Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLevelock Wind Reconnaissance Study Feasibility Report - Jul 2013 - REF Grant 7060911Douglas Vaught, P.E. V3 Energy, LLC 19211 Babrof Drive Eagle River, AK 99577 July 10, 2013 Nathan Hill Borough Manager Lake and Peninsula Borough P.O. Box 495 King Salmon, AK 99613 Dear Mr. Hill: I am pleased to submit a combined proposal for Wind Power Feasibility Study for the Village of Egegik and Levelock Reconnaissance Wind Evaluation. As you may know, I have extensive experience with wind resource assessments and wind-diesel feasibility studies in rural Alaska. The Levelock and Egegik wind resource assessment and feasibility studies (reconnaissance level for Levelock) are similar to work I’ve accomplished for several clients in a large number of villages over the past ten years. I discuss in my proposal the plan to install a ten meter met tower in Levelock. This may result in less- than-optimal data quality due to the flat nature of the topography and consequent relatively high wind shear. This could yield data that may be difficult to interpret and potentially could negatively bias wind power potential in the village. A standard 30 meter height met tower would provide higher quality and more representative data. Although I estimate costs for each component of the combined projects, I propose that Lake and Peninsula Borough consider a time and materials contract with not-to-exceed (NTE) limits. These two projects are study efforts and hence the flexibility of a time and materials contract is more suited to the iterative and investigative nature of the tasks. I would be pleased to work with Lake and Peninsula Borough and the communities of Levelock and Egegik on this project. My extensive experience with met tower installation, wind resource assessment, Homer modeling, and feasibility study preparation would serve the Borough well with these projects. Sincerely, Douglas Vaught, P.E. Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 1 Scope of Services Levelock Reconnaissance Wind Evaluation The Request for Proposals (RFP) states that a wind resource assessment with a 10 meter tower (sited away from buildings and high vegetation) is planned to determine whether the expense of a full feasibility study is warranted. Siting and Wind Measurement Installation of a short (10 meter) met tower has merit in certain circumstances and can provide cost savings, but there are several drawbacks that should be noted. First, although related, a wind resource assessment and a feasibility study are different. The purpose of a wind assessment is to measure the wind resource in a particular location as accurately and completely as possible within a reasonable period of time. If the wind resource appears sufficiently robust for a wind power project, a feasibility study may be initiated to determine if a wind power project (wind-diesel project for a village) is economically advantageous. There are no threshold rules for sufficient wind to warrant a wind power project as this depends of characteristics of the wind beyond mean annual wind speed (such as Weibull k value, turbulence, etc.), village load profile, cost of fuel, and so on. The RFP states that Levelock’s cost of energy is $0.70/kWh before PCE and $0.38/kWh with PCE. This is very expensive and hence a lesser wind resource (i.e., Class 2 to 3 range) may be sufficient for an economically-viable wind project. An AWS Truepower wind prediction of Levelock (see below) shows a mean annual 5.00 m/s wind speed at 30 meters elevation at the center of the old airport. This is consistent with Class 2 winds. AWS Truepower predicts a 5.50 m/s mean wind speed (at 30 meters) on a moderately-high hill (approx. 230 ft elevation) about three miles directly west of the village. Although the wind resource on the hill is stronger, the distance from the village and apparent lack of road access to this location (reference: Google Earth imagery) would make wind power development at this location very, very expensive. Hence, at first glance and considering the small population of Levelock, a site location near the village should be considered most likely to be developable. With this site restriction in mind, I question the choice of a 10 meter met tower as the immediate vicinity of Levelock is relatively flat. So, although the vegetation cover appears to be tundra and low brush, the long expanse of flat terrain has a significant drag (or shear effect) on the wind. Wind drag diminishes with height above ground level until the wind speed is constant. The problem is that 10 meters height is well within the zone of highest wind shear gradient. Although 30 meters height is still within the shear gradient zone, the effect is somewhat diminished at this elevation. For this reason, the standard met tower height for village-scale (approximately 100 kW capacity) wind turbines is 30 to 40 meters: the tower is above the worst of the shear gradient, turbulence is lower, and energy production is higher. Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 2 Levelock village old airport site, AWS Truepower wind prediction Levelock 230 ft hill west of village, AWS Truepower wind prediction Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 3 In order to extrapolate wind data, especially if collected lower than hub height, a primary consideration is measurement of the shear. On a 30 meter met tower, anemometers are place at two disparate heights, typically 20 and 30 meters. This allows one to accurately calculate wind shear using an exponential function (where the exponent variable is the shear value). On a 10 meter met tower, typically one anemometer is mounted at 10 meters. With this, there is no secondary anemometer height with which to calculate wind shear. Alternatively, if a secondary anemometer is installed, it will be so near the ground and so significantly affected by ground effects that a wind shear calculation will be highly error prone and hence essentially useless for extrapolation to a 30 meter hub height. This is important for wind resource assessment as the mean annual wind speed at hub height is critical when determining feasibility. Because Levelock’s winds are rather modest, wind turbines would be installed as high as possible – likely 30 to 35 meters – to generate the most energy possible, yet still be affordable. Given the likely high hub height of wind turbines in Levelock, extrapolating 10 meter data to 30 meters with an incorrect wind shear exponent could undervalue the actual wind resource at 30 meters and underestimate Levelock’s potential for wind power. With the above consideration in mind, I advise Lake and Peninsula Borough to consider installing a standard 30 meter met tower in Levelock in lieu of the planned 10 meter tower. The data obtained from a taller tower will be representative of the wind resource at turbine hub height. Should the wind resource measured at 30 meters appear robust, a feasibility study to determine economically viability can be initiated. Should the wind resource measured at 30 meters clearly be insufficient for wind power, then Lake and Peninsular Borough and the Village of Levelock will know that for sure and there will not be lingering concerns regarding shadow, wind shear, turbulence and other problems often encountered with a 10 meter met tower located on flat terrain. Besides the issue of data quality when comparing 30 meter and 10 meter met towers, there is not a significant time savings installing the shorter tower. Even a 10 meter met tower requires guy wire anchors and typically the same anchoring method is used for either tower. Travel time to and from the Levelock is identical of course, so the only actual difference is assembly of the tower and sensors and lifting and securing it. The 10 meter tower may result in a half day of time savings, but this may prove meaningless depending on flight schedules in and out of Levelock. Another issue of concern is that typically a 10 meter met tower is equipped with a Power Predictor or similar datalogger and sensor package. Although inexpensive, this system does not record standard deviation within a time step, hence for wind speed it is not possible to calculate turbulence from the data. If an unusually low wind speed is measured by the anemometer, it won’t be possible to differentiate a low wind resource, which will be assumed, from ground effect or shadowing conditions that could yield wind speed measurements that are lower than representative of the actual wind resource. Lastly, with respect to the Power Predictor datalogger, it cannot be equipped with a satellite or cellular modem to automatically transmit data. Based on considerable experience with met towers in rural Alaska, mistakes and problems with manual downloadand transfer of data is by far the most common Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 4 reason for data loss. Transmission of wind data by modem, however, is very secure and allows one to keep near constant tabs on tower status. If the plan, however, is to equip the 10 meter tower with an NRG datalogger , which can be equipped with a modem for automatic transfer of data, then the question arises again of tower choice. The NRG datalogger is most suited to the larger number of sensors deployed on 30 meter or higher met towers. Budgetary or other constraints, however, may require the use of a 10 meter met tower for Levelock. With either tower, the process of site selection is generally constrained by land ownership, proximity to the village, geotechnical considerations, surface road development, and airport operations. Often, this forces a compromise that leads to selecting not necessarily the windiest site in the area, but rather the most developable site; the latter being the location most likely to be economically viable for a wind power project. With these constraints in mind, one can see below that although the old airport would otherwise be a perfect location due to proximity to the village and ideal geotechnical conditions, unfortunately it is located directly in line with the new airport runway. The FAA, of course, would prohibit erection of a met tower in this location. It is more likely that a site east or west of the airport runway would gain FAA approval for the requested 30 meter obstruction height. Levelock, Google Earth image Economic Feasibility Economic feasibility of a potential wind power project can be accomplished relatively early; immediately in fact with use of the AWS Truepower wind resource information above. Note that met tower data collected during the year will be used to confirm the AWS information, and the economic analysis will be Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 5 adjusted accordingly. Even though load data will not be directly measured, it can be synthesized with reference to PCE information submitted to the RCA. With this, wind project options can be discussed, modeled and considered very early on. This will alleviate the time crunch that would occur in August 2014 as one tries to analyze one year’s worth of met tower data and creates a reconnaissance-level economic analysis in the short amount of time that will be available to support a grant application for AEA’s Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 8. Schedule To support the Lake and Peninsula Borough’s desire to submit a proposal for feasibility and conceptual design for the REF Round 8 cycle, it will be necessary to install the met tower in Levelock as soon as possible. But, there are a number of necessary steps, besides shipping the met tower to Levelock, before erecting it. Siting the met tower is important and should include a site visit before submitting an obstruction request to FAA. In an effort to save time and money, there is a desire at times to select a site only by reference to Google Earth imagery, land-use maps and phone consultations with relevant parties. More often than not this results in unforeseen problems and needless delay, hence a reconnaissance site visit to plan the project is highly recommended. Following contract award, a few weeks may be needed to arrange a trip to Levelock to include the presence of a Lake and Peninsula Borough representative and other parties such as village representatives and landowner(s), as necessary. Following the site visit, with a goal of selecting a site, obstruction notification to FAA will be submitted (if required by the Notice Criteria Tool). The FAA review time is variable, but can be up to 30 days. If a waiver of some type is required (this will be noted in the FAA determination), circularization may be necessary and could possibly require 30 or more additional days of review time. Given this relatively late start to the Levelock wind resource assessment project, met tower installation may occur as late as September or October. The objective of course will be to accomplish this task sooner of course, but considering the cramped physical layout of Levelock, identifying a site and processing the FAA obstruction notification may take some time. The implication of scheduling constraints is that it is extremely unlikely that a full year’s worth of met tower data can be collected by early August 2014. For this reason, noting that the met tower will installed as soon as possible, one can initiate reconnaissance-level economic analysis work soon in order to propose, discuss and refine best project options well in advance of writing a REF Round 8 proposal next fall. Wind data from the AWS Truepower modeling (see maps) would be used initially and later confirmed with met tower data. With this in mind, it would be best to install a 30 meter met tower and collect actual hub height data, but 10 meter met tower data can be used as well, with the limitations noted above. Given likely met tower installation in September or October, I recommend leaving the met tower in place until summer 2015 at least. That will carry data collection through until the start of the next phase of the effort, should AEA fund a project for Levelock in Round 8 (next autumn). Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 6 Wind Power Feasibility Study for the Village of Egegik The Request for Proposals requests that a wind resource assessment with a larger (30 meter) met tower be accomplished. A met tower apparently presently is installed in Egegik, but its actual height and equipment status is unknown. Further, a wind-diesel feasibility study is requested using actual electrical and thermal load data if possible. Meteorological Tower Siting Many aspects of the decision making process for siting a met tower in Egegik will be the same as that described above for Levelock. Siting a met tower requires a compromise between wind resource, landownership and site availability, proximity to existing road and electrical distribution infrastructure, and permitting issues, the latter most prominently being FAA approval. In general, the wind resource in Egegik appears to be promising. AWS Truepower predicts a mean annual wind speed (at 30 meters elevation) of 6.22 m/s in the village and 6.61 m/s on the 180 ft high hill immediately to the southeast. If proven true with met tower data, this equates to a very nice Class 4 wind resource. Egegik village site, AWS Truepower wind prediction Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 7 Egegik 180 ft hill southeast of village, AWS Truepower wind prediction As with Levelock, it is highly advisable to schedule an initial site visit to personally inspect and discuss site options with Lake and Peninsula Borough and village representatives before committing to a site and initiating the FAA obstruction notification process. Plus, an in-person inspection will be necessary to determine if the existing met tower is usable and if so, identification of replacement parts. This initial site visit could be scheduled with that of Levelock for cost savings. 12-months of Data As recommended for Levelock, it is highly advisable to install a satellite or cellular modem to automatically transmit met tower data. Despite best efforts, experience has shown that data most often is lost when manually handled. Because AEA is very particular that Renewable Energy Fund (REF) applicants obtain at least 12 months of wind data prior to proposing for design or construction of a wind power project, loss of data can be significantly costly time-wise. A modem is a worthwhile expense. Load Data Collection of electric load data can be relatively straightforward if the powerplant is equipped with a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system that logs important information and averages it into 10 or 15 minute time intervals. If not equipped with a SCADA, this task can be much harder or impossible depending on control capabilities of the powerplant. One solution, if logged electrical load data is not available and efforts to do so deemed too expensive, is to synthesize the load using an appropriate software tool such as the Alaska Electric Load Calculator spreadsheet program developed by AEA several years ago. This program is an Excel file designed to Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 8 consider village population, community and business loads, and seasonal loads such as heat trace and lighting to produce a virtual village load profile. While not as perfectly accurate as actual load data, experience has shown that one year’s worth of uninterrupted, clean load data is uncommon. Synthesized data is validated against PCE data submitted to the RCA and compared to any actual load data available, such as hand logs. For modeling purposes this can be just as valuable and useful as actual load data. Plus, it is worth noted that minor discrepancies in actual versus synthesized load profiles do not make or break the economic analysis of a prospective wind power project. Like the wind data, load data is typically one years’ measurement and hence prone to statistical error due to low sampling rate (e.g., only one January measured where in reality the wind and/or load from one January to the next can vary significantly). Feasibility Study Report The final feasibility study report for a prospective wind-diesel project in Egegik will contain a village description, a summary of the existing power system, electrical and thermal load profiles (measured or synthesized), a synopsis of the wind measurement program including maps and the wind data analysis, wind-diesel design configuration options, wind turbine options, modeling details, and economic cost/benefit tables. Homer software will be used to create a static energy usage model for the analysis. This explanation of the software is from the Homer help menu: HOMER, the micropower optimization model, simplifies the task of evaluating designs of both off-grid and grid-connected power systems for a variety of applications. When you design a power system, you must make many decisions about the configuration of the system: What components does it make sense to include in the system design? How many and what size of each component should you use? The large number of technology options and the variation in technology costs and availability of energy resources make these decisions difficult. HOMER's optimization and sensitivity analysis algorithms make it easier to evaluate the many possible system configurations. The goal with Homer is to identify reasonable, conservative, and constructible wind-diesel power system design options with benefit-to-cost ratios greater than 1.0 over the life of the project, typically is defined as 20 years. Construction costs are estimated at the feasibility study phase. AEA publishes default capital costs for wind projects in rural Alaska (REF Round 7 referenced $10,200/kW wind capacity), but ideally the project will cost less and ideally that can be demonstrated in the feasibility study. Other project costs and assumptions not measured or estimated reference AEA or Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER; which is affiliated with UAA) data. These include wind turbine and diesel generator O&M rates, the project discount rate (usually 3%), and fuel costs over the life of the project. The latter can be difficult to specify. Homer requires a single fuel cost but the project spans 20 years. ISER updates a rural Alaska fuel cost spreadsheet every summer to support that year’s REF proposal evaluations. The ISER fuel cost estimates are based on IEA data and projected 50 years into the future with low, medium and high cost projections. For REF proposal analysis, AEA uses the medium fuel cost projection (the 3 year moving average version) with the social cost of carbon (about $0.18/gallon) added to include the usually non-priced cost of pollution and climate warming into the cost equations. Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 9 A full explanation of Homer modeling, assumptions used for modeling, and construction of the analysis for a feasibility study can become detailed and involved. Please visit the V3 Energy, LLC website (www.v3energy.com) for examples of feasibility study and conceptual design reports, or alternatively, they are available on request. Schedule As with Levelock, to support the Lake and Peninsula Borough’s desire to submit a proposal for design in the 2014 REF Round 8 cycle, it will be necessary to install the met tower in Egegik as soon as possible. But as with Levelock, there are a number of steps necessary before moving and erecting the existing met tower in a new location from the existing, if that’s the decision. Siting the met tower is important and should include a site visit before submitting an obstruction request with FAA. The site visit to Egegik can be combined with the site visit to Levelock for efficiency and to save money. Following contract award, a few weeks may be needed to arrange a trip to Egegik to include the presence of a Lake and Peninsula Borough representative and other parties such as village representatives and landowner(s), as necessary. Following the site visit, obstruction notification to FAA will be submitted (if required by the Notice Criteria Tool). The FAA review time is variable, but can be up to 30 days. If a waiver of some type is required, circularization may be necessary and could possibly require 30 or more additional days of review time. Given this relatively late start to the Egegik wind resource assessment project, met tower installation may occur as late as September or October. The objective will be to accomplish this task sooner of course, but considering the compressed physical layout of Egegik, identifying a site and processing the FAA obstruction notification may take some time. The implication of scheduling constraints and realities is that it is unlikely that a full year’s worth of met tower data can be collected by early August 2014. For this reason, noting that the met tower will installed as soon as possible, but one can initiate feasibility work early on in order to propose, discuss and refine project options well in advance of writing a REF proposal next autumn. Wind data from the AWS Truepower modeling (see maps) can be used initially and later confirmed with met tower data. Budget The RFP states a funding limit of $10,000 for Levelock and $65,000 for Egegik. Leaving aside for a moment the possible inclusion of geotechnical reconnaissance of wind turbine sites in Egegik for foundation design purposes, the funding limits are very restrictive for Levelock and generous for Egegik. In reality, the two projects are not that significantly different, despite the focus on a feasibility study for Egegik. Assuming that AEA will supply a 10 meter met tower for Levelock and the (presumably) 30 meter met tower in Egegik is usable with some upgrade, both villages require a siting and reconnaissance visit and both require trips to installation the met towers. Analysis of met tower data collected from both villages will be identical, although of course collecting electrical and thermal load data in Egegik and preparing a full feasibility study will be more time intensive than the reconnaissance- level economic analysis planned for Levelock. This additional work, however, won’t account for the 650% funding limit difference between the two villages stated in the RFP. Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 10 Given the uncertainties involve with this project (e.g., potential re-use of the met tower and unknown powerplant SCADA status in Egegik, among others), I believe a good approach is to award a time and materials contract with estimated costs for each project step and overall not-to-exceed (NTE) limits. This allows both parties to collaborate withan iterative approach where information gained at one step (e.g., the reconnaissance trip) informs the path forward for the following step. This can accommodate uncertainties such as Levelock tower height, status of the 30 meter met tower status in Egegik, and unknown data collection capability of the Egegik SCADA (if present). With a time and materials approach, the hourly rate for Douglas Vaught would be $175 per hour and expenses would be billed as actual cost plus ten percent. V3 Energy, LLC does not have staff employees (besides Douglas Vaught), but on occasion people are hired on a contract basis to assist with various tasks. For the data analysis and feasibility study portions of these projects, labor to supplement the work of Douglas Vaught is not anticipated (other than help with project cost estimates), but labor support is needed to install the met towers. Given the high expense of flying to Egegik and Levelock from Anchorage, it is most preferable to hire laborers in each village to assist with met tower installation. This allows village residents to participate in the project, earn some money, and helps establish community buy-in of an eventual wind turbine project. Typically and most desirably labor help would be hired via the City Office as that allows these individuals to be covered by the city’s workman’s compensation coverage. The contract relationship would be between V3 Energy, LLC and the City of Levelock and V3 Energy, LLC and the City of Egegik. This has proven in the past to be a flexible and beneficial relationship for all parties concerned. The RFP requests estimated project costs, which are provided below. Note that these estimates are reasonably accurate based on experience with similar projects, information stated in the RFP, and item costs either known or reasonably assumed. The reconnaissance trip though undoubtedly will reveal a number of unforeseen issues, both advantageous and disadvantageous with respect to time and cost implications for the projects. Reconnaissance Trip to Egegik and Levelock Unit Cost Units Total Cost Subtotal Notes D. Vaught $175 24 $4,200 $4,200 Includes prep and discussion PenAir RT ANC to AKN $688 1 $688 May be less Grant RT AKN to Egegik $318 1 $318 Grant RT AKN to Levelock $230 1 $230 ANC airport parking $15 2 $30 Per diem, AKN (high season) $316 2 $474 May be less Expenses subtotal $1,740 $1,740 Markup (10%) of expenses $174 $174 Total $6,114 Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 11 Levelock Met Tower Installation (10 meter tower from AEA) Unit Cost Units Total Cost Subtotal D. Vaught $175 28 $4,900 $4,900 Includes prep time Freight: met tower to Levelock $800 1 $800 estimated PenAir RT ANC to AKN $688 1 $688 May be less Grant RT AKN to Levelock $230 1 $230 Jackhammer rental (anchors) $100 5 $500 Estimated; if permafrost Levelok labor support $25 24 $600 2 people; rate estimated ANC airport parking $15 3 $45 Per diem, AKN (high season) $316 3 $790 May be less Expenses subtotal $3,653 $3,653 Markup (10%) of expenses $365 $365 Total $8,918 Egegik Met Tower Installation (re-use/move existing 30 m met tower) Unit Cost Units Total Cost Subtotal D. Vaught $175 40 $7,000 $7,000 Includes prep time PenAir RT ANC to AKN $688 1 $688 May be less Grant RT AKN to Egegik $318 1 $318 NRG: replacement sensors, wires, cables, winch $3,500 1 $3,500 Estimated NRG modem (GSM) $1,500 1 $1,500 Freight: NRG equip to Egegik $250 1 $250 Estimated Jackhammer rental (anchors) $100 5 $500 Estimated; if permafrost Egegik labor support $25 64 $1,600 2 people; rate estimated ANC airport parking $15 5 $75 Per diem, AKN $316 5 $1,580 May be less Expenses subtotal $10,011 $10,011 Markup (10%) of expenses $1,001 $1,001 Total $18,012 Levelock Wind Data Analysis and Recon-level Econ Analysis Unit Cost Units Total Cost Subtotal D. Vaught $175 32 $5,600 $5,600 Data collection expenses $50 12 $600 Estimated Expenses subtotal $600 $600 Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 12 Levelock Wind Data Analysis and Recon-level Econ Analysis Unit Cost Units Total Cost Subtotal Markup (10%) of expenses $60 $60 Total $6,260 Egegik Wind Data Analysis and Feasbility Study Unit Cost Units Total Cost Subtotal D. Vaught $175 80 $14,000 $14,000 Cost estimating assistance $750 1 $750 Estimated Load data collection expenses $75 12 $900 Estimated Cellular use fees $75 12 $900 Estimated Expenses subtotal $2,550 $2,550 Markup (10%) of expenses $255 $255 Total $16,805 Project Management and Monthly Status Reports Unit Cost Units Total Cost Subtotal D. Vaught $175 24 $4,200 $4,200 Total $4,200 The budget estimates above sum to just over $60,000, but note that anticipated costs for Levelock exceed $10,000 and those for Egegik are well less than $65,000. Based on ten years of experience installing met towers in rural Alaska and having written scores of wind resource assessments, feasibility studies and conceptual design reports, I do not believe it is possible to accomplish the Levelock scope of work with the stated budget, at least not with information at hand and presumptions of site options, anchoring methods, etc. If it is possible to share the Egegik project budget with Levelock, Lake and Peninsula Borough may wish to consider that option. This would allow project scope for both villages to be accomplished without compromise. New Met Tower Budget Alternative Because there is sufficient cost buffer compared to the $75,000 project limit, Lake and Peninsula Borough may wish to consider either obtaining a 30 meter met tower from AEA (in lieu of the 10 meter tower; if available) and shipping it to Levelock, or dismantling the 30 meter met tower in Egegik (if the tower must be moved to a new site) and flying it to Levelock. For Egegik, a new 34 meter NRG met tower could be purchased and installed at the (to be identified) wind site. The 34 meter met tower can be ordered as a complete kit (the NOW system) for $8,450 with shipment to Anchorage included. Shipping the tower from Anchorage to Egegik may require a Caravan charter flight to transport the tower package from King Salmon to Egegik, but total shipping cost should be less than $2,500. This would allow both Egegik and Levelock to be equipped with hub height level (30+ meters) met towers, Egegik and Levelock Proposal to Lake and Peninsula Borough pg. 13 providing robust data packages for both villages to develop wind power projects in the future. Because Egegik is the larger village with better wind power prospects, if 30 and 34 meter met towers are used, the higher met tower should be located in Egegik. Geotechnical Reconnaissance There should be sufficient budget, even with purchase of a new 34 meter met tower, for a reconnaissance level evaluation of geological conditions at the prospective Egegik wind turbine site. Several engineering firms in Anchorage do this type of work and V3 Energy, LLC can arrange this effort with any of them. This would include sending a staff geologist to Egegik on a day trip to personally inspect the prospective wind site(s), following by a desktop analysis of geotechnical conditions in the village. It is not likely though, that core drilling for a geotechnical study can be accommodated in the project budget. Typically these cost approximately $25,000 due to the expense of flying a drill rig to the village. Personnel and Experience Please see attached resume for Douglas Vaught, P.E. References Please feel free to contact the individuals listed below. I have known all three for several or more years and have accomplished met tower, wind analysis, and feasibility study work for all. 1. Brent Petrie, former Key Accounts Manager for AVEC, 907-351-4756 2. John Lyons, Principal Engineer, Marsh Creek, LLC, 907-258-0050 3. Darron Scott, CEO, Kodiak Electric Assn., 907-486-7700 Insurance Please see attached certificates of insurance for professional liability (errors and omissions) and general liability coverage. Douglas Vaught, P.E. Consulting Engineer tel 907.350.5047 dvaught@v3energy.com P a g e | 1 Specialized Knowledge and Experience Project management Wind resource assessment and analysis Wind turbine performance and layout optimization (WAsP software) Wind-diesel power system configuration modeling Project feasibility and economic modeling Meteorological test tower installation Cold climate considerations of wind turbine operations and testing Education B.S, Aerospace Engineering, 1984, Tau Beta Pi, Navy ROTC, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas Graduate, 1986, U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Training Officer Program (M.S. engineering equivalent), Orlando, Florida and Idaho Falls, Idaho Master Environmental Studies, 1995, The Evergreen State College, Professional Qualifications V3 Energy LLC, 2003 – present. Owner and principal engineer of Anchorage, Alaska area-based consulting engineering firm focused on Alaska renewable energy projects, with particular emphasis on village power systems. Project work includes wind-diesel project development, wind turbine performance and layout optimization modeling, power system static modeling, wind turbine site selection, meteorological test tower installation, wind resource data analysis including IEC 61400-1 criteria, solar resource analysis, project economic analysis, feasibility study and conceptual design report writing and preparation, and project management. Current and past clients include Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Marsh Creek LLC, WHPacific, North Slope Borough, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, CH2M Hill, Inc., TDX Power, Alaska Energy Authority, Kodiak Electric Association, and Alaska Native villages and corporations, among others. For detailed information including reports for download, please visit www.v3energy.com. Bristol Environmental and Engineering Services Corp., Senior Engineer, 1998 – 2003. Project manager and engineer on a variety of engineering, risk management, and environmental remediation projects in rural Alaska and other locales. Work included petroleum, PCB, and asbestos cleanup/removal and building demolition tasks in the Aleutians Islands, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska Native villages, and federal facilities. A notable project was risk assessment analysis of unexploded ordnance for the State of Hawaii’s Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve Commission (Kaho’olawe is near the island of Maui and was used as a Navy gunnery range). Spacemark Inc., Environmental Manager, 1997 – 1998. Environmental Manager of the former Adak Island Naval Base under an operations and maintenance contract (BRAC process). Led a staff of environmental technicians for hazardous waste/material management, water and air compliance monitoring, and other base-wide environmental issues. CH2M Hill, Senior Engineer, 1994 – 1997. Engineer for US Dept. of Energy environmental restoration projects at abandoned reactor sites along the Columbia River. Team leader of a technology demonstration project (with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) to test innovative technologies for treatment of Douglas Vaught, P.E. Consulting Engineer tel 907.350.5047 dvaught@v3energy.com P a g e | 2 Olympia, Washington, Thesis title: Risk Assessment and Cleanup Policy at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: A Case Study Registration Professional Engineer, Alaska (CE10034) Professional Engineer, Washington State (32367) Affiliations American Society of Mechanical Engineers American Wind Energy Association Renewable Energy Alaska Project radioactively-contaminated groundwater. A notable temporary project was assignment to Honolulu to prepare environmental management plans for USAF bases on Oahu and Kauai. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environmental Engineer, 1993 – 1994. Project Manager for a hazardous waste and petroleum cleanup project on the Pribilof Islands (Saint Paul and Saint George Islands), Alaska. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Mechanical and Environmental Engineer, 1989 – 1993. Responsible for guiding environmental and hazardous waste cleanup activities at the Shipyard as the Installation Restoration Program Manager (EPA’s CERCLA site remediation process). Also served as a staff engineer for submarine hydraulic system repair projects. U.S. Navy Officer, 1984 – 1989. Nuclear powerplant engineering officer, gunnery officer, and safety officer on USS Arkansas (CGN- 41), a nuclear-powered guided-missile cruiser. Operated shipboard nuclear reactors and related systems. Directed complex reactor and steam powerplant acceptance and startup test evolutions during complex overhaul at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Stood engineering, bridge, and combat information center watches at sea. Deployments to western Pacific, Mediterranean Sea, North Pacific (USSR coast), and overhaul at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. Awarded Expeditionary Medal for Libyan conflict, 1986. Training/Presentations/Publications Wind Assessment and Modeling, Wind Energy Applications Training Symposium, Kotzebue, Alaska, May 2012 Renewable Energy Systems and Renewable Energy Project Development courses, Adjunct Faculty, Mat-Su College (Univ. of Alaska branch campus), Palmer, Alaska, 2011 Wind Power Icing Challenges in Alaska: a Case Study of the Native Village of Saint Mary’s, Winterwind 2008, Norrköping, Sweden, December 2008 Wind resource reports, wind-diesel feasibility studies, and conceptual design reports as deliverables; please visit www.v3energy.com.