The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGartina Falls & Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects - Conceptual Design Report (Hoonah) 2011GARTINA FALLS & WATER SUPPLY CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT Prepared for: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 12480 Mendenhall Loop Road Juneau, Alaska Prepared by: HDR Alaska 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK February 2011 Gartina Falls & Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page i February 2011 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 2 3 HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Regional Hydrology .................................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Basin Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 3 3.3 Comparable Gages .................................................................................................................... 4 3.4 Kadashan River ......................................................................................................................... 5 3.5 Flood Frequency Analysis ......................................................................................................... 5 3.6 Hydrology Summary ................................................................................................................. 7 3.6.1 Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls ....................................................................................... 7 3.6.2 Water Supply Creek ....................................................................................................... 8 4 PROJECT ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Gartina Falls .............................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Water Supply Creek ................................................................................................................ 11 5 ENERGY GENERATION ................................................................................................................... 13 5.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 13 5.2 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 14 5.3 Sensitivity ................................................................................................................................ 14 6 COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................................... 14 6.1 Contingency ............................................................................................................................ 14 6.2 Indirect Construction Costs ..................................................................................................... 15 6.3 Interest During Construction ................................................................................................... 15 6.4 Cost Estimate Results .............................................................................................................. 15 7 PROJECT ECONOMICS ..................................................................................................................... 15 7.1 Financing Costs ....................................................................................................................... 15 7.2 Operations & Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 15 7.3 Energy Cost Results ................................................................................................................ 16 7.3.1 Grant Funds ................................................................................................................. 16 7.3.2 Avoided Cost ............................................................................................................... 16 7.3.3 Environmental Issues ................................................................................................... 17 8 OPERATIONAL DISCUSSION............................................................................................................ 17 8.1 Utilization ................................................................................................................................ 17 8.2 Downtime ................................................................................................................................ 18 Appendix Appendix A Appendix B Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page ii February 2011 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2. Long-term average daily flows on Kadashan River above Hook Creek (USGS gage# 15106920) ................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Daily average flows gaged on Gartina Creek near Hoonah in 2010. ............................................ 3 Figure 4. Daily average unit runoff for water years 1976-1977 for streams on Chichagof Island. .............. 4 Figure 5. Flood frequency curve for Gartina Creek based on the methods of Curran et al, 2003. ............... 6 Figure 6. Flood frequency analysis of Kadashan River using the 37-year gaging record and Bulletin 17B methods.................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 7. Probability of exceedance of daily discharges at Gartina Falls ..................................................... 7 Figure 8. Gartina Falls Average Monthly Flow ............................................................................................ 8 Figure 9. Measured flows at Water Supply Creek and Gartina Creek compared to flows calculated using the drainage basin ratio. ..................................................................................................... 9 Figure 10 – Gartina Falls Conceptual Arrangement ................................................................................... 11 Figure 11 – Water Supply Creek Alternative Powerhouse Locations ........................................................ 13 Figure 12 – Energy Utilization.................................................................................................................... 17 Tables Table 1. Record length of other stream gages on Chichagof Island. ............................................................ 4 Table 2. Drainage basin characteristics of Kadashan above Hook Creek and Gartina Creek. ..................... 5 Table 3. Drainage basin characteristics of Water Supply Creek and Gartina Creek..................................... 8 Table 4 - Gartina Falls Project Parameters ................................................................................................. 10 Table 5 - Water Supply Creek Project Parameters ...................................................................................... 12 Table 6 - Energy Summary ......................................................................................................................... 14 Table 7 - Water Supply Creek Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................... 14 Table 8 - Cost Estimate Summary .............................................................................................................. 15 Table 9 - Energy Cost Summary ................................................................................................................. 16 Table 10 - Energy Cost Summary with State of Alaska Support ................................................................ 16 Gartina Falls & Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page ES-1 February 2011 Executive Summary HDR Alaska was contracted by the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative to develop conceptual designs and analyze two small proposed hydroelectric projects for the community of Hoonah, Alaska. The two projects being considered are the Gartina Falls project and the Water Supply Creek project. Both projects are located on or near Gartina Creek approximately 3.5 miles southeast of Hoonah. This work is being funded by grants from the U.S. Dept. of Energy and Alaska Energy Authority. This study prepared a conceptual design for each project along with a corresponding cost and energy estimate. For the Water Supply Creek project, two powerhouse locations were evaluated. The analysis concluded that each project is technically feasible. Cost estimates included the full cost of project development and incorporated a 25% level of contingency. The first year annual cost of energy includes financing costs, operations & maintenance, insurance and a repair and replacement allowance. The results of the analysis are summarized below. Table E1 - Project Summary Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Alternative A B Capacity, kW 445 400 500 Avg. Annual Energy, MWh 1770 1480 1650 Total Project Cost $5.8M $6.5M $7.6M 1st Year Cost of Energy $0.28 $0.37 $0.38 The current avoided cost of diesel generation in Hoonah is approximately $0.24/kWh (fuel only). Both projects are located at or upstream of the anadromous fish barrier so environmental concerns related to salmon should be minimal. The Gartina Falls project effectively has no bypass reach so an environmental flow release would likely not be required. The Water Supply Creek project will likely be required to have an environmental flow release. Any agency requirements in excess of what was assumed in this study will reduce the amount of available energy and adversely affect the economics of each project. Gartina Falls & Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 1 February 2011 1 Introduction HDR was retained by Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) to develop conceptual level designs for two potential small hydroelectric projects near Hoonah, AK. The Gartina Falls project is located on Gartina Creek. The Water Supply Creek project is located on Water Supply Creek, a tributary of Gartina Creek. Both projects are located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of Hoonah as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Vicinity Map Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 2 February 2011 The work has been performed at a conceptual level with the intent of making an estimate of the energy potential of the basin and the cost to develop the projects. The work scope included a field visit to the sites by team members; a review of available project documentation and related information; development of conceptual project layouts; a review of existing hydraulic and hydrologic parameters; an estimation of energy production and new facility costs; and preparation of this summary report. This work did not include an in-depth geotechnical investigation. 2 Background Information Both projects have been investigated at a reconnaissance level several times in the past with the most recent work being associated with the Concept Design Report and Construction Cost Estimate for Energy Projects in the Community of Hoonah prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority by Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E) dated May 29, 2009. The AE&E report provides a concise summary of the previous investigative efforts and therefore they are not repeated here. 3 Hydrology 3.1 Regional Hydrology Gartina Creek is located on NE Chichagof Island, a large (> 2000 square-mile) island in the Alexander Archipelago. The stream is near the town of Hoonah, and 40 miles west of the Juneau. Climate is maritime, with major storm activity in late fall (October and November), snow accumulation at higher elevations in the winter, and cool, rainy summers. Stream runoff on the island tends to be flashy, with very little basin storage other than high elevation snowpack. The longest gaged stream on Chichagof Island is USGS gage # 15106920 located on the Kadashan River above Hook Creek. The daily average flows at this gage from 1968-2007 are shown in Figure 2. This runoff pattern is typical of moderate-sized streams on Chichagof Island. Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 3 February 2011 Figure 2. Long-term average daily flows on Kadashan River above Hook Creek (USGS gage# 15106920) 3.2 Basin Characteristics Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls drains 10.2 miles of forested, mountainous terrain. HDR installed a streamgage on Gartina Creek immediately upstream of Gartina Falls on 6/15/2010, and records are currently available through 11/08/2010. During this short period of time, flows ranged from 4 cfs to 166 cfs. The highest flows occurred in the late fall, near the end of the gaging period, and the lowest flows occurred in late summer (Figure 3). Figure 3. Daily average flows gaged on Gartina Creek near Hoonah in 2010. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1‐Jan 31‐Jan 2‐Mar 1‐Apr 1‐May 31‐May 30‐Jun 30‐Jul 29‐Aug 28‐Sep 28‐Oct 27‐Nov 27‐Dec Kadashan Mean Daily Flows Kadashan Minimum Daily Flows Kadashan Annual Average Snowmelt Fall Rainstorms Winter Low Flow Summer Low Flow 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Jun‐10 Jul‐10 Aug‐10 Sep‐10 Oct‐10Discharge (cfs)Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 4 February 2011 3.3 Comparable Gages There are several creeks on Chichagof Island with gage records longer than 5 years, including Tonalite Creek, Pavlof River, Kadashan River (lower and upper), Hook Creek (lower and upper), and Indian River (lower) (Table 1). The longest gaged stream is Kadashan River above Hook Creek, which the USGS gaged for a total of 37 years between 1968 and 2007. None of these gages were in operation during the summer of 2010. All of the streams mentioned above have similar unit runoff and respond to the same events. The main differences are in snowmelt runoff, as would be expected with different drainage basin elevations (Figure 4). Table 1. Record length of other stream gages on Chichagof Island. Name Gage# Start End Drainage Area Indian R Near Tenakee 15107920 10/1/1975 9/30/1982 12.9 Pavlof R Near Tenakee 15108000 6/1/1957 9/30/1981 24.3 Kadashan R Near Tenakeee 15107000 9/1/1964 9/30/1979 37.7 Tonalite Creek Near Tenakee 15106980 6/1/1968 9/30/1988 14.5 Hook Creek near Tenakee 15106960 12/1/1966 9/30/1980 8 Hook Creek above TR near Tenakee 15106940 8/1/1967 9/30/1980 4.48 Kadashan R Above Hook Creek 15106920 1/1/1968 9/30/2007 10.2 Figure 4. Daily average unit runoff for water years 1976-1977 for streams on Chichagof Island. The closest currently active gage to Gartina Creek is Montana Creek near Juneau, 40 miles to the Northeast on the mainland. Although Montana Creek appears to respond to the same events as Gartina Creek and the Kadashan River, it has higher summer runoff than both systems. This is probably due to greater snowpack as the Montana Creek basin has twice the topographic relief of the other two basins. The statistical correlation between Montana Creek and Gartina Creek is too 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Oct‐75 Dec‐75 Mar‐76 Jun‐76 Sep‐76 Dec‐76 Mar‐77 Jun‐77 Sep‐77Unit Runoff (cfs/square mile)Pavlof Unit Runoff Upper Hook Unit Runoff Tonalite Unit Runoff Lower Hook Unit Runoff Kadashan Unit Runoff Indian Runoff Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 5 February 2011 low to make it a reliable proxy for streamflow. The Chichagof stations listed above are all much more similar to one another than they are to Montana Creek. 3.4 Kadashan River Kadashan River above Hook Creek is nearly identical to Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls in drainage area and similar in relief and aspect (Gartina Creek flows NE while Kadashan flows NW). The former gage site on Kadashan is about 30 miles south of the gage site on Gartina Creek. Precipitation is also similar: according to data from Jones and Fahl, 1994, the Gartina watershed receives approximately 100 inches of precipitation per year, while Kadashan receives approximately 110 inches. There are no mapped lakes, ponds, or glaciers in either drainage basin. Both basins are forested, although portions of the Gartina Creek basin have been clearcut. Gartina Creek also drains elevations that are a few hundred feet higher than Kadashan River. Based on these similarities, Kadashan River above Hook Creek is recommended as a proxy to Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls until more data on Gartina Creek can be collected. Table 2. Drainage basin characteristics of Kadashan above Hook Creek and Gartina Creek. Characteristic Unit Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls Kadashan above Hook Drainage Area mile2 10.3 10.2 Main Channel Length mile 4.8 4.0 Main Channel Slope % 2.5% 1.2% Mean Basin Elevation ft above mean sea level 1240 1040 Basin Relief ft 2900 2360 Basin Aspect NE NW Area of Lakes and Ponds % 0 0 Mean Annual Precip inches 100 110 Mean Min Jan Temp °F 24 24 Area of Glaciers % 0 0 Average Annual Runoff cfs/mile2 -- 6.4 3.5 Flood Frequency Analysis Two methods are used to estimate flood magnitude and frequency for Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls. The first is based on regression equations in Curran et al., 2003. This 100-year flood estimate is 3900 cfs, and the 2-year flood estimate is 1390 (Figure 5). This is very similar to the mean annual recorded peak on Kadashan River of 1325 cfs. Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 6 February 2011 Figure 5. Flood frequency curve for Gartina Creek based on the methods of Curran et al, 2003. The second method is a Bulletin 17B analysis of flows at Kadashan River above Hook Creek. The Bulletin 17B analysis using 37 years of record returns a 100-year flood of 2500 cfs and a 2- year flood of 1100 cfs (Figure 6). The Bulletin 17B analysis has a smaller standard error than the regression analysis and is therefore likely to be more accurate. Figure 6. Flood frequency analysis of Kadashan River using the 37-year gaging record and Bulletin 17B methods. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 100 200 300 400 500Flood Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years) Regression‐based Flood Frequency Analysis Flood Discharge 5% Confidence 95% Confidence 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0 100 200 300 400 500Flood Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years) Bulletin 17B Analysis of Kadashan River Flood Discharge 5% Confidence 95% Confidence Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 7 February 2011 3.6 Hydrology Summary 3.6.1 Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls Ideally, a historical record of stream flow of 30 years or more is desirable to analyze a stream of interest. However, long-term stream flow records are not usually available for small or remote streams and synthesized data is often created. For this study, the daily flows recorded on the Kadashan River above Hook Creek were considered representative of the flows to be expected at the Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls project site. A flow duration curve and a graph of average monthly flows for the project site was produced using this data and is shown in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 7. Probability of exceedance of daily discharges at Gartina Falls 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 102030405060708090100Discharge (cfs)Probability of Exceedance (%) Gartina Falls Flow Duration Curve Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 8 February 2011 Figure 8. Gartina Falls Average Monthly Flow 3.6.2 Water Supply Creek Water Supply Creek is a small, steep drainage basin that is tributary to Gartina Creek. The creek was gaged concurrently with Gartina Creek in the summer and fall of 2010. This gage was located at the existing water supply intake. Basin characteristics of Water Supply Creek at the gage and upstream at the proposed hydroelectric intake, along with a comparison to Gartina Creek are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Drainage basin characteristics of Water Supply Creek and Gartina Creek. Characteristic Unit Water Supply Creek at Gage Water Supply Creek at Proposed Hydro Intake Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls Kadashan above Hook Drainage Area mile2 1.9 1.5 10.3 10.2 Main Channel Length mile 2.0 1.2 4.8 4.0 Main Channel Slope % 7.5% 7.1% 2.5% 1.2% Mean Basin Elevation ft msl 1570 1800 1240 1040 Basin Relief ft 2720 2390 2900 2360 Basin Aspect NE NE NE NW Area of Lakes and Ponds % 0 0 0 0 Mean Annual Precip inches 100 100 100 110 Mean Min Jan Temp °F 24 24 24 24 Area of Glaciers % 0 0 0 0 Average Annual Runoff cfs/mile2 -- -- -- 6.4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepFlow, cfsGartina Falls Average Monthly Flow Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 9 February 2011 A direct comparison of Water Supply Creek to Gartina Creek at the gage locations by drainage basin gives a ratio of 0.19. This ratio yields a very close fit to measured flows during the summer of 2010 (Figure 9). Synthesized flows for Water Supply Creek at the intake site were derived by scaling the Gartina Falls data by the ratios of drainage basins (0.15). Figure 9. Measured flows at Water Supply Creek and Gartina Creek compared to flows calculated using the drainage basin ratio. 4 Project Arrangements 4.1 Gartina Falls The Gartina Falls hydroelectric project will be a low-head small hydroelectric project located on Gartina Creek at Gartina Falls, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of Hoonah. There does not appear to be a technically convenient way of creating a meaningful amount of storage. Therefore, the project will operate in a run-of-river mode. The following are the proposed project features:  A diversion structure at the head of Gartina Falls that will raise the water surface approximately 15 feet. The diversion will consist of a center section with an inflatable gate and concrete abutments. The abutments will have grouted rock fill on the downstream side to provide stability. The center gate section will be lowered during high flow events to add flood capacity and to pass accumulated sediment. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Gartina Measured Water Supply Measured Drainage Comparison Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 10 February 2011  A concrete intake structure and sluiceway on the left (west) abutment of the diversion dam. The flow diverted to the power plant will first enter the sluiceway, and then be drawn through a trashrack into an intake chamber.  A 54-inch-diameter steel pipeline (penstock), about 220 feet long, will convey water from the intake structure to the powerhouse. The initial 120 feet of the pipeline will have a mild slope and be located on a bench cut into the hillside roughly parallel to the stream. The final 100 feet will drop steeply down the hillside to the powerhouse.  A powerhouse approximately 25 feet by 20 feet and 15 feet high.  A horizontal axis cross-flow (Ossberger) turbine and induction generator with a rated capacity of 445 kW.  A rock-lined tailrace to return flows to Gartina Creek near the base of Gartina Falls.  A small substation/switchyard located adjacent to the powerhouse.  A 12.5 kV transmission line, approximately 4.5 miles long, to transmit the power from the substation/switchyard to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport.  An access road, approximately 0.5 miles long, connecting the powerhouse and the intake structure to the existing timber harvest road 8503. Pertinent project features are shown in Table 4. A project schematic is shown in Figure 10. Project layout drawings and detailed project information is presented in Appendix A. Table 4 - Gartina Falls Project Parameters Headwater, ft 232 Tailwater, ft 170 Turbine Centerline, ft 177 Net Head at design flow1 ft 58 Design Flow, cfs 110 Capacity, kW 445 Avg. Inflow, cfs 76 Active Storage, AF 0 1Assumes 67% energy recovery from draft tube Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 11 February 2011 Figure 10 – Gartina Falls Conceptual Arrangement 4.2 Water Supply Creek The Water Supply hydroelectric project will be a medium head small hydroelectric project located on Water Supply Creek, approximately 5 miles south of Hoonah. There does not appear to be a technically convenient way of creating a meaningful amount of storage. Therefore, the project will operate in a run-of-river mode. The following are the proposed project features:  A diversion structure located on Water Supply Creek at elevation 768 that will raise the water surface approximately 8 feet. The diversion structure will consist of a concrete core wall with grouted riprap embankments.  A concrete intake structure and sluiceway on the right abutment of the diversion structure. The flow diverted to the power plant will first enter the sluiceway, and then be drawn through a trashrack into an intake chamber.  A low-level outlet to release environmental flows into the bypass reach of Water Supply Creek.  A 20-inch-diameter steel pipeline (penstock) will convey water from the intake structure to the powerhouse. The initial 1800 feet of the pipeline would have a mild slope and be located on a bench cut into the hillside roughly parallel to the stream. The remaining penstock to the powerhouse will be buried.  A powerhouse approximately 24 feet by 36 feet and 15 feet high.  A horizontal axis Turgo turbine and induction generator.  A rock-lined tailrace to return flows to Water Supply Creek.  A small substation/switchyard located adjacent to the powerhouse. Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 12 February 2011  A 12.5 kV transmission line to transmit the power from the substation/switchyard to an interconnection near the Hoonah airport.  An access road connecting the intake structure to the existing timber harvest road 8503. Two possible powerhouse locations were evaluated. The first location is immediately downstream of the existing City of Hoonah water supply intake. The second location is just upstream of the point where Water Supply Creek flows into Gartina Creek. Table 5 - Water Supply Creek Project Parameters Alternative A B Headwater, ft 778 778 Tailwater, ft 358 248 Penstock length, ft 5100 6800 Access road, mi 1.0 1.3 Transmission line, mi 4.25 4.5 Turbine Centerline, ft 365 255 Net Head, ft 369 465 Design Flow, cfs 15 15 Capacity, kW 400 500 Avg. Inflow, cfs 11 11 Active Storage, AF 0 0 Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 13 February 2011 Figure 11 – Water Supply Creek Alternative Powerhouse Locations Project layout drawings and detailed project information is presented in Appendix B. 5 Energy Generation The energy generation for the projects was estimated using HDR’s proprietary software “Hydroelectric Evaluation Program” (HEP). HEP has been specifically designed to model run- of-river operations. HEP uses tabulated daily flows, turbine and generator efficiencies, friction coefficients and physical parameters to simulate energy production through a period of record. Turbine and generator efficiencies are determined from tables. Output from HEP consists of effective capacity rating of the unit(s), simulated production in MWh, percent operating time and overall plant factor. 5.1 Assumptions The following are the key assumptions used in modeling energy production:  There would be no environmental flows required at the Gartina Falls project  For the Water Supply Creek project it is assumed that an environmental flow release into the bypass will be a requirement of the resource agencies. A portion of the environmental flow release will subsequently be used for water supply. A water supply reservation of 1 cfs was assumed for all cases.  Losses totaling 3% were included for station service, transformer and transmission losses and scheduled downtime. Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 14 February 2011 5.2 Results Using these assumptions and the project configurations described above, the average annual energy generation for each project alternative is shown below in Table 6. Table 6 - Energy Summary Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Alternative A B Environmental Flow, cfs 0 1 2 Avg. Annual Energy, MWh 1770 1480 1650 Capacity, kW 445 400 500 Plant factor .45 .43 .38 Days shutdown due to low water 27 73 107 5.3 Sensitivity To determine the effect of different environmental flow requirements for Water Supply Creek, two additional energy simulations were made assuming an additional 1 cfs would be required. The results are shown in Table 7 below. Table 7 - Water Supply Creek Sensitivity Analysis Water Supply Creek Alternative A B Environmental Flow, cfs 2 3 Avg. Annual Energy, MWh 1310 1460 Capacity, kW 400 500 Plant factor .38 .34 Days shutdown due to low water 107 140 6 Cost Estimates An opinion of probable construction costs was derived for the projects presented above. The approach used was to develop base work units and unit prices and then apply these units and prices consistently to the various project features. 6.1 Contingency A contingency of 25% was added to the the direct construction costs to reflect the uncertainty of the layout and design that won’t be resolved until later in the development process. Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 15 February 2011 6.2 Indirect Construction Costs Indirect construction costs associated with engineering, licensing, permitting, construction management, and owner’s administration were added to the cost estimate as either percentages or lump sum amounts. 6.3 Interest During Construction An assumed financial cost representing the interest accrued at 5% APR during an 18 month construction period was also included. 6.4 Cost Estimate Results The results are shown in Table 8 below. Table 8 - Cost Estimate Summary Gartina Creek Water Supply Creek Alternative A B Direct Construction Costs 3,600,000 $4,200,000 $4,900,000 Contingency 900,000 $1,050,000 $1,125,000 Engineering, Licensing & Permitting 730,000 $620,000 $690,000 Owners Administration 180,000 $210,000 $245,000 Construction Management 180,000 $210,000 $245,000 Interest During Construction 200,000 $230,000 $265,000 Total Project Costs 5,790,000 $6,520,000 $7,570,000 7 Project Economics A detailed economic evaluation was not included in the scope of this work. However, in order to get a conceptual view of the economics of the project generic financial assumptions were made. The results are presented as the first year estimated annual costs per kWh in 2011 dollars. The assumptions and results are presented below. 7.1 Financing Costs Annual financing costs were determined assuming 100% debt and a constant principal and interest payment calculated over 30 years at a 5% APR. All project costs have been assumed to be capitalized. 7.2 Operations & Maintenance First year O&M expense was assumed to include labor, direct and indirect expenses and insurance. It was assumed that the project would be designed for un-manned operations and would be part of a larger organization thereby the project would experience lower administrative expenses. On-site O&M labor would be limited to periodic inspections and seasonal Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 16 February 2011 maintenance. Total labor, expenses and owner’s G&A expenses were estimated at $50,000/yr. A repair and replacement fund of $5,000 was also included. General liability and business interruption insurance was estimated at $1.00 per $100.00 of asset. Any royalties associated with land use are unknown and therefore have not been included. 7.3 Energy Cost Results The average first year cost of energy for each of the projects is shown below in Table 9. Table 9 - Energy Cost Summary Gartina Creek Water Supply Creek Alternative A B Average First Year Energy Cost, kWh $0.28 $0.37 $0.38 As with all hydroelectric projects, once the debt is paid off the only costs would be for O&M and the energy costs will be significantly lower. 7.3.1 Grant Funds The primary cost of energy values above do not reflect the benefit of any grant funds or low interest loans often made available to rural energy projects in Alaska. The following table shows the impact of several scenarios reflecting State of Alaska assistance. Table 10 - Energy Cost Summary with State of Alaska Support Average First Year Energy Cost, kWh Scenario Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Alternative A B Zero interest loan $0.17 $0.23 $0.23 $1M Grant Funds $0.23 $0.32 $0.33 $3M Grant Funds $0.15 $0.22 $0.24 $5M Grant Funds $0.06 $0.11 $0.15 7.3.2 Avoided Cost The cost of hydroelectric energy will undoubtedly be compared to the equivalent cost of diesel generation. IPEC’s current diesel plant produces 14.3 kWh per gallon of diesel fuel. At the current average price of $3.50 per gallon, the raw generation cost of diesel generation is $0.24/kWh. Hydroelectric power would also defer maintenance costs associated with diesel generation but these savings are not reflected in the first year cost of energy comparison. Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 17 February 2011 7.3.3 Environmental Issues Environmental issues for hydropower projects typically center on fisheries issues. The fisheries issue likely to have the greatest impact on project economics is the environmental flow that must be maintained in the bypass reach. For the Gartina Falls project, the bypass reach is negligible so it is unlikely that environmental flow release will be required. For Water Supply Creek, there is a significant bypass reach and it has been documented that resident fish reside in this area. Therefore, it is almost certain that an environmental release will be required from the intake. A nominal 1 cfs has been assumed however this value is subject to change following discussions with resource agencies. Increases in the environmental flow to meet fisheries requirements or domestic water supply needs would have an adverse affect on project economics for Water Supply Creek. 8 Operational Discussion The following section discusses issues surrounding the conclusions reached in this study work and the actual operation of the projects. 8.1 Utilization For small electrical systems in Alaska, such as the one in Hoonah, the primary benefit from a hydroelectric project comes from the avoided cost of diesel generation. However, operational constraints necessary to provide a stable electrical system may limit the amount of energy from a run-of-river hydroelectric that can be effectively utilized. To provide an initial assessment of utilization, the energy potential of the projects was compared to the actual generation in 2010 as shown in Figure 12 below. Figure 12 – Energy Utilization 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMWhHoonah Energy Generation Diesel Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek ‐Alt. A Combined Hydro Gartina Falls Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page 18 February 2011 As is shown in Figure 12, either one of the hydro projects could easily fit into the existing electrical generation profile of the system and be 100% utilized. In the case of both projects being constructed, there would need to be some curtailment of generation as diesel generation would always need to remain on the system to provide frequency control. In the case of both projects being available, curtailment of hydro generation in the order of 10-15% would likely need to occur. 8.2 Downtime The energy simulations indicate that either of the projects would experience some level of downtime due to low water. For run-of-river projects this is to be expected during low water years and/or periods of low flow on the annual hydrograph. However, in the case of Water Supply Creek, this problem is exacerbated with increasing environmental flows in the bypass reach. Prolonged downtimes can lead to increased maintenance and operational difficulties. Gartina Falls & Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page A-1 February 2011 Appendix A GARTINA.OUT E (s16.66H ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gartina Falls POWER GENERATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DATA FILE USED: 15106920.QCHMODEL DESCRIPTION-----------------PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES 1 220 54 .011 2 HEADWATER ELEV: 232 TAILWATER ELEV: 172 GROSS HEAD: 60 NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 58.0NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 445.0 @ 1 POWER FACTORSTATION SERVICE LOSS: .5 TRANSFORMER LOSS: .5 TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1 SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1 TURBINE SELECTED: 1 - CROSS-FLOWGENERATOR SELECTED: INDUCTION W/ GEARBOX MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1969 219.2 176.7 36.6 0.0 0.0 40.2 248.0 312.3 180.9 136.6 124.3 118.1 1593.0 1970 117.1 200.3 188.5 43.9 169.1 181.1 150.1 252.7 198.7 151.8 118.3 180.9 1952.6 1971 246.3 136.1 149.0 100.5 58.7 56.8 118.2 304.8 295.6 125.6 111.8 183.9 1887.5 1972 214.6 151.5 37.7 45.9 22.3 64.4 80.0 306.9 305.8 169.0 161.9 131.6 1691.6 1973 219.5 145.6 56.4 46.4 60.6 58.7 232.0 314.7 275.8 102.6 138.3 158.1 1808.7 1974 248.7 41.4 83.0 3.2 108.2 9.5 164.1 318.0 225.1 100.3 54.1 132.6 1488.1 1975 308.9 265.2 183.7 82.4 19.1 8.3 89.3 297.7 279.2 162.7 71.6 150.7 1918.7 1976 198.1 89.9 139.5 116.9 80.7 145.4 152.2 300.2 279.8 174.8 70.2 170.3 1918.0 1977 237.9 238.9 218.5 177.3 229.2 117.3 211.1 182.7 179.0 63.9 8.5 108.2 1972.4 1978 217.3 99.8 6.2 27.9 52.1 81.3 194.8 259.5 125.5 60.5 20.5 80.6 1225.9 1981 244.6 218.4 79.4 242.6 96.1 129.6 91.4 123.7 67.4 74.9 96.5 202.2 1666.9 1982 203.7 234.4 146.7 103.0 16.3 44.9 124.7 297.9 179.6 62.3 44.9 120.0 1578.4 1983 253.9 131.8 89.5 180.8 109.7 99.5 192.8 231.3 71.5 31.3 164.9 168.4 1725.4 1984 241.9 96.1 15.1 177.8 211.4 234.4 122.8 153.2 137.2 101.6 105.5 104.5 1701.5 1985 171.1 119.8 129.2 275.6 182.0 101.3 155.0 295.9 273.8 157.8 83.6 106.7 2051.8 1986 211.1 66.1 164.5 183.1 100.7 225.0 165.0 265.9 233.9 69.3 95.8 39.9 1820.4 1987 251.8 136.5 242.8 198.1 154.6 80.4 208.4 264.0 221.0 69.9 11.5 180.4 2019.4 1988 297.4 276.7 218.0 92.0 151.9 187.9 171.1 262.7 175.1 77.9 91.9 158.9 2161.6Page 1 GARTINA.OUT 1989 279.3 229.9 108.8 87.5 44.3 21.9 203.7 271.0 98.1 2.4 16.3 115.0 1478.3 1990 221.5 190.7 260.9 111.3 98.7 174.3 237.6 214.7 85.2 63.5 87.1 169.2 1914.7 1991 233.0 116.2 133.2 111.9 149.5 74.4 228.0 299.5 186.8 73.1 126.8 245.8 1978.2 1992 258.0 274.5 219.1 253.3 150.8 171.1 158.2 210.5 166.6 55.8 89.3 203.9 2211.2 1993 178.8 210.1 149.7 87.2 149.9 179.4 261.8 234.9 67.7 6.1 10.8 96.1 1632.7 1994 173.8 241.1 222.9 122.7 42.9 253.2 286.6 241.0 123.0 57.1 38.0 203.2 2005.5 1995 320.0 191.6 98.4 76.8 147.9 81.9 260.8 251.2 103.6 48.8 78.6 90.0 1749.6 1996 222.2 145.9 105.4 37.1 34.5 115.5 176.6 168.9 115.6 45.5 98.8 187.3 1453.3 1997 202.3 126.5 97.8 22.2 184.8 86.3 204.0 226.4 74.8 86.7 82.0 129.8 1523.5 1998 199.8 171.6 260.1 97.3 146.6 87.6 135.8 142.9 51.4 63.2 117.1 148.3 1621.7 1999 205.7 170.1 176.7 149.3 37.7 90.7 217.1 302.3 271.2 118.1 123.1 203.5 2065.4 2000 288.1 214.1 196.0 97.1 69.6 174.4 188.7 226.1 179.1 107.4 104.0 196.6 2041.2 2001 222.4 194.7 132.7 198.0 98.0 115.5 105.0 210.6 155.3 85.3 49.1 212.8 1779.5 2002 244.4 179.2 116.5 106.3 109.5 42.3 62.7 238.5 146.4 62.1 165.5 159.8 1633.1 2003 221.8 144.2 158.6 162.7 90.4 85.2 128.4 112.8 79.4 26.0 29.8 215.0 1454.5 2004 158.3 144.4 171.1 131.4 181.7 157.6 229.0 233.3 65.0 8.5 1.1 147.9 1629.3 2005 187.8 232.4 231.8 58.9 115.9 180.2 176.6 130.2 41.0 93.8 90.8 195.1 1734.4 2006 210.2 198.3 208.2 108.2 79.0 53.7 82.1 198.6 96.3 38.7 65.4 204.2 1543.0 2007 233.4 49.4 145.0 143.9 67.6 62.6 213.2 302.8 269.2 158.0 30.3 184.7 1860.1AVERAGE 226.1 168.9 145.3 115.1 103.3 110.1 173.7 242.2 164.3 83.6 80.5 156.9 1770.0AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.45AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 27 THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES % LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED ---------------------------------------- 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 82.0 89.7 73.5 20 86.3 92.0 79.4 30 86.8 93.4 81.1 40 87.0 94.0 81.8 50 87.0 94.3 82.0 60 87.0 94.5 82.2 70 83.9 94.7 79.4 80 87.0 94.7 82.4 90 87.0 94.7 82.4 100 87.0 94.7 82.4 Page 2 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights - Generation Plant 0 LS 50,000$ -$ .2 Special use permits 0 LS 50,000$ -$ .3 Surveying 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE .1 Excavation 350 CY 75$ 26,250$ .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement)90 CY 1,500$ 135,000$ .3 Metal Building SF 125$ -$ .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ .5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .7 Fire Protection 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ .2 DAM AND SPILLWAY .1 Excavation 180 CY 50$ 9,000$ .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ .3 Concrete (structural)50 CY 1,500$ 75,000$ .4 Concrete (mass)30 CY 500$ 15,000$ .5 Riprap 180 CY 100$ 18,000$ .6 Obermeyer Gate .a Equipment Package, Controls, and Misc Hardware 1 LS 210,000$ 210,000$ .b Installation 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ .c Foundation Concrete (structural)60 CY 1,500$ 90,000$ .3 INTAKE .1 Excavation 150 CY 50$ 7,500$ .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .3 Trash racks 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$ .4 Shutoff Valve w/operator 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ .5 Concrete (structural)180 CY 1,500$ 270,000$ .6 Concrete (mass)0 CY 500$ -$ .7 Misc. Metals 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .8 Misc. electrical & mechanical 1 LS 60,000$ 60,000$ .9 Intake Building 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ .4 SLUICEWAY .1 Excavation 40 CY 50$ 2,000$ .2 Concrete (structural)70 CY 1,500$ 105,000$ .3 Gate w/operator 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK .a Clearing 0.3 ACRE 25,000$ 6,313$ .b Excavation 500 CY 75$ 37,500$ .c Fill 300 CY 100$ 30,000$ .d penstock material 220 LF 687$ 151,231$ .e Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)50 CY 1,500$ 75,000$ .f Exposed Penstock installation 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .g Buried Penstock installation 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .h Mid Span Support 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ .2 TAILRACE .a Excavation 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ .b Support and lining 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$ 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply 445 kW 1,200$ 534,000$ .2 Install 1 LS 60,000$ 60,000$ 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ .2 Station Service 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ .4 PLC Controls, Panel, and Generator Wiring 1 LS -$ -$ .5 Conduit/wires/cables 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .2 Powerhouse crane rail 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Upgrade Existing Road 0.0 MI 50,000$ -$ .2 New Road to Intake and Powerhouse 0.5 MI 250,000$ 125,000$ .3 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ IPEC Hoonah Hydropower OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Gartina Falls 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land rights - transmission line 0 LS -$ 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .2 Oil spill containment 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .3 Grounding grid 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Generator Step-up Transformer- 600 kVA 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ .2 Disconnects 3 LS 10,000$ 30,000$ .3 Surge Arrestors 3 LS 2,000$ 6,000$ 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 Overhead Transmission Line 4.25 MI 180,000$ 765,000$ .2 ROW Clearing 4.25 MI 10,000$ 42,500$ 397 Communication and Control Equipment .1 Telemetry and Communications Equipment 1.0 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ Total Direct Construction Costs 3,600,000$ Contingency 25%900,000$ Design Engineering 10%360,000$ Licensing & permitting 370,000$ Owner's General Administration & overhead 5%180,000$ Construction Management 5%180,000$ Subtotal 5,590,000$ Interest During Construction 5% 18 months 202,000$ Total 5,792,000$ 2534e1.doc HTS-INC HYDROPOWER TURBINE SYSTEMS, INC. PO Box 736 Hayes, VA, USA 23072 TEL: 804-360-7992 FAX: 866-552-9946 January 29, 2011 Email:hts-inc@hts-inc.com E S T I M A T E RE: P-2534-1 GARTINA FALLS HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT in ALASKA OSSBERGER TURBINE/GENERATOR SET Hydro electric equipment proposal for budgetary purposes, based on one OSSBERGER Turbine/Generator Set with automatic control feature (head level controller), for grid parallel operation, rated for: Static Head HG = 69 ft (from head- to tailwater level) Net head HN = 67 ft (with penstock 48” x 200’) Max. Flow Q = 110 cfs Min. Flow Q = 11 cfs Turbine Output PT = 524 kW Generator Output PG = 485 kW Nominal speed n = 212/1220 rpm Scope of Supply: 1 OSSBERGER Turbine (SH800 double cell) 2 Baseframe 3 OSSBERGER Water Level Regulator (automatic operation) 4 Turbine Control Panel 5 Transition Piece and Draft Tube 6 Service Valve (not required) 7 FLENDER Speedincreaser with Couplings 9 HITZINGER Induction Generator (525 kW,1200 RPM, 480V/3/60, RTD’s, with overspeed capability) 10 Electric Switchgear (not included) Price Estimate : EUR 320,000 Option for AISI 316 alloy EUR 90,000 (Cr-Ni-Mo-Ti alloy recommended due to sediments) Price stated in Euros, due to the fluctuating exchange rate (currently approx. USD 1.40). CIP Free port of German export, Packing and Crating for sea freight included, Freight, Insurance, Importation into the USA estimated at USD 40,000. Delivery time: approx. (10) months HYDROPOWER TURBINE SYSTEMS, INC. Gartina Falls & Water Supply Creek Hydroelectric Projects Conceptual Design Report Hoonah Hydroelectric Projects Page B-1 February 2011 Appendix B WSC2MIF2.OUT E (s16.66H ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Water Supply Alt 2 POWER GENERATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DATA FILE USED: watersup.QCHMODEL DESCRIPTION-----------------PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES 1 6800 20 .011 2 HEADWATER ELEV: 778 TAILWATER ELEV: 255 GROSS HEAD: 523 NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 465.2NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 494.9 @ 1 POWER FACTORSTATION SERVICE LOSS: .5 TRANSFORMER LOSS: .5 TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1 SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1 TURBINE SELECTED: 1 - TURGO-GENERALGENERATOR SELECTED: GENERATOR MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1969 223.2 170.8 10.0 0.0 0.0 35.8 263.2 342.8 172.7 116.9 97.0 89.2 1521.6 1970 91.9 204.3 182.4 34.3 166.2 175.0 138.4 267.7 201.2 137.9 91.7 176.8 1867.9 1971 259.5 119.3 137.6 77.7 34.0 13.6 97.7 336.7 324.8 105.0 80.3 181.8 1768.2 1972 220.3 139.3 13.7 21.2 6.4 41.0 41.0 338.1 337.0 162.8 147.8 109.5 1578.1 1973 226.7 131.9 40.2 24.9 39.2 24.2 244.5 346.4 297.7 74.0 118.5 148.7 1716.8 1974 263.1 19.9 53.4 0.0 94.7 0.0 161.9 350.4 233.8 67.5 17.5 124.0 1386.3 1975 341.5 286.7 178.9 46.7 4.1 1.4 59.3 324.8 305.3 152.1 26.0 134.0 1860.5 1976 195.5 54.1 123.2 95.1 48.2 127.7 140.2 327.5 301.2 167.7 28.3 160.2 1768.9 1977 250.5 252.1 222.0 169.8 243.4 92.7 216.4 179.9 178.2 20.1 0.0 100.2 1925.3 1978 224.0 78.6 0.0 16.1 21.4 47.6 196.6 276.3 103.6 23.3 0.0 62.0 1049.5 1981 260.5 225.3 34.3 253.9 67.3 105.9 58.3 103.6 30.1 43.2 64.9 204.4 1451.6 1982 203.5 246.7 131.1 73.8 0.0 18.6 109.3 326.3 176.6 24.1 26.8 97.5 1434.0 1983 271.1 114.9 64.4 175.4 89.9 69.0 191.2 243.8 33.8 9.1 156.5 157.0 1576.1 1984 255.0 62.4 0.0 172.0 219.3 245.5 101.0 141.5 120.6 68.3 82.0 78.8 1546.3 1985 160.3 96.5 107.3 298.4 181.6 72.7 145.4 323.0 296.3 149.8 47.2 82.6 1961.1 1986 212.9 31.7 161.7 178.9 86.5 232.8 157.2 284.3 246.6 28.3 64.4 21.8 1707.0 1987 266.4 117.0 257.0 198.2 148.9 53.2 214.0 279.2 230.5 29.4 5.8 177.1 1976.6 1988 327.2 300.1 223.1 56.3 140.5 184.1 168.1 282.0 170.2 36.9 57.8 144.5 2090.8 1989 301.0 239.1 86.0 68.3 11.9 10.5 207.1 293.2 71.3 0.0 4.1 112.3 1404.7 1990 229.1 189.9 280.0 82.3 79.1 167.8 251.8 223.1 53.4 39.2 61.5 161.7 1818.9 1991 246.3 96.1 109.8 83.0 139.2 33.8 235.4 326.2 187.9 27.8 104.1 262.3 1851.9 1992 275.5 297.8 226.1 268.3 137.1 164.4 147.1 219.7 159.8 19.6 61.6 208.3 2185.2Page 1 WSC2MIF2.OUT 1993 176.7 214.7 136.4 46.4 138.0 176.2 276.6 244.3 28.8 0.0 5.8 79.7 1523.7 1994 165.2 256.3 228.5 94.6 16.0 267.2 314.4 256.2 99.5 28.2 25.5 204.9 1956.6 1995 354.1 191.3 62.2 42.3 137.3 54.9 281.9 263.8 76.8 20.2 51.8 69.0 1605.6 1996 230.0 127.4 79.8 13.5 21.2 104.0 173.7 162.8 91.3 21.0 75.2 188.0 1287.9 1997 201.4 106.4 67.8 1.4 186.0 53.6 207.6 235.3 41.5 66.0 53.3 110.5 1330.7 1998 196.9 163.9 277.1 65.0 137.0 51.7 119.7 128.6 17.8 33.7 96.6 131.6 1419.6 1999 205.1 166.8 170.4 132.8 3.7 62.9 223.2 332.2 293.8 91.7 100.1 208.1 1991.0 2000 314.6 222.7 194.3 64.2 31.8 167.1 186.3 236.0 178.2 74.4 71.2 195.6 1936.3 2001 231.3 197.3 108.3 198.3 73.4 87.7 78.2 215.2 148.5 52.4 29.8 216.9 1637.3 2002 258.0 173.7 89.6 76.8 88.4 21.4 33.1 248.7 133.1 15.9 162.0 152.9 1453.5 2003 230.2 126.0 148.9 151.9 61.8 54.1 110.0 87.9 44.8 4.6 11.9 223.5 1255.7 2004 150.1 129.7 158.4 118.9 179.8 142.7 239.8 243.7 35.2 2.3 0.0 139.9 1540.4 2005 182.7 242.6 241.3 34.0 93.7 173.9 172.1 109.4 2.7 62.3 68.2 195.6 1578.6 2006 215.3 200.3 211.0 79.4 53.0 23.1 49.1 199.4 64.4 10.4 34.3 204.7 1344.4 2007 245.9 11.8 131.2 126.8 32.4 28.2 220.8 330.4 292.2 149.6 0.0 180.4 1749.5AVERAGE 234.1 162.3 133.7 98.4 86.8 91.5 168.4 254.9 156.2 57.7 57.6 148.5 1650.2AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.38AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 107 THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES % LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED ---------------------------------------- 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 70.1 90.0 63.1 20 79.4 94.0 74.6 30 83.7 95.5 79.9 40 84.9 96.5 81.9 50 85.9 97.0 83.3 60 86.0 97.3 83.7 70 86.0 97.4 83.8 80 86.0 97.4 83.8 90 86.0 97.5 83.9 100 86.0 97.4 83.8 Page 2 WSC1MIF2.OUT E (s16.66H ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Water Supply Alt 1 POWER GENERATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DATA FILE USED: watersup.QCHMODEL DESCRIPTION-----------------PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES 1 5100 20 .011 2 HEADWATER ELEV: 778 TAILWATER ELEV: 365 GROSS HEAD: 413 NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 369.3NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 392.9 @ 1 POWER FACTORSTATION SERVICE LOSS: .5 TRANSFORMER LOSS: .5 TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1 SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1 TURBINE SELECTED: 1 - TURGO-GENERALGENERATOR SELECTED: GENERATOR MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1969 177.0 135.3 7.9 0.0 0.0 28.3 208.6 272.0 136.8 92.5 76.8 70.7 1205.9 1970 72.8 161.9 144.6 27.2 131.6 138.6 109.4 212.1 159.3 109.1 72.6 140.1 1479.3 1971 205.7 94.4 109.0 61.5 26.9 10.8 77.3 267.2 257.7 83.0 63.5 144.0 1401.0 1972 174.5 110.3 10.8 16.7 5.0 32.4 32.4 268.3 267.5 128.9 117.1 86.8 1250.7 1973 179.7 104.4 31.8 19.6 31.0 19.1 193.7 274.9 236.0 58.5 93.8 117.8 1360.2 1974 208.6 15.7 42.2 0.0 75.0 0.0 128.2 278.1 185.2 53.3 13.9 98.3 1098.5 1975 271.0 227.4 141.6 36.9 3.2 1.1 46.8 257.6 242.1 120.3 20.5 106.1 1474.7 1976 154.8 42.8 97.6 75.1 38.1 101.1 111.0 259.8 238.8 132.7 22.4 127.0 1401.2 1977 198.5 199.8 175.9 134.5 192.9 73.3 171.4 142.3 140.9 15.9 0.0 79.4 1524.7 1978 177.6 62.2 0.0 12.8 16.9 37.6 155.7 218.9 81.9 18.4 0.0 49.2 831.1 1981 206.5 178.4 27.2 201.3 53.3 83.7 46.0 81.9 23.8 34.2 51.3 162.1 1149.7 1982 161.3 195.6 103.7 58.5 0.0 14.7 86.5 258.8 139.8 19.0 21.2 77.2 1136.3 1983 214.9 91.0 51.0 138.9 71.1 54.6 151.4 193.0 26.7 7.2 124.0 124.4 1248.3 1984 202.0 49.4 0.0 136.4 173.8 194.5 79.9 111.8 95.4 54.1 64.9 62.3 1224.5 1985 127.0 76.4 85.0 236.6 144.1 57.5 115.0 256.2 234.9 118.5 37.3 65.4 1553.9 1986 168.7 25.1 128.2 141.7 68.6 184.4 124.4 225.2 195.3 22.3 50.9 17.3 1352.2 1987 211.3 92.7 203.7 157.0 117.8 42.1 169.5 221.2 182.5 23.2 4.6 140.3 1565.9 1988 259.6 238.0 176.8 44.6 111.4 145.7 133.0 223.5 134.6 29.1 45.8 114.6 1656.6Page 1 WSC1MIF2.OUT 1989 238.6 189.4 68.1 54.1 9.4 8.3 164.1 232.4 56.4 0.0 3.2 88.9 1113.0 1990 181.5 150.4 222.0 65.1 62.7 132.8 199.5 176.6 42.2 31.0 48.7 128.1 1440.5 1991 195.1 76.0 86.9 65.8 110.2 26.7 186.6 258.7 148.7 22.0 82.4 207.9 1466.9 1992 218.4 236.2 179.0 212.6 108.6 130.1 116.3 173.9 126.4 15.5 48.8 165.0 1730.8 1993 139.8 170.1 107.9 36.7 109.3 139.5 219.2 193.5 22.7 0.0 4.6 63.1 1206.4 1994 130.9 203.1 181.1 74.9 12.6 211.8 249.4 202.9 78.8 22.3 20.2 162.5 1550.5 1995 281.1 151.5 49.2 33.5 108.8 43.5 223.5 209.0 60.7 16.0 41.0 54.7 1272.4 1996 182.2 100.9 63.1 10.7 16.8 82.4 137.5 128.7 72.2 16.6 59.5 149.0 1019.7 1997 159.5 84.2 53.7 1.1 147.4 42.4 164.4 186.3 32.8 52.3 42.2 87.5 1053.6 1998 156.1 129.8 219.7 51.4 108.5 40.9 94.7 101.6 14.0 26.7 76.4 104.3 1124.1 1999 162.6 132.0 135.0 105.3 2.9 49.7 176.9 263.6 233.0 72.5 79.3 164.9 1577.7 2000 249.6 176.4 154.0 50.8 25.1 132.3 147.4 186.8 140.9 58.8 56.3 155.0 1533.4 2001 183.3 156.2 85.7 157.0 58.1 69.5 61.9 170.3 117.4 41.5 23.6 171.8 1296.2 2002 204.4 137.5 70.9 60.7 70.0 17.0 26.1 197.1 105.3 12.6 128.4 121.0 1151.0 2003 182.4 99.8 117.8 120.3 48.9 42.8 86.9 69.5 35.4 3.6 9.4 177.1 994.0 2004 118.8 102.8 125.5 94.3 142.5 113.0 190.0 192.9 27.8 1.8 0.0 110.9 1220.3 2005 144.8 192.3 191.3 27.0 74.1 137.8 136.2 86.5 2.2 49.2 54.0 155.0 1250.4 2006 170.5 158.8 167.2 62.8 41.9 18.3 38.8 157.7 50.9 8.2 27.1 162.3 1064.4 2007 194.8 9.3 103.8 100.3 25.6 22.3 174.9 262.0 231.7 118.3 0.0 143.0 1386.0AVERAGE 185.6 128.6 105.9 77.9 68.8 72.4 133.4 202.0 123.7 45.6 45.6 117.7 1307.2AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.38AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 107 THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES % LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED ---------------------------------------- 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 70.1 90.0 63.1 20 79.4 94.0 74.6 30 83.7 95.5 79.9 40 84.9 96.5 81.9 50 85.9 97.0 83.3 60 86.0 97.3 83.7 70 86.0 97.4 83.8 80 86.0 97.4 83.8 90 86.0 97.5 83.9 100 86.0 97.4 83.8 Page 2 WSC1MIF1.OUT E (s16.66H ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Water Supply Alt 1 POWER GENERATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DATA FILE USED: watersup.QCHMODEL DESCRIPTION-----------------PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES 1 5100 20 .011 2 HEADWATER ELEV: 778 TAILWATER ELEV: 365 GROSS HEAD: 413 NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 369.3NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 392.9 @ 1 POWER FACTORSTATION SERVICE LOSS: .5 TRANSFORMER LOSS: .5 TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1 SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1 TURBINE SELECTED: 1 - TURGO-GENERALGENERATOR SELECTED: GENERATOR MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1969 191.0 153.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 33.7 221.0 277.1 155.6 108.8 98.1 92.8 1346.2 1970 86.6 176.5 162.0 33.8 146.7 156.5 129.6 225.8 176.9 130.0 92.8 155.9 1673.1 1971 217.6 110.7 122.2 74.6 40.8 23.1 97.3 271.6 262.1 104.2 84.9 159.9 1569.2 1972 189.9 127.8 20.5 23.8 9.1 48.1 52.9 271.3 271.0 147.6 137.6 105.7 1405.3 1973 192.9 122.6 41.4 29.3 41.3 26.6 207.2 278.5 247.3 81.7 114.0 135.0 1518.1 1974 221.3 19.9 56.5 1.1 89.5 0.0 142.2 281.1 200.0 77.3 24.4 108.5 1221.7 1975 273.4 235.4 158.5 52.8 7.6 2.9 64.7 264.3 249.0 139.8 43.5 124.9 1616.9 1976 172.3 64.0 108.2 92.7 54.0 115.2 129.8 267.3 250.5 151.9 35.8 143.2 1584.9 1977 210.7 211.7 192.6 152.0 203.8 95.8 188.4 161.9 160.3 33.5 0.0 88.4 1699.2 1978 186.3 76.2 0.0 16.4 30.9 58.8 172.8 233.7 101.7 27.6 2.2 58.5 965.1 1981 217.5 193.0 52.7 213.2 76.2 106.8 68.2 103.8 36.3 44.2 69.2 171.8 1352.8 1982 177.2 207.4 124.0 71.5 2.2 22.1 99.8 264.0 157.9 37.3 30.7 91.9 1286.0 1983 225.6 101.7 62.2 155.6 87.0 71.0 168.8 208.9 44.7 11.2 138.2 142.0 1417.0 1984 214.5 67.6 3.2 149.4 185.7 209.6 100.7 133.0 115.3 72.0 76.9 79.2 1407.1 1985 145.3 94.0 102.0 244.6 152.4 77.0 134.5 263.9 243.6 139.2 58.3 80.1 1734.8 1986 184.1 37.6 137.1 158.4 77.5 200.4 142.9 239.3 209.7 39.6 68.0 23.8 1518.3 1987 221.9 108.3 215.6 173.4 135.6 51.0 185.3 236.0 196.9 45.5 6.4 155.9 1731.8 1988 264.3 245.6 192.0 61.1 124.4 163.9 151.6 235.8 154.1 54.0 61.3 131.1 1839.0 1989 248.8 204.0 80.8 60.1 18.1 12.6 178.5 243.8 74.6 0.0 7.6 97.7 1226.6 1990 195.3 165.2 232.4 88.3 67.7 151.0 214.2 194.5 60.9 40.9 62.4 144.1 1616.8 1991 208.9 96.8 110.0 85.5 128.2 48.4 201.8 268.1 165.7 44.3 100.7 219.9 1678.2 1992 228.9 242.9 195.8 224.8 126.0 149.3 137.5 190.1 145.5 31.1 64.9 180.4 1917.3Page 1 WSC1MIF1.OUT 1993 158.9 186.1 127.9 61.1 126.7 156.6 234.5 210.7 40.3 1.1 7.4 76.4 1387.7 1994 144.0 214.4 195.3 98.8 23.1 223.9 256.5 219.3 96.7 30.8 26.4 170.5 1699.6 1995 282.6 168.2 76.0 44.8 123.6 49.9 233.6 224.6 81.4 22.0 53.8 62.8 1423.1 1996 196.0 122.2 76.7 16.7 21.2 95.1 152.9 148.8 93.9 26.4 75.8 161.8 1187.5 1997 175.8 101.8 72.4 5.0 161.3 61.1 179.8 202.8 49.3 66.4 52.5 101.6 1229.8 1998 170.8 148.2 230.2 68.2 127.4 56.5 115.5 122.8 25.8 39.0 92.9 122.9 1320.2 1999 177.9 150.6 148.3 120.5 7.6 64.2 190.4 268.6 242.2 96.8 94.3 179.4 1740.7 2000 256.1 191.5 169.2 66.3 41.2 152.9 165.4 204.8 160.2 83.5 78.1 170.5 1739.6 2001 196.9 172.0 107.5 173.9 70.2 88.3 83.5 188.5 137.3 56.5 30.0 186.5 1490.9 2002 217.4 156.1 90.0 78.2 82.0 23.1 35.0 211.5 125.4 31.0 141.4 139.9 1331.1 2003 196.6 120.5 136.7 138.6 70.0 58.1 109.1 91.5 54.0 8.3 15.5 190.7 1189.6 2004 137.4 120.9 144.2 102.2 154.7 132.5 204.0 209.2 42.5 2.5 0.0 122.8 1373.0 2005 160.5 204.8 203.5 36.7 95.1 156.3 154.0 109.0 12.2 68.5 68.6 169.8 1439.0 2006 186.2 172.2 183.1 82.1 57.0 33.8 61.4 177.3 71.9 13.6 38.8 177.8 1255.4 2007 208.1 18.6 123.8 121.7 42.7 36.9 188.1 270.4 242.7 138.7 5.4 157.3 1554.6AVERAGE 198.4 143.5 120.8 91.3 81.3 86.8 150.1 215.5 139.3 60.7 58.3 131.9 1478.0AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.43AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 73 THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES % LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED ---------------------------------------- 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 70.1 90.0 63.1 20 79.4 94.0 74.6 30 83.7 95.5 79.9 40 84.9 96.5 81.9 50 85.9 97.0 83.3 60 86.0 97.3 83.7 70 86.0 97.4 83.8 80 86.0 97.4 83.8 90 86.0 97.5 83.9 100 86.0 97.4 83.8 Page 2 WSC2MIF3.OUT E (s16.66H ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Water Supply Alt 2 POWER GENERATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DATA FILE USED: watersup.QCHMODEL DESCRIPTION-----------------PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES 1 6800 20 .011 2 HEADWATER ELEV: 778 TAILWATER ELEV: 255 GROSS HEAD: 523 NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 465.2NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 494.9 @ 1 POWER FACTORSTATION SERVICE LOSS: .5 TRANSFORMER LOSS: .5 TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1 SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1 TURBINE SELECTED: 1 - TURGO-GENERALGENERATOR SELECTED: GENERATOR MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1969 207.6 151.4 5.5 0.0 0.0 28.3 247.0 335.4 154.9 98.7 80.3 72.2 1381.4 1970 77.1 187.4 163.3 29.5 145.6 149.1 111.4 248.6 178.2 113.5 74.6 156.9 1635.1 1971 242.7 99.3 121.0 64.6 20.6 3.2 71.6 330.4 316.1 73.4 61.6 158.7 1563.2 1972 199.1 112.6 6.4 13.1 1.4 23.6 30.3 333.1 331.8 137.3 131.0 88.3 1407.9 1973 208.9 105.8 31.2 14.9 30.0 14.6 225.1 340.5 280.9 44.4 95.5 122.9 1514.6 1974 246.0 13.6 40.3 0.0 79.3 0.0 144.7 345.3 213.9 38.2 14.6 114.1 1250.0 1975 338.3 275.7 155.0 30.5 0.0 0.0 35.6 316.0 294.3 124.2 13.3 114.5 1697.6 1976 173.3 39.0 115.0 75.3 32.1 114.1 113.7 316.5 285.3 142.3 20.9 146.6 1574.0 1977 234.5 236.2 200.2 143.2 228.4 62.3 194.1 153.7 153.1 11.4 0.0 90.4 1707.5 1978 212.4 65.0 0.0 13.8 11.0 23.3 173.7 256.3 79.3 16.5 0.0 56.8 908.1 1981 245.7 205.2 22.9 236.2 50.9 80.7 34.2 75.5 19.7 36.1 49.8 192.8 1249.7 1982 185.3 231.2 107.9 64.9 0.0 12.3 91.4 317.6 152.0 14.5 16.9 81.4 1275.5 1983 255.9 103.9 54.6 151.5 72.2 53.0 169.9 223.1 15.1 4.6 142.7 140.1 1386.6 1984 237.6 47.4 0.0 157.6 202.1 224.8 72.7 114.1 93.5 58.1 68.6 63.8 1340.3 1985 141.6 83.7 93.4 286.8 174.1 51.6 119.8 312.3 283.1 120.8 31.4 70.7 1769.3 1986 191.8 23.7 152.6 155.0 75.7 211.3 135.0 265.8 226.5 14.6 47.2 16.3 1515.5 1987 251.7 101.0 240.4 175.0 124.7 48.7 193.5 259.3 210.5 14.0 5.0 156.5 1780.2 1988 319.2 287.9 201.6 47.3 131.3 159.8 144.1 265.3 144.1 14.3 44.0 127.3 1886.4Page 1 WSC2MIF3.OUT 1989 287.6 219.4 74.8 61.1 5.0 7.8 186.3 276.3 51.6 0.0 0.0 100.6 1270.5 1990 210.7 168.1 265.8 58.3 73.3 142.7 231.9 199.6 27.4 31.2 53.2 142.1 1604.2 1991 228.2 66.2 92.3 71.6 116.7 12.3 215.6 313.2 165.2 12.8 85.5 246.0 1625.5 1992 261.1 289.0 204.3 251.7 120.8 138.1 127.0 198.3 134.7 6.0 44.4 187.8 1963.1 1993 152.0 193.6 109.2 31.5 119.3 151.9 255.9 221.2 17.0 0.0 5.0 63.6 1320.2 1994 150.2 240.9 211.9 78.0 8.2 251.3 302.1 233.6 83.1 18.4 19.4 195.1 1792.2 1995 352.2 168.1 44.2 32.9 122.8 50.9 268.1 242.1 54.5 12.1 44.2 60.8 1452.9 1996 210.8 107.3 69.0 9.0 16.0 95.4 151.7 136.7 70.0 16.2 57.0 171.6 1110.9 1997 179.2 88.3 54.3 0.0 167.0 37.8 186.2 212.4 22.4 50.2 45.1 96.1 1138.8 1998 182.8 142.5 263.5 45.1 114.5 37.4 97.0 100.7 10.7 23.1 77.3 113.7 1208.3 1999 189.1 142.8 154.2 118.3 1.4 48.1 204.3 325.1 280.5 69.1 86.3 189.4 1808.7 2000 305.6 203.0 175.9 50.2 18.6 146.0 162.9 212.4 153.1 49.4 51.7 178.3 1707.1 2001 213.0 176.3 87.3 175.7 59.9 70.7 59.4 191.4 121.6 37.9 24.3 197.1 1414.6 2002 239.2 152.7 75.0 57.0 79.6 19.1 20.9 228.0 108.2 4.6 142.0 128.5 1254.9 2003 211.4 107.7 122.9 125.1 43.2 41.0 86.6 54.1 26.3 2.7 8.2 205.5 1034.7 2004 124.3 105.8 137.8 110.0 164.5 122.7 220.4 222.4 21.1 1.4 0.0 128.4 1358.6 2005 163.4 224.1 224.7 27.1 70.5 153.7 148.9 82.6 0.0 45.0 52.2 180.1 1372.3 2006 195.0 181.1 187.8 61.5 41.5 9.5 14.1 173.4 46.1 7.3 22.1 188.9 1128.3 2007 227.4 7.3 109.5 100.3 18.9 17.3 204.8 317.7 277.1 121.9 0.0 166.9 1569.0AVERAGE 217.6 144.7 118.3 84.4 74.1 76.1 147.3 236.5 137.9 42.9 46.4 132.7 1458.9AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.34AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 140 THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES % LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED ---------------------------------------- 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 70.1 90.0 63.1 20 79.4 94.0 74.6 30 83.7 95.5 79.9 40 84.9 96.5 81.9 50 85.9 97.0 83.3 60 86.0 97.3 83.7 70 86.0 97.4 83.8 80 86.0 97.4 83.8 90 86.0 97.5 83.9 100 86.0 97.4 83.8 Page 2 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights - Generation Plant LS 50,000$ -$ .2 Special use permits LS 50,000$ -$ .3 Surveying 1 LS 40,000$ 40,000$ 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE .1 Excavation 200 CY 75$ 15,000$ .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 50 CY 1,500$ 75,000$ .3 Metal Building 864 SF 125$ 108,000$ .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ .5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .7 Fire Protection 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ .2 DAM AND SPILLWAY .1 Excavation 180 CY 50$ 9,000$ .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .3 Concrete (structural) 45 CY 1,500$ 66,750$ .4 Concrete (mass) 10 CY 500$ 5,000$ .5 Riprap 170 CY 100$ 17,000$ .3 INTAKE .1 Excavation 60 CY 50$ 3,000$ .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .3 Trash racks 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$ .4 Shutoff Gate w/operator 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ .5 Concrete (structural) 30 CY 1,500$ 45,000$ .6 Concrete (mass) 0 CY 500$ -$ .7 Misc. Metals 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .8 Misc. electrical & mechanical 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ .4 SLUICEWAY .1 Excavation 180 CY 50$ 9,000$ .2 Concrete (structural) 60 LS 1,500$ 90,000$ .3 Gate w/operator 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK .a Clearing 5.9 ACRE 25,000$ 146,350$ .b 0.125 in penstock material 1800 LF 80$ 144,000$ .c 0.1875 in penstock material 2800 LF 110$ 308,000$ .d 0.25 in penstock material 500 LF 140$ 70,000$ .e Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)50 CY 1,500$ 75,000$ .f Exposed Penstock installation 2300 LF 100$ 230,000$ .g Buried Penstock installation 2800 LF 125$ 350,000$ .h Slope stabilization/benching 1800 LF 150$ 270,000$ .2 TAILRACE .a Excavation 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .b Support and lining 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply 400 kW 850$ 340,000$ .2 Install 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ .2 Station Service 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ .4 PLC Controls, Panel, and Generator Wiring 1 LS -$ -$ .5 Conduit/wires/cables 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .2 Powerhouse crane rail 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Upgrade Existing Road 0.9 MI 50,000$ 45,000$ .2 New Road to Intake and Powerhouse 0.1 MI 250,000$ 25,000$ .3 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land rights - transmission line LS -$ IPEC Hoonah Hydropower OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Water Supply Creek - Option 1 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .2 Oil spill containment 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .3 Grounding grid 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Generator Step-up Transformer- 500 kVA 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ .2 Disconnects 3 LS 10,000$ 30,000$ .3 Surge Arrestors 3 LS 2,000$ 6,000$ 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 Overhead Transmission Line 4.25 MI 180,000$ 765,000$ .2 ROW Clearing 4.25 MI 10,000$ 42,500$ 397 Communication and Control Equipment .1 Telemetry and Communications Equipment 1.0 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ Total Direct Construction Costs 4,200,000$ Contingency 25%1,050,000$ Design Engineering 10%420,000$ Licensing & permitting 200,000$ Owner's General Administration & overhead 5%210,000$ Construction Management 5%210,000$ Subtotal 6,290,000$ Interest During Construction 5% 18 months 228,000$ Total 6,518,000$ Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Amount 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land Rights - Generation Plant 0 LS 50,000$ -$ .2 Special use permits 0 LS 50,000$ -$ .3 Surveying 1 LS 40,000$ 40,000$ 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS .1 POWERHOUSE .1 Excavation 200 CY 75$ 15,000$ .2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 50 CY 1,500$ 75,000$ .3 Metal Building 864 SF 125$ 108,000$ .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ .5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ .6 Grounding Grid 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .7 Fire Protection 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS .1 SITE WORK .1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ .2 DAM AND SPILLWAY .1 Excavation 180 CY 50$ 9,000$ .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .3 Concrete (structural) 45 CY 1,500$ 66,750$ .4 Concrete (mass) 10 CY 500$ 5,000$ .5 Riprap 170 CY 100$ 17,000$ .3 INTAKE .1 Excavation 60 CY 50$ 3,000$ .2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .3 Trash racks 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$ .4 Shutoff Gate w/operator 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ .5 Concrete (structural) 30 CY 1,500$ 45,000$ .6 Concrete (mass) 0 CY 500$ -$ .7 Misc. Metals 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .8 Misc. electrical & mechanical 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ .4 SLUICEWAY .1 Excavation 180 CY 50$ 9,000$ .2 Concrete (structural) 60 LS 1,500$ 90,000$ .3 Gate w/operator 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .4 Misc. Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ .5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES .1 PENSTOCK .a Clearing 5.9 ACRE 25,000$ 146,350$ .b 0.125 in penstock material 1800 LF 80$ 144,000$ .c 0.1875 in penstock material 2800 LF 110$ 308,000$ .d 0.25 in penstock material 2200 LF 140$ 308,000$ .e Concrete (thrust blocks and supports)50 CY 1,500$ 75,000$ .f Exposed Penstock installation 2300 LF 100$ 230,000$ .g Buried Penstock installation 4500 LF 125$ 562,500$ .h Slope stabilization/benching 1800 LF 150$ 270,000$ .2 TAILRACE .a Excavation 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .b Support and lining 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS .1 Supply 500 kW 850$ 425,000$ .2 Install 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT .1 Switchgear 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ .2 Station Service 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ .4 PLC Controls, Panel, and Generator Wiring 1 LS -$ -$ .5 Conduit/wires/cables 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT .1 Cooling Water System 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ .2 Powerhouse crane rail 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES .1 Upgrade Existing Road 0.9 MI 50,000$ 45,000$ .2 New Road to Intake and Powerhouse 0.4 MI 250,000$ 100,000$ .3 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ 350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS .1 Land rights - transmission line LS -$ IPEC Hoonah Hydropower OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Water Supply Creek - Option 2 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) .1 Substation foundations 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .2 Oil spill containment 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ .3 Grounding grid 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ 353 STATION EQUIPMENT .1 Generator Step-up Transformer- 500 kVA 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ .2 Disconnects 3 LS 10,000$ 30,000$ .3 Surge Arrestors 3 LS 2,000$ 6,000$ 356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES .1 Overhead Transmission Line 4.50 MI 180,000$ 810,000$ .2 ROW Clearing 4.50 MI 10,000$ 45,000$ 397 Communication and Control Equipment .1 Telemetry and Communications Equipment 1.0 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ Total Direct Construction Costs 4,900,000$ Contingency 25%1,225,000$ Design Engineering 10%490,000$ Licensing & permitting 200,000$ Owner's General Administration & overhead 5%245,000$ Construction Management 5%245,000$ Subtotal 7,305,000$ Interest During Construction, 5%/18 months 5% 18 months 265,000$ Total 7,570,000$ HOONAH HYDRO PROJECT GILKES’ BUDGET OFFER FOR HYDRO TURBINE, GENERATOR & ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT REFERENCE: BMS/Hoonah Rev 0 08 January 2011 abc Page 2 of 5 BUDGET PROPOSAL Quotation Ref : BMS/Hoonah Sales Engineer : Bruce Sellars : b.sellars@gilkes.com : 250-483-3883 Date : 08 January 2011 Enquiry from : Leanne Greisen : HDR Site location : Hoonah AK Country : United States PROPOSAL DISCUSSION Gilkes has put together a preliminary turbine selection and some budget prices for the potential hydro project at Hoonah AK. The selection is based on a net head of 400 feet and a flow range of 5 to 20 cfs. There are three possible turbine options: - 850P316 twin jet horizontal Pelton - 20 inch single jet horizontal Turgo - 15 inch twin jet horizontal Turgo Efficiency curves for the three turbines are attached. I have also included some representative drawings. The 850P316 is very close to an 825P316 that Gilkes recently installed at Carnoch Scotland. The 15 inch Turgo is almost identical to the Coniston project located near Kendal, and the 20 inch is similar to the Garvan project. The Gilkes Turgo is a very simple and reliable turbine with a long history of superior service. The recommended turbine is the 15 inch twin jet Turgo for the following reasons: - The Turgo turbines will be lower cost than the Pelton - Turgo turbines have good erosion resistance and offer superior performance in applications with poor quality water. Gilkes has several Turgo units operating in Alaska. - The twin jet Turgo has better performance at lower flows than the larger diameter single jet unit In the attached budget prices, we have included the inlet valve, turbine, generator, imbedded parts, turbine control panel, HPU, shipping and installation supervision. I have included the special tools for installing and maintaining the equipment. The price does not include any civil work, or the electrical equipment for the station service, HVAC, SCADA, or the transformers and switchgear to interconnect with the utility. The scope of supply for this equipment varies significantly. Gilkes works with a number of electrical engineering firms and can provide a quote for this equipment when we get more information on the project requirements. The pricing, terms and technical specifications are subject to the negotiation of a definitive agreement. Please let me know if you have any questions, or need any other information. Yours truly, Bruce Sellars PEng Hydro Sales Manager Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Ltd. Victoria BC office 250-483-3883 abc Page 3 of 5 SCOPE OF SUPPLY 1 off Gilkes Turgo or Pelton Turbine Horizontal arrangement 1 off Hydraulic pressure supply 1 off Induction generator 1 off Turbine shutoff valve 1 off Special tools required for installation and maintenance 1 off Set electrical PLC controls, panel, generator wiring 1 off Lot field services - supervision of installation / commissioning, testing and start up PRICE Budget prices for the equipment specified above: 850P316 $US 680,000 20HCTI_SJ $US 465,000 15HCTI_TJ $US 475,000 Price for installation supervision and commissioning is estimated to be about $50,000. ESTIMATED DELIVERY 8 to 10 months from receipt of order TERMS AND CONDITIONS Payment : A payment with order (20% of total contract value) and progress payments throughout the manufacturing period will be required. General Terms and Conditions : Gilkes standard form L.91 copy available on request VALIDITY Due to the volatility in exchange rates and component prices, these are budget prices only. Firm prices will be determined upon negotiating and executing a definitive contract. abc Page 4 of 5 TECHNICAL DATA GILKES HORIZONTAL TURBINE Model : 850P316 20HCTI_SJ 15HCTI_TJ Type : Pelton Turgo Turgo No. of jets : 2 1 2 Mean diameter of runner : 850 510 380 mm (nominal) Rated speed (60Hz) : 514 900 1200 rpm Turbine design rating (at 20 cfs) : 602 570 574 kW Turbine efficiency at 20 cfs : 88.9 84.2 84.8 % Runner material : Stainless steel Rated net head : 400 feet Rated flow : 18 cfs INDUCTION GENERATOR SPECIFICATION Rated output : 600 kW Voltage : 480 volts Frequency : 60 Hz Expected efficiency : 95% or better @ full load Insulation - Stator : Class 'F' Rotor : Class 'F' Stator temperature rise : Class B' (80 deg. C with 40 deg C ambient) Exciter insulation : Class 'F' Mounting details : Foot mounted Enclosure standard : IP23 Bearing type : rolling element Ambient temperature range : 0-40 deg C Altitude : 1000 m.a.s.l. (maximum) Voltage adjustment : Motorised Stator temperature sensors : Yes Bearing temperature indicators : Yes TYPICAL TURBINE INLET VALVE SPECIFICATION Type : Butterfly type Size : 450 mm / 18 inch nominal Design : Resilient sealing design Flanges : BS 4504 or US equivalent Standard : Generally in accordance with BS 5155 Body : Ductile iron Body seat : Stainless steel or elastomer Disc : Ductile iron Disc seal : Nitrile rubber Shafts : Stainless steel Bushes : Self lubricating type Valve operator : Closure by gravity counterweight with oil hydraulic check Opening by oil hydraulic cylinder abc Page 5 of 5 TYPICAL OIL HYDRAULIC PRESSURE SYSTEM SPECIFICATION Free standing sump tank Electric motor driven gear pump Pressure relief valve and gauge Filler, strainer, breather level gauge and thermometer Flow/level indicating switches with alarm and trip contacts Differential unloader valve Bladder type accumulator system for auto shutdown on loss of AC supply 10 micron filtering system Electro hydraulic servo valve module For Main Inlet Valve - electro hydraulic solenoid valve TYPICAL ELECTRICAL CONTROL SPECIFICATION Typical Panel Mounted Equipment Electrical control, monitoring, protection and metering equipment PLC system for remote control, monitoring communications network by telemetry Scope of supply does not include station service, transformers or switchgear to interconnect with the utility. 850 P316_SJ Speed 514 Rpm 07/01/11 Version Number 10 Pelton Hoonah AK abc Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon Ltd Kendal, Cumbria, UK. LA9 7BZ Tel: 01539 720028 Fax: 01539 732110 Approved 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Flow rate in ft^3/sec 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Power in kW0 20 40 60 80 100 Efficiency in percent0 100 200 300 400 500 Head in feet80 7060 89 85 75 6555 89 80 7060 85 75 6555 Name New Duty 1 Jet Head feet 400.0 400.0 Flow rate ft^3/sec 18 9 Power kW 543 270 Efficiency percent 89.1 88.7 No.of Jets Hz 2.00 1.00 20. HCTI_SJ Speed 900 Rpm 07/01/11 Version Number 9 High Capacity Turgo Hoonah abc Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon Ltd Kendal, Cumbria, UK. LA9 7BZ Tel: 01539 720028 Fax: 01539 732110 Approved 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Flow rate in ft^3/sec 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Power in kW0 20 40 60 80 100 Efficiency in percent0 100 200 300 400 500 Head in feet84 80 70 6050 84 75 6555 Name New Duty Head feet 400.0 Flow rate ft^3/sec 18 Power kW 514 Efficiency percent 84.4 No.of Jets Hz 1.00 15. HCTI_TJ Speed 1200 Rpm 08/01/11 Version Number 9 High Capacity Turgo Hoonah abc Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon Ltd Kendal, Cumbria, UK. LA9 7BZ Tel: 01539 720028 Fax: 01539 732110 Approved 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Flow rate in ft^3/sec 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Power in kW0 20 40 60 80 100 Efficiency in percent0 100 200 300 400 500 Head in feet84 80 70 6050 84 75 6555 84 80 70 6050 84 75 6555 Name New Duty 1 Jet Head feet 400.0 400.0 Flow rate ft^3/sec 18 9 Power kW 517 258 Efficiency percent 84.9 84.5 No.of Jets Hz 2.00 1.00 GILKES 825MM TWIN JET PELTON TURBINES GILKES 625MM TWIN JET PELTON TURBINES abc abc Coniston 15 inch twin jet Turgo; 292 kW Northwest Pipe Company Email 12005 N. Burgard, Portland, OR 97203 1 Page Phone: (503) 407-3389 Fax: (503) 285-2913 To: Leanne Greisen @ HDR Date: 14-Jan-11 Phone: 425.369.2742 Project: SE Alaska Hydro Project Email: leanne.greisen@hdrinc.com Budgetary Quotation We are pleased to offer prices for steel pipe for the above noted project for materials as listed below. The estimating prices are provided for reference only and Northwest Pipe shall not be bound by pricing or any other provisions herein. Final pricing and delivery can be provided once project requirements are finalized. SPECIFICATIONS: Pipe: Manufactured per AWWA C200 from steel conforming to ASTM A1018 gr. 42 or better Length: Standard length to be 40 ft. Joints: Weld Bell for lap-joint field welding Coating: Polyurethane coated per AWWA C222 applied 25 mil dft. Lining: Polyurethane lined per AWWA C222 applied 20 mil dft. Freight: Prices are FOB our plant with full freight allowed to Seattle, WA dockside. All unloading shall be done by the buyer. PRICING VALID FOR 30 DAYS WELDED STEEL PIPE - Spiral weld DSAW Qty. O.D. Wall Yield Working Weight Unit Price Extension Item (lf)(in)(in.)(psi)Pres.(psi)lbs /lf $/lf Total $ 1 1,700 20 0.134 42,000 281.4 29 $85.00 $144,500.00 Further Information: NORTHWEST PIPE COMPANY Scott Copeland Product Sales Manager Mill test reports shall be provided. Delivery can begin approximately 12 to 14 weeks after receipt of order for straight pipe sections. Engineered pipeline will required approximately 14 to 16 weeks after receipt of approved drawings. Drawing submittal shall be 3 to 4 weeks after receipt of order subject to receipt of data to generate final drawings. All delivery schedules are subject to mill and steel availability at time of order. Terms of sale are net 30 days after date of invoice. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at the phone number listed above.