HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRAFTRound5_recommendations01112012Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
800 West Creek Hydroelectric Project
Borough & Municipality of Skagway
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The Municipality of Skagway (Municipality) proposes to construct the West Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located on West Creek, approximately seven
miles west of Skagway and adjacent to the small community of Dyea. The primary purpose of the Project would be off-setting diesel generation by cruise ships
that dock in Skagway from May through September each year. Up to five cruise ships per day dock in Skagway for 12-15 hours and continuously operate their
diesel plants to provide for on-board electricity consumption. The continuous stack emissions spread a blue haze at about the 1,500 foot elevation where
egetation has been noticeably affected. The Project will improve air quality and save vegetation in the area (there may be other unknown environmental benefits).
To emphasize how serious the air quality of the area is being taken, the National Park Service, Municipality of Skagway, and Alaska Power & Telephone Company
(AP&T) have a cooperative agreement to place and maintain equipment at AP&T's Dewey Lakes Hydro project site to monitor this pollution. Preliminary results
of this monitoring are attached as an appendix. A secondary purpose of the Project is to provide winter energy to the local utility when they have a shortfall of
hydro energy from their hydroelectric projects (2011 - Dewey Lakes Hydro, Lutak Hydro, Goat Lake Hydro, Kasidaya Creek Hydro) as well as to sell winter
energy to the Yukon Territory, Canada through their generation company Yukon Energy. The Alaska Power Authority had a feasibility study conducted for the
Project by R. W Beck and Associates in 1981-82. That study focused on a development that would meet the electricity needs of Skagway and Haines rather than
the nascent cruise ship industry. It recommended an installed capacity of 6.0 MW and a 20,000 acre-foot reservoir formed by a 120-feet high concrete-faced
rockfill dam. The proposed Project will be significantly different than proposed by Beck in that the installed capacity will be greater and the reservoir storage will
also be greater. Nevertheless, the Beck study provides an excellent starting point for the proposed reevaluation of the site, and therefore the Municipality believes
that a Phase I reconnaissance study is not necessary. West Creek drains from an ice field into the Taiya River. The Municipality has already requested the Project
site land from the State as Municipal Entitlement Land. Since the stream is glacial, flows are very high in the summer, which is also when the cruise ships are
active. Preliminary analysis indicates that a Project with a capacity to serve one large cruise ship could be operated on a run-of-river basis. Increasing the capacity
so the Project could serve two or three cruise ships is possible and a storage reservoir would be required to make the generation dependable. The costs and
benefits of these capacity/storage alternatives will be a primary focus of the proposed Phase II studies.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Borough and Municipality of Skagway proposes feasibility and conceptual design of a 6-26 MW hydro project at West Creek to be connected to the Upper
Lynn Canal (Haines-Skagway) grid. The estimated cost of this project $140 million. The primary purpose of the project is to offset diesel generation by cruise
ships that dock in Skagway from May to September. The secondary purpose is to supply power to the local grid during periods of shortfall and to the Yukon
Territory grid in the winter. The BMS applied for a similar project in round 2 (#262). AEA recommended the project for partial funding and stated that an
integrated resource energy plan would be needed to assess the project in the context of other potential projects. Due to limited funding, however, the project did
not receive funding.
The economic analysis performed for this project is based solely on cruise ship load over a period of 50 years. It estimates a B/C ratio of 1.5 to 2.1 assuming an
average electrical consumption of 18,900 to 27,000 MWh/yr.
The BMS states that a major benefit of the project is the reduced air emissions from diesel generation by the cruise ships.
AEA has the following concerns about this project:
1. AEA has already committed funding for Connelly Lk, Schubee Lk, and Burro Cr reconnaissance and feasibility assessment. These projects would compete to
meet the same loads as the proposed project.
2. Given that the chief aim of the project is to supply the shore-based cruise ship load, AEA questions the amount of public benefit to be received versus the high
capital cost and high technical, business, and regulatory risks of the proposed project.
3. Since the project would affect the waters of the Klondike Gold Rush National Park, there is significant permitting risk.
Based on the additional information that BMS provided regarding potential benefits of the project, AEA has reconsidered its original recommendation against
funding. The additional information more thoroughly expalined the benefits the projects would accrue from reduced cruise ship emissions and a potential intertie
to BC.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$236,000
$59,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$295,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$236,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 1
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
800 West Creek Hydroelectric Project
Borough & Municipality of Skagway
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.491.88
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)8.50
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)1.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)6.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)13.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)9.90
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
43.44
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Municiple conveyance survey underway, but Skagway has management authority at this time.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project is ~20 km away from Chilkat river segment of the Denali fault. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 2
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
801 Jack River Hydro Project Phase II
Native Village of Cantwell
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The Native Village of Cantwell wishes to improve the reliability and lower the cost of the community of Cantwell’s power system. Currently, they obtain power
from the line between MEA and GVEA (Alaska Intertie System). To accomplish this, they propose to build a hydroelectric project on the Jack River, a short
distance from Cantwell. The installed capacity of this plant will be in excess of 1 MW. It will be comprised of a dam and a short tunnel. A feasibility design and
scoping are required to provide the parameters of the project.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Village of Cantwell proses feasibility and conceptual design of a storage hydro project in excess of 1 MW, with a power tunnel on the Jack River.
The Village and AEA have recently executed a grant funded in round 4 (#606 ) for reconnaissance assessment of the project and has installed a stream gauge.
Recon work is scheduled to be completed in June 2013. Therefore AEA believes that further funding for feasibility and conceptual design is premature.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$190,000
$10,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$200,000
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.20 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 3
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
801 Jack River Hydro Project Phase II
Native Village of Cantwell
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)6.25
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
16.25
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No exact location. May involve state land or state selected land. Authorzations would be required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Located near Denali fault and associated thrust faults. Dam should be designed with considerations for strong ground motions based on a seismic hazards
assessment. A detailed site specific geotechnical investigation should be performed to insure that no previously unrecognized faults extend through the dam site.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 4
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
802 Petersburg Public Library Geothermal Heat Pump Construction
City of Petersburg
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
McMahonAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The City of Petersburg is proposing construction (Phase IV) of a hybrid ground source heat pump system to serve the heating needs at the City of Petersburg's
new public library facility. The new Petersburg Public Library is a 9,770 sq. ft. facility to be located in downtown Petersburg. It will serve primarily Petersburg
residents, as well as visitors and temporary workers in our community. Construction of the facility is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2012 and be completed in
the summer of 2013. The City of Petersburg Administration, Community Development and Public Library Departments are directly involved with the design and
construction of the facility. The hybrid system consists of a ground source heat pump system to meet the facility's heating needs and a supplemental electric heat
system serving as a back up. The use of a hybrid ground source heat pump system in lieu of conventional oil or electric heat systems at the new Petersburg Public
Library facility is supported by the City of Petersburg Administration, Community Development, and Public Library Departments, and the City of Petersburg City
Council. The Renewable Energy Fund Grant request herein is for the additional construction cost for the ground source heat pump system. This funding request
is only for the costs associated with the ground source heat pump portion of the hybrid system; the costs associated with the supplemental electric boiler and
water heaters are excluded from this request.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Petersburg proposes to construct a hybrid ground-source heat pump (GSHP) at the new public library that is being designed and constructed. The
closed loop GSHP would consist of six 315’ deep wells and have a 10-ton capacity. The expected coefficient of performance (COP) is 3.
The new public library Construction for the GSHP is expected to begin in Fall 2012 and be completed and commissioned in June 2013. Since Petersburg is
powered by hydroelectric, the GSHP would be a very efficient use of electricity. The project team stated that it was committed to the project and would likely
seek other funding to complete the project if not supported by the RE Fund
The application provides a life-cycle economic assessment of a conventional electric boiler, ground source heat pump, and air source heat pump. The assessment
does not include a comparison of what AEA regards as the baseline alternative—a conventional fuel oil system. Given only approximately 3,100 gallons of fuel
that would be displaced and the high capital costs of the heat pump alternatives, the economics of heat pumps appears poor in this case (benefit/cost is less than
0.6) when compared against a conventional oil-fired system.
The RE Fund has provided grants to two larger GSHPs in Southeast (the Juneau Airport and Dimond Aquatic Center). Economics appear more favorable due to
the larger amount of fuel displacement.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$186,400
$46,600
Total Potential Grant Amount:$233,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 5
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
802 Petersburg Public Library Geothermal Heat Pump Construction
City of Petersburg
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
McMahonAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.310.39
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)3.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)13.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
20.13
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No State land or easement interest
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 6
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
803 Pillar Mtn High Penetration Wind Project
Kodiak Electric Association
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The Pillar Mountain High Penetration Wind Project is the integration and installation of three General Electric (GE) 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbines along with
an energy storage system that allows the stable integration of high wind penetration rates onto KEA’s isolated grid. This project is the next step in a series of
KEA’s renewable energy developments aimed at displacing the use of diesel fuel for electric generation which will allow KEA to achieve its vision to endeavor to
produce 95% of energy sales with cost effective renewable power solutions by the year 2020. The energy storage system will regulate system frequency on a short-
term basis as the wind resource unpredictably comes and goes. Terror Lake will provide the long -term, macro-energy storage of wind energy on an annual basis.
Therefore, the Pillar Mountain High Penetration Wind Project is not simply a wind turbine construction effort, but an innovative demonstration of how high
generation rates of wind can be stably integrated onto an isolated electric grid through the installation of a energy storage system that bridges Pillar Mountain’s
variable wind energy resource with the Terror Lake hydroelectric Project’s dispatchable hydropower.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Kodiak Electric Association requests $8 million for 1) installation of three additional GE 1.5 MW SLE turbines and 2) addition of a 1 MWh energy storage
system.
KEA is requesting funding for construction and commissioning of the proposed project. The project is expected to cost $23,150,000, of which $8,000,000 would
come as matching funds provided by KEA. An additional $7,150,000 will be spent by KEA but will be ineligible for match as the money will be spent prior to
July 1, 2012. KEA received $4 million from a RE Fund round 1 grant (#103) for the construction and commissioning of three GE 1.5 MW SLE turbines.
KEA’s wind turbines have been the highest wind energy producers in the State. The proposed system changes will boost wind and hydro penetration to almost
100% and displace approximately 780,000 gallons of diesel per year.
Under the round 5 solicitation KEA is eligible for a total of $8 million in cumulative funding for the wind project.
The proposed battery system, estimated to cost $3.8 million, will provide system stability and a bridge between the more variable wind generation and KEA’s
Terror Lake Hydro project. The proposed battery system will increase the renewable output of the wind-hydro system. Although the battery system is proposed
in the current application, AEA believes that the battery system is not solely a component of the wind system, and is therefore not subject to the $8 million wind
system funding cap. AEA notes that KEA has received $4 million in RE Fund grants for upgrades to the hydro system (#401 and 653). In round 5 the total
allocation of the wind and hydro system, including the battery system, should not exceed $16 million.
Recommend partial funding of $7.8 million ($4 million for the wind system and $3.8 million for the battery system).
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$8,000,000
$8,000,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$16,000,000
Funding & Cost
Kodiak
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.18 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$7,800,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 7
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
803 Pillar Mtn High Penetration Wind Project
Kodiak Electric Association
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
3.743.46
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)8.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)5.63
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)20.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)18.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
73.63
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project itself not on state land, but an extension of the road authorized in ADL 229859 would be required to access the project area.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 8
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
804 Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources (Mount Spurr)
Chugach Electric Association
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
Chugach is proposing to continue the process of permitting and design for a new transmission line linking a geothermal project being developed on the west side
of Cook Inlet to the existing Chugach system. The specific proposal for a Round V renewable energy grant is the design of the substations at each end of the
transmission line. One substation would be at Ormat's facility and the other at Beluga Power plant. Ormat Nevada, Inc. (Ormat), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Omlat Technologies, Inc (NYSE "ORA"), secured 15 geothermal leases on Mt. Spurr from the State of Alaska in 2008 and has since embarked on a multi-phased
exploration and development plan, with a goal to explore and build a utility scale 50-100 MW geothermal plant to be connected to the Railbelt power grid around
2016. Ormat has built over 1,600 MW of geothennal plants during the last 3 decades all over the western United States and several locations internationally.
Ormat's Mt. Spurr project is progressing with the drilling this summer of a 3,500' deep core hole. They recently announced drilling results for this well and the
results were not as positive as hoped or expected. While Onnat assesses its future development plan, Chugach is moving forward with this grant application to stay
on a parallel path with Ormat. Chugach's proposed project would include one or more high voltage transmission lines which would connect to the existing
substation and transmission lines at Beluga. The line would be built for a maximum operating voltage of 230 kV but could initially be operated at a lower voltage
to match first stage development of 50 MW of the geothermal project. The line would cover a distance of at least 40 miles, depending on the routing. Chugach
received a Round IV renewable energy grant which will soon be used for the route selection phase of this project. The plan is for Round V renewable energy grant
funds to be for the design of substations at each end of the line. Subsequent phases of the project would be for final design and permitting of the transmission line
and for construction.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Chugach Electric proposes final design, surveying, geotechnical assessment, and permitting of substations and switchyards associated with the transmission for the
potential Mt. Spurr geothermal project. AEA has budgeted funding for RE Fund round 4 feasibility and route selection for the transmission project (#615). That
work is underway at the time of this review.
Currently Mt. Spurr geothermal developer Ormat remains in the resource assessment phase and AEA expects a report of the results of 2011 field work by the end
of 2011.
Since the resource at Mt. Spurr is not yet proven and the Rd 4 feasibility and route selection remains to be completed, AEA believes that it is premature to
support final design and permitting work for the transmission line.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$1,150,000
$110,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$1,260,000
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.13 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 9
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
804 Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources (Mount Spurr)
Chugach Electric Association
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)4.06
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)10.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
17.06
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Additional 38.05 authorizations required for the described project.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 10
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
805 Black Bear Lake Hydro Project Storage Increase
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The Applicant proposes to construct a 17-foot-high by 100 feet long rockfill dam and spillway at the outlet of Black Bear Lake (BBL) to raise the lake 12 feet and
increase the active storage by 2,420 acre feet (from 2,870 acre-feet to 5,290 acre-feet). The storage increase will provide for additional generation during the winter
and spring when diesel generation is often required currently due to low lake inflows during those periods. In addition, the storage increase will allow the
Applicant to more easily meet the minimum instream flow requirements of the FERC license for the project, which has become difficult with normal operation.
The incremental average annual generation is estimated to be 1,264 MWh/yr.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Power Company requests funding to complete reconnaissance assessment, feasibility analysis, and permitting and final design to construct a 17' high x 100'
long rockfill dam and spillway at the outlet of Black Bear Lake to raise the lake by 12' and increase active storage from 2870 to 5290 acre-ft. APC asserts that the
project would add 1.26 GWh per year in annual generation by reducing spillage from BBL from 26 to 24%. The project will require a FERC amendment. The
total development and construction cost is estimated at $3,040,000.
AEA is concerned that there may not be adequate market for hydropower on Prince of Wales after the 5 MW Reynolds Cr Hydro project is constructed. APC is
one of the three partners of Haida Energy that is developing the Reynolds Cr project. In its application, APC stated it would provide a study in fall of 2011 to
determine how much additional firm generation will be available from Reynolds Creek and whether the BBL storage increase is justifiable when Reynolds Creek is
constructed. AEA requested a copy of the study and was informed it was not available due to other APC staff commitments. Thus there is no confirmation of
the need for power from this project.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$318,000
$79,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$397,500
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.28 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 11
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
805 Black Bear Lake Hydro Project Storage Increase
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)8.75
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
19.75
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Increase in water elevation will affect private and possibly USFS land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
No known active faults near proposed project. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 12
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
806 Upper Tanana Area Intertie Project
Alaska Power Company
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The Project is to interconnect communities reliant on diesel generation to Tok where a renewable energy project will be constructed in the next 3-4 years. By
beginning the interconnection during the summer of 2012, completion of the distribution lines will coincide closely with the startup of the renewable energy
project. There would be two stages for this project: Stage 1: Would consist of a 25 mile 34.5 kV distribution line on wood pole structures to Tok from the APC
closed grid that currently connects Slana, Chistochina, and Mentasta. These communities are on the Tok Cutoff of the Glenn Hwy, south of Tok. Stage 2: Would
consist of a 40 mile 34.5 kV distribution line on wood pole structures to Tok from the APC closed grid that currently connects Northway, Northway Junction, and
Northway Village. These communities are located southeast of Tok along the Alaska Highway.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AP&T proposes design and construction of transmission to link the hub community of Tok to Slana, Chistochina, Mentasta, Northway, Northway Junction, and
Northway Village. Currently AP&T is funded through RE Fund round 4 to assess feasibility of a 2 MW wood-fired combined heat and power system in Tok
(#665). AP&T had partial funding through RE Fund round 3 (#438) to construct the 1.5 MW Yerrick Creek hydro project, but decided not to proceed.
AEA recognizes the benefits of tying these communities together in a grid.
However AEA has the following concerns with this proposal:
1. The Tok wood-fired CHP is beginning the feasibility phase, while the Yerrick Creek Hydro project is on hold. Thus no renewable energy production is
pending. Transmission of renewable energy is required for this project to be considered eligible for funding under the RE Fund.
2. Economics of this project appear marginal given the distances and low loads to be tied in.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$7,636,804
$1,909,201
Total Potential Grant Amount:$9,546,005
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.56 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 13
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
806 Upper Tanana Area Intertie Project
Alaska Power Company
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.50
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
32.50
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Mostly within DOT R/W. If not may need a DNR r/w authorization. Project description does not provide enough detail to determine if any of the power lines
will run on state land. Project as described should only require coordination with DOT easements. However, if any of the powerlines should cross state land
outside of existing easements of ROWs, then coordination with DNR may be required for additional permits or easements.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 14
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
807 Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project
Alaska Power Company
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
Connelly Lake is an 85-acre alpine lake and drains into the Chilkoot River. The Project facilities will include a dam at the lake outlet, a penstock about 6,200 feet
long, a 12.0 MW powerhouse with two generating units, a 14-mile-long 34.5 kV transmission line and a 14-mile long access road. Field studies, permitting and final
design for this Project will be completed during Phase III. The Project will be developed by the Applicant to provide additional generation to its interconnected
Haines and Skagway electrical systems, to possibly provide summer power to cruise ships moored at Haines, and to provide backup renewable power to Haines,
should the submarine cable fail. The Project will be on state and private land, including the Haines State Forest and Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
APC proposes final design and permitting activities for a potential 12 MW storage hydro project at Connelly Lake. AEA and APC entered into a grant agreement
for $585,000 to support feasibility and conceptual design for the project under round 4 application (#627).
Current funded work includes concept optimization, preliminary FERC notice of intent and preliminary application document, FERC scoping activities
(documents and study plans), field studies (stream gauge installation; seismic refraction surveys; fish, wildlife, botanical, wetland, and heritage surveys; water quality
testing); and the final feasibility report. This work is currently scheduled for completion in December 2012.
AEA believes that this schedule is optimistic and that funding for final design and permitting is premature.
AP&T has requested reconsideration of AEA's initial recommendation of no funding. AP&T states that "we agree with AEA that funding of the final design
activities (i.e., the last three of ... [the proposed] ...tasks) is premature. However, the other five tasks are basically continuation of our current work." AEA agrees
with this observation and recommends partial funding to cover the following feasibility phase tasks: additional environmental studies, permit preparation and
processing, post-license activities, and additional stream gauging data collection.
Recommend partial funding of $448,000.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$1,452,000
$363,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$1,815,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.39 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$448,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 15
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
807 Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project
Alaska Power Company
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.552.20
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)1.25
6) Local Support (Max 5)1.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)12.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)14.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)8.87
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
46.30
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Application for easements, ADL 107601/107792, portions in Haines State Forest & Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Located in the vicinity of the eastern Denali fault (Chilkoot River section) and the Chatham Strait fault. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 16
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
808 Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line
Alaska Power Company
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The overall 34kV power line route is approximately 12 miles long. Approximately 0.9-mile of the westernmost section is an existing APC 2kV distribution line that
will be overbuilt. The line will cross Hetta Inlet via Jumbo Island. The route primarily follows existing logging roads. The power line will begin at a point along
Hydaburg Road about 0.45 miles northeast of the town. It will continue northeast along the existing logging road passing north of Deer Bay and intersecting Hetta
Inlet opposite Jumbo Island. This section is adjacent to private forested land with a small section of Muskeg and is 7.0 miles long. The logging roads are mostly
mild to moderate cut sections with a few rock cuts. The first 0.9 miles of this section is an existing APC corridor adjacent to the road established for a 2kV line.
The water crossing over Hetta Inlet will be accomplished with 3 multi-pole structures with one on each side of the inlet and one at the pinnacle of Jumbo Island.
Jumbo Island slopes steeply toward the water on both sides and is heavily forested. A new corridor will need to be established. The structure on the island will
likely be set by helicopter. This crossing is 0.9 miles across. The power line will continue in a new corridor for 0.3 mile to the east until it intersects an existing
logging road. Approximately 1500 feet of temporary or permanent access road spurs will need to be constructed to access 2 line structures along this section. The
line route then turns south and follows existing logging roads 3.8 miles southeast to the powerhouse/switchyard location near Copper Harbor. This section is
adjacent to private, recently harvested forest land with very steep and rocky terrain prone to slides. The logging road is primarily full bench construction with
several rock cut sections. There are danger trees (and boulders) above the power line route on the eastern side slopes that may need to be removed/secured to
protect the power line.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) proposes funding for the transmission portion of the 5 MW Reynolds Creek
hydropower project. Haida Energy, a joint venture of AP&T and Haida Corp, would own the project and sell power on a wholesale basis to APC, the certificated
utility on Prince of Wales (PoW) Island. The project is a component of Reynolds Creek Hydro Project, which received $2M (App #104) in grant funding already.
In Round 3, an application (#439) was submitted for transmission line construction for Reynolds Creek. Although AEA recommended the project for funding
there was insufficient funding appropriated to fund this project.
The following grant allocations totaling $6.1 million have been made for the Reynolds Creek project:
1) $100,000 of Denali Comm funds to Haida Corp through the Denali Commission / AEA alternative energy RFP
2) $1 million in RE fund round 1 funds to Haida Corp (#104)
3) $1 million in RE fund round 1 funds to Haida Power, a joint venture between APC and Haida Corp
4) $2 million in legislative appropriation to Southeast Conference
5) $2 million in RE Fund round 4 to APC (#629)
The project will be dispatched in conjunction with AP&T's existing Black Bear Lk and South Fork hydro projects. Previous applications state that Reynolds Creek
hydro will only be used after the existing hydro projects are fully dispatched. An extension of PoW transmission to the northern portion of island to serve
Coffman Cove and Naukati has been funded by the Denali Commission and RE Fund round 1.
AEA has the following concerns about this application:
1. The application provides a cost estimate of $18.6 million for the hydro project, including transmission. However the most recent budget information available
to AEA indicates a total project cost of $27.6 million.
2. While AEA agreed to reimburse up to $2 million in order to begin construction and preserve the FERC license, it was with the condition that Haida Energy
provide an acceptable power sales agreement and finance plan prior to additional reimbursement. Haida Energy submitted a finance plan with a Power Project
Loan Fund (PPLF) application to AEA for $20 million, at the limit authorized by the Legislature. However, AEA has rejected the proposed loan terms and asked
Haida Energy to revise and resubmit with terms that conform to the PPLF statutes.
Because of these unresolved issues, AEA believes additional funding is not warranted at this time.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$1,200,000
$240,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$1,440,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.28 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 17
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
808 Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line
Alaska Power Company
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.591.05
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)8.75
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)14.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
22.75
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Application for easement, ADL 106437 for portion over State tide & submerged land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 18
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
809 SEAPA Phase I Wind Site Recon Study
Southeast Alaska Power Agency
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) requests funding of $72,630 from Round V of the Renewable Energy Fund, with a matching contribution from
SEAPA of $8,070 for a total cost of $80,700, for a Phase I (reconnaissance) wind site assessment along transmission line paths owned by Southeast Alaska Power
Agency, which extend from the City of Ketchikan, Alaska, located on the western coast of Revillagigedo Island, near the southernmost boundary of Alaska, to the
City of Petersburg, located on the north end of Mitkof Island in Southeast Alaska. SEAPA is the grantee and Dave Carlson, CEO, has overall authority for the
project. Eric Wolfe, Director of Special Projects, will be the primary contact representing SEAPA and has day-to-day responsibility to ensure that the project is on
schedule and within budget. The project seeks funding for analyzing the raw wind data and preparing a wind assessment report. Based on the wind assessment
results/report, a subsequent proposal may be submitted for a Phase II feasibility analysis and conceptual design. The study will also analyze the potential impacts
to existing and migrating avian species. The study is proposed to determine if it is feasible to use wind power to supplement the energy needs and conserve water
used for hydropower for the communities serviced by SEAPA, which include Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell, with the long-term objective and goal of
serving the power needs of additional communities, including Kake.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
SEAPA proposes reconnaissance of wind development along the Ketchikan-Petersburg transmission corridor (#809).
Wind development may be attractive on this grid since it can be used to displace valuable, dispatchable, storage hydro generation.
Wind energy is planned to be part of the Southeast Integrated Resosurce Plan, identified as a resource that needs reconnaissance work.
Recommend full funding for reconnaissance assessment along the Ketchikan-Petersburg intertie corridor. Before grant is issued, the proposed scope needs to be
revised to better match wind reconnaissance standards.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$72,630
$8,070
Total Potential Grant Amount:$80,700
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$72,630AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 19
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
809 SEAPA Phase I Wind Site Recon Study
Southeast Alaska Power Agency
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)1.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)1.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)3.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)8.47
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
31.26
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Potential to use State land within existing SEAPA transmission line corridor, ADL 106442
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 20
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
810 SEAPA Wind Resources Assessment & Economic Feasibility Study
Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA)
Design
Feasibility
ReconProposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) requests funding of $72,630 from Round V of the Renewable Energy Fund, with a matching contribution from
SEAPA of $8,070 for a total cost of $80,700, for a Phase I (reconnaissance) wind site assessment in Ketchikan and the region surrounding High Mountain on
Gravina Island, and funding of $142,500 from Round V of the Renewable Energy Fund, with a cash contribution from SEAPA of $7,500, for a total cost of
$150,000 for Phase II (feasibility analysis and conceptual design/permitting) from Round V of the Renewable Energy Fund. The total project cost for both phases
is projected to be $230,700. SEAPA is the grantee and Dave Carlson, CEO, has overall authority for the project. Eric Wolfe, Director of Special Projects, will be
the primary contact representing SEAPA and has day-to-day responsibility to ensure that the project is on schedule and within budget. SEAPA, or its retained
contractor, will install a wind-measuring meteorological ("met") tower and complete geotechnical work to solidify the options of installing wind turbines at or near
Ketchikan. The work will include conducting an initial site assessment, obtaining a letter of non-objection for placement of a wind tower and geotechnical
fieldwork, permitting, purchasing, transporting, and installing a met tower, studying the wind resource for one year and conducting a geotechnical investigation to
determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and
geotechnical investigation. This design will address the current hydropower and distribution system to identify any upgrades that are needed to integrate wind
power. A variety of wind turbine models and quantity configurations will be considered. The study is proposed to determine if it is feasible to use wind power to
supplement the energy needs and conserve water used for hydropower for the communities it services, which include Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell, with
the long-term objective and goal of serving the power needs of additional communities, including Kake.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
SEAPA proposes feasibility of wind development in the Ketchikan area, including a meteorological tower on Gravina Island and permitting and environmental
analysis. SEAPA is also requesting funding for a more general reconnaissance study of wind development along the Ketchikan-Petersburg transmission corridor
(#809).
Wind development may be attractive on this grid since it can be used to displace valuable dispatchable storage generation.
However AEA is concerned that site selection is not based on a systematic, reconnaissance-level approach. This work is proposed under application #809 and
should preceed the work proposed in this application.
Recommend no funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$215,130
$15,570
Total Potential Grant Amount:$230,700
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 21
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
810 SEAPA Wind Resources Assessment & Economic Feasibility Study
Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA)
Design
Feasibility
ReconProposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)3.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
17.13
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No State land or easement interest
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 22
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
811 Kake-Petersburg Inter-Connection Engineering
Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA)
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
Power deliveries from SEAPA to Kake across the proposed Kake to Petersburg Intertie would affect the voltage profile across the SEAPA network if new
supplementary equipment is not installed in Petersburg and possibly Wrangell, Alaska. Additionally, changes to existing equipment located in either Petersburg or
Wrangell may be necessary as a result of the proposed Kake - Petersburg line. Since the May 2009, Kake-Petersburg Intertie Report (D. Hittle & Associates),
substantial load growth has occurred in Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan. This project consists of engineering analysis and preliminary design work that will
identify the effects on the SEAPA system that result from power deliveries to Kake. The engineering analysis will determine existing equipment changes, and new
equipment rating, new equipment location, and estimations for new equipment life cycle costs. Cost estimates will include: final design, site specification,
procurement, installation, commissioning, ongoing O&M costs, and future replacement costs. A final report will organize the analysis results by proposed KPI
path (route). Previous electrical engineering studies such as the Kake-Petersburg Intertie. Study Update by D. Hittle & Associates for the Southeast Conference,
and SEAPA's internal studies (power flow and power transient) will be used as reference works.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Southeast Alaska Power Authority proposes feasibility and conceptual design to assess impacts of delivering SEAPA power to Kake.
Currently there are three sources of funding for the 50-mile Kake-Petersburg Intertie focused on completing final design and permitting: 1) $2.99 million from
RE Fund Round 1 (#29), 2) $500,000 grant from a 2008 legislative appropriation, and 3) $2 million grant from an additional legislative appropriation. Currently
work under the KWETICO (Kwaan) grant has consisted of conceptual design and environmental field studies for the two primary routes under consideration.
An MOU between SEAPA, KWETICO, IPEC and AEA establishes ownership, maintenance, and operation responsibilities for the project. AEA, the grantees,
and SEAPA will enter into a project management agreement.
AEA believes that the work proposed under this grant will advance the Kake-Petersburg Intertie. However, AEA believes that the current work proposed can be
accomplished using current project funding. Existing grants require a project management agreement. AEA will require that SEAPA take the lead on this work
under that agreement. AEA will work with its partners to ensure that the proposed scope of work is accomplished as proposed.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$66,300
$11,700
Total Potential Grant Amount:$78,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power: $0.28 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 23
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
811 Kake-Petersburg Inter-Connection Engineering
Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA)
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)8.75
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)10.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
23.75
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not a project but an analysis of the feasiblility of what and where
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 24
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
812 AVTEC Hydroelectric Training Facility
Alaska Vocational Technical Center
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
AVTEC will partner with the City of Seward to renovate, refurbish, and upgrade the City's existing Marathon Hydroelectric plant, which is currently unused. The
plant will become an educational and training tool that supports AVTEC's Hydro Power Plant Operator training program, sponsored by the Alaska Energy
Authority. The intent is to return the plant to productive use and maximize the training benefits it can provide.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVTEC proposes to renovate, refurbish and upgrade the City's existing Marathon Hydro plant, currently unused. The application is largely the same as #657 in
round 4. For that application AEA recommended partial funding of $67,000 for final design and permitting. AEA and AVTEC entered into a grant agreement in
July 2011 for this work, but little work has been completed to date.
Since the design and permitting work is not yet completed, the scope of work, cost estimate, and schedule cannot be verified, and there is not sufficient basis to
recommend funding at this time.
Recommend no funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$639,050
Total Potential Grant Amount:$639,050
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.17 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 25
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
812 AVTEC Hydroelectric Training Facility
Alaska Vocational Technical Center
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)1.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)5.31
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
15.31
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Possible permit authorization required (insufficient location information to determine).
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 26
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
813 Whitman Lake Project
City of ketchikan dba Ketchikan Public Utilities
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The Whitman Lake Project will install 4.6 MW of hydropower generating capacity at an existing dam, supporting near-term capacity demand increases in the
Ketchikan area and displacing diesel generation as the existing Tyee Lake (SEAPA) resource becomes fully utilized. It will also replace the aging water supply
system of the SSRAA Whitman Lake hatchery, providing increased water quantity, reliability and redundancy to a facility that is critical to the region’s commercial
fishing, seafood processing and sportfishing industries.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Ketchikan Public Utilities requests funding for contruction of the 4.6 MW Whitman Hydro project. The project would benefit the local fish hatchery owned by
the SSRAA by providing a new water supply. Prior grants include a RE Fund round 1 (#37) for final design and permitting of $1.3M and a round 4 grant for
construction (#620) of $700,000. The Legislature provided $1 million in 2010, and $8.025 million in 2011. Total state funding available for construction is $8.73
million. KPU has obtained authority to issue a $15 million revenue bond for construction.
Recently the cost estimate for the project was adjusted upwards from $16.5 million to $26.5 million due to FERC licensing conditions and escalation of costs over
time.
AEA has recently learned that KPU must obtain an amendment to its power purchase agreement with SEAPA, without which KPU will be legally unable to use
energy from the Whitman Lake project for its ratepayers. At the time of this evaluation, this matter remains unresolved.
At a SEAPA board meeting in November SEAPA staff presented an analysis showing that under the latest load forecast (the SEIRP reference case) a substantial
amount of energy from the combined hydro systems would be spilled, thus significantly limiting public benefit.
AEA believes that additional funding for this project is unwarranted at this time.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$3,300,000
$20,050,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$23,350,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 27
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
813 Whitman Lake Project
City of ketchikan dba Ketchikan Public Utilities
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)1.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)3.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)20.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
24.13
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
State Land - EEA issued, ADL 107151
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Strong ground shaking from earthquakes is not considered in the environmental issues identified in the EA and FEA. The project site is ~214 km from the
Queen Charlotte fault. Low to moderate ground shaking should be considered in engineering design. The Canoe Passage fault is listed as a Neogene fault on
the Neotectonic Map of Alaska, however, little is known about it. Although it may not be a major issue, the applicant should search for any studies done for
other projects that may have assessed this structure. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 28
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
814 Glennallen School Campus Biomass Heating Project
Copper River School District
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
This Project is for the installation of a biomass boiler system to provide heat and hot water for the Glennallen School Facilities ( Glennallen High
School/Elementary School Building, Vocational Training Building, District Office/Distance Learning/Rural Cap Building) of the Copper River School District.
The system will utilize a Messersmith Boiler System similar to those already employed at the Tok School and Delta High School and will use readily available chips
in the Copper Valley. Glennallen Campus Biomass Heating Project will be a similar system to that of the Tok and Delta Schools. This project is a result of regional
biomass planning and collaboration between government agencies, local businesses and regional stakeholders.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Copper River School District in collaboration with the Copper River Development Association proposes conceptual design, final design, and construction of
a biomass boiler system that will heat the Glennallen High School, the Elementary School, the Vocational Training Buildings, the District Office, and both
Distance Learning and Rural Cap. The system will displace approximately 63,350 gallons of fuel oil each year. The system would use approximately 1000 green
tons of chips per year.
The project has begun conceptual design, and the application includes a conceptual cost estimate.
This project proposes to utilize the same boiler system as the Tok School and Delta Greely School, projects funded through the Renewable Energy Fund. Forest
inventories have been completed for the Glennallen area, and the required timber volumes for this project appears within the sustainable harvest limits. The local
sawmill operator has signed a letter of commitment for the chip supply for this project.
The project team includes engineers with experience developing the Tok and Delta projects with the intent of standardizing the design. The proposal shows
excellent community support. However the proposal does not include a match.
Given the standardized approach AEA is comfortable with recommending full funding with required approval of development phases.
AEA is concerned that long-term fuel supply for this 20-year project needs to be better established. As part of the completion of the feasibility and conceptual
design AEA will require preparation of a fuel supply plan. The final design phase should include a long-term fuel supply contract with a contingency plan. AEA
will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding, with requirement of AEA acceptance of feasibility and final design phases.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$3,244,897
$0
Total Potential Grant Amount:$3,244,897
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$3,244,897AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 29
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
814 Glennallen School Campus Biomass Heating Project
Copper River School District
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.900.90
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)3.87
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)6.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)12.30
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
37.72
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Possible Forestry or DNR authorization for fuel collection, depending on the proposed access and method of harvest.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
"This project is for a proposed wood chip heating system for Glennallen School Facilities. The system would utilize a Messersmith Boiler System similar to the
ones constructed in Tok and Delta. The project proposal states that the system would displace 1,266,300 gallons over a 20 year period or about 63,300 gallons
per year. It is estimated that 1,007 green tons of biomass would be required annually for the boiler. An important positive aspect to this proposal is a letter of
support from the local sawmill that states a commitment to provide wood chips at $80 per ton.
The Division of Forestry’s Glennallen forest inventory indicates that within a 30 mile distance from the town center there is an estimated 4,400 tons of biomass
annually available on a sustainable basis. An average of 11.37 net tons per acre of volume is present. The 1,007 tons needed annually for the boiler would equate
to approximately 89 acres per year. In light of biomass availability, which doesn’t factor in additional supply potentially available from Ahtna and BLM lands, the
project appears quite sustainable.
"
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 30
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
815 Wave Energy/ Sequestration Technology (WEST)
Atmocean, Inc.
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Ocean/RiverResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description
(Hydrokinetic) Atmocean proposes to deploy 600 of our Wave Energy/Sequestration Technology (“WEST”) devices about 1-2 miles off Cannon Beach near
Yakutat, Alaska to generate up to 90% of Yakutat’s annual kWh, at projected fuel cost savings of 44%. Payback for this project is estimated at about 4 years.
WEST devices convert wave energy into hydraulic pressure which is transmitted by seafloor hose then onshore pipe or hose (as appropriate) to hydraulic motors
driving existing electrical generators – avoiding the high cost of seafloor electrical cable, and utilizing existing onshore generation, transmission, and distribution.
Using this hybrid system architecture, WEST provides primary generation and the existing diesel system provides backup and peak generation.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$4,885,610
$77,355
Total Potential Grant Amount:$4,962,965
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 31
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
815 Wave Energy/ Sequestration Technology (WEST)
Atmocean, Inc.
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Ocean/RiverResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
10.00
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 32
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
816 Allison Creek Project
Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA)
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The Allison Creek Project is a run of the river (ROR) alternative involving construction of a diversion structure on Allison Creek at elevation 1,300 feet. Water will
be diverted from the creek into a 42 inch surface / buried penstock to a 6.5 megawatt powerhouse near tidewater. Attachment A is the Final Feasibility Study
which provides details on this project as presented and approved by the CVEA Board of Directors.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Copper Valley Electric proposes funding for construction of the 6.5 MW run-of-river hydro project on Allison Creek, estimated to cost $38,804,000. Specifically
CVEA requests funds to purchase long lead items. To date CVEA has been awarded $13,288,000 in various state grants. By SB 46 language, CVEA is limited in
the amount of state funds to 50% of the project costs.
CVEA submitted a license application to FERC in August 2011. Currently the project is in the final design and permitting stage. Final design and permitting is
scheduled for completion in early 2013.
Based on the work to date, the project appears to offer significant benefits, including
1. Substantial displacement of diesel generation--approximately 1.1 million gallons per year in fuel savings. CVEA’s hydro generation would increase from
52 to 68% hydro.
2. Substantial monetary savings in relation to the installed cost (high benefit/cost ratio).
3. Ability to supply hydro generation to seasonal industrial loads, such as the new expansion of the PetroStar refinery.
However, since final design and permitting will not be completed until 2013 at the earliest, AEA believes that it is premature to allocate additional construction
funds to this project. Currently CVEA has $10 million of fy12 state capital funds that may be made available for long lead time items.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$6,114,000
$6,114,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$12,228,000
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 33
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
816 Allison Creek Project
Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA)
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)6.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)19.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
30.88
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Site selected all on DNR lands. Full spectrum of authorizations required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
There are no known active faults at the project site. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 34
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
817 Solomon Gulch unit 2 Efficiency Upgrade
Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA)
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
CVEA is currently in the process of purchasing a new runner for Unit 2 at the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric facility. This project will increase CVEA’s renewable
energy capacity. The new runner will be manufactured utilizing state of the art flow analysis which will result in efficiency gains of approximately 10%. The
installation of the runner along with the overhaul of Unit 2 will occur in late fall 2012.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Failed Stage 1
Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$687,700
$687,700
Total Potential Grant Amount:$1,375,400
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 35
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
817 Solomon Gulch unit 2 Efficiency Upgrade
Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA)
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)6.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)18.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
26.88
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Upgrades to existing lease. No additional authorizations needed.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
There are no known active faults at the project site. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 36
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
818 Gulkana Village Biomass Fuels Project
Gulkana Village Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The project will be a small scale "Wood Products for Heat" (Biomass) operation with a heavy emphasis on the development of a viable small scale wood pellet
production facility. The project will work to achieve the following three (3) strategic objectives (SO): 1) SO1: Displace 100% of the very expensive fossil fuels used
for heat production in our community. 2) SO2: Manage our wood products for heat production operation to ensure sustainability and, 3) SO3: Create local jobs in
our rural community supported by our natural resources. Small scale pellet operations do not enjoy the "economies of scale" of their larger cousins and experience
higher production costs "per ton of pellets produced". This fact makes it important to identify all the production costs and manage them properly, to remain a
self-supporting, on-going concern. Higher production costs in rural Alaska are not a problem unless they exceed the sales income and result in 'Jobs' in rural
Alaska". This reality of the lack of "economies of scale", leads to the importance of SO2 "Sustainability": The sale of "wood products for heat", especially wood
pellets must return enough financial resources (sales) to maintain, over time, the production and capital replacement costs of the operation. The operation must
"breakeven" to be sustainable. A preliminary analysis determined, based on the current market, the production costs must be at or below $120 per ton with
attention to all the cost factors to sustain an on-going pellet producing operation. This cost is not set and is dependent on the level of actual sales. We currently
have "unsolicited" orders for 60 tons of pellets per year for boilers being installed in the region. 60 tons won't support the operation, however it is an indication
wood pellets are in demand and commodity in the region. Based on research there are 1099 housing units in the area and 31% of these units utilize some type of
wood products for heat. It is expected as the global economy recovers and the cost of energy increases the use of wood for heat will increase.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$850,000
$0
Total Potential Grant Amount:$850,000
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 37
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
818 Gulkana Village Biomass Fuels Project
Gulkana Village Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 38
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
819 Stetson Creek Diversion/ Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project
Chugach Electric Association
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
As a condition of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of the Cooper Lake plant in 2007, Chugach agreed to construct a project to
divert water from Stetson Creek into the Cooper Lake reservoir and a related structure to release water into Cooper Creek. The project will enhance fish habitat
and add water to Cooper Lake which will result in additional hydroelectric energy generation. Most importantly, constructing this project allows the license for the
Cooper Lake hydro facility to be renewed for 50 years.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Chugach Electric requests funding to complete final design and construction of a project to divert water from Stetson Creek into the Cooper Lake Reservoir and a
related structure to release environmental flows into Cooper Creek as a part of the FERC re-licensing of Cooper Lake hydro project in 2007. CEA agreed to
spend up to $12.5 million (2009$) to construct this project in order to enhance fish habitat in Cooper Creek by raising the stream water temperature. CEA
received funding from the RE Fund (#674) for feasibility and permitting/final design in Round 4. The cost of final design has increased, and the current proposal
requests half of the funding for the increase.
In support of the relicensing effort CEA has funded a substantial amount of feasibility-level work. In 2007 the project was estimated to cost about $11 million.
However, following a 2009 constructability review, the capital cost estimate increased to $24 million due to requirements for tunneling and control structures for
the diverted water and for the environmental flows.
The main benefit of the proposed project would be the continued operation of the 19.4 MW Cooper Lake project. In addition the diversion adds water to
Cooper Lake, resulting in a net increase in hydropower. For the purposes of the economic analysis prepared for evaluating this application, only the additional
costs of the diversion and benefits of the incremental hydropower are considered.
By formal notice, CEA has to have design drawings completed and forwarded to FERC by August 2012. A schedule submitted with the application shows final
design and permitting to be completed by end of September 2012, with FERC approval by October 2012. Construction is to be bid by December 2012 and the
construction contract award by May 2013.
An August 2010 CEA board resolution caps the CEA commitment to construciton at $12.5 million. CEA would need to offset the balance with grant funds.
Before RE Fund funding is allocated to construction, it is reasonable for CEA to 1) complete feasibility, permitting, and final design and 2) identify remaining
project financing.
Recommend partial funding of $49,781 to complete final design.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$3,453,920
$17,793,920
Total Potential Grant Amount:$21,247,840
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.13 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$49,781AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 39
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
819 Stetson Creek Diversion/ Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project
Chugach Electric Association
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.620.48
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)1.25
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)4.06
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)20.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)11.97
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
51.28
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
USFS land, but possible water permit needed.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
There are no known active faults at the project site. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 40
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
820 Design & Construction of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities
Interior Regional Housing Authority
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The project will design and construct wood heating systems in three Interior Alaska communities. IRHA is currently conducting feasibility assessments including
forest inventories and wood harvest assessments in eight Interior Communities. Once the assessments are complete, three out of the eight communities will be
selected for design and construction of high efficiency, low-emission biomass boiler systems. Projects will be selected based on the highest likelihood of successful
project implementation. Factors considered will include the amount of fuel oil displaced, cost savings to the community, commitment by the community and
facility personnel and a reliable and consistent supply of fuel. IRHA will partner with ANTHC and the individual tribes for the project.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) requests funding to build three community wood heating systems to serve community facilities. Through
funding from Round 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund, IRHA is currently conducting a feasibility assessment of eight villages: Hughes, Ruby, Koyukuk, Nulato,
Kaltag, Nikolai, Anvik, and Holy Cross. All of these communities were identified for wood heating in the Alaska Energy Pathway. Following the assessments,
three candidates will be selected.
For this analysis, a surrogate project, based on the Village of Huslia, was developed to model potential costs, savings, and biomass requirement. Actual capital
costs will vary with any of the three final candidate villages.
The project has the potential to benefit 3 remote communities with some of the highest cost of energy in the state while utilizing a wood supply from wildfire
mitigation activities. IHRA has assembled a team with a strong background in biomass projects. The project may use a modular wood-fired boiler, thus providing
demonstration benefits.
AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding with the requirements that 1) A wood resource analysis must be completed and reviewed by AEA and Alaska Division of Forestry to
assure the sustainable supply of wood for each chosen community; 2) AEA must accept the recommendations from the feasibility analyses of the three
communities that will advance to design and construction, and 3) the economic analysis B/C ratios of the chosen communities should average greater than 1.25
(the ratio that was assumed for the purpose of analysis.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$1,215,224
$173,771
Total Potential Grant Amount:$1,388,995
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.63 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$1,215,224AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 41
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
820 Design & Construction of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities
Interior Regional Housing Authority
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.252.37
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)8.37
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)1.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)19.69
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)12.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)12.20
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
61.10
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Assume biomass is from corporation lands. Possible Forestry or DNR authorization for fuel collection, depending on the proposed access and method of
harvest.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project would design and construct wood heating facilities in three Interior Alaska communities out of a total of eight that are currently conducting
feasibility assessments. The ongoing studies include forest inventories and wood harvest assessments. The selection process will also look at village capacity to
help ensure a particular project’s success. It is likely that the wood heating systems will be similar to the village of Tanana which utilizes Garn boilers. Many of
these villages are within forested areas along the Yukon River. A sustainable supply of wood is generally thought to be available for the scale of these projects.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 42
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
821 Huslia Water System & Clinic Wood Boiler Project
Huslia Traditional Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The project will design and construct a manual cordwood wood energy system in the community of Huslia, Alaska. The wood energy system will provide heat for
the community water plant, washeteria and health clinic. The project is projected to save approximately $41,516 annually in fuel costs for the three facilities out of
a total fuel expenditure of $30,416/year. The water plant and washeteria are co-located and are adjacent to the health clinic. All three facilities will be served by a
common wood-fired heating plant consisting of two Gam WHS 2000 boilers and a fuel storage building. The biomass resource will be purchased from residents
of the community by the Huslia Traditional Council.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Huslia Traditional Council in collaboration with ANTHC and IHRA is proposing the design and construction of a biomass heating system for the water
treatment facility and the clinic. The project is estimated to replace 21,736 gallons of fuel oil. The water treatment plant operator will be responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the wood heating system. The project will use approximately 254 cords per year
AEA has the following concerns about the proposal:
1. The application mentions that current residents supply cordwood for $350 per cord, but there is no mention of letters of intent to supply the wood resource.
2. There is no mention of a wood inventory analysis to guarantee a sustainable wood supply. State Forestry notes that land availability for harvest is not
established.
3. Although a reconnaissance assessment has been prepared, there is not a comprehensive feasibility assessment of fuel availability and project alternatives.
Despite these concerns, economics appear favorable and AEA believes that partial funding is warranted to advance the project through final design.
AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend partial funding of $50,000 for completion of feasibility and final design, including fuelwood inventory and supply plan with the requirement that
AEA accept the feasibility report before funding is made available for final design.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$398,331
$80,650
Total Potential Grant Amount:$478,981
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.52 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$50,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 43
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
821 Huslia Water System & Clinic Wood Boiler Project
Huslia Traditional Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.910.89
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)2.88
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.33
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)16.25
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)13.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)8.90
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
52.36
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No permits or easements required for the construction of the actual facility.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
The resource supply analysis for Huslia’s two Garn boiler system would identify specific areas to be harvested and utilize Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry
Program’s GIS system along with other existing regional forestry and Native allotment inventories conducted Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program and
others. A preliminary feasibility assessment prepared by the Juneau Economic Development Council confirms that driftwood can be a significant source of
wood. This project will require approximately 254 cords of fuel wood which equals about 125 cords per year for each Garn unit to displace approximately
21,736 gallons of #1 fuel oil. This resource supply analysis would assist in determining if Huslia has sufficient accessible harvest areas.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 44
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
822 Wood Heating Feasibility in Public Facilities, Interior Region
Interior Regional Housing Authority
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The seven communities named in this proposal: Northway, Tanacross, Nenana, Circle, Eagle, Stevens Village, and Minto, have all participated in energy planning
meetings with Interior Regional Housing Authority (the applicant), Tanana Chiefs Conference, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Denali Commission,
Alaska Energy Authority, and others, and have identified wood heating in public facilities as a key opportunity to displace fuel oil, reduce energy costs, utilize
locally available renewable resources, and create local employment. This proposal calls for feasibility assessments that include study of public facilities where wood
heating might be applicable, pre-engineering analysis of the size and type of boilers that would be required (including the "Garn-in-a-box" option), estimated fuel
displacement and cost savings, capital cost and payback period, and forest inventory and wood harvest plan. The applicant proposes a three-pronged approach: (1)
subcontract with a qualified biomass energy specialist (e.g., Thomas Deerfield, who is presently evaluating wood heating feasibility in eight Interior villages with a
RE Fund-Round 4 grant) to conduct 1- to 2-day site visits in each community and prepare feasibility assessments for each, (2) subcontract with Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium for staff engineer with expertise in water and sewer systems to conduct site inspection and prepare feasibility assessment for those
systems, and (3) subcontract with Will Putman, head forester for Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) to conduct forest inventory and wood harvest planning.
Following the completion of these reports, project staff Kim Carlo of Interior Regional Housing Authority (lRHA) will continue to communicate with residents of
the communities and facilitate their internal planning processes to determine whether each community wants to move forward with final design and construction
phases of the respective wood-heating projects, pending available funding. It bears mentioning this proposal is identical in scope to one submitted by IRHA under
Round 4 of the RE Fund for wood heating feasibility work in eight other Interior communities. This represents a deliberate approach whereby the applicant is
proceeding in stages with conducting feasibility work prior to conceptual design, final design, and construction. It is anticipated that the phased approach will
allow IRHA to conduct full assessments for most communities in the region.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) in collaboration with ANTHC requests funding for feasibility assessments and forest inventories in 7
communities to evaluate the potential use of biomass systems for heating. This is the 2nd application for feasibility assessments. A project for 8 communities was
funded through Round 4. The proposed communities for this round are: Northway, Tanacross, Nenana, Circle, Eagle, Stevens Village, and Minto.
IRHA has assembled a strong team with a biomass energy and resource experience. AEA believes that the proposed approach is well-conceived.
AEA requested further information regarding why this project cost significantly more than a similar round 4 project (#637) that cost $154,477. IRHA replied that
1) they are hiring ANTHC to conduct water and sewer energy efficiency and biomass feasibility analyses at a cost of approximately $88,000, and 2) they under-
budgeted cost of resource analysis by Tanana Chiefs last time. However end use energy efficiency work is not an eligible activity under the Renewable Energy
Fund and has other sources of support. For the purposes of our recommendation AEA will assume that 50% of the ANTHC work can be supported by the RE
Fund ($44,172). AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend partial funding of $279,525 (requested amount $323,696 - $44,172) for feasibility and biomass energy resource assessment.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$323,696
Total Potential Grant Amount:$323,696
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$279,525AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 45
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
822 Wood Heating Feasibility in Public Facilities, Interior Region
Interior Regional Housing Authority
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.910.89
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)3.38
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)2.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)18.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)12.83
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
45.83
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Assume biomass is not from state lands.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project will provide feasibility studies for additional Interior villages. The project is essentially a continuation of last year’s project # 637 proposal. It will
provide for a feasibility study of seven Interior villages and for pre-engineering analysis of the size and type of boilers required. The studies will examine the use
of proposed cordwood fueled Garn boiler heating systems similar to the facility in use for the village of Tanana but, the analyses are not limited to these systems.
The proposal seeks to acquire forest inventory data from TCC’s existing village forest inventory projects in the region. Two villages, Nenana and Tanacross are
also adjacent to State Forest lands. Inventory data for the Tanana Valley State Forest is available that provides data for additional wood source areas. This
project will continue work to determine an operable sustainable biomass resource supply for individual communities within the region.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 46
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
823 Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project
Tatitlek Village IRA Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Utility
Project Description
This project proposes to add waste heat recovery heat exchangers by connecting the Tatitlek Generator system to the adjacent Tatitlek Community Center thereby
providing the majority of the heating and domestic hot water needs. This project was fully engineered and designed as an alternate additive to a renovation project
of the building in 2006; the plans will need to be updated and a new fire marshal permit received for the project to be ready for construction. The generator system
was originally designed by Alaska Energy Authority to utilize waste heat recovery and the community center mechanical system was designed and replaced so that
it will be able to utilize the generator waste heat to heat the entire building with an oil fired boiler as a back-up and/or supplemental system. Oil heat is the current
heating system. Program objectives:
• Reduce heating costs within the community.
• Recover wasted energy
• Reduce barging requirements into the community and conflicts between generator requirements and homeowner fuel needs.
• Provide more reliable heating systems
• Reduce total community energy cost
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Tatitlek Tribal Council proposes updating a 2006 mechanical design plan and construction of a diesel heat recovery system that will supply the Tatitlek
Community Center, which houses the Village IRA Council administrative offices, from the power plant, 50 feet away. The generating station and admin building
were designed to accommodate this application when the power plant was refurbished in 2006, and the only phase remaining for this project is construction and
installation. The original designer would manage design and construction.
The cost estimate was developed based on an AEA field visit in July 2011. The project is estimated to displace 6,000 gallons of fuel oil. The technology is proven
and the construction complexity will be low. The operation and maintenance of the system will be performed by the current operator.
AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA accept the final design cost estimate prior to releasing funds for construction.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$265,000
$30,800
Total Potential Grant Amount:$295,800
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$265,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 47
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
823 Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project
Tatitlek Village IRA Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.901.90
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.88
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)2.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)16.73
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
68.63
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not DNR land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 48
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
824 Anaktuvuk Pass Geothermal Feasibility Study
North Slope Borough
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Local Government
Project Description
The North Slope Borough (NSB) envisions a combination of geothermal energy and waste heat recovery to enhance district space heating for residential use.
Existing waste heat includes the power plant and warm processed wastewater from the treatment plant. This reconnaissance study is intended to determine if
known underground resources are capable of providing geothermal energy in combination with waste heat recovery to support space heating of residential homes,
commercial and public buildings. The study will include collection of existing data, identification of additional resources, and analysis to prepare
recommendations.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The North Slope Borough proposes to conduct a feasibility study to explore the possibility of using ground-source heat pumps (GSHP) and waste heat from the
Anaktuvuk Pass’s diesel gensets for district heating. The applications basic design for the GSHP is a 4,000 foot long trench, 3-4 feet wide, and 12-15 feet deep.
No previous work has been done on the GSHP side of the project. Waste heat recovery is currently being used to heat the Public Works building and fire station.
The proposed project would begin in August 2012 and be completed by the end of 2013.
AEA has the following concerns with this project:
1. We question the likelihood of achieving the expected coefficient of performance (COP) of 3 due to the very cold ground expected at Anaktuvuk Pass.
2. The electricity to power the GSHP would come from diesel gensets that are generating at around 30% efficiency. This indicates that little if any diesel would
be offset by the project.
3. The cost of the feasibility assessment (~$187,000) is very high.
AEA believes that a more systematic, statewide approach for GSHP feasibility would be more efficient and less costly. This work was started by AEA, UAF and
CCHRC and should be continued.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$169,960
$16,996
Total Potential Grant Amount:$186,956
Funding & Cost
North Slope
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.15 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 49
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
824 Anaktuvuk Pass Geothermal Feasibility Study
North Slope Borough
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.821.10
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.38
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)4.69
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)5.50
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
33.56
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The project proposes to seek warm (40°F) ground water to be utilized for a geothermal heat pump system. The proposal refers to Anaktuvuk Pass as being near
one of four distinct geothermal regions, citing AEA’s 2011 Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska. The nearest identified hot springs is over 150 miles away to the
southwest of Anaktuvuk Pass. Because there are no known nearby geothermal springs, specific details that provide their rational behind this aspect of their
proposal, and the methodology used to conduct a reconnaissance study on potential geothermal resource opportunities within the vicinity of Anaktuvuk Pass,
should be provided. This is essentially a heat pump proposal, although the area is well north of areas of successful heat-pump utilization. Because of the lack of
thermal springs in the area, it is likely that 40F water would need to be produced from ~2000-foot wells. The cost of drilling, and the significant risk of not
finding a reservoir at depth with sufficient capacity, need to be considered along with heat-pump economics.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 50
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
825 and 827 Thayer Lake Hydropower Development Transmission/Generation Project
Kootznoowoo, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description
Thayer Lake Hydropower Development consists of a 1 +MW run of the river hydropower project located in the Tongass Forest within the Admiralty Island
National Monument based on a proposal that Kootznoowoo submitted in March 2000 which is described more full in the Angoon Hydrologic Project Feasibility
Evaluation Report currently on file with the AEA (Project). The development would be located on Thayer Creek approximately 6 miles north of Angoon. Thayer
Creek flows out of Thayer Lake (64 square mile reservoir) at a gentle grade through a broad forested valley then steepens for 6,800 feet through a narrow forested
canyon and finally flattens again for 2000 feet before flowing into Chatham Strait. The development will tap the energy potential in the steep section of the stream
and will avoid any impact on anadromous fish that use the lower portion of the creek. The average flow of Thayer Creek is approximately 370 cfs and can vary
from 25 cfs during the coldest periods of the winter to over 2000 cfs during storms in the fall and winter. The generating facility has a head of 250 feet which is
approximate because of the wording of the Forest Service Record of Decision (ROD) requiring maintenance of fish habitat. An additional restriction set forth in
the ROD which is not considered in the HDR proposal requires the overland transmission line be buried where feasible along the access road to the community
of Angoon. The generating facilities funding will be submitted in a separate companion application for Round V funds.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Kootznoowoo Inc. proposes construction of a 1+ MW run-of-river hydroelectric project and 6.7 mi transmission project to supply the community of Angoon.
Kootznoowoo has supplied separate applications for each of the projects (#825 and 827). AEA is combining the two project proposals together for the purposes
of evaluation.
AEA has a Round 4 (#670) grant to Kootznoowoo in the amount of $1,060,500 for permitting and final design with equal match from DOE. Although the
application indicates that design and permitting will be complete by September 2012, AEA believes this schedule is overly optimistic and that it is premature to
allocate construction funds to this project.
AEA initially recommendation against funding this project due to concerns that Kootznoowoo would not be able to complete design and permitting by
September 2012. Kootznoowoo requested reconsideration of this recommendation on the basis that ten months is sufficient time for them to complete design
and permitting. In response AEA is willing to recommend funding for construction, with the requirement that no construction funds will be granted until AEA
accepts final design, Kootznoowoo completes currnet grant activities, and the project team demonstrates that all permits have been issued and that project
financing and power sales agreements are in place.
Full funding recommended with the above special provisions.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$7,000,000
$2,156,402
Total Potential Grant Amount:$9,156,402
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$7,000,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 51
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
825 and 827 Thayer Lake Hydropower Development Transmission/Generation Project
Kootznoowoo, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.882.59
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.38
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)2.33
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)17.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)11.37
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
69.26
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
State tide & submerged land - submarine cable portion of transmission line & marine access facility
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
There are no known active faults in the project area. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 52
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
826 Wrangell Electrical Capacitor Bank
City & Borough of Wrangell/Wrangell Municipal Light & Power
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The City & Borough of Wrangell in conjunction with Trident Seafood’s proposes to purchase and install a capacitor bank that will offset fish processing reactive
power demands and voltage instability over the Tyee Transmission System.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Wrangell Light & Power requests funding for design and construction of a capacitor bank to correct voltage delivery issues in Wrangell.
The applicant asserts that the project would result in improved power quality and greater system stability, there is no indication in the proposal that renewable
energy production is increased. Instead the proposal appears to add system components to address operational issues.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$74,985
$6,988
Total Potential Grant Amount:$81,973
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.11 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 53
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
826 Wrangell Electrical Capacitor Bank
City & Borough of Wrangell/Wrangell Municipal Light & Power
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)3.44
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
12.44
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No State land or easement interest
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 54
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
828 Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie
Metlakatla Indian Communityi
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The proposed Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie is a 34.5-kV transmission line that will interconnect the electric systems of Metlakatla Power & Light (MP&L) and
Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). The Intertie will include 14 miles of overhead wood pole transmission line to be constructed on Annette Island between
Metlakatla and Walden Point and an approximate three mile submarine cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel between Walden Point and KPU’s Mountain
Point Substation. The project will also include control system upgrades to allow for the integrated operation of the interconnected systems’ generating plants.
Final design of the Metlakatla – Ketchikan Intertie is underway. Construction of the line began in June 2010 and approximately three miles of the overhead line is
complete. The control system upgrades were completed in July 2011.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Metlakatla Indian Community proposes construction of an intertie that connects Metlakatla to Ketchikan. AEA is providing $2 million in RE Fund rounds 1 and
4 (#20 and 656). Additionally there is another $2 million in grant funds from the state.
Currently the RE Fund round 4 grant is not in place. Conditions of the grant will include the following as per the round 4 AEA comments: (1) Before any grant
funds can be disbursed, MIC is to submit to AEA for its review and approval, a power sales agreement between MIC and KPU which clarifies the terms,
conditions, rates and amount of power for this intertie; (2) MIC must demonstrate completion of all preconstruction activities including final design documents
and final construction cost estimate; and (3) MIC must demonstrate project site control, including required easements and Rights-of-way, NEPA requirements
and all permits needed to construct have been issued.
AEA is assisting MIC in complying with these conditions; however this work remains in process.
AEA believes it is premature to allocate additional construction funds.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$8,225,000
$4,500,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$12,725,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 55
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
828 Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie
Metlakatla Indian Communityi
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)3.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)17.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
20.13
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
State tide & submerged land - submarine cable portion of intertie
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 56
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
829 Walker Lake Feasibility Study
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
lPEC proposes to use Renewable Energy grant funds to perform a feasibility study of a small hydroelectric project at Walker Lake. Walker Lake is located close to
existing distribution facilities for the Chilkat Valley, Klukwan Village, and the 10 Mile Haines Highway interconnection point with AP&T's Haines/Skagway
communities. The feasibility study will include an alternative analysis and selection of a preferred alternative. A stream gage will be installed to measure flow. A
reconnaissance level geotechnical investigation will also be made. The results of these tasks will be presented in a report which will include a written project
description, energy generation estimate, cost estimate, cost of energy calculation, a description of licensing and permitting issues and conceptual design drawings.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
IPEC requests grant funds to assess feasibility study of a 1 MW storage or run-of-river hydro project at Walker Lake. The primary purpose of the project would
be to supply IPEC’s Chilkat Valley system with hydropower. IPEC is in the process of purchasing the 600 kW Ten-Mile hydro project. IPEC currently purchases
hydropower from AP&T’s Upper Lynn Canal grid. Thus, currently all of Chilkat Valley’s power is from hydro sources.
The economic analysis performed for this project assumes that that the project will displace diesel generation of 1,950 to 2,800 MWh per year. Based on this
assumption it estimates a B/C ratio of 2.7 to 3.9. However, AEA believes that little to no diesel will be displaced by this project.
Alaska Power Authority prepared a reconnaissance assessment for Walker Lake in 1988 and Sealaska Corporation updated the assessment in 2005. Both studies
concluded that the project feasibility was marginal to poor.
AEA has the following concerns with this project:
1. AEA has already committed funding for Connelly Lk, Schubee Lk, and Burro Cr reconnaissance and feasibility assessment. These projects would compete to
meet the same loads as the proposed project.
2. Permitting conditions are adverse. The project would require a 6-8 mile transmission line to interconnect to Upper Lynn Canal grid passing through the
Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve. The site has geotechnical issues. FERC would likely have jurisdiction due to salmon issues.
3. This project would not displace diesel generation.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$160,000
$10,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$170,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.38 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 57
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
829 Walker Lake Feasibility Study
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)11.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
22.88
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Within Haines State Forest - Classified Public Recreation
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The project is close to the Chilkat River segment of the Denali fault. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 58
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
830 Multi Disciplinary Combined Facility Primary Care Center Biomass Feasibility
Project
Copper River Native Association (on behalf of native Village of
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
This project is to help ascertain the feasibility of using biomass and/or other wood-based alternative energy source to provide long-term sustainable energy
sources for a 30,000 s.f. Multi-Disciplinary Combined Facility (“MDCF”) in the Copper River Valley region. The planned facility located in Tazlina, AK, has
already been accepted as a Phase II Site Selection and Evaluation Report (“SSER”) schematic approved eligible Joint-Venture Project by the Indian Health Service.
The results of such an analysis will help determine if alternative energy sources can reduce long term operating costs over the life of this planned primary care
facility, help to ascertain if an expansion of existing CVEA power facilities utilizing biomass sources nearly Glennallen is warranted, or, if separate, stand-alone
biomass-based power units housed within or attached to separate facilities is a more efficient business model.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Copper River Native Association requests funding for studying feasibility of wood-fired heating or combined heat and power to supply a planned “multi-
disciplinary combined facility” (MDCF) to be funded by the BIA.
AEA and economics contractors were unclear on a number of issues including:
1. Status of the MDCF
2. Source, cost, and volume of biomass
3. The scale of the envisioned project—facility or grid-connected power system.
4. Clarification of the estimated project cost.
5. How the project fit with the Copper Valley Electric Association’s goals for renewable power generation and the Glennallen school’s proposed heating project.
These issues should have been addressed in a reconnaissance-level assessment that has not been done to AEA’s knowledge. The information was requested in
two separate email messages, but there was no response from the applicant.
In response to AEA's initial recommendation for no funding due to lack of response, CRNA requested reconsideration. Based on CRNA's recent clarification
that the proposed project is feasibility of a wood pellet-fired thermal system, AEA has concluded that it is reasonable to recommend the project for funding.
From the application, the equipment cost for the pellet boilers is estimated at $200,000. Based on previous projects, a feasibility study of this magnitude should
cost approximately $30,000.
Recommend partial funding of $30,000, with the requirement that AEA will work with CRNA to developed the revised scope.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$132,523
$10,840
Total Potential Grant Amount:$143,363
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$30,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 59
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
830 Multi Disciplinary Combined Facility Primary Care Center Biomass Feasibility
Project
Copper River Native Association (on behalf of native Village of
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)1.13
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)6.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)10.80
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
36.80
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
As proposed, project only for a regional feasibility study, and not a specific on the ground project.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for a feasibility study to utilize biomass to provide sustainable energy for a 30,000 square foot public health center in Tazlina. The study would
seek to determine if the biomass would be better utilized by existing Copper Valley Electric Association facilities or as stand-alone biomass power units within
individual facilities such as the health center itself. The project proposal lists the volume availability from the Division of Forestry’s Glennallen inventory report
and then applies the sustained yield ratio to total volume to Ahtna forested lands. This method provides a good starting point on volume availability. The
project proposal further states that operability will affect the final volume availability amount. It should be noted that the Division of Forestry is currently
conducting volume assessments on Gulkana, Gakona and Tazlina areas of Ahtna lands. The Glennallen inventory will be applied to timber type acres within the
three villages. This data will be useful in the final analysis of sustainability and wood sourcing.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 60
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
831 Juneau Super Critical Water Oxidation Sewage Sludge to Energy
Lammergeier CleanTech (A Subsidiary of Juneau BioFuels
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description
We will build a sewage sludge destruction and energy co-generation facility at or near one of Juneau’s sewage treatment plants. The sludge will be destroyed using a
thermo-chemical process of supercritical water oxidation (SCWO, rhymes with “grow”). The SCWO technology is quite simple, essentially being a very high
pressure, very high temperature pressure cooker. We heat water to 600° Celsius (1,100 Fahrenheit) under 4,000 psi of pressure at which point it is no longer a
liquid or a gas. It is then a “supercritical fluid”. It penetrates and diffuses into compounds like a gas, but dissolves like a liquid. The reactions are incredibly rapid at
only 60 seconds and very thorough with all organics, carbon, and hydrogen compounds converted to gases. The effluent is cooled and separated. It would be
adequate at that point. But we take it a step further by injecting liquid oxygen, which oxidizes all of the compounds produced to their highest state. All carbon is
converted into CO2 (carbon dioxide). All hydrogen is converted into H2O (water). We actually produce more water than that with which we started. All minerals
are rendered to inert oxides. The oxidation process is exothermic, which makes the process self-sustaining through the production of phenomenal amounts of
heat. That heat perpetuates the reaction and can be converted into surplus electricity or district heating. At the end you have only clean industrial gases, really clean
water, and a mineral ash high in marketable silica and phosphorus.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$4,000,000
$15,725,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$19,725,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 61
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
831 Juneau Super Critical Water Oxidation Sewage Sludge to Energy
Lammergeier CleanTech (A Subsidiary of Juneau BioFuels
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 62
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
832 Kake Pellet Boiler System
Kake City School District
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
This biomass project will replace one of our existing boilers with a pellet boiler system. The project will also entail adding a small addition next to the boiler room
for storage and loading of the pellets.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Kake is proposing to replace one of the existing boilers at the Kake School with a pellet boiler system, including an outdoor pellet storage silo. It is
estimated that the project will displace 42,495 gallons of fuel oil. The project team is in discussion with Sealaska to supply the pellets for this system.
The Kake School completed a reconnaissance assessment with the AEA and USFS-supported Alaska Wood Energy Task Group that showed viability of wood
heat. The pellet system has been chosen and it is a simple, low maintenance unit. The project would provide a pellet boiler and infrastructure demonstration in a
rural Southeast community.
AEA is concerned that the application does not allocate sufficient resources for design and contingency. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building
energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding with requirement that the applicant submit a final design and cost estimate acceptable to AEA before construction funding is disbursed.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$155,294
Total Potential Grant Amount:$155,294
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$155,294AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 63
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
832 Kake Pellet Boiler System
Kake City School District
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
6.206.20
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)13.25
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)14.97
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
58.24
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No State land or easement interest
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
The project is for the replacement of an oil fired boiler with a pellet boiler to provide heat for Kake City School District buildings. Pellets would be provided by
Sealaska Corporation and shipped from Juneau to Kake in bulk quantities. A silo would house the pellets in Kake. This fuel delivery model is similar to what is
employed in Juneau to provide pellets to the Sealaska corporate building. Kake estimates $80,000 per year in fuel savings through the conversion to pellets. This
project appears to be well thought out and likely to be successful given the fact that the Sealaska Corporation already is utilizing a significant amount of pellets
with a proven fuel delivery system.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 64
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
833 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility
Kenai Hydro LLC
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description
The Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility would consist of 5 MW of installed capacity with an average annual output of 20,600 MWh of energy, installed on the
Grant lake watershed near Moose Pass, Alaska. The proposed Project is comprised of a diversion dam at the outlet to Grant Lake (under consideration), an intake
structure in Grant Lake, a tunnel, a surge tank, a penstock, a powerhouse, a tailrace detention pond, a switchyard with disconnect switch & step-up transformer,
and an overhead or underground transmission line. The intake would be in Grant Lake near its outlet. Water would be conveyed from the intake through a 3200’
penstock to a powerhouse containing two Francis-type turbines. The powerhouse would be located near the bank of Grant Creek and would discharge through a
second penstock into Grant Creek. A transmission line would connect the facility to the Railbelt grid near Moose Pass. Please see the attached Project Description
that was filed with FERC on August 13th, 2010. Kenai Hydro LLC, whose sole member is the Homer Electric Association (HEA), was created in 2008 to evaluate
and possibly develop this site as a low impact hydroelectric facility.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Kenai Hydro LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Homer Electric Association, proposes final design and construction of a 4.5 MW hydro facility at Grant Lake.
Recognizing that this project would provide a significant amount of renewable energy to the Railbelt grid, AEA has previously granted Kenai Hydro $100,000 for
reconnaissance assessment in the alternative energy RFP and $816,000 in RE Fund round 1 (#34) and $1,184,000 in round 4(#635). The balance of the estimated
$35,000,000 project would be financed and possibly include some public funds.
AEA has the following concerns about this project:
1. Final design funding would not be needed until March 2014 at the point anticipated for FERC licensing. For this reason it appears that final design funding is
premature.
2. There is significant public opposition to the project.
3. It will likely cost more to mitigate impacts of features not yet anticipated in the cost estimate, such as i) relocation of the roadway and transmission line due to
presence of Iditarod Commemorative trail (currently permitted and under development), and ii) the cost of constructing a new tailrace pond.
4. We expect that in the FERC licensing process, there will be constraints on the operation of the project that will significantly impact the amount of energy that
can be produced. For instance, energy output will be reduced in order to maintain environmental stream flows and lake levels necessary to mitigate impact on
fisheries.
5. KHL does not demonstrate site control at this time.
Recommend no funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$4,000,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$4,000,000
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.13 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 65
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
833 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility
Kenai Hydro LLC
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)4.06
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
4.06
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
All facilities on DNR land. Will need full spectum of authorizations. Also: within KRSMA, potentially conflicts with existing DNR easement to the USFS, and
may affect a national historic trail. There is substantial public interest on whether this project should be done in this location.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Primary seismic hazard is strong ground motions from subduction zone earthquakes. See general DGGS comment. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 66
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
834 Seward Schools Biomass Heating System
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
Construction
Design
FeasibilityProposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The proposed project will finalize the feasibility and conceptual design, build, and install a wood-fired hydronic heating system in three Seward schools. Phase I,
Reconnaissance Study was completed in July, 2011. (See attached reports) This proposed Seward Schools Biomass Heating System project will implement the
following multi-phased process:
• Phase II, Finalize Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design.
• Phase III, Final Design of a wood-fired hydronic heating system to heat the combined Seward High, Middle and Elementary School campus with woody
biomass fuel.
• Phase IV, Construction, Commissioning, and Operation of the heating system and follow up reporting on operation and maintenance.
The project is designed to proceed without the delay of additional grant year cycles. Reports from a 2011 preliminary feasibility assessment and a 2011 District
energy evaluation will serve as the reference documents for this project.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Kenai Peninsula Borough School District is proposing to feasibility, final design and installation of pellet-fired boiler systems to heat three Seward schools –
the elementary, middle, and high school. This project is estimated to displace a total of 120,600 gallons per year of fuel oil.
The project has completed reconnaissance phase work. Given proximity of the three buildings the feasibility analysis will consider a district heating system to
supply all three buildings.
The application includes substantial support from the community, USFS, and the local tribal council. This project will develop an anchor tenant for pellet supply
in the Southcentral Alaska region and will potentially support the development of pellet manufacturing infrastructure.
Given the proven performance of pellet systems and commercial availability of pellet fuel AEA is comfortable with recommending full funding with required
approval of development phases. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding, with requirement of AEA acceptance of feasibility and final design phases.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$1,436,517
$39,968
Total Potential Grant Amount:$1,476,485
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.17 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$1,436,517AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 67
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
834 Seward Schools Biomass Heating System
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
Construction
Design
FeasibilityProposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.781.78
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)13.13
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)5.31
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)17.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
56.50
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
On KPB land and requires no land authorizations from DNR.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project will provide final feasibility and conceptual designs, build, and install of a wood-fired hydronic heating system for the three Seward schools. It is
estimated that 80% of the annual fuel oil consumption could be replaced by wood for an annual savings of approximately $239,000. Pre-feasibility reports have
been prepared by USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. A wood pellet system that replaces the oil fired boilers appears to be cost effective with a
reasonable simple payback time period. Pellets would be shipped to Seward either from in state or out of state suppliers depending on price and availability.
Given that the Interior’s Superior Pellet Fuels is located near the Alaska Railroad a potential to ship pellets to Seward by rail may exist.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 68
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
835 Mahoona Hydroelectric Dam Replacement
City of Ouzinkie
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Local Government
Project Description
The City of Ouzinkie (“City”) proposes to replace an existing timber buttress dam at Mahoona Lake, located approximately 1.5 miles east of the City on Spruce
Island near Kodiak, Alaska. Funds requested in this Renewable Energy Grant application are needed to perform a feasibility analysis and conceptual design for a
proposed replacement dam located downstream of the existing wooden dam. The feasibility analysis will include evaluation of the existing 6,000 foot, 18-inch
diameter PVC penstock, a 1.5 mile access road, and a (125 kW) hydroelectric powerhouse. The replacement dam will be designed to allow for an increase of
holding capacity from a current 400 acre-feet, to a post-construction capacity of 600 acre-feet. This 50% increase in capacity will provide uninterrupted use of the
hydroelectric generators, a potential increase in power production capacity, and eliminate the need for supplemental diesel-generated power. The scope of this
project will be consistent with the requirements of Phase II Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design, as set forth in Section 2.4 of the Round V grant application
instructions dated 1 July 2011.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Ouzinkie proposes feasibility study and conceptual design to replace the existing timber buttress dam at Ouzinkie with a new facility that can impound
50% more water, thus enabling the diesel generators to be shut off. The existing dam serves as a source for hydroelectric generation and for the community's
water supply.
For the proposed project (which does not include repair of the existing project), the City proposes permitting and environmental review, geotechnical
investigations and surveying, and engineering evaluations of access road, penstock saddle dike and powerhouse with a final report.
In the near term, the City has stated it will spend $410k for repairing the old dam. This includes a DNR Periodic Dam Inspection, permitting and design for dam
repairs, performing the dam and access road repairs. As part of the project review, AEA requested information on the status of the repair. The City replied that
they are working on improving the road to the project, but to date they have not obtained funding for the repair.
AEA is concerned that the proposal does not address the tradeoff between repairing the existing timber buttress dam and building a new, expanded project. It is
not clear that a new, expanded project is justified if the existing project is repaired.
The economic review indicates marginal economics given limited market for energy from the expanded project. AEA is concerned that the cost of the proposed
feasibility work is high. The feasibility work may indicate that it makes more sense to repair the existing project instead of replacing and upgrading the dam.
Recommend full funding with requirement that the City prepare a preliminary report acceptable to AEA on the outcome of tasks 1-3 that addresses the issues of
repair versus replacement and sizing before proceeding to geotech field investigations and conceptual design.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$467,500
$60,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$527,500
Funding & Cost
Kodiak
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.39 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$467,500AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 69
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
835 Mahoona Hydroelectric Dam Replacement
City of Ouzinkie
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.810.38
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)1.38
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)12.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)11.03
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
46.60
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
There are serious deteriorating conditions on the existing dam. It is in a non-failure emergency status and there will most likely be required measures to prevent
full failure. This funding is obviously essential for both hydroelectric and water supply issues for Ouzinkie. Appropriate design approval would be required for
replacement.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Strong ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone and Narrow Cape faults are the primary seismic hazards at the site. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 70
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
836 Packer’s Creek Hydroelectric Project
Chignik Lagoon Village Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The proposed project is a high head run-of-river hydroelectric power plant on Packers Creek in Chignik Lagoon with an installed capacity of 177 kW. Project will
include a 9-foot tall concrete dam, 3,260 foot long 18- inch and 16-inch diameter penstock and access trail; 400 square foot power house; 1,550 foot long access
road with a bridge across Packers Creek to the powerhouse; and a 1,750 foot long overhead power line extension to the existing distribution system and 3,000 foot
long control connection to the existing diesel power plant.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Chignik Lagoon Village Council requests funds to construct a 177 kV hydroelectric project on Packers Creek. The project would displace 89% of the
community’s electrical energy. An RE Fund round 1 grant was made for permitting and final design (#14) for $150,000. The project would consist of a 9'
concrete dam penstock and powerhouse on Packer Creek and a 1,800 feet transmission line to connect to community power system.
AEA has reviewed the final design documents and has identified some additional work to be completed, including flood elevations and bridge foundations.
Additionally site control has not been obtained as of date of this review, although a letter from the village corporation indicates this will be provided. Water rights
from ADNR, the Borough development permit, and the ADF&G fish habitat permit remain to be issued. Integration of hydro with existing diesel power plant is
not discussed in application. Discussion of interruptible power to heat the school is mentioned but not designed or budgeted for in the project estimate. The
construction manager is not identified. Given all these unresolved issues, AEA believes the cost estimate for this construction project is low.
Despite these shortcomings, technical and economic feasibility of this project appear favorable, and the project has high potential for meeting most of community
electrical needs. The community’s distribution system was upgraded in 2003, while the power system was upgraded in the mid-1990s.
Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA must approve final design, permitting, financing plan, and construction manager before construction cost
reimbursement.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$1,993,496
$523,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$2,516,496
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.40 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$1,993,496AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 71
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
836 Packer’s Creek Hydroelectric Project
Chignik Lagoon Village Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
3.604.03
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)12.50
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)14.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)15.73
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
69.73
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Packers Creek DNR 35.05 authorizations may be required depending on location of this project and whether it affects tidally influenced portion of Packer’s
Creek. Additionally, the mouth of the creek occurs within a DOT/PF managed ILMA for the airport.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Tsunami and strong ground motions from Aleutian subduction zone earthquakes are the primary seismic hazards at the site. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 72
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
837 Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description
The Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project is a potential hydroelectric resource in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley with an estimated installed capacity of 6.5 MW and
annual energy generation of 34,100 MWh. The preliminary estimated project cost is $25 million, and estimated benefit-cost ratio is 3.29. This proposed feasibility
study is contingent upon the favorable outcome of a reconnaissance study that is scheduled to start in August 2011. In the event the reconnaissance study
determines that the project is not viable, Eklutna Inc. intends to withdraw this application from consideration.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
9/21/2011 application withdrawn
Withdrawn
Requested Grant Funds:$289,710
$52,190
Total Potential Grant Amount:$341,900
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 73
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
837 Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)13.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
13.00
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 74
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
838 Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project
Chickaloon Village Traditional Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The proposed project is to build and install a Combined Wood Pellet Boiler and Solar Thermal System that would provide heat for both a 3,200 sq ft shop/office
building and a 1,160 sq ft administrative building. This project includes construction of a building addition to house the boiler system, purchase and installation of
the solar thermal and pellet boiler, and focused monitoring and evaluating of the project. This project would be used as a demonstration project for the
community to learn about solar thermal and wood pellet boiler systems and to encourage the use of local renewable resources for heating.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Chickaloon Village Traditional Council proposes construction of a pellet and solar heating system to supply heat to the shop and administrative building.
The system would include a solar thermal panel, a 200 MBH wood pellet-fired boiler, and an 8 x 12’ addition to one of the buildings.
The applicant is requesting construction; however, a detailed final design has not been completed. Upon AEA request the applicant provided a rough conceptual
design. Chickaloon’s submittal did not include a final layout of the system, a detailed heating load assessment, a schematic of the control system, or other site-
specific detail.
AEA supports the initiative for developing a heating project for Chickaloon Village Traditional Council. However, AEA is concerned about the high cost of the
project as currently configured, the relatively low fuel displacement, and marginal project economics.
Despite the lack of an acceptable final design, AEA recognizes that the proposed system is relatively simple. Before any state funds are disbursed, AEA believes
that it is reasonable to for Chickaloon to assess options to lower the cost of the project, increase amount of fuel displaced by supplying more loads, or do both.
Recommend full funding with requirement that Chickaloon provide a final design that is acceptable to AEA before any funds are disbursed.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$127,065
$34,637.92
Total Potential Grant Amount:$161,702.92
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.14 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$127,065AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 75
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
838 Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project
Chickaloon Village Traditional Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.890.77
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)0.75
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)4.38
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)7.20
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
24.82
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No obvious DNR land authorization indicated. Development may affect Section Line Interest depending on how improvements are placed.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project will provide final feasibility and conceptual designs, build, and install of a wood-fired hydronic heating system for the three Seward schools. It is
estimated that 80% of the annual fuel oil consumption could be replaced by wood for an annual savings of approximately $239,000. Pre-feasibility reports have
been prepared by USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. A wood pellet system that replaces the oil fired boilers appears to be cost effective with a
reasonable simple payback time period. Pellets would be shipped to Seward either from in state or out of state suppliers depending on price and availability.
Given that the Interior’s Superior Pellet Fuels is located near the Alaska Railroad a potential to ship pellets to Seward by rail may exist.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 76
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
839 and 898 Nome Renewable Energy Expansion/Optimization Project
City of Nome dba Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS)
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
This is a combination of applications 839 and 898. The 839 project involves the expansion of NJUS’ awarded REF Round I wind power project (installation of a
900 kW wind turbine) through the installation of a second 900 kW wind turbine at the planned project site. The project aims to take advantage of economies of
scope to incorporate the installation of a second wind turbine generator during the construction of NJUS’ Round I awarded project. At this time, conceptual
design and feasibility studies have been completed and the project is ready to continue with final design, permitting, and construction activities.
The 898 project seeks to optimize existing installations and in-progress wind projects in the community. NJUS is utilizing REF–Round I funding to install a 900
KW wind turbine in summer 2012. Another REF–Round I project allowed NJUS to construct a power transmission line to Banner Wind, an independent power
producing facility privately owned by Sitnasuak & Bering Straits Native Corporations, from which NJUS purchases wind power under a contract. Through
installation of a new wind integration control system and modification of the diesel generation system at NJUS’ Power Plant, the project focuses on the
optimization of existing diesel generation equipment within the community in order to maximize benefits from renewable energy supplies. Under the scope of this
project smaller, peaking diesel generator sets will be integrated into Nome’s Power Plant and plant controls will be reconfigured to provide system wide benefits of
reduced operating costs, greater stability, and improved efficiency. In the event NJUS or Banner Wind expands wind generation capacity in the future, the
community can potentially recognize additional benefit from the project.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Nome Joint Utility System proposes the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a second EWT 900 turbine at the Banner Wind Farm.
In a second proposal (#898) NJUS requests funding to integrate existing 1875 kW and 3660 kW units into Nome’s Power Plant and reconfigure plant controls to
reduce operating costs, provide greater stability, and improve efficiency. The second proposal scope includes relocating the 1875 kW unit from a different
building. AEA believes that this work is not consistent with the intent of the RE Fund, therefore not eligible. Only the integration of a secondary load controller
and resistive dump boiler, estimated to cost $325,000, are consistent with the objectives of the RE Fund and eligible for funding.
For the purposes of review AEA will consider proposal #839 and the eligible portion of #898 as one application.
NJUSs’ original proposal (#52) was for the construction of a 3 MW wind farm at a project cost of $13.5 million. The project was partially funded at $4 million
and the scope reduced to the installation of a single EWT 900 turbine. Of this cost, $69,000 is for conceptual design and feasibility, while $3,931,000 is for final
design and construction. A RE Fund round 1 grant is in place for the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a single EWT 900 turbine. A
conceptual design report, which includes analysis of a wind-diesel system with both one and two EWT 900 turbines, has been accepted by AEA.
NJUS is requesting funds for the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of the proposed project. The project is expected to cost $4,115,000, of
which $411,500 would come as matching funds provided by NJUS. NJUS is requesting $3,703,500 from the RE Fund in proposal #839.
The combined proposed project (#52, 839, 898) has a relatively low price per installed kilowatt and can lead to a significant drop in diesel usage for electricity in
the community.
AEA is concerned that the current diesel configuration is oversized for the community and especially so for the installation of significant wind power. Integrating
the smaller generators will help to address this situation.
Recommend funding of $4,069,000 ($8,000,000 cap - $3,931,000 from the round 1 grant) with the requirement that 1) AEA accept final design and permitting,
and 2) NJUS reconfigures the existing diesel generators, (including the non-RE Fund eligible work) before construction funds are released.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$6,103,500
$611,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$6,715,000
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.36 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$4,069,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 77
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
839 and 898 Nome Renewable Energy Expansion/Optimization Project
City of Nome dba Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS)
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
2.063.66
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)8.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.75
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)11.25
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)12.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)16.57
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
66.40
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 78
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
840 Kobuk Biomass Design & Construction Project
City of Kobuk
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The City of Kobuk seeks to incorporate a biomass boiler system in their water treatment plant facility. This project will provide design and construction for a
wood burning boiler system in Kobuk, Alaska. The intent for this project is to increase the use of locally available, biomass energy for thermal heating. This
project will include:
• System Design
• Right of way and Survey requirements • Construction Permitting
• Installation of a wood burning boiler system (Gam unit proposed)
• Construction of a covered wood splitting and storage shed
• Gravel Pad/Foundation
• Perimeter fencing
• Hydronic piping and other mechanical components • Electrical Controls
• Harvesting and Processing Equipment (Saws, wood splitters, etc.)
• Freight and travel costs.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Applicant proposes final design and construction of a cordwood –fired heating system to supply the water treatment plant facilities. Assessment for wood
heating in Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk was funded under two earlier projects: 1) Feasibility in round 1 (# 59) and 2) final design in round 4 to NW Inupiat
Housing Authority (NWIHA) (#668). Work includes fuel supply plan, business plan, and technology assessment.
The project would consume 35 cords of year harvested from NANA lands. A letter from NANA states its support. The system would operated through the
Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative and represents their first wood-fired system.
AEA is concerned that the economics appear marginal. They could be improved by identifying ways of reducing capital cost and/or increasing diesel
displacement during the design phase.
AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
AEA is also concerned that the Kobuk Valley Electric is not participating regularly in the PCE program.
Recommend full funding with requirements that 1) The City must coordinate with NWIHA and their consultant in developing the project, 2) AEA must accept
final design before construction funding is disbursed and 3) wood supply contracts for 5 years must be in place before construction funding is disbursed.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$356,424
$45,449
Total Potential Grant Amount:$401,873
Funding & Cost
Northwest Arctic
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.87 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$356,424AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 79
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
840 Kobuk Biomass Design & Construction Project
City of Kobuk
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.890.90
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)2.37
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)1.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)25.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)12.63
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
63.67
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Assume biomass is from corporation lands. Some state selected lands about 5 miles away.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for design and construction of a Garn boiler system to heat Kobuk’s water treatment plant building. It is estimated that 35 cords per year would
be required for the facility. The fuel source would be purchased at $259.50 per cord. A total of 4,200 gallons of diesel would be displaced by the wood boiler.
A pre-feasibility report examined the available wood resources near the village and stated that more than adequate resources were available to support a larger
multi-building biomass system rated at 183 cords per year. At this time due to some uncertainty in resource access and operability which was mentioned in the
resource assessment, a 35 cord annual use appears sustainable. This is a good first step for a remote village to utilize woody biomass in its area.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 80
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
841 City of Kake Hydroelectric Resource Analysis
City of Kake
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The City of Kake Hydroelectric Resource Analysis study will review the potential hydroelectric energy sources within or near the community of Kake, Alaska. The
proposed project will complete a resource (feasibility) analysis of the potential, readily accessible hydroelectric resources available to the community and will
provide a conceptual design for the selected hydroelectric alternative. Traditional hydroelectric turbines and infrastructure and low head, hydrokinetic technologies
including Archimedes Screws will be considered as a part of this resource analysis. Alternatives that could potentially be retrofitted to the existing Gunnuck Creek
Dam will be considered as a part of this resource analysis. Previous hydroelectric studies for the Kake area will be reviewed and incorporated into this analysis,
which will include updated estimated capital and annual operation and maintenance costs. The resource analysis will compare the alternative project costs and will
determine the most feasible alternative to offset some or all of Kake's diesel-driven electrical supply. A conceptual design of the preferred alternative will be
prepared as part of the resource analysis.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City of Kake is requesting funding for feasibility and conceptual design to evaluate various hydro resource alternatives at Kake dam and Cathedral Falls. The dam
in Kake provides for the city's water supply and supplies the fish hatchery. The City would use ANTHC for study lead with assistance from the firm Hatch.
AEA has the following concerns:
1. The City has not prepared a reconnaissance assessment that identifies a single alternative for the feasibility and conceptual design funding request.
2. Several previous studies have reviewed hydro resources near Kake and recommended no further pursuit of this type of resource. Kake receives roughly 1/4 of
Ketchikan's annual precipitation, so its hydro prospects are not compelling.
3. Funds are being requested by SEAPA for an engineering study of transmission to Kake in Rd V app # 811.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$150,000
$18,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$168,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 81
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
841 City of Kake Hydroelectric Resource Analysis
City of Kake
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
33.19
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Resource feasibliltiy analysis - no specific project identified
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The project is located ~17 km northeast of the Chatham Strait segment of the Denali fault, however this structures activity is unknown. See general DGGS
comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 82
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
842 Golovin Wind Feasibility Study
City of Golovin
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Local Government
Project Description
The City of Golovin in partnership with the Alaska Native Tribal health Consortium (ANTHC) is seeking to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in
the community for heating the water treatment facilities. Golovin currently stores approximately 2 million gallons of treated water to provide safe drinking water
to community residents. In addition, Golovin's water storage is due to increase to approximately 3 million gallons in two years with the construction of a new
water storage tank, which will serve homes that currently do not have running water. This stored water, as well as the community piped water distribution system,
is heated using multiple oil-fired boilers. The energy requirement and fuel consumption to keep this water from freezing each year is extremely high, and escalating
fuel price have the potential to limit Golovin's ability to provide adequate sanitation services to its residents due to prohibitive heating costs. The City of Golovin
now seeks to determine the feasibility of utilizing wind turbines for capturing wind energy to provide heat and electricity for the existing water treatment plant,
water storage and water distribution system. The feasibility study project will:
• determine the available wind resources around the water treatment plant,
• estimate the long-term viability of the proposed project based on expected load growth,
• provide a conceptual level system design,
• prepare a conceptual level cost estimate for the construction effort and the operations and maintenance of the proposed system,
• identify easements and permits required, prepare a comprehensive economical analyses of alternatives,
• update the utility business plan, • make a recommendation to move forward with the project design activities,
• Evaluate the potential uses of wind turbines to convert wind energy to heat.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Golovin, in partnership with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to assess feasibility of utilizing wind turbines to generate power to
provide heat for the existing water treatment plant, water storage and water distribution system. AEA followed up with questions regarding the efficiency of the
boilers, fuel consumption, heating season, and amount of water that needed to be heated.
AEA has the following concerns about this proposal:
1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost, wind resource from high-resolution map, fuel
displacement or revenue streams. Data provided were not sufficient to perform even a very rough economic analysis. The proposal did not address whether or
not there was an existing diesel heat recovery system to tie into.
2. Economics appear poor based on AEA modeling for heat only. Assuming a class 4 wind resource, offsetting 4000 gallons/yr of diesel, $5.00/gal fuel cost and
the lowest possible cost of a remanufactured 65 kW wind system benefit/cost was 0.5 to 0.6. This reflects that the value of replacing heat is much less than the
value of displacing electrical energy.
A combined heat and electric system would appear to be a better option for a cost-effective solution. AEA recommends that the City use a comprehensive
approach for identifying cost-reduction options through a regional energy plan for the Bering Straits region.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$96,700
$18,300
Total Potential Grant Amount:$115,000
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.57 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 83
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
842 Golovin Wind Feasibility Study
City of Golovin
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.81
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)14.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
35.81
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 84
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
843 Atmautlauk Washeteria/ Power Plant Waste Heat Recovery Project
Atmautlauk Traditional Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Government Entity
Project Description
The Atmautluak washeteria, the only sanitation facility community owned by Atmautluak Traditional Council, has high energy costs for heating water for use in
washers, showers, and building heat. This facility includes the water treatment plant. Safe drinking water is made here and used by local residents. This project will
provide recovered heat for the washeteria. This project will be combined with an Indian Health Service (IHS) project rehabilitating the washeteria to meet the
community's water needs and reduce the associated costs. This project will construct an enclosure (utilidor) for the sewage force main and recovered heat lines and
move heat from the power plant to the sewage lift station and washeteria. The IHS project will repair the washeteria foundation and make internal improvements
to effectively use the recovered heat.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Atmautluak Traditional Council in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered
heat from the community power plant to the refurbished washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 4395 gallons of fuel oil.
The AEA-managed power plant replacement for the community is in the conceptual design phase with funding targeted for 2012. The power plant replacement
is not required for this project to be successful, but it could enhance the availability of recovered heat.
The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2011. AEA notes that the application narrative states that final design funding is requested for 2011,
although funding would not be available until July 2012. The budget form gives a later timeframe.
AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$298,078
$40,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$338,578
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.70 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$298,078AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 85
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
843 Atmautlauk Washeteria/ Power Plant Waste Heat Recovery Project
Atmautlauk Traditional Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.251.25
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)6.63
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)21.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)15.50
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
57.17
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No apparent DNR land authorization is required based on information provided
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 86
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
844 Russian Mission Heat Recovery System
Russian Mission
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Local Government
Project Description
This project will provide the design and construction of a heat recovery system that will utilize waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
(AVEC) power plant for use at the WTP and three L YSD teacher housing units in Russian Mission, Alaska. The design will be developed based on
recommendations from the Russian Mission, Alaska Heat Recovery Study (see attached) that was completed by Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E). The
construction scope will include retrofitting the AVEC generators and installing a waste heat transmission line, circulation pumps, heat exchangers, and other
system appurtenances. The proposed project will involve coordination with the AVEC, the City, L YSD, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC),
as well as the Alaska Rural Utility Collaborate (ARUC).
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City of Russian Mission, in cooperation with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes final design and construction of a heat recovery system that will
supply the school and teacher housing. The project will include a marine jacket retrofit on the prime genset, thus doubling available recoverable heat..
The project will displace approximately 12,000 gallons of diesel per year.
A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with
this project.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$555,000
$32,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$587,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.50 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$555,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 87
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
844 Russian Mission Heat Recovery System
Russian Mission
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.781.79
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)8.63
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.33
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)15.63
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)15.83
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
63.42
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No apparent DNR land authorization is required based on information provided
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 88
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
845 Noorvik Heat Recovery System Feasibility Study
City of Noorvik
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Local Government
Project Description
The City of Noorvik in partnership with the Alaska Native Tribal health Consortium (ANTHC) is seeking to determine the feasibility if installing a heat recovery
system in the community for heating the community water treatment, water storage and water distribution systems. The City of Noorvik seeks to determine the
feasibility of capturing excess heat energy from the existing AVEC generator plant and utilizing it to provide heat for the existing water treatment plant and water
distribution system and other community buildings. The feasibility study project will: • determine the amount of excess heat energy available for reuse,
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Noorvik, in cooperation, with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of recovering heat from the community power
system to supply the water treatment, storage and distribution system.
While AEA believes that heat recovery projects have much merit, we are concerned that
1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information, including estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and other heat
users, such as the school or other community buildings for AEA to review the application.
2. Based on AEA’s experience the grant request is high in relation to the amount of work that is required.
AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential heat recovery projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective
and less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program
and regional energy plans.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds: $96,700
$18,300
Total Potential Grant Amount:$115,000
Funding & Cost
Northwest Arctic
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
845 Noorvik Heat Recovery System Feasibility Study
City of Noorvik
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)18.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)13.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
36.13
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved. As the project is proposed to take place on municipality lands, no land permits are required from DMLW. Also since this is only a
feasibility study, no permits are required if no part of the project is on state land.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 90
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
846 Kotlik Wind Generator Study
City of Kotlik
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Local Government
Project Description
This project will determine the feasibility of a small wind farm to provide electricity and heat for the City-owned water treatment plant and sewer vacuum station.
Kotlik is classified as a Class 4 to 5 Wind Power site in the Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) considers
Class 5 sites to be "excellent" for harnessing wind power. The estimated annual electricity cost to operate the Kotlik water treatment plant and vacuum station is
about $35,000.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Kotlik proposes feasibility assessment of wind-powered heat and power for the city water and wastewater facility.
AEA has the following concerns about this proposal:
1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost, fuel displacement or revenue streams. The proposal did
not address whether or not there was an existing diesel heat recovery system to tie into.
2. The class 4-5 wind resource is not indicated on the latest high-resolution wind map.
3. Economics of the project appear marginal even though the economist report assumes no boiler cost. Estimated cost of the feasibility work is half of the
estimated construction cost.
A combined heat and electric system would appear to be a better option for a cost-effective solution. AEA recommends that the City use a comprehensive
approach for identifying cost-reduction options through the regional energy plan for the Yukon-Kuskokwim region, currently underway.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$45,000
$5,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$50,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 91
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
846 Kotlik Wind Generator Study
City of Kotlik
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)15.94
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)10.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
28.94
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient info to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been evaluated.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 92
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
847 Scammon Bay Hydro Design & Engineering
City of Scammon Bay
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
AVEC records from 2007 show that approximately 127,463 gallons of diesel fuel were consumed for power generation in Scammon Bay to generate 1,651,855 kW
of electricity. This project will displace 1,031,865 kWh per year (Scammon Bay Feasibility Study 2003) equating to a net 82,549 gallons of displaced fuel or
$569,829.27 per year at a current retail price of$7.23/gal. This project will be able to produce power at a rate significantly lower than the cost of present electrical
generation, resulting in reduced cost of power for residents. Paying for basic power generation has become much more of a challenge, and reduction of the power
costs to the consumer will provide an economic boost to individuals trying to make ends meet for their families. Reducing the cost of power will also be a boon
to economic development in the community. Any project providing stimulation to the economy cannot be cost effective without going hand-in-hand with a
reduction in utility rates to help generate revenue. Other benefits to the Alaskan Public: The anticipated benefits of installation of the wind turbines include
reducing the negative impact of the cost of energy by providing a renewable energy alternative. This project could help stabilize energy costs and provide long-
term socioeconomic benefits to village households. Locally produced, affordable energy will empower community residents and could help avert rural to urban
migration. This project would have many environmental benefits resulting from a reduction of hydrocarbon use.
These benefits include:
• Reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus protecting vital water and subsistence food sources)
• Improved air quality
• Decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use
• Decreased coastal erosion due to climate change.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Scammon Bay requests funding for feasibility, permitting and final design of a hydroelectric project at Scammon Bay. AVEC participated in two
reconnaissance and two feasibility studies were completed in the 1980s for a river in Scammon Bay that also serves as the domestic water supply for the village.
That site was found to be infeasible.
This application is based upon a 2003 feasibility study by Polarconsult of a 331 kW run-of-river hydro plant on Ekashluak Creek. This creek originates in the
Askinuk Mountains and is located 11 miles west of Scammon Bay and is inaccessible except by boat or snowmachine. AVEC commissioned that study and
concluded the long distance to the village made the site unattractive. The City proposes partner with ANTHC for project management; Hatch will be retained for
the design of the hydro plant. The power system at Scammon Bay is owned and run by AVEC. AVEC would eventually own the plant and AVEC has submitted
a letter of support for the project.
There is limited discussion of the issues associated with integration of a new hydro plant in the existing diesel system. The application mentions new wind in
several places; a Rd IV grant will study wind generation at SB. There is mention of significant undersea cable required to connect an alternate hydro source on
Ekashluak Creek, and the project appears be located in a wildlife refuge. There is no mention of associated fish issues in this creek in the application or in the
attached 2003 feasibility study, but there appears to be the potential for fish habitat impact. The licensing jurisdiction is not identified, whether federal (FERC) or
state. Given the uncertainty associated with these issues, AEA believes it is premature to allocate funds for final design and permitting.
Recommend partial funding of $80,723 for feasibility and conceptual design (tasks 1-3) with requirement that grantee and AEA will revise scope and budget
before grant is issued.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$399,786
$13,833
Total Potential Grant Amount:$413,619
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$80,723AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 93
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
847 Scammon Bay Hydro Design & Engineering
City of Scammon Bay
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
2.121.32
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.50
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)2.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)13.77
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
63.95
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient info to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been evaluated.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
There are no known active faults in the project vicinity. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 94
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
848 Sleetmute Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant
Sleetmute Traditional Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
Currently, Middle Kuskokwim Electric is not utilizing the jacket heat from its diesel engines. This project will recover heat from the engines at the Middle
Kuskoquim Electric plant and send it to the water treatment plant to heat the building, the circulated water loops, and the water storage tank. The Middle
Kuskoquim Electric power plant and the Sleetmute water treatment plant are located in Sleetmute. A feasibility study has been done for this project as part of an
energy audit of the water treatment plant, and the design will be completed soon with other funds. Funds are being requested for construction only.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Sleetmute Traditional Council, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from the Middle
Kuskokwim Electric generating station to the water treatment plant.
The project will displace approximately 1,779 gallons of diesel per year according to a 2010 Heat Recovery Analysis.
A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with
this project.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$126,682
$6,667
Total Potential Grant Amount:$133,349
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.92 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$126,682AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 95
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
848 Sleetmute Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant
Sleetmute Traditional Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.421.42
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)8.63
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)25.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)15.97
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
69.76
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 96
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
849 Selawik Wind Feasibility Study
City of Selawik
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
This project will provide a site specific wind study to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines at the vacuum sewer plant in Selawik, Alaska. Specifically,
the feasibility study will include the following scope items: Equipment purchase; Initial site visits and equipment setup; Monitoring and Data collection; Report
Development; Equipment Demobilization; Presentation to Community. The report development will focus on site assessment; conceptual electrical and civil
engineering recommendations; financial evaluations; and review of required permits.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Applicant proposes wind study to assess feasibility of wind-powered heating for the community sanitation facility.
AEA has the following concerns about this proposal:
1. AVEC is funded in round 4 (#647) to assess feasibility of replacing the existing four AOC 65 kW turbines. Heat production from new turbines can be
considered through this work.
2. Performance of the existing system indicates a class 2 wind resource.
3. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost, fuel displacement or revenue streams. The proposal did
not address whether or not there was an existing diesel heat recovery system to tie into.
4. With class 2 winds in the region, economics of a wind-for-heat project will be poor.
The proposal mentions that the dampers on the oil-fired system are missing or not operating correctly. These problems should be fixed before adding wind to the
system. AEA recommends that the City use a comprehensive approach for identifying cost-reduction options through a regional energy plan for the Northwest
region.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$40,000
$8,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$48,500
Funding & Cost
Northwest Arctic
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 97
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
849 Selawik Wind Feasibility Study
City of Selawik
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)18.44
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)12.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
35.44
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
As the project is proposed to take place on municipality lands, no land permits are required from DMLW. Also since this is only a feasibility study, no permits
are required if no part of the project is on state land. Note that if the project location gets moved, permits or easements may be required for MET towers, access
roads, etc. Also, if material is required for the project and none is available within the city, then the city will need to apply for a material sale contract.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 98
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
850 Water Plant Biomass System Feasibility Study
City of Lower Kalskag
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The proposed project will complete a feasibility study to review the potential for a biomass heating system for the City of Lower Kalskag (City) water treatment
plant (WTP). Specifically, the feasibility study will include the following scope items: 1. Site Visit to assess facilities to be served 2. Land use assessment 3. Forest
inventory and harvest assessment (Subcontract) 4. Report Development 5. Presentation to Community. The report development will focus on site assessment;
conceptual mechanical and civilAEA 12-001 Application 7/1/2011 engineering recommendations; financial evaluation; and review of required permits. A new
WTP for the City is currently being designed by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) through a cooperative project agreement (CPA) with the
City. Currently, the design for the WTP is 65% complete and is projected to be completed in mid-20l2. Following the completion of design activities, the City and
the ANTHC will apply for construction funding for the WTP improvements and it is anticipated that construction activities will commence in 2013. If the
feasibility study shows that the biomass boiler is a viable renewable energy resource, then the City will also apply for funding for design and construction of a new
biomass boiler system for the WTP. This will be during the same time frame that the application for the rest of the improvements associated with the new WTP
are. The new biomass system would be used to heat the WTP in addition to supplying heat to any fixtures that require it which may include heat add systems, etc.
This project will involve coordination with the City and the ANTHC via a CPA.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Lower Kalskag, in cooperation, with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of using biomass to heat the water
treatment plant.
While AEA believes that biomass projects have potential merit, we are concerned that the proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information,
including biomass resource availability and cost, estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and presence of other heat users, such as the school or other
community buildings for AEA to review the application.
AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential biomass projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective and
less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program and
regional energy plans.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$50,000
$14,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$64,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 99
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
850 Water Plant Biomass System Feasibility Study
City of Lower Kalskag
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)15.94
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)12.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
32.94
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient info to determine if a DNR authorization is required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for a feasibility study to review the potential for a biomass heating system for the City of Lower Kalskag water treatment plant. The project
proposal doesn’t state what system it is in favor of or the potential fuel oil offset. If a Garn boiler system similar to Kobuk were installed, then a likely scenario
would be a wood demand of about 35 cords per year. The feasibility study will include a forest data and harvest assessment to determine the extent to which
biomass could be potentially utilized. An assessment of forest resources in this area would ensure that the proposed project is sustainable. In 2004 the Tanana
Chiefs Conference conducted a Native allotment forest inventory for the Bureau of Indian Affairs along the lower Kuskokwim River including the Lower
Kalskag area. This data could provide some valuable on the ground per acre timber volume estimates to assist in the forest data assessment.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 100
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
851 Toksook Bay Heat Recovery Feasibility Study
City of Toksook Bay
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
This project will determine the feasibility of capturing excess heat energy from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power generation plant in
Toksook Bay and utilizing it to provide heat for community buildings. The project will: • Determine the amount of excess heat energy available for reuse, •
Estimate the long-term viability of the proposed project based on expected load growth, • Provide a conceptual-level system design, • Prepare a conceptual-level
cost estimate for the construction effort and the operations and maintenance of the proposed system, • Identify easements and permits required • Prepare a
comprehensive economical analyses of alternatives, • Update the utility business plan, • Make a recommendation to move forward with the project design
activities, and • Evaluate the potential uses of waste heat.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Toksook Bay, in cooperation with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of recovering heat from the community
power system to supply the water treatment, storage and distribution system.
While AEA believes that heat recovery projects have much merit, we are concerned that
1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information, including estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and other heat
users, such as the school or other community buildings for AEA to review the application.
2. Based on AEA’s experience the grant request is high in relation to the amount of work that is required.
AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential heat recovery projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective
and less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program
and regional energy plans.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$30,800
$6,200
Total Potential Grant Amount:$37,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 101
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
851 Toksook Bay Heat Recovery Feasibility Study
City of Toksook Bay
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)15.94
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)12.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
32.94
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been fully evaluated.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 102
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
852 New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Study
City of New Stuyahok
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
This project will determine the feasibility of constructing a heat recovery system and/or an excess wind energy electric boiler to supplement the heat used to serve
the City of New Stuyahok owned water utility. A new Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant is being built in an area approximately I mile from
town, adjacent to the newly constructed school and a new water storage tank that is under construction. The school currently has an agreement with AVEC to
purchase recovered heat from the new power plant. AVEC plans to construct an electrical intertie with Ekwok in the near future, providing electricity from the
New Stuyahok electric plant. When this occurs, it is possible that recovered heat will be in excess of the school's needs, leaving some available to heat the adjacent
water storage tank. AVEC also anticipates installing some wind turbines in this location, making the availability of excess wind energy to operate an electric boiler
at the large tank likely, which is another potential source of water tank heating this study will investigate.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of New Stuyahok, in cooperation with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of recovering heat from the community
power system to supply the water treatment, storage and distribution system.
While AEA believes that heat recovery projects have much merit, we are concerned that
1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information, including estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and other heat
users, such as the school or other community buildings for AEA to review the application.
2. Based on AEA’s experience the grant request is high in relation to the amount of work that is required.
AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential heat recovery projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective
and less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program
and regional energy plans.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$45,000
$5,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$50,000
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.57 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 103
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
852 New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Study
City of New Stuyahok
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.88
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.81
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)10.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
32.81
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been fully evaluated.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 104
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
853 White Mountain Heat Recovery Feasibility Study
City of White Mountain
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
This project will study the feasibility of a heat recovery system to displace fuel oil heat used by the city water utility. This study will look at the heat available from
the electric power plant and the heat demand of the water distribution and storage system. An estimate of the energy savings and cost savings to the utility will be
developed. This project will provide a recommendation based upon energy savings, benefits/cost, and other criteria.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of White Mountain, in cooperation with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of recovering heat from the community
power system to supply the water treatment, storage and distribution system.
While AEA believes that heat recovery projects have much merit, we are concerned that
1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information, including estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and other heat
users, such as the school or other community buildings for AEA to review the application.
2. Based on AEA’s experience the grant request is high in relation to the amount of work that is required.
AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential heat recovery projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective
and less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program
and regional energy plans.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$27,000
$3,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$30,000
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.72 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 105
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
853 White Mountain Heat Recovery Feasibility Study
City of White Mountain
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)22.50
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)10.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
37.50
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 106
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
854 Klawock Biomass Boiler System Feasibility Study
City of Klawock
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
This project will complete a study to determine the feasibility of a biomass fuel system for the existing water treatment plant (WTP) and wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) in Klawock, Alaska. It is proposed that a biomass heating system will be used to heat the WWTP buildings and supply heat to other ancillary
building components that require a heat source. Resources for the City to supply the proposed biomass system are readily available in and around the community
of Klawock and throughout Prince of Wales Island, on which Klawock is located. This study will demonstrate the cost savings that will be
associated with the implementation of a biomass fuel system at the City's WTP and WWTP. The project will complete the following tasks:
• Determine the amount of energy required for both facilities;
• Estimate the long-term viability of the proposed project based on expected load growth;
• Provide a conceptual-level system design;
• Prepare a conceptual-level cost estimate for the construction effort and the operations and maintenance of the proposed system;
• Identify easements and permits required;
• Prepare a comprehensive economical analyses of alternatives for selection by the City;
• Update the utility business plan; and
• Make a recommendation to move forward with the project design activities.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Klawock, in cooperation, with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of using biomass to heat the water and
wastewater treatment plants.
While AEA believes that biomass projects have potential merit, we are concerned that the proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information,
including biomass resource availability and cost, estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and presence of other heat users, such as the school or other
community buildings for AEA to review the application.
AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential biomass projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective and
less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program and
regional energy plans.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$100,000
$12,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$112,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.21 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 107
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
854 Klawock Biomass Boiler System Feasibility Study
City of Klawock
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)6.56
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)10.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
20.56
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No State land or easement interest
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project will complete a study to determine the feasibility of a biomass fuel system for the existing water treatment and wastewater treatment plants. It is
unknown in the project proposal what system is favored or information about the known raw material resource. The project proposal states that Klawock is
surrounded by forests and that biomass supply sources are readily available in and around the community and throughout Prince of Wales Island. The proposal
does mention the benefits of Craig’s wood biomass system. This chip based system sourced from sawmill waste could include wood chip deliveries to Klawock.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 108
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
855 Old Kasigluk Wind Feasibility Study
Native Village of Kasigluk
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
This project will provide a feasibility study to determine the benefits of installing a wind turbine system in Old Kasigluk. The wind turbines will be used to convert
wind energy to heating and electrical energy that will be used to heat and power the water treatment and washeteria facility located in Old Kasigluk. The project
will:
• Determine the feasibility of installing a wind turbine system for heating and electricity needs
• Estimate the long-term viability of the proposed project based on expected load growth,
• Provide a conceptual level system design,
• Prepare a conceptual level cost estimate for the construction effort and the operations and maintenance of the proposed system,
• Identify easements and permits required,
• Prepare a comprehensive economical analyses of alternatives,
• Update the utility business plan, and
• Make a recommendation to move forward with the project design activities.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AEA has the following concerns about this proposal:
1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost or installed wind capacity.
2. There is a diesel and wind waste heat recovery system in use with lines stubbed out at the new water treatment facility. This was not addressed in the
application.
3. AVEC operates a 300 kW wind system in Kasigluk. The application make no reference to the AVEC system or the possibility of increasing the size of
that system to produce both heat and power.
4. Economics appear poor based on AEA modeling for heat only. Assuming a class 6 wind resource, offsetting 4800 gallons/yr of diesel, $4.30/gal fuel
cost and the lowest possible cost of a remanufactured 65 kW, a wind system benefit/cost was 0.4. This reflects that the value of replacing heat is much less than
the value of displacing electrical energy.
A combined heat and power wind-diesel system would appear to be a better option for a cost-effective solution. AEA recommends that the City use a
comprehensive approach for identifying cost-reduction options through the regional energy plan for the Yukon-Kuskokwim region, currently underway.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$46,000
$4,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$50,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.53 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 109
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
855 Old Kasigluk Wind Feasibility Study
Native Village of Kasigluk
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)16.56
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
29.56
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been fully evaluated.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 110
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
856 Shishmaref Heat Recovery Project
City of Shishmaref
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The City of Shishmaref proposes to design construct a heat recovery system in the community in accordance with the findings and recommendations of a heat
recovery study conducted by Alaska Energy and Engineering Inc. The project will recover available jacket water heat from diesel generators that produce
electricity at the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant and convey the heat to core city facilities. The heat currently produced by the generators
is released to the atmosphere via radiators. This project is estimated to reduce the annual diesel heating fuel consumption of nearby community
buildings by about 7,900 gallons/year. The construction scope will include the installation of the waste heat transmission line, pumps, heat exchanger, and other
system appurtenances. This project will involve coordination with the City of Shishmaref (City), AVEC, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
(ANTHC).
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Shishmaref, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from the AVEC generating
station to the clinic, city office, and the water treatment plant.
The project will displace approximately 7,900 gallons of diesel per year.
A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with
this project.
Recommend full funding.
AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency are addressed in conjunction with this project.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$310,841
$16,360
Total Potential Grant Amount:$327,201
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.60 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$310,841AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 111
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
856 Shishmaref Heat Recovery Project
City of Shishmaref
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
2.232.23
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)2.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)18.75
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)16.50
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
70.08
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 112
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
857 Savoonga Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant
City of Savoonga
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
Currently, AVEC is not utilizing either the jacket heat from its diesel engines or the heat generated by the electric boiler installed to dispose excess wind energy.
This project would recover heat from both sources at the AVEC plant and send that heat to the water treatment plant to heat the building, the circulated water
loops, and the water storage tank. The AVEC power plant and the Savoonga water treatment plant are located next to each other in Savoonga. A feasibility study
has been done for this project and the design will be completed in the near future with other funds. Funds are being requested for construction only.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City of Savoonga in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes construction of a diesel heat recovery system that would supply the water storage, treatment and
distribution systems. The system would displace approximately 8,800 gallons of diesel per year.
The application includes a conceptual design and feasibility assessment for the project. A design is in progress.
AEA has the following concerns about this proposal.
1. The study was done only considering the 499 kW Cummins unit instead of the Detroit Diesel, which is more efficient and the generator of choice with the
wind system.
2. According to PCE figures, the existing wind farm has a capacity factor of 21%--less than the assumed 30% capacity factor from the wind report.
The final design should address these issues. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this
project.
Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA accept final design before construction funds are disbursed.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds: $301,440
$15,865
Total Potential Grant Amount:$317,305
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.44 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$301,440AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 113
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
857 Savoonga Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant
City of Savoonga
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.951.95
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.67
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.33
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)13.75
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)15.87
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
62.62
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 114
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
858 Togiak Waste Heat Recovery Project
City of Togiak
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
This project will provide a heat recovery system to support the heating requirements of five City operated and owned buildings in Togiak. The objective of this
project is to reduce the consumption of expensive heating fuel by utilizing available recovered heat. There are several community buildings within a 500 foot
radius of the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant, offering an excellent opportunity to capture a maximum amount of waste heat from the
plant for hydronic heating. A detailed Heat Recovery Analysis was completed for the City of Togiak and Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) in
June 2010 by Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (Report Attached). The findings and preferred alternatives developed by this analysis will be used as the basis
for the project proposed in this application. The proposed project will design and construct a heat recovery system between the AVEC power plant and the
following end-user community buildings: 1) Water treatment Plant, 2) Clinic, 3) Police Station, 4) City Office, and 5) "Old School" Community Activity Building.
The new system will capture jacket water heat generated by the AVEC plant that is currently wasted to the atmosphere by power plant radiators. The recovered
heat will be transferred by insulated glycol piping to the end-users. The new system will tie into the end-users' heating systems using heat
exchangers, control mechanisms and any required upgrades to the existing building hydronic systems.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City of Togiak, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from AVEC’s generating station to the
water treatment plant, clinic, police station, City Office, and the “Old School” Community Activity Building.
The project will displace approximately 13,700 gallons of diesel per year according to a 2010 Heat Recovery Analysis.
A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with
this project.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$443,030
$43,150
Total Potential Grant Amount:$486,180
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$443,030AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 115
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
858 Togiak Waste Heat Recovery Project
City of Togiak
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
2.602.60
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)18.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)16.80
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
70.59
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been fully evaluated.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 116
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
859 Goodnews Bay Wind Generator Study
Native Village of Goodnews Bay
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
This project will determine the feasibility of a small wind farm to provide electricity and heat for the Native Village of Goodnews Bay water treatment plant.
Goodnews Bay is classified as a Class 5 Wind Power site in Appendix B of the Alaska Rural Energy Plan. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
considers Class 5 sites to be "excellent" for harnessing wind power. Between electricity and fuel, the annual energy cost to operate the water treatment plant is
approximately $21,000. Conservatively, it is estimated that electrical usage can be reduced by 75% and fuel consumption by 30% through the use of renewable
energy.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AEA has the following concerns about this proposal:
1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost.
2. The proposal assumes a class 5 resource, while the proposed location is a class 3.
3. AVEC is proposing a feasibility study (#874) for a larger-scale project that could also assess viability of providing heat to the water treatment plant.
4. Economics appear poor based on AEA modeling for heat only.
A larger combined heat and power wind-diesel system would appear to be a better option for a cost-effective solution. AEA has recommended funding for
AVEC’s feasibility study with the requirement that AVEC work with the City and ANTHC to assess feasibility of providing heat to the water treatment plant. It
is recommended that the City use a comprehensive approach for identifying cost-reduction options through the regional energy plan for the Yukon-Kuskokwim
region, currently underway.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$45,000
$5,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$50,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.47 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 117
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
859 Goodnews Bay Wind Generator Study
Native Village of Goodnews Bay
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)14.69
2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 10.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
29.69
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been fully evaluated.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 118
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
860 City of Angoon Wind to Energy Feasibility Study
City of Angoon
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The City, in partnership with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), is seeking funding to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines at
the community water treatment plant (WTP) to offset electrical costs with a renewable energy source. The City seeks to analyze the feasibility of utilizing wind
turbines for capturing wind energy to provide electricity for the existing WTP. The feasibility study will, at minimum, complete the following activities: •
Determine the available wind resources around the WTP site; • Estimate the long-term viability of the proposed project based on expected load growth; • Provide
a conceptual-level system design; • Prepare a conceptual-level cost estimate for the construction effort and the operations and maintenance of the proposed
system; • Identify easements and permits required; Prepare a comprehensive economical analyses of alternatives; • Provide recommendations to move forward
with the project design activities; and • Evaluate the potential uses of wind turbines to convert wind energy to electricity.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Angoon, in partnership with ANTHC, proposes feasibility assessment of windpower supplying the water treatment plant.
AEA has the following concerns about this proposal:
1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost, installed capacity, wind resource, or fuel savings.
2. The high-resolution map indicates a class 1 (poor) wind resource.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$40,000
$8,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$48,500
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 119
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
860 City of Angoon Wind to Energy Feasibility Study
City of Angoon
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)12.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
34.19
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No State land or easement interest
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 120
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
861 Saint Michael Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Study
City of Saint Michael
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
This project will conduct a reconnaissance study of potential renewable energy sources for use by the community of St. Michael to support our water and sewer
utility and major community structures. Our water and sewer utility has very high per capita energy use, and we need a more cost-effective energy source to help
sustain this utility. This study will identify potential renewable energy sources and examine their associated utilization methods, technical and economic feasibility,
and other potential benefits, such as energy cost savings and reduced operation and maintenance expenses.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$40,500
$4,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$45,000
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 121
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
861 Saint Michael Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Study
City of Saint Michael
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)10.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
15.00
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 122
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
862 False Pass Tidal Energy Study
City of False Pass Electric Utility
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Ocean/RiverResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
False Pass is currently dependent on diesel fuel for all of its electrical generation and heat production. This project will perform a reconnaissance and feasibility
study to determine if tidal energy can be economically harnessed to provide electrical and perhaps heating loads to the community. The reconnaissance phase of
the project will include gathering existing energy usage data, including leveraging existing AEA funded efforts to assess the viability of tidal energy power at False
Pass, preliminary geophysical data on ocean current velocities, and conducting modeling efforts to determine if a feasibility study is warranted. The feasibility
phase of the project will involve geophysical data collection including more rigorous current velocity and bathymetric data collection to locate a viable deployment
area. This data will be utilized to initiate consultations with permitting agencies and to perform an economic analysis of a conceptually designed project utilizing
one or more of Ocean Renewable Power Company’s (ORPC’s) TidGen Power Systems to determine if a tidal energy project is economically, environmentally and
technologically feasible at False Pass.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of False Pass Electrical Utility proposes to perform a reconnaissance and feasibility Tidal Energy Study to determine the viability of installing and
operating a 150 kW ORPC TidGen hydrokinetic device. The Aleutians East Borough will manage the project for the city utility.
No previous work has been done on this project. The project would perform a resource assessment of the strait off Unimak Island by creating a circulation
model and deploying acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP). Using the resource data and acquired economic information about the system and the local
community, a decision would be made to determine if the project was economically viable.
The project is expected to begin in September 2012 and be completed by the end of March 2014.
AEA recognizes that a number of strong entities with experience in Alaska have agreed to partner on the reconnaissance and feasibility project.
AEA’s concern is that tidal power technology is still in a very early stage of development. The most recent cost estimates through 2030 for tidal energy by the
UK’s Carbon Trust range from $0.24-0.80/kWh in UK waters. Projects in remote parts of Alaska would be expected to have significantly higher costs. Results of
ORPC’s demonstration in Cook Inlet should be examined before further project development work is pursued in more remote areas. AEA will consider further
extensive resource assessment similar to work being supported with NOAA in Cook Inlet through the hydrokinetic program.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$218,900
$78,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$296,900
Funding & Cost
Aleutians
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.53 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 123
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
862 False Pass Tidal Energy Study
City of False Pass Electric Utility
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Ocean/RiverResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)16.56
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
36.56
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Authorizations from DNR are expected, but insufficient information to identify how many and what type.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 124
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
863 Community of Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment
City of Elim
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The City of Elim and its partners, the Native Village of Elim, Elim Native Corporation, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks are proposing a Resource
Assessment (Reconnaissance) / Feasibility Analysis of potential geothermal sites near the community. A number of known moderate temperature hot springs as
well as other identified thermal anomalies, based on local knowledge, are located in the area surrounding Elim offering potential energy sources for the
community. Known sources include Kwiniuk/Elim Hot Springs (41°C at 22 gpm), and Clear Creek Hot Springs (65°C at 230 gpm). No significant geothermal
exploration has occurred at Elim to date, although the Alaska Energy Authority identified geothermal energy, along with wind, and wood, as potential energy
options for Elim in the 2010 Energy Pathway. This project will combine low cost airborne and ground-based reconnaissance and mapping techniques to develop
a conceptual model of the system, and complete a preliminary design and cost analysis to refine the numbers included in the Pathway.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Elim proposes a reconnaissance and feasibility study of the geothermal resources near the city. The UAF’s Alaska Center for Energy and Power
(ACEP) would be contracted to perform the reconnaissance and feasibility work.
The nearest hot springs to Elim are Kwiniuk Hot Springs (41°C, 22gpm) and Clear Hot Springs (65°C, 230gpm). Kwiniuk can be accessed by a 16-mile road
(estimated to take 1.5 hours), but is 8 miles straight distance from Elim. Clear Hot Springs is not currently road accessible and is located 16 miles via a straight
path.
No previous work has been performed on this project by ACEP or the City of Elim. The project is expected to begin in August 2012 and be completed by July
2013. Funded by AEA’s geothermal program in 2009, HDL assessed the cost of a potential project installed in Elim at $38 to 52 million. However, the current
proposal makes the case that the resource is more similar to that at Manley Hot Springs and estimates an installed cost of $15 to 37 million.
DNR notes that the reconnaissance study approach is reasonable: Thermal imaging (utilizing techniques being used by ACEP at the Pilgrim Hot Springs project
site), ground-based reconnaissance (geological mapping, soil & water sampling), the creation of a conceptual reservoir model, and development of a preliminary
design and cost.
AEA is concerned that, even if a geothermal resource were located, economics appear poor. Assuming a mid-point cost of the system at $26 million and O&M
costs of $312,000/yr the benefit/cost ratio is 0.14. Assuming a cost of $15 million and no O&M, the benefit/cost ratio is only 0.54.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$415,871
$112,037
Total Potential Grant Amount:$527,908
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.54 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 125
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
863 Community of Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment
City of Elim
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.140.31
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)16.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)14.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
35.88
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The proposal seeks to explore near the village of Elim for low to moderate temperature geothermal resources to determine their potential for binary (Organic
Rankine Cycle - similar to Chena Hot Springs) electrical power generation for the community. The 4 stage approach appears to be reasonable (1. Thermal
Infrared Mapping and Analysis; 2) Ground Based Reconnaissance-water chemistry and geologic mapping. 3) Develop a Conceptual Model of the System; and 4)
Preliminary Design Analysis and Cost. The proposal recognizes the need to locate both a nearby source and of sufficient temperature to be economically viable
to generate electricity using a binary system.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 126
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
864 Net-Zero Training and Administration Center (TAC)
Alaska Gateway School District
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Government Entity
Project Description
The project will include extending a new hot water heating / return loop from the recently completed Biomass Heating Plant to a new 10,000 square foot net-zero
Training and Administration Center (TAC). The TAC would benefit from heat from the biomass boiler, surplus heat created as a byproduct of the electrical
generation process of the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system, and would also benefit from the electrical generation of the CHP. The heating loop will
connect to the Tok School Biomass Plant that was completed in the Fall of 2010. (The Tok School Biomass Plant was developed using AEA Round I Grant
Funding. The project consisted of a Biomass heating facility that contained an automated biomass heating system that now provides heat to the existing K-12
School.) Since the completion of the Tok School Biomass Plant, a steam turbine and electrical generation system will be added to create a combined heat and
power (CHP) system. The original biomass boiler was sized to allow for the CHP expansion and the additional load of the multipurpose building and Zamboni
garage. The CHP project will be completed the fall of 2011. The TAC will be a net-zero facility. The facility will reduce utility demands through low energy
building practices, such as super insulation, location on site, natural ventilation, and day lighting. The TAC will also incorporate incorporating energy efficient
building technologies such as high efficiency lighting, communication, and back up HVAC systems.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$3,007,750
$106,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$3,113,750
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 127
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
864 Net-Zero Training and Administration Center (TAC)
Alaska Gateway School District
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 128
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
865 Greenhouse and Processing Facility utilizing surplus heat
Alaska Gateway School District
Construction
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
The project will include extending a new hot water heating / return loop from the recently completed Biomass Heating Plant to a new 24’-0” x 100’-0” greenhouse
and 20’-0” x 30’-0” processing facility on the Tok School Campus. The greenhouse and processing facility would only use surplus heat from the Biomass Plant and
would benefit from the electrical generation of the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system. Prodcue would initially be used to supplement the schools Food
Service Program, providing fresh vegetables to student who otherwise would not have access. The Biomass Plant has capacity to support additional greenhouses in
the future if the demand for local produce in the region exceeds the anticipated yield capacity of the first greenhouse.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$135,825
$4,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$139,825
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 129
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
865 Greenhouse and Processing Facility utilizing surplus heat
Alaska Gateway School District
Construction
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 130
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
866 Extension of Heating Loop
Alaska Gateway School District
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Government Entity
Project Description
The project will include extending a new hot water heating / return loop from the recently completed Biomass Heating Plant to two (2) additional buildings on the
Tok School Campus and will include the required integration work within the two buildings. The first building is the multipurpose building which houses an ice
hockey rink and shooting range. The intent is to use the biomass plant to heat the shooting range and toilet group portion of the multipurpose building,
approximately 10,000 square feet. The second building is the Zamboni garage which would approximately 1,400 square feet. The heating loop will connect to the
Tok School Biomass Plant that was completed in the fall of 2010. (The Tok School Biomass Plant was developed using AEA Round I Grant Funding. The project
consisted of a Biomass heating facility that contained an automated biomass heating system that now provides heat to the existing K-12 School.) Since the
completion of the Tok School Biomass Plant a steam turbine and electrical generation system have been added to create a combined heat and power (CHP)
system. The original biomass boiler was sized to allow for the CHP expansion and the additional load of the multipurpose building and Zamboni garage. The CHP
project will be completed the fall of 2011. When the CHP system is operational it will generate a substantial amount heat as a byproduct. The heat created will
surpass the required heat demand of the existing K-12 School. The intent is to recover the surplus heat and supply it to meet the heating demand of additional
buildings mentioned above. The cost for maintenance and operation as well as for biomass fuel will be negated for this project due to the planned operation of the
CHP system.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Gateway School District proposes adding on a heat loop off the newly-completed wood-fired heating system at the Tok School to provide heat to the
detached multipurpose buildings that house a hockey rink, shooting range and Zamboni garage. The project team would revise the existing design and
construction documents prior to construction.
The application is largely the same as a round 4 submittal (#617) that was not recommended due to poor economics. Since last year the project team has reduced
the capital cost from $754,651 to $629,000 by decreasing mobilization and construction costs. At the same time the projected cost of fuel over the life of the
project has increased. These changes have improved the projected benefit/cost ratio from 0.47 to 0.85.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$625,000
$4,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$629,000
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.39 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$625,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 131
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
866 Extension of Heating Loop
Alaska Gateway School District
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.851.92
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)8.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)1.75
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)12.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)3.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)13.13
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
45.07
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project as described does not involve state land. Therefore, no land permits or easements from the state are required. Please note however, that if any of the
recovery lines cross state land or follow existing Rows, then a permit may be required, or discussion with DOT may be required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project will extend a new hot water heating and return loop from the recently completed Tok biomass heating plant to two additional buildings. A
combined heat and power system will be added to the biomass heating plant and completed in the fall of 2011. When this CHP system is operational it will
generate waste heat as a byproduct. The intent is to recover the surplus heat and supply it to the additional two buildings. This project was reviewed last year in
the Round 4 applications and it has been revised slightly this year. Estimated biomass fuel use for the entire facility including electrical generation and heating
the additional buildings is stated between 25 and 35 acres per year. There would also be hazard fuel reduction material and sawmill waste material available as a
biomass fuel source. The acreage required for the facility is well within the sustained yield estimates for the Tok Management Area. The 2010 Tanana Valley
Inventory Update indicates the Tok Management Area can sustain an annual harvest of 984 acres within existing poletimber and sawtimber types. This does not
account for additional acreage available through in-growth of reproduction types and burned timber salvage which would increase this amount.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 132
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
867 Reconnaissance Study of the Geothermal Potential for the Ivanoff Bay Region
Ivanoff Bay Tribal Council
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The purpose of this project is to investigate the geothermal potential of the Ivanof Bay area. The region is located at the base of the Kupreanof Volcano and there
are reports of hot springs in the general area of Stepovak Bay. Active volcanic systems such as Kupreanof volcano, and deep fracture and fault systems create
favorable settings for development of geothermal systems. Previous studies on geothermal resources of the Aleutian Arc have not identified a known hot springs
or geothermal source however three areas of fumaroles have been reported in the Stepovak Bay consisting of a chain of five volcanoes that includes Kupreanof
(Wilson, 1990). The first area is at the head of Big River and is located near the center of the Kupreanof volcanic edifice (Yount and others, 1985). The second, 5.5
miles southwest, was observed by Eakins (1970) on the southeast side of volcano 4, at the head of an unnamed stream that flows into Ramsey Bay. At the time of
the study, steaming fumaroles were visible at the west end of a sulfur deposit at about 2,950 foot elevation. The third, an unverified fumaroles field, is inferred
from 1940 air photos of unnamed volcano 1, north of Clark Bay (Wilson, 1990). These sites are about 28 miles east of Port Moller and 14 miles northwest of the
Kupreanof Peninsula. Kupreanof's latest activity was an ash/steam eruption in 1987 (Wilson, 1990). In addition to the surface manifestations, a wildcat well drilled
by Philips Petroleum in 1976-1977, Big River A-Ol encountered high temperatures at depth. The well was advanced approximately 7 miles west, northwest of
Ivanof Bay, in the general area of the observed sulfur deposits. The well chips/core is available for study. We request funding for a reconnaissance study of the
region with a planned timeline of approximately 16 months. The study will include the necessary fieldwork, the permitting and environmental analysis, preliminary
design analysis, market analysis, simple economic analysis, and a final report. The fieldwork will include mapping, remote sensing, aerial and ground based
geophysics, and geochemical sampling of soils and waters. In addition, we will obtain samples from the Big River A-Ol Well in order to conduct additional
petrographic analysis of the core. This is the complete scope of work we are requesting funding for with this grant, but if this work is successful and promising,
future work would include the drilling necessary to confirm and develop the resource, necessary permitting, and power plant and infrastructure construction.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Ivanof Bay Tribal Council proposes to perform a reconnaissance study to explore the geothermal potential of the Ivanof Bay region.
The plan proposes a stepwise approach: geological field work (geological mapping, geochemical sampling, Geophysical surveys, sampling of the Big River) to
determine if there are any developable geothermal resources in the Ivanof Bay region. The known geothermal resources referenced in the application—Port
Moller, Kupreanof, and Aniakchak—are all at great distances from the communities of Perryville, Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, and Chignik Lake (between 28 and
>70 miles).
HDL provided cost estimates geothermal development at a number of known geothermal sites in Alaska. HDL’s Port Moller estimate ranged between $47 and
$92 million for a 1 MW plant. Total electricity generation of the communities of Perryville, Chignik, Chignik Lake, and Chignik Lagoon equals approximately 1.6
million kWh per year. Using this as the yearly energy consumption, the levelized cost of energy would be $2 to $3.50/kWh assuming no operation and
maintenance cost, a 25-year life, and a 3% real discount rate.
The project is expected to begin in August 2012 and be completed by December 2013.
DGGS comments are as follows: “The proposal seeks to investigate the geothermal potential of the Ivanof Bay area and is based on fumaroles fields related to
Kupreanof Volcano and a deep oil and gas exploration well drilled in 1976-1977, the Big River A-01. The proposal will gather literature and thermal satellite
images, and proposes to test geothermal prospecting and exploration techniques including geochemical sampling, shallow temperature surveys using thermal
probes, gravity and/or magnetotelluric surveys in select locations and evaluate the Big River A-01 core. The proposal could be improved by providing a map
showing the locations of the communities, fumarole fields, oil and gas well and be more specific in delineating the areas where geothermal exploration will be
conducted. The resource proposed for study is distant from the Chignik communities (~90 km, with at least some FWS Refuge land in between). Although the
Big River well encountered geothermally interesting temperatures (~190F) the depth was great (~12,000') and the drilling log mentions significant hydrothermal
mineralization which would presumably have a large negative impact on reservoir characteristics. Significant spring systems suggestive of a shallower, more
accessible, hydrothermal system do not exist.”
AEA’s is concerned that
1. Due to the great distances to the known geothermal resources and the low likelihood of finding an unknown geothermal resource, the proposal carries
significant risks for finding a suitable resource.
2. Were a resource identified, the cost of developing it would be prohibitively high.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$911,400
$50,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$961,400
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.80 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 133
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
867 Reconnaissance Study of the Geothermal Potential for the Ivanoff Bay Region
Ivanoff Bay Tribal Council
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)25.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
38.00
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The proposal seeks to investigate the geothermal potential of the Ivanof Bay area and is based on fumaroles fields related to Kupreanof Volcano and a deep oil
and gas exploration well drilled in 1976-77, the Big River A-01. The proposal will gather literature and thermal satellite images, and proposes to test geothermal
prospecting and exploration techniques including geochemical sampling, shallow temperature surveys using thermal probes, gravity and/or magnetotelluric
surveys in select locations and evaluate the Big River A-01 core. The proposal could be improved by providing a map showing the locations of the communities,
fumarole fields, oil and gas well and be more specific in delineating the areas where geothermal exploration will be conducted. The resource proposed for study
is distant from the Chignik communities (~90 km, with at least some FWS Refuge land in between). Although the Big River well encountered geothermally
interesting temperatures (~190F) the depth was great (~12,000') and the drilling log mentions significant hydrothermal mineralization which would would
presumably have a large negative impact on reservoir characteristics. Significant spring systems suggestive of a shallower, more accessible, hydrothermal system
do not exist.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 134
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
868 TidGen™ Array Project
ORPC Alaska, LLC
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Ocean/RiverResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description
ORPC Alaska, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC (collectively, ORPC), develops technology and projects generating
emission-free electricity from water currents. Its technology includes the proprietary TidGen™ Power System, which includes one or more TidGen™ devices
connected to an on-shore station with power and data cables. In ORPC’s Cook Inlet TidGen™ Project, ORPC will install a four-device TidGen™ Power System
with a rated generating capacity of 600 kW in a 6-knot current. AEA Round 4 funding to ORPC will help fund a single-device TidGen™ Power System. This
Round 5 project, called the TidGen™ Array Project, will expand the system to a four-device TidGen™ Power System, by adding an array of three TidGen™
devices.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
ORPC Alaska 2, LLC, proposes the installation of three additional 150-kW TidGen power systems for the TidGen Array project at East Foreland, near Nikiski in
June 2014. The proposal is to fund the second stage of the tidal energy project that was funded under Round 4 of the RE Fund. ORPC received $2 million for
the deployment of the first 150 kW TidGen power system at the site. The four devices are expected to have a peak capacity of 600 kW.
ORPC has been active in Alaska for several years working on reconnaissance and feasibility projects at several sites around the state, including Cook Inlet. ORPC
has received several Department of Energy grants to perform research vital for their Alaska projects, including on Beluga whales and bearings that will survive the
inlet’s high sediment load. The Round 4 project is expected to begin in January 2013, with installation of the first tidal turbine in June 2013. The technology is
still under development. The first full-scale deployment of the 150 kW unit is expected in summer 2012 in Maine with support of a USDOE grant.
The East Foreland site is estimated to have very fast tidal currents (12 knots, or 6 m/s maximum velocities), making it highly energetic and technically challenging.
If the initial deployment is successful in 2013, the next stage, proposed in this application, is expected to begin in January 2014, with the installation of the next
three turbines expected in June 2014.
ORPC’s proposal includes letters of support from the university, Homer Electric Association, contractors, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Homer Electric Association
and others. The application makes a strong case that development of the project in Alaska will have significant employment, economic, and technology impacts in
the state. HEA has signed a letter of intent with ORPC to participate in the project.
However, given the State’s previous investment of $2 million through the Round 4 RE Fund and the pre-commercial nature of the technology, AEA believes that
it is too early for the State to invest further funds until more information is gained from the installation in Maine and the first turbine funded under Round 4
grant.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$2,000,000
$6,696,494
Total Potential Grant Amount:$8,696,494
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.17 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 135
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
868 TidGen™ Array Project
ORPC Alaska, LLC
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Ocean/RiverResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)5.31
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)19.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
29.31
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Authorizations from DNR are expected, but insufficient information to identify how many and what type.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 136
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
869 St. Mary's/Pitka's Point Wind Construction and Commissioning
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
AVEC proposes to complete construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of three Wind turbines and Secondary Load Controls (SLC) to supplement the
existing power generation system for currently intertied communities of St. Mary's and Pitka's Point. As a part of this project, AVEC would upgrade the electrical
distribution line between St. Mary's and Pitka's Point to a three phase line.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVEC proposes construction of a 300 kW wind farm to supply the St. Marys-Pitkas Point grid. The work would also upgrade the existing power line to the wind
farm site from single to three-phase. The wind resource appears to be class 6.
AVEC received $275,554 in round 4 of the REF for completing feasibility and final design and permitting (#645). Currently AEA is working with AVEC to put
the grant in place. The current application only includes the foundation design and electrical drawings for the turbine interconnect and transmission line. There is
no geotech final report (only preliminary). A special provision of the round 4 grant is that “before final design funds are disbursed AEA accepts the feasibility and
conceptual design report”.
In round 3 AVEC proposed final design, permitting, and construction of a 900 kW wind project and intertie to serve the communities of St. Marys, Mountain
Village, Pitkas Point, and Pilot Station (#516). In round 2 AVEC requested funding for feasibility assessment for this project (#298). AEA recommended both
proposals for funding; however there was not sufficient funding for either.
AVEC noted presence of icing during the met tower studies resulting in tower collapse in two locations.
Based on the work to date it appears that a wind farm to serve the St. Marys grid is viable. AEA believes that it is reasonable for AVEC to consider its original
concept of tying in Mountain Village and Pilot Station and upsizing the wind generation capacity.
Recommend full funding with requirement that round 4 work needs to be completed and accepted by AEA. Round 4 work should address the potential for tying
the communities together.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$3,998,920
$444,324
Total Potential Grant Amount:$4,443,244
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$3,998,920AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 137
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
869 St. Mary's/Pitka's Point Wind Construction and Commissioning
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.901.22
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)2.50
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)18.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)12.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)10.80
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
55.42
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 138
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
870 Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heat
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
A detailed feasibility study has been completed. This analysis has clearly shown that the project is both feasible and cost effective. These next two phases of the
project(design and construction) will build on the work that has been done to date. AVEC has already implemented electric boilers within its facilities in several
villages. These efforts have clearly demonstrated the ability to integrate the electric boilers into the existing systems. The challenge of this project will be to
demonstrate that the electric boiler technology and controls can be successfully used to provide heat to the various use points at the water treatment plant on an
interruptible basis. The availability of the water tank for thermal storage greatly reduces any risks. Currently, AVEC’s two wind turbines Northern Power Systems
100A models) in Mekoryuk generate in excess of community requirements when there is moderate to heavy wind and when the community load is light. Much of
this excess is not captured,since there is no economic way to store the energy. AVEC,together with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative,Inc. Mekoryuk Water System Surplus Wind Energy Recovery Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA 12-001 Grant
Application Page 3 of 138/26/2011 (ANTHC) with input from the City of Mekoryuk, are planning to design and construct a secondary load installation to capture
the excess energy to power space heating at the water treatment plant, drinking water storage tank heating, and washeteria hot water heating and clothes drying.
Design of the proposed equipment would be based on AVEC’s other secondary load projects adapted to installation into the water treatment plant.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess
energy created by Mekoryuk’s existing 200 kW wind system funded in RE Fund round12 (#72). The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant
space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating.
AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $278,378, of which $123,919 (5%) would come
as a match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $264,459, is requested from the RE Fund.
The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and
ANTHC.
The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current
system configuration, only 49% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 51% of the output is excess power and available for
offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA’s
modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$264,459
$13,919
Total Potential Grant Amount:$278,378
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$264,459AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 139
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
870 Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heat
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.542.68
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)9.12
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)18.44
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)14.97
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
62.03
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 140
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
871 Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Shaktoolik Water System Heat
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
AVEC’s two wind turbines (Northern Power Systems 100B models) in Shaktoolik when started up later this year will generate in excess of community
requirements when there is moderate to heavy wind and when the community load is light. Much of this excess will not be used, since there is no economic way to
store the energy. AVEC, together with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, with input from the City of Shaktoolik, are planning to design and construct a
secondary load installation to capture the excess energy to power water treatment plant space heating, drinking water storage tank heating, and circulation loop
heating. Design of the proposed equipment would be based on AVEC’s other secondary load installations and adapted to installation into the water treatment
plant.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess
energy created by Shaktoolik’s existing 200 kW wind system funded in RE Fund round 2 (#303). The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment
plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating.
The round 2 grant included a 260 kW electric boiler as a secondary load to be installed in the power plant.
AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $252,905, of which $12,645 (5%) would come as
an in-kind match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $240,260, is requested from the RE Fund.
The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and
ANTHC.
The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current
system configuration, only 44% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 56% of the output is excess power and available for
offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA’s
modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$240,260
$12,645
Total Potential Grant Amount:$252,905
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$240,260AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 141
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
871 Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Shaktoolik Water System Heat
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
3.583.58
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.37
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)15.97
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
63.03
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 142
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
872 Mountain Village Wind Energy Construction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
AVEC proposes to complete erection,startup,and commissioning of wo NW100 wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation system for Mountain
Village. AVEC would also upgrade the switchgear and add remote control to the system.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVEC proposes final design and construction of a 200 kW wind farm to serve the community of Mt. Village. The project would include 5-7 miles of transmission
between the turbine site and the Mountain Village system.
The completion of this project would benefit the community through stabilized energy costs. AVEC would also improve the switch gear and add remote control
to the system. The wind resource appears to be very good, a class 5.
AVEC’s proposal included a HOMER model that assumed 100% turbine availability and 100% utilization of turbine generation at 35% capacity factor. Excess
wind energy is not addressed.
AEA has the following concerns about this project:
1. AVEC’s assumptions on wind generation and utilization appear overly optimistic.
2. Given a high project cost of $4.2 million ($21,000/kW), which includes the transmission, economics are poor (B/C = 0.6 to 0.9). Benefit/cost may improve if
the system is tied to the St. Mary’s grid.)
3. AVEC does not provide a feasibility analysis and conceptual design with the proposal.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$3,795,575
$421,731
Total Potential Grant Amount:$4,217,306
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 143
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
872 Mountain Village Wind Energy Construction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.600.90
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)15.94
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)12.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
32.94
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 144
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
873 Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
AVEC proposes to install a wind meteorological (met)tower and complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Shishmaref.
The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the land owner for the placement of the met tower, geotechnical field work, permitting,
transporting and installing a met tower at this location, studying the wind resource for one year,and conducting a reconnaissance - level geotechnical investigation
to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and
geotechnical investigation. This project will also consider other turbines that can be relocated, if the village decides to move to another location.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Shishmaref. Wind resource is estimated as a class 5 based on the high-resolution wind map.
This application is one of two wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 5. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2-4 for feasibility assessment in
10 other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks—including project development/scoping and contractor
solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental
analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic
and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA
thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and
management of these projects.
Due to severe coastal erosion the community of Shishmaref is considering moving.
Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, AVEC will prepare budgets for both round 5 wind feasibility projects with the goal of
identifying opportunities to reduce costs.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$142,500
$7,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$150,000
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.60 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$142,500AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 145
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
873 Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.181.30
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)5.25
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)2.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)18.75
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)12.47
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
54.13
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 146
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
874 Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The primary financial benefit from this project would be to determine whether the wind resources are suitable to provide power to the community and to prepare
a conceptual design of a wind facility. Assuming installation of one NW100 turbine, it could produce 230,000 kWh annually. The possible displacement of diesel
fuel used for village power generation in Goodnews Bay could be 13,000 gal/yr (HOMER simulation, assuming 80% turbine availability, Tab G). This project
could save about $72,400 during the first year of operation (2014). See the detailed project benefits in Section 5.0.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Goodnews Bay. Wind resource is estimate as a class 4 based on the high-resolution wind map.
AEA notes an area of class 5 resource near Goodnews.
The City of Goodnews Bay, in cooperation with ANTHC, has proposed generating wind power to heat the water treatment plant and the washeteria (#859).
Although AEA is recommending against funding the City's project, the current proposal provides a way of addressing the City's proposed assessment.
This application is one of two wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 5. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2-4 for feasibility assessment in
10 other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks—including project development/scoping and contractor
solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental
analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic
and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA
thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and
management of these projects.
Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, 1) AVEC will prepare budgets for both round 5 wind feasibility projects with the goal of
identifying opportunities to reduce costs, and 2) work with the City and ANTHC to include scope of work that addresses feasibility of heating the water treatment
plant and washeteria.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$142,500
$7,500
Total Potential Grant Amount: $150,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.47 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$142,500AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 147
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
874 Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.761.31
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)0.75
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)14.69
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)11.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
46.34
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on DMLW land - no DMLW land permit required for installation. Cross-country travel permit may be required for access.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 148
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
875 Chevak Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Chevak Water System Heat
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
Currently, AVEC’s four wind turbines (Northern Power Systems 100B models) in Chevak generate in excess of community requirements when there is moderate
to heavy wind and when the community load is light. Much of this excess energy is not captured, since there is no economic way to store the energy. AVEC,
together with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium with input from the City of Chevak, are planning to design and construct a secondary load installation to
capture the excess energy to power space heating at the water treatment plant and drinking water storage tank heating. Design of the proposed equipment would
be based on AVEC’s other secondary load installations adapted to installation into the water treatment plant.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess
energy created by Chevak’s existing 400kW wind system. The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop
circulation heating, and water storage tank heating.
AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $252,905, of which $12,645 (5%) would come as
an in-kind match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $240,260, is requested from the RE Fund.
The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and
ANTHC.
The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current
system configuration, only 61% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 39% of the output is excess power and available for
offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA’s
modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration.
Full funding recommended.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$240,260
$12,645
Total Potential Grant Amount:$252,905
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$240,260AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 149
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
875 Chevak Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Chevak Water System Heat
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
2.502.50
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.37
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)15.97
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
65.03
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on DMLW land - no DMLW land permit required for installation. Cross-country travel permit may be required for access.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 150
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
876 Gambell Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
Currently, AVEC’s three wind turbines (Northern Power Systems 100A models) in Gambell generate in excess of community requirements when there is
moderate to heavy wind and when the community load is light. Much of this excess is not captured,since there is no economic way to store the energy. AVEC,
together with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium with input from the City of Gambell, are planning to design and construct a secondary load installation to
capture the excess energy to power water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. Design of the
proposed equipment would be based on the secondary load installations and adapted to installation into the water treatment plant.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess
energy created by Gambell’s existing 300 kW wind system. The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop
circulation heating, and water storage tank heating.
AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $252,905, of which $12,645 (5%) would come as
an in-kind match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $240,260, is requested from the RE Fund.
The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and
ANTHC.
The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current
system configuration, only 55% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 45% of the output is excess power and available for
offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA’s
modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$240,260
$12,645
Total Potential Grant Amount:$252,905
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.53 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$240,260AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 151
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
876 Gambell Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
2.072.88
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.37
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)16.56
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)15.97
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
63.40
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 152
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
877 Upper Kalskag Solar Construction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
AVEC proposes to install a 10 kWh solar array in Upper Kalskag. The array would be installed on the side of the existing power plant facility that is owned and
operated by AVEC. Work would involve shipping materials to the community, installing, integrating, testing, and commissioning the array. A small solar array in
Upper Kalskag would help AVEC evaluate the benefits of solar arrays installed at power generating facilities.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVEC proposes to install a 10 kW solar array on the side of the existing power plant in Upper Kalskag. AVEC estimates an annual savings of 9,096kWh and 673
gallons of diesel fuel per year to offset operating costs and station service. This equates to a capacity factor of 12.5%.
The proposed project is similar to the Kaltag Solar project that is funded from REF 4 (#877). That project scope mounts the PV array on a CONEX container
instead of the AVEC building. The CONEX model allows for lower costs through construction in Fairbanks with only minor assembly in Upper Kalskag. The
Conex can be optimally oriented to capture the most solar gain as opposed to the powerhouse orientation.
Economics appear marginal. AEA believes that the Kaltag project, which was funded as a demonstration project, should be on line long enough to assess
performance and economics before further funds are allocated to similar projects.
Recommend no funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$90,000
$10,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$100,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 153
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
877 Upper Kalskag Solar Construction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.780.86
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)15.94
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)10.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
29.94
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on DMLW land - no DMLW land permit required for installation. Cross-country travel permit may be required for access.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 154
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
878 Emmonak/Alakanuk Phase 2 Wind Energy Construction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
This project would add two additional NW100B turbines to the existing wind farm (consisting off our NW100B turbines) in Emmonak to complete the originally
planned wind farm serving the communities of Emmonak and Alakanuk.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVEC proposes to add two NW100 turbines to their 400 kW Emmonak wind farm, boosting capacity to 600 kW.
Although the first project was awarded in Round 1, a wind resource analysis report was not published until August 2010. This wind resource report estimates a
capacity factor of only 18.7% for a NW100B at 80% turbine availability. This is substantially less than AVEC’s estimate (23.8% capacity factor corresponding to a
total of 1,250,000kWh). Neither AEA nor AVEC were aware at the time of the Round 1 proposal and award that the wind resource would result in the low
capacity factors and wind power densities actually seen at this site.
Depending on energy production assumptions, the benefit/cost ranges from 0.61 to 0.69, thus appearing to be marginal at this point. A more accurate assessment
of production will be available after a year or so of operation of the existing 400kW wind system.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$2,408,646
$267,627
Total Potential Grant Amount:$2,676,273
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.52 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 155
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
878 Emmonak/Alakanuk Phase 2 Wind Energy Construction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.470.69
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)16.25
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)12.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
33.25
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on DMLW land - no DMLW land permit required for installation. Cross-country travel permit likely required for access, as such permits were acquired for
previous installations at this site.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 156
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
879 St. Michael / Stebbins Wind Energy Design
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
AVEC is proposing to complete final design and permitting for four wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation systems in St. Michael and
Stebbins. Work under this grant will also be used to design controls for the power generation system at a power plant in Stebbins. AVEC has completed the
design and obtained permits for the intertie between St. Michael and Stebbins. Once work done under this grant is completed, AVEC will seek funding to
construct turbines and an intertie to serve both communities.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVEC proposes final design and permitting for four wind turbines that would supplement existing power systems in St. Michael and Stebbins. The grant also
includes designing controls for the power system in Stebbins. Additionally, AVEC has completed design and permitting for an intertie between St. Michael and
Stebbins. If this grant is approved, AVEC will seek funding for construction of the turbines and the intertie. Currently AVEC is working on feasibility and
conceptual design of the St. Michael/Stebbins wind system with an expected completion of December 2012.
The wind resource completed in Aug. 2011 shows class 5 winds. Turbulence is low at this site. Average system penetration would be 29%.
Given the very good wind resource, AEA believes that it is reasonable to allocate funding for the next phase of project development.
Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA accept feasibility and conceptual design before finalizing the round 5 grant agreement.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$223,250
$11,750
Total Potential Grant Amount:$235,000
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.54 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$223,250AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 157
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
879 St. Michael / Stebbins Wind Energy Design
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.650.98
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)1.38
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)16.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)8.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)11.60
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
50.85
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 158
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
880 Tanana Solar Thermal Public Facilities Heating Project
City of Tanana
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The Tanana Solar Thermal Public Facilities Spacing Heating Project seeks to demonstrate and implement the market transformative benefits of combining
biomass space heating technologies currently being installed at Tanana’s public facilities with solar thermal collectors. During the winter months the heat energy
generated by the biomass boilers offsets a substantial amount of the fuel oil normally required. The cordwood fuel source also allows many of the operating costs
to remain in the community since the supply of the cordwood and manpower required to feed and boilers is local. During the summer the biomass boilers are a
less desirable alternative. The focus and energies of the community are diverted to essential traditional cultural activities. The solar thermal, which is a passive heat
energy source that can operate largely unattended, allows those activities to continue uninterrupted. Thus it is an excellent companion to the biomass and can
contribute substantially to the heat energy requirement for at least nine months of the year. The combination of the two heat energy sources virtually eliminates
the dependency on fuel oil as the heat energy source.
The City believes that the integration of solar thermal is essential to the continued development and expansion of the biomass program in Alaska. The resulting
combination system is more compatible with the life styles and cultural activities of people in rural Alaska, further reduces the ongoing operational costs of the
heat energy system, and reduces the long term impact on the area biomass resource due to the system operation. For this project, the City of Tanana has selected
four buildings in Tanana that have biomass systems – the washeteria, the tribal complex, the teacher housing duplex, and a single residence teacher housing unit.
This mix represents a good cross section of both commercially and residentially oriented systems. Due to the highly variable temperatures found in the biomass
systems, the City has selected indirect, glycol based evacuated tube collectors with variable speed circulation pumps and supplemental heat storage tanks for the
solar thermal systems. In the washeteria, the integral storage of the GARN boilers will be utilized. In the other facilities that are utilizing Econoburn gasification
boilers with limited internal storage capacity, supplemental storage tanks will be installed in conjunction with the solar thermal.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City of Tanana proposes funding for adding solar thermal to the existing wood-fired systems that supply the washeteria, tribal complex, and teacher housing
buildings. The combined solar and wood projects will meet most of the heating requirements of four public facilities.
The project includes $79,000 for system performance monitoring for demonstration purposes.
Although the project appears technically feasible, economics are poor to marginal with AEA’s standard assumption of a 20-year project life, even if the $79,000
cost is removed.
Recommend no funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$359,000
$100,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$459,000
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.67 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 159
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
880 Tanana Solar Thermal Public Facilities Heating Project
City of Tanana
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.580.79
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)20.94
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
22.94
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project as described does not involve state land. Therefore, no land permits or easements from the state are required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 160
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
881 Tanacross Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project
Tanacross Village Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
Tanacross’ predicament, as is the case for most of rural Alaska, is its dependence on imported expensive petroleum heating oil for space heating of essential
community facilities and infrastructure which support the provision of valuable social, health and safety services to residents of Tanacross. This Project will
construct one centrally located woody biomass space heating plant to substitute for expensive, imported heating oil use and wil heat 80% of Tanacross’ public
facilities with high efficiency bio-mass (wood-fired) heating. Tanacross’ community facilities are centrally located and can be serviced by one woody biomass
heating plant strategically located adjacent to Tanacross’ clustered public facilities (see Map Attachment). Tanacross Village Council is requesting AEA Round 5 in
the amount of $420,000. Tanacross Village Council will contribute $170,000 of in-kind building materials to this exciting Project. Combined, Tanacross Village
Council will construct a single woody biomass plant to heat four (4) community facility which is estimated to displace 26,500 gallons of imported heating oil and
create local wood-harvesting employment/small business opportunities.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Tanacross Village Council proposes final design and construction of a three-Garn wood boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of the
multi-use facility, water/sewer heating loop, fire station, and the community hall. The system would consume approximately 260 cords per year and displace
25,300 gallons of fuel oil per year—90% of the facility loads.
Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. TVC is supplying match including materials
for a boiler building and arctic pipe system.
AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuelwood market in the Tok area. AEA will work
with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding with requirement that Tanacross provide a fuel supply plan and final design acceptable to AEA before construction funds are disbursed.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$420,000
$170,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$590,000
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.37 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$420,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 161
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
881 Tanacross Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project
Tanacross Village Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.541.86
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)2.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)11.56
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)16.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)14.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
61.46
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved. Assume biomass is from corporation lands.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for construction of three centrally located Garn boilers to heat four clustered community buildings. It is expected that about 26,000 gallons of
heating oil will be displaced by the project. At a price of $5.00 per gallon, $126,500 is spent annually on fuel oil purchases. Based on the village of Tanana’s
experience in operating the Garn boilers, one cord of seasoned fuel wood is roughly equivalent to 100 gallons of fuel oil. Thus this conversion equates to an
annual wood requirement for Tanacross of about 260 cords or 87 cords per boiler. This amount of wood stoking may be somewhat optimistic given that the
village of Tanana is burning between 35 and 50 cords per Garn unit. However, this depends on the number of times per day each Garn boiler is fired.
Cordwood can be purchased for $200 per cord for a total price of $52,000.
A large fire burned in the Tanacross area in 2010 which contains significant dead material suitable for firewood. In addition Tanacross has identified hazard fuel
reduction areas of 1,800 acres that would also be a supply of firewood. The 2010 Tanana Valley Inventory Update indicates the Tok Management Area averages
about 14 cords per acre. Tanacross would then need to harvest approximately 19 acres per year to supply the Garn boilers. This amount appears to be
sustainable based on the number of forested acres within the State Forest and Tanacross Inc. lands and with the additional burned over lands. An appropriate
harvest schedule would need to be developed to plan access to these areas.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 162
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
882 Mentasta Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project
Mentasta Traditional Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
Mentasta’s predicament, as is the case for most of rural Alaska, is its dependence on imported expensive petroleum heating oil for space heating of essential
community facilities and infrastructure which support the provision of valuable social, health and safety services to residents of Mentasta. This Project will
construct one centrally located woody biomass space heating plant to substitute for expensive, imported heating oil use and will heat 80% of Mentasta’s public
facilities with high efficiency bio-mass (wood-fired) heating. Mentasta’s community facilities are centrally located and can be serviced by one woody biomass
heating plant strategically located adjacent to Mentasta’s clustered public facilities (see Map Attachment). Mentasta Traditional Council is requesting AEA Round 5
in the amount of $400,000 and will construct a single woody biomass plant to heat five (5) community facility which is estimated to displace 10,800 gallons of
imported heating oil and create local wood-harvesting employment/small business opportunities.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Mentasta Village Council proposes final design and construction of a three-Garn wood boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of the
multi-use facility, council building and post office, fire station, clinic and the community hall. The system would consume approximately 110 cords per year and
displace 10,800 gallons of fuel oil per year—90% of the facility loads.
Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. MVC is not supplying a match.
AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuelwood market in the Tok area. AEA will work
with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding with requirement that Mentasta provide a fuel supply plan and final design acceptable to AEA before construction funds are disbursed.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$400,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$400,000
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$400,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 163
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
882 Mentasta Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project
Mentasta Traditional Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
PlentovichAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.141.31
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)6.63
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)19.38
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)12.47
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
47.47
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land ownership.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is similar in scope to the above Tanacross project # 881. It is for the construction of three centrally located Garn boilers to heat five clustered
community buildings. It is expected that about 10,800 gallons of heating oil will be displaced by the project. The annual wood requirement is 110 cords of
seasoned fuel wood at $220 per cord. The Mentasta Community Wildfire Protection Plan calls for 1,200 acres of forest managed for hazard fuel reduction.
Based on the Tok Management Area’s average of 14 cords per acre, a significant amount of volume could be available from the hazard fuel reduction clearings.
Fuel wood is also available for purchase from Tok at the delivered price of $220.00 per cord.
The Tanana Chiefs Conference forestry program conducted a forest inventory for Mentasta Village Lands in 1989. In the report a spruce allowable harvest of
106 acres per year was calculated yielding over 2,000 cords. Thus, the annual wood requirement for this project appears sustainable even if the wood resource
was mostly sourced from village lands.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 164
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
883 Transmission Line from Fire Island Wind Project
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIR]), created a special purpose entity called Fire Island Wind, LLC (FIW) to develop a wind farm on Fire Island. The Fire Island Wind
Farm ("the Wind Farm") is a utility-scale wind generation facility under development, ultimately planned to have a nameplate capacity of 52.8 MW and to be
comprised of 33 wind turbine generators. Pursuant to a recently completed Power Purchase Agreement (PP A), Chugach, as Buyer, has agreed to purchase the
electrical output from Phase I of the Wind Farm, which will be comprised of 11 General Electric ("GE") 1.6MW type XLE turbines for a total Phase] of 17.6
MW. The Project that is the subject of this grant application includes the construction of the transmission line, which will interconnect the Fire Island Wind Farm
(as well as a few retail electric customers on Fire Island), with Chugach's 34.5kV system at the International Substation. The Wind Farm will initially consist of 11
-1.6MW OE wind turbines that will be consolidated into a single 34.5kV feeder. The feeder will be routed to a collector yard. The collector yard will connect to a
double-circuit 34.5kV overhead transmission line running approximately 2.8 miles to the northeast coast of Fire Island. At that point, it will be connected to two
34.5kV 3 phase submarine cables. The submarine cables will run approximately 3.2 miles under the Cook Inlet to the mainland coast near Point Campbell and
Anchorage International Airport. At Point Campbell, the conductors will be separated into single conductors and buried in a trench. The transmission lines will
then continue approximately 6.2 miles to the International Substation and connect to the 34.5kV bus at the International Substation. Portions of underground
mainland section will be installed in conduit. Splice cabinets will be required at various points on the underground section of the project. A map and drawing
outlining the wind farm site and transmission Project is attached as Appendix 1.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Chugach Electric proposes funding for construction of dual 34.5 kV transmission from the International Substation in Anchorage to Fire Island to transmit the
power generated by the 17.6 MW Fire Island Wind Farm to the Chugach Electric system.
A special-purpose entity, Fire Island Wind LLC, a subsidiary of CIRI, will design and build the transmission line. Following completion and commissioning line
ownership of the line will be transferred to Chugach.
In processing the $25 million legislative grant for the project, AEA has reviewed the power sales agreement and approved the construction work plan for the
project. The project appears to be technically and economically viable.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$4,000,000
$25,000,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$29,000,000
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.13 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$4,000,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 165
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
883 Transmission Line from Fire Island Wind Project
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
StrandbergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.000.86
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)10.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)1.88
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)4.06
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)18.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)13.90
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
57.84
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Requires authorizations from DMLW for submerged ROW and potentially for construction.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 166
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
884 Nenana’s Solar-Powered Student Living Center
City of Nenana/Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The Nenana Student Living Center (NSLC) is a 27,000 sq ft student dormitory in Alaska’s Interior village of Nenana that houses and feeds 88 students and 10
staff members during the school year. The building is owned by the City of Nenana, but operating costs are paid by the Nenana School District. This building has
in-floor radiant heating across approximately 20,000 square feet. Due to the architecture of the building (1-story, view from above looks like a U) there is more
than 11,000 square feet of exterior wall. Over a typical year, the building burns 27,000-30,000 gallons of heating fuel, consuming 150-200 gallons each day during
the coldest parts of the Interior Alaskan winter. Operating costs are passed directly onto the already burdened school district. Integrating a large solar hot water
array with heliodyne flat-plate solar collectors, a large solar hot water storage tank, dual coil DHW tank, forced air heating preheat loops and already planned
insulation upgrades we can offset up to 30% of the building’s heating costs. With heating fuel at $3.50 gal coming into this winter that will save $30,000 in the first
year alone.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council proposes to integrate a large solar hot water array with Heliodyne flat-plate solar collectors and related components
to help offset about 20% of the current heating costs for the student dormitory. The applicant is requesting $300,000 from Round V funding. The total cost of
the project is estimated at $340,000, $300,000 of which is capital costs. In-kind resources total $40,000.
Following initial review of this application AEA requested additional information regarding 1) solar energy availability and heating load that supports the estimate
that the project would displace 5,841 gallons of fuel oil per year, 2) performance data from the existing solar thermal panels, and 3) timing of design work to
justify eligible match amount.
In response YRITWC submitted information indicating that 1) they assume that 100% of the heat available from the panels could be used to heat the building
since the project would include thermal storage and 2) data from the existing project is unreliable and contractor ABS was not able to get access to other data.
Since feasibility and conceptual design are not yet complete AEA believes that there is insufficient information available to conclude that the system is
economically feasible. YRITWC is not able to provide information on the operation of the existing solar thermal panels. AEA notes that a separate solar thermal
project in McKinley Village funded in round 1 (#108) that was substantially complete in 2009 has not provided data that confirms expected savings.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$300,000
$40,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$340,000
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.20 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 167
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
884 Nenana’s Solar-Powered Student Living Center
City of Nenana/Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)6.25
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
22.25
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project as described does not involve state land. Therefore, no land permits or easements from the state are required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 168
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
885 High Penetration Wind Diesel Power and Heat
Kipnuk Light Plant
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The proposed project is a high penetration wind diesel system for the community of Kipnuk. Kipnuk is located at the western mouth of the Kuskokwim River,
and has a population of 690 permanent residents. The project will be owned and operated by the Kipnuk Light Plant and the community of Kipnuk and will
consist of three Northwind 100 wind turbines. These turbines are to be integrated into the current power system through the use of a control module and two
heat recovery boilers. The control module will house new switchgear, metering, and controls. The module will be designed to interface with the existing and
proposed new diesel power plants, as well as provide space and electrical connections for future energy storage system options such as a battery or a flywheel
system. The control module will be located nearby the existing and proposed future diesel plant. The wind turbines will connect to the existing power grid through
a 5 pole, 12470 volt 3 phase power line extension. Wind diesel power will be regulated using two controlled 200 kW electric boilers - one located in the community
center and one located in the newly commissioned washeteria/water plant. The wind turbines are well proven in Alaska and the control and integration method is
well understood. Geotechnical investigations have already been conducted and the wind turbines, power poles and power/control module will be placed on driven
piles. Property has been provided by the community for the installation of up to 5 wind turbines. Kipnuk’s electrical load has grown by nearly 30% since the
commissioning of the new water system in December of 2010. A new school is being constructed in Kipnuk during the winter of 2012/2013. This new school will
increase the average electrical load from 50 to 75 kW with a commensurate increase in heating fuel usage estimated at over 20,000 gallons. Construction of the
school in Kipnuk is scheduled to begin the Fall 2012 and continue through 2013. Coordination with the school construction could result in cost savings sufficient
to install a 4th wind turbine. Significant savings would result from the day rental of heavy equipment such as cranes, loaders and pile drivers, and specialized
personnel that will be mobilized for the school construction. The control and integration capacity in the proposed design can accommodate up to 5 wind turbines.
Power produced from a possible fourth wind turbine would result in additional fuel savings of up to 18,000 gallons. Cost savings would result from unburdening
the wind project from carrying the full cost of heavy equipment mobilization, rental, and over-wintering from the Fall of 2012 to the Spring of 2013. This wind
diesel system architecture is scalable through the addition of wind turbines, new diesel gensets, and energy storage. Kipnuk is a productive wind site in which each
Northwind 100 turbine has the potential to annually produce 300,000 kWhrs of electricity. This equates to a per turbine potential fuel displacements of 18,000 to
20,000 gallon of diesel fuel and a total displacement for 3 turbines of upwards of 55,000 gallons.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Kipnuk Light Plant proposes the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a high penetration wind-diesel system in Kipnuk. The project would
include three Northern 100 turbines, a five pole transmission line, secondary loads and a control module containing switchgear, metering and controls. The
secondary loads would supply heat to the community center and the new washeteria/water plant.
The proposed project is located in a possible class 5-6 wind regime and follows a community wide approach at addressing rising energy demands.
AEA notes that the power system will not support integration of wind turbines in its current state. Recently, in order to address reliability issues, AEA has
provided two diesel gensets and repaired the foundation of the powerhouse. Generation efficiency appears poor—11 kWh/gal in FY09 and 6 kWh/gal in FY10.
AEA plans a statewide condition assessment of rural power systems in early 2012 and expects that Kipnuk will rank high in priority for upgrade.
Kipnuk has received a $1.2 million in a legislative grant that is available for the proposed work, including conceptual design.
AEA has the following concerns:
1) A meteorological tower study and wind resource assessment has not been completed at the proposed turbine location.
2) An acceptable conceptual design report that covers the diesel and wind generation and distribution systems has not been prepared prior to the proposed final
design and permitting.
3) While some upgrades to the existing power plant are progressing, a new power plant is needed and has been proposed by the community. This new power
plant and any other required system upgrades should be included in the system design through the conceptual design report process.
AEA will offer the community a met tower in 2012 through the state anemometer loan program.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$2,686,450
$1,000,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$3,686,450
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.50 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 169
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
885 High Penetration Wind Diesel Power and Heat
Kipnuk Light Plant
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 15.63
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
32.63
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on DMLW land - no DMLW land permit required for installation. Cross-country travel permit may be required for access.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 170
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
886 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project
Chitina Electric, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The proposed Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project consists of four major components, including:
-A creek diversion structure- The diversion structure would create a small impoundment that would divert a portion of flow from Fivemile Creek into a pipeline
(penstock).
-A penstock. The penstock is a pipeline that will transport water from the intake structure to the turbine powerhouse. The penstock for this project will be around
12-inches in diameter and 10,000 linear feet long. Its primary purpose is to pressurize and deliver the water from the creek to the turbine power plant.
-A hydroelectric turbine power plant – The power plant will house the turbine and electrical generating equipment and controls. Water from the penstock will spin
the turbine and generators and produce electricity. The power plant will include a tailrace that will return water from the penstock to the creek bed.
- Electrical tie-in – An overhead high voltage line will connect the turbine power plant to the existing electrical distribution system near the airport.
-Diesel integration – The proposed hydro will be linked to the community’s existing, AEA type, diesel powerhouse module.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Chitina Electric Inc. requests construction funding to build a high head, 300 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Fivemile Creek near Chitina. Two prior
REF grants have been awarded to CEI to date including $303,000 for feasibility study in Round II (#236) and $277,000 for permitting and final design in Round
IV (#682). The site appears to be promising as a source of hydroelectric power which can displace much of the current diesel generation of electricity. AEA
constructed a new diesel powerhouse in 2008 near the proposed hydro power house site near the airport about 5 miles from Chitina. This proximity will allow
hydro/diesel integration issues to be minimal. AEA's Rural Energy Group is managing the preconstruction phase of this project and is expected to manage the
future hydro project construction phase as well.
However, progress on the preconstruction phases of the project has been limited to a feasibility study. Although permitting, site control, final design and
construction cost estimate were funded in round 2 and 4, they are not yet complete. Construction challenges for this project include a deeply incised stream at the
proposed intake site, a highly erratic stream flow, and shallow bedrock along the proposed penstock route. Because of these challenges AEA believes that the
project construction risk is high and the project cost may be underestimated. Further final design and permitting work will help identify current construction
unknowns and reduce potential project risks.
Recommend no construction funding at this time.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$3,325,000
$500,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$3,825,000
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 171
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
886 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project
Chitina Electric, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)1.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)18.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)14.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
33.13
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on DMLW land. Requires permit for water rights
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 172
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
887 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
City of King Cove
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
This project will be a modest, run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility using Waterfall Creek and consisting of a concrete diversion/intake structure, 4,500’ HDPE
penstock pipeline, 16’x40’ metal powerhouse on concrete slab, Pelton Impulse Turbine and induction generator, remote-automatic control system, and 5,000’
access road. This facility will be a working partner to the city’s existing and highly successful Delta Creek hydroelectric project, which has been operating for the
last fifteen years.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City applied for funding in a pre-RE Fund solicitation (“Round zero”) in 2008. AEA recommended against funding this proposal due to lack of
demonstrated ability to sell the excess hydro power. In the current application the City includes a MOU from Peter Pan Seafoods stating the company’s interest
in purchasing a minimum of 800,000 kWh per year which will generate extra revenue for the City over the life of the project. The Waterfall Creek project can
reduce construction costs by expanding the existing powerhouse at Delta Creek and making use of existing transmission lines from that project.
The City completed a preminary design for the Waterfall Creek project in 2007-9 as part of a rural power system upgrade.
The City is in negotiations with ADF&G over instream flows required to maintain Dolly Varden habitat. Flow issues may affect project economics. However the
project economics are very favorable and can offset some project cost increases.
Preconstruction activities, including permitting, site control, final design plans and specs, and final construction cost estimate, are expected to be complete in
February 2013. Given the significant preconstruction activities that remain, AEA is believes that it premature to allocate funds for construction at this time.
Recommend partial funding of $200,000 for final design and permitting.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$1,900,000
$1,900,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$3,800,000
Funding & Cost
Aleutians
Energy Region:
Cost of Power: $0.26 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$200,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 173
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
887 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
City of King Cove
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
3.462.22
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)13.25
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)8.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)19.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)18.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
74.77
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on DMLW land. Requires permit for water rights. Cross-country travel permit may be required for site access
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Tsunami and strong ground motions from Aleutian subduction zone earthquakes are the primary seismic hazards at the site. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 174
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
888 Kodiak High School Ground Source Heat Pump
Kodiak Island Borough
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The project would provide design and construction of a ground source heat pump system consisting of a water-to-water heat pump and loopfield as the primary
source of heat for the new Kodiak High School. It is estimated that the heat pump will supply 85% of the heating load and the fuel oil boilers will supplement the
remaining load.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Kodiak Island Borough proposes to construct a hybrid fuel oil-fired and ground-source heat pump system for the new Kodiak High School currently under
construction. The hybrid system would consist of 198 wells 316’ deep and a 3,000 MBH (250-ton) heat pump.
The application provides a preliminary feasibility report including a detailed breakdown of project costs.
Since Kodiak is powered by hydroelectric and wind power, the GSHP would displace a significant amount of fuel oil (77,000 gal/yr). However the proposed
GSHP uses a substantial amount of electrical energy to run the system (1.9 million kWh/yr). Since savings are low compared to the high capital cost ($6.5 million)
AEA is concerned that economics are poor.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$3,900,000
$2,600,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$6,500,000
Funding & Cost
Kodiak
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.18 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 175
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
888 Kodiak High School Ground Source Heat Pump
Kodiak Island Borough
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.270.35
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)5.63
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
10.63
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on DMLW land. Use of subsurface may require DMLW authorization
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 176
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
889 Nikolski Renewable Energy Wind Project
Native Village of Nikolski
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
We propose to complete the integration of the existing 65 kW Vestas V-15 Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) with our existing diesel generation plant by adding a
synchronous condenser, an additional thermal load to the Waste Heat Recovery System, and revisiting the effort to modify the supervisory controls. We intend for
the WTG to be fully operational with the diesel plant and for the excess energy to maximize reduction of diesel used to provide heat to large community building.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Native Village of Nikolski requests funding to complete construction and commissioning of a 65-kW wind-diesel system.
In May 2006 AEA constructed a power plant with a total capacity of 180 kW. The community purchased a refurbished Vestas V15 wind turbine generator with a
grant from USDA RUS and cost share from APICDA in July 2007 ($474,475). In 2009, Nikolski received an RE Fund round 1 grant (#89) for $409,430 to
integrate the wind turbine generator with a heat-recovery system by installing boilers and thermal nodes. Most of the work was done by the community’s
contractor TDX Power. Currently the wind system remains inoperable.
Given our experience with the project, AEA has the following concerns:
1. Proposed budget seems too high.
2. The wind turbine generator may need repair due to extended non-operation in a marine environment.
3. The power output from the wind turbine generator is too high for the village load and diesel power system.
4. The proposed solution has not been demonstrated to be functional in other Alaska wind systems and is thus not guaranteed to provide a working
system.
Recommend full funding of $331,240 with a special provision that AEA will be directly involved in the management of this project. AEA staff will work directly
with the community and its contractors to establish a scope, design and budget for a functioning power system. The design portion of this project will not exceed
$50,000. Construction funds will be unallocated until the design, budget and schedule has been accepted by AEA. AEA notes that the round 1 grant
recommendation requires a 5-year O&M agreement with an entity acceptable to AEA.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$331,240
$50,080
Total Potential Grant Amount:$381,320
Funding & Cost
Aleutians
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.60 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$331,240AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 177
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
889 Nikolski Renewable Energy Wind Project
Native Village of Nikolski
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
1.030.76
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.67
5) Benefits (Max 15)4.13
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)2.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)18.75
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)8.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
55.71
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on DMLW land. No land permits required
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 178
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
890 Igiugig Wind, Solar, Hydrokinetic and Thermal Feasibility Study
Igiugig Village Council
Feasibility
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
An anemometer tower to collect wind data will be installed the Fall of 2011 by the Lake and Peninsula Borough. The met tower will also be equipped with a
pyranometer for monitoring the solar resource. We have an MOU in place to work with Marsh Creek, LLC to analyze the data and produce resource reports. A
hydrokinetic assessment study is in progress by Alaska Energy and Engineering. Marsh Creek, LLC will report on the technical and economic feasibility of
integrating renewable solar, wind, and the potential hydrokinetic resources with our diesel plant and to incorporate battery storage with the system to maximize the
offset of diesel for both heat and electricity in the community.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Failed Stage 1
Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$120,000
$5,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$125,000
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 179
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
890 Igiugig Wind, Solar, Hydrokinetic and Thermal Feasibility Study
Igiugig Village Council
Feasibility
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
9.00
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 180
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
891 Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
TDX Power, Inc.
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The project builds on existing reconnaissance level engineering work recently completed for a hydroelectric power plant in Adak, and makes use of Adak’s existing
infrastructure such as dams, access roads, and possibly an existing penstock. The reconnaissance studies show that a series of alpine lakes in the immediate vicinity
of the city have the potential to displace the diesel power plant as the primary energy source for Adak. Resource availability, engineering considerations, land
ownership and permitting issues were all considered. The diesel power plant would still be required for backup, and would be available to parallel with the
hydroelectric facility during high load conditions. TDX’s engineering feasibility studies will focus on two areas;
-Quantifying the hydroelectric potential. Work will include a detailed mapping and hydrology studies, a permitting evaluation including onsite studies and agency
consultations, assessment of alternatives, a detailed cost analysis for the selected project and development timeline; and,
- Interconnection requirements for integration with the utility, including analysis and selection of optimum generator and hydro-turbine size, type, and
configuration; identification of requirements for paralleling switchgear and controls, and all other major power system components.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
TDX Power requests funds to perform a feasibility study and conceptual design for hydroelectric development on Adak. This request builds on the
reconnaissance study funded in Round II (#315) which found several recommended hydro options. The most favorable scheme is a storage project on Lake
Bonnie Rose with a penstock discharging to a powerhouse on Mitt Lake. This option would offset much of the diesel generation for this community. A
substantial consideration in this request is to review options on how to potentially integrate any new renewable energy source with the existing diesel generation
equipment which was designed for 30x the present population when the Navy ran the base.
AEA is moving forward with a statewide inventory of rural power systems expected to be completed February 2012. Adak appears to be a strong candidate for
upgrade under the AEA-funded Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) program.
The work scope proposed will need further adjustment to reflect need for stream gauging, analysis of existing dam, final report, etc. No REF funds can be spent
on conventional diesel system and electrical distribution issues.
Recommend full funding with the requirements that 1) TDX will work with AEA staff to revise the scope and budget before the grant award, and 2) work needs
to be coordinated with RPSU program-supported work.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$314,367
Total Potential Grant Amount: $314,367
Funding & Cost
Aleutians
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.82 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$314,367AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 181
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
891 Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
TDX Power, Inc.
Design
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)6.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)2.37
6) Local Support (Max 5)1.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)25.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)13.33
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
52.21
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project involves meanderable water body. DNR permits are likely required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Tsunami and strong ground motions from Aleutian subduction zone earthquakes are the primary seismic hazards at the site. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 182
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
892 Kvichak River RISEC Project
Igiugig Village Council dba Igiugig Electric Company
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Ocean/RiverResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description
The continued objective of this project is to install a RISEC (River In-Stream Energy Conversion) device on the Kvichak River near the village of Igiugig. This
lake outlet location provides an ideal site for the study, testing and implementation of river in-stream energy conversion (RISEC) that will also benefit other Alaska
communities considering this renewable energy. A RISEC plant will convert available river kinetic energy into electric power, and feed into the existing Igiugig
electric grid to reduce diesel fuel consumption at the Igiugig power plant.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Iguigig Village Electric Company proposes a reconnaissance final design and construction to install hydrokinetic turbines on the Kvichak River.
The application would follow up feasibility and conceptual design work supported by RE Fund Round 2 (#265) funding of $707,250.
A reconnaissance report by EPRI in 2008, indicated that the Kvichak River near Iguigig was promising for hydrokinetic power due to suitable sites near the village
and that the Kvichak River is generally ice- and debris-free.
The application proposes to test multiple hydrokinetic devices (including ORPC and Whitestone device) in mid-2012 and 2013. The project proposes to continue
development through FERC’s pilot project stage, leaving commercial licensing until 2018.
A field study performed by Terrasond in 2011 under the Round 2 grant, located an area of interest that had depths of 2-3-meter depth, peak velocities near 2.5
m/s, and a highest average velocity across one transect at 2.3 m/s. Terrasond also performed geotechnical studies on the areas of interest. These characteristics
make it likely that the area would have a suitable resource for hydrokinetic development.
The application includes in-kind contributions from ORPC, which will test a 150 kW unit near Nikiski with support of a RE Fund grant (#660). The application
also proposes to fund the completion, construction, and testing of the Whitestone Poncelet device, an undershot waterwheel under development by the
Whitestone Community through assistance of a DOE grant.
AEA has the following concerns about this proposal:
1. Assuming a $9.4 million project cost and $100,000/yr in fuel savings, economics are poor.
2. Given that the chief goal of this project is technology development and demonstration, the site is remote from logistical and technical support.
Since the application aims to fund completion of an experimental device with no working prototype and test several other devices, it appears the Emerging
Energy Technology Fund would be a more appropriate funding mechanism.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$7,274,277
$1,414,756
Total Potential Grant Amount:$8,689,033
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.80 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 183
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
892 Kvichak River RISEC Project
Igiugig Village Council dba Igiugig Electric Company
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Ocean/RiverResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Utility
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)25.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
44.00
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project involves state-owned land and navigable waters. DNR permits required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 184
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
893 Reconnaissance Study of Thomas Bay Public Projects
City of Angoon
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
Reconnaissance Study of Thomas Bay Hydrological Resources.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Angoon requests funds for reconnaissance study of two potential hydro sites located near Petersburg in Thomas Bay--Scenery Lake and Ruth Lake.
The application indicates that the projects would provide energy to Kake, Angoon, and Hoonah but does not address specifics of how the energy would be
delivered to the communities. The City submitted separate applications for reconnaissance assessment for these projects in RE Fund round 3 (#430,485).
AEA has the following concerns about this project:
1. The City of Petersburg has already prepared a reconnaissance assessment for a hydro project at Ruth Lake (#38) with funding from RE Fund round 1.
2. The RE Fund has already funded projects that would supply hydro energy to Kake, Angoon, and Hoonah that have higher likelihood of development and
appear more economic.
3. At $2.4 million the project budget requested is excessive in relation to the likelihood of the project advancing.
In response to AEA's initial recommendation for no funding, the City of Angoon submitted a letter requesting reconsideration. Angoon asks that if AEA finds
the City of Petersburg reconnaissance study of Ruth Lake sufficient, then AEA should reduce the current request to a level that AEA believes is appropriate to
support a reconnaisance study of Scenery Lake. AEA has reviewed the round 1 funding allocated for the completed study of Ruth Lake, and on this basis believes
that partial funding of $205,000 to support basic reconnaissance assessment of a hydro project at Scenery Lake is reasonable.
As directed by the AEA executive director, staff continued Stage 2 technical review on the proposed project. The following describes rationale for the staff
Stage 2 scores:
1. Project Management, Development and Operation
a. The proposed schedule is unrealistic in that it purports to accomplish $2.4M worth of field work and other activities in twelve months.
b. The cost savings estimated include 100% electric heating conversions for all in Wrangell, Petersburg and Ketchikan when the project is brought online. Staff
believes this assumption is unrealistic.
c. The application is silent on the team’s method of communication, monitoring and reporting development progress.
2. Qualifications and Experience
a. The applicant and partner have little or no experience and training in hydro development, utility business, and utility operations. The contractor to perform
the studies is unnamed.
b. The project team does not appear to have staffing, time and other resources adequate to successfully complete the scope.
c. The project team has little technical or environmental expertise and the project has significant technical, economic and environmental barriers to contend
with.
d. No local labor is proposed for the project.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$2,400,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$2,400,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 185
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
893 Reconnaissance Study of Thomas Bay Public Projects
City of Angoon
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
9.09
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)1.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)17.19
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)5.67
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
26.85
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
High probability use of State land needed for access facilities and transmission line(s). Navagibility determination needed for lakes.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
There are no known active faults in the project vicinity. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 186
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
894 Alakanuk Waste Water Treatment Facility Wind Generation
City of Alakanuk
Construction
Design
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description
The wastewater treatment facility is the single largest electrical consumer in the city of Alakanuk, averaging 16,000 kWh per month or $5009.51 $1 kWh based on
current PCE rates. The city is provided power by AVEC, some of which is wind that is or will be generated in Emmonak. This proposal is to evaluate, design,
permit and install a stand-alone wind generator to service the wastewater treatment facility sized to provide a base loading of electrical equipment as decrease the
utility spend for this facility.yy
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Alakanuk proposes the reconnaissance, feasibility study, conceptual design, design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a stand-alone wind
turbine to provide electricity to the waste water treatment facility.
The City of Alakanuk is requesting funds for reconnaissance, feasibility study, conceptual design, design, permitting. The City of Alakanuk is requesting $14,650
for reconnaissance and feasibility and $16,700 for design and permitting for a total of $31,350 from the RE fund. A non-monetary in-kind contribution of lodging
and personnel assistance as required has been offered. The total project cost is not provided.
Alakanuk is intertied with Emmonak and AVEC provides power to both communities via an existing wind-diesel system. The proposed Alakanuk wind turbine
would be offsetting electricity from AVEC’s wind diesel system at a cost of $.31/kWh to the City of Alakanuk.
AEA has the following concerns:
1) Alakanuk is situated between Nunam Iqua and Emmonak which have established wind regimes of low class 3 and class 2 respectively. There is no evidence
that Alakanuk would have a more productive wind resource.
2) The project is not coordinated with AVEC’s wind farm in Emmonak, or more generally the community power system.
3) The applicant’s budget is insufficient for the proposed scope of work.
AEA recommends that the City use a comprehensive approach for identifying cost-reduction options through the regional energy plan for the Yukon-Kuskokwim
region, currently underway.
Recommend no funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$31,350
Total Potential Grant Amount:$31,350
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.52 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 187
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
894 Alakanuk Waste Water Treatment Facility Wind Generation
City of Alakanuk
Construction
Design
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
StrombergAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Local Government
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)16.25
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)5.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
21.25
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
It is unclear from the application if this project impacts state-owned lands or waters. DNR permits may be required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 188
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
895 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting
Independence Power, LLC
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description
The Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project is a low-impact run-of-river renewable energy project proposed near Seward, Alaska. The project would be located
east of the Spring Creek Correctional Facility and Fourth of July Creek Industrial Park, across Resurrection Bay from the City of Seward. The project is anticipated
to have an installed capacity of 5.4 MW and provide an estimated 21,700 MWh of energy annually. The project would supply approximately 1/3rd of Seward
Electric System's annual energy requirements. This proposed project phase (design and permitting) is contingent upon the favorable outcome of a feasibility study
that is scheduled to start in September 2011. In the event the feasibility study determines that the project is not viable, Independence Power, LLC (IP) intends to
withdraw this application from consideration.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Independence Power LLC proposes for permitting and final design for a 5.4 MW run-of-river hydro facility on Fourth of July Creek near Seward. This request
builds on previously funded grants in Round II (#86) for reconnaissance and in Round IV (#693) for feasibility. The grant award document indicates work began
on the funded feasibility study in September 2011 and is expected to be completed in September 2012.
This round 5 request is contingent upon findings of a favorable outcome from this feasibility study with AEA review and approval of those results. However,
those results will not be available until late 2012. There is also a significant issue regarding how the project, estimated at $16.7-27M will be financed.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$1,521,000
$269,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$1,790,000
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.17 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 189
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
895 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting
Independence Power, LLC
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
OttAEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)5.31
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)14.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
22.31
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project involves state-owned land and navigable waters. DNR permits required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Engineering considerations for strong ground shaking from subduction zone earthquakes is appropriate. There is high potential for un-mapped fold and thrust
faults nearby, warranting focused seismic hazard studies in the area. See general DGGS comment.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 190
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
896 MEA Power Plant Waste Heat Utilization Reconnaissance Study
Eklutna, Inc.
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description
Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) is building a new electric generating facility in Eklutna, Alaska that will have a generating capacity of 103 to 171 MW and
an operational date of late 2014. The estimated recoverable waste heat resource associated with this power plant is 154,000 MMbtu annually. Eklutna, Inc. (EI)
holds rights to the waste heat that will be generated by this plant, and owns land adjacent to the plant where waste heat uses would be sited. EI proposes to
perform a reconnaissance study of potential uses of this waste heat resource. The reconnaissance study will define the potential uses of this waste heat resource,
evaluate the technical and economic viability of these uses, and make recommendations for further study.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
9/21/2011 application withdrawn
Withdrawn
Requested Grant Funds:$100,980
$19,220
Total Potential Grant Amount:$120,200
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 191
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
896 MEA Power Plant Waste Heat Utilization Reconnaissance Study
Eklutna, Inc.
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:IPP
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 192
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
897 Port Graham Village Biomass Waste Heat Demonstration Project
Port Graham Village Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description
Native Village of Port Graham is proposing the construction of GARN Boiler hot water distribution system to provide heat to five community buildings, homes
throughout the Port Graham community, and eventually be connected to a central CHP biomass fired facility. A conceptual design and feasibility review for a
central combined heat and power (CHP) biomass-fired plant was completed in 2009. Detailed engineering and economic evaluations were included. The existing
diesel-fired hot water heating equipment will be retained and used for backup. The proposed biomass system will displaces 80-85% of the diesel to heat these
community buildings.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Port Graham Village Council proposes construction of a wood-fired boiler to supply heat to the health and dental clinics. Currently the RE Fund is
supporting final design and permitting for the project with a grant of $75,000 matched by $25,000 in local.
AEA supports the initiative for developing a wood boiler project in Port Graham. However, given the high cost of the project as currently configured and the
relatively low fuel displacement, project economics are poor. Under the current grant-funded work, AEA believes that it is reasonable to assess options to lower
the costs of the project, increase amount of fuel displaced by supplying more loads, or do both.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$426,833
$58,995
Total Potential Grant Amount:$485,828
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.17 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 193
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12
897 Port Graham Village Biomass Waste Heat Demonstration Project
Port Graham Village Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
AEA Program Manager:Applicant Type:Government Entity
Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant)Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA)
0.780.99
4) Project Readiness (Max 10)
5) Benefits (Max 15)0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 25)5.31
2) Matching Resources (Max 20)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank (out of 41)Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
19.31
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on DMLW land. May require permits from DNF-DOF for biomass source.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
***See general DGGS comment on hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for the construction of two centrally located Garn boilers to heat 5 community buildings within the village. This project was reviewed last year in
the Round 4 applications and it has been revised somewhat this year. Total wood use is estimated at 101 bone-dry tons per year. Chugachmiut’s GIS and forest
inventory data identifies 4,025 acres of Sitka spruce on accessible Native allotments near Port Graham that contain an average 98 bone-dry tons per acre. In
addition 10,640 acres of Sitka spruce covered Village Corporation lands are also present. There is a developed logging road system to these lands. Using the 98
BDT per acre volume, approximately one acre of timber would be enough to supply the annual requirements of the Garn boilers. The project appears quite
sustainable based on the stated quantities of the raw wood resource.
1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 194