HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft_REF6_901-924DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
901 Karluk Tribal Council – Wind Energy System
Karluk Tribal Council
Feasibility
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
Karluk is located on the west cost of Kodiak Island in Alaska. The village is cut-off from any road system. Fuel oil has to be shipped by barge to Karluk. Therefore,
it is a high energy cost village with fuel oil at 4.92 $/gal. This project will perform a feasibility study and complete the design & permitting for a wind energy
system and a heat recovery system to serve the existing power plant in Karluk, Alaska. For the wind energy system, wind data from a meteorological monitoring
tower already installed at the proposed wind turbine location will be available for the analysis and design. The wind energy systems would consist of wind turbines
installed on the mountain 0.7 miles south of the existing power plant, the transmission line to the power plant, and the electric boiler for excess energy utilization.
The heat recovery system would consist of upgrading the existing power plant generators with waste heat recovery units and installing a total length of up to
1000ft hydronic heating loop to connect the power plant with the community buildings.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Given that the existing diesel gensets are not modifiable for electronic fuel injection which is needed for integration of wind power, there is much modeling to be
done for both wind and heat considerations. A new diesel generator must be chosen based on the results of the wind resource study and analysis of the electrical
load (hourly data collection). The wind challenge for this project may be finding a turbine that can survive the potential harsh environment of the ridge south of
town, while still being sized appropriately for the electric loads.
Due to the complexity of this system, the $81,300 requested would not be enough to complete both the feasibility and final design phases. Recommend partial
funding of $70,000 for feasibility, but not final design and permitting. Wind resource study and electrical load analysis should be complete and accepted by AEA
prior to allocating money for the CDR.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$81,000
$300
Total Potential Grant Amount: $81,300
Funding & Cost
Kodiak
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.60 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$70,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,300,000
1/2/2013 9:50:56 AM Page 1Page 1 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.430.48
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -0.38
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -2.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -26.25
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -5.63
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
43.92
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW Permits or authorizations for project as currently described.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 9:50:56 AM Page 2Page 2 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
902 Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Native Village of Cantwell
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
Cantwell is currently served by GVEA via the power transmission line between MEA and GVEA (Alaska Intertie System). The Native Village of Cantwell wishes to
improve the reliability and lower the cost of the community of Cantwell’s power system. To accomplish this we propose to build a storage hydroelectric project on
the Jack River, a short distance from Cantwell. The reconnaissance study currently under way has identified several project configurations with capacities between
700 kW and 7 MW that may be feasible. A feasibility study is necessary to identify which of these configurations would best meet the community’s needs.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Village received a grant funded in round 4 (#606 ) for reconnaissance assessment of the project and has installed a stream gauge. The grant recon report is
not available at the date of this R6 application review.
Very little new information is provided in the application to support this request. A large number of questions are raised for this project, including the
configuration of this project, licensing jurisdiction, scale and cost, economics, power sales, utility organization, financing, etc. Even the need for the project can
be questioned given the pending completion of the 24 MW Eva Creek Wind Farm, re-start of 50 MW Healy Clean Coal Plant and the future 600 MW Susitna
Watana project.
Despite the outstanding questions AEA supports this request for full funding.
Special provisions: AEA requires: 1) the completion and AEA acceptance of the reconnaissance study, and 2) results of the study indicate that the project should
advance prior to award of any new grant funding.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$213,750
$11,250
Total Potential Grant Amount:$225,000
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$213,750AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$10,000,000
1/2/2013 9:52:24 AM Page 1Page 3 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
2.432.43
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -11.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -1.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -9.81
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -3.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -11.60
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
44.82
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Application for hydroelectric facility. AS 38.05.850 permits/easements required for transmission lines and penstock on state land. Possible lease required for
powerhouse on concrete slab. Water rights app. LAS 27738 currently on file with DMLW. State land may be in reservoir and thus flooded. May take more than
the projected 6 months to authorize.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Active fault structures in the vicinity of the site include the Denali fault and associated thrust faults. (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.
dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). The 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 detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 9:52:24 AM Page 2Page 4 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
903 Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV
Northwest Arctic Borough
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project expands on a previous Feasibility study that has been ongoing for 2 years. In 2010 a Single 175W Solar A"ay was installed at the proposed location to
see if Solar PV would be feasible for the Northwest Arctic. The panel has been facing south-east and is connected to a single Enphase inverter that is cogenerating
with the Kotzebue Electric Association (KEA) grid. It was found that it produced 165 Kwh during 1 year average. @ $ 0. 54/Kwh this equals a savings of$ 89. 1
0/year A build-out of the a"ay to 10 Kw would save the Northwest Arctic Borough approximately $ 5, 132. 00/year in electric bills.
• This would also be a good match as the Borough operate mainly day time, when the sun is available.
• The project aims to match the load of the building and offset just enough energy to try to get to stop the electric meter, this is important as we do not want to
be paid for any generated electricity by the KEA Coop.
• The project would consist of 42 pc. 240 watt panel, for a total of 10KWatts configured on the roof of the building in a configuration to match the load of the
building.
• It would be a "fixed" array, non tracking.
• It would also be configured in 2 directions, southeast and south, to match the electric needs of the building, so not to overproduce with one large peak power
during the day.
• Each individual panel will have it's own enphase micro-inverter.
• The entire array will be displayed and monitored on a website that can be accessed for educational purposes.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Project is technically feasible. Schedule and budget look reasonable. Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$75,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$75,000
Funding & Cost
Northwest Arctic
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.42 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$75,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$75,000
1/2/2013 9:53:11 AM Page 1Page 5 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.211.21
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -5.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -5.88
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -18.25
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -14.83
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
53.96
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not state land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 9:53:11 AM Page 2Page 6 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
904 Dimond Park Library Geothermal HVAC System
City & Borough of Juneau
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
Alan BaldiviesoAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The City & Borough of Juneau is proposing the design and construction of a geothermal HVAC system to serve the heating and cooling needs at the new Dimond
Park Library. The community of Juneau recently received a $7 million grant from Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development to
construct the new library in Juneau’s Mendenhall Valley. The City & Borough of Juneau Assembly is interested in reducing the carbon footprint of Juneau and
reducing the operating costs of their facilities. The use of a geothermal HVAC system rather than traditional oil-fired boilers and chillers provides an opportunity to
achieve both goals of the City & Borough of Juneau and to expand the use of renewable energy in city facilities.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The applicant has performed a life-cycle economic assessment of the proposed GSHP and a baseline diesel boiler (city policy prohibits installation of an electric
boiler) which indicates economics that are barely favorable; however, this analysis includes health benefits not included in AEA’s analysis.
The project benefits from other successful GSHP installations in Juneau, both REF projects and other projects. This application could be strengthened by
supporting performance data from the other GSHP projects (both are functioning successfully but have not produced a COP).
The proposed system would use approximately 12% of its capacity on an annual basis. A smaller heat pump system used in combination with an oil boiler could
greatly reduce the capital costs while still offsetting 80% of diesel use relative to a baseline oil-only system. AEA estimates such a system would cost roughly
$500,000, an incremental cost increase of $179,000 above the baseline system.
Recommend partial funding of $300,000 to fund a smaller heat pump system with the following special provisions.
Special provisions:
1. Data from the Dimond Aquatic Center heat pump system must be provided to AEA before grant funded work can begin.
2. AEA must approve final system design prior to construction.
Partial Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$700,000
$175,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$875,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.12 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$300,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$875,000
1/2/2013 9:54:15 AM Page 1Page 7 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.680.60
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -11.13
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -5.29
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -10.50
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -15.23
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
51.15
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not state land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
Geothermal heat pump
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 9:54:15 AM Page 2Page 8 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
905 HydroPower Surplus to Stored Hydrogen Feasibility Study
The Southeast Alaska Power Agency
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
OtherResource:
Alan BaldiviesoAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will encompass performing a feasibility study to determine if a proof of concept hydrogen (or Ammonia) prototype should be designed, constructed,
and operated as an alternative to spill during times of low production and high inflows of the hydroelectric plants in the SEAPA system, which serves the loads of
Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Petersburg, Alaska. This stored energy would then be used for generation either by supplementing diesel combustion or through the
operation of fuel cell technology during times of hydroelectric shortages. When surplus hydro generation conditions occur, typically all hydro operators in the
region are not fully utilized. With an isolated system, there is no alternative other than spilling surplus energy over a spillway. The region is also experiencing
significant winter load growth that has caused and will continue to cause both energy and capacity shortages. These shortages are met with diesel-electric
generation that dispatches at a cost differential of four-to-one over the current hydro cost of 6.8 cents/kWh. The information obtained from performing this
feasibility study will also be directly transferrable to all hydroelectric and wind utilities in Alaska.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
A successful demonstration of hydrogen production, storage, and subsequent electricity generation could have widespread applicability if proved economically
viable. However, no data from existing hydrogen storage projects were provided by the applicant or found by AEA that indicate that the proposed project would
have a breakeven B/C ratio. Furthermore, the seasonal nature of the utility’s generation and load profiles appear to prevent full utilization of the benefits of a
storage system; the hydrogen tanks would only likely be filled and emptied once annually but require the same capital costs of a system that would have multiple
charge/discharge cycles in a year.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$244,385
$5,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$249,385
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$244,385
1/2/2013 9:55:04 AM Page 1Page 9 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.15
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.88
6) Local Support (Max 5) -4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -4.46
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -3.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -6.20
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
19.54
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Location is not fully identified but appears by proposal to not include state land.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 9:55:04 AM Page 2Page 10 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
906 Coffman Cove Hydropower Line Extension
City of Coffman Cove
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project would provide a renewable energy intertie to part of the City of Coffman Cove, Alaska that presently are self-generating because they are not on the
islands micro-grid. The City of Coffman Cove was connected to Prince of Wales Island (POW) renewable energy microgrid in 2011, shutting down the diesel
generators serving the community. However, significant portions of the community are not connected to the distribution system. There are 91 privately owned lots
that must self-generate at an approximate cost of $2.35/kWh (based on the cost of residential fuel; small generator costs; and, the monthly average kWh used by
those on the islands grid); the formula for determining this can be found below in the application. The renewable energy micro-grid on POW has a rate of
$0.2243/kWh for a residential rate, which would provide a significant savings to these unserved lots .
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City of Coffman Cove requests $175K in grant funds for permitting and final design, and construction of a 1.75 mile single phase line extension along existing
roads within the City to serve 91 privately-owned lots with renewable energy. The RE sources are from Black Bear Lake Hydro and South Fork Hydro.
Project design, permitting and construction to be by Alaska Power Company.
Special provision: Provide evidence of site control with stamped plans and recorded easement for the line extension.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$175,000
$36,000
Total Potential Grant Amount: $211,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.45 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$175,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$175,000
1/2/2013 9:55:59 AM Page 1Page 11 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
3.5234.74
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -11.63
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -19.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -15.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
58.91
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
From the application it is difficult to tell if an easement to cross State land will be needed and in all probability existing platted easements within State developed
subdivision(s) will probably be used.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 9:55:59 AM Page 2Page 12 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
907 Petersburg Community Heating System Retrofit Feasibility Study
City of Petersburg
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Alan BaldiviesoAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The proposed project will evaluate the technical and financial feasibility for integration and optimization of renewable energy based heating technologies to offset
heating oil and electricity usage in the following Petersburg facilities: Stedman Elementary School, Mitkof Middle School, Petersburg High School, Petersburg
Aquatic Center, Mountain View Manor Elderly Housing, and the City Municipal Building.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
This study will compare heating alternatives but the applicant states that they are leaning toward heat pumps (ground and air source). Smaller GSHP projects
have been rejected due to poor economics; the lower capital cost of air source heat pumps would likely make them more favorable for retrofits; AEA is currently
funding a study of (residential) ASHP use in SE AK.
A feasibility study that clearly considers the benefits of biomass, heat pumps, and oil-fired boilers is a logical step.
AEA recommends full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$41,360
$10,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$51,360
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$41,360AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$51,360
1/2/2013 9:57:04 AM Page 1Page 13 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.59
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -1.17
5) Benefits (Max 15) -9.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -4.46
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -9.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -12.77
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
46.65
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land issues.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 9:57:04 AM Page 2Page 14 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
908 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Capacity Increase
INN Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
INNEC proposes to conduct a feasibility study related to increasing tne capacity pf tne existing Tazimina Hydroelectric Project by replacing eitner one or two of tne
existing generating units witn larger generating units. Tne study will evaluate existing energy use and future energy requirements for tne region. An economic
analysis will compare tne costs of future generation under a variety of scenarios. A procurement package will be prepared if tne project is found to be feasible.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
INNEC requests grant funding to study expansion of the Tazimina Hydroelectric Project thru replacement of the turbine-generators and controls from 824 kW
(existing) up to 1.5 MW total. The FERC license was issued for the larger units and the plant throughput was built with this in mind, but the smaller Francis
turbine/generators were installed when the project was built in 1996. Annual energy is expected to increase up to 2,600,000 kWh. New markets for this increase
in energy may include new dispatchable heating systems in private businesses and city governments at Newhalen, Illiamna and Nondalton.
If the study shows the project is feasible, procurement documents will be prepared from this phase grant funding for the replacement turbine-generators and
control systems.
AEA recommends full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$160,000
$30,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$190,000
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$160,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,600,000
1/2/2013 9:57:57 AM Page 1Page 15 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
10.9713.07
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -4.33
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.38
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -26.01
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -9.75
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -18.33
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
74.97
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW permits or authorizations at this time - feasibility study for replacement of existing turbines only. Potential requirement for amendment of existing SCRO
authorizations depending of extent of facility upgrade.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The only known potentially active fault in the project vicinity is the Lake Clark fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.
gov/pubs/id/23944). The relative activity of this fault is unknown.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 9:57:57 AM Page 2Page 16 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
909 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project: Phase Ill
City of Saxman
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The City of Saxman was issued a license for the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project by the FERC on 01-22-98 (Project No. P-11393). The project was licensed to
be a storage-type project with a lake tap of Upper Mahoney Lake, a tunnel-and-pipe penstock, a single unit powerhouse, and an overhead transmission line con-
necting to the existing KPU transmission system at the Beaver Falls substation. The licensed capacity is 9.6 MW and the estimated potential annual generation is
41.7 GWH. Design documents were submitted to FERC for review in 2001 in anticipation of starting construction in 2002. However, at that time a decision was
made to construct the Swan-Tyee Intertie instead of the Mahoney Lake project; the Mahoney Lake project license was stayed until requested by Saxman, but no
later than 6 years after completion of the Swan-Tyee Intertie. Saxman has until 2015 to request lifting of the stay. The design documents submitted to FERC in
2001 proposed to construct the penstock using horizontal directional drilling (HDD), which was a different penstock design than licensed and an untested tech-
nology for the hydroelectric industry. FERC had not commented on the design submittal prior to the stay being issued. Load growth in the SEAPA-interconnected
systems and the potential for new industrial loads now makes it timely to resume the development of the Mahoney Lake project. However, because of the long
delay, it is necessary to reexamine some aspects of the project, in particular:
• Re-evaluate the HDD-based design based on advances in the HDD industry in the last decade. It now appears possible to simplify the design and eliminate some
expensive elements.
• Re-evaluate the storage potential of the upper basin, either by lowering the lake tap in Upper Mahoney Lake or adding storage in two natural lakes above Upper
Mahoney Lake. Additional storage would allow more wintertime generation by the project, which is critical for the SEAPA-interconnected system.
• Route the transmission line north along the existing road system on Cape Fox land to an interconnection to the Swan Lake line at the White River, rather than
south over USFS land to the Beaver Falls substation.
• Review permit status, and renew or revise permit applications as appropriate.
• Update the design drawings, specifications, and design report as appropriate for changes in the design concept.
• Update the cost estimate and economic analysis for the project, including any revisions to the design as described above.
• Begin power sales negotiations, and prepare a business and operational plan based on the anticipated power sales agreement.
At the completion of this work, KEC will be ready to begin construction on the project as soon as final financing is arranged.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Saxman has requested funding to study the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project and provide for the following: revise final design and specifications,
obtain permits for construction, review ways to increase storage potential of project, update cost estimate, begin power sales negotiations and prepare a business
and operational plan based upon power sales agreement.
The primary developers are a public/private partnership called Ketchikan Electric Company, whose partners are Cape Fox Corp., AP&T and City of Saxman.
The review team has the following concerns with this project: the market for the power is uncertain, given it is last to be used in the SEAPA system, including
after the proposed additions of energy from Whitman Lake Hydro project and the proposed Metlakatla - Ketchikan Intertie, and proposed issues raised if the FERC
license is re-opened to re-engineer the project scheme.
The project appears to exhibit a high benefit/cost ratio if it can find a market for its hydropower. Partial funding for feasibility/conceptual design is recommended
to reconfigure the project to meet potential needs of SEAPA proposed call for power and accomplish the following: (1) perform field studies to support re-opening
FERC license; (2) negotiate new license terms; (3) revise engineering drawings in support of license changes; (4) negotiate power sales agreement, (5) prepare
business, operational and finance plan; and (6) update cost of power, construction cost and potential available power by month.
Partial funding recommended.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$1,000,000
$100,000
Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,100,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$500,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$51,100,000
1/2/2013 9:58:50 AM Page 1Page 17 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
3.088.67
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -1.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -11.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -1.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -4.46
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -14.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -9.87
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
48.00
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land interests but water rights needed.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.
gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 9:58:50 AM Page 2Page 18 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
910 Igiugig Wind Turbine Design
Lake and Peninsula Borough
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Lake and Peninsula Borough seeks funding to design an approximate 1 OOkW wind turbine system in the village of Igiugig. The design of the turbine will
include its integration into the new generation system recently installed to maximize output and efficiency. The wind study is not complete, but the 11-month data
point for the feasibility report includes the winter months when winds and demand are highest. LPB will finish the grant with a design that can be put out to bid.
The total for the project is $250,000 and LPB is offering a $45,000 match.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Because a wind study has not yet been completed and a conceptual design has not been submitted for AEA to review and accepted prior to the review period for
this application, it is premature to award funding for design. Too many factors are currently unknown to assess the viability of the project. In addition, the class
2 wind regime indicated by the statewide wind model would not provide enough benefit to produce an economic project.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$205,000
$45,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$250,000
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.80 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$250,000
1/2/2013 10:00:19 AM Page 1Page 19 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.521.21
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -35.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -9.75
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
46.75
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW permits or authorizations at this time - funding requested for data collection only at this time;. Possible future requirement for AS 38.05.850
permits/easements possible depending on selection of eventual project site but unlikely due to availability of village-managed lands.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should be designed to withstand ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone (see Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944).
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:00:19 AM Page 2Page 20 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
911 Levelock Wind Reconnaissance Study
Lake and Peninsula Borough
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Lake and Peninsula Borough seeks funding to conduct a wind reconnaissance study on the behalf of the Levelock Village Council and its utility Levelock
Electric Cooperative, inc. The project will consist of the installation of a needed 1 0-meter wind tower within the city to gather one year of wind data. Rich
Stromberg of AEA has indicated the study can be done for approximately $10,000 using a smaller, 10-meter tower. The wind data will be analyzed by a
professional firm that specializes in the interpretation of wind data. Following the completion of the data gathering, the firm will prepare a report that will give the
LPB and Levelock an indication on whether or not the wind resources merit a feasibility study on the eventual construction of a wind turbine.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
While the existing wind resource model predicts only class 2 winds in Levelock, class 4 winds exist further south at the coast. There is no current wind data at the
present time and the applicant proposes a low-cost method to collect valid, usable data. A larger met tower would be needed for any future feasibility study, but
the 10-meter configuration proposed will work well for reconnaissance so long is the tower is placed in an area of minimal surrounding vegetation and away from
buildings that might block the wind.
Even if only a class 3 wind site is discovered, the high cost of fuel in this community might allow for an economic medium-penetration project using a
remanufactured turbine.
Full funding recommended.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$10,000
$1,000
Total Potential Grant Amount: $11,000
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.70 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$10,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$10,000
1/2/2013 10:01:06 AM Page 1Page 21 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.17
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -4.67
5) Benefits (Max 15) -4.50
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -30.63
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -13.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
68.19
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW permits or authorizations at this time - funding requested for data collection only at this time;. Possible future requirement for AS 38.05.850
permits/easements possible depending on selection of eventual project site but unlikely due to availability of village-managed lands.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should be designed to withstand ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone (see Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944).
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:01:06 AM Page 2Page 22 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
912 Egegik Wind Feasibility Study
Lake and Peninsula Borough
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Lake and Peninsula Borough seeks funding to conduct a wind reconnaissance study on the behalf of the City of Egegik. The project will consist of the
installation of a needed 10-meter or 30-meter, whichever is appropriate, wind tower within the city to gather one year of wind data. The wind data will be
analyzed by a professional firm that specializes in the interpretation of wind data. Following the completion of the data gathering, the firm will prepare a report
that will give the LPB and Egegik an indication on whether or not the wind resources merit a feasibility study on the eventual construction of a wind turbine.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Hill east of the old airport appears to be the best place to start measuring wind. Budget is high for a reconnaissance study - especially $45,000 for cost of energy
and market analysis. The applicant only needs money to hire a contractor to purchase and install a met tower and power house monitoring and to analyze and
write a wind resource report. The report should include HOMER analysis of wind, diesel and solar against the seasonal load profile of Egegik. An RFP should be put
out to see who can do this in the most cost-effective manner. Recommend partial funding of $60,000 to collect wind, solar and electrical load data for a minimum
of one year, write a wind/solar assessment report and perform some basic HOMER modeling.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$80,000
$10,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$90,000
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.86 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$60,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$90,000
1/2/2013 10:02:03 AM Page 1Page 23 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.421.26
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -8.50
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -35.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -7.50
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -14.53
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
77.03
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW permits or authorizations at this time - funding requested for data collection only at this time;. Possible future requirement for AS 38.05.850
permits/easements possible depending on selection of eventual project site but unlikely due to availability of village-managed lands.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Feasibility study should consider design impacts of earthquakes on proposed facilities in regard to project cost.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:02:03 AM Page 2Page 24 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
913 Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
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. A schedule showing how the project will proceed is attached.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Project will add 5,500,000 kWh annually to Cooper Lake Hydroelectric project; project
also provides environmental benefits for increase in : (1) water temperature and (2) increase flows at upper reaches of Cooper Creek to enhance fish habitat.
Project bids were opened on 9/28/12; bid results to AEA are pending receipt, so bidding risk is low.
Construction of this project satisfies Settlement Agreement established in support of FERC re-license of the Cooper Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Power Project
which, along with this diversion, has annual energy of 47,500,000 kWh.
Recommend full funding
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$3,453,920
$17,343,267
Total Potential Grant Amount:$20,797,187
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.14 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$3,453,920AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$23,808,913
1/2/2013 10:02:45 AM Page 1Page 25 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
5.230.58
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -5.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -13.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -6.23
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -15.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -18.80
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
63.03
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Applicant self-reports potential requirements for DMLW authorizations (probably Water and/or AS 38.05.850 Permits and Easements); need more specific project
information to confirm.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:02:45 AM Page 2Page 26 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
914 Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
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 buried 34.5 kV transmission line and a 14-mile long access road. Phase III has not been
completed yet with field studies, permitting and final design continuing. The Project will be developed by the Applicant to provide additional generation to its
interconnected Haines and Skagway electrical systems (existing 15-mile submarine cable), to provide backup renewable power to Haines should the submarine
cable fail, or should the only other storage project in Upper Lynn Canal, Goat Lake Hydro, have a major problem with a long term shutdown. And in the early
years of operations to possibly provide summer power to cruise ships moored at Haines or Skagway to help pay off any debt as quickly as possible. 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 additional three new env studies (feasibility), 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 was scheduled for completion in December 2012, but some snags in the licensing process have occurred and more
studies are required.
APC has challenges with site control with access through the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, Haines State Forest and across several private parcels. FERC has
requested they demonstrate this access to perform studies before FERC will devote any staff time on licensing for Connelly Lake. Environmental opposition to the
project has been received in the past from some Haines residents.
AEA believes additional grant funding for the 3 new environmental studies is warranted, but the request to fund final design and permitting is premature, given
that several additional years of data collection may be necessary and project feasibility is uncertain. AEA also finds the amount requested for the three studies is
excessive and therefore recommends grant funding be limited with a 20% cash match by applicant.
Recommend partial funding.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$1,752,000
$438,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$2,190,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$180,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$46,475,000
1/2/2013 10:03:47 AM Page 1Page 27 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
4.470.11
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -11.37
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -1.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -9.52
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -10.50
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -12.10
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
52.33
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
This project has not changed from the previous round reviews. Possible public concern will probably be those related to the potential impact of the project to the
Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve. There may be secondary impacts with opening of the old logging road, also identified as an RS2477 in the application, increasing
access into the Chilkoot valley. This could be controlled with gates. There may be some permitting challenges and resource management concerns related to the
Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The project is located in the vicinity of the Eastern Denali fault (Chilkoot River section) and the Chatham Strait fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand strong ground motions related to earthquakes on these structures.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:03:47 AM Page 2Page 28 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
915 Eagle Solar Array Project
Alaska Power Company (APC)
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Eagle Solar Array Project will provide renewable energy to the communities of Eagle and Eagle Village. The Project will consist of one hundred sixty three
solar panels, six three phase inverters, a programmable logic controller, SCADA system, and diesel powerplant interface for the towns of Eagle and Eagle Village.
Energy derived will be used to offset diesel fueled generation; particularly during the summer months.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The applicant may be underestimating the power output from the PV system as low temperature and ground bounce can increase the output along with
improved inverter power-curve optimization technology. BC ratio could vary between 1.709 to 1.761.
Project is simple, low-cost and straightforward. It takes advantage of the worldwide drop in PV module prices and cost of installation. Technology is proven and
Tier 1 suppliers are selected.
Final design must be submitted to and accepted by AEA prior to allocation of construction funds.
Full funding recommended.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$132,600
$33,150
Total Potential Grant Amount:$165,750
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$132,600AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$165,750
1/2/2013 10:04:45 AM Page 1Page 29 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.821.52
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -11.25
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -25.85
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -9.75
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -16.67
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
72.01
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:04:45 AM Page 2Page 30 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
916 Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project
Hydaburg City Schools
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project involves placing supplemental cord wood fired boilers in the schools. The supplemental heating system would be located at the Hydaburg City
Schools in Hydaburg, AK on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska.
We intend to use wood biomass to heat the school buildings, replacing diesel as the energy source. The project involves placing two Garn type wood fired boilers
adjacent to the school site and running underground pipes from the wood fired boiler to plumb into the school’s heating system.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Hydaburg City Schools in Hydaburg, AK on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska requests funding for engineering design phase to build two cord wood
heating system to the school buildings: gym; elementary school; high school. The project has the potential to save the Hydaburg School District in excess of
$500,000 over the life of the project.
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 AEA must review and accept the final engineering design.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$20,000
$5,200
Total Potential Grant Amount:$25,200
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.24 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$20,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$463,216
1/2/2013 10:05:32 AM Page 1Page 31 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
2.853.93
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -13.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -10.34
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -9.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -18.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
59.34
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land interest.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
The project is for the replacement of oil fired boilers with wood boilers that utilize either wood pellets or chips to provide heat for the Hydaburg Schools campus.
The campus consists of an elementary school, high school and a gymnasium each with its own oil-fired boiler. If pellets are the chosen fuel source, Sealaska has
committed to delivering pellets to Hydaburg on a bi-monthly basis shipped from Juneau to Hydaburg for about $300/ton. A silo would house the bulk delivery of
pellets in Hydaburg. This fuel delivery model is similar to what is employed in Juneau to provide pellets to the Sealaska corporate building. Hydaburg estimates
$18,000 per year in fuel savings through the conversion to pellets.
If wood chips are the chosen fuel source, Viking Lumber in Craig has committed to delivering chips to Hydaburg for $75 per ton. Hydaburg estimates $27,000 per
year in fuel savings through the conversion to chips. This project appears to be well thought out and having two confirmed sources of delivered raw wood supply
is an added bonus. The proposal however examines the total life cycle cost and when considering the increase in operation and maintenance costs associated with
wood heat sources there is little economic incentive to convert the buildings to wood heating. The use of in state produced wood chips however has other
economic spin offs of a positive nature to the southeast Alaska economy. This project may have a better pay back if a solid fuel wood heater such as a Garn boiler
is used in a single building installation.
1/2/2013 10:05:32 AM Page 2Page 32 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
917 Blue Lake Hydroelectric Expansion Project
City & Borough of Sitka (CBS)
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The City & Borough of Sitka proposes to raise the project dam from spill elevation 342 feet mean sea level (msl) to elevation 425 feet msl; construct a new
powerhouse containing three 5.3-megawatt (MW) units; install new intake works and a surge chamber; and modify the power conduit to accommodate higher
hydraulic pressure and connect new or relocated project features. In addition, the existing 0.670-MW fish valve unit generator would be replaced with a new 1-
MW unit and the existing 0.870-MW pulp mill feeder unit would be decommissioned. The total authorized capacity of the project would rise from 7.5 MW to 16.9
MW.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City and Borough of Sitka request funds for construction of an expansion to the Blue Lake dam. Construction elements include 83 feet raise of existing reinforced
concrete arch dam, new powerhouse with three new turbine-generator units totaling 15.9 MW capacity, a new intake and connection tunnel, and a new surge
chamber.
The project construction bids came in higher than expected so the CBS is seeking additional state funding and planning to sell more revenue bonds to cover the
new estimated project cost of $145M.
Special provision: AEA will require finalized financial plan before any new grants will be put in place.
AEA recommends full funding.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$4,000,000
$4,000,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$8,000,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.09 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$4,000,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$145,000,000
1/2/2013 10:33:48 AM Page 1Page 33 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
2.022.02
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -5.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -13.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -4.14
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -14.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -18.50
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
64.89
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Propose to raise the height of the dam to increase capacity in the reservoir, increase from 342’ to 425’. Land that will be inundated is Forest Service land. No
State land type interest identified.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.
gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:33:48 AM Page 2Page 34 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
918 West Creek Hydroelectric Project
Municipality of Skagway Borough
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Municipality of Skagway (Municipality) proposes to construct the West Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located on West Creek, approximately 7 miles
west of Skagway and adjacent to the small community of Dyea. The primary purpose of the Project would be offsetting 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 vegetation 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 other utilities in
the area.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Borough and Municipality of Skagway (BMS) proposes feasibility and conceptual design of a 10-25 MW hydro project at West Creek to be connected to the
Upper Lynn Canal (Haines-Skagway) grid. West Creek is located near Dyea, 7 miles west of Skagway. The estimated cost of this project +$140 million. One
most costly scheme would propose a 200’ dam on West Lake with a 2.5 mile power tunnel to a powerhouse on the Taiya River. The primary purpose of the
project is to offset diesel generation by cruise ships that dock in Skagway in the summer. The secondary purpose is to supply power to the local grid during
periods of shortfall in the winter. BMS applied for a similar project in rounds 2 (#262) and 5 (#800). AEA recommended the project for partial funding but due
to low scores and limited funding availability the project did not receive funding.
The AEA review team has the following concerns about this project:
1. BMS states that a major benefit of the project is the reduced air emissions from diesel generation by the cruise ships. However, when the EPA
mandated change in cruise ship fuel from bunker oil to ultra low sulfur diesel is implemented, the air quality issues associated with docking of cruise ships will
decrease substantially. This, in turn, reduces the public benefit of this project.
2. AEA has previously committed funding for Connelly Lake, Schubee Lake, and Burro Creek reconnaissance and feasibility assessment. These projects
would compete to meet the same loads as the proposed project.
3. 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.
4. Since the project would potentially affect the viewscapes and upstream waters of the Klondike Gold Rush National Park, there is significant permitting
risk.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$236,000
$84,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$320,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$236,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$140,000,000
1/2/2013 10:06:20 AM Page 1Page 35 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.451.53
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -1.17
5) Benefits (Max 15) -8.25
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -1.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -9.52
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -11.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -8.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
44.59
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Municipal entitlement not complete and application rests dependency on that. Timing of that decision may affect project timelines. Secondly water rights needed.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Eastern Denali fault (Chilkoot River section) (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.
dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:06:20 AM Page 2Page 36 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
919 Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie
Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC)
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
Kirk WarrenAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
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 all poles are set for the overhead line. Approximately 20% of the
conductor is installed along the line. 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
(applications #20 and #656). Additionally another $2 million in grant funds from the state have been awarded.
Currently the RE Fund round 4 grant is being negotiated. Conditions of the grant will support a step-wise approach to determine feasibility; conceptual design;
and completion of all preconstruction activities (including final design documents, final construction cost estimate, demonstration of site control, bathymetry,
NEPA, and permitting) prior to construction funding being awarded
AEA is assisting MIC in complying with these conditions; however this work remains in process.
The review team believes it is premature to allocate construction funds.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$9,570,434
Total Potential Grant Amount:$9,570,434
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$14,510,599
1/2/2013 10:35:06 AM Page 1Page 37 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.941.94
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -4.46
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
6.46
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
This is the same project that was reviewed in previous rounds. DMLW has received an application for the portion of the intertie on State tide and submerged land,
case file number ADL 108139. Presently this case is in the agency/public notice step of adjudication.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:35:06 AM Page 2Page 38 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
920 Walker Lake Hydro Feasibility Project
Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority
Design
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority (THREA) is applying for funding to conduct feasibility, design, and obtain a FERC license for the Walker Lake Hydro
Project. THREA filed a preliminary FERC permit application on June 11 , 2012 since it has municipal preference. THREA proposes to work with Inside Passage
Electric Cooperative (IPEC) the certificated utility for the service area of Klukwan and the Chilkat Valley in order to provide the lowest cost power for the benefit of
IPEC's members/customers. The proposed project includes constructing two small dams at Walker Lake; intake and reservoir outlet works; a 24" penstock of
approximately 12,000 feet in length; a powerhouse with installed capacity of approximately 1 MW; a tailrace of approximately 50' length; and a 12.4 KV
underground transmission line of approximately 4 miles in length interconnecting with the existing transmission system of IPEC. The existing lake is at an
elevation of 1,180 MSL and drains into Walker Creek and the Little Salmon River.
The project is located on USGS maps shown on both Skagway B-3 and B-4
Please refer to Appendix A Map of Walker Lake Hydro Project Application
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
THREA 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 and Klukwan system with hydropower. THREA would be an independent power producer (IPP) selling to IPEC. IPEC applied for
funding to study Walker Lake in Roundd 5 of the Renewable Energy Fund (#829) but was not recommended. Since Round 5 application, in October 2011 IPEC
has acquired the 600 kW Ten-Mile hydro project, which provides about 60% of the energy needed for the IPEC’s service area. The balance of their power needs
(700,000 kWh) is purchased from AP&T’s Upper Lynn Canal grid. That grid is 97% powered by hydropower, so the amount of diesel to be saved by building
Walker Lake is very limited (1,500 gallons per year).
Alaska Power Authority prepared a reconnaissance assessment for Walker Lake in 1988 with an estimated capital cost of $10.5M. Sealaska Corporation updated
the assessment in 2005. Both studies concluded that the project feasibility was marginal to poor. The project capital cost is not shown in this application.
The review team has the following concerns with this project:
1. The demand for the project power will be a fraction of the potential annual energy available from Walker Lake; given that the project will spill nearly year
round.
2. While the application states that THREA will sell its power to IPEC for 7 cents/kWh, it is highly likely the cost of power from Walker Lake would exceed that
purchased from AP&T.
3. There is no updated reconnaissance report available to ascertain if the project can be economically justified.
4. This project would displace very little diesel generation (approx. 1,300 gallons per year). 97% of the power purchased from APC (the load Walker Lake would
satisfy) is generated from the Lutak, Kasidaya, Dewey, and Goat Lake hydropower projects.
5. AEA has already committed funding for Connelly Lake, Schubee Lake, West Creek, and Burro Creek reconnaissance and feasibility assessment. These projects
would compete to meet the same loads as the proposed project.
Project fails to pass the minimum Stage 2 score and is not recommended.
Did Not Pass Stage 2
Requested Grant Funds:$640,000
$50,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$690,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$690,000
1/2/2013 10:35:58 AM Page 1Page 39 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.010.01
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -0.50
6) Local Support (Max 5) -4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -27.12
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.75
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -5.90
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
44.27
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
This project is primarily on State land within the Haines State Forest. DMLW has received an application for this project and assigned it case file number - ADL
108134. The applicant is Southern Energy Inc. This is not the same entity that is seeking funding from AEA, the applicant for AEA’s Renewable Energy Fund is the
Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority. There does not appear to be a cooperative relationship between the two entities in forwarding this project. Instead there
may be a competing interest and presently we understand that both entities have applied for a FERC license. The division is not in a position to comment on the
feasiblity of this application because we cannot adjudicate anything until we know which party will be issued the preliminary FERC permit.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Eastern Denali fault (Chilkoot River section) (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.
dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:35:58 AM Page 2Page 40 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
921 AVCP RHA Wood Biomass Heating System
AVCP Regional Housing Authority
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen Traylor AEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
AVCP Housing intends to construct a Wood Biomass Heating System plant within its campus to reduce high energy costs. The wood biomass heating system is
expected to supplant 85% of the estimated heat usage. The current diesel fuel cost is $6. 78/gal. in Bethel. Without the benefit of a biomass heating system, it is
estimated we will be using 67,766 gallons of heating fuel annually beginning in the winter of 2012-2013.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVCP Housing requests funding to design and construct a Wood Biomass Heating System within its campus to reduce high energy costs. This project will heat 12
buildings including a 16 unit assisted living home, 3 large housing complexes, 2 warehouses, a dormitory, a maintenance facility, and office buildings. The fuel
source will be pellets.
This project has the potential to positively impact Bethel and the surrounding communities by providing a logistical supply of pellets to the region.
A pellet distribution plan and the final design must be accepted by AEA prior to construction funding being released. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure
that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$3,149,387
$250,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$3,399,387
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$3,149,387AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$3,399,387
1/2/2013 10:36:51 AM Page 1Page 41 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.670.65
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.33
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -22.24
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -7.50
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -12.20
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
54.02
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW permits or authorizations required for project as currently described.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project would design and construct a wood pellet boiler to provide heat to an Association of Village Council Presidents Rural Housing Administration campus in
Bethel. The campus provides housing for 48 low-income households, a 30-bed aviation dormitory, and a 20-bed construction worker bunkhouse. It is anticipated
that 540 tons of wood pellets would be required annually. It is estimated that with shipping costs included the annual cost would be $248,347 or $459.90 per ton.
A silo would house the bulk delivery of pellets in Bethel. AVCP estimates $103,264 per year in fuel savings through the conversion to pellets. This is based on a
diesel fuel cost of $6.28 per gallon. At these prices and a total grant cost of almost $3.4 million, the simple pay back time is about 33 years. Pellet costs were
obtained from an engineering study investigating the use of pellet boilers at the AVCP Regional Housing Authority Complex. This study however was not included
in the application. Ideally several quotes should be available for pellet delivery to Bethel since these prices form the overall cost savings assumptions used in the
proposal.
A letter of support from the president of AVCP acknowledges the benefits of woody biomass and considers the possible future use of biomass from the upper
Kuskokwim River area.
1/2/2013 10:36:51 AM Page 2Page 42 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
922 Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project (Project) will include construction of a small diversion dam and intake structure just above Gartina Falls, installation of a
steel penstock, a powerhouse at the base of the falls, a new access road, 0.1 miles of transmission line buried in conduit, and installation of power poles for 3.8
miles of overhead transmission line within the access road right-of-way. The purpose of the Project is to divert water from above the waterfall into the power
plant and then discharge water back to the base of the waterfall. The new hydroelectric system will have an installed capacity of 455 kilowatts (kW) and will
therefore be used to avoid an estimated 30 percent of Hoonah's current diesel-powered electricity through hydro generation.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
IPEC requests construction funds for Gartina Falls Hydro project. The project was previously funded for permitting and final design in Rd 3 (#462).
Schedule proposed is aggressive and adds to the project risk of construction cost overruns.
Special provisions: AEA must approve the deliverables from the prior grant #462 before any construction funds will be reimbursed:
1) Proof of site control, 2) FERC license and all permits, 3) site adapted final design plans and specs, 4) construction cost estimate, 5) project budget, 6)
renegotiation to lower management/PM fees and 7) schedule.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$6,694,000
$15,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$6,709,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$6,694,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$8,009,000
1/2/2013 10:37:35 AM Page 1Page 43 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
2.261.61
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.12
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -27.09
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -15.67
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
72.97
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The project sits between the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather fault and Denali fault (Chatham Strait section) (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:
//www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:37:35 AM Page 2Page 44 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
923 Afognak Biomass Feasibility Study
Native Village of Afognak
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
To conduct a study on the feasibility of installing a biofuel system at the Kodiak High School to provide fuel/heat to the building, decrease the overall waste going
into the Kodiak landfill and provide a biofuel education service through the Kodiak High School Career and Technical Program.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Native Village of Afognak proposes to conduct reconnaissance, feasibility and conceptual design on the opportunity of installing a biofuel system at the Kodiak
High School. The system would provide fuel/heat to the school building utilizing waste from the Kodiak landfill and other biomass resources. The system would
also provide a biofuel education service through the Kodiak High School Career and Technical Program.
In the application, the Native Village of Afognak recommends pursuing gasification technology from Community Power Corporation and hiring CPC to perform the
technical analysis. CPC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Afognak Native Corporation.
AEA supports the project proposal for a reconnaissance, feasibility and conceptual design study for a biofuel system using municipal solid waste and other biomass
resources, but requires that the study be conducted by an independent consultant experienced in biofuel systems. The proposed study would have to consider all
potential biofuels technologies and not focus only on CPC technology.
Recommend full funding with the provision that AEA approve the selected consulting firm.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$170,974
Total Potential Grant Amount:$170,974
Funding & Cost
Kodiak
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.19 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$170,974AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,633,974
1/2/2013 10:38:25 AM Page 1Page 45 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
3.473.22
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -0.83
5) Benefits (Max 15) -11.88
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -8.32
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -11.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
40.43
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW permits or authorizations for project as currently described.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project submitted by the Native Village of Afognak would produce a feasibility study and conceptual design for the installation of a biofuel system to heat the
Kodiak High School. The proposal seeks to explore and assess identified potential feedstock material. This focuses on the use of available recycled material in
Kodiak that may consist of cardboard, other paper resources and woody material species (if required). The boiler configuration proposed is downdraft gasification
technology capable of converting locally available waste streams into power used to heat the school. Project implementation will depend on the amount of material
available. If it is determined that there is not enough material, then other sources such as pellets and possibly chips may be able to supplant the raw resource.
Afognak Island timber harvest operations could possible be a supplier of this resource but delivered costs are unknown at this time. The main information
gathered on feedstock supply currently consists of Coast Guard base info of 707 tons of fiber waste that was recycled last year.
1/2/2013 10:38:25 AM Page 2Page 46 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
924 Seward Schools Biomass Heating System
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District (KPBSD)
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The proposed project will undertake final design and construction of a wood-fired hydronic heating system in three Seward schools. A Feasibility Study (FS) was
completed in July, 2011 by Dan Parrent, USDA Forest Service, which served the purpose of both Reconnaissance and Feasibility. The Feasibility Study was also
reviewed in a document prepared by Lew McCreery (USDA FS) of the USDA Wood Education and Resource Center (WERC). Both reports (attached to this
application) attested to the viability and readiness of the project, which is now ready to proceed to Final Design and Construction Phases. This proposed Seward
Schools Biomass Heating System project will implement the following multi-phased process:
• 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 the 2011 feasibility assessment and a 2011 District energy
evaluation will serve as the reference documents for this project.Location – latitude and longitude or street address or community / communities served:
The proposed project will serve the community of Seward, AK, located on the Kenai Peninsula.
The three locations for the project are:
1. Seward Middle School, 304 Sea Lion Avenue, Seward, AK 99664 (60.132177,-149.431508)
2. William H. Seward Elementary School, 606 Sea Lion Avenue, Seward, AK 99664 (60.132209,-149.431658)
3. Seward High School, P.O. Box 1049, Seward, AK 99664 (60.133855,-149.422388)
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Kenai Peninsula Borough School District is proposing 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, using 1121 tons of pellets per year. The project has
completed feasibility phase work.
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.
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 final design prior to release of construction funding.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$1,367,464
$47,770
Total Potential Grant Amount:$1,415,234
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.19 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$1,367,464AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,415,234
1/2/2013 10:39:19 AM Page 1Page 47 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
5.546.01
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.87
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -8.41
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -17.80
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
57.92
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW permits or authorizations required for project as currently described
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal 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. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project undertakes final design and construction of a wood-fired hydronic heating system in three Seward schools. The project is essentially a continuation of
last year’s project # 834 proposal in that it seeks design and construction funds. The project was reviewed in a document similar to this last year. Briefly, in pre-
feasibility reports 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.
It is estimated that 80% of the annual fuel oil consumption could be replaced by wood for an annual savings of approximately $117,330. This is based on a fuel oil
cost of $461,794 at $3.83 per gallon. The project estimates an average wood resource demand of 1,121 tons of wood pellets per year though it is not clear at
what price the pellets would be bought for. Working backwards from the amount claimed in savings, roughly $344,464 would be spent for the pellets or $307.28
per ton. The pre-feasibility study researched commercially available pellet providers and identified vendors from both in-state and Outside including Superior
Pellets in North Pole, a small plant in Ketchikan and Pacific Northwest and Canadian sources. It also looked at BTU comparisons between pellets and fuel oil with
an estimated price of $453/ton equating to $3.82/gallon. As mentioned above for project # 921, ideally several quotes should be available for pellet delivery to the
facility to enable a range of estimated raw material costs to be calculated.
1/2/2013 10:39:19 AM Page 2Page 48 of 170