance of Three Potential Hydro Sites Near Hoonah”, Appendix F for a more detailed analysis of this potential hydroelectric project. 4.2.2 Water Supply Creek The Water Supply Creek project as described in the 2002 HydroWest report consists of the following components: An eight feet high concrete and rockfill diversion dam. A concrete intake and sluiceway A 5,500 feet long combination 24" diameter HDPE and 20" diameter steel pipeline from the intake structure to the powerhouse. A 20'x40'x15' high single story pre-engineered metal building powerhouse. A single turbine with 600kW three-phase generator. Programmable automatic paralleling switchgear with remote control and unattended operation capability. A pad-mount disconnect switch and step-up transformer bank adjacent to the powerhouse. Approximately four miles of 12.5kV three-phase overhead transmission line to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport. An approximately 0.25 mile long access road to the intake structure and powerhouse from an existing Forest Service road. The Water Supply Creek site is estimated to have an average annual flow of around 9 CFS, a maximum divertible flow of 20 CFS and a net head of 400 feet. Using a flow-duration method, the maximum potential annual generation of this site was estimated in the HydroWest report to be 1,820,000kWH. The estimated construction cost for the Water Supply Creek site is $4.83 million based on 2012 construction. See “Hoonah Hydroelectric Study Review”, Appendix E and “2002 Reconnaissance of Three Potential Hydro Site Near Hoonah”, Appendix F for a more detailed analysis of this potential hydroelectric project. 4.2.3 Combined Gartina Creek and Water Supply Creek The Combined Gartina Creek and Water Supply Creek (Combined G&WS) project as described in the Supplement to the June 2002 Hydroelectric Study consists of the following components: The diversion dam and intake structure for Water Supply Creek as previously described. The pipeline/penstock for Water Supply creek as previously described except extended 3,200 feet to the Gartina Creek powerhouse. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 12 The diversion dam and intake structure for Gartina Creek as previously described. The penstock for Gartina Creek as previously described except downsized to 48” diameter. The powerhouse for Gartina Creek as previously described except enlarged to house the turbine and control system for Water Supply Creek. An Ossberger-type impulse turbine for Gartina Creek as previously described except down-sized to 500kW. A twin-jet Pelton unit for Water Supply Creek as previously described except increased to a capacity of approximately 800kW. The rock weir and diffuser tailrace as previously described for Gartina Creek. The substation and transmission line as previously described for Gartina Creek except upgraded for the increased generating capacity. Access roads as previously described for Gartina Creek and Water Supply Creek except for the elimination of the Water Supply powerhouse access road. A 13kW energy recovery turbine at the City water tap on the Water Supply penstock. The Gartina component is estimated to have an average annual flow of around 55 CFS, a maximum divertible flow of 120 CFS, a net head of 61 feet and annual potential generation of 1,758,000kWhrs. The Water Supply component is estimated to have an average annual flow of around 9 CFS, a maximum divertible flow of 20 CFS, a net head of 581 feet (to be verified) and annual potential generation of 2,476,000kWhrs. The maximum potential annual generation of the combined G&WS project was estimated to be 4,344,000kWH, including 110,000kWhrs from the city water connection energy recovery turbine. The estimated construction cost for the combined G&WS project is $8.95 million based on 2012 construction. See “Supplement to June 2002 Study”, Appendix G and “2002 Reconnaissance of Three Potential Hydro Site Near Hoonah”, Appendix F for a more detailed analysis of this potential hydroelectric project. 4.2.4 Hydroelectric Power Utilization The design output for proposed hydroelectric installations must be compared to actual community demand curves in order to determine the percent of potential hydroelectric power that can be utilized. Community load profile data from the IPEC power plant SCADA system was provided to AP&T in order to make this determination for the various proposed projects. The design hydroelectric output was compared against actual demand curves at 1% incremental values (10,000 comparisons per month). See “Supplement to the June 2002 Hydroelectric Study”, Appendix G for a more complete description of the methodology used. The comparison of design output to community load profile verified the assumptions in the 2002 report that virtually all of the potential generation from Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 13 either Gartina Creek (1,880,000kWhrs) or Water Supply Creek (1,820,000kWhrs) would be utilized if only one of these projects were constructed. The combined Gartina & Water Supply design output was also incrementally compared to the community demand curves. The result of that comparison shows an annual utilization of 3,009,000kWhrs or 71.7% of the 4,334,000kWhr total potential generation. This leaves an un-used annual excess hydroelectric capacity of approximately 1,331,000kWhrs. A portion of the excess hydroelectric generation potential can be utilized to offset heating fuel use by installing an electric boiler in the power house and feeding the electrically heated water into the proposed diesel heat recovery system (see Section 4.3 below). The boiler would be controlled by the switchgear PLC and would come on only when excess hydroelectric generation was available. An analysis of excess hydroelectric energy recovery in conjunction with the combined Gartina & Water Supply project was conducted as part of the Hoonah Energy Recovery Worksheet, Appendix H. This analysis assumes that the swimming pool/gymnasium, high school, elementary school, fire hall, senior center, senior apartments, and clinic are connected to the proposed diesel generation heat recovery system. This electric boiler installation also enables enhanced control of the hydroelectric system during transfers of load from hydroelectric to diesel generation. The following table summarizes hydroelectric utilization and excess hydroelectric energy recovery for the proposed projects: HYDROELECTRIC UTILIZATION & EXCESS HYDRO ENERGY RECOVERY Potential Annual Hydroelectric Generation, kWH Hydroelectric Generation Utilized Annually, kWH Heating Fuel Offset By Excess Hydro Energy Recovery, Gallons/Yr Percent of Annual Diesel Generation Offset Annually (1) Gartina Creek 1,820,000 1,820,000 0 34.5% Water Supply Creek 1,880,000 1,880,000 0 35.7% Combined G&WS 4,344,000 3,009,000 0 57.1% Combined G&WS With Excess Hydroelectric Energy Recovery 4,344,000 3,514,000 12,000 --- (1) Assuming Average Annual Community Generation of 5,270,000kWhrs Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 14 4.2.5 Permitting The HydroWest report addresses permitting issues for each of these sites. The Gartina Creek and Water Supply Creek projects would fall under the State of Alaska small hydroelectric project exemption from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction. The HydroWest report also addresses environmental issues for each of these sites. The primary environmental concern is the possible impact on anadromous and resident fish populations due to reduced in-stream flows between the intake structure and the power house. Because Water Supply Creek is located above Gartina Falls, no anadromous fish will be present and only resident fish populations are of concern. The bypassed reach of stream for the Gartina Creek project does include salmon pools at the base of the falls. This could result in increased bypass flow requirements or significant increases in construction costs. 4.3 Diesel Generation Heat Recovery An analysis of available diesel heat recovery was conducted for the various proposed projects as part of the Hoonah Energy Recovery Worksheet, Appendix H. The proposed diesel heat recovery project consists of the following components: Heat recovery supply and return buried arctic pipe (approximately 6,500 feet total of 4” diameter piping) located along Douglas Drive between the IPEC power plant and the school complex. Heating connections to the swimming pool/gymnasium, school classroom building, fire hall, senior center, senior apartments, and clinic. These six public facilities use approximately 60,000 gallons of diesel annually for space and water heating Six port heat exchanger, pumps and associated equipment in power plant. Recovered heat BTU meter in the power plant. Individual heat exchangers and associated equipment in each of the six identified facilities’ boiler rooms. Alarms for loss of flow, loss of pressure, and no load/backfeed condition with annunciation in the power plant switchgear. An overall area site plan showing the proposed heat recovery pipeline routing is provided in Appendix A. Appendix H, Graph 1 shows the estimated annual and monthly heating fuel saved by including diesel heat recovery in the various proposed projects. The following table lists the estimated diesel heat recovery heating fuel offsets when coupled with the various proposed power generation projects: Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 15 DIESEL HEAT RECOVERY Heating Fuel Saved, Gallons/Yr Diesel Heat Recovery With No Hydro Installation 57,000 Diesel Heat Recovery with Gartina Creek Hydro Installation 46,000 Diesel Heat Recovery with Water Supply Creek Hydro Installation 46,000 Diesel Heat Recovery with Combined G&WS Hydro Installation 30,000 5.0 SITE SELECTION & CONTROL Work for this project will be performed in four general areas: (1) The “Power Plant Site”; (2) The "Hydroelectric Project Area"; (3) The “Hydroelectric Intertie Route”; and (4) The “Heat Recovery Pipeline Route”. There are no known flood hazards at any of these locations. 5.1 Power Plant Site The proposed new power plant site is within a potion of Lot 2, U.S. Survey No. 4539, near the existing power plant as shown in Appendix A, Sheet M3. The new power plant will be located approximately where the old abandoned IPEC tank farm currently sits. The abandoned tank farm will be demolished by others prior to the start of this project. The site will be leveled prior to construction of the power plant building. It is unknown if an environmental site assessment of the site will be required. See Appendix A, Sheet M3 5.2 Hydroelectric Project Area All three identified potential hydroelectric projects, including drainages, access roads, diversion dams and pipelines are located within an area encompassed by Sections 11, 12, 13 & 14 of Township 44 South, Range 61 East, Copper River Meridian. The proposed power house locations are all between three and four miles from the center of Hoonah. See Appendix A, Sheet M1 and Appendix F, Figures 1 & 3. 5.3 Hydroelectric Intertie Route The proposed overhead transmission intertie will be routed cross country along existing logging roads within Sections 34 and 35, Township 43 South, Range 61 East and Sections 2 and 11, Township 44 South, Range 61 East from the end of the existing overhead distribution system near the airport to the powerhouse sites. See Appendix A, Sheet M1 and Appendix F, Figures 1 & 3. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 16 5.4 Heat Recovery Pipeline Route The proposed generation heat recovery pipeline mains are routed within the Douglas Drive and Hemlock Drive road right-of-ways. Branch pipelines to the senior housing complex and the clinic are within Lots 3 and 4 of Hillside Subdivision. The branch pipeline to the fire hall is within Lot 3 of U.S. Survey 4539. Branch pipelines to the school building and gymnasium/pool complex are within the school reserve parcel and Lot 9 of US Survey 736. See Appendix A, Sheet M2 5.5 Site Control A sight control opinion letter was written on February 18, 2008. A copy of the letter is included in Appendix C. The proposed new power plant site is vested in the City of Hoonah with a long tern lease to IPEC and a sublease of a portion of the site to the State of Alaska, Department of Military Affairs. According to the HydroWest report, the proposed hydroelectric project(s) area is vested in the Seaalaska Corporation. Ownership of the hydroelectric intertie route is currently unknown but it is expected that the City of Hoonah, the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and the Seaalaska Corporation are among the vested owners. The City of Hoonah has jurisdiction over the Douglas Drive and Hemlock Drive dedicated rights of way for the entire route of the buried heat recovery pipeline. The fire hall and clinic sites are vested in the City of Hoonah. The senior housing complex appears to be vested in the Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority but further research will be required. The school/pool/gymnasium complex appears to be vested in the Presbytery of Alaska but further research will be required. 6.0 PERMITTING AND SPILL RESPONSE The proposed projects are subject to regulations of both State and Federal agencies including the Alaska Coastal Management Program, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), the Division of Fire Prevention, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 6.1 Environmental Assessment An Environmental Assessment (EA) will be completed prior to construction of the proposed projects. An EA is required for all projects that are federally funded or require a federal permit (such as a Corps of Engineers Wetlands Permit). The EA determines whether there is a significant impact to the environment caused by the project. As part of the EA, a Coastal Zone Management Project Questionnaire will be completed and submitted to the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The Coastal Zone Management Project Questionnaire helps to identify state or federal permits that may be required. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 17 6.2 Fire Code A Plan Review permit from the State Fire Marshal is required for the proposed diesel and hydroelectric power plant projects. Final stamped design drawings will be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review prior to construction. Plans will be reviewed for conformance with the International Fire Code and related codes including the International Building Code and the National Electrical Code. The review process can take anywhere between 3 weeks to 6 months. 6.3 Spill Response Because the power plant day tank has oil storage tanks in excess of 1,320 gallons it is subject to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations. The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan will be reviewed and updated as required as part of this project. 6.4 Air Quality Permit The existing plant operates under a Title V permit. A Title V permit is required for facilities with potential to emit >250tpy of hazardous air contaminants (NOx) and for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) facilities. The existing Hoonah power plant consumes more than 330,000-gallons but less than 825,000-gallons of diesel fuel annually, and therefore, does not emit >250tpy of NOx. As such, the Hoonah plant does not need to operate under a Title V permit. DEC has a General Permit that is intended for facilities that emit between 100 and 250tpy annually. The new power plant should be permitted as a GPA facility rather than a Title V facility. A GPA permit is less costly than a Title V permit and the operational requirements are less intrusive. The following actions are recommended: Continue to operate the existing power plant under the existing Title V permit. Apply for a Title I construction permit for the new power plant. Apply for a GPA Operating Permit for the new plant. Once the new plant is online and operational, and the old plant decommissioned, IPEC will notify DEC of the "shut down" and the existing Title V permit will be rescinded. 6.5 Hydroelectric Project Permitting In addition to the EA requirements listed above, the hydroelectric portion of this project will require the following separate permits/review process if built: Alaska Department of Natural Resources o Water Rights Permit o Fish Habitat Permit o Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 18 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license or waiver Site control permits and/or easements for access to the site(s) and for electric transmission line right of way. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION PLAN The AEA/REG has a history of administering similar projects on a "modified" force-account basis. Force-account construction involves the owner or grantee acting as the employer and utilizing primarily local labor. This method tends to achieve a higher percentage of local hire and is strongly supported by many communities and funding agencies. The highly technical nature of power generation and distribution projects requires a limited number of workers with specific experience and expertise to be brought in for the project when not available locally. All work must be supervised and managed by a superintendent with extensive experience in the construction of rural power generation and distribution systems. All specialty work, such as pipe welding and electrical installation must be performed by skilled craftsmen with appropriate certifications. An experienced construction manager will be required to recruit the necessary skilled labor, coordinate the construction team, and oversee procurement and project logistics. The design engineer will provide quality control through communication with the construction manager and periodic on-site inspections. The nature of the projects identified will allow most of the projects to be constructed independently from the other. The power plant, generation heat recovery system and hydroelectric projects are separate and will not necessarily need to be constructed using the same construction management teams. Because it will replace the existing power plant, the new power plant can be fully completed, tested and energized with minimal impact to the existing power system. There are at least two options for shipping project construction materials and equipment into Angoon: Hoonah is on the Alaska Marine Highway (AMH) ferry system. Roll-on, roll- off containers not exceeding 40 feet in length and 13 feet 6 inches in height can be delivered by the ferry and off-loaded at the ferry dock. However, this option would require the project to procure the rolling stock and to pay full fair for the return leg of any empty trailers. Alaska Marine Lines provides seasonal containerized freight service direct from Seattle to Hoonah. Freight is off-loaded with a large fork lift at the marine industrial center in the vicinity of the ferry dock. The cost estimate and the project schedule have been developed on this basis. Containers are available in 20, 24 and 40 foot lengths. Transporting the freight from the marine industrial center to the construction site is the responsibility of the project. IPEC has a tilt-bed winch trailer that would be available to the project. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 19 7.1 Local Job Skills The City was not able to provide information regarding the availability of specialty skilled labor in Hoonah. Due to the relatively large population of this community it is likely that there are a number of local residents with specialty skills and general labor experience in various types of construction. It should be assumed that at a minimum a project superintendent, a pipe welder/mechanical foreman, a journeyman electrician, and a journeyman lineman will need to be brought into Hoonah for this project. 7.2 Local Equipment The City was not able to provide an inventory of locally available heavy equipment. Calls to local contractors confirmed that there is a considerable amount of heavy equipment in the community, including several 200 class excavators, small and medium sized dozers, a 25-ton track crane and 10 yard dump trucks. It is likely that a skid steer loader is the only piece of equipment that will need to be imported into Hoonah. Prior to the start of construction, an experienced fleet service mechanic will need to go through the equipment with a local mechanic to ensure the equipment is in proper operating condition. 7.3 Material Sources Gravel will be required for pad development and finish grading at the proposed diesel and hydroelectric power plant sites, for access roads to the hydroelectric sites, for bedding material for heat recovery arctic pipe and for concrete aggregate. There are stockpiles of blast material available in Hoonah. A small screen is available locally that is capable of producing relatively small quantities of structural fill as well as 1” minus gravel for arctic pipe bedding and finish grading. No concrete aggregate is available in large quantities locally and will need to be purchased in one yard super sacks and delivered to Hoonah by barge from Seattle or Juneau. 8.0 SCHEDULE The proposed project schedule is separated into two sections: Section 8.1, "Power Plant Replacement and Diesel Heat Recovery System Schedule"; and Section 8.2, "Hydroelectric Project Schedule". The schedules have been set to take advantage of the best seasonal weather for most work. All schedules are contingent on timely approval of the plan by all project participants and funding agencies. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 20 8.1 Power Plant Replacement and Diesel Heat Recovery System Schedule The following schedule has been developed on the basis of performing the majority of the work on the power plant replacement and generation heat recovery project during Spring/Summer 2010. This schedule is contingent on approval of the plan by the project participants as well as on funding availability. June-Nov 2009: Design, permitting, and site control. Nov 2009 -Feb 2010: Order building, generators, switchgear, radiators, etc... April 2010: Mobilization. May-Dec 2010: Project construction. Jan 2011: Project completion, power plant commissioning & operator training. Feb 2011: O&M manuals and project close out. 8.2 Hydroelectric Project Schedule The following schedule has been developed on the basis of performing the majority of the work for the hydroelectric project during early spring through summer 2012. This schedule assumes only one of the three potential hydroelectric projects is funded and is contingent on timely approval of the plan by the project participants as well as on funding availability. June 2009-July 2011: Stream gauging, design, permitting, and site control. Aug 2011: Order turbine, switchgear, building materials, etc. Feb 2012: Project mobilization, startup. Mar-Nov 2012: Project construction. Dec 2012: Project completion, commissioning & operator training. Jan 2013: O&M manuals and project close out. 9.0 COST ESTIMATE The construction cost estimates have been developed based on a "modified" force-account approach utilizing a combination of local labor, certified craftsmen, and specialty sub-contractors under the direction of an experienced construction manager. Labor rates are based on Title 36 equivalent wages for certified specialty labor and prevailing local force-account wage rates for general labor and equipment operation. Hoonah Energy Projects June 1, 2009 Concept Design Report Alaska Energy and Engineering 21 Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix B. Separate estimates have been prepared for the Power Plant Replacement, Heat Recovery System and each of the three potential hydroelectric projects. The estimated total project cost including all design, supervision, inspection, permitting, and a 15% contingency (power plant and heat recovery projects) or 25% to 33% contingency (hydroelectric projects) is: $2,791,000 Power Plant Replacement (3,100kW @ $900/kW) $905,000 Diesel Generation Heat Recovery System $4,710,000 Gartina Creek Hydroelectric Project (600kW) $4,078,000 Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Project (600kW) $8,645,000 Combined G & WS Hydroelectric Project (1,300kW) $100,000 Excess Hydroelectric Energy Recovery System It is assumed that the operation and maintenance costs of hydroelectric power generation and energy recovery systems will be comparable to that for diesel generation. Therefore, the various project costs need to be compared to the primary benefit, which is the avoided fuel cost. The following table summarizes the avoided fuel costs and simple payback periods for the potential hydroelectric projects with and without energy recovery: AVOIDED FUEL COST & SIMPLE PAY BACK OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS Project Project Cost Annual Avoided Fuel, Gallons Annual Value of Avoided Fuel, $/Year (1) Simple Pay Back Period Fuel Cost Avoided Over 30 Years Excess Hydro ER $.10M 12,500 $62,000 1.6 yrs $1.88M Diesel HR $.91M 57,000 $285,000 3.2 yrs $8.55M Gartina Hydro $4.71M 130,000 $650,000 7.3 yrs $19.5M Gartina Hydro w/ Diesel HR $5.61M 176,000 $881,000 6.4 yrs $26.4M Water Supply Hydro $4.08M 134,000 $670,000 6.1 yrs $20.1M Water Supply Hydro w/ Diesel HR $4.98M 180,000 $900,000 5.5 yrs $27.0M Combined Hydro $8.65M 215,000 $1,075,000 8.0 yrs $32.2M Combined Hydro w/ DHR & EHER $9.65M 257,000 $1,285,000 7.5 yrs $38.5M 1) Based on an assumed future fuel cost of $5.00/Gallon APPENDIX A CONCEPT DESIGN DRAWINGS APPENDIX B CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES ALASKA ENERGY ANDENGINEERINGHOONAH ENERGY PROJECTSDIESEL POWER PLANT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY MAY 29, 2009CONCEPT DESIGN REPORTPOWER GENERATION UPGRADES $1,776,800MISCELLANEOUS $15,400OVERHEAD $146,858FREIGHT $95,880CONSTRUCTION SUB-TOTAL $2,034,938DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. $200,000CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $200,000PROJECT SUB-TOTAL $2,434,938CONTINGENCY $365,241 15 %TOTAL PROJECT COST (ROUNDED) $2,800,000TOTAL INSTALLED KW CAPACITY3,100 kWCOST PER KW OF INSTALLED CAPACITY $903B-1 ALASKA ENERGY ANDENGINEERINGHOONAH ENERGY PROJECTSDIESEL POWER PLANT COST ESTIMATEMAY 29, 2009CONCEPT DESIGN REPORTITEM QUAN UNIT UNIT MATLUNIT LAB LAB LABORCONTRFREIGHT TOTALUNIT TOTAL COST COST HRS HRS RATE COST COST COST COST WT WT(#)POWER GENERATION UPGRADESClear & Prep Site 1 lump $0 $0 250 250 $80 $20,000 $20,000 0Power Plant Foundation 125 cu.yd. $300 $37,500 4 500 $80 $40,000 $77,500 375,00044'x60' Metal Building 1 lump $150,000 $150,000 1000 1000 $80 $80,000 $230,000 43,000 43,000Water & Sewer Service to Bldg 1 lump $20,000 $20,000 200 200 $80 $16,000 $36,000 5,000 5,000Install Existing Cat 3512's 2 ea. $0 $5,000 200 400 $80 $32,000 $37,000 0550 kW Genset (Cat C18 Marine) 2 ea. $250,000 $500,000 120 240 $80 $19,200 $519,200 0125 VDC Battery Rack 1 ea. $15,000 $15,000 20 20 $80 $1,600 $16,600 5,000 5,000Switchgear 1 lump $250,000 $250,000 100 100 $80 $8,000 $258,000 30,000 30,0001000 kVA Step Up XFMR 2 ea. $30,000 $60,000 20 40 $80 $3,200 $63,200 14,000 28,00075 kVA Station Service XFMR 1 ea. $5,000 $5,000 10 10 $80 $800 $5,800 5,000 5,000Generation/Distribution Wiring 1 lump $20,000 $20,000 200 200 $80 $16,000 $36,000 5,000 5,000Fire Suppression 1 lump $100,000 $100,000 200 200 $80 $16,000 $116,000 2,000 2,000Ventilation 1 lump $30,000 $30,000 150 150 $80 $12,000 $42,000 3,000 3,000Radiators/Aftercoolers 6 ea. $20,000 $120,000 40 240 $80 $19,200 $139,200 3,000 18,000Engine Coolant Piping 1 lump $20,000 $20,000 250 250 $80 $20,000 $40,000 6,000 6,000Exhaust Silencers 3 ea. $5,000 $15,000 27 80 $80 $6,400 $21,400 500 1,500Exhaust Thimbles, Pipe, Etc 3 ea. $2,000 $6,000 27 80 $80 $6,400 $12,400 333 1,000Stn Service/Lighting/Wiring 1 lump $30,000 $30,000 240 240 $80 $19,200 $49,200 1,500 1,500Gen Fuel/Lube Oil Pipe & Fittings 1 lump $8,000 $8,000 60 60 $80 $4,800 $12,800 700 700Misc Strut, Hangers, Fasteners 1 lump $16,000 $16,000 80 80 $80 $6,400 $22,400 700 700Paint & Insulate Piping 1 lump $5,000 $5,000 60 60 $80 $4,800 $9,800 700 700Fill Coolant & Lube 1 lump $7,500 $7,500 60 60 $80 $4,800 $12,300 6,000 6,000MISCELLANEOUSSigns & Valve Tags 1 lump $1,000 $1,000 30 30 $80 $2,400 $3,400 100 100Misc Hardware 1 lump $2,000 $2,000 0 0 $80 $0 $2,000 500 500Misc Tools & Safety Gear 1 lump $5,000 $5,000 0 0 $80 $0 $5,000 500 500Welding Rod, Gases, Etc. 1 lump $5,000 $5,000 0 0 $80 $0 $5,000 1000 1000B-2 ALASKA ENERGY ANDENGINEERINGHOONAH ENERGY PROJECTSDIESEL POWER PLANT COST ESTIMATEMAY 29, 2009CONCEPT DESIGN REPORTITEM QUAN UNIT UNIT MATLUNIT LAB LAB LABORCONTRFREIGHT TOTALUNIT TOTAL COST COST HRS HRS RATE COST COST COST COST WT WT(#)OVERHEADAudit Grants 1 lump $6,000 $6,000ROW Legal Work 1 lump $5,000 $5,000 0Construction Insurance 1 lump $1,513 $1,513 0First Year Operation Insurance 1 lump $3,226 $3,226 0CM Prof. Liability Insurance 1 lump $4,450 $4,450 0Rent Heavy Equip 1 lump $20,000 $20,000 0Skid Steer Rent 6 mo. $12,000 $12,000 0Pickup Rent 6 mo. $3,600 $3,600 0Welder/Compr/Misc Tool Rent 1 lump $20,000 $20,000 0Project Diesel Fuel/Gasoline 1 lump $5,000 $5,000 0Load Test 40 hr 1 40 $90 $3,600 $3,600Commission/Train Operators 40 hr 1 40 $90 $3,600 $3,600Superintendent Overhd Off-Site 100 hr 1 100 $90 $9,000 $9,000Superintendent Overhd On-Site 100 hr 1 100 $90 $9,000 $9,000Crew Travel Time 120 hr 1 120 $90 $10,800 $10,800Crew Airfares 12 trips $10,800 $10,800Crew Per Diem 245 mn.dy $10,269 $10,269Housing Rent 6 mo. $9,000 $9,000FREIGHT539,200Barge Freight Seattle-Hoonah539200lb. $0.15 $80,880Misc Small Freight & Gold Streaks 1 lump $15,000 $15,000CONSTRUCTION SUB-TOTAL $1,433,000 4,890$395,200 $110,858$95,880 $2,034,938Engineering (Design & CCA) 1 lump$200,000Construction Management 1 lump$200,000PROJECT SUB-TOTAL $1,433,000$395,200 $510,858$95,880 $2,434,938Contingency15 % $365,241TOTAL PROJECT COST$2,800,178B-3 ALASKA ENERGY ANDENGINEERINGHOONAH ENERGY PROJECTSDIESEL HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY MAY 29, 2009CONCEPT DESIGN REPORTHEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM $494,200MISCELLANEOUS $101,900OVERHEAD $89,723FREIGHT $21,340CONSTRUCTION SUB-TOTAL $707,163DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. $40,000CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $40,000PROJECT SUB-TOTAL $787,163CONTINGENCY $118,074 15 %TOTAL PROJECT COST (ROUNDED) $905,000B-4 ALASKA ENERGY ANDENGINEERINGHOONAH ENERGY PROJECTSDIESEL HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM COST ESTIMATEMAY 29, 2009CONCEPT DESIGN REPORTITEM QUAN UNIT UNIT MATLUNIT LAB LAB LABORCONTRFREIGHT TOTALUNIT TOTAL COST COST HRS HRS RATE COST COST COST COST WT WT(#)HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEMArctic Pipe & Fittings 6,500 ft. $45 $292,500 0.20 1300 $80 $104,000 $396,500 10 65,000PP Expansion Tank 1 lump $3,000 $3,000 10 10 $80 $800 $3,800 600 600PP Heat Exchanger 1 ea. $15,000 $15,000 80 80 $80 $6,400 $21,400 5,000 5,000PP HR Pumps, Piping & Devices 1 lump $15,000 $15,000 40 40 $80 $3,200 $18,200 800 800PP BTU Meter 1 ea. $4,500 $4,500 10 10 $80 $800 $5,300 100 100Secondary HX's, Piping & Devices 5 ea. $5,000 $25,000 60 300 $80 $24,000 $49,000 100 500MISCELLANEOUSContract Repair & Repave Roads 1 lump $0 $0 0 0 $80 $0 $75,000 $75,000 0 0Signs & Valve Tags 1 lump $2,000 $2,000 30 30 $80 $2,400 $4,400 100 100Misc Hardware 1 lump $5,000 $5,000 0 0 $80 $0 $5,000 500 500Misc Tools & Safety Gear 1 lump $7,500 $7,500 0 0 $80 $0 $7,500 500 500Welding Rod, Gases, Etc. 1 lump $10,000 $10,000 0 0 $80 $0 $10,000 2500 2500OVERHEADAudit Grants 1 lump $6,000 $6,000ROW Legal Work 1 lump $5,000 $5,000 0Construction Insurance 1 lump $1,513 $1,513 0CM Prof. Liability Insurance 1 lump $4,450 $4,450 0Heavy Equip Rent 1 lump $20,000 $20,000 0Skid Steer Rent 2 mo. $4,000 $4,000 0Pickup Rent 2 mo. $1,200 $1,200 0Welder/Compr/Misc Tool Rent 1 lump $20,000 $20,000 0Project Diesel Fuel/Gasoline 1 lump $5,000 $5,000 0Commission/Train Operators 20 hr 1 20 $90 $1,800 $1,800Superintendent Overhd Off-Site 40 hr 1 40 $90 $3,600 $3,600Superintendent Overhd On-Site 40 hr 1 40 $90 $3,600 $3,600Crew Travel Time 40 hr 1 40 $90 $3,600 $3,600Crew Airfares 4 trips $3,600 $3,600Crew Per Diem 80 mn.dy $3,360 $3,360Housing Rent 2 mo. $3,000 $3,000B-5 ALASKA ENERGY ANDENGINEERINGHOONAH ENERGY PROJECTSDIESEL HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM COST ESTIMATEMAY 29, 2009CONCEPT DESIGN REPORTITEM QUAN UNIT UNIT MATLUNIT LAB LAB LABORCONTRFREIGHT TOTALUNIT TOTAL COST COST HRS HRS RATE COST COST COST COST WT WT(#)FREIGHT75,600Barge Freight Seattle-Hoonah 75600 lb. $0.15 $11,340 $11,340Misc Small Freight & Gold Streaks 1 lump $10,000 $10,000 $10,000CONSTRUCTION SUB-TOTAL $379,500 1,910 $154,200 $152,123 $21,340 $707,163Engineering (Design & CCA) 1 lump $40,000 $40,000Construction Management 1 lump $40,000 $40,000PROJECT SUB-TOTAL $379,500 $154,200 $232,123 $21,340 $787,163Contingency15 % $118,074TOTAL PROJECT COST$905,237B-6 ALASKA ENERGY ANDENGINEERINGHOONAH ENERGY PROJECTSGARTINA FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTCOST ESTIMATE SUMMARYMAY 29, 2009CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT1. ACCESS ROADS $89,0002. DIVERSION STRUCTURE $682,0003. POWER CONDUIT $203,0004. POWERHOUSE $1,116,0005. TRANSMISSION $341,0006. CONSTRUCTION SUB-TOTAL $2,431,0007. CONTINGENCY $608,000 25 %8. CONSTRUCTION + CONTINGENCIES $3,039,0009. DESIGN, SURVEYING, GEOTECHNICAL $455,850 15 %10. LISCENSING/PERMITTING $303,900 10 %11. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $151,950 5 %12. ESCALATION 2007 to 2012 (5 YR @ 5%/YR) $759,750 25 % See Note 213. CONSTRUCTION FINANCING (2 YR @ 10%/YR) $0 0 % See Note 314. TOTAL PROJECT COST (ROUNDED) $4,710,000Notes:1. See Hydroelectric Analysis and Revised Cost Estimate, Appendix E for additional cost estimate information. 2. Cost Estimate in Appendix E prepared for 2007construction. This estimate assumes 2012 construction.3. Cost Estimate in Appendix E includes 2 years of conventional financing. This estimate assumes grant funding.B-7 ALASKA ENERGY ANDENGINEERINGHOONAH ENERGY PROJECTSWATER SUPPLY CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTCOST ESTIMATE SUMMARYMAY 29, 2009CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT1. ACCESS ROADS $74,0002. DIVERSION STRUCTURE $158,0003. POWER CONDUIT $614,0004. POWERHOUSE $910,0005. TRANSMISSION $349,0006. CONSTRUCTION SUB-TOTAL $2,105,0007. CONTINGENCY $526,000 25 %8. CONSTRUCTION + CONTINGENCIES $2,631,0009. DESIGN, SURVEYING, GEOTECHNICAL $394,650 15 %10. LISCENSING/PERMITTING $263,100 10 %11. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $131,550 5 %12. ESCALATION 2007 to 2012 (5 YR @ 5%/YR) $657,750 25 % See Note 213. CONSTRUCTION FINANCING (2 YR @ 10%/YR) $0 0 % See Note 314. TOTAL PROJECT COST (ROUNDED) $4,078,000Notes:1. See Hydroelectric Analysis and Revised Cost Estimate, Appendix E for additional cost estimate information. 2. Cost Estimate in Appendix E prepared for 2007 construction. This estimate assumes 2012 construction.3. Cost Estimate in Appendix E includes 2 years of conventional financing. This estimate assumes grant funding.B-8 ALASKA ENERGY ANDENGINEERINGHOONAH ENERGY PROJECTSCOMBINED GARTINA WATER SUPPLY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTCOST ESTIMATE SUMMARYMAY 29, 2009CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT1. ACCESS ROADS $172,0002. DIVERSION STRUCTURES $956,0003. POWER CONDUIT $1,636,0004. POWERHOUSE $2,027,0005. TRANSMISSION $409,0006. CONSTRUCTION SUB-TOTAL $5,200,0007. CONTINGENCY $1,300,000 25 %8. CONSTRUCTION + CONTINGENCIES $6,500,0009. DESIGN, SURVEYING, GEOTECHNICAL $195,000 15 %10. LISCENSING/PERMITTING $650,000 10 %11. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $325,000 5 %12. ESCALATION 2009 to 2012 (3 YR @ 5%/YR) $975,000 15 % See Note 213. CONSTRUCTION FINANCING $0 0 % See Note 314. TOTAL PROJECT COST (ROUNDED) $8,645,000Notes:1. See Supplement to 2002 Hydroelectric Study, Appendix G for additional cost estimate information. 2. Cost Estimate in Appendix G prepared for 2009 construction. This estimate assumes 2012 construction.3. Cost Estimate in Appendix G includes 5% for conventional financing. This estimate assumes grant funding.B-9 ALASKA ENERGY ANDENGINEERINGHOONAH ENERGY PROJECTSEXCESS HYDRO ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY MAY 29, 2009CONCEPT DESIGN REPORTELECTRIC BOILERS, EQUIPMENT & INSTALLATION $45,000CONTROLS $15,000OVERHEAD $5,000FREIGHT $2,000CONSTRUCTION SUB-TOTAL $67,000DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. $10,000CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $10,000PROJECT SUB-TOTAL $87,000CONTINGENCY $13,050 15 %TOTAL PROJECT COST (ROUNDED) $100,000Notes:1. Assumes 2012 construction B-10 APPENDIX C SITE CONTROL DOCUMENTS APPENDIX D ELECTRICAL LOAD DATA HOONAH PCE DATA Community Fisc Month Fisc Year Month KWH Gen Fuel Used Avg Load (kW) Peak Load (kW) Efficiency (kWH/Gal Hoonah 1 2005 Jul 431,510 29,613 580 852 14.6 Hoonah 2 2005 Aug 443,879 30,904 597 824 14.4 Hoonah 3 2005 Sep 458,899 31,698 637 864 14.5 Hoonah 4 2005 Oct 418,215 28,976 562 820 14.4 Hoonah 5 2005 Nov 474,663 32,163 659 856 14.8 Hoonah 6 2005 Dec 443,462 30,080 596 900 14.7 Hoonah 7 2005 Jan 509,111 37,191 684 892 13.7 Hoonah 8 2005 Feb 443,292 28,562 660 864 15.5 Hoonah 9 2005 Mar 435,346 27,689 585 780 15.7 Hoonah 10 2005 Apr 430,065 26,805 597 812 16.0 Hoonah 11 2005 May 415,703 29,295 559 760 14.2 Hoonah 12 2005 Jun 414,147 28,712 575 800 14.4 ANNUAL TOTALS / AVERAGES 5318292 361688 607 835 14.7 Hoonah 1 2006 Jul 398,400 27,697 535 824 14.4 Hoonah 2 2006 Aug 462,325 31,378 621 848 14.7 Hoonah 3 2006 Sep 426,332 29,277 592 880 14.6 Hoonah 4 2006 Oct 449,975 28,112 605 776 16.0 Hoonah 5 2006 Nov 418,601 31,694 581 840 13.2 Hoonah 6 2006 Dec 424,994 29,126 571 832 14.6 Hoonah 7 2006 Jan 433,294 29,834 582 820 14.5 Hoonah 8 2006 Feb 444,085 30,063 661 868 14.8 Hoonah 9 2006 Mar 421,673 29,040 567 880 14.5 Hoonah 10 2006 Apr 434,842 30,189 604 740 14.4 Hoonah 11 2006 May 393,336 26,959 529 780 14.6 Hoonah 12 2006 Jun 396,675 32,277 551 800 12.3 ANNUAL TOTALS / AVERAGES 5104532 355646 583 824 14.4 Hoonah 1 2007 Jul 392,585 27,065 528 884 14.5 Hoonah 2 2007 Aug 530,755 36,045 713 900 14.7 Hoonah 3 2007 Sep 476,422 34,966 662 944 13.6 Hoonah 4 2007 Oct 472,728 33,067 635 832 14.3 Hoonah 5 2007 Nov 466,555 31,813 648 920 14.7 Hoonah 6 2007 Dec 483,615 31,399 650 860 15.4 Hoonah 7 2007 Jan 457,170 34,274 614 860 13.3 Hoonah 8 2007 Feb 423,287 28,510 630 876 14.8 Hoonah 9 2007 Mar 474,803 34,546 638 864 13.7 Hoonah 10 2007 Apr 454,991 30,333 632 796 15.0 Hoonah 11 2007 May 422,790 28,609 568 844 14.8 Hoonah 12 2007 Jun 444,061 29,543 617 832 15.0 ANNUAL TOTALS / AVERAGES 5499762 380170 628 868 14.5 D-1 D-2Hoonah Monthly kWH Generated 0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunMonthkWH Generated200520062007 D-3Hoonah Peak kW Load01002003004005006007008009001000Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunMonthkW200520062007 D-4Hoonah Average kW Load0100200300400500600700800Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunMonthkW200520062007 D-5Hoonah Annual kWH Generated01,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,0006,000,0002005 2006 2007YearkWH APPENDIX E 2007 HYDROELECTRIC ANALYSIS AND REVISED COST ESTIMATE BY HDR, INC. HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone (907) 644-2000 Fax (907) 644-2022 www.hdrinc.com Page 1 of 4 Memo To: Steve Stassel, AE&E From: Bob Butera, HDR Project: Hoonah Hydroelectric Study Review, Hoonah RPSU CDR-106 FINAL CC: Date: November 8, 2007 Job No: 201662/61482 Introduction A 2002 hydroelectric study by HydroWest Group, LLC (HydroWest) titled "Reconnaissance of Three Potential Hydroelectric Sites near Hoonah, Alaska" analyzed the feasibility of a 3 separate hydroelectric projects for the community of Hoonah. Alaska Energy and Engineering (AE&E) requested HDR Alaska, Inc. (HDR) to: 1. Review report and assess feasibility of proposed development of the three sites based on the included hydrology, power calculations, permitting requirements and conclusions/recommendations. 2. Review construction cost estimates for each of the three identified projects. Provide opinion of constructability and recommended improvements to proposed construction. Update construction costs as necessary to reflect hard-dollar bid with bonding and prevailing wage rates. Cost estimate to be escalated for construction in 2009. Background The HydroWest report analyzed the feasibility of a 3 separate hydroelectric projects for the community of Hoonah. Table 1 summarizes information on these three sites which was presented in the HydroWest report. Table 1 – Summary of Proposed Projects Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Elephant Falls Location At 50 foot falls, 3 miles upstream from tidewater. Tributary of Gartina Creek Tributary of Gartina Creek Drainage Area 10.1 square miles 1.39 square miles 0.66 square miles Land Ownership Sealaska Corporation Sealaska Corporation US Forest Service Diversion Elevation 200 feet 800 feet 1100 feet Dam Height 15 feet 8 feet 8 feet Capacity 600 kW 600 kW 600 kW Net Head 61 feet 400 feet 800 feet Design Flow 140 cfs 20 cfs 9.3 cfs Penstock Diameter 54 inches 24/20 inches 18/15 inches Penstock Length, Type 200 feet 5500 feet, HDPE/steel 3900 feet, HDPE/steel Turbine Type Ossberger impulse Turgo or Ossberger or Pelton Turgo or Ossberger or Pelton Transmission Line 4 miles, 12.5 kV, OHE 4 miles, 12.5 kV, OHE 4 miles, 12.5 kV, OHE Access roads 0.3 miles 0.25 miles 2.2 miles Average annual generation (assumes 0 instream flow requirement) 1,880 MWh 1,820 MWh 1,780 MWh 2002 Estimated Construction Cost $3,271,000 (2002 Dollars) $2,786,000 (2002 Dollars) $3,337,000 (2002 Dollars) HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone (907) 644-2000 Fax (907) 644-2022 www.hdrinc.com Page 2 of 4 Hydrology The method used by HydroWest to estimate the flows for the three projects was to use drainage area and elevation correction factors to the existing streamflow record from Kadashan River above Hook Creek near Tenakee (The HydroWest report incorrectly names this site Kadashan River near Tenakee which is a different site with a larger drainage area.). Kadashan River above Hook Creek near Tenakee at the gage site has a drainage area of 10.2 square miles and a period of record of 10 years from 1968 to 1978. The HydroWest report states that it has similar basin characteristics to the three evaluated watersheds. A previous evaluation of the Gartina Falls project (HDR, 1998) used flow data collected at Tonalite Creek near Tenakee Springs. Tonalite Creek near Tenakee Springs is 20 miles south of Gartina Creek and is very similar to Gartina Creek in all of its basin characteristics. Tonalite Creek at the gage site has a drainage area of 14.5 square miles and a period of record of 20 years from 1968 to 1988. Using data from Kadashan River above Hook Creek near Tenakee, the HydroWest report estimated the average annual flow at the Gartina Creek site to be 66 cfs. Using data from Tonalite Creek near Tenakee estimates the average annual flow at the Gartina Creek site to be 69 cfs. The two estimates are very close. Further design work should use the Tonalite Creek record as it has twice the period of record of the Kadashan River above Hook Creek site. It is not necessary to collect streamflow information from Gartina Creek at any of the three proposed sites. The existing long term record from nearby similar stream basins is sufficient for hydroelectric planning and design. Power Calculations Data was not available to review the power calculations in detail. The method described appears satisfactory. For the Gartina Falls site, the power output estimated by HydroWest was nearly identical to the power output estimated by HDR. Permitting Requirements Permitting requirements described in the HydroWest report are correct. One permit not mentioned is a State of Alaska Dam Safety permit that will be required for dams over 10 feet in height. This will apply to the Gartina Falls project. This permit also requires inspection on a regular basis depending on the classification of the dam leading to additional long term O&M costs. General Discussion The Gartina Creek project is a low head project on a fairly deeply incised stream that has a high peak flow and high potential for bedload issues. All of these factors will lead to increased construction and O&M costs. This project also has the potential for disruption of fish and mammal habitat and the increased scrutiny and permitting issues that this will bring. An additional permit consideration is that this project will have a dam with a height greater than 10 feet which will cause it to be regulated under state jurisdiction, leading to increased operations costs. The Water Supply Creek project is a moderate head project on a stream that is easily accessible and appears not to have significant environmental issues. During design it should be investigated whether the intake can be located at a higher elevation for additional power. During design tapping the hydroelectric penstock for the city water supply should also be considered. This will allow the powerhouse to be located at a lower elevation for greater head and will eliminate the increased O&M HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone (907) 644-2000 Fax (907) 644-2022 www.hdrinc.com Page 3 of 4 costs of a second intake. The construction of this project will need to consider provision of continuous water supply to the City. The Elephant Falls project is a higher head project with its intake at high elevation. This higher elevation may cause difficult winter access and may be more problematic due to increased snowfall at this elevation. This project has a significantly smaller drainage basin, with the potential to have periods when the flow is insufficient for project operation. It is located on Forest Service land which will require an FERC permit for construction. Estimate of Cost HydroWest provided an estimated cost for each of the proposed projects. These estimates were updated based on the following assumptions: The construction estimate and contingency factors provided by HydroWest in 2002 are reasonable and accurate and were based on contractor bid and prevailing wage rates. An inflation factor of 1.22 based on Engineering News Record construction cost index. (Year 2002 = 6538, July 2007 = 7959) is applied to the 2002 construction costs. Design costs of 15%, construction management of 5%, and permitting varying from 5% to 15% for the three projects depending on expected complexity of permitting. Estimate includes escalation for construction in 2009 at a rate of 5% per year which is an average of the past five years of construction cost escalation. Estimate includes construction financing costs at a rate of 10% per year for 2 years. Value of displaced diesel fuel is based on fuel price of $3.00 per gallon. Table 2 – Estimate of Cost Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Elephant Falls 2007 Estimated Construction Cost $4,900,000 $4,200,000 $4,700,000 Annual Debt Service (30 yrs @ 6%) $350,000 $300,000 $320,000 Project Annual Energy (MWh/yr) 1750 1820 1780 First Year Energy Cost per kWh $0.23 $0.19 $0.22 Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel $404,000 $420,000 $411,000 Details of this estimate are attached. With a fuel price of $3.00 per gallon and assuming a typical diesel generator efficiency of 13 kWh/gallon, the fuel cost for diesel generation is $0.23/kWh. Neglecting diesel generator operational and maintenance costs, all of these projects will produce power for less than or equal to the cost of diesel generation. Conclusions and Recommendations It is not necessary to collect additional streamflow data for the Gartina Falls or Water Supply Creek projects. The existing 20-year record from Tonalite Creek is sufficient for hydroelectric planning and design. If the Elephant Falls project were to be constructed, additional streamflow data should be collected to verify that the flows from this basin were not too small to be usable. All projects benefit from the existence of logging roads that provide some access to the sites. Water Supply Creek and Gartina Creek require only short segments of road to access the intake and powerhouse sites. Elephant Falls requires significant additional access roads. Estimated project costs were increased 122 % since 2002 due to inflation. Diesel fuel costs have increased 240% since 2002. A simple economic analysis shows that all of the sites will produce power at a rate that is less than or equal to the current cost of diesel power. HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone (907) 644-2000 Fax (907) 644-2022 www.hdrinc.com Page 4 of 4 Hydroelectric projects provide communities with a reliable, alternative energy source that does not require the use or handling of fossil fuels. The cost of power generated from a hydroelectric facility will remain relatively constant over time whereas diesel costs may continue to increase. The Water Supply Creek site is the preferred site of the three sites. It is preferred for the following reasons: o It provides the least cost per kWh of power, o The intake and powerhouse sites are easily accessible and appear to support straightforward construction, o The environmental issues associated with this project appear to be the least of the three sites, o The height of the dam will be lower than the threshold for dam safety regulation, and o Combining this project with the city water supply could reduce overall operations cost for the city. Issues regarding the Water Supply Creek site that should be resolved in the next phase of this project are o Estimate of annual power using data from Tonalite Creek at Tenakee. o Explore potential for locating an intake at a higher elevation. o Consider providing city water supply from the hydroelectric penstock. o Perform evaluation of fish resources in Water Supply Creek. o Perform a jurisdictional wetlands analysis for the proposed site. o Explore the issues of FERC jurisdiction over this project. Subsequent construction of either of the Gartina Falls or the Elephant Falls sites would benefit from the transmission line constructed for the Water Supply Creek project. Analysis of power requirements should be done to ensure that the power generated by these additional projects would be needed by the City. HOONAH "GARTINA FALLS" HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 2002 2007 Item Description Estimate Factor Estimate 1 Access Roads 73,000$ 122% $89,000 2 Diversion Structure 560,000$ 122% $682,000 3 Power Conduit 167,000$ 122% $203,000 4 Powerhouse 4.1 Structures and Improvements 292,000$ 122% $355,000 4.2 Generating Equipment 250,000$ 122% $304,000 4.3 Control System 375,000$ 122% $457,000 5 Transmission 280,000$ 122% $341,000 TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,997,000$2,431,000$ Contingency 25% 499,000$608,000$ TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS + CONTINGENCIES 2,496,000$3,039,000$ Design Engineering, Surveying & Geotechnical 15% 455,850$ Licensing/Permitting 10% 303,900$ Construction Management 5% 151,950$ Escalation 2007 to 2009 (2 years at 5% per year)10% 303,900$ Construction Financing (2 years at 10% per year)20% 607,800$ TOTAL OTHER COSTS 1,823,400$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (2007 DOLLARS, ROUNDED)4,900,000$ Plant Max. Output (kW) 600 Project Annual Energy (MWh/yr) 1,750 Cost per installed kW $8,167 Annual Debt Service (30 yr @ 6%, 100% financing of entire project cost) $352,536 Annual O&M Allowance $50,000 First Year Energy Cost per kWh $0.23 Diesel Fuel Cost 3.00$ Gallon Diesel Efficiency 13.0 kWh/gallon Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel 403,846$ HOONAH "WATER SUPPLY CREEK" HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 2002 2007 Item Description Estimate Factor Estimate 1 Access Roads 61,000$ 122% $74,000 2 Diversion Structure 130,000$ 122% $158,000 3 Power Conduit 504,000$ 122% $614,000 4 Powerhouse 4.1 Structures and Improvements 122,000$ 122% $149,000 4.2 Generating Equipment 250,000$ 122% $304,000 4.3 Control System 375,000$ 122% $457,000 5 Transmission 287,000$ 122% $349,000 TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,729,000$2,105,000$ Contingency 25% 432,000$526,000$ TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS + CONTINGENCIES 2,161,000$2,631,000$ Design Engineering, Surveying & Geotechnical 15% 394,650$ Licensing/Permitting 10% 263,100$ Construction Management 5% 131,550$ Escalation 2007 to 2009 (2 years at 5% per year)10% 263,100$ Construction Financing (2 years at 10% per year)20% 526,200$ TOTAL OTHER COSTS 1,578,600$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (2007 DOLLARS, ROUNDED)4,200,000$ Plant Max. Output (kW) 600 Project Annual Energy (MWh/yr) 1,820 Cost per installed kW $7,000 Annual Debt Service (30 yr @ 6%, 100% financing of entire project cost) $302,173 Annual O&M Allowance $50,000 First Year Energy Cost per kWh $0.19 Diesel Fuel Cost 3.00$ Gallon Diesel Efficiency 13.0 kWh/gallon Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel 420,000$ HOONAH "ELEPHANT FALLS" HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 2002 2007 Item Description Estimate Factor Estimate 1 Access Roads 313,000$ 122% $381,000 2 Diversion Structure 132,000$ 122% $161,000 3 Power Conduit 350,000$ 122% $426,000 4 Powerhouse 4.1 Structures and Improvements 102,000$ 122% $124,000 4.2 Generating Equipment 250,000$ 122% $304,000 4.3 Control System 375,000$ 122% $457,000 5 Transmission 287,000$ 122% $349,000 TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,809,000$2,202,000$ Contingency 33% 597,000$727,000$ TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS + CONTINGENCIES 2,406,000$2,929,000$ Design Engineering, Surveying & Geotechnical 15% 439,350$ Licensing/Permitting 10% 292,900$ Construction Management 5% 146,450$ Escalation 2007 to 2009 (2 years at 5% per year)10% 292,900$ Construction Financing (2 years at 10% per year)20% 585,800$ TOTAL OTHER COSTS 1,757,400$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (2007 DOLLARS, ROUNDED)4,700,000$ Plant Max. Output (kW) 600 Project Annual Energy (MWh/yr) 1,780 Cost per installed kW $7,833 Annual Debt Service (30 yr @ 6%, 100% financing of entire project cost) $338,146 Annual O&M Allowance $50,000 First Year Energy Cost per kWh $0.22 Diesel Fuel Cost 3.00$ Gallon Diesel Efficiency 13.0 kWh/gallon Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel 410,769$ APPENDIX F 2002 RECONNAISSANCE OF THREE POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC SITES NEAR HOONAH BY HYDROWEST LLC APPENDIX H HOONAH ENERGY RECOVERY WORKSHEET AND GRAPHS HOONAH ENERGY RECOVERY WORK SHEET ====================================== =========Analysis of Diesel HR (No Hydro Installation)ANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS:AnnualO&M cost:0$/year. [ =============================================]Cost Estimate$ [ Diesel HR, Gallons:56936]Fuel heat value:138000Btu/gall. [ =============================================]Fuel cost0.00$/gallonFuel cost escal.0/yearPower increase0/yearDiscount rate0/yearGEN DATA: Jacket Water OnlySYSTEM LOSS DATA:Heat rate at kw-load above0 2800Btu/kwhConstant losses:Heat rate at kw-load above114 2800Btu/kwh Plant piping:15000Btu/hr. Piping main insulated, branch piping &flexes bareHeat rate at kw-load above152 2800Btu/kwh Buried Arctic piping:195000Btu/hr.(6500' of 4" @ 0.25)*(170F-50F)Heat rate at kw-load above176 2800Btu/kwhGenset Eng. Preheat:20000Btu/hr. Pre-heat 2 offline enginesHeat rate at kw-load above205 2800Btu/kwhTotal constant:230000Btu/hr.Heat rate at kw-load above255 2800Btu/kwhHeat rate at kw-load above375 2800Btu/kwhVariable losses:Heat rate at kw-load above465 2800Btu/kwh Radiators/Exter Pipe100Btu/hr.xFAmot normally closed, 1/2" normally open bypassHeat rate at kw-load above400 2800Btu/kwh Plant Heating:75Btu/hr.xFControl only, gen room heated by running engineHeat rate at kw-load above4502200Btu/kwhOther0Btu/hr.xFHeat rate at kw-load above5002200Btu/kwhGENERATION DATA:WEATHER DATA: NOTES:Kwh/month:HDD/Month: HonnahJanuary498,0001108February438,000944March433,000961April420,000756May410,000531June397,000330July436,000249August428,000242September455,000423October428,000695November416,000933December447,00010365206000 8208BUILDING DATA:Fuel use, Non- BoilergallonsSeasonalSeasonalEfficiency Building in use, 1=yes, 0=noOPER.HDDBuildings35600 2800 75%1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1107630Pool14400 7200 75%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1117967H-1 HOONAH ENERGY RECOVERY WORK SHEET ====================================== =========Analysis ofGartinaCreek Hydro & Diesel HRANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS:AnnualO&M cost:0$/year. [ =============================================]Cost Estimate$ [ Diesel HR, Gallons:46316]Fuel heat value:138000Btu/gall. [ Excess Hydro Energy Recovery, Gallons0]Fuel cost0.00$/gallon [ Diesel Generation Fuel Savings,Gallons130000]Fuel cost escal.0/year [ Total Potential Fuel Savings176316]Power increase0/year [ =============================================]Discount rate0/yearGEN DATA: Jacket Water OnlySYSTEM LOSS DATA:Heat rate at kw-load above0 2800Btu/kwhConstant losses:Heat rate at kw-load above114 2800Btu/kwh Plant piping:15000Btu/hr. Piping main insulated, branch piping &flexes bareHeat rate at kw-load above152 2800Btu/kwh Buried Arctic piping:195000Btu/hr.(6500' of 4" @ 0.25)*(170F-50F)Heat rate at kw-load above176 2800Btu/kwhGenset Eng. Preheat:20000Btu/hr. Pre-heat 2 offline enginesHeat rate at kw-load above205 2800Btu/kwhTotal constant:230000Btu/hr.Heat rate at kw-load above255 2800Btu/kwhHeat rate at kw-load above375 2800Btu/kwhVariable losses:Heat rate at kw-load above465 2800Btu/kwh Radiators/Exter Pipe100Btu/hr.xFAmot normally closed, 1/2" normally open bypassHeat rate at kw-load above400 2800Btu/kwh Plant Heating:75Btu/hr.xFControl only, gen room heated by running engineHeat rate at kw-load above4502200Btu/kwhOther0Btu/hr.xFHeat rate at kw-load above5002200Btu/kwhDIESELGENERATION DATA:WEATHER DATA: HYDROELECTRICGENERATION DATAGENERATION FUEL SAVINGSKwh/month:HDD/Month: HoonahKwh/month:(@14kWhr/gallon diesel efficiency)January397,4711108January100,5297181February337,471944February100,5297181March326,188961March106,8127629April224,177756April195,82313987May128,309531May281,69120121June223,168330June173,83212417July366,886249July69,1144937August360,980242August67,0204787September302,112423September152,88810921October171,441695October256,55918326November237,979933November178,02112716December309,8181036December137,18297993386000 8208 1820000kWhr130000gallonsBUILDING DATA:Fuel use, Non- BoilergallonsSeasonalSeasonalEfficiency Building in use, 1=yes, 0=noOPER.HDDBuildings35600 2800 75%1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1107630Pool14400 7200 75%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1117967H-2 HOONAH ENERGY RECOVERY WORK SHEET ====================================== =========Analysis of Water SupplyCreek Hydro & Diesel HRANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS:AnnualO&M cost:0$/year. [ =============================================]Cost Estimate$ [ Diesel HR, Gallons:45767]Fuel heat value:138000Btu/gall. [ Excess Hydro Energy Recovery, Gallons0]Fuel cost0.00$/gallon [ Diesel Generation Fuel Savings,Gallons134286]Fuel cost escal.0/year [ Total Potential Fuel Savings180053]Power increase0/year [ =============================================]Discount rate0/yearGEN DATA: Jacket Water OnlySYSTEM LOSS DATA:Heat rate at kw-load above0 2800Btu/kwhConstant losses:Heat rate at kw-load above114 2800Btu/kwh Plant piping:15000Btu/hr. Piping main insulated, branch piping &flexes bareHeat rate at kw-load above152 2800Btu/kwh Buried Arctic piping:195000Btu/hr.(6500' of 4" @ 0.25)*(170F-50F)Heat rate at kw-load above176 2800Btu/kwhGenset Eng. Preheat:20000Btu/hr. Pre-heat 2 offline enginesHeat rate at kw-load above205 2800Btu/kwhTotal constant:230000Btu/hr.Heat rate at kw-load above255 2800Btu/kwhHeat rate at kw-load above375 2800Btu/kwhVariable losses:Heat rate at kw-load above465 2800Btu/kwh Radiators/Exter Pipe100Btu/hr.xFAmot normally closed, 1/2" normally open bypassHeat rate at kw-load above400 2800Btu/kwh Plant Heating:75Btu/hr.xFControl only, gen room heated by running engineHeat rate at kw-load above4502200Btu/kwhOther0Btu/hr.xFHeat rate at kw-load above5002200Btu/kwhDIESELGENERATION DATA:WEATHER DATA: HYDROELECTRICGENERATION DATAGENERATION FUEL SAVINGSKwh/month:HDD/Month: HoonahKwh/month:(@14kWhr/gallon diesel efficiency)January388,1581108January109,8427846February329,848944February108,1527725March322,313961March110,6877906April219,749756April200,25114304May129,480531May280,52020037June226,322330June170,67812191July365,025249July70,9755070August350,266242August77,7345552September286,857423September168,14312010October160,154695October267,84619132November241,942933November174,05812433December305,8871036December141,113100803326000 8208 1880000kWhr134286gallonsBUILDING DATA:Fuel use, Non- BoilergallonsSeasonalSeasonalEfficiency Building in use, 1=yes, 0=noOPER.HDDBuildings35600 2800 75%1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1107630Pool14400 7200 75%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1117967H-3 HOONAH ENERGY RECOVERY WORK SHEET ====================================== =========Analysis ofCombined Hydro, Diesel HR and Excess Hydro Energy RecoverANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS:AnnualO&M cost:0$/year. [ =============================================]Cost Estimate$ [ Diesel Heat Recovery, Gallons29606]Fuel heat value:138000Btu/gall. [ Excess Hydro Energy Recovery, Gallons0]Fuel cost0.00$/gallon [ Diesel Generation,Gallons214929]Fuel cost escal.0/year [ Total Potential Fuel Savings244535]Power increase0/year [ =============================================]Discount rate0/yearGEN DATA: Jacket Water OnlySYSTEM LOSS DATA:Heat rate at kw-load above0 2800Btu/kwhConstant losses:Heat rate at kw-load above114 2800Btu/kwh Plant piping:15000Btu/hr. Piping main insulated, branch piping &flexes bareHeat rate at kw-load above152 2800Btu/kwh Buried Arctic piping:195000Btu/hr.(6500' of 4" @ 0.25)*(170F-50F)Heat rate at kw-load above176 2800Btu/kwhGenset Eng. Preheat:20000Btu/hr. Pre-heat 2 offline enginesHeat rate at kw-load above205 2800Btu/kwhTotal constant:230000Btu/hr.Heat rate at kw-load above255 2800Btu/kwhHeat rate at kw-load above375 2800Btu/kwhVariable losses:Heat rate at kw-load above465 2800Btu/kwh Radiators/Exter Pipe100Btu/hr.xFAmot normally closed, 1/2" normally open bypassHeat rate at kw-load above400 2800Btu/kwh Plant Heating:75Btu/hr.xFControl only, gen room heated by running engineHeat rate at kw-load above4502200Btu/kwhOther0Btu/hr.xFHeat rate at kw-load above5002200Btu/kwhDIESELGENERATION DATA:WEATHER DATA: HYDROELECTRICGENERATION DATAGENERATION FUEL SAVINGSKwh/month:HDD/Month: HoonahKwh/month:(@14kWhr/gallon diesel efficiency)January313,0001108January186,00013286February253,000944February185,00013214March238,000961March196,00014000April93,000756April326,00023286May68,000531May404,00028857June115,000330June282,00020143July287,000249July149,00010643August293,000242August135,0009643September201,000423September254,00018143October58,000695October370,00026429November130,000933November286,00020429December211,0001036December236,000168572260000 8208 3009000kWhr214929gallonsBUILDING DATA:Fuel use, Non- BoilergallonsSeasonalSeasonalEfficiency Building in use, 1=yes, 0=noOPER.HDDBuildings35600 2800 75%1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1107630Pool14400 7200 75%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1117967H-4 5/30/2009 excess hydro GWS Page 5HOONAH ENERGY RECOVERY WORK SHEET ====================================== =========Analysis of Energy Recovery From Excess Hydro Only(CombinedG&WS Hydro With Electric Boiler in Power PlanANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS:AnnualO&M cost:0$/year. [ =============================================]Cost Estimate$ [ Diesel Heat Recovery, Gallons0]Fuel heat value:138000Btu/gall. [ Excess Hydro Energy Recovery, Gallons12497]Fuel cost0.00$/gallon [ Diesel Generation,Gallons0]Fuel cost escal.0/year [ Total Potential Fuel Savings12497]Power increase0/year [ =============================================]Discount rate0/yearGEN DATA: Jacket Water OnlySYSTEM LOSS DATA:Heat rate at kw-load above0 3412Btu/kwhConstant losses:Heat rate at kw-load above114 3412Btu/kwh Plant piping:15000Btu/hr. Piping main insulated, branch piping &flexes bareHeat rate at kw-load above152 3412Btu/kwh Buried Arctic piping:195000Btu/hr.(6500' of 4" @ 0.25)*(170F-50F)Heat rate at kw-load above176 3412Btu/kwhGenset Eng. Preheat:20000Btu/hr. Pre-heat 2 offline enginesHeat rate at kw-load above205 3412Btu/kwhTotal constant:230000Btu/hr.Heat rate at kw-load above255 3412Btu/kwhHeat rate at kw-load above375 3412Btu/kwhVariable losses:Heat rate at kw-load above465 3412Btu/kwh Radiators/Exter Pipe100Btu/hr.xFAmot normally closed, 1/2" normally open bypassHeat rate at kw-load above400 3412Btu/kwh Plant Heating:75Btu/hr.xFControl only, gen room heated by running engineHeat rate at kw-load above4503412Btu/kwhOther0Btu/hr.xFHeat rate at kw-load above5003412Btu/kwhGENERATION DATA:WEATHER DATA: NOTES:Kwh/month:HDD/Month: HoonahJanuary56,0001108February56,000944March56,000961April127,000756May265,000531June131,000330July20,000249August33,000242September112,000423October240,000695November140,000933December95,00010361331000 8208BUILDING DATA:Fuel use, Non- BoilergallonsSeasonalSeasonalEfficiency Building in use, 1=yes, 0=noOPER.HDDPool, bldgs27564 2148 75%1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1973880 0 75%1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 197388H-5 H-6Graph 1: Hoonah Estimated Energy Recovery Versus Heating Demand020004000600080001000012000 JanuaryFebruary March April May June July AugustSeptember OctoberNovemberDecemberMonthDiesel Saved (Gallons Per Month)60,000 Gal/Yr - Estimated District Heating Demand (Pool, Schools and Other Buildings)56,936 Gal/Yr - Heating Fuel Saved From Diesel HR (Diesel Generation Only - No Hydro)46,316 Gal/Yr - Heating Fuel Saved With Gartina Creek Hydro & Diesel HR 45,767 Gal/Yr - Heating Fuel Saved With Water Supply Creek Hydro & Diesel HR 42,103 Gal/Yr - Heating Fuel Saved With Combined Hydro & Diesel HR/Excess Hydro H-7Graph 2: Total Estimated Diesel Savings Comparisons of Potential Projects010000200003000040000JanuaryFebruary March AprilMayJuneJuly AugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberMonthTotal Diesel Saved (Gallons Per Month)257,031 Gal/Yr - Total Fuel Saved With Combined Hydro & Diesel HR/Excess Hydro 180,053 Gal/Yr - Total Fuel Saved With Water Supply Creek Hydro & Diesel HR176,316 Gal/Yr - Total Fuel Saved With Gartina Creek Hydro & Diesel HR 56,936 Gal/Yr - Total Fuel Saved With Diesel HR Installation Only (No Hydro Project) APPENDIX I COMMUNITY CORRESPONDENCE Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information November 13, 2006 On Thursday October 19 and 20, 2006, David Lockard of the Alaska Energy Authority / Rural Energy Group (AEA/REG) and John Dickerson of Alaska Energy and Engineering (AE&E) traveled to Hoonah. The purposes of this site visit were to: 1) meet with local officials as well as representatives of local and regional organizations to identify and discuss potential energy infrastructure projects within the community; 2) to gather reconnaissance level information for preparation of a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) for any identified energy infrastructure projects and; 3) to collect field data for the installation of a new 12,000 gallon double wall fuel tank at the IPEC power plant. After a short weather delay in Juneau we arrived in Hoonah by plane around 1 PM. After a tour of the community we met Keith Berggren, Peter Bibb and Thomas Jack of Inside Passage Electrical Cooperative (IPEC) at the power plant. We spent the afternoon inspecting the IPEC facility and as-builting the site in order to determine a suitable location for the proposed new fuel tank. A meeting was held the next morning at 8 AM to discuss potential energy infrastructure projects in Hoonah. David Lockard discussed the AEA/REG rural energy programs as well as Denali Commission (DC) funding requirements. Much of the meeting was spent discussing the proposed AEL&P Hoonah intertie extension as well as potential local hydro projects, the proposed City/Hoonah Trading consolidated bulk fuel storage project and the potential use of generation heat recovery in Hoonah. Meeting attendees included: Dennis H. Grey, Sr., Mayor, City of Hoonah Jerry Medina, Administrator, City of Hoonah Jan Supler, Vice President Retail Operations, Wards Cove/Hoonah Trading Steve Brown, General Manager, Hoonah Trading Tim McLeod, General Manager, AEL&P Corry Hildenbrand, Energy Resource Developer, AEL&P Vern Rauscher, General Manager, IPEC Keith Berggren, Generation Manager, IPEC Peter Bibb, Distribution Manager, IPEC Dick Somerville, P.E., PND Engineers Don Reid, Alaska Marine Lines Following the meeting we reviewed plans for the new Hoonah Marine Industrial Center and visited the site where phase I of the project is currently under construction. Discussions were held regarding the preferred location and layout of the proposed consolidated bulk fuel storage facility, automotive gas station, truck loading/bulk transfer facility, marine dispensing float, large vessel marine fuel dock and marine header. The following report is based on reconnaissance level information gathered during and subsequent to this site visit. It includes preliminary information on: 1) Proposed AEL&P Hoonah intertie extension 2) AC vs HVDC transmission technology for the Hoonah Intertie 3) Three potential local hydroelectric projects near Hoonah Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 2 of 13 4) Potential generation heat recovery project 5) Existing IPEC power plant 6) Estimated future community power demand 7) Proposed IPEC power plant upgrades 8) Replacement generator selection 9) Proposed IPEC distribution upgrades 10)Existing IPEC tank farm 11)New IPEC power plant fuel tank 12)Existing Hoonah Trading bulk fuel storage facility 13)Required community fuel storage capacity 14)Proposed new tank farm, bulk transfer and dispensing facilities 15)Alternative energy This report along with comments from project participants will outline the issues to be addressed in the CDR. 1) AEL&P Hoonah Intertie Extension: The proposed Hoonah intertie extension is part of a long term effort by AEL&P, IPEC, The Southeast Conference and the City of Hoonah to construct a transmission link between Juneau and Hoonah. The intertie would allow the community of Hoonah to take advantage of AEL&P's excess hydroelectric generation capacity and eliminate diesel generation in the community. The first leg of the intertie to the Greens Creek mine was completed in July, 2006 at a cost of approximately $9 million. This leg included a 9.5 mile long submarine cable between Douglas and Admiralty Islands as well as six miles of overhead transmission line to the Greens Creek Mine. According to AEL&P current average loads at the mine are running around 8 megawatts and near term total annual energy requirements are expected to be in excess of 70GWh, higher than originally anticipated. If constructed, the Hoonah intertie extension would include a 25 mile long submarine cable between Admiralty and Chichagof Islands as well as a 3 mile long overhead transmission line to Hoonah. According to a recently updated estimate by AEL&P the cost of the Hoonah Intertie would be approximately $29 million for design, permitting and construction. The long term annual energy requirements of Hoonah are expected to be 6 to 7GWh. Permitting would likely take one to two years. Engineering completed to date includes a power flow analysis by Power Engineers, Inc. and a preliminary submarine cable design by Nexans and BC Hydro. An amount of $1 million was recently awarded to IPEC by DOE for submarine cable route bathymetric studies and permitting. According to AEL&P, if the Hoonah intertie were constructed today the rate to IPEC would be $.10/KWh and would include all O&M as well as a contingency for cable repairs and replacement. This rate would be "interruptible" in that Juneau area customers would receive first priority in times of limited hydroelectric generation while Hoonah would have priority of usage over the Greens Creek mine. It is assumed that if constructed the Hoonah intertie would provide virtually all the power required by the community of Hoonah and that Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 3 of 13 no upgrade to the existing IPEC power plant or new local hydroelectric projects would be considered. An economic analysis of the Hoonah Intertie titled "Hoonah Intertie Extension - Economic Considerations" was recently prepared for AEA by Emerman Consulting, LLC and will be included as an appendix in the final Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Upgrade Projects CDR. Four separate scenarios were analyzed using different fuel prices, project schedules and Hoonah energy requirement estimates. The benefit to cost ratios of the four scenarios calculated over the estimated 30 year economic life of the intertie ranged from 0.78 to 0.50. Additional research on the proposed intertie will be conducted and will be included in the final Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects CDR. 2) AC versus HVDC transmission technology for the Hoonah Intertie: Appendix E of the "Southeast Alaska Intertie Study Phase I Final Report" prepared by D. Hittle & Associates for the Southeast Conference in 2003 includes a report on alternate energy transmission technologies study conducted for the proposed interties. The study concluded that an HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current) system would be feasible but more expensive than an AC system for the Hoonah Intertie. The following are some comparisons of HVDC and AC transmission technology for the proposed Hoonah intertie: Submarine cable lengths are limited to between 40 and 50 miles in AC transmission systems due to capacitive currents. HVDC systems make much longer submarine crossings possible because they do not generate capacitive currents. With a crossing length of only around 25 miles the Hoonah intertie is well within the limits for submarine cables in AC systems. HVDC systems can carry more current on a given size cable than with an AC system. However, the size of the submarine cable specified for the Hoonah intertie is controlled by the strength requirement of the cable rather than by the conductive capacity. This offsets any potential savings of an HVDC system due to conductor size advantages for the Hoonah intertie. Low cost extruded polymer cable has recently been developed for use in HVDC systems. Extruded cables are less expensive than other cable technologies but have little history in submarine applications. There is also as yet no proven technology for repairing a damaged submarine extruded cable. HVDC systems can be constructed with a single cable where ground return is used. However a single cable HVDC system is not considered an option for the Hoonah intertie due to environmental, permitting and reliability issues. Therefore a two-cable HVDC system would be required. Three-phase AC submarine cable is available as a bundled unit while the HVDC system would require two separate cables. The per unit cost of the HVDC submarine cable would be less than the bundled three-phase AC cable but the total submarine cable cost for the Hoonah intertie would be higher for the HVDC system due to the requirement of two separate cables. An HVDC intertie would require a total of two voltage source converters (VSC) for conversion of AC to HVDC and then back to AC. In 2003 the price estimate of each VSC was $3.2 million. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 4 of 13 Additional research into the latest HVDC technology available will be conducted and will be included in the final Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects CDR. 3) Three Potential Local Hydroelectric Projects Near Hoonah: In June, 2002 HydroWest Group, LLC, a subsidiary of AP&T, published a report titled "Reconnaissance of Three Potential Hydroelectric Sites Near Hoonah, Alaska". This report was commissioned by the City of Hoonah. It was preceded by a previous study titled "Gartina Creek Project - A Reconnaissance Report" performed in 1979 by Harza Engineering for the Alaska Power Authority. A review and update of the 1979 report titled "Concept Review Report, Gartina Creek Hydroelectric Project" was performed in 1998 by HDR for the City of Hoonah. The three identified hydroelectric prospects in the Hoonah area are identified as Gartina Creek, Water Supply Creek and Elephant Falls. Water Supply Creek and Elephant Falls are both tributaries of Gartina Creek. All flow data for these three drainages is transposed from the stream gage records of the Kadashan River drainage near Tenakee which is very similar in geology, precipitation, orientation and elevation to the three Hoonah sites. Gartina Creek The Gartina Creek project as described in the 2002 HydroWest report consists of the following components: A fifteenfeet high concrete and rockfill diversion dam. A concrete intake structure and sluiceway A 54-inch diameter steel pipeline approximately 200 feet long from the intake structure to the powerhouse. A 20'x20'x25' high two level reinforced concrete powerhouse A single turbine with 600kW three-phase generator. Programmable automatic paralleling switchgear with remote control and unattended operation capability. A pad-mount disconnect switch and step-up transformer bank adjacent to the powerhouse. Approximately four miles of 12.5kV three-phase overhead transmission line to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport. An approximately 0.3 mile long access road from an existing Forest Service road to the intake structure and powerhouse. The Gartina Creek site is estimated to have an average annual flow of around 66 cfs, a maximum divertible flow of 140 cfs and a net head of 61 feet. Using a flow-duration method, the maximum potential annual generation of this site was estimated in the HydroWest report to be 1,880,00kWH. The estimated construction cost for the Gartina Creek site is $3.75 million based on 2006/2007 construction. Water Supply Creek The Water Supply Creek project as described in the 2002 HydroWest report consists of the following components: An eight feet high concrete and rockfill diversion dam. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 5 of 13 A concrete intake and sluiceway A 5,500 feet long combination 24" diameter HDPE and 20" diameter steel pipeline from the intake structure to the powerhouse. A 20'x40'x15' high single story pre-engineered metal building powerhouse. A single turbine with 600kW three-phase generator. Programmable automatic paralleling switchgear with remote control and unattended operation capability. A pad-mount disconnect switch and step-up transformer bank adjacent to the powerhouse. Approximately four miles of 12.5kV three-phase overhead transmission line to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport. An approximately .25 mile long access road from an existing Forest Service road to the intake structure and powerhouse. The Water Supply Creek site is estimated to have an average annual flow of around 9 cfs, a maximum divertible flow of 20 cfs and a net head of 400 feet. Using a flow- duration method, the maximum potential annual generation of this site was estimated in the HydroWest report to be 1,820,00kWH. The estimated construction cost for the Water Supply Creek site is $3.1 million based on 2006/2007 construction. Elephant Falls The Elephant Falls project as described in the 2002 HydroWest report consists of the following components: An eight feet high concrete and rockfill diversion dam. A concrete intake and sluiceway A 3,900 feet long combination 18" diameter HDPE and 15" diameter steel pipeline from the intake structure to the powerhouse located on Gartina Creek. A 20'x40'x15' high single story pre-engineered metal building powerhouse. A single turbine with 600kW three-phase generator. Programmable automatic paralleling switchgear with remote control and unattended operation capability. A pad-mount disconnect switch and step-up transformer bank adjacent to the powerhouse. Approximately four miles of 12.5kV three-phase overhead transmission line to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport. An approximately 4,000 feet long access road from an existing Forest Service road to the intake structure and an approximately 7,500 feet long access road from an existing Forest Service road to the powerhouse. The Elephant Falls site is estimated to have an average annual flow of around 4 cfs, a maximum divertible flow of 9.3 cfs and a net head of 800 feet. Using a flow-duration method, the maximum potential annual generation of this site was estimated in the HydroWest report to be 1,780,00kWH. The estimated construction cost for the Elephant Falls site is $3.76 million based on 2006/2007 construction. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 6 of 13 The potential annual generation capacity calculated for each of these sites is only available if the local load is always in excess of the available hydroelectric generation. During seasonally high stream flow periods, the nighttime community loads will fall below the anticipated 600kW hydroelectric generation capacity. This will result in the usable annual generation capacity being less than the potential annual generation capacity quoted for each site. If two of these sites are developed even less of the potential annual generation would be usable, especially during high flow periods. The annual usable generation from a single and two-site hydroelectric project was estimated using available transposed stream flow data, five percent flow duration charts and IPEC community average load data. The results indicate that if only one of these hydroelectric sites were developed it would provide approximately 30% of Hoonah's near term projected annual generation demand. If two of these sites were developed they would provide approximately 50% of Hoonah's annual generation demand. The HydroWest report addresses permitting issues for each of these sites. The Gartina Creek and Water Supply Creek projects would fall under the State of Alaska small hydroelectric project exemption from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction. Because the Elephant Falls site is within the Tongass National Forest, it would fall under FERC jurisdiction unless a land exchange with the City of Hoonah or Sealaska Corporation could be arranged. The HydroWest report also addresses environmental issues for each of these sites. The primary environmental concern is the possible impact on anadromous and resident fish populations due to reduced in-stream flows between the intake structure and the power house. Because Water Supply Creek and Elephant Falls are located above Gartina Falls, no anadromous fish will be present and only resident fish populations are of concern. The bypassed reach of stream for the Gartina Creek project does include salmon pools at the base of the falls. This could result in increased bypass flow requirements or significant increases in construction costs. 4) Potential Generation Heat Recovery Project: The IPEC Hoonah power plant has burned an average of 360,000 gallons of diesel annually over the past two years. An efficient generation heat recovery system will recover the heating energy equivalent of approximately 20% of the fuel burned by the generators. Using this rule of thumb, the IPEC generators have the potential to provide the heating equivalent of over 70,000 gallons of diesel fuel in recovered generation heat annually. The swimming pool, school buildings, fire hall, senior center, senior apartments, and clinic are all located in the same general vicinity. These six public facilities use approximately 60,000 gallons of diesel annually for space heating. Ideally the power plant should be located as close as possible to the recovered heat end use facilities to minimize conductive heat looses in the buried pipe. However the existing power plant is located approximately one half mile from the school site where the bulk of the recovered heat would be used and no suitable sites for power plant relocation have been identified. Assuming four inch diameter arctic pipe and a total buried length of one mile for supply and return piping, the conductive heat losses would be the equivalent of approximately 20,000 gallons of diesel annually, reducing the net available recovered generation heat to the equivalent of around 50,000 gallons of diesel. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information November 13, 2006 On Thursday October 19 and 20, 2006, David Lockard of the Alaska Energy Authority / Rural Energy Group (AEA/REG) and John Dickerson of Alaska Energy and Engineering (AE&E) traveled to Hoonah. The purposes of this site visit were to: 1) meet with local officials as well as representatives of local and regional organizations to identify and discuss potential energy infrastructure projects within the community; 2) to gather reconnaissance level information for preparation of a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) for any identified energy infrastructure projects and; 3) to collect field data for the installation of a new 12,000 gallon double wall fuel tank at the IPEC power plant. After a short weather delay in Juneau we arrived in Hoonah by plane around 1 PM. After a tour of the community we met Keith Berggren, Peter Bibb and Thomas Jack of Inside Passage Electrical Cooperative (IPEC) at the power plant. We spent the afternoon inspecting the IPEC facility and as-builting the site in order to determine a suitable location for the proposed new fuel tank. A meeting was held the next morning at 8 AM to discuss potential energy infrastructure projects in Hoonah. David Lockard discussed the AEA/REG rural energy programs as well as Denali Commission (DC) funding requirements. Much of the meeting was spent discussing the proposed AEL&P Hoonah intertie extension as well as potential local hydro projects, the proposed City/Hoonah Trading consolidated bulk fuel storage project and the potential use of generation heat recovery in Hoonah. Meeting attendees included: Dennis H. Grey, Sr., Mayor, City of Hoonah Jerry Medina, Administrator, City of Hoonah Jan Supler, Vice President Retail Operations, Wards Cove/Hoonah Trading Steve Brown, General Manager, Hoonah Trading Tim McLeod, General Manager, AEL&P Corry Hildenbrand, Energy Resource Developer, AEL&P Vern Rauscher, General Manager, IPEC Keith Berggren, Generation Manager, IPEC Peter Bibb, Distribution Manager, IPEC Dick Somerville, P.E., PND Engineers Don Reid, Alaska Marine Lines Following the meeting we reviewed plans for the new Hoonah Marine Industrial Center and visited the site where phase I of the project is currently under construction. Discussions were held regarding the preferred location and layout of the proposed consolidated bulk fuel storage facility, automotive gas station, truck loading/bulk transfer facility, marine dispensing float, large vessel marine fuel dock and marine header. The following report is based on reconnaissance level information gathered during and subsequent to this site visit. It includes preliminary information on: 1) Proposed AEL&P Hoonah intertie extension 2) AC vs HVDC transmission technology for the Hoonah Intertie 3) Three potential local hydroelectric projects near Hoonah Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 2 of 13 4) Potential generation heat recovery project 5) Existing IPEC power plant 6) Estimated future community power demand 7) Proposed IPEC power plant upgrades 8) Replacement generator selection 9) Proposed IPEC distribution upgrades 10)Existing IPEC tank farm 11)New IPEC power plant fuel tank 12)Existing Hoonah Trading bulk fuel storage facility 13)Required community fuel storage capacity 14)Proposed new tank farm, bulk transfer and dispensing facilities 15)Alternative energy This report along with comments from project participants will outline the issues to be addressed in the CDR. 1) AEL&P Hoonah Intertie Extension: The proposed Hoonah intertie extension is part of a long term effort by AEL&P, IPEC, The Southeast Conference and the City of Hoonah to construct a transmission link between Juneau and Hoonah. The intertie would allow the community of Hoonah to take advantage of AEL&P's excess hydroelectric generation capacity and eliminate diesel generation in the community. The first leg of the intertie to the Greens Creek mine was completed in July, 2006 at a cost of approximately $9 million. This leg included a 9.5 mile long submarine cable between Douglas and Admiralty Islands as well as six miles of overhead transmission line to the Greens Creek Mine. According to AEL&P current average loads at the mine are running around 8 megawatts and near term total annual energy requirements are expected to be in excess of 70GWh, higher than originally anticipated. If constructed, the Hoonah intertie extension would include a 25 mile long submarine cable between Admiralty and Chichagof Islands as well as a 3 mile long overhead transmission line to Hoonah. According to a recently updated estimate by AEL&P the cost of the Hoonah Intertie would be approximately $29 million for design, permitting and construction. The long term annual energy requirements of Hoonah are expected to be 6 to 7GWh. Permitting would likely take one to two years. Engineering completed to date includes a power flow analysis by Power Engineers, Inc. and a preliminary submarine cable design by Nexans and BC Hydro. An amount of $1 million was recently awarded to IPEC by DOE for submarine cable route bathymetric studies and permitting. According to AEL&P, if the Hoonah intertie were constructed today the rate to IPEC would be $.10/KWh and would include all O&M as well as a contingency for cable repairs and replacement. This rate would be "interruptible" in that Juneau area customers would receive first priority in times of limited hydroelectric generation while Hoonah would have priority of usage over the Greens Creek mine. It is assumed that if constructed the Hoonah intertie would provide virtually all the power required by the community of Hoonah and that Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 3 of 13 no upgrade to the existing IPEC power plant or new local hydroelectric projects would be considered. An economic analysis of the Hoonah Intertie titled "Hoonah Intertie Extension - Economic Considerations" was recently prepared for AEA by Emerman Consulting, LLC and will be included as an appendix in the final Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Upgrade Projects CDR. Four separate scenarios were analyzed using different fuel prices, project schedules and Hoonah energy requirement estimates. The benefit to cost ratios of the four scenarios calculated over the estimated 30 year economic life of the intertie ranged from 0.78 to 0.50. Additional research on the proposed intertie will be conducted and will be included in the final Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects CDR. 2) AC versus HVDC transmission technology for the Hoonah Intertie: Appendix E of the "Southeast Alaska Intertie Study Phase I Final Report" prepared by D. Hittle & Associates for the Southeast Conference in 2003 includes a report on alternate energy transmission technologies study conducted for the proposed interties. The study concluded that an HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current) system would be feasible but more expensive than an AC system for the Hoonah Intertie. The following are some comparisons of HVDC and AC transmission technology for the proposed Hoonah intertie: Submarine cable lengths are limited to between 40 and 50 miles in AC transmission systems due to capacitive currents. HVDC systems make much longer submarine crossings possible because they do not generate capacitive currents. With a crossing length of only around 25 miles the Hoonah intertie is well within the limits for submarine cables in AC systems. HVDC systems can carry more current on a given size cable than with an AC system. However, the size of the submarine cable specified for the Hoonah intertie is controlled by the strength requirement of the cable rather than by the conductive capacity. This offsets any potential savings of an HVDC system due to conductor size advantages for the Hoonah intertie. Low cost extruded polymer cable has recently been developed for use in HVDC systems. Extruded cables are less expensive than other cable technologies but have little history in submarine applications. There is also as yet no proven technology for repairing a damaged submarine extruded cable. HVDC systems can be constructed with a single cable where ground return is used. However a single cable HVDC system is not considered an option for the Hoonah intertie due to environmental, permitting and reliability issues. Therefore a two-cable HVDC system would be required. Three-phase AC submarine cable is available as a bundled unit while the HVDC system would require two separate cables. The per unit cost of the HVDC submarine cable would be less than the bundled three-phase AC cable but the total submarine cable cost for the Hoonah intertie would be higher for the HVDC system due to the requirement of two separate cables. An HVDC intertie would require a total of two voltage source converters (VSC) for conversion of AC to HVDC and then back to AC. In 2003 the price estimate of each VSC was $3.2 million. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 4 of 13 Additional research into the latest HVDC technology available will be conducted and will be included in the final Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects CDR. 3) Three Potential Local Hydroelectric Projects Near Hoonah: In June, 2002 HydroWest Group, LLC, a subsidiary of AP&T, published a report titled "Reconnaissance of Three Potential Hydroelectric Sites Near Hoonah, Alaska". This report was commissioned by the City of Hoonah. It was preceded by a previous study titled "Gartina Creek Project - A Reconnaissance Report" performed in 1979 by Harza Engineering for the Alaska Power Authority. A review and update of the 1979 report titled "Concept Review Report, Gartina Creek Hydroelectric Project" was performed in 1998 by HDR for the City of Hoonah. The three identified hydroelectric prospects in the Hoonah area are identified as Gartina Creek, Water Supply Creek and Elephant Falls. Water Supply Creek and Elephant Falls are both tributaries of Gartina Creek. All flow data for these three drainages is transposed from the stream gage records of the Kadashan River drainage near Tenakee which is very similar in geology, precipitation, orientation and elevation to the three Hoonah sites. Gartina Creek The Gartina Creek project as described in the 2002 HydroWest report consists of the following components: A fifteenfeet high concrete and rockfill diversion dam. A concrete intake structure and sluiceway A 54-inch diameter steel pipeline approximately 200 feet long from the intake structure to the powerhouse. A 20'x20'x25' high two level reinforced concrete powerhouse A single turbine with 600kW three-phase generator. Programmable automatic paralleling switchgear with remote control and unattended operation capability. A pad-mount disconnect switch and step-up transformer bank adjacent to the powerhouse. Approximately four miles of 12.5kV three-phase overhead transmission line to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport. An approximately 0.3 mile long access road from an existing Forest Service road to the intake structure and powerhouse. The Gartina Creek site is estimated to have an average annual flow of around 66 cfs, a maximum divertible flow of 140 cfs and a net head of 61 feet. Using a flow-duration method, the maximum potential annual generation of this site was estimated in the HydroWest report to be 1,880,00kWH. The estimated construction cost for the Gartina Creek site is $3.75 million based on 2006/2007 construction. Water Supply Creek The Water Supply Creek project as described in the 2002 HydroWest report consists of the following components: An eight feet high concrete and rockfill diversion dam. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 5 of 13 A concrete intake and sluiceway A 5,500 feet long combination 24" diameter HDPE and 20" diameter steel pipeline from the intake structure to the powerhouse. A 20'x40'x15' high single story pre-engineered metal building powerhouse. A single turbine with 600kW three-phase generator. Programmable automatic paralleling switchgear with remote control and unattended operation capability. A pad-mount disconnect switch and step-up transformer bank adjacent to the powerhouse. Approximately four miles of 12.5kV three-phase overhead transmission line to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport. An approximately .25 mile long access road from an existing Forest Service road to the intake structure and powerhouse. The Water Supply Creek site is estimated to have an average annual flow of around 9 cfs, a maximum divertible flow of 20 cfs and a net head of 400 feet. Using a flow- duration method, the maximum potential annual generation of this site was estimated in the HydroWest report to be 1,820,00kWH. The estimated construction cost for the Water Supply Creek site is $3.1 million based on 2006/2007 construction. Elephant Falls The Elephant Falls project as described in the 2002 HydroWest report consists of the following components: An eight feet high concrete and rockfill diversion dam. A concrete intake and sluiceway A 3,900 feet long combination 18" diameter HDPE and 15" diameter steel pipeline from the intake structure to the powerhouse located on Gartina Creek. A 20'x40'x15' high single story pre-engineered metal building powerhouse. A single turbine with 600kW three-phase generator. Programmable automatic paralleling switchgear with remote control and unattended operation capability. A pad-mount disconnect switch and step-up transformer bank adjacent to the powerhouse. Approximately four miles of 12.5kV three-phase overhead transmission line to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport. An approximately 4,000 feet long access road from an existing Forest Service road to the intake structure and an approximately 7,500 feet long access road from an existing Forest Service road to the powerhouse. The Elephant Falls site is estimated to have an average annual flow of around 4 cfs, a maximum divertible flow of 9.3 cfs and a net head of 800 feet. Using a flow-duration method, the maximum potential annual generation of this site was estimated in the HydroWest report to be 1,780,00kWH. The estimated construction cost for the Elephant Falls site is $3.76 million based on 2006/2007 construction. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 6 of 13 The potential annual generation capacity calculated for each of these sites is only available if the local load is always in excess of the available hydroelectric generation. During seasonally high stream flow periods, the nighttime community loads will fall below the anticipated 600kW hydroelectric generation capacity. This will result in the usable annual generation capacity being less than the potential annual generation capacity quoted for each site. If two of these sites are developed even less of the potential annual generation would be usable, especially during high flow periods. The annual usable generation from a single and two-site hydroelectric project was estimated using available transposed stream flow data, five percent flow duration charts and IPEC community average load data. The results indicate that if only one of these hydroelectric sites were developed it would provide approximately 30% of Hoonah's near term projected annual generation demand. If two of these sites were developed they would provide approximately 50% of Hoonah's annual generation demand. The HydroWest report addresses permitting issues for each of these sites. The Gartina Creek and Water Supply Creek projects would fall under the State of Alaska small hydroelectric project exemption from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction. Because the Elephant Falls site is within the Tongass National Forest, it would fall under FERC jurisdiction unless a land exchange with the City of Hoonah or Sealaska Corporation could be arranged. The HydroWest report also addresses environmental issues for each of these sites. The primary environmental concern is the possible impact on anadromous and resident fish populations due to reduced in-stream flows between the intake structure and the power house. Because Water Supply Creek and Elephant Falls are located above Gartina Falls, no anadromous fish will be present and only resident fish populations are of concern. The bypassed reach of stream for the Gartina Creek project does include salmon pools at the base of the falls. This could result in increased bypass flow requirements or significant increases in construction costs. 4) Potential Generation Heat Recovery Project: The IPEC Hoonah power plant has burned an average of 360,000 gallons of diesel annually over the past two years. An efficient generation heat recovery system will recover the heating energy equivalent of approximately 20% of the fuel burned by the generators. Using this rule of thumb, the IPEC generators have the potential to provide the heating equivalent of over 70,000 gallons of diesel fuel in recovered generation heat annually. The swimming pool, school buildings, fire hall, senior center, senior apartments, and clinic are all located in the same general vicinity. These six public facilities use approximately 60,000 gallons of diesel annually for space heating. Ideally the power plant should be located as close as possible to the recovered heat end use facilities to minimize conductive heat looses in the buried pipe. However the existing power plant is located approximately one half mile from the school site where the bulk of the recovered heat would be used and no suitable sites for power plant relocation have been identified. Assuming four inch diameter arctic pipe and a total buried length of one mile for supply and return piping, the conductive heat losses would be the equivalent of approximately 20,000 gallons of diesel annually, reducing the net available recovered generation heat to the equivalent of around 50,000 gallons of diesel. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 7 of 13 The final CDR will include a proposed heat recovery pipeline routing plan and cost estimate for supplying recovered heat to the previously mentioned public facilities. 5) Status of Existing Hoonah IPEC Power Plant: The IPEC (originally THREA) power plant was constructed in the 1977. It is located on the eastern edge of town at the intersection of Gartina Highway and White Alice Site Road. The building is a 40'Wx100'L metal-sided, pre-engineered steel frame structure that houses three generators, an office and a warehouse. The interior walls are covered with painted plywood up to a height of 8' with vinyl-encased fiberglass batt insulation exposed above and across the ceiling. The exterior metal siding is in good condition but the exterior paint is in very poor condition and is peeling badly. The concrete foundation, steel frame members and horizontal steel girts appear to be in good condition. According to the operator, the finish grade around the plant does not drain well and the plant is prone to minor flooding, especially during spring breakup. There are three Caterpillar generators installed in the power plant. Unit #1 is a model 398 with a capacity of 600kW at 1,200RPM. The 398 is an antiquated pre-combustion design with poor fuel economy and increasingly difficult availability of spare parts. This unit is used for emergency backup only and is slated for replacement. Unit #2 is a model 3512 with a prime capacity of 1,100kW at 1,200RPM. Unit #3 is a model 3512 with a prime capacity of 855kW at 1,200RPM. Units #2 and #3 each have approximately 66,000 total engine hours. With the current schedule of a top-end overhaul every 11,000 hours and a major overhaul every 22,000 hours, IPEC expects to get at least an additional 54,000 hours each from existing units #2 and #3, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Engine cooling is with three remote radiators located outside at the front of the power plant. Each generator is on a stand-alone cooling system with one radiator. There is currently no generation heat recovery equipment installed. Power generation is at 4160V 3-phase. There are two separate community feeders with one pole-mounted and one pad-mount step-up transformer bank within the fenced area adjacent to the power plant. Station service is provided by a metered 480V three phase load center as well as an un-metered 120/208V three phase load center. The 5kV manual paralleling switchgear was installed new in 1990. It includes a section for each of the three generators and a feeder/station service section. 6) Estimated Future Community Power Demand According to IPEC data, the current annual peak generation load in Hoonah is around 900kW, the average demand is around 596kW and the annual generation requirement has averaged 5.2GWh over the past two years. IPEC load data indicates that current seasonal load variations in Hoonah are minor, with summer and winter loads being very even. Steady growth in summer peak loads and annual generation are likely over time due to expected increases in tourism, with annual generation requirements likely to grow to over 6GWh within five years. It appears that both generators #2 and #3 are adequately sized to handle the estimated near term growth in community demand. Additional research will be conducted into potential community peak load and generation requirement growth and will be included in the final CDR. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 7 of 13 The final CDR will include a proposed heat recovery pipeline routing plan and cost estimate for supplying recovered heat to the previously mentioned public facilities. 5) Status of Existing Hoonah IPEC Power Plant: The IPEC (originally THREA) power plant was constructed in the 1977. It is located on the eastern edge of town at the intersection of Gartina Highway and White Alice Site Road. The building is a 40'Wx100'L metal-sided, pre-engineered steel frame structure that houses three generators, an office and a warehouse. The interior walls are covered with painted plywood up to a height of 8' with vinyl-encased fiberglass batt insulation exposed above and across the ceiling. The exterior metal siding is in good condition but the exterior paint is in very poor condition and is peeling badly. The concrete foundation, steel frame members and horizontal steel girts appear to be in good condition. According to the operator, the finish grade around the plant does not drain well and the plant is prone to minor flooding, especially during spring breakup. There are three Caterpillar generators installed in the power plant. Unit #1 is a model 398 with a capacity of 600kW at 1,200RPM. The 398 is an antiquated pre-combustion design with poor fuel economy and increasingly difficult availability of spare parts. This unit is used for emergency backup only and is slated for replacement. Unit #2 is a model 3512 with a prime capacity of 1,100kW at 1,200RPM. Unit #3 is a model 3512 with a prime capacity of 855kW at 1,200RPM. Units #2 and #3 each have approximately 66,000 total engine hours. With the current schedule of a top-end overhaul every 11,000 hours and a major overhaul every 22,000 hours, IPEC expects to get at least an additional 54,000 hours each from existing units #2 and #3, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Engine cooling is with three remote radiators located outside at the front of the power plant. Each generator is on a stand-alone cooling system with one radiator. There is currently no generation heat recovery equipment installed. Power generation is at 4160V 3-phase. There are two separate community feeders with one pole-mounted and one pad-mount step-up transformer bank within the fenced area adjacent to the power plant. Station service is provided by a metered 480V three phase load center as well as an un-metered 120/208V three phase load center. The 5kV manual paralleling switchgear was installed new in 1990. It includes a section for each of the three generators and a feeder/station service section. 6) Estimated Future Community Power Demand According to IPEC data, the current annual peak generation load in Hoonah is around 900kW, the average demand is around 596kW and the annual generation requirement has averaged 5.2GWh over the past two years. IPEC load data indicates that current seasonal load variations in Hoonah are minor, with summer and winter loads being very even. Steady growth in summer peak loads and annual generation are likely over time due to expected increases in tourism, with annual generation requirements likely to grow to over 6GWh within five years. It appears that both generators #2 and #3 are adequately sized to handle the estimated near term growth in community demand. Additional research will be conducted into potential community peak load and generation requirement growth and will be included in the final CDR. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 8 of 13 7) Proposed IPEC Power Plant Upgrades As mentioned previously, if the proposed AEL&P Hoonah intertie extension is constructed then it is assumed that no upgrades will be performed at the IPEC plant other than the new fuel tank (see item 11). If the community remains reliant exclusively on diesel generation or if a combination of local hydroelectric and diesel generation is the long term solution then the following upgrades to the existing IPEC power plant are proposed. These upgrades are intended to modernize the power plant and to improve the overall fuel efficiency, reliability, fire prevention/protection, noise control and operations at the facility: Re-grade area around plant to improve area drainage Replace existing generator #1 with new generator Replace existing switchgear and relays with new automatic paralleling switchgear Replace all exterior sheet metal Replace existing ventilation louvers and ridge vent with sound-insulated air intake and exhaust fan ducting Replace existing engine coolant piping with common cooling manifold including a heat exchanger to allow for utilization of recovered generation heat Replace existing radiators with new radiators and variable speed motor controls Replace existing non-operative fire suppression system with new fire suppression system Renovate and enlarge control room to contain new switchgear Install a used oil blender (the feasibility of this will need to be investigated more thoroughly in the Concept Design Report) 8) Replacement Generator Selection If a major renovation of the power plant is deemed necessary it is proposed that the existing antiquated Caterpillar Model 398 generator be replaced with a new, more fuel efficient unit. Assuming that the two existing 3512's are capable of handling the expected near term peak loads, the new generator should be prime rated to efficiently handle night time loads and to provide efficient peak-adding with hydroelectric power if constructed. A thorough investigation of all Caterpillar model gensets prime rated between 500kW and 600kW and available in current EPA tier ratings will be conducted prior to the Concept Design Report. 9) Proposed IPEC Distribution Upgrades A 12.47/7.2kV overhead distribution system provides electric power to the community of Hoonah. The distribution system is in generally good condition but there is one issue that will need to be addressed in the near future. Phase I of the new Hoonah Marine Industrial Center is currently under construction along Gartina Highway, between the City dock and the ferry terminal. The existing overhead transmission line currently runs across an area that will be used for marine vessel and connex storage in the future. The City would like all distribution in this area to be buried to avoid any potential safety concerns with operating the new facility around the existing overhead power lines. 10) Existing IPEC Tank Farm: Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 9 of 13 The existing power plant tank farm was built in 1977. It consists of three old BIA style vertical tanks and two ex-military domed-end horizontal tanks in a lined earthen dike as well as a gravity-fed exterior day tank located adjacent to the power plant. The two horizontal tanks have since been taken out of service. The current tank farm configuration has a gross shell capacity of approximately 26,000 gallons, including a 3,000 gallon double wall day tank. All fuel is delivered to this facility by tank truck. Deficiencies at the facility include: aging, rusted tanks non-liquid tight dike membrane liner non-code compliant piping, valves and appurtenances lack of piping pressure relief lack of cathodic protection on buried pipe lack of tank emergency venting lack of overfill prevention on 3,000 gallon day tank 3,000 gallon day tank too close to the power plant building lack of surface flow containment at truck transfer area 11) New IPEC Power Plant Fuel Tank: Because there is a reliable bulk fuel facility operator and fuel delivery service in Hoonah, IPEC no longer deems it necessary to store such large quantities of fuel at the power plant. At IPEC's request, AEA has approved funding for installation of a single new double wall tank at the power plant to replace the entire existing fuel storage facility. The proposed new tank location was inspected and some preliminary measurements were made during this site visit. The tank installation project will include the following items: excavation of hillside at west end of building to enlarge pad for placing new tank install new 10' diameter x 20' long 12,000 gallon gross shell capacity horizontal skid- mounted double wall tank with overfill protection install new security fencing re-grade yard area to provide surface flow containment around truck transfer area install new HDPE coated welded steel fuel oil supply and return piping in below grade concrete utilidor between the new tank and power plant to allow for vehicle access to step-up transformers behind power plant - provide removable cover for visual inspection of pipelines See attached Sheets M1 and M2 for conceptual plans. The IPEC tank project design will be expedited for summer '07 construction. The tank fabrication drawings will be completed in time for January '07 procurement and an early spring '07 tank delivery schedule. An as-built survey of the IPEC facility with surface contours is required for final site plan development. J. W. Bean Surveying will be in Hoonah around the first of the year to do work for the City and can perform the required survey work at that time. Final design will then be completed by February '07, with permitting and procurement to be completed in time for summer '07 construction. 12) Existing Hoonah Trading Bulk Fuel Storage Facility: Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 10 of 13 The Hoonah Trading bulk fuel storage facility provides storage for virtually all the diesel fuel and gasoline received by the community. The facility consists of six in-service vertical steel bulk storage/dispensing tanks, a three product marine header, a three product marine fueling station, a three product vehicle gas station, a diesel truck loading rack, and three 4" diameter barge fill/distribution pipelines. The tank farm is located on the hillside above the Hoonah Trading store. Tank farm access is by a covered wooden stairway from 1st Street. The fuel is used for local power generation, vehicle dispensing, marine dispensing and heating fuel delivery. All dispensing and bulk transfers are by gravity. The total gross shell capacity of the six bulk storage/dispensing tanks is approximately 154,000 gallons of #2 diesel, 19,000 gallons of #1 diesel and 38,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline. The facility appears to be old but is well maintained. The tank farm is built on a two-tiered site with four tanks on the lower level and two tanks on the upper level. It is completely surrounded by chain link fence. Concrete walls on the sides and across the front of both tiers provide some surface flow containment but there is no dike membrane liner and the containment is not liquid tight. The tanks are equipped with normal vents and manways. There are 4" flanged bottom connections with flanged steel ball valves and 1" threaded steel PRV jumpers for pipeline pressure relief. The manifold piping appears to be in good condition and is well supported but there are no flexes between tank connections. The tanks are all supported on concrete bases. There are three each 4" diameter welded steel barge fill/distribution pipelines that run from the marine header to the tank farm, supported under the dock, then buried under the road and finally above grade up the hill to the tank farm. A three product marine header is located on the end of the fuel dock. Each barge connection has a 4" quick disconnect hose coupling, a 4" flanged steel check valve, and a 4" flanged steel plug valve. There is a steel drip pan that serves all three marine header fill connections which does not appear to have adequate capacity to meet the 84 gallon containment requirement. The marine dispensers are also located under a rain shelter on the face of the fuel dock and are gravity fed with 2" welded steel branch pipelines off of the main 3" barge fill/distribution pipelines. There is a truck rack located near the Hoonah Trading store that allows for bulk loading #1 or #2 diesel into a tank truck for fuel deliveries throughout the community. There is also a two product gasoline and #2 diesel vehicle dispenser located on the dock near the store. The following is a summary of existing facility deficiencies observed: Improper Secondary Containment (Diking)–Tanks are not within a proper liquid tight secondary containment system of adequate capacity as required by the Fire Code and EPA regulations. No Emergency Vents - None of the tanks have emergency vents, in violation of the Fire Code. Improper Piping and Valves - Existing piping systems consist of steel piping with a combination of welded and threaded joints. The threaded joints are particularly prone to leaking. Gravity Dispensing - Code requires that all fuel dispensing be by pump. Above-Ground Dispensing Tank Capacity - State Fire Marshall requirements stipulate that the maximum size of an above ground dispensing tank is 12,000 gallons. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 11 of 13 Dispensing From Above-Ground Tanks Without Protective Systems - State Fire Marshall requirements stipulate protective devices and piping systems to prevent a gravity discharge of fuel in the event of a failure of the dispenser or piping. No protective devices are installed. Cathodic Protection of Buried Pipelines - Code requires all buried piping to have cathodic protected. Improper Site Location - The existing bulk/dispensing tanks do not appear to meet Fire Code minimum separation distance requirements from adjacent public ways and property lines for unprotected tanks. This facility does not meet current code or regulation requirements and would not to be cost effective to renovate. Therefore it should be taken out of service and replaced with a new tank farm located at the new Hoonah Marine Industrial Center. 13) Required Community Fuel Storage Capacity: Hoonah is located on a year round ice free port with a deep water dock capable of receiving ocean-going barges. Fuel deliveries by barge are available from at least two different vendors and are scheduled to be in the area at least twice per month. According to fuel delivery records, the community has recently averaged approximately sixteen barge deliveries per year, spaced from two weeks to one month apart. Based on this delivery schedule and to ensure no future disruptions in fuel supply, the facility should be sized to hold an approximate one peak month supply of each product with an adequate reserve margin. The following table compares the current annual and one peak month use for each product to the proposed net useable tank capacity for the new facility: CONSUMPTION VERSUS CAPACITY Product Average Annual Use in Gallons (1) Estimt'd Peak 1 Month Use in Gallons Proposed Net Capacity in Gallons (2) % of Est. Peak 1 Month Use % of Est. Annual Use Proposed Gross Capacity in Gallons Gasoline 250,000 30,000 36,000 120% 14% 40,000 #1 Diesel 210,000 30,000 36,000 120% 17% 40,000 #2 Diesel 1,000,000 125,000 153,000 122% 15% 170,000 Avgas (3) 0 n/a 9,000 n/a n/a 10,000 Total 1,460,000 234,000 260,000 (1) Calendar years 2004 and 2005. (2)Net capacity (90% of gross shell capacity) (2)No existing avgas storage but planning to begin avgas sales at airport 14) Proposed New Tank Farm, Bulk Transfer and Dispensing Facilities: The proposed new tank farm will include a total of six each welded steel vertical bulk storage tanks, including four at 40,000 gallons for #2 diesel storage, one at 30,000 gallons for #1 diesel storage and one at 30,000 gallons for gasoline storage. There will also be two horizontal skid-mounted welded steel dispensing tanks, with each tank divided into two Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 12 of 13 equal 10,000 gallon partitions. The partitions will provide for dispensing of the #2 diesel, #1 diesel and gasoline as well as storage and transfer of avgas. Secondary containment will be provided by a lined concrete dike. A drive-through truck loading facility will provide for top loading of #2 diesel, #1 diesel and avgas. It will be constructed adjacent to the tank farm and situated so that secondary containment is provided by the tank farm dike. A service station style dual product gasoline and #2 diesel dispenser in the center of a two vehicle slab will be installed near the tank farm. New 4” diameter pipelines will be installed for #2 diesel, #1 diesel and gasoline. A 2" diameter pipeline will be installed for avgas deliveries. The #2 diesel, #1 diesel and gasoline pipelines will be equipped with branch tees and isolation valves to allow them to serve as fill pipelines for barge deliveries as well as distribution pipelines for dispensing and bulk transfer operations. The pipelines will be suspended below the fuel dock and buried from the fuel dock to the new tank farm. A drip pan will be provided on the dock at the termination of the fill pipelines (marine header). A combination of centrifugal and submersible pumps will be used for bulk transfer and dispensing functions. A large vessel marine fuel transfer facility with hose stands and meters will be located near the marine header on the main fuel dock. A separate fuel float will be used for retail fuel sales to smaller vessels and will include marine dispensing of #2 diesel, #1 diesel and gasoline. See attached Sheets M3 and M4 for conceptual plans. A more detailed tank farm conceptual design will be included in the Hoonah Energy Infrastructures Project CDR to be completed by spring '07. If comments are received and a consensus is reached on a facility plan in a timely manner then final design can be completed in time for a spring '08 tank farm construction schedule. 15) Alternative Energy: The proposed AEL&P intertie as well as potential local hydroelectric and generation heat recovery projects have already been addressed in this report. The Alaska Energy Authority/Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority published a draft Rural Alaska Energy Plan dated December 31, 2002 as a follow-up report to the previously released Screening Report of Alaska Rural Energy Plan dated April 2001. The Screening Report evaluated a dozen alternative energy technologies other than generation heat recovery. Only wind energy was identified as alternative energy technology warranting further evaluation in the draft Rural Alaska Energy Plan. According to the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States the community of Hoonah is located within a class 3 wind regime and is not a viable candidate for a wind energy program using currently available technologies. Hoonah Energy Infrastructure Projects 10/20/06 Trip Report & Preliminary Information Page 13 of 13 Please review the issues presented and call David Lockard at 269-4541 to discuss or fax your comments to 269-3044. In order to keep the CDR on schedule we need to receive all community comments no later than January 31, 2007. I look forward to working with you on this project. HOONAH BULK FUEL PROJECT LOCALLY AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT LIST OWNER MAKE MODEL YEAR CAPACITY (YDS, TONS) ATTACHMENTS - (BACK-HOE, FORKS, AUGER, ETC..) CONDITION, COMMENTS DUMP TRUCKS DOZERS LOADERS TRACK HOES (EXCAVATORS) SKID-STEERS CRANES HOONAH BULK FUEL UPGRADE PROJECT LOCAL LABOR POOL Name LaborerTruck DriverHeavy Equip OperatorHeavy Equip MechanicWelders HelperCertified Welder (1)Apprentice ElectricianJourneyman Electrician (2)1) With Current API Welding Certificate 2) With Current Certificate of Fitness 5/18/2007