HomeMy WebLinkAboutComprehensive Renewable Energy Feasibility Study for Sealaska Corporation 2002-2005DOE Award Number: DE-FC36-02GO12105
Final Report
Comprehensive Renewable Energy Feasibility Study for Sealaska Corporation
Period covered: September 2002 through December 2005
Date of Report: December 31, 2005
Recipient Organization:
Sealaska Corporation
Michele Metz, Assistant Lands Manager
Sealaska Corporation
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-9226; Fax: (907) 463-3897
michele.metz@sealaska.com
Technical Contact: Robert Lynette
Springtyme Company LLC
212 Jamestown Beach Lane, Sequim, WA 98382
Phone: (360) 681-3289; Fax: (360) 681-7509
E-mail: windnrg@olypen.com
ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................1
1.0 Project Overview............................................................................................................................8
1.1 Project Purpose and Long-Term Objectives ........................................................................8
1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................8
1.2.1 Sealaska Corporation and Candidate Sites..........................................................................8
1.2.2 Project Team .......................................................................................................................8
1.2.2 Power Generation and Transmission Situation in SE Alaska...........................................11
1.2.3 Wind Energy Feasibility Study.........................................................................................12
1.2.4 Micro/Small Hydroelectric Power Feasibility Study........................................................13
2.0 Wind Energy Pre-development Activities and Results................................................................14
2.1 Identification of Anemometry Sites and Equipment Installation.............................................14
2.3 Description of the Anemometry...............................................................................................26
2.4 Wildlife considerations ............................................................................................................27
2.5 Wind Resource Measurement, Analysis, and Results..............................................................29
2.5.1 Data Collection, Data Recovery, and Analysis Criteria....................................................30
2.5.2 Climatology.......................................................................................................................30
2.5.3 Data Analysis and Results.................................................................................................30
2.6 Transmission Considerations ...................................................................................................39
2.7 Economic Analysis for a Potential Wind Power Station at Hoonah and/or Yakutat...............39
2.7.1 Cost-of-Energy Calculation...............................................................................................40
2.7.2 Potential Benefits to the Tribe...........................................................................................42
2.7.3 Discussion of Results........................................................................................................43
2.7.4 Wind Energy – Lessons Learned.......................................................................................43
3.0 Hydroelectric Pre-development Activities and Results ...............................................................44
3.1 Background ..............................................................................................................................44
3.2 Economic Analysis Method.....................................................................................................45
3.3 Results......................................................................................................................................47
3.3.1 Angoon..............................................................................................................................47
3.3.2 Hoonah..............................................................................................................................54
3.3.3 Hydaburg...........................................................................................................................64
3.3.4 Kake ..................................................................................................................................69
3.3.5 Klukwan/Chilkat Valley....................................................................................................76
3.3.6 Yakutat..............................................................................................................................79
3.3.6 Yakutat..............................................................................................................................80
3.3.7 Hydro – Summary of Study ..............................................................................................84
Appendix A, Final Meteorological Report for Hoonah .....................................................................86
Appendix B, Final Meteorological Report for Yakutat......................................................................87
Appendix C, Southeast Alaska Native Villages Renewable Energy Feasibility Study Wildlife Field
Review................................................................................................................................................88
Appendix D, Evaluation of the Hydroelectric Potential Near Selected Sealaska Communities........89
iii
List of Figures and Tables
TABLE 1, EXISTING RESOURCES..........................................................................................................10
TABLE 1A, SUMMARY OF ALL SITES ...................................................................................................11
FIGURE 2, EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRANSMISSION INTERTIES .........................................................12
TABLE 2, SELECTION RESULTS FOR IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL SITES ...................................................15
FIGURE 3, AERIAL PICTURE OF ANGOON.............................................................................................16
FIGURE 4, MAP OF ANGOON WITH POTENTIAL MET TOWER SITES .....................................................16
FIGURE 5, GUSTAVUS, LOOKING NORTH ............................................................................................17
FIGURE 6, TENAKEE SPRINGS LOOKING NORTH ..................................................................................18
FIGURE 7, TENAKEE SPRINGS TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP ..........................................................................18
FIGURE 8, HOONAH VILLAGE LOOKING NE........................................................................................19
FIGURE 9, RIDGE ABOVE HOONAH ......................................................................................................20
FIGURE 10, HOONAH TOPOGRAPHY AND POTENTIAL ANEMOMETRY SITES (IN BLUE)........................21
FIGURE 11, AERIAL VIEW OF YAKUTAT LOOKING NORTH ..................................................................22
FIGURE 12, DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY PRODUCING WINDS 400 FEET ABOVE THE SURFACE AT
YAKUTAT ....................................................................................................................................23
FIGURE 13, LOCATIONS OF NEW AND EXISTING MET TOWERS ...........................................................24
FIGURE 14, AVOIDING THE MOONWART FERN ....................................................................................25
FIGURE 15, SIGNS PLACED AT SITES ...................................................................................................26
TABLE 3, PRE-FIELD NOTES PROVIDED TO NWC FROM AREA SPECIALISTS .......................................28
TABLE 4, WHITE ALICE SITE ...............................................................................................................30
TABLE 5, WIND STATISTICS FOR THE JUNEAU AIRPORT ......................................................................32
TABLE 6, STATISTICS FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS AT HOONAH SITE ...................................................32
FIGURE 16, ENERGY OUTPUT ROSE FOR THE HOONAH SITE................................................................32
FIGURE 17, DIURNAL VARIATION OF WIND SPEED AT HOONAH .........................................................33
TABLE 7, SITE DESCRIPTION FOR YAKUTAT SITES ..............................................................................34
TABLE 8, UPPER AIR DATA AT 400 FEET.............................................................................................34
TABLE 9, STATISTICS FOR MET A OCEAN CAPE SITE ..........................................................................35
FIGURE 18, ENERGY ROSE FOR OCEAN CAPE SITE 1...........................................................................36
TABLE 10, STATISTICS FOR MET B BEACH SITE ..................................................................................36
FIGURE 19, ENERGY ROSE FOR BEACH SITE 2.....................................................................................37
TABLE 11, STATISTICS FOR MET C COAST GUARD SITE .....................................................................37
FIGURE 20, ENERGY ROSE FOR COAST GUARD SITE 3 ........................................................................38
FIGURE 21, DIURINAL VARIATION OF WINDS AT THE OCEAN CAPE SITE ............................................38
TABLE 12, COST-OF-ENERGY CALCULATION FOR HOONAH ................................................................40
TABLE 13, COST OF ENERGY CALCULATION FOR YAKUTAT ...............................................................41
TABLE 14, MAXIMUM COST-OF-ENERGY TO JUSTIFY A COMMERCIAL PROJECT .................................41
TABLE 15, IMPACT OF LOW-COST FINANCING AND/OR GRANT FUNDS APPLIED TO HOONAH..............42
TABLE 16, IMPACT OF LOW-COST FINANCING AND/OR GRANT FUNDS APPLIED TO YAKUTAT ............42
TABLE 17, POTENTIAL INCOME FROM LAND-LEASE ROYALTIES - YAKUTAT .....................................43
TABLE 18, LARGER INTERCONNECTED COMMUNITIES ........................................................................45
TABLE 19, ISOLATED COMMUNITIES ...................................................................................................45
TABLE 20, THAYER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (ANGOON).....................................................51
FIGURE 22, THAYER CREEK PROJECT (ANGOON) ECONOMICS SUMMARY ..........................................52
TABLE 21, GARTINA FALLS AND WATER SUPPLY CREEK HYDRO PROJECTS (HOONAH).....................57
iv
FIGURE 23, GARTINA FALLS PROJECT (HOONAH) ECONOMICS STUDY ...............................................58
TABLE 22, GARTINA FALLS AND WATER SUPPLY CREEK HYDRO PROJECTS (HOONAH) SUMMARY OF
PROJECT COSTS ...........................................................................................................................61
FIGURE 24, WATER SUPPLY CREEK PROJECT (HOONAH) ECONOMICS SUMMARY ..............................62
FIGURE 25, REYNOLDS CREEK PROJECT (HYDABURG) ECONOMIC SUMMARY ...................................68
TABLE 24, CATHEDRAL FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (KAKE) SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS ....74
FIGURE 26, CATHEDRAL FALLS PROJECT (KAKE) ECONOMICS SUMMARY .........................................75
TABLE 25, WALKER LAKE HYDRO PROJECT (KLUKWAN) SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS ..................79
TABLE 26, CHICAGO HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (YAKUTAT) SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
....................................................................................................................................................84
FIGURE 27, CHICAGO HARBOR PROJECT (YAKUTAT) ECONOMICS SUMMARY ....................................85
TABLE 27, SUMMARY OF NEW HYDRO POWER PLANTS FEASIBILITY..................................................84
TABLE 28, INTERCONNECTION POTENTIAL SUMMARY ........................................................................84
TABLE 29, COMBINED FEASIBILITY FOR POTENTIAL HYDRO PROJECTS ..............................................85
1
Executive Summary
Comprehensive Renewable Energy Feasibility Study
for Sealaska Corporation
Purpose
The purpose of this project was to conduct a comprehensive feasibility study to determine the
potential sustainability of wind and/or small hydroelectric power plants on Southeast Alaska
native village lands. The long-term objective is to supply all or a portion of the villages’
electricity from local, renewable energy sources in order to reduce costs, provide local
employment, and reduce power outages. An additional objective was for the villages to gain an
understanding of the requirements, costs, and benefits of developing and operating wind or small
hydroelectric power plants.
Background
Sealaska was formed as the Regional Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), passed by Congress in 1971. It includes 12
village/urban corporations in SE Alaska and represents nearly 17,000 shareholders,
approximately half of who live in Southeast Alaska. Most villages are isolated from any central
electric transmission and use diesel-electric systems for power generation. For diesel powered
plants, the cost of electricity is $0.30 – 0.35¢ per kWh, after deducting subsidies from the State
of Alaska. This makes the villages prime candidates for deploying renewable energy sources.
Scope of work for this project
Wind energy: Prescreening of potential sites; field surveys by a wildlife biologist, meteorologist,
and wind power development specialist to select best potential sites; installation of anemometry,
and analysis of wind data to determine if the wind is sufficient for economic viability of a wind
power station. If one or more sites were identified that appeared to be economically viable, a
business plan would be prepared.
Small hydro: Analysis of past and current studies of the potential small hydro sites to determine
if changing conditions such as technology improvements or materials cost changes, indicate that
one or more projects may now be economic. Includes preliminary analyses of environmental,
permitting, and economic considerations.
Project Team
The project team consisted of very experience personnel in their respective areas of expertise.
This report is based on their collective work and reports. The team members:
Sealaska Corporation: Project Coordinator – Michele Metz, Assistant Lands Manager,
Natural Resources Department
Technical Coordinator and wind energy consultant: Springtyme Company L.L.C.,
Bob Lynette
2
Wildlife: Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc., Karen Kronner
Meteorologist: John Wade Wind Consultants, John Wade
Anemometry Installation: Met Tower Services, Mike Sailor, Chris Sailor, Jeff Baker
Micro/Small Hydroelectric Power: Alaska Power & Telephone, Larry Coupe
US Department of Energy: Larry Flowers (DOE Monitor)
Project Work
Wind Energy
Database - A database was assembled for all of the candidate sites in SE Alaska, including
location, demographics, electricity supply and demand, existing and planned transmission
interties with central generation, topographical maps, macro wind data, and contact personnel.
Pre-field work analyses – Twenty-three sites were analyzed to eliminate sites that were not likely
candidates. Criteria used were: (1) macro wind data from weather stations and airports, (2)
probability of viable winds based on topography, (3) schedule for bringing intertie to candidate
sites, and (4) wildlife information that might preclude deploying wind turbines. Additionally,
communications with the Alaska State Energy office and tribal members at the villages were
conducted to ensure that all parties were working together and to gather anecdotal information.
Five villages were selected for site visits.
Meetings with cognizant personnel and field analyses – Field trips were conducted at the five
candidate villages that were deemed most likely to have viable wind resources. Meetings were
held with local village and utility leaders and the requirements, costs, and benefits of having
local renewable energy facilities were discussed. The potential sites were looked over and GPS
readings taken. Two sites were selected based on their needs and the probability of having
viable wind resources – Hoonah and Yakutat.
Hoonah: No wind resource data was available at Hoonah, but its location – with a 1,410
ft. ridge above the village made for an attractive site. Additionally, AT&T Wireless owns a 100
ft. Rohn tower on the ridge that provided an inexpensive way of installing anemometry at the
site. The anemometry was installed in March 2005, and the first data successfully retrieved in
September 2005. A report was prepared by meteorologist John Wade that contains the details of
the measured wind resources and preliminary energy production projections. (Attachment A to
this report.)
Yakutat: There was one existing anemometer tower that was not well sited and for which
only scattered, unreliable data was available. Two additional sites were identified and
instrumented with 30-meter NRG towers and anemometry. Additionally, the original site was
retrofitted with modern NRG anemometry. Yakutat Power, the local utility, provided help with
personnel and equipment. Data was also collated from an analog wind speed instrument used by
the local airport. Data was collected for more than 12 months from the three NRG stations. An
off-site reference station was identified and used to project long-term wind resource
characteristics at the two stations. A report was prepared by meteorologist John Wade that
contains the details of the measured wind resources and energy production projections.
(Attachment B to this report.) A preliminary financial analysis of a hypothetical wind power
3
station was prepared and used to gauge the economic viability of installation of a multi-megawatt
wind power station.
Small Hydroelectric
The study focused on the communities associated with Sealaska Corporation that use diesel-
electric for electricity and have a potential for hydroelectric power generation1. Most of them
have had at least an assessment of hydroelectric potential, and a few have had feasibility studies
of potential hydroelectric projects. The communities, their existing utilities, and identified
potential hydroelectric projects are shown in the following table.
Sealaska-Affiliated Communities with Hydroelectric Potential
Community Existing Utility Potential Hydroelectric
Projects
Angoon Inside Passage Electric
Cooperative (IPEC)(1)
Thayer Creek
Hoonah IPEC • Gartina Creek
• Water Supply Creek
Hydaburg Alaska Power & Telephone Reynolds Creek
Kake IPEC Cathedral Falls Creek
Klukwan IPEC Walker Lake
Yakutat Yakutat Power Chicago Harbor
(1) Previously known as Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Association
Findings and Conclusions
Wind Energy
Although there are several known windy spots in SE Alaska (e.g., Skagway), we were not able to
identify any isolated Native American villages that utilize diesel-electric power generation that
have commercially viable wind resources. The two sites that were judged to have the best
potential were Yakutat and Hoonah, but as shown below, neither site has commercially viable
wind resources.
Hoonah - The average wind resources measured on the 1,417 ft elevation ridge above the village
were very low, with a six-month average of 3.9 mps (8.7 mph) at 60 meters above ground level.
The annual average wind speed is estimated at 4 mps (9 mph). Using today’s commercial utility-
grade wind turbines’ performance and costs, yields an annual capacity factor of less than 10%
1 The complete study is contained in Attachment C to this report.
4
and a cost of energy of approximately 26¢ per kWh. Hoonah is not a commercially viable site
for wind powered energy generation without very substantial grant funding.
Yakutat - The average wind resources measured at three sites were very marginal, with an annual
average of 4.0 mps (9 mph) at 60 meters above ground level. The best site had an annual
average of 4.2 mps (9.4 mph) at 60 meters. Using today’s commercial utility-grade wind
turbines’ performance and costs yields an annual net capacity factor of approximately 12% and a
cost of energy of approximately 19¢ per kWh. Unless grant funds were available, the Yakutat
site is not commercially viable for wind power at this time.
The following tables show the necessary grant funding and low-cost financing that would be
required to justify wind power projects at Hoonah and Yakutat. A fixed charge rate of 9%
represents 5% financing, since 4% of the rate is required to amortize the plant. Conventional
financing is represented by a 14% fixed charge rate.
Impact of Low-cost financing and/or Grant Funds Applied to Hoonah
Cost of Energy ($/kWh)
With Grant (% of total capital cost)
Fixed
charge
rate
No Grant
Financing 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
9% 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15
10% 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.16
11% 0.29 0.27 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.16
12% 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.17
13% 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.18
14% 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.22 0.19
Impact of Low-cost financing and/or Grant Funds Applied to Yakutat
Cost of Energy ($/kWh)
With Grant (% of total capital cost)
Fixed
charge
rate
No Grant
Financing 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
9% 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11
10% 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12
11% 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12
12% 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13
13% 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14
14% 0.26 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.14
5
Small Hydroelectric Power
None of the sites examined are financially viable without substantial grant funding. The
following table contains a summary of the feasibility of new hydroelectric projects that could
serve the communities.
Community Project Construction
Cost ($2003)
Economic
Feasibility
Environmental
Feasibility
Angoon Thayer Creek (1,000 kW) $8,700,000 Low Moderate
Hoonah Gartina Creek (600 kW)
Water Supply Creek
(600 kW)
$3,750,000
$3,330,000
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Hydaburg Reynolds Creek
(5,000 kW)
$9,400,000 Low High
Kake Cathedral Falls Creek
(800 kW)
$5,300,000 Moderate Moderate
Klukwan Walker Lake (1,900 kW) $9,400,000 Low Unknown
Yakutat Chicago Harbor
(1,400 kW)
$9,300,000 Moderate Unknown
Interconnection to another utility is possible for most of these communities, and may be a viable
alternative to either diesel or hydroelectric generation. The possible transmission
interconnections to the communities are summarized in the following table.
Interconnection Potential Summary
Community Interconnection Potential
Angoon Low
Hoonah Moderate
Hydaburg High
Kake Moderate
Klukwan High
Yakutat Very low
Combining the most important factors for the feasibility of new hydro facilities yields the
following table.
6
Community Project
Economic
Feasibility
Environmental
Feasibility
Interconnection
Potential
Required
Grant
(% of Cost)
Angoon Thayer Creek Low Moderate Low 80%
Gartina Creek Moderate Moderate Moderate 45% Hoonah
Water Supply Cr. Moderate High Moderate 40%
Hydaburg Reynolds Creek Low High High 100%
Kake Cathedral Falls
Cr. Moderate Moderate Moderate 55%
Klukwan Walker Lake Low Unknown High 80%
Yakutat Chicago Harbor Moderate Unknown Very low 55%
Negative factor
Neutral factor
Positive Factor
Hoonah, Kake, and Yakutat appear to have the best potential for new hydro facilities. However,
it should be noted that very little work has been done on the Yakutat site, and further fieldwork
may result in changes to the assessment.
7
This final report was prepared by Springtyme Company L.L.C. (Bob Lynette) and is based on the
team’s collective field trip reports, meteorological data, analyses, and discussion/meeting notes
with team members and others as cited herein.
8
1.0 Project Overview
1.1 Project Purpose and Long-Term Objectives
The objective of this project is to determine if there is a potential for wind energy and/or small
hydroelectric energy projects within one or more tribal villages in SE Alaska. The long-term
objective is to supply all or a portion of village electricity from local, renewable energy sources
in order to reduce costs, provide local employment, and reduce power outages. A business plan
will be prepared if one or more of the sites has economically viable renewable resources.
This final report was prepared by Springtyme Company L.L.C. (Bob Lynette) and is based on the
team’s collective work.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Sealaska Corporation and Candidate Sites
Sealaska was formed as the Regional Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), passed by Congress in 1971. Headquartered in Juneau,
Alaska, it is the largest private property owner in Southeast Alaska. Sealaska includes 12
village/urban corporations and represents nearly 17,500 shareholders, approximately half of
whom live in Southeast Alaska. The economies of rural Southeast Alaska communities are built
on a complex mix of employment and income from government, the timber industry, the seafood
industry, income from transfer payments (payments from governments to individuals),
community service organizations, and other sources of income for residents. The early part of
this study (prescreening sites) included all native corporations, native landholdings near villages,
and other sites that Sealaska believed could be acquired by Sealaska.
Location, Size, and Power Generation – Figure 1 shows the location of Sealaska’s
landholdings, village corporations and towns. The smaller villages are isolated in forested lands
and are reachable only by floatplane, boat or barges. Table 1 summarizes the power generation
facilities in SE Alaska and Table 1A summarizes the early information for all of the sites that
were analyzed in order to identify sites that might be attractive for renewable energy
applications. Twenty-three sites were prescreened.
1.2.2 Project Team
Sealaska Corporation: Project Coordinator – Michele Metz, Assistant Lands Manager,
Natural Resources Department
Technical Coordinator and wind energy consultant: Springtyme Company L.L.C.,
Bob Lynette
Wildlife: Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc., Karen Kronner
Meteorologist: John Wade Wind Consultants, John Wade
Anemometry Installation: Met Tower Services, Mike Sailor, Chris Sailor, Jeff Baker
Micro/Small Hydroelectric Power: Alaska Power & Telephone, Larry Coupe
US Department of Energy: Larry Flowers (DOE Monitor)
9
Figure 1: Location of the Sealaska Land Holdings and ANCSA Ownership
~I· . ---
I.,c-· =
/
1-
\ ---------
10
Table 1, Existing Resources
Project Name / Location
Fuel Type
Installed
Capacity
Alaska Electric Light & Power Company
Annex Creek Hydroelectric 3,600 KW
Auke Bay Diesel
Gas Turbine
2,500 KW
24,300 KW
Gold Creek Hydroelectric
Diesel
1,800 KW
7,300 KW
Lemon Creek Diesel
Gas Turbine
22,500 KW
35,000 KW
Salmon Creek No. I Hydroelectric 5,000 KW
Alaska Power Administration
Snettisham / Crater Lake Hydroelectric 78,210 kW
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Dewey Lake / Skagway Hydroelectric 975 KW
Goat Lake / Skagway Hydroelectric 4,000 KW
Diesel / Skagway (proposed) 3,365 KW
Black Bear/ Craig Hydroelectric 4,500 KW
Diesel / Craig Diesel 3,320 KW
Haines Diesel 5,770 KW
Hydaburg Diesel 1,001 KW
Hopis Diesel 150 KW
Ketchikan Public Utilities
S. W. Bailey Diesel 13,450 KW
Beaver Falls Hydroelectric 7,300 KW
Ketchikan Lakes Hydroelectric 4,200 KW
Swan Lake/Revillagigedo
Island (State-Owned)
Hydroelectric 22,500 KW
Totem Bight / Ketchikan Diesel 2,000 KW
Metlakatla Power & Light
Purple Lake Hydroelectric 3,900 KW
Centennial Diesel 3,300 KW
Chester Lake Hydroelectric 1,000 KW
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Mind Slough Hydroelectric 2,200 KW
Petersburg Generation Plant Diesel 7,650 KW
Tyee (State Owned) Hydroelectric 20,000 KW
City and Borough of Sitka
Blue Lake Hydroelectric 6,000 KW
Green Lake Hydroelectric 18,000 KW
Indian River Diesel 7,500 KW
Thorne Bay
Thorne Bay Plant Diesel 1,235 kW
Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority
5 Small Plants (17 units) Diesel Diesel 6,067 kW
Wrangell Electric Department
Wrangell Municipal Plant Diesel 8,350 kW
11
1 Southeast Alaska Electric Intertie System Plan Report #97-01, Acres International Corporation, January 1, 1998
Table 1A, Summary of all Sites
Community
Popula-
tion Location
Current
Utility
Primary
Generation Identified Potential
Angoon 572 Admiralty Island T-HREA Diesel Hydro, intertie
Craig 1,397 Prince of Wales Island AP&T Hydro Hydro, intertie
Elfin Cove 32 Chichagof Island ECEU Diesel Hydro
Gustavus 429 Near Glacier Bay GEC Diesel Hydro
Haines 1,811 Lynn Canal AP&T Hydro Hydro, intertie
Hoonah 860 Chichagof Island T-HREA Diesel Hydro, intertie
Hydaburg 382 Prince of Wales Island AP&T Diesel Hydro, intertie
Hyder 97 Portland Canal TP&L Diesel
Juneau 30,903 Mainland AEL&P Hydro Hydro, intertie
Kake 710 Kupreanof Island T-HREA Diesel Hydro, intertie
Kasaan 39 Prince of Wales Island AP&T Hydro
Ketchikan 14,070 Revillagigedo Island KPU Hydro Intertie
Klawock 854 Prince of Wales Island AP&T Hydro Hydro, intertie
Klukwan 139 Near Haines T-HREA Diesel Hydro, intertie
Metlakatla 1,375 Annette Island MP&L Hydro Intertie
Pelican 163 Chichagof Island PUC Hydro, diesel
Petersburg 3,224 Mitkof Island PMP&L Hydro Intertie
Saxman 431 Near Ketchikan KPU Hydro Hydro
Sitka 8,835 Baranof Island Sitka Hydro Intertie
Skagway 862 Lynn Canal AP&T Hydro Hydro, intertie
Tenakee Sp. 104 Chichagof Island TSEU Diesel Intertie
Wrangell 2,308 Wrangell Island WML&P Hydro Intertie
Yakutat 808 Mainland Yakutat Diesel Hydro
These locations were specifically included in the DOE Statement of Work.
1.2.2 Power Generation and Transmission Situation in SE Alaska
SE Alaska settlements and commercial activities are spread over a large and varied area. The
primary sources of electricity are hydropower and diesel generators. Hydropower supplies
approximately 700,000 MWh annually, and diesel supplies approximately 120,000 MWh.
Increases in demand are projected at approximately 5% annually, with much lower increases
projected for the small villages. The cost of energy for diesel varies from 18¢ per kWh to 28¢
per kWh, depending on fuel prices. The cost of energy for hydroelectric for existing plants is
approximately 65 – 6.5¢ per kWh, and generation costs from new plants are expected to cost
approximately 10-11¢ per kWh. None of these costs include transmission and distribution costs.
A number of the generation facilities are tied to several communities over transmission interties.
Figure 2 shows the existing and projected transmission interties. Governmental agencies and
communities would like to expand the interties to reach more outlying communities. The
expanded intertie system would cost over $330 million and take approximately 25 years to
complete, assuming that current plans and schedules are met.
12
Figure 2, Existing and Proposed Transmission Interties
Some of these interties are currently being built, others are planned, and some may not be
authorized.
1.2.3 Wind Energy Feasibility Study
The project work consisted of:
1. Creation of a database of all potential sites, including demographics, current power supply
generation plants, planned new generation or intertie facilities, interests of the local
communities, probability of viable wind energy resources based on macro information and
anecdotal information, environmentally sensitive areas/wildlife, and the logistics of installing
anemometry and wind turbines.
2. Analyses of the candidate sites to identify those with the best potential for wind energy
generation.
3. Field surveys to the most promising sites.
13
4. Training for tribal members about wind energy - wind resource measurement, wind power
plant characteristics, impacts, costs, and benefits.
5. Installation of anemometry and measurement of the wind resources at two of the sites.
6. Analysis of the wind resource data to determine wind speeds, wind directions, turbulence
intensity, potential array losses, and energy generation to help determine the viability of wind
power for the reservation.
7. Analysis of the economic viability of a wind power station at the sites.
8. If the analyses yield positive results, and Sealaska approves, preparation of a business plan
that discusses the development considerations, costs, and potential funding sources for
proceeding with a wind power project.
1.2.4 Micro/Small Hydroelectric Power Feasibility Study
The purpose of this study was to update previous studies on hydroelectric projects for the
communities that currently rely on diesel generation for most of their power supply. The
communities considered are those for which Sealaska Corporation is designated as the Regional
Corporation.
The project work consisted of:
1. Collect previous feasibility reports
2. Review the previous reports and evaluate whether new technology or construction
methods could result in cost savings.
3. Update the economic assessments.
4. Conduct a preliminary environmental assessment to determine if there are major issues
that would likely preclude development.
5. Conduct a regulatory assessment to determine and describe the regulatory processes that
would need to be completed.
6. Preparation of a final report for inclusion in this project report.
14
2.0 Wind Energy Pre-development Activities and Results
This section describes the activities associated with determining the viability of developing and
operating one or more wind power stations on Native American lands in SE Alaska.
2.1 Identification of Anemometry Sites and Equipment Installation
An extensive database was assembled for all of the candidate sites in SE Alaska, including
location, demographics, topographical maps, electricity supply type and load, existing and
planned transmission interties with more central generation, planned hydroelectric plants, macro
wind data, and contact personnel. Section 1 contained the list of the potential sites and their
locations.
Pre-field work analyses – The 23 sites in the database were analyzed to eliminate sites that were
not likely candidates. Twelve of the sites were eliminated at the onset because they use
hydropower for all or a major portion of their power generation. To further narrow the search,
discussions were held via email and telecoms with the Alaska Energy Authority, Sealaska, tribal
members, village staff, public and private power companies and wildlife agency personnel. This
provided an understanding of the conditions at the remaining sites. Criteria used to evaluate the
remaining sites were: (1) schedule if any, for bringing a transmission intertie to candidate sites,
(2) current and projected population and commercial activities (e.g., contracting fish processing
plants, expanded activities due to tourism), (3) topography and logistics for installing wind
turbines, (4) interests within the villages/towns for installing and operating a wind power facility,
(5) wildlife information that might preclude deploying wind turbines, (6) macro wind data from
weather stations and airports, (7) the probability of viable winds based on topography, and (8)
anecdotal information. Based on these criteria, five villages were selected for site visits. Table 2
contains the results of these analyses.
Meetings with cognizant personnel and field analyses – A field trip was conducted to these sites
during July 8 through July 18, 2003. The team consisted of Bob Lynette - technical manager,
John Wade - meteorologist, Karen Kronner – wildlife biologist, and Larry Flowers - DOE
monitor and an expert in wind-diesel hybrid energy systems. Meetings were held with local
village and utility leaders and the requirements, costs, and benefits of having local renewable
energy facilities were discussed. The vegetation and topography for potential anemometer
towers were noted and GPS readings were taken. Several of the sites did not have enough room
for wind power applications without posing a noise and/or safety problem, and the vegetation at
several of the sites indicated insufficient wind resources.
Following is a summary of the sites and subsequent actions.
Angoon
Angoon, a Tlingit community, is situated in the Chatham Strait, which is a north-south oriented
stretch of water in South East Alaska’s inside passage. It is the only permanent settlement on
Admiralty Island, located on the southwest coast at Kootznahoo Inlet. Angoon is 55 miles
southwest of Juneau and 41 miles northeast of Sitka. Its coordinates are 57.50333° N
15
Table 2, Selection Results for Identifying Potential Sites
Community Population Location
Primary
Generation
Decision
Criteria
Angoon 572 Admiralty Island Diesel
Craig 1,397 Prince of Wales Island Hydro, diesel
Elfin Cove 32 Chichagof Island Diesel
Gustavus 429 Near Glacier Bay Diesel
Haines 1,811 Lynn Canal Hydro
Hoonah 860 Chichagof Island Diesel
Hydaburg 382 Prince of Wales Island Diesel
Hyder 97 Portland Canal Diesel
Juneau 30,903 Mainland Hydro
Kake 710 Kupreanof Island Diesel
Kasaan 39 Prince of Wales Island Hydro
Ketchikan 14,070 Revillagigedo Island Hydro
Klawock 854 Prince of Wales Island Hydro
Klukwan 139 Near Haines Diesel
Metlakatla 1,375 Annette Island Hydro
Pelican 163 Chichagof Island Hydro, diesel
Petersburg 3,224 Mitkof Island Hydro
Saxman 431 Near Ketchikan Hydro
Sitka 8,835 Baranof Island Hydro
Skagway 862 Lynn Canal Hydro
Tenakee Springs 104 Chichagof Island Diesel
Wrangell 2,308 Wrangell Island Hydro
Yakutat 808 Mainland Diesel
These locations were specifically included in the DOE SOW.
Eliminated - does not use diesel as primary generation source.
Eliminated - hydropower or intertie expected within next 10 years.
Eliminated - low population or extremely difficult logistics.
Eliminated - very low probability of sufficient wind resources.
Selected for site visit.
Latitude and -134.58389° W Longitude. (Sec. 25, T050S, R067E, Copper River Meridian.)
The area encompasses 22.5 square miles of land and 16.1 square miles of water. A photo of the
area is shown in Figure 3 and a map in Figure 4. Three possible locations for meteorological
towers were examined, but there was no evidence of sufficient wind in this area, other than at
Danger Reef. The potential met tower sites are shown by a red marker in Figure 4. If a met
tower were to be placed at Danger Reef, it would be sited as shown on the map in Figure 4. But
upon further evaluation, it was decided that the Danger Reef area is inappropriate because
accessibility is difficult, there are potential wildlife conflicts, and it is upwind of a seaplane
landing area.
Angoon was dropped from further consideration for a Windpower station.
16
Figure 3, Aerial Picture of Angoon
Figure 4, Map of Angoon with Potential Met Tower Sites
17
Gustavus
Gustavus lies on the north shore of Icy Passage at the mouth of the Salmon River, 48 air miles
northwest of Juneau in the St. Elias Mountains. It lies at the entrance to Glacier Bay National
Park and Preserve, adjacent to Parkland. Its coordinates are 58.41333° North Latitude and -
135.73694° West Longitude. Gustavus has a seasonal economy; the lodge and park, located
northwest of Gustavus, attract a number of tourists and recreation enthusiasts during summer
months. Some commercial fishing occurs; 32 residents hold commercial fishing permits. An
aerial view showing the location of Gustavus is shown in Figure 5. Glacier Bay is the series of
inlets to the N-NW of Gustavus.
Gustavus has a State-owned airport with jet capability. Air traffic is relatively high during peak
summer months, and several cruise ships include the Bay in their itinerary. Vegitative signs
were discouraging as were discussions with residents. It was decided that there was little chance
of viable winds, and permitting would be a major problem due to the airplane traffic. Further, it
was subsequently learned that there was little chance of obtaining tribal ownership nearby. This
site was dropped from further consideration.
Figure 5, Gustavus, Looking North
Tenakee Springs
Tenakee Springs is located on the east side of Chichagof Island, on the north shore of Tenakee
Inlet and has an ideal NW-SE orientation. Southeast winds are predominant in this area. It lies
45 miles southwest of Juneau, and 50 miles northeast of Sitka at approximately 57.78083° N
18
Latitude and -135.21889° W Longitude. The area encompasses 13.8 square miles of land and
5.3 square miles of water. Tenakee Springs is primarily a retirement community, though
commercial fishing is an important source of income. Eighteen residents hold commercial
fishing permits. While fish processing had historically been a mainstay of its economy, tourism
is becoming increasingly important. The City and Store are the only local employers.
Figure 6 shows the village looking to the north.
Figure 6, Tenakee Springs Looking North
Figure 7, Tenakee Springs Topographical Map
19
This area, with the exception of the point north of Grave Island, does not have any evidence of a
good wind resource (see arrow in Figure 7). However there is no room for turbines at this
location. Tenakee Springs was dropped from further consideration.
Hoonah
Hoonah is a Tlingit community located on the northeast shore of Chichagof Island, 40 air miles
west of Juneau. It coordinates are 58.11° N Latitude and -135.44361° W Longitude. The area
encompasses 6.6 square miles of land and 2.1 square miles of water. Hoonah is located in Icy
Straight which is oriented SE-NW, an ideal orientation for the prevailing winds. Fishing,
logging and local government are mainstays of the economy. One hundred and seventeen
residents hold commercial fishing permits. Sealaska Timber Corporation employs 130 area
residents through subcontracts and the Huna Totem Corp. owns a sort yard and timber transfer
facility. The City and School District are significant public-sector employers. Subsistence
activities are important component of the lifestyle. Salmon, halibut, shellfish, deer, waterfowl
and berries are harvested. Figure 8 shows the village looking NE. Note the ridge above the
village.
Hoonah has a diesel generation capacity of 2,445 kW and the load is approximately 4,500 MWh
per year.
Figure 8, Hoonah Village Looking NE
The project team met with the Hoonah Mayor and staff, looked at the vegetation, terrain, and
identified three potential sites:
• An “in-town” site that was strongly endorsed by the mayor,
20
• A site near a landfill about 1/3rd of the way up the ridge, and
• A site at the top of the ridge (White Alice site)
The “in-town” site was marked and GPS readings taken. This site was subsequently rejected by
the City Council. The landfill site is a relatively low saddleback west of Spasky Bay. It is not
well oriented with respect to the prevailing winds and the airport just to the west in the center of
Spasky Pass, indicates light winds from a variety of wind directions. This site was rejected
because of the low winds. The third site – White Alice is on a 1,410 ft. ridge above the village,
and hence became the favored site. Figure 9 shows why the ridge appeared attractive. Figure 10
shows the topography and the locations for the “in-town” and White Alice sites.
Figure 9, Ridge above Hoonah
21
Figure 10, Hoonah Topography and Potential Anemometry Sites (in Blue)
An existing 100-foot Rohn tower was located at the top of the ridge – owned by AT&T Wireless.
They agreed to install our anemometry on the tower, but gaining their permission required more
than 16 months of coordination, with the need to provide electrical and mechanical drawings and
loads. The anemometry was finally installed in March 2005, and the first data successfully
retrieved in September 2005. A report was prepared by meteorologist John Wade that contains
the details of the measured wind resources and preliminary energy production projections.
(Attachment A to this report.) The results and the implications for developing wind power at
Hoonah are discussed later in this section.
Yakutat
Yakutat is isolated among the lowlands along the Gulf of Alaska, 225 miles northwest of Juneau
and 220 miles southeast of Cordova. It is at the mouth of Yakutat Bay, one of the few refuges
for vessels along this stretch of coast. The Hubbard and Malaspina Glaciers are nearby. It
coordinates are 59.54694° N Latitude and -139.72722° W Longitude. The area encompasses
7,650.5 sq. miles of land and 1,808.8 sq. miles of water. Yakutat's economy is dependent on
fishing, fish processing and government. One hundred and sixty residents hold commercial
fishing permits. A cold storage plant is the major private employer. Recreational fishing
opportunities, both saltwater and freshwater fishing in the Situk River, are world-class. Alaska
Airlines provides daily jet service to Yakutat. Snows come early – in November, and leave in
May. Figure 11 shows an aerial view of Yakutat. As can be seen, Yakutat is surrounded to the
north, east, and south by high mountains. Yakutat Power operates 2,880 kW of diesel generators
and has an annual load of approximately 6,000 MWh.
22
Figure 11, Aerial View of Yakutat Looking North
There were two sources of existing wind data at Yakutat. The Alaska Energy Commission has
had a met tower on the beach northwest of the airport and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration maintains an automatic met station shown as YakNOAA on the map below. In
addition, twice a day data is collected by Rawindsonde balloons of winds at various heights up to
nearly 20 kilometers above the earth. An energy rose is presented for winds just over 2,000 feet
above the surface of Yakutat. Figure 12 shows that the strongest winds are coming off the
mountains to the east and flowing offshore toward low pressure in the Gulf of Alaska. On shore
winds from the ocean do not appear to be significant. Our meteorologist believed that the wind
coming down Disenchantment Bay into Yakutat Bay from the northeast could be fairly strong
winds on the tribal lands on the Phipps Peninsula. Yakutat was strongly recommended by the
Alaska Power Authority as one of the more promising sites for wind energy.
The team flew into Yakutat on July 17, 2003. After reviewing potential sites, discussions with
Yakutat Power (Scott Newlun), Alaska Energy Commission personnel (current person is Reuben
Loewen), and other cognizant personnel, it was decided that two new 30-meter met towers
should be installed and the existing met tower retrofitted with modern equipment. All three
towers would have two levels of anemometry so we could measure the wind shear. The sites
were flagged and GPS readings taken to assist with the subsequent installation.
23
Wind Energy Rose for Yakutat at 400 feet above Sea Level
01/01/98 to 06/30/05
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
N
20
40
60
80
E
100
120
140
160
S
200
220
240
260
W
280
300
320
340
Figure 12, Distribution of Energy Producing Winds 400 feet above the Surface at Yakutat
The installation of the met towers at Yakutat was completed in July 2004. Figures 13 shows the
locations and pictures of the installations. Earlier coordination by our wildlife biologist Karen
Kronner, revealed that there might be a species of plant – the Moonwart Fern, that was becoming
a candidate for “Threatened” status under the Endangered Species Act. Our crew searched the
area prior to erecting the met tower at the beach location and identified the plant, marked its
perimeter, and avoided the area. (Figures 14 and 15) We also used bird diverters on the guy
wires and installed signs informing villagers and others about the anemometry. (Figure 16)
Unfortunately, one of the data loggers was destroyed by gunfire before we could have the signs
made up and installed. We replaced the data logger and there were no further incidents. Data
collection was nearly 100% at all three sites during the remaining data collection period.
24
Figure 13, Locations of New and Existing Met Towers
25
Figure 14, Avoiding the Moonwart Fern
26
Figure 15, Signs Placed at Sites
A report was prepared by meteorologist John Wade that contains the details of the measured
wind resources and energy production projections. (Attachment B to this report.) The results
and the implications for developing wind power at Yakutat are discussed later in this section.
2.3 Description of the Anemometry
Hoonah – The anemometry is mounted on a Rohn tower owned by AT&T Wireless. The tower
is instrumented at 20 and 30 meters. Sensors used for measuring wind speed are Maximum 40
cup anemometers with protective terminal boots. Wind direction is measured with a 200P-wind
direction sensor. The tower is well grounded. All sensors are connected to the logger with
shielded 20-gauge cable.
27
The Maximum cup anemometer on each revolution generates two sine wave cycles that are
linearly proportional to the wind speed. Anemometer voltage varies between 0.5 and 6 volts
VAC. The transfer constant to convert the Maximum 40P output to wind speed is a multiplier of
1.711 with a 0.78 mph offset.
The site is equipped with a NRG Symphonie Data Logger with a non-volatile industry standard
FLASH Multi Media Card (MMC). The card is mailed to John Wade to be read from a USB
port. A 5-watt photovoltaic panel powers the sensors and loggers. A terminal reader is supplied
to program the logger on-site and view data. NRG supplies software for converting data on the
FLASH cards to engineering units, QA/QC programs, and standard statistical summaries.
2.4 Wildlife considerations
Karen Kronner of Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. provided the wildlife expertise for the
team. Her complete report is contained in Appendix C.
Efforts were made from the onset of the program to locate the anemometry (and possible future
wind turbines) in areas that would minimize potential avian impacts. Several sources were used
to obtain existing information on the avian use or other wildlife of the villages and nearby
surrounding area. Agency biologists, wildlife professionals with experience in the area, and
local bird enthusiasts typically have the local knowledge and experience with birds inhabiting
and migrating through the local environment.
Based on these pre-field reviews, it became apparent that bald eagles (nesting or foraging
concentrations), migrating birds (all groups), wintering waterfowl, nesting goshawks, and bats
could be the biological resources to consider when selecting sites for wind turbine siting. In
addition, guy wires on meteorological towers in some areas may be problematic if large
concentrations of birds are nearby (potential avian collision with the wires in flight paths).
Based on agency comment and a review of the USFWS Threatened and Endangered System
database, there are no known federal or state threatened or endangered wildlife species
commonly found in the areas being investigated for Sealaska Corporation. Bald eagles are
protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Alaska Species of Special Concern potentially
occurring as breeders or migrants in southeast Alaska are American peregrine falcon and the
northern (Queen Charlotte) goshawk. In southeast Alaska the peregrine falcon nests on cliffs
along rivers or near lakes and the goshawk nests in old growth and mature forests. Large
concentrations of shorebirds migrate along the coast. Table 3 summarizes the information from
local SE Alaska wildlife personnel. The following provides site-specific documentation of the
potential biological (avian or other) concerns noted during the July 2003 field trip for the
locations selected for studying the wind resources with met towers. The complete report
(Appendix C) includes comments on those sites that were not selected for further wind resource
analyses.
Hoonah – White Alice site.
The habitat is coniferous forest (hemlock) with periodic openings created by timber harvest
and other human disturbances. Some openings are approximately six to seven acres are
28
Table 3, Pre-field Notes Provided to NWC from Area Specialists
Location Notes from USFWS Mike Jacobson
Bird notes from R. Day, ABR
Angoon Area has bald eagle nests.
Mitchell Bay is premier spot in SE
AK for waterfowl, gulls, and
shorebirds because there is dense
schooling of fish to feed on.
Complex shorelines and protected
waters suggest that this area may be
important to wintering seabirds and
waterfowl.
Hoonah Bald eagles abundant. Good
roads, active logging.
Nearby Icy Strait is important foraging
area for seabirds in summer,
substantial number of wintering
waterfowl (and probably seabirds) in
Port Frederick.
Tenakee
Springs
Waterbirds in bays, good eagle
population. Good wind potential.
Simple shoreline by town suggests that
the area may not be important for
wintering seabirds or waterfowl.
Yakutat Major bird migration of all birds
(they move along the coast).
Wind probably good.
Major bird migration zone for along-
coast movements. Kittlitz's Murrelets
are in the bay, but unknown whether
they fly in airspace where the
windfarm will be.
currently shrubby habitat consisting of alder and young hemlock. Existing communication
towers in the openings could provide supporting structure to place anemometry equipment,
eliminating the need to do additional habitat clearing and eliminating the guy wire concern (see
above). If the site has potential for wind turbine(s) it is possible they could be placed in areas
that are already disturbed. Passerine breeding activity and migration and bat activity could be
higher than at the landfill site. Low flying water birds may be at risk for collision with the
turbines. If the site has sufficient wind for turbine(s), more site-specific data will be gathered
from local expertise or by conducting focused studies.
Yakutat
Met Tower A (Point)
This location needs minimal vegetation clearing for placement of the met tower. Wind
turbine(s) would require removal and control of low shrubs. Habitat alteration does not
appear to be a concern at this site because the vegetation type is extensive and no unique
features were noted. In general, the elevation of the point combined with the proximity of
the land to the opening of the bay suggests birds of all groups may fly closer to the ground
here compared to the beach met tower site where they are expected to be more dispersed.
Birds orienting with the shoreline during local and long distance movements will be
traveling over this point and along the beach. See other comments below from other
individuals.
29
Met Tower B (Beach)
This wide, flat sandy beach is sparsely vegetated. It may serve as a resting spot for
migrating shorebirds depending on the water levels (percent of exposed foraging flats) and
weather extremes. However, shorebirds typically concentrate at other locations. There did
not appear to be any unique landform except the beach itself that would indicate higher use
by birds. Gulls of various species are known to rest on the beach. Approximately 2,000
gulls have been observed resting on the flat beach on one day. Bald eagles nest nearby but
no nest locations were available from the resources contacted. See other notes below from
other individuals.
Agency Comments
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mike Jacobson, USFWS, was contacted on August 7 after the July field trip. He was briefed on
the results of the field trip. It was explained that if a wind site is located, there may be 1-5
turbines but we would need to test the wind for a year. He did not have any special concerns for
each location although was pleased that we would mark the guy wires so they would be more
visible to birds.
Hoonah
Based on the species of wintering waterfowl near the selected Hoonah met tower location at
the fill site, he did not expect waterfowl to be a concern for the met tower. He would like to
see the turbine specifications when available but noted that waterfowl may not be a concern
but would need to look at it closer if we decide to go forward. He was pleased that we had
selected a disturbed site so other issues such as habitat impacts, etc. would be eliminated.
He noted that the wintering ducks are mostly open water diving ducks and not shallow water
ducks that may rest and forage on the grassy shoreline. He encouraged NWC to check with
the local birders for additional local avian use information.
Yakutat
He was pleased that the team attempted to locate sites away from prominent points that
migrating birds may concentrate near while moving into the bay or along the coastline. Bald
eagle nesting and flight paths during nesting or concentrated roosting would be issues that
need to consider for micro-siting wind turbines. When asked about gulls, he noted that they
are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act but some species have been increasing in
SE AK and may not be too much of a concern. Others are somewhat unique regionally so
their nest sites and concentrated use patterns may need to be reviewed.
2.5 Wind Resource Measurement, Analysis, and Results
The wind resource data was analyzed by John Wade, principal of John Wade Wind Consultants.
The following information was taken and edited by the author from Mr. Wade’s final report,
which is included as Appendix A and B of this report.
30
2.5.1 Data Collection, Data Recovery, and Analysis Criteria
Data is sent by email to Mr. Wade’s office in Portland, Oregon. The Portland Oregon office is
equipped with NRG data collection software and stores binary and ASCI data files for further
analysis. The averaging interval of the data logger is 10-minutes, but the data analysis uses
hourly data. The raw data remains in 10-minute intervals.
Data analysis consists of spreadsheets for computing the standard analyses routines for wind
energy projects, including, diurnal wind speed patterns, monthly time series, speed frequency
distributions, wind roses, turbulence, shear, and expected power output calculations at
anemometer height and wind turbine hub heights.
2.5.2 Climatology
A climatological analysis is an important part of the wind resource validation study. Typically a
wind resource assessment is conducted for a period of only one to two years prior to installing
wind turbines. A general rule is that a year of data is sufficient to estimate the mean annual wind
speed to within ±10% at the 90% confidence level. This means that the annual energy output
may be off by 20 to 25%. To increase the confidence in the relatively short record of data at the
candidate site, data at a nearby long-term reference site can be analyzed.
The approach in the climatological analysis is to select a nearby reference station with a long-
term record that would provide information on annual and seasonal variation in the wind
resource. A typical approach is to multiply the long-term site mean wind speed by the ratio of
the candidate site to the long-term site.
2.5.3 Data Analysis and Results
Hoonah – Hoonah is tree covered and has very complex terrain. While it is only 45 miles east
of the Gulf of Alaska, it is sheltered from storms in the Gulf by mountains to west and southwest
that are up to 3,000 feet high. The proximity to the ocean moderates the temperatures and results
in a mean annual temperature of about 45 degrees Fahrenheit with a range from the mid 20’s to
the high 50’s.
Winds statistics for Juneau indicate very little seasonal variation being equally weak in every
month. Strongest gusts occur in the winter months. Table 4 contains the White Alice location
information and ancillary information.
Table 4, White Alice Site
Site Name: White Alice Site 5074 Latitude: 58° 7’ 37.61’’ N Longitude: 135° 25’ 55.16” W
Map Datum: WGS 84 Elevation: 1417 feet. Terrain: East-west ridgeline on island;
Roughness: Sitka Spruce and Western Red Cedar. Prevailing Wind Direction: NE
Magnetic Declination: 26.5 degrees East Tower Height: 30 meters Sensor Levels: 30
and 21 meters Logger: 5074
The annual air density for this area assuming a 60 meter hub height turbine, an average elevation
of 430 meters and an annual temperature of 6 degrees Centigrade is 1.19 kg/m3.
31
Data recovery was over 100% for the entire period of record from late April 2005 through the
late September 2005 for the three sites.
Climatology - Typically a wind resource assessment is conducted for a period of only one to two
years prior to installing wind turbines. A general rule is that a year of data is sufficient to
estimate the mean annual wind speed to within ±10% at the 90% confidence level. This means
that the annual energy output may be off by 20 to 25%. To increase the confidence in the
relatively short record of data at the candidate site, data at a nearby long-term reference site can
be analyzed.
The approach in the climatological analysis is to select a nearby reference station with a long-
term record that would provide information on annual and seasonal variation in the wind
resource. Table 5 shows that the winds during the sampling period at Juneau were generally
lower (13%) than normal and the average for a six-month period sampled is about 97% of the
annual wind speed.
Data Analysis - Table 6 and Figures 16 and 17summarize the important statistics measured to
date. In addition to measured average speed, wind direction, temperature and extreme wind
speed, other statistics derived measurements such as shear, turbulence, and 60-meter wind
speeds. The data was corrected for departures from normal for each month and the six-month
period was normalized to a year.
Table 6 shows that even winds extrapolated to 60 meters using the very high shear values
measured at this site are not strong. The high shear and turbulence intensity do not mean that
this site is one of the most turbulent sites on earth, they merely reflect the low wind speeds and
the large impact that tree induced friction has at low wind speeds. The higher winds at night
show a mountain to sea wind flow phenomena. The six-month wind speed at Hoonah,
extrapolated to 60 meters hub height was 3.9 meters per second (8.7 mph). Using Juneau as a
base, the wind speed for a full year is projected to be 4 meters per second, or approximately 9
miles per hour.
Conclusions and Recommendations - Although less than a year of data has been collected, the
mean annual wind speed has been corrected to an annual value using a nearby long-term site.
Based on the data collected so far, a modern wind turbine like a GE 1500 kW machine would
achieve a Gross Capacity Factor of less than 10% and a Net Capacity Factor of 9%, which makes
cost effective wind energy development in this area very unlikely.
32
Table 5, Wind Statistics for the Juneau Airport
Month Climo Avg V 2005 Departure Comments
Jan 7.7
Feb 8
Mar 8.1
Ap r 8.4 6.5 -23% 9 days only
May 8.1 6 -26%
Jun 7.8 5.9 -24%
Jul 7.5 7.3 -3%
Aug 7.3 6.9 -5%
Sep 7.9 8 1% 7 days only
Oct 9.2
Nov 8.5
Dec 8.8
Ann 8.1 7.8 -13%
% of Annual 96.7%
Table 6, Statistics for the first six months at Hoonah site
month 100' v 99'v 70' V Max 100' TI Shear V60 CF Count Data Recovery
Ap r 4.3 3.2 2.3 26.4 0.43 0.67 3.6 0.05 223 100%
May 4.8 4.6 3.0 29 0.40 0.66 4.1 0.09 744 100%
Jun 4.2 3.5 2.3 29 0.42 0.67 3.6 0.07 720 100%
Jul 4.6 4.7 2.6 25.6 0.41 0.68 3.3 0.05 744 100%
Aug 5.0 4.6 2.5 36.7 0.41 0.66 3.5 0.08 744 100%
Sep 6.5 6.9 3.8 31.6 0.40 0.74 4.9 0.17 181 100%
Mean 4.9 4.6 2.8 36.7 0.41 0.68 3.9 0.08 3356 100%
Energy Output Rose for Hoonah White Alice Site
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
N
NE
E
SE
S
SW
W
NW
Figure 16, Energy Output Rose for the Hoonah Site
33
Diurnal Variation of Wind Speed at Hoonah
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 3 6 9 1215182124
HourSpeed at 60 meters in m/s Figure 17, Diurnal Variation of Wind Speed at Hoonah
Yakutat -
Yakutat is surrounded on three sides by water: to the north by Yakutat Bay, to the west the
Pacific Ocean and to the northeast by Russell Fiord. To the north and northeast, are the peaks of
the St. Elias Range, which rise to heights of between 14,000 and 20,000 feet. This higher terrain
means that southeasterly flow circulating around the Aleutian Low is a barrier that first slows the
onshore winds and then lifts them dropping abundant precipitation in the Yakutat area. Figure
11 shows a three dimensional view of the area. From this view it is clear that the only direction
the winds can come from are the east though SSW; all other directions are blocked by higher
terrain. (See Figure 12 for the wind direction at 400 feet.)
Table 7 contains the three Yakutat met tower location information and ancillary information.
Refer to Figure 13 for a map of the three met tower locations.
Data recovery was over 99% for two of the sites and 92% for the Ocean Cape site. The annual
air density for this area assuming a 60-meter hub height turbine, an average elevation of 10
meters and an annual temperature of 3.3 degrees Centigrade is 1.26 kg/m3.
Climatology - As discussed previously, the approach in the climatological analysis is to select a
nearby reference station with a long-term record that would provide information on annual and
seasonal variation in the wind resource. For this report the Yakutat upper air data was used
because it was thought to provide a climatology unaffected by population and development
growth in the area or changes in measurement equipment. Data near the surface (400 foot) was
used to determine a correction for seasonality and interannual variation. Table 8 shows that while
there were some significant departures from normal during the year, on average the winds during
the measurement period were normal.
34
Table 7, Site Description for Yakutat Sites
Site Name: A Ocean Cape Site 002 Latitude: 59° 32.502’ N Longitude: 139° 51.738’ W
Map Datum: WGS 84 Elevation: 40 feet. Terrain: Small escarpment on coastal
headland. Roughness: Spruce and Red Cedar. Prevailing Wind Direction: SE – SW Magnetic
Declination: 25 degrees East Tower Height: 30 meters Sensor Levels: 30 and 20 meters
Logger: 4410
Site Name: B YakMet Beach 001 Latitude: 59° 32.881’ N Longitude: 139° 48.525’ W
Elevation: 6 feet. Terrain: Gradually sloping beach Roughness: Spruce and Cedar
Prevailing Wind Direction: East -Southeast Magnetic Declination: 25 degrees East
Tower Height: 30 meters Sensor Levels: 30 and 20 meters Logger: 4409
Site Name: C YakCoast Guard 003 Latitude: 59° 32.881’ N Longitude: 139° 48.525’ W
Elevation: 20 feet. Terrain: Gradually sloping beach Roughness: Spruce and Cedar
Prevailing Wind Direction: Southeast -Southwest Magnetic Declination: 25 degrees East
Tower Height: 30 meters Sensor Levels: 30 and 20 meters Logger: 4408
Table 8, Upper Air Data at 400 feet
year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Mean
1998 2.7 4.1 2.6 4.5 4.8 3.2 3.6 4.6 3.7 3.2 2.1 3.9 3.8
1999 2.5 3.3 3.5 4.8 4.0 3.5 3.6 4.5 5.7 5.5 3.7 6.8 4.3
2000 3.4 2.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.0 3.8 4.5 3.6 4.8 4.8 3.8
2001 5.4 3.0 4.6 3.7 4.3 2.9 3.7 2.5 4.3 3.6 4.2 3.0 3.7
2002 4.7 3.7 5.1 3.2 3.3 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.6 4.8 5.6 2.6 4.0
2003 3.4 3.7 4.2 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.0 3.5 3.4
2004 3.9 4.7 4.3 4.3 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.8 4.1 4.3 3.9 5.2 3.8
2005 3.5 4.9 4.8 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.9 3.8
Mean 3.7 3.8 4.1 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.6 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.3 3.8
Period of
Measurement
2004 2.9 2.8 4.1 4.3 3.9 5.2
2005 3.5 4.9 4.8 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.9
Mean for
Measurement
Period 3.5 4.9 4.8 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.898 2.8 4.1 4.3 3.9 5.2 3.8
Departure from
Normal -6% 30% 16% -11% -15% -18% -12% -22% -2% 4% 0% 23% 0%
400 foot data
Tables 9 - 11 and Figures 18 - 20 summarize the important statistics measured to date. Despite
the low average wind speed, the extreme wind speeds are very high. All three locations have
similar mean annual wind speeds at 30 meters. The vertical wind variation is large at all but the
35
Beach site, which is very close to the bay. Based on the roughness near the met towers, the shear
at all three sites should be closer to 0.26. Using a shear value of 0.26 to extrapolate to 60 meters
the annual Gross Capacity Factor should be close to 12%.
The turbulence intensity is high at all three sites. The wind roses show that there is no wind flow
from the north down the bay and no onshore flow from the west. The diurnal variation of wind
speed shows very little amplitude even in the summer months when thermal effects in the lower
48 states create large diurnal variations (see Figure 21). In the summer the peak is later in the
day then in the spring or fall. Winter characteristically is a season of little diurnal variation and
it is true at Yakutat.
Conclusions and Recommendations – The average of all three sites was 4 mps (9 mph), and
the best site (Ocean Cape) was 4.22 mps (9.4 mph). A modern wind turbine such as the GE 1500
kW machine would achieve a Gross Capacity Factor (GCF) of approximately 14% at the Ocean
Cape, and a Net Capacity Factor of approximately 12%, which makes cost effective wind energy
development in this area very unlikely without major grant funding.
Table 9, Statistics for Met A Ocean Cape site
mon 30m V Max Gust Red 30m V 20m V Temp Shear
60m V
m/s
80m V
m/s Count
Recovery
Rate
Jul-04 6.05 38.5 6.60 6.32 57.6 0.058 2.99 3.22 216 100%
Aug-04 5.73 41.9 6.28 5.81 59.6 0.157 2.99 4.98 744 100%
Sep-04 9.23 60.6 9.72 9.17 50.9 0.100 4.69 6.02 717 100%
Oct-04 9.24 58.9 9.72 8.38 48.4 0.415 5.36 5.86 215 29%
Nov-04 9.09 62.5 9.63 8.43 37.6 0.419 5.22 6.41 657 91%
Dec-04 10.32 58.9 10.76 9.55 34.9 0.360 5.77 5.03 738 99%
Jan-05 7.42 59.8 7.97 6.75 32.3 0.455 4.46 5.11 731 98%
Feb-05 9.31 54.6 9.77 8.43 32.9 0.431 5.44 6.14 671 100%
Mar-05 8.56 52.1 9.03 7.95 38.4 0.332 4.86 5.40 742 100%
Apr-05 7.17 52.1 7.76 6.91 43.2 0.304 4.02 4.47 720 100%
May-05 6.57 45.2 6.91 5.82 51.7 0.599 4.27 5.26 744 100%
Jun-05 6.96 27.3 7.32 6.97 56.5 0.165 3.43 3.61 720 100%
Jul-05 6.86 28.2 7.07 6.61 58.9 0.286 3.51 3.75 277 100%
Average 7.88 62.5 8.35 7.47 46.4 0.31 4.38 5.02 7892 92%
Expected
Annual
Wind
Speed
m/s 3.52 4.22 4.55
13%Expected Annual Gross Capacity Factor at 60 meters
36
OCEAN CAPE SITE ENERGY ROSE
July 2004 - July 2005
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
N
E
S
W
Figure 18, Energy Rose for Ocean Cape Site 1.
Table 10, Statistics for Met B Beach site
Month 30m V Max Gust TI Red 30m V 20m V Shear
60m V
m/s
80m V
m/s Count
Data
Recovery
Rate
Jul-04 6.3 35.9 0.139 6.51 6.35 0.004 2.9 2.9 175 100%
Aug-04 4.5 41.0 0.156 4.89 4.66 0.047 2.1 2.1 744 100%
Sep-04 7.4 51.3 0.161 7.45 7.34 0.060 3.5 3.6 718 100%
Oct-04 7.9 55.5 0.145 7.82 7.81 0.062 3.7 3.8 737 99%
Nov-04 8.9 51.3 0.156 8.64 8.50 0.106 4.3 4.5 720 100%
Dec-04 8.6 45.2 0.165 8.42 8.22 0.128 4.2 4.4 744 100%
Jan-05 6.2 44.4 0.140 6.04 6.00 0.137 3.1 3.2 744 100%
Feb-05 8.4 52.9 0.146 8.50 8.47 0.073 4.0 4.1 672 100%
Mar-05 8.8 42.7 0.151 8.61 8.60 0.098 4.2 4.4 739 99%
Apr-05 6.8 44.4 0.136 6.51 6.39 0.146 3.5 3.7 718 100%
May-05 5.6 41.9 0.173 5.40 5.55 -0.085 2.6 2.7 744 100%
Jun-05 5.6 25.6 0.186 5.30 5.51 -0.089 2.6 2.7 720 100%
Jul-05 5.4 26.4 0.175 5.07 5.23 -0.078 2.6 2.6 279 100%
Mean 6.9 55.5 0.16 6.86 6.82 0.05 3.33 3.45 8454 99.8%
Expected
Annual
Wind
Speed m/s 3.10 3.71 4.00
12%Expected Annual Gross Capacity Factor at 60 meters
37
YAKUTAT BEACH SITE ENERGY ROSE
July 2004 - July 2005
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
N
E
S
W
Figure 19, Energy Rose for Beach Site 2
Table 11, Statistics for Met C Coast Guard Site
mon 30m V Max Gust TI
Red
30m V 20m V Temp Shear
60m V
m/s
80m V
m/s Count
Recovery
Rate
Jul-04 6.1 38.5 0.200 5.8 5.7 57.1 0.169 3.2 3.5 198 100%
Aug-04 5.2 40.1 0.140 4.8 4.4 58.7 0.426 3.3 3.9 742 100%
Sep-04 8.6 60.6 0.151 8.1 7.2 49.4 0.472 5.2 6.1 719 100%
Oct-04 7.7 58.9 0.184 7.2 6.1 42.2 0.572 5.1 6.1 742 100%
Nov-04 8.9 65.7 0.154 8.4 7.3 36.7 0.615 5.7 6.8 718 100%
Dec-04 9.7 53.8 0.122 9.1 8.2 33.4 0.564 5.9 6.9 713 96%
Jan-05 7.1 54.6 0.147 6.3 5.4 28.9 0.655 5.0 6.2 725 97%
Feb-05 9.0 59.8 0.167 8.3 7.3 31.7 0.592 5.8 6.8 658 98%
Mar-05 8.4 50.4 0.195 8.1 7.1 37.6 0.472 5.1 5.9 734 99%
Apr-05 6.3 50.4 0.188 5.9 5.3 41.9 0.481 4.0 4.8 720 100%
May-05 5.6 17.0 0.071 5.2 4.8 48.0 0.648 4.0 5.4 744 100%
Jun-05 7.0 25.6 0.105 6.1 5.7 54.4 0.735 5.0 6.6 720 100%
Jul-05 6.4 27.3 0.102 5.6 5.0 57.5 0.830 4.9 6.6 325 100%
Mean 7.7 65.7 0.165 7.2 6.4 41.8 0.502 4.8 5.7 2837 99.1%
Expected
Annual
Wind
Speed m/s 3.44 4.12 4.45
12%Expected Annual Gross Capacity Factor at 60 meters
38
YAKUTAT COAST GUARD SITE
July 2004 - July 2005
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
N
E
S
W
Figure 20, Energy Rose for Coast Guard Site 3
Diurnal Variation of Winds Ocean Cape Site
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
123456789101112131415161718192021222324
HourSpeed mphJan Mar Aug Oct Mean
Figure 21, Diurinal Variation of Winds at the Ocean Cape Site
39
2.6 Transmission Considerations
There are two transmission considerations associated with this project:
• The cost of transmission lines from a new project to the existing electrical
infrastructure, and
• The SE Alaska intertie and how plans for extending the intertie might impact new
project decisions.
The costs of transmission for all of the projects covered in this report are included in the
economic analyses contained herein.
The existing and proposed SE Alaska intertie were discussed in Section 1.2.2 and shown in
Figure 2. Referring to Figure 2, the Intertie to the Greens Creek Mine has recently been
completed, and there is an ongoing effort to get the estimated $26 million required to construct
the intertie to Hoonah. Yakutat is very isolated from the intertie and there is little chance that
they can get electrical energy from outside sources. There is a reasonably good chance that
Hydaburg and Klukwan will eventually be connected to the intertie, and Kake has a lower
probability of being connected to the intertie.
2.7 Economic Analysis for a Potential Wind Power Station at Hoonah and/or Yakutat
Both Hoonah and Yakutat are isolated from any central grid. In order to ensure grid stability, a
wind power station should be sized such that it never exceeds 30% of the load. Hoonah has a
nameplate capacity of 2,455 kW and Yakutat has a capacity of 2,880 kW. Using 30% of the load
and assuming that the peak load is approximately 80% of the nameplate capacity yields a
maximum wind turbine rating of approximately 585 kW at Hoonah and 690 kW at Yakutat. If
the wind turbine has a somewhat higher rating, it can be derated to meet this criteria. A Vestas
680 kW wind turbine was chosen for economic modeling.
There are two methods generally used to determine the economic viability of a wind power
project:
1. A Cost-of-Energy (COE) model used to derive an approximate cost of generation, and
2. A more complex economic model that reflects the approach used by developers and
financial institutions to finance commercial projects.
Because the wind resource results were significantly below the wind speeds generally required to
achieve financial viability, the first method was chosen, since it provides results that puts the
project is an easy to understand perspective.
It should be noted that the capital costs for wind turbines delivered to a US market has increased
significantly during the past two years due to the weakening of the US dollar and dramatic
40
increases in the cost for steel in 2004. (Steel is used for most wind turbine components, but the
major cost increase impact is for the wind turbine towers whose cost is directly proportional to
the price of steel.) The numbers used herein reflect prices in late 2005.
2.7.1 Cost-of-Energy Calculation
The simplified Cost-of-Energy (COE) model is:
Cost of Energy = ((fixed charge rate x capital cost) + annual O&M (inc. schd. replacements/overhauls))
annual net energy generation
Tables 12 and 13 show the results for values that represent the most likely costs and financing
terms for a commercial project with no grants and today’s (December 2005) costs for financing a
project. The fixed charge rate is based on a blend of equity (12% return) and debt (8% return)
financing, assuming 50% equity and 50% debt. The cost for the wind turbine ($950,000/MW) is
the minimum current cost for “bankable”2 wind turbines. The balance-of-station costs
(engineering, roads, control/storage building, wind turbine foundations, monitoring and control
systems, one-time installation fee by land owner, and electrical infrastructure) have a range of
$230,000 - $280,000 per installed MW for plants rated at 10 – 100 MW. A value of $280,000
per MW was used for this calculation since it is a “one-off” installation and sophisticated
controls will be required to integrate the wind turbine to the grid. Approximately $150,000 will
also be required at both locations to install the transmission lines from the wind turbine to the
utility interconnect. In addition, barging the crane in and out and delivering the wind turbine and
60-meter steel tower is estimated to cost $110,000. These costs are included in the balance-of-
station costs. An installation fee of $5,000 per wind turbine, which would be paid to the land
owner was also applied to the balance-of-station number, which reflects typical current values.
Table 12, Cost-of-Energy Calculation for Hoonah
Item Value
Turbine rating 680 kW
Project life (years) 25
Fixed charge rate 0.14
Wind turbine cost $ 646,000
Balance-of-station cost $ 450,400
Soft costs $ 50,000
Total Capital Cost $ 1,146,400
Annualized amortization (FCR x Capital Cost) ($166,799.37)
Annual operation & maintenance (inc. major repl.) $ (20,000)
Total annualized cost $ (186,799)
Annual net kWh 536,110
Cost of energy (COE) before royalty payments $ (0.35)
2 “Bankable” wind turbines are from well-established manufacturers with good reputations for delivering on time
and carry warranties that satisfy financing entities.
41
Table 13, Cost of Energy Calculation for Yakutat
Item Value
Turbine rating 680 kW
Project life (years) 25
Fixed charge rate 0.14
Wind turbine cost $ 646,000
Balance-of-station cost $ 450,400
Soft costs $ 50,000
Total Capital Cost $ 1,146,400
Annualized amortization (FCR x Capital Cost) ($166,799)
Annual operation & maintenance (inc. major repl.) $ (20,000)
Total annualized cost $ (186,799)
Annual net kWh 714,816
Cost of energy (COE) before royalty payments $ (0.26)
The annual cost of energy is approximately 35¢ per kWh for Hoonah and 26¢ per kWh for
Yakutat. These values are clearly too high to justify a wind turbine project without very
significant grants or low-cost financing. Table 14 shows a simplified maximum cost-of-energy
that could justify a commercial project.
Table 14, Maximum Cost-of-Energy to Justify a Commercial Project
Item $/kWh Notes
Energy value to utility 0.14 Approximate value per Yakutat Power.
Internalize tax credit3 0.019 Assumes tribe does not own project for first 10 years.
Total 0.159 "Break-even" for project
In viewing the “acceptable” cost of energy of 0.14¢ per kWh, it must be understood that both
utilities have sunken costs in their existing diesel generation facilities, and the demand for
electricity is not increasing significantly. This means that new generation facilities must come
close to the marginal cost of diesel fuel, which is approximately 0.13 – 0.15¢ per kWh today.
Tables 15 and 16 show the impact of low-cost financing and partial grants on the projected cost
of energy. The possible combinations that could enable the project to be “financiable” are
shaded. A low fixed charge rate of 9% was used because this represents 4% annual depreciation
plus 5% debt and equity financing – the lowest reasonable rate. For Hoonah, it would require a
grant of at least 50% of the project cost and financing of 5 – 7% to make a viable project. The
likelihood of obtaining either of these conditions in the near future is considered remote.
3 There is currently a federal 1.9¢ per kWh production tax credit (PTC) for producing energy from wind powered
generation facilities available to the owner(s) of the facilities for the first ten years that the facility is in operation.
The PTC expires on December 31, 2007, but observers believe that it will be renewed.
42
Table 15, Impact of Low-cost financing and/or Grant Funds Applied to Hoonah
Cost of Energy ($/kWh)
With Grant (% of total capital cost)
Fixed
charge
rate
No Grant
Financing 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
9% 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15
10% 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.16
11% 0.29 0.27 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.16
12% 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.17
13% 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.18
14% 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.22 0.19
Table 16, Impact of Low-cost financing and/or Grant Funds Applied to Yakutat
Cost of Energy ($/kWh)
With Grant (% of total capital cost)
Fixed
charge
rate
No Grant
Financing 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
9% 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11
10% 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12
11% 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12
12% 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13
13% 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14
14% 0.26 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.14
For Yakutat, a grant of $300,000 - $400,000 plus low cost (5%) financing would be required.
This also seems unlikely. It should be noted that in both locations the financial feasibility of the
projects is the best projected case, since it assumed that there were no curtailments of the wind
turbine’s output to ensure grid stability when the load is low and the wind turbine is operating at
rated capacity (680 kW).
Another alternative – installing a smaller wind turbine that does not require a crane was
examined. Two 50 kW wind turbines would supply approximately 1.9% of the load at Yakutat.
This is not a sensible alternative.
2.7.2 Potential Benefits to the Tribe
Based on the previous financial discussion, there is little possibility of financing this project
without substantial low-cost financing and/or outright grant funds. However, in the event that a
path is found to finance a project, (via low-cost financing and/or grant funds), this section
provides a picture of the potential benefits to the Tribe.
To provide all the financial benefits available, it is assumed that the project would be owned by
an entity other than the local tribe during the first ten years of operation, when the federal
production tax credit would likely be available. During this time, the local tribe would receive
royalties from the project to pay for the use of their land. Table 17 shows the potential income to
the Tribe, assuming a royalty rate of 4% of the net production income from the project. This is
43
the maximum rate considered likely from a wind project with the wind resources measured to
date. Using this rate yields an annual income of approximately $4,000.
In addition to this income, the project would be structured to revert to the Tribe after ten years.
The income stream available to the Tribe from the project ownership is estimated to be 5 % of
the project’s income, or approximately $5,0004. Taken together with the royalty payments, there
is an income stream after the first ten years of operation of a maximum of approximately $9,000
per year.
Table 17, Potential Income from Land-Lease Royalties - Yakutat
Annual net energy (kWh) 714,816
Revenue at $0.14/kWh $ 100,074
Royalty at 4% of revenue $ 4,003
2.7.3 Discussion of Results
The wind resources at both Hoonah and Yakutat were disappointing and make it very difficult to
finance a wind power station at either location. Although the outcomes were negative, the wind
resource data can be used by meteorologists to refine the macro wind models for this region.
2.7.4 Wind Energy – Lessons Learned
1. There are few, if any isolated villages in SE Alaska that are suitable for wind energy projects.
This is attributed to several factors:
• The macro winds are not nearly as high as they are in the more northern parts of
Alaska
• The villages are situated on the coastlines, whereas the higher winds are found in the
mountains, which generally are not accessible.
• Villages are generally established in areas that are away from strong winds.
2. Each village has many factions and officials and tribal members do not always agree with
each other. Extreme care must be taken to fully explain these types of projects to all parties
very early in the process. This is difficult because of the logistics, but is a necessity.
3. The agreement did not anticipate the difficulty of obtaining permits to erect the anemometry.
More time needs to be allotted for communications – both programmatic and technical.
4. Although sometimes useful, anecdotal information is generally optimistic. This is attributed
to the natural tendency to remember very windy days, but not remember calm days.
4 The reader is reminded that the original rate-of-return of 12% for equity investors included the PTC, which will no
longer be available after operating the project for ten years.
44
3.0 Hydroelectric Pre-development Activities and Results
The purpose of this study was to update previous studies on hydroelectric projects for the
communities that currently rely on diesel generation for most of their power supply. The
communities considered are those for which Sealaska Corporation is designated as the Regional
Corporation. Section 2.1.4 described the activities associated with this project. The primary
objective was to determine if economic conditions and technological changes have made
potential projects more attractive. The purpose of this section is to document the performance of
those activities and to present the results. Much of this section is taken from Alaska Power &
Telephone’s report. The entire AT&P report, carried out by Mr. Larry Coupe of Alaska Power
& Telephone, is contained in Appendix D of this report.
3.1 Background
Southeast Alaska is blessed with high rates of precipitation and mountainous terrain, which
makes for outstanding hydroelectric generation potential. Over the years, many communities
have sought to develop some of the hydroelectric potential to meet the electric loads of their
citizens and businesses. Those communities that have managed to develop hydroelectric projects
generally have relatively low power rates, whereas the communities without hydroelectric
generation rely almost exclusively on diesel generators and have comparatively high power rates.
Because of the rugged terrain and generally long distances between communities, transmission
interconnections are few.
Sealaska communities can be categorized by their power supply as follows:
Locally interconnected communities
Many of the larger communities in Southeast Alaska are locally interconnected to smaller
communities or to each other, and these larger communities generate most of their electricity
from hydroelectric projects. They are served by municipal or investor-owned electric utilities,
which can be expected to continue development of additional hydroelectric projects to meet load
growth. The Table 18 lists these larger communities, their interconnected smaller communities,
their serving utilities, their existing hydroelectric projects, and previously identified potential
hydroelectric projects.
Isolated Communities
The remaining communities in Southeast Alaska are electrically isolated, and rely primarily on
diesel power for electricity generation. This study focused on the communities that are
associated with Sealaska Corporation. Nearly all of them have had at least an assessment of
hydroelectric potential, and a few have had feasibility studies of potential hydroelectric projects.
These communities, their existing utilities, and identified potential hydroelectric projects are
shown in Table 19.
45
Table 18, Larger Interconnected Communities
Larger
Communities
Interconnected
Smaller
Communities Electric Utility
Existing
Hydroelectric
Projects
Potential
Hydroelectric
Projects
Juneau Douglas, Auke
Bay
Alaska Electric
Light & Power
(AELP)
Snettisham
Annex – Salmon
Gold Creek
Lake Dorothy
Ketchikan Saxman Ketchikan
Public Utilities
(KPU)
Swan Lake
Beaver Falls –
Lake Silvis
Ketchikan Lakes
Whitman Lake
Mahoney Lake
(1)
Sitka Sitka Electric
Department
Blue Lake
Green Lake
Takatz Lake
Lake Diana
Medvejie Lake
Haines –
Skagway
Alaska Power
& Telephone
Goat Lake
Dewey Lakes
Lutak
Kasidaya Creek
Dayebas Creek
Connelly Lake
Petersburg –
Wrangell
Petersburg
Municipal
Power & Light
Wrangell
Municipal
Power & Light
Tyee Lake
Blind Slough
Scenery Lake
Swan Lake
Metlakatla Annette Metlakatla
Power & Light
Purple Lake
Chester Lake
Craig – Klawock
- Kasaan
Alaska Power
& Telephone
Black Bear Lake South Fork
(1) Mahoney Lake is a proposed development by Ketchikan Electric Company, which is a joint
venture of Alaska Power & Telephone and Cape Fox Corporation.
Table 19, Isolated Communities
Community Existing Utility
Potential
Hydroelectric
Projects
Angoon Inside Passage Electric
Cooperative (IPEC) (1)
Thayer Creek
Hoonah IPEC Gartina Creek
Water Supply Creek
Hydaburg Alaska Power & Telephone Reynolds Creek
Kake IPEC Cathedral Falls Creek
Klukwan IPEC Walker Lake
Yakutat Yakutat Power Chicago Harbor
45
The hydroelectric potential of these six communities are discussed further in the following sections
of this report.
Development of a hydroelectric project is possible whenever there is sufficient head and flow.
However, from a practical sense, development can be constrained by economics and/or
environmental issues.
3.2 Economic Analysis Method
Economic analysis of a potential hydroelectric project involves comparison of the cost of power
from the proposed project to that of the most likely alternative source of power. For the purposes of
this report, continuation of the current source of power (diesel generation) is considered to be the
most likely alternative for all of the communities considered in this report. Devising a definitive
method of comparing diesel generation to hydro generation is problematic because hydro has a high
initial cost, long life, and relatively low operating cost, whereas diesel has a low initial cost,
relatively short life, and relatively high operating cost. Thus, for an economic analysis to be fair, it
must extend for a long period of time (the life of a hydro project is generally considered to be at
least 50 years). The three main factors affecting an economic analysis are load growth, financing
terms, and diesel fuel costs, and all of those can be very volatile, even in the short term. The
economic analysis method used for this study is outlined below.
Load Growth
Load growth in a community or interconnected system is important in analyzing a hydro project
only if the potential project energy cannot always be used to meet load. For the six communities
considered by this study, load growth is considered in the analyses only for Angoon, Hydaburg, and
Yakutat. In Hoonah and Kake, the potential projects are small compared to the load, and thus all or
nearly all of the generation can be used. For Klukwan, the potential hydro project would feed into a
larger interconnected system that has sufficient hydro generation for many years; accordingly there
is little need for the project and little value in engaging in a speculative long-term load growth
forecast.
For Angoon, Hydaburg, and Yakutat, load growth has been projected from current loads at a rate of
1.5% per year for 10 years, at 1.0% for an additional 10 years, and then at 0.5%. This would reflect
a modest rise in population in those communities or a modest increase in usage per customer.
Generation
The potential generation of each project has been based on the results of previous studies for those
projects where Mr. Coupe was directly involved in the work (Thayer Creek near Angoon, Gartina
Creek and Water Supply Creek near Hoonah, and Reynolds Creek near Hydaburg). For the other
projects, generation has been calculated using a computer model of a run-of-river operation, with
streamflows based on factoring of USGS gage records of nearby streams.
46
Hydro Capital Costs
The basic construction cost for each project was determined by varying methods. For those projects
where Mr. Coupe was directly involved in the previous work (Thayer Creek near Angoon, Gartina
Creek and Water Supply Creek near Hoonah, and Reynolds Creek near Hydaburg), the cost
estimates were updated based on increases in the Consumer Price Index between the date of the
previous cost estimate and 2003. For the Cathedral Falls and Walker Lake sites, where previous
studies were at least 20 years old, the cost estimates were based on new unit prices applied to the
estimates from the previous study. For some items, new estimates were also calculated to reflect
proposed changes in the project arrangement. For the Chicago Harbor site where no previous
applicable study existed, the cost estimate is entirely original.
Engineering and contingency allowances were estimated based on judgment regarding the
complexities of the various sites and the thoroughness of the underlying studies. Contingencies
allowances vary between 13% and 30%, and engineering costs vary between 12% and 27%.
The investment cost (i.e., the construction cost plus engineering and contingencies) was then
escalated to the estimated earliest possible bid date for the project, which is a function of the current
status of the permitting and design and the estimated complexity of the environmental issues.
Escalation was calculated at 2.5% per year, which is comparable to the inflation rate for the past
several years.
The escalated investment costs were then converted to capital costs by adding in amounts for
interest during construction and financing costs. For simplicity, interest during construction was
calculated as 55% of the interest rate of the construction financing times the duration of the
construction period in years. Financing costs were estimated to be zero, which assumes the projects
are financed with grants and loans secured from government sources rather than commercial
lenders.
Many recent hydro projects in Southeast Alaska have been partially funded to various degrees with
grants from the federal and/or state government. For illustrative purposes, we have considered for
each project grant funding at levels of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%.
Hydro Annual Costs
Annual costs for a hydro project consist of debt service and various operating costs. Debt service
has been based on the various assumed levels of grant funding, and loan funding of the balance with
an interest rate of 5.5% and a term of 30 years. These loan terms are similar to terms of recent loans
by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and the Rural Utility Service
(RUS).
Annual operating costs for a hydro project include labor for operation, maintenance, and
administration; parts and supplies; interim replacement of major components; insurance; taxes (if
any); land use fees (if any), and environmental mitigation. For most of these small projects, there
may be little additional labor cost, as the existing diesel plant personnel will be able to operate the
hydro units. There may be some additional transportation costs because the hydro projects are
47
typically located some distance from the communities. For these two items, the costs have been
estimated by judgment. The total of the other operating costs have been estimated by the following
formula:
Operating cost ($1000, 2003) = 45*MW0.55, where MW is the generating capacity
The operating costs are assumed to increase at the general rate of inflation (2.5% per year).
Diesel Annual Costs
Diesel annual costs include the costs for fuel, consumable parts and supplies, and interim overhauls
and replacements. The biggest portion of the cost is the fuel cost, which has been based on values
for fuel price and diesel efficiencies listed in AEA’s 2003 Statistical Report of the Power Cost
Equalization Program.
Consumable parts and supplies have been assumed to cost 6.4 mills/kWh, and overhauls and
replacement cost on the average 5.3 mills/kWh. Note that all of these costs are at a 2003 cost level,
and will vary from year to year. These operating costs are assumed to increase at the assumed
general rate of inflation (2.5% per year), except for the price of diesel fuel, which is assumed to
increase at a rate of 3.5% per year, reflecting its relative scarcity and recent trends.
Cost Comparison
For each of the hydro projects, the economic feasibility has been evaluated by calculating the
cumulative discounted net benefits over a typical 50-year life. The net benefit in any one year is the
annual cost of the diesel alternative minus the annual cost of the hydro alternative; the benefits may
be negative if the hydro project is more costly than continuing with diesel generation. The annual
net benefits in each year is calculated, and then discounted back to 2003 using a discount rate of
5.5% (discounting accounts for the lesser real value of future amounts). The cumulative discounted
net benefits for each year are then calculated as the sum of the discounted net benefit from the first
year of operation to the year in question. As noted above, five levels of grant funding have been
assumed, resulting in five discounted net benefit streams for each project, which were then plotted
over time. For the purposes of this evaluation, we have used a 10-year time frame for crossover to
positive cumulative discounted net benefits as an indication of project economic and financial
feasibility.
3.3 Results
3.3.1 Angoon
Existing Power Supply
IPEC currently supplies electric power to Angoon, which is generated at a plant in town with three
diesel generators. The power plant capacity is 1,260 kW, and the cost of power to Angoon citizens
in 2003 was 14.54 ¢/kWh for up to 500 kWh per month (after PCE subsidy of 18.21 ¢/kWh).
Power is distributed by an overhead system. Peak loads have been about 425 kW, and the annual
electrical energy requirement has been about 2,000 MWh. There has been little to no load growth
recently because of the stagnant economy in Angoon.
48
Earlier Studies - Hydroelectric power for Angoon has been the subject of numerous studies,
including:
• Preliminary Appraisal Report on the Hydroelectric Potential for the Villages of Angoon,
Craig, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake, Kasaan, Klawock, Klukwan, Pelican, and Yakutat;
September 1977 by R. W. Retherford Associates.
• Thayer Creek Project, A Reconnaissance Report; October 1979 by Harza Engineering
• Angoon Tidal Power & Comparative Analysis; February 1981 by Harza Engineering
• Angoon Water Supply Alternatives; July 1981 by Trick, Nyman, & Hayes
• A Comparative Economic Analysis of Electric Energy Alternatives for Angoon, Alaska;
February 1984 by Acres International
• Angoon Hydro Study; August 1989 by Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
• Angoon Hydroelectric Project, Feasibility Evaluation Report; March 2000 by HDR Alaska.
Thayer Creek
Most of the previous analyses have focused on developing the hydroelectric potential of Thayer
Creek, which drains a large lake (Thayer Lake) at about El 365, and flows in a westerly direction to
Chatham Strait. The stream gradient is rather gentle for about 6 miles, but 1.7 miles from the mouth
at about El 260, the stream begins a series of rapids and falls, including one falls about 0.4 miles
from the mouth that is a barrier to upstream movement of anadromous fish. This combination of
naturally regulated flows, high stream gradient, and paucity of anadromous fish habitat makes
Thayer Creek a good site for hydroelectric development. The main impediments are the length of
transmission line (about 7 miles) and wilderness designation of the area. Thayer Creek is in the
area reserved to Kootznoowoo, Inc. for hydroelectric development, but that development is still
subject to environmental protection stipulations by the Forest Service and possibly litigation by
environmental organizations.
Potential Generation
According to prior analyses, the estimated potential generation of the Thayer Creek Project is about
8,400 MWh if not limited by load and about 2,000 MWh with current loads (about 99% of the
Angoon requirements). An alternative arrangement would provide about 7,700 MWh if not limited
by load and about 2,000 MWh with current loads.
Environmental Assessment
The major environmental issues are likely to be:
• Development of a hydroelectric project in a National Monument and wilderness area. Even
though the right to develop the project is unquestionable, the issue will undoubtedly be
raised, as hydro development in wilderness areas is anathema to many environmental
organizations.
• Visibility of the corridor for the transmission line, and possibly of the surge tank and
penstock.
49
• Instream flows in the bypassed reach of stream between the diversion dam and the
powerhouse.
The environmental feasibility of either arrangement is judged to be moderate.
Economic Assessment
The estimated construction costs are shown in Table 20, adjusted to a 2003 cost level. Also shown
are the estimated annual operating costs. The earliest possible on-line date is estimated to be 2010,
considering the current status of the development effort and the likely environmental opposition to
the project. The results of the economic analysis are shown in Figure 22. As can be seen from
Figure 22, the Thayer Creek Project appears to be economical only if approximately 80% of its cost
can be funded with grants (i.e. $7,000,000 in grants). The Thayer Creek Project is judged to have a
low potential for economic and financial feasibility.
Development of the Thayer Creek Project could be viewed as an alternative to construction of the
Angoon branch of the Southeast Intertie. If viewed in that context, the economics are much more
favorable, since the Angoon branch of the Southeast Intertie is likely to be much more expensive
than the Thayer Creek Project. Note that 80% federal funding has been authorized for construction
of the Southeast Intertie, the same rate as required for economic feasibility for the Thayer Creek
Project.
Regulatory Assessment
On January 23, 2001 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled that it did not have
jurisdiction over the Thayer Creek Project because it cannot license projects located in National
Monuments within the national Forest System. The effect of this ruling is that the primary federal
permitting authority will be the Forest Service, presumably by a Special Use Permit. The Forest
Service acknowledges Kootznoowoo’s rights to develop the project, but they may be strict in their
prescriptions to protect the “water, fishery, wildlife, recreational, and scenic values of Admiralty
Island”. They may also require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than the less
comprehensive Environmental Assessment (EA) that FERC would normally require for this size
project.
Other permits that would likely be required include
• Wetlands Permit from the Corps of Engineers
• Water rights from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Alaska Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ)
• Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination by the Alaska Division of
Governmental Coordination (ADGC). As noted earlier, the State of Alaska has recently
transferred much of the responsibility for hydroelectric project review from ADFG to
ADNR.
50
Other Potential Hydroelectric Developments
Other potential hydroelectric developments in the Angoon area that have been considered in the
past include:
• Development of a small hydroelectric facility in conjunction with a water supply and
hatchery development on Favorite Bay Creek south of Angoon.
• Development of a tidal power station on Kootznahoo Inlet at Turn Point, where tidal
currents are very strong.
• Development of a small hydroelectric facility in conjunction with a water supply
development of two lakes and an unnamed creek approximately 2 miles north of Angoon in
the area reserved for hydroelectric development.
51
Table 20, Thayer Creek Hydroelectric Project (Angoon)
Summary of Project Costs
CONSTRUCTION COST (1999 Cost Level)HDR Modified HDR
FERC
Account Description Amount Amount
330 Land and Land Rights -$ -$
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics 741,000$ 741,000$
331 Structures and Improvements 543,000$ 543,000$
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways 1,587,000$ 1,453,000$
333 Turbines and Generators 715,000$ 715,000$
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment 366,000$ 366,000$
335 Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment 110,000$ 110,000$
336 Roads and Bridges 789,000$ 773,000$
353 Substation Equipment and Structures 48,000$ 48,000$
355 Transmission Line 1,173,000$ 1,173,000$
SUBTOTAL 6,072,000$ 5,922,000$
Contingencies 800,000$ 780,000$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST 6,872,000$ 6,702,000$
Permitting and Engineering 1,228,000$ 1,198,000$
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (1999 Cost Level) 8,100,000$ 7,900,000$
Escalation 800,000$
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (2003 Cost Level) 8,700,000$
HDR Modified HDR
Cost level 1999 2003
OPERATING COSTS Amount Amount
Incremental Labor 25,000$ 35,000$
Transportation 5,000$ 10,000$
Other Operating Costs (1)55,000$ 45,000$
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS 85,000$ 90,000$
Escalation 9,000$ -$
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS (2003 Cost Level) 94,000$ 90,000$
(1) Includes administration, insurance, taxes, land use feed, interima replacements, and environmental mitigation.
Project Arrangement
Project Arrangement
52 Figure 22, Thayer Creek Project (Angoon) Economics Summary -6000-4000-200002000400060000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50YEARSCUMULATIVE DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS, $1000100%75%50%25%0%GRANTFUNDING %
53
With regard to the tidal development, a conventional large-scale development involving closure
of the inlet at Turn Point is technically possible, but would only be economically feasible if were
connected to much larger loads than Angoon. It would more than likely be unacceptable from an
environmental standpoint however. A small tidal current generator installation may be possible,
but that technology is untested at this time. UEK Corporation, a manufacturer of tidal current
generators, has indicated they have done some preliminary work on a tidal development at Turn
Point.
With regard to the water supply developments, concurrent hydroelectric generation is frequently
feasible and should be considered if a new water supply system is developed. The development
of the two lakes and unnamed stream north of Angoon is intriguing because it could be
developed as a first phase of the Thayer Creek development if funds cannot be secured for the
entire project.
Interconnection Potential by the Southeast Intertie
The 1998 Acres report on the Southeast Intertie included an interconnection to Angoon in the
third phase, which is the 2015-2020 time frame. Phase III was to include interconnection of
Sitka, Tenakee Springs, Angoon, Hoonah, Greens Creek, and Juneau, and was estimated to cost
$173.8 million. It is important to note that the interconnection of Angoon is shown as a side
branch rather than on the main intertie. Furthermore, if AEL&P is successful in interconnecting
Hoonah, Greens Creek, and Juneau, there may be less incentive for completion of the link
between Hoonah and Tenakee Springs/Angoon/Sitka as envisaged by the Acres report. Thus, it
is very possible that interconnection of Angoon may be delayed well beyond the 2015-2020 time
frame.
Development of a hydroelectric project to serve Angoon could also delay interconnection. If the
interconnection were to occur, it would allow marketing of any excess energy to the
interconnected utilities.
54
3.3.2 Hoonah
Existing Power Supply
IPEC currently supplies electric power to Hoonah, which is generated at a plant in town with
diesel generators. The power plant capacity is 2,455 kW, and the cost of power to Hoonah
citizens in 2003 was 14.54 ¢/kWh for up to 500 kWh per month (after PCE subsidy of 18.21
¢/kWh). Power is distributed by an overhead system. The annual electrical usage has been
about 4,500 MWh. There has been little to no load growth recently, but the Point Sophia
development may add significantly to the loads as it enters operation.
Hydroelectric Potential
Hydroelectric potential in the Hoonah area has been the subject of at least three studies, as
follows:
• Preliminary Appraisal Report on the Hydroelectric Potential for the Villages of Angoon,
Craig, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake, Kasaan, Klawock, Klukwan, Pelican, and Yakutat;
September 1977 by R. W. Retherford Associates.
• Gartina Creek Project, A Reconnaissance Report; October 1979 by Harza Engineering
Company
• Reconnaissance of Three Potential Hydroelectric Sites Near Hoonah, Alaska; June 2002
by HydroWest Group, LLC. (HydroWest Group was a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Alaska Power & Telephone, and the author of the current study was the principal author
of the Hoonah study)
Game Creek
Game Creek flows into Port Frederick near Hoonah, and was initially considered by Retherford
as a potential hydroelectric site because of its relatively large size and the good topography for
developing a storage project. However, Retherford dropped consideration of Game Creek when
it was determined to be a major anadromous fish stream. Because of the probable environmental
impacts, Game Creek has not been reviewed for the current study.
Gartina Creek
Project Arrangements of Previous Studies
Retherford considered Gartina Creek as a hydroelectric site because of the existence of a
moderate height waterfall. Retherford suggested a run-of-river project at Gartina Falls, with a
20-foot-high concrete dam at the head of the falls, a short penstock, and a powerhouse at the base
of the falls with a capacity of 750 kW and an annual generation of 2.1 GWh.
Harza conducted a more detailed study in 1979 for the Gartina Falls site, and selected an
arrangement quite similar to Retherford. It included a 27-foot-high concrete dam about 150 feet
upstream of the head of the falls, a 210-foot-long, 57-inch diameter penstock, and a 2-unit 450-
kW power plant at the base of the falls, with provisions for adding two additional units in the
future.
55
HydroWest proposed a similar arrangement for the Gartina Falls site, but with a few significant
differences:
• The diversion dam was proposed to have a concrete core wall and grouted rockfill slopes,
and would be about 15 feet high and located at the head of the falls.
• The intake structure includes a means for sluicing sediment past the diversion dam.
• The powerhouse would be located about 150 below the falls to allow more economical
access and to provide greater protection from rockfalls.
• The powerhouse would contain a single impulse-type turbine rated at 600 kW.
• The tailrace would include a diffuser structure to prevent fish from entering the tailrace.
HydroWest estimated the construction cost would be $3.75 million and the annual generation
would be 1.88 GWh. Note that the City of Hoonah began collecting streamflow data just
upstream of Gartina Falls in spring 2003 as the first step in a more serious consideration of
developing the site. The HydroWest study was conducted by Larry Coupe, and is considered to
be a reasonable evaluation of the site potential.
Potential Generation
The potential generation of the Gartina Falls Project was estimated by HydroWest to be about
1,900 MWh per year, which is approximately 40% of the current Hoonah load. HydroWest did
not estimate the amount of that potential generation that would actually be usable, but there
should be little problem absorbing all or nearly all of the potential generation into the Hoonah
system, particularly if the Pt Sophia development increases loads substantially.
Environmental Assessment
Potential environmental issues with the Gartina Falls Project are considered to be:
• Loss of anadromous fish habitat between the base of the falls and the powerhouse,
including deep pools at the base of the falls.
• Diminished aesthetic value of Gartina Falls.
• Disruption of brown bear feeding patterns due to the powerhouse location.
Only the first of these potential issues is considered to be significant. The project is judged to
have a moderate potential for environmental feasibility.
Economic Assessment
The estimated construction annual operating costs of the Gartina Falls Project as described above
are shown in Table 21. The construction costs are based on a review and adjustment of the
HydroWest cost estimate to a 2003 cost level. The earliest possible on-line date is estimated to
be 2008, considering the current status of the development effort.
The results of the economic analysis for the Gartina Falls Project are shown in Figure 23. As can
be seen from Figure 23, the Gartina Falls Project appears to be economical if approximately 45%
56
of its cost can be funded with grants (i.e. $1,700,000 in grants). This indicates a moderate
potential for economic and financial feasibility.
57
Table 21, Gartina Falls and Water Supply Creek Hydro Projects (Hoonah)
Summary of Project Costs
CONSTRUCTION COST (2002 Cost Level)Gartina Falls
Water Supply
Creek
FERC
Account Description Amount Amount
330 Land and Land Rights -$ -$
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics 76,000$ 67,000$
331 Structures and Improvements 330,000$ 178,000$
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways 836,000$ 814,000$
333 Turbines and Generators 325,000$ 299,000$
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment 215,000$ 215,000$
335 Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment 75,000$ 75,000$
336 Roads and Bridges 73,000$ 61,000$
353 Substation Equipment and Structures 100,000$ 100,000$
355 Transmission Line 280,000$ 287,000$
SUBTOTAL 2,310,000$ 2,096,000$
Contingencies 578,000$ 524,000$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST 2,888,000$ 2,620,000$
Permitting and Engineering 775,000$ 625,000$
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (2002 Cost Level) 3,663,000$ 3,245,000$
Escalation (Approx. 2.3%) 87,000$ 75,000$
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (2003 Cost Level) 3,750,000$ 3,320,000$
Gartina Falls
Water Supply
Creek
OPERATING COSTS (2002 Cost Level)Amount Amount
Incremental Labor -$ -$
Transportation -$ -$
Other Operating Costs (1) $34,000 $34,000
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS (2002 Cost Level)34,000$ 34,000$
Escalation (Approx. 2.3%) 1,000$ 1,000$
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS (2003 Cost Level) 35,000$ 35,000$
(1) Includes administration, insurance, taxes, land use feed, interima replacements, and environmental mitigation.
Project Arrangement
Project Arrangement
58Figure 23, Gartina Falls Project (Hoonah) Economics Study -2000-1000010002000300040000 1020304050YEARCUMULATIVE DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS, $1000100%75%50%25%0%GRANT FUNDING %
59
Regulatory Assessment
In December 1998, Alaska Power & Telephone filed a Declaration of Intention with FERC on
behalf of Sealaska Corp. to determine whether FERC had jurisdiction over a proposed
development at the Gartina Falls site. On August 16, 2001, FERC issued a notice that it did not
have jurisdiction. ADFG and NMFS requested rehearing on the basis of a possible impact to
anadromous fish, but on November 21, 2001 FERC affirmed that FERC licensing is not required.
As noted earlier, the State of Alaska will assume regulatory authority over hydroelectric project
of 5 MW capacity or less once they develop an adequate program. It is reasonable to assume
that the State will apply its regulatory process to all small projects, even those like Gartina Falls
where FERC does not have jurisdiction. It is not clear how complicated the state process will be,
and therefore there could by some advantage to proceeding with the project permitting under the
current process for non-jurisdictional projects. The South Fork Project currently being
developed on Prince of Wales Island by Alaska Power & Telephone can be considered a model
for the regulatory process for a project that is non-jurisdictional. For South Fork, the following
permits have been required:
• Wetlands Permit from the Corps of Engineers
• Water rights from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
• Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination (ADNR). Only part of the
transmission line would be in the Hoonah coastal zone, which may limit the
complexity of that consistency determination.
Based on AP&T’s experience with the South Fork Project, obtaining the necessary permits for
construction would probably require 18 to 24 months once a definite project arrangement is
developed, assuming one summer season of field studies is necessary.
60
Water Supply Creek
Project Arrangements of Previous Studies
HydroWest also considered a hydroelectric development on a tributary of Gartina Creek, referred
to in their study as Water Supply Creek. Water Supply Creek flows north and northeast into
Gartina Creek a few hundred feet above Gartina Falls. About 2,500 feet above that confluence,
the City of Hoonah diverts water for a municipal water supply. The land is entirely Sealaska
Corporation land. The arrangement proposed by HydroWest includes the following:
• A concrete and rockfill diversion dam at about El 800 that raises the water surface
about 8 feet. An intake structure would be located on the east abutment.
• A power conduit consisting of 4,000 feet of 24-inch diameter HDPE pipe and 1,500
feet of 20-inch diameter steel pipe. The power conduit would be located adjacent to
an existing logging road for much of its length.
• A powerhouse located just below the existing water supply diversion. The
powerhouse would have a single 600-kW generating unit. The power plant would
discharge back to the pond behind the water supply diversion dam.
• A transmission line about 4.1 miles long to connect to the existing IPEC system near
the airport. Note that if both the Gartina Falls and Water Supply Creek projects are
developed, the cost of most of the transmission line would be shared.
• An access road about 1,300 feet long from the end of existing logging road to the
diversion structure.
The construction cost for the HydroWest arrangement was estimated to be $3.1 million. Note
that the City of Hoonah began collecting streamflow data just upstream of the water supply
diversion in spring 2003 as the first step in a more serious consideration of developing the site.
Potential Generation
The potential generation of the Water Supply Creek Project was estimated by HydroWest to be
about 1,800 MWh per year, which is approximately 40% of the current Hoonah load.
HydroWest did not estimate the amount of that potential generation that would actually be
usable. There should be little problem absorbing all or nearly all of the potential generation into
the Hoonah system.
Environmental Assessment
There are no issues known at this time that would prevent the development of the Water Supply
Creek project. If subsequent surveys determine that there is a significant population of resident
fish in the creek between the diversion and the powerhouse, then some regulatory agencies want
to impose an instream flow requirement, which would seriously jeopardize the project’s
feasibility. The project is judged to have a high potential for environmental feasibility.
61
Economic Assessment
The estimated construction and annual operating costs of the Water Supply Creek Project as
described above are shown in Table 22 and the results of the economic analysis are shown in
Figure 24.
Table 22, Gartina Falls and Water Supply Creek Hydro Projects (Hoonah) Summary of
Project Costs
CONSTRUCTION COST (2002 Cost Level)Gartina Falls
Water Supply
Creek
FERC
Account Description Amount Amount
330 Land and Land Rights -$ -$
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics 76,000$ 67,000$
331 Structures and Improvements 330,000$ 178,000$
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways 836,000$ 814,000$
333 Turbines and Generators 325,000$ 299,000$
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment 215,000$ 215,000$
335 Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment 75,000$ 75,000$
336 Roads and Bridges 73,000$ 61,000$
353 Substation Equipment and Structures 100,000$ 100,000$
355 Transmission Line 280,000$ 287,000$
SUBTOTAL 2,310,000$ 2,096,000$
Contingencies 578,000$ 524,000$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST 2,888,000$ 2,620,000$
Permitting and Engineering 775,000$ 625,000$
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (2002 Cost Level) 3,663,000$ 3,245,000$
Escalation (Approx. 2.3%) 87,000$ 75,000$
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (2003 Cost Level) 3,750,000$ 3,320,000$
Gartina Falls
Water Supply
Creek
OPERATING COSTS (2002 Cost Level)Amount Amount
Incremental Labor -$ -$
Transportation -$ -$
Other Operating Costs (1) $34,000 $34,000
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS (2002 Cost Level)34,000$ 34,000$
Escalation (Approx. 2.3%) 1,000$ 1,000$
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS (2003 Cost Level) 35,000$ 35,000$
(1) Includes administration, insurance, taxes, land use feed, interima replacements, and environmental mitigation.
Project Arrangement
Project Arrangement
Sealaska Hydro Study October 2005 62Figure 24, Water Supply Creek Project (Hoonah) Economics Summary-1000010002000300040000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50YEARCUMULATIVE DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS, $1000100%75%50%25%0%GRANTFUNDING %
63
As can be seen from Figure 24, the Water Supply Creek Project appears to be economical if
approximately 40% of its cost can be funded with grants (i.e. $1,300,000 in grants). This
indicates a moderate potential for economic feasibility.
Joint Development
The HydroWest study concluded that only one of the two projects should be developed, as there
was insufficient load in Hoonah to justify both. That conclusion did not take into consideration
the Point Sophia development, which is expected to add considerable load. It is quite possible
that development of both projects can be justified when the Point Sophia load is considered, but
more detailed study of the timing of the loads and generation would be required. Joint
development would decrease the construction cost somewhat, and if the projects were developed
sequentially, could provide construction employment for a number of Hoonah residents for 3 - 4
years.
Interconnection Potential
Alaska Electric Light & Power (AELP), the utility serving Juneau, has proposed to construct an
intertie between Juneau and Hoonah through Greens Creek. AELP is also proposing to develop
the Lake Dorothy Hydroelectric Project, which would produce the power needed to supply the
Greens Creek mine and Hoonah. In 2003, D. Hittle & Associates evaluated the feasibility of
such an intertie. That report determined that the cost of power to Hoonah would be about 9.6
¢/kWh in 2007, based on the following key assumptions:
• The construction cost of the intertie ($37.1) million would be funded by grants.
• The interconnection to Hoonah would be complete in 2007.
• The allocated operating costs of the intertie would be about $61,000 in 2007, including
operation and maintenance, administrative and general, and reserves and replacement
fund expenses.
• The busbar cost of power from Lake Dorothy would be about 8.5 ¢/kWh in 2007.
It is impossible at this time to determine whether these assumptions are realistic. If they are,
then the interconnection would provide power to Hoonah at a rate that is substantially cheaper
than diesel generation. However, the following circumstances should be noted:
• Power from Lake Dorothy may not be firm in the long term, as AEL&P’s first priority
may be to supply Juneau loads.
• Hoonah’s loads are small compared to the Greens Creek mine loads, but the cost of the
line from Greens Creek to Hoonah is relatively high. Thus, there is less economic
incentive for the Greens Creek-to-Hoonah segment than there is for the Juneau-to-Greens
Creek segment. If funding is difficult to obtain, the Greens Creek-to-Hoonah segment
could be sacrificed.
• Hoonah’s cost of power with the intertie could go up substantially when the Greens
Creek mine ceases operation, since Hoonah would need to pay the O&M cost for the
entire intertie.
• If the Hoonah hydroelectric projects were evaluated on the same basis (i.e. 100% grant
funding), then their cost of power would be even less than the intertie.
64
• Construction of the Hoonah hydroelectric projects does not necessarily preclude the
construction of the intertie.
• Development of the projects could be viewed as an alternative to construction of the
Greens Creek-Hoonah link of the Southeast Intertie. If viewed in that context, the
economics of the hydro projects are highly favorable. However, there would still be a
need for a substantial amount of diesel generation in Hoonah.
3.3.3 Hydaburg
Existing Power Supply
AP&T currently supplies electric power to Hydaburg, which is generated at a plant in town with
diesel generators. The power plant capacity is 1,085 kW, and the cost of power to Hydaburg
citizens in 2003 was 13.49 ¢/kWh for up to 500 kWh per month (after PCE subsidy of 4.81
¢/kWh). Power is distributed by an overhead system. The annual energy requirement has been
about 1,500 MWh.
AP&T has started construction of a transmission line linking Hydaburg to the Craig/Klawock
system. Once that line is complete (expected to be in 2005), the Hydaburg loads will be served
primarily by AP&T’s hydroelectric projects (Black Bear Lake and the soon-to-be-constructed
South Fork project). The existing Hydaburg diesel plant will be kept in reserve for use in the
event the transmission line needs repair.
Hydroelectric Potential
General
In October 2000, Haida Corporation, the village corporation for Hydaburg, received a FERC
license to construct and operate the Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Project, located approximately
8 miles east of Hydaburg. As currently planned and licensed, the Reynolds Creek Project will be
constructed in two phases. The first phase is planned for a capacity of 1.5 MW, and the second
phase will add 3.5 MW. The intent of the first phase was to supply the local Hydaburg loads,
and the second phase would be to supply load growth on the remainder of Prince of Wales
Island.
Because of the imminent interconnection of Hydaburg, and because growth on Prince of Wales
Island has leveled off dramatically in the last few years, there will be no need for the energy
from the Reynolds Creek Project for several years at least. Therefore, Hydaburg is attempting to
obtain a legislative remedy to avoid losing the FERC license (which typically requires
completion of construction within a few years of the license issuance).
Note that Larry Coupe worked on the licensing of the Reynolds Creek Project while employed
by HDR Engineering, consultant for Haida Corporation.
Potential Modifications to the Project Arrangement
Assuming that Haida Corporation is successful in preserving its FERC license, and assuming that
load growth picks up on Prince of Wales Island, then the Reynolds Creek Project is the next
logical addition to the Prince of Wales hydro system. However, it may be more economical to
develop the entire 5 MW capacity at once rather than the two-phased arrangement as licensed.
65
That change should not require an extensive revision of the license, since the FERC
environmental analysis evaluated the effects of the entire project. Constructing the entire 5 MW
capacity could be accomplished with a single generating unit, which would decrease the cost
somewhat.
Environmental Assessment
The major environmental issues of the Reynolds Creek Project as evaluated in the FERC
licensing are the potential impacts to:
• Arctic grayling in Lake Mellen.
• Resident fish in the bypassed reach between Lake Mellen and the powerhouse.
• Anadromous fish in the stream reach below the powerhouse (the powerhouse is located at
the anadromous barrier).
Mitigation measures for these potentials impacts included in the license are as follows:
• Restrictions on use of Lake Mellen for storage to preserve grayling spawning in tributary
streams.
• Screens at the power intake to prevent grayling from being entrained in the diversion to
the power plant.
• Instream flow requirements for the bypassed reach (10 cfs).
• Instream flow requirements for the anadromous reach (varying from 25 to 50 cfs).
• Restrictions on rate of change of flow by the power plant (also known as the ramping
rate).
The Reynolds Creek Project is judged to have a high potential for environmental feasibility
because the issues have all been resolved through the FERC licensing process, and there is the
potential for reducing economic impact of the environmental mitigation measures.
Potential Generation
HDR calculated the potential generation of the Reynolds Creek Project to be 11,500 MWh with
the 1500 kW Stage I development, and 23,500 MWh with the both the Stage I and Stage II
developments. Changes in the instream flow requirements may change the values somewhat, but
23,000 MWh is considered to be a reasonable estimate of the generation if Reynolds Creek
Project is constructed in a single phase, as described above.
Economic Assessment
The estimated construction and annual operating costs of the Reynolds Creek Project as
described above are shown in Table 23 and the results of the economic analysis is shown in
Figure 25. The construction costs are based on a review and adjustment of the HDR cost
estimate to a 2003 cost level, and to eliminate the staged construction, as described above. The
economic analysis is based on an on-line date of 2015, which assumes Haida Corporation
receives a 12-year extension to the required start of construction. Delaying the construction is
necessary because of the current low loads on Prince of Wales Island.
66
Haida Corporation has been allocated approximately $4,000,000 in federal grant funds to help
defray the cost of construction. Even with that amount of grant funding, the Reynolds Creek
Project will not be economical if there is little load to be served.
67
Table 23, Reynolds Creek Hydro Project (Hydaburg) Summary of Project Costs
CONSTRUCTION COST (Cost Level 1999)
HDR Stage I
(1500 kW)
Revised
(5000 kW)
FERC
Account Description Amount Amount
330 Land and Land Rights -$ -$
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics 500,000$ 500,000$
331 Structures and Improvements 400,000$ 570,000$
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways 827,000$ 827,000$
333 Turbines and Generators 1,100,000$ 1,500,000$
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment 15,000$ 315,000$
335 Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment 20,000$ 50,000$
336 Roads and Bridges 200,000$ 200,000$
353 Substation Equipment and Structures 72,000$ 202,000$
355 Transmission Line 2,045,000$ 2,045,000$
SUBTOTAL 5,179,000$ 6,209,000$
Contingencies 817,000$ 943,000$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST 5,996,000$ 7,152,000$
Permitting and Engineering 1,400,000$ 1,400,000$
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (1999 Cost Level 7,396,000$ 8,552,000$
Escalation (Approx. 10.4%) 804,000$ 848,000$
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (2003 Cost Level 8,200,000$ 9,400,000$
HDR Stage I
(1500 kW)
Revised
(5000 kW)
Cost level 2003 2003
OPERATING COSTS Amount Amount
Incremental Labor 36,000$
Transportation 18,000$
Other Operating Costs (1) 109,000$
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS (2003 Cost Level)-$ 163,000$
(1) Includes administration, insurance, taxes, land use feed, interima replacements, and environmental miti
Project Arrangement
Project Arrangement
68Figure 25, Reynolds Creek Project (Hydaburg) Economic Summary -6000-4000-2000020004000600080000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50YEARCUMULATIVE DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS, $1000100%75%50%25%0%GRANTFUNDING %
69
As can be seen from Figure 25, the Reynolds Creek Project appears to be economical only if
100% of its cost can be funded with grants, or if there is substantial load growth on Prince of
Wales Island, such as from a new industrial development. Thus, the Reynolds Creek Project is
judged to have a low potential for economic and financial feasibility.
Regulatory Assessment
The Reynolds Creek Project has already received a FERC license and various state permits. If
Haida Corporation proceeds with the project in the future, it could elect for regulation by the
State rather than FERC in accordance with the Energy Act of 2000, which transfers regulatory
authority from FERC to the State for project of 5 MW capacity or less. Should Haida
Corporation wish to try to modify any of the license conditions, it could also be either under
FERC regulation or State regulation, assuming the amendment process is started after the State
institutes its regulatory program.
Interconnection Potential
As noted earlier, Hydaburg will soon be interconnected to the Alaska Power & Telephone’s
system on Prince of Wales Island. Also, the 1998 Acres update study for the Southeast Intertie
suggested that a link between Ketchikan and Prince of Wales Island should occur in the 2025
time frame. If this link were constructed, it would hydro projects on Prince of Wales Island to
generate to meet loads in the interconnected Southeast system. The construction cost was
estimated to be about $39 million in 1996 dollars.
Project will not be economical if there is little load to be served. AP&T’s interconnected load on
Prince of Wales Island (including the planned interconnections to Hydaburg and Hollis) is
currently about 26.0 GWh. AP&T’s hydroelectric generation capability from the Black Bear
Lake Project and the planned South Fork Project is about 30 GWh. Load growth has been very
limited in the last few years, however, for purposes of this economic analysis, load growth has
been forecast as follows:
As can be seen from Figure 25, the Reynolds Creek Project appears to be economical only if
100% of its cost can be funded with grants, or if there is substantial load growth on Prince of
Wales Island, such as from a new industrial development. Thus, the Reynolds Creek Project is
judged to have a low potential for economic and financial feasibility.
3.3.4 Kake
Existing Power Supply
IPEC currently supplies electric power to Kake, which is generated at a plant in town with diesel
generators. The power plant capacity is 2,585 kW, and the cost of power to Kake citizens in
2003 was 14.54 ¢/kWh for up to 500 kWh per month (after PCE subsidy of 18.21 ¢/kWh).
Power is distributed by an overhead system. The annual electrical energy requirement has been
about 4,200 MWh.
Hydroelectric Potential
Hydroelectric potential in the Kake area has been the subject of at least two studies, as follows:
70
• Preliminary Appraisal Report on the Hydroelectric Potential for the Villages of Angoon,
Craig, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake, Kasaan, Klawock, Klukwan, Pelican, and Yakutat;
September 1977 by R. W. Retherford Associates.
• Cathedral Falls Project, A Reconnaissance Report; October 1979 by Harza Engineering
Company
Gunnock Creek
Project Arrangements of Previous Studies
Gunnock Creek flows through Kake into Keku Strait, and has a drainage area of about 11.5 sq.
miles. Retherford considered Gunnock Creek as a potential hydroelectric site, and developed a
project arrangement with two dams, 14,500 acre-foot storage reservoir, 2800-foot long pipeline,
and 1800 kW power plant. On the basis of the Retherford study, the Alaska Power Authority
contracted with Harza Engineering to study the Gunnock Creek site. Harza’s initial studies of
the site concluded that the cost of the Gunnock Creek project would be much higher than
estimated by Retherford. The Gunnock Creek site was then dropped in favor of the Cathedral
Falls site, which had also been identified by Retherford.
Potential Modifications of Previous Project Arrangements
Harza’s evaluation of the Gunnock Creek development as proposed by Retherford undoubtedly
holds true today. However, we understand that the Corps of Engineers will include an outlet in
the new water supply dam that could be used for the addition of a generating plant, but they are
not planning on pursuing power development as part of the dam. Much of the water available at
the dam is piped downstream for the hatchery, and therefore the greatest generation would be
obtained if a power plant were constructed near the hatchery that would make use of the
additional head and flow. Assuming a hydraulic capacity of 60 cfs and a generating head of 125
feet, the capacity of a power plant at the hatchery would be about 500 kW.
Salmon are reported to spawn in Gunnock Creek as far upstream as the water supply dam.
Development of the power plant at the hatchery could have a detrimental impact on natural
spawning and rearing in Gunnock Creek if the diversion rate is greater than the current hatchery
withdrawal. Also, the hatchery may not be agreeable to a power plant since it could result in a
colder water supply to the hatchery. Consequently, the most practicable use of Gunnock Creek
for generation is likely to be a small generator at the water supply dam, discharging to the stream
directly below the dam. The capacity would be quite small (perhaps 25-50 kW), but the
installation cost should be small as well. The feasibility of such an installation has not been
evaluated herein because it will depend to a great degree on the arrangement of the facilities in
the dam, and that information is not currently available. Once the details of the dam design are
known, we recommend a detailed feasibility study, as there is likely to be a high potential for it
being cost-effective.
Cathedral Falls Creek
Project Arrangements of Previous Studies
71
Cathedral Falls Creek flows into Hamilton Bay about 10 miles south of Kake. Retherford
considered Cathedral Falls Creek as a hydroelectric site because of the existence of a moderate
height waterfall. Retherford suggested a project with a 70-foot-high concrete dam, a 2000-foot
long penstock, and a powerhouse at the base of the falls with a capacity of around 2000 kW.
However, Retherford did not prepare a cost estimate of cost of power analysis, as they focused
on the Gunnock Creek site.
Harza’s arrangement for the Cathedral Falls site included a 27-foot-high concrete dam at the
head of the falls, a 210-foot-long, a 9-foot-diameter tunnel 360 feet long, a 78-inch diameter
penstock 470 feet long, and a 2-unit 750-kW power plant at the base of the falls. Harza
estimated the construction cost to be $7.1 million. Harza’s plan provided for future expansion of
the powerhouse to include 2 additional generating units for an ultimate capacity of 1,500 kW.
Potential Modifications of Previous Project Arrangement
The following modifications to the Harza project arrangement are likely to result in a more
economical project:
• Minimize the height of the diversion dam.
• Construct the dam with a concrete core wall and grouted rockfill rather than all
concrete. Incorporate a sluice gate for removing accumulated sediment.
• Construct the tunnel and penstock with a microtunnel boring machine, and decrease
the diameter to 4 feet.
• Utilize Ossberger-type generating units in the power plant to allow more efficient use
of the available flow.
The generating capacity of this modified arrangement would be 1,000 kW, with no future
expansion potential. The intake would probably need to be screened if there are resident fish
above the falls. Likewise, a screened tailrace would probably be needed to protect anadromous
fish below the falls. The drainage basin above the falls appears to be relatively flat, but the
stream appears to be somewhat incised. Harza indicated storage could not be developed at the
damsite, however, they did not indicate if storage could be develop elsewhere in the basin. One
intriguing possibility is to develop a reservoir in the Goose March area on Slo Duc Creek, with a
diversion from Cathedral Falls Creek. Water from Cathedral Falls Creek and Slo Duc Creek
could be stored during high flow periods, then released to Cathedral Falls Creek for generation,
possibly through a second power plant. This concept has not been reviewed in detail, as the
available topographic mapping is not sufficiently detailed. If development of the Cathedral Falls
site is pursued, we recommend that this storage option be explored in more detail.
Potential Generation
Harza estimated the annual generation with their arrangement to be about 3.45 GWh. With the
revised arrangement as described above, the average annual energy potential is estimated to be
3,300 MWh, assuming no requirement for instream flows in the bypassed reach.
Environmental Assessment
Anadromous fish utilize Cathedral Falls Creek extensively below the fall. Because the project
will operate in a run-of-river mode and return flow at the base of the falls, impacts to the
anadromous fish population would be insignificant. However, it is reasonable to expect
72
regulatory agency concern for the anadromous population and adoption of several measures to
ensure minimal impact. The measures could include:
• Screened tailrace design
• Immediate release of flow at the diversion site whenever the power plant trips offline.
• Rate-of-change restrictions on the power plant discharge.
The Harza report does not indicate if there are resident fish in Cathedral Falls Creek above the
falls. Based on the topography, it is reasonable to expect the stream to be capable of supporting
a sizable resident population. Screening of the power intakes is likely to be required to prevent
losses to any resident population.
It is unknown whether there are significant aesthetic or cultural issues that would be associated
with diminishing flow over the falls.
There do not appear to be any environmental issues that would prevent development of a run-of-
river project at Cathedral Falls, but a moderate amount of environmental mitigation would be
required. Therefore, the Cathedral Falls Project is judged to have a moderate potential for
environmental feasibility.
Economic Assessment
The estimated construction annual operating costs of the Cathedral Falls Project as described
above are shown in Table 24 and results of the economic analysis are shown in Figure 26. The
construction costs are based on a review and adjustment of the Harza cost estimate. The earliest
possible on-line date is estimated to be 2009, considering the current status of the development
effort. As can be seen from Figure 26, the Cathedral Falls Project appears to be economical if
approximately 55% of its cost can be funded with grants (i.e. grants totaling about $2,900,000
would be required). This indicates a moderate potential for economic and financial feasibility.
Regulatory Assessment
Some or all of the land occupied by the Cathedral Falls site is in the Tongass National Forest. In
other states, occupying US land automatically results in jurisdiction by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. However, the State of Alaska will begin regulation of small hydro
projects in the state once it develops and receives approval of its own regulatory program. The
state has just begun developing its program, so it is too early to tell how complicated or
expensive it will be.
Interconnection Potential
The 1998 Acres update study for the Southeast Intertie suggested that the link between
Petersburg and Kake should occur in the 2011 to 2015 time frame. The transmission link would
allow sale of surplus power from the Tyee Lake hydro project to IPEC to serve Kake loads. The
construction cost was estimated to be about $19.7 million in 1996 dollars.
73
In 2003, D. Hittle & Associates evaluated the feasibility of the Petersburg-Kake transmission
line. Their report concluded that the cost of power to Kake would be about 9.6 ¢/kWh in 2007,
based on the following key assumptions:
• The construction cost of the intertie ($23.1 million) would be funded entirely by grants.
• The interconnection to Kake would be complete in 2007.
• The operating costs of the intertie would be about $255,000 in 2007, including operation
and maintenance, administrative and general, and reserves and replacement fund
expenses.
• The busbar cost of power from the Tyee Lake Project would be about 4.0 ¢/kWh in 2007.
It is impossible at this time to determine whether these assumptions are realistic. If they are,
then the interconnection would provide power to Kake at a rate that is substantially cheaper than
diesel generation. However, the following circumstances should be noted:
• Power from Tyee Lake may not be firm in the long term, as the first priority will be to
supply Petersburg & Wrangell loads, and then Ketchikan loads as a second priority.
• The preferred route of the transmission line is overland and away from the coast.
However, there is a separate proposal to construct a road linking Kake to Petersburg that
would follow the coastline. If the road were constructed, there would be some
environmental incentive to route the transmission line along the road, even though that
might not be the most economical route. This interface with the road complicates and
probably delays the transmission line development.
• If the Cathedral Falls hydro project was evaluated on the same basis (i.e. 100% grant
funding), then their cost of power would be even less than the intertie.
• Construction of the Cathedral Falls hydro project would not necessarily preclude the
construction of the intertie.
• Development of the project could be viewed as an alternative to construction of the
Petersburg-Kake link of the Southeast Intertie. If viewed in that context, the economics
of the hydro projects are highly favorable. However, there would still be a need for a
substantial amount of diesel generation in Kake.
74
Table 24, Cathedral Falls Hydroelectric Project (Kake) Summary of Project Costs
CONSTRUCTION COST Harza Modified Harza
Cost level 1979 2003
FERC
Account Description Amount Amount
330 Land and Land Rights 17,000$ -$
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics 500,000$ 126,000$
331 Structures and Improvements 126,000$ 204,000$
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways 2,800,000$ 1,500,000$
333 Turbines and Generators 320,000$ 600,000$
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment -$ 295,000$
335 Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment 82,000$ 70,000$
336 Roads and Bridges 444,000$ 90,000$
353 Substation Equipment and Structures -$ 65,000$
355 Poles and Fixtures 497,000$ 720,000$
SUBTOTAL 4,786,000$ 3,670,000$
Contingencies 1,197,000$ 918,000$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST 5,983,000$ 4,588,000$
Permitting and Engineering 1,117,000$ 712,000$
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 7,100,000$ 5,300,000$
Harza Modified Harza
Cost level 1979 2003
OPERATING COSTS Amount Amount
Incremental Labor -$
Transportation 10,000$
Other Operating Costs (1)40,000$ 40,000$
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS 40,000$ 50,000$
(1) Includes administration, insurance, taxes, land use feed, interima replacements, and environmental mitigation.
Project Arrangement
Project Arrangement
75Figure 26, Cathedral Falls Project (Kake) Economics Summary -2000-10000100020003000400050000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50YEARCUMULATIVE DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS, $1000100%75%50%25%0%GRANTFUNDING %
76
3.3.5 Klukwan/Chilkat Valley
Existing Power Supply
IPEC currently supplies electric power to Klukwan and the Chilkat Valley. Most of the
generation is from hydro, which is purchased from an independent developer. The cost of power
to Klukwan residents in 2003 was 14.54 ¢/kWh for up to 500 kWh per month (after PCE subsidy
of 18.21 ¢/kWh). For Chilkat Valley residents, the 2003 cost of power was 16.29 ¢/kWh for up
to 500 kWh per month (after PCE subsidy of 18.21 ¢/kWh). The annual energy requirement for
Klukwan and the Chilkat Valley has been about 1,600 MWh.
Interconnection Potential
AP&T is planning construction of a transmission line linking IPEC’s Chilkat Valley system and
Klukwan to the Haines/Skagway system. Once that line is complete (expected to be in 2006),
the Klukwan loads will be served primarily by hydroelectric projects (AP&T’s Goat Lake and
the soon-to-be-constructed Kasidaya Creek projects, and the Lutak Hydro project near Haines).
The existing Klukwan diesel plant will be kept in reserve for use in the event the transmission
line needs repair.
Hydroelectric Potential
Previous Studies
In 1988, Ott Water Engineers conducted a reconnaissance-level feasibility study of a Walker
Lake hydroelectric project for the Alaska Power Authority. Walker Lake is located 8 miles west
of Klukwan at about El 1180. It has a surface area of about 120 acres. It’s depth is unknown,
but based on the area topography it is probably fairly shallow. The outlet stream, Walker Creek,
flows into the Little Salmon River, which then flows into the Tsirku River at about El 250.
Ott considered five alternative configurations for the Walker Lake project, three of which were
for supplying power to Klukwan only, and two of which were for supplying power to Klukwan
and Haines. Because Klukwan will be interconnected the Haines-Skagway system soon, any
future development of the Walker Lake site would be as a regional resource. Only one of the
five alternatives studied by Ott showed any potential for feasibility (designated Alternative 3B
by Ott). Coincidentally it is the alternative with the greatest generation potential, and therefore
the one most suited for development as a regional resource. Accordingly, this study has
concentrated on that one alternative, as described below.
Alternative 3B included the following major features:
• A diversion dam on the Little Salmon River at about El 1250 feet.
• A 5,900-foot long 18-inch diameter buried HDPE pipeline from the Salmon River
diversion to Walker Lake
• Two small rockfill dams on Walker Lake to provide storage. One of the dams would
include an intake structure.
• A 9,700-foot long 30-inch diameter low-pressure buried steel pipeline from Walker
Lake along the hillside to a point above the powerhouse.
• A 2,200-foot long 30-inch diameter exposed steel penstock from the end of the low-
pressure pipeline to the powerhouse.
77
• A powerhouse containing a single generating unit with a capacity of 1900 kW. The
generating unit would have a 3-jet impulse turbine, operating under a gross head of
about 780 feet and a maximum discharge of 37 cfs. A field trip report included in
Ott’s report seems to indicate the powerhouse location is near the existing bridge over
the Little Salmon River, however the estimated gross head at the site seems to
indicate the powerhouse location is a bit farther upstream.
• A 20-mile long 34.5 kV transmission line linking the powerhouse to Klukwan and
Haines.
• A switchyard at the powerhouse and a substation in Klukwan.
The construction cost was estimated to be about $10.8 million.
Potential Modifications of Previous Project Arrangements
The Ott report did not include any drawings showing the locations of the various structures;
therefore it is difficult to reliably evaluate alternatives. Nevertheless, there do appear to be some
modifications that could lessen the cost:
• Instead of diverting the flow of the Little Salmon River in a separate pipeline to
Walker Lake, the diversion pipeline could join directly to the larger pipeline from
Walker Lake to the powerhouse. This would shorten the length from 5900 feet to
about 4900 feet.
• Use a siphon intake at the lake rather than a dam (this may not be practical if the lake
is shallow near the intake site). AP&T has used siphon intakes at both its Black Bear
Lake and Goat Lake projects with good success.
• Use of HDPE instead of steel for the low-pressure pipe from Walker Lake.
The transmission line would only need to be 8 miles long from the powerhouse to Klukwan, as
the Klukwan-Haines link will be in existence soon. For purposes of this report, we have
assumed the line would be buried construction since it will pass through or near the Chilkat Bald
Eagle Preserve.
Potential Generation
The energy potential of the Walker Lake site was estimated by Ott to be 5,430 MWh for
Alternative 3B. Generation would be similar with the suggested modifications.
Environmental Assessment
Ott did not address environmental issues, other than to indicate that the overhead transmission
line they proposed might not be allowed. The revised project as described above would bypass
all of Walker Creek and about two miles of the Little Salmon River. If there are significant fish
resources in either of those streams, then development of the Walker Lake site would be
difficult. The ADNR Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of
Anadromous Fishes indicates that the Little Salmon River has fish in its lower reach, but not in
the bypassed reach. However, fish surveys would be necessary to determine the actual extent of
78
fish usage. Because of the lack of any specific information, the environmental feasibility is
considered to be unknown.
Economic Assessment
The estimated construction and annual operating costs of the Walker Lake Project as described
above are shown in Table 25. The construction costs are based on a review and adjustment of
the Ott cost estimate to a 2003 cost level. Note that it appears Ott was quite conservative in its
estimate. The earliest possible on-line date is estimated to be 2010 considering the current status
of the development effort. However, unless loads grow at an unexpectedly high rate, the
interconnected system will have sufficient hydro generation until at least 2020. Because
additional hydro generation will not be needed any time soon, an economic analysis has not been
conducted for this study, and the economic feasibility is considered to be low.
Regulatory Assessment
The land occupied by the Walker Lake site is in the Haines State Forest Resource Management
Area. It is unlikely that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would currently
have jurisdiction. As noted earlier, the State of Alaska will assume regulatory authority over
hydroelectric project of 5 MW capacity or less once they develop an adequate program. It is
reasonable to assume that the State will apply its regulatory process to all small projects, even
those like Walker Lake where FERC would ordinarily not have jurisdiction.
79
Table 25, Walker Lake Hydro Project (Klukwan) Summary of Project Costs
CONSTRUCTION COST OTT Modified OTT
Cost level 1988 2003
FERC
Account Description Amount Amount
330 Land and Land Rights -$ -$
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics 193,000$ 180,000$
331 Structures and Improvements 304,000$ 256,000$
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways 3,093,000$ 2,572,000$
333 Turbines and Generators 920,000$ 610,000$
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment 420,000$ 295,000$
335 Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment 40,000$ 60,000$
336 Roads and Bridges 603,000$ 648,000$
353 Substation Equipment and Structures 205,000$ 90,000$
355 Poles and Fixtures 787,000$ -$
356 Conductors and Devices 715,000$ -$
358 Underground Conductor & Devices 1,921,000$
359 Line Clearing, Mob. And Demob 60,000$ 60,000$
SUBTOTAL 7,340,000$ 6,692,000$
Contingencies 1,835,000$ 1,673,000$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST 9,175,000$ 8,365,000$
Permitting and Engineering 1,625,000$ 1,035,000$
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST) 10,800,000$ 9,400,000$
OTT Modified OTT
OPERATING COSTS (2003 Cost Level)Amount Amount
Incremental Labor -$
Transportation 16,000$
Other Operating Costs (1) 64,000$
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS (2003 Cost Level) 80,000$
(1) Includes administration, insurance, taxes, land use feed, interima replacements, and environmental mitigation.
NOT SHOWN
IN REPORT
Project Arrangement
Project Arrangement
80
3.3.6 Yakutat
Existing Power Supply
Yakutat Power, a division of the City and Borough of Yakutat, generates and distributes all
power in Yakutat. All generation is by diesel engines, with a combined capacity of 2,880 kW.
Peak loads are about 1,500 kW, and annual generation is about 7 GWh. Much of the load is
from supplying power to two fish processing plants. The cost of power to Yakutat citizens in
2003 was 20.35 ¢/kWh for up to 500 kWh per month (after PCE subsidy of 8.98 ¢/kWh.)
Hydroelectric Potential
The only previous studies of the hydroelectric potential in the Yakutat area was Retherford
(1977), which considered only a tidal development at Ankau, a complex of bays about 3 miles
west of town. Retherford concluded that a tidal development would not be economical because
of the relatively low tide range in Yakutat (about 13 feet maximum).
Information on Yakutat produced by the Alaska Department of Community and Economic
Development indicated that Yakutat was interested in exploring the hydroelectric potential of the
Chicago Harbor area about 15 miles north of town. In a conversation, Mr. Scott Newlun,
Yakutat’s Power Manager, indicated they were interested in any generation method that could
replace the current diesel generation. A tidal development at Ankau is still under consideration,
and some work is being done in that regard by Arctic Pacific Enterprises.
Ankau Tidal Development
The Ankau area would appear to lend itself to any of three types of tidal development:
• A conventional tidal development, where the Ankau channel is closed by a dike and
power plant. The turbines would be reversible so generation would occur both on
filling and draining of the Ankau basin, but it would be intermittent and variable.
• A two-basin tidal development, where the Ankau/Kardy Lake basin is divided into
two pools by a number of dikes, with a power plant located between the two pools.
During high tide periods, water would flow from the Gulf of Alaska into the Kardy
Lake pool through a sluiceway constructed on the southwest side of the lake; the
sluiceway gates would close on the receding tide once the Kardy Lake water level
rose to sea level. As the water level in Kardy Lake rises, water would flow through
the power plant into the Ankau basin, generating power. Once the water level in the
Ankau basin rises above the sea level, a sluiceway in the Ankau channel would open
to drain it. With this type of development, a continuous generation pattern can be
obtained although it would vary somewhat throughout the day and from day to day.
However, the generation would be less than with the conventional development, and
the cost would be higher because of the greater number of structures. Preliminary
calculations indicate the average output from tidal energy would be around 250 kW,
generating about 2.2 GWh per year. The runoff into the Kardy Lake basin would
provide some additional generation, perhaps 0.5-1.0 GWh per year.
• A tidal current development, where a number of turbines are anchored in the Ankau
channel to make use of the energy of the moving water. This type of development
81
would cause the least impact to the Ankau basin, but would also have the least
generation.
Because of the low tide range, power from any conventional tidal development will be very
expensive unless substantially subsidized. A tidal current development may be the most
practicable, although the generating equipment for such an application is still experimental, and
environmental impacts are largely unknown. ADNR’s Catalog of Waters Important for
Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes indicates that the Ankau-Kardy Lake
system is utilized by anadromous fish. It may be very difficult to obtain the necessary permits
for any project that could have negative impacts to anadromous fish.
Conventional Hydroelectric Projects
No previous studies have located small conventional hydroelectric projects near Yakutat,
although an Alaska Energy Authority database indicates some analysis of a 300 MW
development on the Alsek River. For the current study, a search was made using USGS
topographic maps to look for sites that might have hydroelectric potential, generally focusing on
the Chicago Harbor area, as that area was identified by Yakutat Power as having potential. Two
sites were located, as discussed below. Note that neither of these sites has been visited and the
USGS maps have a 100’ contour interval, therefore the analyses should be viewed with caution.
Chicago Harbor - An unnamed stream drains the western slopes of Mt Tebenkof and flows into
Yakutat Bay at Chicago Harbor, approximately 15 miles north of Yakutat. A relatively broad
basin occurs at about the 500’ elevation, and the stream below that basin is quite steep. It is
impossible to tell from the mapping if there is storage potential in the basin, therefore a run-of-
river project has been assumed. The drainage area is estimated to be 4.2 square miles.
The selected project arrangement includes the following features:
• A low diversion dam at about El 450.
• A 36-inch diameter low pressure pipeline about 3400 feet long traversing the hillside
from the diversion dam to the west.
• A 30-inch diameter high-pressure penstock about 1200 feet long dropping down the
hillside from the end of the low-pressure pipeline to the power plant.
• A power plant near the mouth of the creek, containing a single impulse turbine and
generator rated 1400 kW at a flow of 50 cfs and a net head of 410 feet.
• A boat ramp for construction and operation access.
• An access road about 1.6 miles long from the boat ramp to the power plant and
diversion dam.
• A transmission line consisting of 12.5 miles of submarine cable from the power plant
to the Sawmill Cove northeast of Yakutat, and 2.5 miles of overhead line from
Sawmill Cove to Yakutat.
•
82
The hydraulic capacity of the project is estimated to be 50 cfs, which would be exceeded about
20% of the time, based on factoring of flow records for the Situk River. Note that actual flows
may be greater than estimated for the subject stream because its drainage basin is relatively
higher in elevation than the Situk River. On the other hand, the subject stream may be flashier
than estimated, because the Situk River drainage includes a large lake and many ponds, which
tend to even out the flows. Installation of a stream gage and developing more detailed
topographic mapping would be important first steps in evaluating this site.
Lake Redfield - Lake Redfield is a lake located about 9 miles northeast of Yakutat and about 4.5
miles south of Chicago Harbor. The lake has a surface area of about 800 acres, and the surface is
at about El 150. The surrounding area is quite flat and very marshy. The outlet stream from the
lake flows through a series of ponds for about 4,000 feet before dropping to Yakutat Bay. The
USGS map indicates the last 600 feet of stream drops 100 feet, which could make for a small
hydroelectric site. The site is particularly appealing because of the possibility of utilizing and/or
developing storage at the lake.
Because of the wide contour spacing and flat terrain, it is not possible to accurately determine the
drainage area or storage potential. For this study, the drainage area has been estimated to be 7
square miles, which would provide an average flow of about 60 cfs. Good regulation of the
stream flow could be accomplished with storage of about 15,000 acre-feet, which could be
gained by raising the lake level about 15 feet. If the plant were sized to provide a generating
capacity of 1,500 kW, the hydraulic capacity would be about 180 cfs. For purposes of this
assessment, the following components have been assumed:
• An earthfill storage dam 500 feet long and 25 feet high.
• A 60-inch diameter low pressure pipeline about 2000 feet long parallel the stream from
the dam to the west.
• A 48-inch diameter penstock about 200 feet long dropping down the hillside from the end
of the low-pressure pipeline to the power plant.
• A power plant near the mouth of the creek, containing two generating units, each rated
750 kW at a flow of 90 cfs and a net head of 125 feet.
• A boat ramp for construction and operation access.
• An access road about 0.5 miles long from the boat ramp to the power plant and diversion
dam.
No transmission line would be required if developed in conjunction with the Chicago Harbor
project, as the submarine cable from that project could be conveniently brought ashore in the
Lake Redfield area.
Potential Generation
The potential annual generation of the Chicago Harbor site is estimated to be 7,500 MWh,
however not all of that generation is likely to be usable, as some of it would occur when loads
83
are low. For purposes of this study, it has been assumed that 60%, or 4,500 MWh would be
usable.
The potential annual generation of the Lake Redfield site is estimated on a preliminary basis to
be about 3,700 MWh. If the Lake Redfield site was developed as described above, all of the
generation would be usable because of the ability to store excess water in the lake.
Environmental Assessment
The topographic maps indicate the land occupied by both projects is in the Tongass National
Forest. ADNR’s Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of
Anadromous Fishes does not indicate anadromous fish usage of the Chicago Harbor stream. If
there is a barrier falls near the mouth of the stream, then fish usage may not be an issue. If the
anadromous barrier is further upstream, then it may be necessary to move the power plant
upstream to the barrier to minimize impacts to fish. Such a move would decrease the generating
head and power output. Resident fish populations are often found upstream of barriers falls, and
can also be problematic.
Scott Newlun, manager of Yakutat Power has indicated that there is a fairly large run of salmon
in the Lake Redfield stream. The ADNR catalog does not show anadromous usage of the outlet
stream, but it does indicate Lake Redfield is connected to the Situk River system. If that is the
case, then development of Lake Redfield would be very difficult and/or uneconomic.
Economic Assessment
A combined development of the Chicago Harbor and Lake Redfield sites would be able to
provide for all or nearly all of the generation requirements of Yakutat. However because of the
probable environmental impacts from developing Lake Redfield, we have conducted an
economic analysis of only the Chicago Harbor site. The estimated construction and annual
operating costs are shown in Table 26 and the results of the analysis are shown in Figure 27. The
construction costs are based on the USGS mapping and recent cost estimates for other projects in
Southeast Alaska. The earliest possible on-line date is estimated to be 2010 considering the
current status of the development effort. As can be seen from Figure 27, the Chicago Harbor
Project appears to be economical if approximately 55% of its cost can be funded with grants (i.e.
$5,100,000 in grants). This indicates a moderate potential for economic and financial feasibility.
Regulatory Assessment
Some or all of the land occupied by the Cathedral Falls site is in the Tongass National Forest. In
other states, occupying US land automatically results in jurisdiction by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. However, as described in Section I.C.1, the State of Alaska will begin
regulation of small hydro projects in the state once it develops and receives approval of its own
regulatory program. The state has just begun developing its program, so it is too early to tell
how complicated or expensive it will be.
84
Interconnection Potential
Because of its extreme isolation, Yakutat is unlikely to be electrically interconnected to any other
community in the foreseeable future.
Table 26, Chicago Harbor Hydroelectric Project (Yakutat) Summary of Project Costs
CONSTRUCTION COST (2003 Cost Level)
FERC
Account Description Amount
330 Land and Land Rights -$
330.5 Mobilization and Logistics 300,000$
331 Structures and Improvements 180,000$
332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways 1,060,000$
333 Turbines and Generators 680,000$
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment 260,000$
335 Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment 110,000$
336 Roads and Bridges 470,000$
353 Substation Equipment and Structures 140,000$
355 Overhead Transmission Line 380,000$
358 Submarine Transmission Line 2,810,000$
SUBTOTAL 6,390,000$
Contingencies 1,920,000$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST 8,310,000$
Permitting and Engineering 990,000$
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (2003 Cost Level) 9,300,000$
OPERATING COSTS (2003 Cost Level)Amount
Incremental Labor $ 30,000
Transportation $ 25,000
Other Operating Costs (1) $ 55,000
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS (2003 Cost Level) $ 110,000
(1) Includes administration, insurance, taxes, land use feed, interima replacements, and environmental mitigation.
85Figure 27, Chicago Harbor Project (Yakutat) Economics Summary -4000-2000020004000600080000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50YEARCUMULATIVE DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS, $1000100%75%50%25%0%GRANT FUNDING %
84
3.3.7 Hydro – Summary of Study
Table 27 contains a summary of the costs and economic an environmental feasibility of new
hydroelectric projects that could serve the communities.
Table 27, Summary of New Hydro Power Plants Feasibility
Community Project Construction
Cost ($2003)
Economic
Feasibility
Environmental
Feasibility
Angoon Thayer Creek (1,000 kW) $8,700,000 Low Moderate
Hoonah Gartina Creek (600 kW)
Water Supply Creek
(600 kW)
$3,750,000
$3,330,000
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Hydaburg Reynolds Creek
(5,000 kW)
$9,400,000 Low High
Kake Cathedral Falls Creek
(800 kW)
$5,300,000 Moderate Moderate
Klukwan Walker Lake (1,900 kW) $9,400,000 Low Unknown
Yakutat Chicago Harbor
(1,400 kW)
$9,300,000 Moderate Unknown
Interconnection to another utility is possible for most of these communities, and may be a viable
alternative to either diesel or hydroelectric generation. The possible transmission
interconnections to the communities are summarized in Table 28.
Table 28, Interconnection Potential Summary
Community Interconnection Potential
Angoon Low
Hoonah Moderate
Hydaburg High
Kake Moderate
Klukwan High
Yakutat Very low
Combining the most important factors for the feasibility and interconnect probabilities for new
hydro facilities yields the results shown in Table 29.
85
Table 29, Combined Feasibility for Potential Hydro Projects
Community Project
Economic
Feasibility
Environmental
Feasibility
Interconnection
Potential
Required
Grant
(% of Cost)
Angoon Thayer Creek Low Moderate Low 80%
Gartina Creek Moderate Moderate Moderate 45% Hoonah
Water Supply Cr. Moderate High Moderate 40%
Hydaburg Reynolds Creek Low High High 100%
Kake Cathedral Falls
Cr. Moderate Moderate Moderate 55%
Klukwan Walker Lake Low Unknown High 80%
Yakutat Chicago Harbor Moderate Unknown Very low 55%
Negative factor
Neutral factor
Positive Factor
Hoonah, Kake, and Yakutat appear to have the best potential for new hydro facilities. However,
it should be noted that very little work has been done on the Yakutat site, and further field work
may result in changes to the assessment.
86
Appendix A, Final Meteorological Report for Hoonah
(Provided under separate cover)
87
Appendix B, Final Meteorological Report for Yakutat
(Provided under separate cover)
88
Appendix C, Southeast Alaska Native Villages Renewable Energy
Feasibility Study Wildlife Field Review
(Provided under separate cover)
89
Appendix D, Evaluation of the Hydroelectric Potential Near Selected
Sealaska Communities
(Provided under separate cover)