Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study - Apr 2015 - REF Grant 7060908TAZIMINA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT UPGRADE FEASIBILITY STUDY APRIL 2015 April 2015 1 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Executive Summary The Tazimina River hydroelectric project serves the communities of Iliamna, Newhalen and Nondalton in Southwest Alaska. The project is owned and operated by the Iliamna-Newhalen- Nondalton Electric Cooperative (INNEC) has been operational since 1998. At the time of project’s initial development it was known that the Tazimina River held substantially more hydroelectric potential than was needed to meet INNEC’s current and reasonably foreseeable loads. As such, the project was designed to provide for future capacity expansion. In July 2013 INNEC received an Alaska Renewable Energy Program grant from the Alaska Energy Authority to conduct a feasibility study to determine if the capacity of the existing Tazimina Hydroelectric Project should be increased by replacing either one or both of the existing turbine-generator units with larger generating units. Increased generation capacity would allow INNEC to capture additional energy that is available at the project site. This study concludes that increasing the installed capacity of the project is technically feasible and could be completed without any significant structural changes to the project since the project was originally designed with this expansion in mind. Expansion could be performed within a 15- 18 month time period for an estimated project cost of $2.8M for a single unit upgrade and $4.5M for a double unit upgrade. However, this study also concludes that before any capacity expansion is undertaken, changes to the intake and diversion structures should be made to ensure that a sufficient supply of water can be delivered to the powerhouse. Additionally, energy efficiency improvements should be made to the project to decrease the amount of station service load. Both of these efforts would provide immediate benefits to INNEC in the terms of increased energy being available for the communities. Introduction Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Electric Cooperative (INNEC) is the member-owner electric utility that serves the interconnected communities of Iliamna, Newhalen and Nondalton in Southwest Alaska. In the early 1980s, INNEC began exploring the development of a hydroelectric project on the Tazimina River. A project was identified and construction of the Tazimina Hydroelectric project began in 1996. The project became fully operational in 1998. At the time of project’s initial development it was known that the Tazimina River held substantially more hydroelectric potential than was needed to meet INNEC’s current and reasonably foreseeable loads. As such, the project was designed to provide for future capacity expansion. Over the years INNEC’s load has increased such that the project often runs at full capacity. April 2015 2 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Renewable Energy Grant In July 2013 INNEC received an Alaska Renewable Energy Program grant from the Alaska Energy Authority to conduct a feasibility study to determine if the capacity of the existing Tazimina Hydroelectric Project should be increased by replacing either one or both of the existing turbine-generator units with larger generating units. Increased generation capacity would allow INNEC to capture additional energy that is available at the project site. Existing Project Description The Tazimina hydroelectric project is located at the falls on the Tazimina River at approximately river mile 7. The project consists of an access road, stream channel control sill, intake structure, penstock, underground powerhouse, controls building and transmission line. Each of these features is portrayed in further detail below in the project site plan (Figure 1). The project has a design flow of 110 cfs and an installed capacity of 824 kW. Figure 1 - Project Site Plan Intake Structure The concrete intake structure is located on the left bank (looking downstream) of the river approximately 300 feet upstream of the falls. The intake transitions the water from the river into the penstock. The intake incorporates trashracks and stoplog slots for dewatering. The intake April 2015 3 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study structure currently diverts up to 110 cfs but was designed for the ultimate project capacity of 220 cfs. In 2010 the trashracks were retrofitted with a heated glycol system to reduce ice buildup. These new thrashracks are more durable than the original but have significantly less open area. Additionally, the trashrack opening furthest has been blocked in an effort to reduce the amount of gravels entering the intake from the bank erosion immediately upstream. These two modifications have reduced the effective area of the intake by 50%. The effect of the reduced open area is doubled velocity through the racks. This has three negative impacts. The first is that the ratio of the sweeping velocity to the approach velocity is decreased thereby increasing the potential for ice buildup in front of the intake. Second, due to more ice buildup and higher approach velocities, more ice is drawn into the system. And lastly, the higher velocities increase the headloss across the thrashracks thereby reducing the submergence of the penstock entrance. These conclusions are supported by operator’s reports of increased ice ingestion into the turbines and intake vortexing when high demands are placed on the system during the winter. Penstock Flow from the intake is conveyed to the powerhouse via a 60” welded steel penstock. The first 185 ft. is buried before it enters the powerhouse. The penstock diameter has been sized to convey 220 cfs. The size of the bifurcation and selection of the turbine shut-off valves was based on the ultimate size of the project and would not have to be modified in the event a larger turbine- generator set is installed. Powerhouse/Control Building The powerhouse is located in an underground rock cavern approximately 120 below the top of the falls. The powerhouse currently contains two equally sized horizontal Francis-type turbine/generator sets having a combined capacity of 824 kW. Access to the powerhouse is via a 26-ft diameter vertical shaft. The shaft contains the penstock and access elevator and ladder system. After leaving the turbines, water is conveyed back to the base of the falls by way of an 8-ft diameter tailrace tunnel. April 2015 4 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Figure 2 - Powerhouse Plan A control building sits atop of the shaft and houses the switchgear for the project. The switchgear was replaced in 2010 by the Alaska Energy Authority as part of a modernization program. Housed within the control building directly above the shaft is a monorail designed for a 10-ton hoist. The 10-ton hoist would be capable of removing the existing equipment and lowering the new equipment into the underground powerhouse. Switchyard and Transmission Line The switchyard is located directly outside the control building and contains one primary 12.47/7.2kV-480V, 1000 kVA transformer and disconnect switch. A backup transformer was also included as part of the original construction. The project is connected to the existing electrical system via 6.7 mile long 12.47/7.2 kV buried transmission line. Stream Channel Control Sill Environmental considerations led to the project being constructed without the benefit of a traditional diversion structure. In place of a diversion structure, concrete sill blocks have been placed on the river floor to help direct low flows to the intake structure. The stream channel control sill is a key component of the project and ultimately controls the amount of energy that can be produced during the critical winter months when lower flows challenge the ability to divert sufficient water to the intake. Design of the control sill was the result of extensive physical model studies performed to evaluate the efficiency of the intake at a variety of river flow conditions and orientations of the sill. In addition to diversion efficiency the tests also evaluated sedimentation and ice flow. April 2015 5 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study The physical modeling determined that the optimal sill configuration would be a sill 3’-high across 80% of the width of river. The performance of this configuration based upon the model tests are as shown in Figure 3 below. Figure 3 - Control Sill Efficiency The sill was constructed using a series of concrete blocks stationed in the river in an approximation of the model studies. Since the low flows occur almost exclusively in the winter months when the river is covered with ice, it is unknown how the actual efficiency of the control sill compares with the model tests. Furthermore, ice flows during spring breakup have dislodged several of the sill blocks and moved them downstream from their original positioning as shown in Figure 4. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600Diversion Flow, cfs River Flow, cfs Control Sill Efficiency Diversion Flow, cfs Full Diversion No Sill April 2015 6 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Figure 4 - Control Sill Access Road Access to the project is by way of a 6.7 mile gravel road that intersects the road connecting Newhalen and Nondalton. The road can support heavy loads and would not have to be modified to allow for project transport of equipment and related material for a potential capacity expansion. April 2015 7 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Proposed Project Expansion Since the project was originally designed for an increased capacity, increasing the capacity is a relatively straightforward technical process of replacing the turbine/generator units and conductors from the generators to modified switchgear and controls. Transmission modification would include connection of the spare transformer and replacement of the switches at both ends of the transmission line. This analysis ends at the point of interconnection to INNEC’s distribution system. The distribution system may also require some changes due to the higher generation capacity and would need to be evaluated further should the expansion occur. Civil work would be limited and would largely consist of removing the existing draft tubes from the tailrace chamber and encasing the new draft tubes. Electrical upgrades to improve system stability and reliability would also include replacement of the elevator motor and standby generator. Cost Estimate An opinion of probable construction costs was derived for the proposed project expansion presented above. The following assumptions were used in the cost estimate: Construction cost estimates were made for replacing either one or both of the existing generating units. Budgetary quotes for new turbines and generators were obtained from vendors. Shipping was FOB Anchorage. A budgetary quote for the shipment of the equipment from Anchorage to the project site and for the removal and installation of the new equipment was obtained from Rotating Services, Inc. Rotating Services has worked on the project before and is knowledgeable about the logistical challenges associated with working on the project. Unit price estimates were made for various electrical upgrades. Indirect construction costs associated with engineering, construction management, and startup and testing were added to the direct construction cost estimate as lump sum amounts. A contingency of 25% was added to the total of the direct construction costs to reflect uncertainties of layout and design that wouldn’t be resolved until later in the development process. It is estimated that replacing one of the units would cost $2.8M as summarized below. Turbines and Generators $1,540,000 Switchgear $215,000 Station Equipment $340,000 Contingency $525,000 Engineering/Construction Management $150,000 Total $2,770,000 April 2015 8 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study It is estimated that replacing both units would add an additional $1.75M to the estimate above for a total of $4.5M in 2014 dollars Schedule The overall development schedule is estimated as follows: Final design and bidding 3 months Procurement of turbine and generator 8-10 months Construction 3-4 months Startup and testing 1 month 15-18 months Licensing and Environmental Considerations The Tazimina Project is licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as project no. 11316. Any modifications to the existing project may have FERC licensing or environmental implications. The environmental setting and anticipated impacts for the project were initially evaluated and summarized in Exhibit E of the original license application. Subsequently the FERC issued an Environmental Assessment for an Exemption of a Hydropower License (EA) in July of 1995 which considered the assessments and stated recommended actions. The EA was followed by an Order Granting Exemption from Licensing (5 MW Or Less) on September 14, 1995 which included compliance requirements for project development. The order noted: “No protests or motions to intervene were filed pursuant to the public notice. The comments of interested agencies and individuals regarding soil erosion and sedimentation control, gas supersaturation, fish entrainment, and public access control have been fully considered in preparing an environmental assessment (EA), which was issued on July 28, 1995, and in determining whether to issue this exemption from licensing. The Order also noted that: “Article 2 of this exemption requires compliance with the terms and conditions prepared by federal or state fish and wildlife agencies to protect fish and wildlife resources. No mandatory terms and conditions were filed.” The significance of these two observations is that the original Tazimina development was not a contested proceeding nor controversial in environmental impact. The Project was constructed as proposed and certain design features were refined from the original proposal in final design and were accepted by the FERC in An Order Amending Exemption and Approving Revised Exhibit A April 2015 9 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study and As-Built Exhibits (Issued April 1, 1999). The revised installed capacity of 824 KW was accepted by the FERC with potential for future expansion to a capacity of 1648 KW. Nonetheless, any future capacity changes would be grounds to revisit the environmental issues addressed during initial development. These issues are summarized below along with analysis of the impact of a capacity expansion: 1) Water Use and Water Quality. Water use in the project area is primarily related to fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation. Existing uses will not change with expanded capacity upgrade or increased energy generation. Most of the year the proposed capacity upgrades will permit the project to extract a small amount of additional flow from the River. During the winter, the proportionately larger generation capacity would extend the existing lower flow conditions over the falls into shoulder months. As the additional water is only diverted around the falls, this modest alteration would not create a change in use conditions nor induce environmental effects requiring additional assessment or analyses. Water quality was also characterized in the original EA. Most water quality issues related to ground disturbance and other construction related activities such as spill containment. Provisions were made to address erosion (Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) and spill containment. Spills containment was addressed through appropriate best management practices. Since no external construction is required water quality should not be an issue. While the falls created supersaturation, vortexing water at intakes can inject gas under pressure and cause supersaturation. The FERC instructed the project to design intake features to minimize vortices. The intake was designed to prevent vortexing at the ultimate design flow. Thus, questions relating to gas saturation were addressed at initial construction. Other water quality parameters (e.g., dissolved nutrients, heavy metals, etc.) were determined to be unaffected by construction or operations. Increased diversion would not change the determination. Therefore, with the potential capacity expansion upgrade, no changes, alterations or impacts to water use or quality are anticipated that require further NEPA compliance, consultation or mitigation. 2) Fish, Wildlife and Botanical Resources were described in Exhibit E of the original license application. The description covered life histories and usage patterns of species found in the watershed and utilizing the Project area. Issues raised by consulting parties were addressed at the time of construction and there were no on-going operational effects identified. April 2015 10 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Fish Resources were considered in subsection 3.1 Aquatic Resources. Studies concluded that habitat in the vicinity of the project intake was sparse and challenging. Much better habitat was found upstream and more conducive to fish utilization. Consequently, analysis concluded that negligible impact to fish would result from project operations and provisions were made to address sedimentation and other water quality issues that could potentially impact fish habitat during construction. Based on the general absence of fish and low habitat quality, the role of entrainment in design elements for the proposed project was diminished. However, resource agencies recommended intake screening to prevent entrainment. INNEC had countered that a less aggressive protection facility was warranted because the low numbers of fish available would encounter sufficient deterrence from bar trash rack combined with low entrainment velocities (1.1 feet per second) and the location of the intake gate invert above the river bottom (where fish were most likely to occur). FERC agreed with the project proposal and permitted an intake structure with 3-inch bar spacing for the trash rack, oriented roughly parallel to the Tazimina River to permit sweeping flow to act as a deterrent to entrainment. With the expansion upgrade inflow from the capacity increase will roughly double the entrainment velocity at the face of the trash rack under certain operational circumstances from the existing 1.1 fps condition to 2.2 fps. However, even though the intake velocity at the point of withdrawal will double, the potential for entrainment will continue to be very low due to the lack of available entrainment targets (fish in the vicinity) and the small relative proportion of flow diverted to generation during the seasons when more fish activity in that river segment might be expected. Moreover, hydraulically, the expression of the higher intake velocities from the capacity upgrade beyond the immediate intake is quickly attenuated by the rapid areal expansion from which the flow is drawn. These hydraulic conditions are combined with the diminished fish attraction and reduced exposure to the intake face caused by the high velocity flows sweeping by the intake to pass over the falls. Consequently, the change in flow regime resulting from the capacity expansion should have negligible impact on the resident fish resource. Nevertheless, the entrainment velocities will roughly double at the face of the trash rack and the topic may be revisited by agencies and the FERC during consultation. Wildlife Resources were described in subsection 3.2 of Exhibit E. Analysis of impacts (Section 3.4.2) concluded that a small area of permanent disruption and habitat loss with commensurate displacement from project structures and roads would occur. The analysis concluded that with a gated road access, concern for disruptive activities in the project area from non-project related vehicular traffic and access would be addressed. No other wildlife impacts were anticipated from operation of the plant. During construction, noise and other disruptive activities were considered temporary negligible impacts to wildlife April 2015 11 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study habitat utilization. FERC required a traffic plan (submitted and approved) to address vehicular interactions with wildlife. None of these environmental issues, with the exception of some increased vehicular activity during the expansion upgrade construction, will recur. Therefore with the capacity expansion upgrade, no changes, alterations or impacts to wildlife resources are anticipated that require further NEPA compliance, consultation or mitigation. Botanical and Wetland Resources were addressed in subsection 3.3 of Exhibit E. Supporting documentation for the conclusions reached were found in Appendix E: Tazimina River Area Vegetation Mapping and Appendix F: Wetlands Report. The focus of studies was two-fold, 1. general characterization of available resources and associated impacts and; 2. a survey of all areas for sensitive species. Analysis of botanical resources indicated the absence of sensitive species and negligible impacts to species that were present though some vegetation would be permanently lost due to access road and project buildings construction. No ongoing operational impacts were identified nor specifically anticipated to result from flow relationships with vegetation. Therefore, with the expansion upgrade, no changes, alterations or impacts to botanical or wetland resources are anticipated that require further NEPA compliance or mitigation. Threatened or Endangered Species.Threatened and endangered (T&E) species listings have changed since the project was first approved for construction. More than half of the species currently listed were listed after 1997. However, currently no federally listed threatened or endangered fish, bird, wildlife, or plant species are known to exist in the project area. The FERC noted that the Steller's eider may occur in the project area as migrants. However, the access road was routed and designed to avoid impacts to Alexcy Lake which may be used by migrating Steller's eider. No similar interactions are anticipated with the capacity upgrade as no new roads or other features external to the powerhouse are required and instream flow over the falls in the winter is not a habitat characteristic of the species. Therefore, with the capacity expansion upgrade, no changes, alterations or impacts to Threatened and Endangered species or their habitats are anticipated that require further NEPA assessment or mitigation. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be necessary to confirm the status of T&E species in the area. 3) Geology and Soils were characterized in Section 4.0 of the Exhibit E. The geology of the area influenced the Tazimina Project in several ways including design stability in a seismically active area, vulnerability from unstable rock features and erodible materials that could be mobilized during construction and degrade water quality. The project proposal addressed these issues in design and though BMPs for construction. April 2015 12 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study These considerations were captured in the original design and construction and would not influence a capacity upgrade. No ground disturbing activities will be necessary. Therefore, with the capacity expansion upgrade, no changes, alterations or impacts to the consideration of geology or soils are anticipated that require further NEPA compliance, consultation or mitigation. 4) Cultural Resources were addressed in section 5.0 - Historical and Archeological resources of Exhibit E. Survey of the area Appendix H (Archeological Survey) pointed out that no areas of cultural significance would be impacted by the project construction or operation. FERC concurred with the assessment and provided for an inadvertent discovery plan in the event that culturally significant artifacts were uncovered during ground disturbing activities. Neither continued or expanded operation nor capacity expansion construction requirements include ground disturbing activities. Therefore, with the capacity expansion upgrade, no changes, alterations or impacts to cultural resources are anticipated that require further NEPA assessment or mitigation. 5) Socioeconomic resources were addressed at section 6.0 of Exhibit E. The narrative described the project features and potential economic impacts. In general, the project impacts on the socioeconomics of the area were expected to be generally positive including an increase in local jobs on a temporary basis, development of a renewable energy source and, availability of a stable, less expensive, and clean energy supply. The project was supported by area communities mainly because it is located above the salmon spawning areas and because the benefits of a centralized, cost-stable electrical system were seen to far outweigh both socioeconomic concerns as well as any conflict with current land use in the immediate area. Construction impacts on vicinity resources associated with transient labor were constrained by tight regulation. The FERC found no adverse socioeconomic impacts. The capacity upgrade will reflect some of the same kinds of economic and expanded energy benefits with even fewer potential disturbances than the initial construction. Therefore, with the capacity expansion upgrade, no changes, alterations or impacts to socioeconomic resources are anticipated that require further NEPA compliance, consultation or mitigation. 6) Recreational Resources were addressed in section 7.0 of Exhibit E. Fishing and boating on the Tazimina River is restricted to below the falls and outside of the project area. The Tazimina River is used for some recreational sightseeing. The remoteness of the project vicinity combined with land ownership that restricts general access diminished recreational usage in the project area. The FERC found that presence of new structures and the access road in an undeveloped area were considered to detract from the wilderness and undisturbed nature of the Tazimina River and Tazimina Falls. However, these impacts were in a remote area and not frequented by the public. The FERC looked to the Access Management Plan to address the issue i.e., limiting ease of public access. April 2015 13 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study The identified recreational resource impacts will not be altered or increased by the expansion of capacity upgrades for the Project, with the exception that less flow will be available pass over the falls during winter low flow periods. This is offset by the fact that few people, if any, would be present to note the small change. Therefore, with the capacity expansion upgrade, no alterations or impacts to recreational usage are anticipated that require further NEPA compliance, consultation or mitigation. 7) Scenic and aesthetic resources were addressed in section 8.0 of Exhibit E. The fundamental aesthetic issue identified by the project was the perceived change from an undisturbed area to one where some development had occurred and would be most noticeable during construction due to excavation for road, intake, penstock, and powerhouse construction. It was also identified that flow change might be evident in the winter low flow period. It was determined that the impacts would be short term and the visual effects would be negligible due to the remoteness of the area. However the FERC ordered a plan to avoid or minimize disturbances to the quality of the visual resources of the project area which was submitted March 18, 1996 and approved by the FERC March 29, 1996. Aesthetic impacts will not be altered or increased by the expansion of capacity for the Project, with the exception that less flow will pass over the falls during the winter when few people, if any, are present to appreciate the difference. Therefore, with the capacity expansion upgrade, no changes, alterations or impacts to scenic and aesthetic resources are anticipated that require further NEPA compliance, consultation or mitigation. 8) Land use was described in Exhibit E at section 9.0. Subsistence activities are the primary land use in the project area and represent one of the main economic activities. No major land use impacts from the proposed project were identified. Land use considerations related to expansion of the project capacity will not require change from existing conditions. Roadway dimensions and alignment, transport frequency, etc. would not be altered by the expanded plant capacity. Therefore, with the capacity expansion upgrade, no changes, alterations or impacts to land use are anticipated that require further NEPA assessment or mitigation In summary, after review of environmental issues associated with the potential expansion of the Tazimina Hydroelectric project from an installed capacity of 824 KW to 1648 KW, the impacts associated with the change are negligible and should not provide cause for concern by resource agencies or other potential stakeholders. While FERC and other agency consultation is required for concurrence with the capacity increase proposal, an assessment of no additional impact should be expected. However, with the increase in installed capacity in the plant from 824 KW to 1648 KW, the 1500 KW limit that April 2015 14 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study exempts project owners from annual charge based on production would be exceeded and an annual charge may be imposed by the FERC. Energy Production Existing Load INNEC’s current annual generation is in excess of 4 million kWhs as shown in Table 3. Of this, approximately 700,000 kWh is generated and sold as interruptible energy to meet heating loads for the Newhalen and Nondalton Schools and two small demonstration sites. Station service loads and line losses account for approximately 20-25% of the generation. With the addition of interruptible energy sales all of the hydropower potential of the Tazimina project is being utilized during the winter months. Table 1 - INNEC Annual Generation Year kWh 2011 4,092,541 2012 4,325,629 2013 4,130,103 2014 3,862,085 Generation varies from a low of approximately 250,000 kWh during June to a high of approximately 440,000 in January as shown on Figure 9. Virtually all generation comes from hydropower from the Tazimina Hydroelectric Project. Any firm energy requirements not met by hydropower generation are provided by diesel generation at the INNEC plant in Newhalen. April 2015 15 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Figure 5 - Tazimina Annual Generation Potential Load If additional hydropower energy became available during the winter there are many potential customers in the service area that would benefit from excess power sales in the form of dispatchable/interruptible heating. A few potential customers are lliamna Air Taxi,State of Alaska, City of Newhalen,City of Nondalton,lliamna Trading and other local businesses. The amount of heating by fuel oil within INNEC’s service territory vastly exceeds whatever might be available from the project. With interruptible energy pricing indexed to fuel oil prices, there is no question that there would be a market for any surplus generation. Energy Potential Hydrology The USGS operated stream gage 15299900 on the Tazimina River near Nondalton during the period February 23, 1981 to September 30, 1986. The average monthly flows recorded at this gage are shown in Figure 5 below. 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DeckWhTazimina Annual Generation 2013 2012 2011 2014 April 2015 16 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Figure 6 - Tazimina River Average Monthly Flow Ideally, a historical record of stream flow of 30 years or more is desirable to analyze a river of interest. However, long-term stream flow records are not usually available for small or remote rivers and synthesized data is often created for modeling the expected hydrology. In Alaska, seasonal streamflow trends are affected by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Mantua and others, 1997; Neal and others, 2002; and Hodgkins, 2009). During positive, or warm phases of the PDO, streamflow tends to be higher in winter-spring and lower in June, and during negative, or cool, phases of the PDO, streamflow tends to be lower in winter-spring and higher in June. Shifts in the PDO occurred in 1925 (negative to positive), 1947 (positive to negative), 1977 (negative to positive), and likely in 2006 or 2007 (positive to negative) (JISAO, 2014). Therefore, the streamflow data collected during 1981-1986, a positive phase of the PDO, may not be directly applicable to forecasts of streamflow during a negative phase of the PDO. In general, streamflow in Southwest Alaska is dominated by the many lakes in the region. Lake storage tends to dampen the effects of individual storms and sustain higher winter flows than basins that have fewer lakes, and increases and decreases in streamflow are gradual. As a result, Southwest Alaska streams often correlate well with one another and are prime candidates for streamflow extension. Some of the stream gages near Tazimina River have longer records and can be used to extend the streamflow records at the Tazimina River by statistical methods. Streamflow analysis techniques are used to extend records from a short-record station by use of regression with stations with longer records when the concurrent records from the stations are well correlated (Curran, 2012). 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecFlow, cfs Tazimina River Average Monthly Flows USGS gage 15299900 April 2015 17 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Three regional stream gages with concurrent streamflow record were investigated for suitability in extending the Tazimina River record: USGS 15300000 Newhalen River near Iliamna, USGS 15300500 Kvichak River at Igiugig, and USGS 15302500 Nushagak River at Ekwok (Figure 6, Table 1). Figure 7 - Location of stream gages near Tazimina Table 2 - Stream gages near Tazimina USGS station number USGS station name location (lat/long NAD27) drainage area (mi2) Datum of gage (approximate) (feet) Period of Record 15299900 Tazimina River near Nondalton, AK 59°55'05"/ 154°39'34" 327 610 02/23/1981 09/30/1986 15300000 Newhalen River near Iliamna, AK 59°51'34"/ 154°52'24" 3478 210 07/01/1951 09/30/1967 10/06/1981 09/30/1986 15299900 Tazimina River near Nondalton15300000 Newhalen River near Iliamna 15300500 Kvichak River at Igiugig 15302500 Nushagak River at Ekwok April 2015 18 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study y = 1.2347x 1.9921 R² = 0.8599 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 3 3.5 4 4.5 5log Newhalen (cfs) logTazimina (cfs) Ideally, a streamgage used as a correlative to extend a given streamgage record would be similar in size, close in proximity, and have a long, continuous record that overlaps the streamgage of concern. An ideal streamgage for record extension does not exist for Tazimina River. All stream gages in Southwestern Alaska that have overlapping streamflow record are significantly larger than Tazimina River, two are downstream of Tazimina River and one is in an adjacent watershed, and they range from 10 to over 100 miles away. However, the Nushagak and Newhalen stream gages have relatively strong correlations with the streamflow at Tazimina River (Figures 7). Figure 8 - USGS Gage Correlations The Kvichak River streamgage is just downstream from the outlet to Iliamna Lake, the largest lake in Alaska covering more than 1,000 mi2. The character of the hydrograph indicates that the 15300500 Kvichak River at Igiugig, AK 59°19'44"/ 155°53'57" 6500 45 08/01/1967 09/30/1987 15302500 Nushagak River at Ekwok, AK 59°20'57"/ 157°28'23" 9850 90 10/01/1977 09/30/1993 y = 1.4069x 3.1954 R² = 0.7935 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 3.5 4 4.5 5log Nushagak (cfs) log Tazimina (cfs) April 2015 19 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Kvichak is more heavily affected by lake storage than the other three rivers in the study with relatively low summer flows and high winter flows. The Kvichak River does not correlate well with the Tazimina River and was not used in any further analysis. Correlation coefficients and least-squares regressions between the logarithms of mean daily discharge of the Tazimina River and the Newhalen River, Kvichak River, and Nushagak River for all flows during water years 1981-1986 and for only flows below 500 ft3/sec on the Tazimina River. Logarithms of the mean daily discharge were used for all statistical computations to normalize the streamflow data. Streamflow data are generally log-normally distributed, and the use of non-transformed streamflow data tends to over emphasize the effects of high flows and under emphasize the effects of moderate and low flows. For this investigation, only flows below 500 ft3/sec on the Tazimina River were used to determine regression equations used to extend the Tazimina record. The hydraulics of the diversion site are such that all flows greater than about 500 ft3/sec completely fill the diversion structure and allow for generation at capacity. Flows less than 500 ft3/sec limit the amount of generation and are thus the primary concern of this investigation. This approach provides better estimates of winter low flows but results in poor estimates of high flow during the spring, summer, and fall, and during winter storm events and therefore should not be used for evaluating high flows. The mean daily discharge for the Tazimina River was computed by the equation from Newhalen River for the period 07/01/1951 to 09/30/1967, and from the Nushagak River for the period 10/01/1977 to 06/17/1981 and 10/01/1986 to 09/30/1993. Measured mean daily discharge from Tazimina River was used directly for the individual days on 02/23/1981 and 04/08/1981, and for the period of continuous record, 06/18/1981 to 09/30/1986. To determine flow duration characteristics from the Tazimina River extended data, mean daily discharge data were sorted, ranked, and the time that a given flow was equaled or exceeded computed by dividing the rank by the total number of observations plus 1, expressed in percent. To expedite the process, a spreadsheet from Oregon State University (2005) was used to rank, count, and compute percent exceeded. The results are presented in Table 2. Winter low flows are commonly estimated when ice is present, resulting in multiple days with the same flow, so low flows are often the same for many days during winter months. The resulting percent exceeded values therefore could not be computed directly for low flows (percent exceeded 98% and 99% for November through May) and were determined by extrapolation using the log plots. Because discharges were extended beyond the period of record (1981-1986) by means of regression equations developed from data when the discharge at Tazimina River was below 500 ft3/sec, values may not be accurate for higher flows. April 2015 20 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Table 3 - Tazimina River Flow Duration Data 1% 2% 5% 10% 20% 30% 50% 70% 80% 90% 95% 98% 99% October 2760 2110 1520 1090 917 777 599 464 416 364 329 283 268 November 854 798 707 610 523 446 351 288 249 226 210 202 *120 December 856 540 411 346 311 275 225 198 174 153 135 *105 *103 January 301 298 273 251 227 206 187 166 140 117 94 *60 *53 February 330 247 240 218 203 185 160 140 106 89 70 *52 *49 March 327 263 237 215 196 185 151 126 99 83 78 *50 *41 April 567 505 426 321 241 208 160 133 95 80 72 *65 *63 May 1200 936 770 665 577 532 366 281 202 145 112 93 *80 June 2780 2690 2380 1960 1380 1130 721 570 522 476 443 425 417 July 3040 2840 2300 1853 1630 1510 1270 700 474 411 375 345 321 August 3190 2810 2200 1850 1590 1470 1270 599 429 370 349 326 311 September 3680 2430 2090 1790 1510 1270 1040 631 461 379 352 336 331 * extrapolated Energy Estimate Using the synthesized flow duration data above, the energy potential of the project was estimated for the existing project as well as with higher installed capacities using the following assumptions: Headwater was assumed to be a constant elevation of 573.0 Tailwater was assumed to be a constant elevation of 479.0 It is acknowledged that a small variation (1-2 ft) in headwater and tailwater elevation does occur but is difficult to accurately mode due to variations in ice formations and diversion efficiencies. A sensitivity analysis indicates that the simplifying assumptions above have little impact on the overall results. Headloss was assumed to vary with flow according to the following relationship: Hloss = 2.65E-05*Q2 Available power flow was assumed to vary with river flow according to the following relationship representing a line of best fit (R2=0.9958) in Figure 3: Qpower = 3.271* Qriver0.6889 Equipment efficiencies were based upon vendor supplied data Line loss was assumed to vary between 1% and 2% based upon load April 2015 21 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study The energy potential for the project based upon three different installed capacities is shown in Figure 9. For comparison purposes, the actual generation for WY 2013 and WY 2014 (WY: Oct - Sept) is also shown in this figure. Figure 9 - Tazimina Potential Energy Generation Several observations and conclusions can be made by reviewing Figure 9. First, the un-used energy potential of the system is during the non-winter months. Second, higher installed capacities result in lower generation during the winter months due to the larger units not being able to operate efficiently at lower flows. Lastly, the difference between theoretical and actual generation for the current installed capacity of 824 kW is likely due to either the statistical average (average water year) being higher than the actual (lower than average water year) for the two years in question or diversion efficiency being less than assumed, or a combination of both. Sill Efficiency Sensitivity Analysis With the lack of diversion structure and ice cover it is unknown how efficient the sill structure is at low flows. While a comparison of actual generation to theoretical generation generally confirms the assumption (Figure 9), empirical and limited physical evidence indicates that the diversion effectiveness could be significantly lower than the model test predictions. On April 7, 2015 a flow measurement of a 146 cfs was taken immediately downstream of the intake (Appendix B). At the time it was estimated that between 72-83 was being diverted through the 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepMWhTazimina Potential Energy Generation vs. Installed Capacity 824 kW 1236 kW 1648 kW WY 2013 Actual WY 2014 Actual April 2015 22 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study intake. This is significantly less than the corresponding model prediction of 136 cfs being achievable. A single flow measurement does not have statistical significance but coupled with multiple visual observations suggests that additional energy generation could come from diversion efficiency improvements. These improvements could consist of sill block realignment, additional instream engineered solutions and more efficient trashracks. To estimate the upper bound of this potential, the energy was estimated assuming full diversion, i.e. river flows less than the design flow were all assumed to be run through the turbines for generation. This analysis indicates that there is a potential to generate up to 320,000 kWh during the winter. It should be noted that this analysis assumes the diversion efficiency is as predicted by the model tests (Figure 3). However, if the diversion efficiency in practice is 60% of what the model would predict as illustrated above, the potential for improvements could be as high as 1,760,000 kWh as shown in Figure 10 below. Figure 10 - Sill Efficiency Energy Analysis Results and Conclusions 1. Increasing the installed capacity of the project is technically feasible and could be completed without any significant structural changes to the project since the project was originally designed with this expansion in mind. 2. Expansion could be performed within a 15-18 month time period for an estimated project cost of $2.8M for a single unit upgrade and $4.5M for a double unit upgrade (Appendix A). 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepMWhMonthly Energy Comparison Model Prediction Full Diversion 60% Model Prediction April 2015 23 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study 3. Based upon long-term average hydrology, the existing project has surplus energy potential during the non-winter months. Larger units would only add to this surplus. During the critical winter months, generation would actually decrease with larger generating units due to their poor operating characteristics at low flows. However, it is possible that this could be improved upon during final design of the turbine runner. As such, without an increase in load during the non-winter months, increasing the project capacity will not increase INNEC’s energy sales. However, during times of above average run-off during the winter months, larger units would allow INNEC to increase energy sales. While the affect of global climate change on hydrology are not defined well enough to estimate energy potential, it can reasonably be concluded that climate change will increase winter run-off in Alaska. This in turn would help justify larger units in the future. 4. Inflow into the project is constrained at the intake. Modifications of the trashracks to prevent icing have decreased the effective water passage area by 50%. Before any increase in project capacity is considered, the intake should be retrofitted with newly designed trashracks. The design of new trashracks should take into account the timing of when the heated trashracks need to be in place. Additionally, the ground slope immediately upstream of the intake should be re-graded to 2H:1V to reduced the amount of soil erosion entering into the river and subsequently being entrained in the intake. This in turn would allow the removal of the upstream stoplog thereby increasing the amount of area open for water passage. 5. There is a potential to increase winter generation by increasing the diversion sill efficiency. Based upon physical model assumptions, a sensitivity analysis concluded that up to 320,000 kWh of additional energy could be available during the winter. However, visual observations and a physical flow test suggest that the diversion sill efficiency in practice may be considerably lower than what the model predicted. As such, the un- tapped energy potential could be as high as 1,760,000 kWh. This potential is primarily in the winter when it would be the most valuable to INNEC. It is unlikely that all of this generation could be captured without a complete diversion structure. However, improvements during the winter could capture a large portion of this potential. Before any increase in project capacity is considered, the diversion efficiency should be maximized. Diversion improvements such as the installation of a temporary seasonal structure downstream of the intake or making the diversion more uniform in elevation should be considered. 6. INNEC’s station service loads and line losses account for approximately 20-25% of the overall generation. The majority of generation is used as heat in the control building, the valve house, the trashracks and the standby diesel generation plant in Newhalen. Energy efficiency improvements in these three areas would allow for more generation to be April 2015 24 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study revenue producing. Of highest priority would be the re-insulating the control building which has been identified by INNEC to be prone to significant heat loss which must be replaced by electric heaters. 7. During to the harsh winter conditions, unplanned outages are to be expected. To reduce the length of these outages and to improve working conditions, it is recommended that a hot water supply be installed in the powerhouse cavern to facilitate melting ice lodged in the turbine. Additionally, it is recommended that the standby generator be re-located outside of the control building to reduce noise. April 2015 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Appendix A – Cost Estimation Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Amount Notes333WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS.1Turbine/generator/flywheel/HPU 824 kW 1,500$ 1,236,000$ Canyon Estimate.2Installation & transport 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ Rotating Services Estimate.4Installation supervision 1 LS 17,500$ 17,500$ Canyon Estimate.5Startup & testing28DAYS5,000$140,000$ 334ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT.1 480V Switchgear 1 LS 50,000$50,000$ .3 Medium Voltage Switch 1 LS 65,000$65,000$ .4 PLC Controls, Panel, and Generator Wiring 1 LS 25,000$25,000$ .5 Conduit/wires/cables 1 LS 25,000$25,000$ .6Installation/wiring/programming1 LS 50,000$50,000$ 335MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT.1Powerhouse hoist (10 ton)1 LS 15,000$15,000$ .2Standby generator1LS40,000$40,000$ .3Elevator motor replacement1LS100,000$100,000$ 353STATION EQUIPMENT.1Transformer and switch installation 1LS50,000$ 50,000$ .2Disconnect switch - powerplant 1EA30,000$ 30,000$ Disconnect switch - road intersection 1EA80,000$ 80,000$ .3 Automatic Transfer Switch1LS 25,000$25,000$ Subtotal 2,100,000$ Contingency25% 525,000$Engineering100,000$Construction Management 50,000$Total (Single generating unit)2,775,000$Additional Turbine/GeneratorTurbine/generator/flywheel/HPU 824 kW 1,500$ 1,236,000$ Installation & transport 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ Installation supervision 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Startup & testing 14 DAYS 5,000$ 70,000$ TAZIMINA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTOPINION OF PROBABLE COSTUPGRADE FEASIBILITY STUDY Subtotal1,396,000$ Contingency 25% 349,000$ Subtotal1,745,000$ Total (additional generating unit)4,520,000$ April 24, 2014 Mr. Paul Berkshire, P.E. HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Paul, Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on the Tazimina hydroelectric projects. Canyon specializes in manufacturing this equipment and actually built some of the pipe works on the original installation. Canyon Hydro has been building high quality turbine systems in the USA for 37 years. From day one, we have remained committed to three guiding principles: 1. Efficiency: Efficiency has undergone continual refinement over the years, and we believe our turbines match or exceed the efficiency of any other turbine manufacturer. Our entire staff recognizes the critical nature of the hydraulic design resulting in the best possible performance. 2. Durability: We recognize that a turbine system must run continuously for years at a time. For this reason, we use only the highest quality alloys, bearings, and controls. 3. Customer Support: We have often been told that our customer support is the best in the business. We work closely with you throughout the process, and if an outage should occur, system recovery becomes our highest priority. We have had much experience building turbines for projects like this in North, Central and South America. Our experience will be used to provide the best equipment and service available. We understand the net head is 94 feet at a design flow rate of 110 ft3/s(per unit), Canyon is pleased to offer the requested horizontal shaft configuration with Canyon Francis turbine(s). We propose a package to include the following equipment: 42” Class 150 butterfly type turbine inlet valve, dismantling joint, Canyon Hydro horizontal shaft Francis turbine overhung on 720 rpm – 750kW – 480V WEG synchronous generator, flywheel, hydraulic power unit, and bearing lube oil skid. The package above does not include controls/switchgear or balance of plant. At full flow the generator output is expected to be 750KW. Budget estimate for the single unit (750KW) equipment package as described above is $1,350,000.00. Budget estimate for a two unit (2 x 750KW) equipment package is $2,450,000.00. -Freight to site included. -Technical supervision of installation estimated at $30,000.00. Design Submittals Delivery 16 weeks from receipt of final data and deposit. Normal Delivery: 42-48 weeks, from receipt of Release to Manufacturing payment. Canyon Hydro Page 2 Normal Payment Terms: 15% deposit to begin final design 30% prepayment due at Release to Manufacturing 25% payment due at Manufacturing Midpoint 25% prepayment before shipping 5% on successful startup or 120 days after shipping, whichever comes first The equipment package offered will be custom designed to meet the particular requirements of the site. They are based on our normal design for projects of this scale. As the project progresses and further requirements are refined, we would be pleased to offer Preliminary Design Specifications and quotations as necessary. Budget estimates are for comparison purposes, but are typically within 15% of a firm quotation for the same scope equipment. We are pleased to offer the attached general arrangement drawing and turbine performance curve. I look forward to discussing this project with you. Please contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, Brett Bauer 010020030040050060070080090001020304050607080901000 20 40 60 80 100 120TURBINEOUTPUT (KW)TURBINEEFFICIENCY (%)FLOW RATE (CFS)TAZIMINA HYDROELECTRICEXPECTED TURBINE PERFORMANCE AT 94 FEET HEADEFFICIENCYPOWER Engineering Responsibility Engineering review RS Freight tools RS turbines/generators 4 each)6’w X 6’h X 10’l (12,000 lbs each)RS materials (oil, filters, flushing equipment, oil piping, attaching bolts, gaskets, 100' stainless steel piping and tubing)RS Project Mobilization STAFF MOBILIZE TO SITE RS UTILITIES SAFE OUT AND DISCONNECT Others TEMP POWER Others EQUIPMENT REMOVAL RS CONCRETE CUTTING RS COOLING PIPE REMOVAL RS Move equipment into place RS Rough place & align equipment RS Pour new concrete RS Move hydraulic equipment into place RS Place generator RS Run mechanical connections RS INSTALL BREECHING, INTAKE RS ONSITE PIPING FABRICATION RS INTERIOR PLATFORMS AND SUPPORTS RS TURBINE ALIGNMENT RS LO FLUSH RS LO PIPING & COOLER RS INSTRUMENT RS/others ARCHITECTURAL PAINTING Others FIRE SUPRESSION Others CABLE Others TERMINATE RS/others TEST RS/others COMMISSIONING AND START UP RS/others DEMOBILIZATION RS Budget Pricing for 1 Generator with Demobilization $ 162,756.00 Budget Pricing for 2 Generators 239,212.00$ With 35% Contingency Budget Pricing for 1 Generator with Demobilization 219,720.60$ Budget Pricing for 2 Generators 322,936.20$ Any row that includes "others" does not include complete pricing GILKES BUDGET OFFER FOR THE SUPPLY OF HYDRO ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT Client:HDR Alaska, Inc. Project Name:Tazimina Upgrade Gilkes Reference No:DW-PB-Tazimina-Jul1-2014 Date:Tuesday, 01 July 2014 Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Ltd Canal Head North, Kendal, Cumbria, LA9 7BZ Registration No. 173768 London J.carson@gilkes.com UK Head Office: Ph.: + 44 1539 720088, Fax: + 44 1539 732110 North American Office: +1 604-603-7139 Paul Berkshire HDR Alaska, Inc. Project Lead/Sr. Engineer 2525 C Street Anchorage AK 99503-2632 July 1, 2014 Tazimina Hydroelectric Upgrade Project Dear Paul, Thank you for your interest in the supply of Gilkes equipment. Please find herein our budget offer for the proposed supply of all mechanical and electrical hydroelectric equipment for the above project. Based on the head and flow information provided, we have made preliminary turbine selection and included the corresponding budget offer. As the project develops we would be happy refine the details and provide a more comprehensive and firm quote. We trust that the enclosed budget offer is of interest and provides the relevant information required at this stage. Should you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours Sincerely, Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Ltd. Darren Wager Sales Director – Gilkes Hydro Contents Page Gilkes Overview Scope, Selection, Price, Performance Curve & Exclusions Francis Turbine Description & Material Specification Example Payment Terms Estimated Delivery Example General Arrangement Drawings - Turbine Gilkes Brochure Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Ltd. Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Ltd is an internationally established hydro turbine manufacturing company, based in Kendal, UK on the edge of the English Lake District. In 1856, Gilkes installed their first hydroelectric scheme. Over 150 years later it is still a world leader in small hydropower systems, supplying over 6600 turbines to over 87 countries during its history. As long as we have been manufacturing hydro turbines and associated control systems, we have also been delivering an after sales service throughout the world to meet our customer's requirements. Whether it is a privately owned standalone 10kW turbine or a 10MW grid connected plant exporting power, Gilkes can meet all you're mechanical and electrical after sales needs. Gilkes also has a dedicated Service and Refurbishment team based at a facility in Fort William, Scotland. The Gilkes Package A Gilkes equipment package is comprehensive and exclusive of hidden extras; All factory assemblies which are stripped down for shipment are witness marked and colour coded to assist on site assembly. All major sub-contracted equipment is sourced from established suppliers from our approved supplier list. These sub-contractors have proved to be high quality, reliable suppliers with a technical appreciation and experience of small hydro generation projects Gilkes packing methods are customised to suit the requirements dictated by the project location and access to the project site. Equipment can be packed for long periods of storage Gilkes engineers provide expert on-site installation & commissioning services. Operating Manuals are included A Gilkes project team is assigned to engineer the contract from start to finish and customer “single line” contact is organised through a contract engineer The delivery schedule is handled by Gilkes Product Control Department and all sub- contractors are closely monitored to ensure “on time” delivery of all equipment You will note form the above that Gilkes do not only offer a manufacturing service but a complete specialised service comprising of rugged quality equipment along with the experienced technical engineering backup and installation expertise required. We have found from many years experience that in the long term quality is an important requirement for small hydro plants to ensure optimum reliability and minimum maintenance costs. Gilkes’ Engineering Expertise “We offer machinery which is laboratory tested and field proven in small hydro plants and which we are confident will give many years of trouble free operation.” Every hydro project supplied by Gilkes is subject to the attentions of a team of highly qualified engineers including a contract manager, degree qualified mechanical engineer, draughtsperson and the sales engineer whom you will be dealing with throughout the tender stage. We believe that this approach ensures that your needs are fully understood by the whole of Gilkes and ensures that projects proceed smoothly and on time with the minimum of project management and/or engineering design/consultancy services. In our experience it is always better to design for, rather than close our minds to, possible failure modes. We therefore accept that it is necessary for turbines to reach full run-away speed safely and have generators supplied to us tested at full run-away speed to ensure that no damage will occur. Some suppliers use lower cost generators which will handle 130% or 140% of normal speed and hope to be able to shut their sets down before the turbine has accelerated to full run-away and accept that if the machine does ever reach full run-away the generator will be damaged. Gilkes experience is that full run-away is usually reached in less than 5 seconds and is therefore extremely difficult to avoid. Tazimina Budget Quote Scope of Supply, One Francis Turbine & associated equipment 2 off 750 G270 Horizontal Francis turbine, fitted with hydraulic actuation for the guide vanes. 2 off Set of inlet pipework up to the inlet flange of the main inlet valve (including dismantling joint). 2 off Synchronous generator, with flywheel. 2 off Hydraulic control module Exclusions We have not included the following items which are required for our equipment. All power and control cabling for main and auxiliary systems All civil works including sealing of cable ducts All crane hire and lifting arrangements Grounding mat Broadband connection/phone line for any remote communication Building Services Site Installation (Can be offered on a day rate) Commissioning (Can be offered on a day rate) Extent of Supply The supply of Gilkes plant terminates at the following points; Turbine discharge – at the draft tube discharge Hydraulic Control Module – All interconnecting pipework is included, all electrical components will be wired to a locally mounted terminal box. First Fill of Mineral oil is included. Generator – at the generator terminal connectors Price Schedule Item Qty Description Price - $USD 1 2 750 G270 @ 514 rpm Francis Turbine Included Case Runner Bearing housing Guide Vanes and Linkages Inlet spool pipe Outlet Bend Draft Tube Shims and tools 2 2 480V, 514rpm, 1013kVA, 60Hz Synchronous generator Included 3 2 Hydraulic control module AC Electric motor. Reservoir. Filter. 2 x Nitrogen charged Accumulators. AC Power Motor. Hydraulic Piping. Diverter Valve for Safety Shutdown. Check Valve to ensure Deflector locked. Proportional Valve. Loading/Unloading System. Hand Pump allowing manual pressure as extra backup. Included - 2 Delivery to Anchorage including taxes & duties Included TOTAL, QTY (2) 750 G270 Francis TURBINE PACKAGE - $1,895,864 All figures are in USD Dollars and are exclusive of local sales taxes which will be charged where applicable. This pricing is indicative only and is based on the information made available to us prior to the date of this offer. None of the prices are fixed or firm and will be subject to further review by Gilkes should you wish to proceed with placing an order. Please note that this budget offer is not intended to form a legally binding relationship and Gilkes is not bound to accept purchase orders against this proposal. BEAMA CONDITIONS OF SALE (AE) FOR MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT (Exclusive of Erection) Export FOB & FCA 1. DEFINITIONS - The expressions FOB & FCA shall bear the meanings assigned to them in Incoterms 1990 save insofar as the same may have been varied by these conditions. 2. GENERAL - The acceptance of our tender includes the acceptance of the following terms and conditions. 3. VALIDITY - Unless previously withdrawn, our tender is open for acceptance for the period stated therein or, when no period is so stated, within thirty days only after its date. 4. ACCEPTANCE - The acceptance of our tender must be accompanied by sufficient information to enable us to proceed with the order forthwith, otherwise we shall be at liberty to amend the tender prices or cover any increase in cost which has taken place after acceptance. Any samples submitted to you and not returned to our works within one month from the date of receipt shall be paid for by you. 5. PACKING - Unless otherwise specified in our tender, packing in accordance with our standard export practice is included. 6. LIMITS OF CONTRACT - Our tender includes only such goods, accessories, and work as are specified therein. 7. DRAWINGS ETC. - All descriptive and shipping specifications, drawings, and particulars of weights and dimensions submitted with our tender are approximate only, and the descriptions and illustrations contained in our catalogues, price lists, and other advertisement matter are intended merely to present a general idea of the goods described therein, and none of these shall form part of the contract. After acceptance of our tender, a set of certified outline drawings will be supplied free of charge. 8. INSPECTION AND TESTS - Our products are carefully inspected and, where practicable, submitted to our standard tests at our works before despatch. If tests other than those specified in our tender or tests in the presence of you or your representative are required, these will be charged for. In the event of any delay on your part in attending such tests or in carrying out any inspection required by you after seven days' notice that we are ready, the tests will proceed in your absence and shall be deemed to have been made in your presence, and the inspection will be deemed to have been made by you. 9. PERFORMANCE - Any performance figures given by us are based upon our experience and are such as we expect to obtain on tests in our works. We shall be under no liability for damages for failure to attain such figures unless we have specifically guaranteed performance figures subject to the recognised tolerances applicable to such figures in an agreed sum as liquidated damages with provision for a corresponding bonus. If the performance figures obtained on tests in our works are outside the acceptance limits specified in the contract you will be entitled to reject the goods. Before you become entitled to claim liquidated damages or to reject the goods, we are to be given reasonable time and opportunity to rectify their performance. If you become entitled to reject goods, we will pay any sum that may have accrued due to you up to the date of such rejection. You assume responsibility that goods stipulated by you are sufficient and suitable for your purpose save insofar as your stipulations are in accordance with our advice. 10. DELIVERY - If the contract provides for delivery FOB we shall deliver the goods on board a vessel named by you or on your behalf at the port stated in our tender or, in the case of FCA at the named place, and we shall not be required to give you the notice relating to insurance mentioned in Section 32(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. 11. LIABILITY FOR DELAY - Any times quoted for despatch or delivery are to date from receipt by us of a written order to proceed and of all necessary information and drawings to enable us to put the work in hand. The time for despatch or delivery shall be extended by a reasonable period if delay in despatch or delivery is caused by instructions or lack of instructions from you or by industrial dispute or by any cause beyond our reasonable control. If a fixed time be quoted for despatch or delivery, and we fail to despatch or deliver within that time or within any extension thereof provided by this clause, and if as a result you shall have suffered loss, we undertake to pay for each week or part of a week of delay, liquidated damage at the rate of 0.5 per cent, up to a maximum of 5.0 per cent, of that portion of the price named in the contract which is referable to such portion only of the contract goods as cannot in consequence of the delay be used commercially and effectively. Such payment shall be in full satisfaction of our liability for delay. Any time described as an estimate shall not be construed as a fixed time quoted for the purpose of this clause. 12. VARIATIONS - In the event of variation or suspension of the work by your instructions or lack of instructions, the contract price shall be adjusted accordingly. 13. TERMS OF PAYMENT - The prices quoted are strictly net and payment in full shall be due as follows:- [i] In the case of goods delivered FOB, on presentation of shipping documents and invoices in the United Kingdom. [ii] In the case of goods delivered FCA, upon receipt of notice in writing that the goods have been delivered to the named place. Or, if we are unable by reason of your instructions or lack of instructions to deliver goods when ready, payment in full shall be due upon presentation of invoices and notification from us that the goods are ready for despatch. 14. STORAGE - If we do not receive forwarding instructions sufficient to enable us to despatch within fourteen days after notification that the goods have been tested under Clause 8 or that they are ready for despatch, you shall take delivery or arrange for storage. If you do not take delivery or arrange for storage, we shall be entitled to arrange storage either at our own works or elsewhere on your behalf and all charges for storage, for insurance or for demurrage shall be payable by you. 15. DEFECTS AFTER DELIVERY - We will make good, by repair or the supply of a replacement, defects which, under proper use, appear in the goods within a period of 18 calendar months after the goods have been delivered or, if delivery is delayed by reason of your instructions or lack of instructions, within a period of 24 months after the goods have been notified as ready for despatch (whichever period expires the earlier) and arise solely from faulty design (other than a design made, furnished or specified by you for which we have disclaimed responsibility in writing), materials or workmanship: Provided always that defective parts have been returned to us if we shall have so required. We shall refund the cost of carriage on such returned parts and the repaired or new parts will be delivered by us free of charge as provided in Clause 10 (Delivery). Our liability under this clause shall be in lieu of any warranty or condition implied by law as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of the goods, and save as provided in this clause we shall not be under any liability, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, in respect of defects in goods delivered or for any injury, damage or loss resulting from such defects or from any work done in connection therewith. 16. PATENTS - We will indemnify you against any claim of infringement of Letters Patent, Registered Design, Trade Mark or Copyright (published at the date of the contract) by the use or sale of any article or material supplied by us to you and against all costs and damages which you may incur in any action for such infringement or for which you may become liable in any such action. Provided always that this indemnity shall not apply to any infringement which is due to our having followed a design or instruction furnished or given by you or to the use of such article or material in a manner or for a purpose or in a foreign country not specified by or disclosed to us, or any infringement which is due to the use of such article or material in association or combination with any other article or material not supplied by us. And provided also that this indemnity is conditional on your giving to us the earliest possible notice in writing of any claim being made or action threatened or brought against you and on your permitting us at our own expense to conduct any litigation that may ensue and all negotiations for a settlement of the claim. You on your part warrant that any design or instruction furnished or given by you shall not be such as will cause us to infringe any Letters Patent, Registered Design, Trade Mark or Copyright in the execution of your order. 17. LIMITATION ON CONTRACTORS' LIABILITY WHILST ON SITE - If we, our agents or sub- contractors are on site for the purposes of the contract, then, notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 15, we will indemnify you against direct damage or injury to your property or person or that of others occurring while we are working on site to the extent caused by the negligence of ourselves, our sub-contractors or agents, but not otherwise, by making good such damage to property or compensating personal injury. Provided that: [a] our total liability for damage to your property (including damage caused by our breach of contract, tort or breach of statutory duty) shall not exceed £1,000,000 (United Kingdom currency) or the contract price, whichever is the greater, and [b] we shall not be liable to you for any loss of profit or of contracts or, save as aforesaid, for any loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever and whether caused by our breach of contract, tort, breach of statutory duty or otherwise howsoever. Save as provided in Clause 15, we shall not be liable for any damage or injury occurring after our completion of work on site. 18. FINAL CERTIFICATE - Upon expiry of the defects liability period specified in Clause 15, we shall be under no further obligation or liability to you either under the contract or in tort (including but not limited to negligence), unless within 14 days thereafter you shall have given us written notice of any matter in respect of which we remain obliged or liable to you. You shall issue to us a final certificate to the effect that we have fulfilled all our obligations and liabilities to you immediately upon expiry of the said period of 14 days or, in the event that you have given us notice as aforesaid which we have not disputed, immediately upon our having dealt with the matter(s) specified therein. 19. ARBITRATION - If at any time any question, dispute or difference whatsoever shall arise between you and ourselves upon, in relation to, or in connection with the contract, either of us may give to the other notice in writing of the existence of such question, dispute or difference, and the same shall be referred to the arbitration of a person to be mutually agreed upon, or failing agreement within 30 days of receipt of such notice, of some person appointed by the President for the time being of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. 20. LEGAL CONSTRUCTION - Unless otherwise agreed in writing the contract shall in all respects be construed and operate as an English contract and in conformity with English law and the English courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any matter arising out of the provisions of Clause 19 (Arbitration). 21. The provisions of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ("The Vienna Convention") are hereby excluded from the Contract. 22. STATUTORY AND OTHER REGULATIONS - If the cost to us of performing our obligations under the contract shall be increased or reduced by reason of the making or amendment after the date of tender of any law or of any order, regulation, or bye-law having the force of law that shall affect the performance of our obligations under the contract, the amount of such increase or reduction shall be added to or deducted from the contract price as the case may be. ©Published by: BEAMA Ltd (Federation of British Electrotechnical & Allied Manufacturers' Associations) - Westminster Tower, 3 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SL Technical Data The technical data given in this quotation, unless specifically guaranteed, will be subject to confirmation in the event of an order. Model 750 G270 Francis Turbine No. of Units 1 Mean Diameter of Runner 750 mm Rated Speed 514 rpm Maximum Overspeed 940 rpm Maximum continuous overspeed period 30 minutes in any 24 hour period Runner material Stainless steel Shaft orientation Horizontal Design Rating Gross Head - Rated Net Head 94 ft Design Flow 110 ft^3/s Turbine mechanical output at design flow 810 kW Turbine peak mechanical efficiency 92.6% @ 110cfs Performance Curve The following performance curve shows the turbines mechanical power (kW) and efficiency (%) as a function of head (ft) and flow (cfs). 750 G270 Speed 514 Rpm 01/07/14 Version Number 9 Francis Turbine Tazimina Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon Ltd Kendal, Cumbria, UK. LA9 7BZ Tel: 01539 720028 Fax: 01539 732110 Approved 0 40 80 120 160 200 Flow rate in ft^3/sec 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 Power in kW0 25 50 75 100 125 Efficiency in percent0 25 50 75 100 125 Head in feet90 90 80 7060 85 75 65 Name Design Flo Min Flow Head feet 94.0 96.0 Flow rate ft^3/sec 110 38 Power kW 810 218 Efficiency percent 92.6 70.4 Vent mm 51.3 18.4 Francis Turbine Description & Material Specification Runner Stainless steel, single piece casting and hand polished Turbine Shaft Stainless steel Turbine Case Casting - SG Iron Chamber Facings Stainless steel Guide Vanes Stainless Steel Inlet Pipe Fabricated Carbon Steel Discharge Bend Fabricated carbon steel Draft Tube Fabricated carbon steel Foundation Bolts All necessary foundation bolts plus a generous supply of packing pieces for installation setting up purposes are included. Example Payment Terms Unless otherwise agreed, the following payment terms apply:- 20 % of total contract price with order 20 % of total contract price on presentation of the following drawings -General arrangement -Foundation details to allow civil works to proceed 20 % of total contract price on presentation of runner material certificates. 20% Of total contract price on readiness to ship 20 % of total contract price on delivery of equipment to site, or on notification of readiness to ship, if site is unable to receive goods. Storage charge can be applied if delivery is delayed by more than 3 months. All payments net 30 Days from date of invoice. Estimated delivery All equipment will be delivered to site provided that access is available to standard road transport. The equipment will only be delivered to site if the site is in a complete and fit state to receive the goods. We estimate the delivery for the equipment offered in our quotation to be 65. Working Weeks, DDP Incoterms ® 2010 from receipt of an official order complete with full and final instructions to proceed and on receipt of any initial stage payment. Deliveries offered are indicative only. Firm delivery periods are dependent upon contract start dates, and are subject to Gilkes' factory work loading and major casting availability at the contract start date. Firm delivery periods will be reviewed at time of order. Production, Inspection and Quality Control Production, Inspection and Quality Control will be to Gilkes standard practice as detailed in the Gilkes Quality Manual and Production Control System Manual which are available on request and in accordance with our Quality Management System accredited to ISO 9001:2008. Unless otherwise stated all equipment offered is to Gilkes standard specification. Warranty Gilkes offer a warranty period of 12 months from completion of commissioning or 18 months from delivery; whichever is the sooner. Gilkes must install the full scope of their supply for the warranty to be applied. Insurances Insurance cover in relation to this contract is as Gilkes standard insurances. Details are available upon request. Contract Conditions BEAMA Conditions of Sale A for the supply of machinery & equipment (excluding erection) UK Terms and Conditions apply A copy of these contract terms and conditions are attached. Example Drawings The following representative drawings show the typical layout of a similar sized Francis unit. Please note these drawings are intended for information purposes only and should not to be relied upon for construction. The turbine layout depicted on the following drawings shows a vertical draft tube but this will be configured as per the project existing layout. w w w . m a v e l . c z Tazimina Hydroelectric Power Project Equipment Proposal and Budget Pricing Project 0-26302 22 May 2014 www.mavel.cz 121 Mount Vernon St., Boston, MA 02108, USA Phone: +1 617 242 2204 Fax: +1 617 242 2205 Project No. 0-26302 www.mavel.cz Tazimina HPP 2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. Customer Paul Berkshire, PE HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street Anchorage, AK 99503 2632 907 360 1015 paul.berkshire@hdrinc.com 1.2. Proposal Request Mavel Americas, Inc.(“Mavel”)received a request from Paul Berkshire of HDR Alaska (the “Customer”)for an equipment recommendation and budget pricing for replacing two horizontal Francis turbines at a project called Tazimina in Alaska. The available gross head is 97 feet and the available flow is approximately 110 cfs per turbine. 1.3. Mavel Equipment Recommendation and Pricing Based on the information provided, Mavel recommends the installation of horizontal Francis turbines model Mavel FSH690F265. The total price for the equipment as further described below will be between $890,000 and $920,000 for the first turbine. The cost of the second turbine will be between $840,000 and $870,000. The lower cost for the second turbine is because the detailed engineering for the project will have already been done as part of the cost of the first turbine. Delivery will be 12 to 13 months from contract execution. The proposed turbine for Tazimina is virtually identical to a turbine that Mavel installed last fall in New York at a project called Rio. The design conditions for Rio were 98 feet head and 120 cfs and it is also a FSH690F265. Some drawings and photos of the Rio project are included with this proposal. Obviously, there will be a different orientation of the turbines to match the Tazimina site conditions. 2. PROPOSED EQUIPMENT 2.1. General Scope For the Tazimina turbines, Mavel recommends the installation of horizontal Francis turbines model Mavel FSH690F265. The FSH690 turbine will have a runner diameter of 690 mm. It will operate at 720 rpm and be direct connected to a synchronous generator operating at 720 rpm. At the design conditions of 110 cfs and 94 feet net head, the power output at the turbine will be 799 kW. After generator losses, the power output at the generator terminals will be 751 kW. Each turbine will be able to operate over a flow range of 55 to 110 cfs. www.mavel.cz 121 Mount Vernon St., Boston, MA 02108, USA Phone: +1 617 242 2204 Fax: +1 617 242 2205 Project No. 0-26302 www.mavel.cz Tazimina HPP 3 The turbine has a setting height of + 4.27 m, so there will be no cavitation concerns with the turbines installed into the existing powerhouse, on to the existing foundation. The scope of supply will include the following: Engineering design and layout for the installation of two turbines One or two horizontal Francis type turbines Synchronous generator one per turbine Inlet Valve butterfly type one per turbine Hydraulic Power Unit one per turbine Technical Documentation Delivery to site; IncoTerms DAP The scope of supply does not include the following: Penstock / trash rack etc. Civil work Installation Electrical balance of plant; controls; switchgear; interconnect to utility Import duties, sales taxes or other local taxes For this application, the generator voltage is 480 V. Mavel has not included a flywheel as it does not have enough information to determine the inertia required. Mavel can provide a complete water to wire package. More information is required on the electrical requirements and interconnecting utility standards before Mavel can offer a price quotation. 2.2. Turbine / Generator Parameters Mavel Turbine Model FSH690F265 Design Head at Design Flow 94 feet Design Flow 110 cfs Turbine Power (At Design Flow and Net Head) 799 kW Turbine speed 720 rpm Runner Diameter 690 mm Generator Power Output (At Design Flow and Design Net Head) 751 kW Generator Speed 720 rpm Generator Voltage 480 V www.mavel.cz 121 Mount Vernon St., Boston, MA 02108, USA Phone: +1 617 242 2204 Fax: +1 617 242 2205 Project No. 0-26302 www.mavel.cz Tazimina HPP 4 2.3 Turbine Efficiencies Turbine output and efficiency at a head of 94 feet 3. COMMERCIAL CONDITIONS 3.1. Budget Price First Turbine Second Turbine Equipment Design Equipment Horizontal Francis Turbine FSH690F265 Synchronousgenerator Hydraulic Power Unit Technical Documentation Delivery DAP site according to INCOTERMS 2010 TOTAL PRICE $890,000 $920,000 $840,000 $870,000 Supervision of installation, commissioning and testing is not included in the Total Price and will be charged at daily rate of $1200 per person plus reasonable costs. Mavel is willing to negotiate a discount if both turbine –generator packages are ordered at the same time. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 Turbine efficiency and power outputeta Q(cfs) PT(kW) www.mavel.cz 121 Mount Vernon St., Boston, MA 02108, USA Phone: +1 617 242 2204 Fax: +1 617 242 2205 Project No. 0-26302 www.mavel.cz Tazimina HPP 5 3.2. Delivery Delivery would be 12 to 13 months from the date of contract signature and effectiveness. 3.3. Warranties Standard warranties are for 12 months from commissioning but not exceeding 18 months from delivery. Extended warranties can be negotiated. Prepared and submitted by: Mavel Americas, Inc. Rostislav Pospíšil Sales and Technical Director Boston, 22 May 2014 April 2015 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Upgrade Feasibility Study Appendix B – Flow Measurements 11/2013 AEA TRIP REPORT Locations and Dates:Illiamna and Tazimina hydro on April 6-7, 2015 Travelers: Daniel Hertrich Purpose:Site visit and flow measurements Significant Contacts: List names and titles of contacts George Hornberger, Iliamna Newhalen Nondalton Electric Cooperative, Inc. Johnse Ostman, U.S. Geological Survey Schedule/Events: Site visit and dye flow measurement on April 6th by Daniel and George. Site visit and depth/velocity flow measurement on April 7th by Johnse, Daniel, and George. Follow-up items needed: Recommend installation of a depth gauge for river level measurement at the intake that is logged in the SCADA system. Notes: April 6 th Daniel and George visited the project site. George noted that the water level in the Tazimina River was the lowest he has observed due to 1.5 years of low snow and warm weather. The entire area was essentially snow and ice free consistent with the unusually snow free and warm winter experienced. Flow measurements made with the dye flow method were unsuccessful due to poor recovery of dye with the turbine measurement and possibly aeration, tailrace mixing, and/or turbulence issues with the river measurement. Charts of dye concentration results are attached. The approximate river level was about 5.15’below the top of the concrete intake railing (north edge of intake, near east end). At the time of the site visit the power output was approximately 465 kW. It is estimated this power output correlates to a plant flow of 63 cfs 1. 1 Based on a constant efficiency calculated from the tested power at generator (before transformer) as reported in Final Technical and Construction Cost Report, August 1998, HDR 11/2013 April 7 th Heavy rain and then snow fell the night before the site visit on April 7 th. Johnse, Daniel, and George visited the project site and performed a flow measurement while snow continued to fall. The flow measurement made by the depth/velocity method reported a discharge of 146 cfs just downstream from the Tazimina Hydro intake. A chart of the result is attached. The approximate river level was about 5.05’below the top of the concrete intake railing (north edge of intake, near east end). At the time of the measurement the estimated hydropower output varied from 530 kW to about 610 kW equating to an estimated plant flow of 72 cfs to 83 cfs 2. 2 Based on a constant efficiency calculated from the tested power at generator (before transformer) as reported in Final Technical and Construction Cost Report, August 1998, HDR Tazimina Hydro Data log provided by INN Electric Coop11/8/201112/8/20111/8/20122/8/20123/8/20124/8/20125/8/20126/8/20127/8/20128/8/20129/8/201210/8/201211/8/201212/8/20121/8/20132/8/20133/8/20134/8/20135/8/20136/8/20137/8/20138/8/20139/8/201310/8/201311/8/201312/8/20131/8/20142/8/20143/8/20144/8/20145/8/20146/8/20147/8/20148/8/20149/8/201410/8/201411/8/201412/8/20141/8/20152/8/20153/8/20154/8/2015 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 HT1 PWR, kW HT1 Gate, % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 HT2 PWR, kW HT2 Gate, % 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 HT1 PWR/Gate 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 HT2 PWR/Gate