HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft_REF6_925-949DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
925 Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) proposes to conduct a Phase III project that will complete the Final Design and Permitting for a 2MWe biomass CHP (combined
heat and power) system. The system will offset up to 1M gallons of fossil fuel per year and create a market for approximately $1M of locally sourced woody
biomass, much of which would otherwise be wildfire hazardous fuels. AP&T, with support from the Alaska Gateway School District, the Tok Umbrella Association,
the Upper Tanana communities of Tok, Tetlin, Dot Lake and Tanacross, the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and working with contracted
Consultants, Foresters and Economists, is collaborating to develop a CHP system utilizing locally sourced woody biomass as fuel. The project will create the final
design for the system, and thoroughly assess and prepare the permitting process for the biomass energy project.
NOTE:
Most of the detail in this grant application is from pre-feasibility work and the (full) Feasibility Study (FS Final Report pending November 2012, however excerpts
are added to this document as attachments). AP&T is completing a screening level study of alternative generation strategies, as part of the Biomass CHP
Feasibility Study. Also being considered in comparison to Biomass CHP are the following power generation scenarios: Diesel, Wind, Wind with pumping and
storage, (trucked) Natural Gas, and Hydro.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) proposes to conduct a Phase III project that will complete the Final Design and Permitting for a 2MWe biomass CHP (combined
heat and power) system. This system is estimated to displace up to 1 MM gallons of fossil fuel per year.
AP&T received funding for a feasibility study for this project through Round 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund. This feasibility study is not complete.
While the review team is supportive of this project, this application for design and final permitting is premature. Small-scale CHP systems are emerging
technology, and the feasibility report must be thoroughly reviewed before this agency can recommend further funding.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$1,990,000
$60,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$2,050,000
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.49 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$18,000,000
1/2/2013 10:40:30 AM Page 1Page 49 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.761.76
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -21.25
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
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
30.25
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Tok biomass project. DOF issueing long-term contracts. DMLW might be involved in easements or materials sales for access.
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 Alaska Power & Telephone seeks to undertake final design and permitting of a 2MW combined heat and power system located in Tok.
This project has had extensive review of the wood resource in and around Tok. The state Division of Forestry has performed work to update the Tanana Valley
State Forest inventory and has also completed an analysis of wood availability within several mileage distance radii of the proposed CHP facility. In addition to the
forest inventory work, Tok Area Forestry has conducted research to determine local values of total above ground wood weight by species and size class.
Regression equations developed from this research will be applied to the forest inventory update to calculate green weight values in addition to more common
volume measurements such as cubic and board feet. Currently the state is developing a preliminary best interest finding to determine if it should proceed with a
competitive 25-year timber sale contract for biomass.
1/2/2013 10:40:30 AM Page 2Page 50 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
926 AGSD District Heat Loop Project
Alaska Gateway School District
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:IPP
Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Alaska Gateway School District (AGSD) Heat Loop Project request is for Phase III Design and Phase IV Construction of a waste heat recovery application for
AGSD’s existing 5.5 MMBTU woody biomass energy facility. The project will recover waste heat which would otherwise be rejected and distribute it to ten (10)
State-owned and Community building-clusters. The district heat loop will directly replace heat from the existing fossil fuel heating systems, offsetting the
equivalent of 49,100 gallons of fuel oil #1 per year. Heat customers will be charged for heat on a cost-based rate, and the hydronic heat sales are exempt from
RCA regulations. Over the 18-month project period, AGSD plans to explore various collaborative business structures with the local utility, Alaska Power &
Telephone (AP&T) and other potential contractors to operate and maintain the heat loop. AGSD is prepared to independently operate and maintain the district
heat loop.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Gateway School District proposes adding on a heat loop off the newly-completed wood-fired heating system at the Tok School to provide heat to ten (10)
State-owned and Community building-clusters. The project team would complete a final design phase and construction documents prior to construction.
This application is similar to the Round 5 submittal #866 that was recommended for funding, but below the $25MM allotment. This Round 6 application
significantly increases the number of buildings and the size of the proposed in the heat loop.
AEA is supportive of this project and continues to encourage the collaboration between the Alaska Gateway School District and the Alaska Power and Telephone
biomass projects.
Recommend full funding with the provision that AEA approve the final design before construction funds are released.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$2,753,364
$95,575
Total Potential Grant Amount:$2,848,939
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.49 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$2,753,364AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,848,939
1/2/2013 10:41:40 AM Page 1Page 51 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.721.05
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -21.25
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
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
47.82
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Proposal for waste heat recovery system for AGSD's existing woody biomass energy facility. Possible AS 38.05.850 permits/easements needed for transmission
lines 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 10:41:40 AM Page 2Page 52 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
927 Galena Community Wood Heat Project
City of Galena
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The City of Galena is requesting AEA Round 6 funding to provide a sustainable and predictable energy resource for its school district. The Galena Community
Wood Heat Project will substantially reduce high costs for heat for the Galena Interior Learning Academy School (GILA) by utilizing woody biomass harvested and
processed from local forests. The project will implement Phase III Final Design and Phase IV Construction over a two (2) year period to install a biomass boiler
system for the GILA campus. Local coordination among the stakeholders group is strong, infrastructure and administrative resources are in place to support the
project, and the Galena City School District has committed to purchasing the resulting heat. Existing Feasibility Studies and strategic community planning
documents align with the project.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Galena is proposing final design and installation of chip-fired boiler systems to heat its school district and the Galena Interior Learning Academy School
(GILA). This project is estimated to displace a total 230,000 of gallons per year of fuel oil, using tons 2,950 tons of chips per year. The technical feasibility phase
of this project is complete, but the harvest/fuel inventory work is still in process.
The application includes substantial support from the community, the Louden Tribal Council, Galena City School District, and Gana’A-Yoo Limited. AEA will work
with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend partial funding for final design and permitting and business/operational plan to allow the project team time to successful complete this stage of the
project.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$2,787,719
$82,916
Total Potential Grant Amount:$2,870,635
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.56 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$317,788AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,870,635
1/2/2013 10:42:33 AM Page 1Page 53 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
3.414.71
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.63
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -2.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -24.50
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -16.30
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
70.26
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Biomass plant is not on state land. Forest resources have not been identified on state land. Doing an inventory to determine biomass sources.
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 City of Galena seeks to design and construct a biomass boiler for the Galena Interior Learning Academy campus. The boiler will be
located at the Galena Base Steam Plant adjacent to the former Galena Air Force Base. The chosen system consists of a 4-7 MMBTU woodchip steam boiler, using
wood fuels up to 40% moisture content. The projected amount needed per year is approximately 2,900 tons of woodchips which would displace 224,831 gallons
of #1 fuel oil. An estimate of delivered biomass modeled for other off-the-road communities is $175-$200/ton. Current fuel oil at $4.91/gallon results in an annual
fuel savings of $523,920 per year using $200/ton for the woodchips. The Louden Tribal Council previously conducted a feasibility study of the project. As part of
the feasibility study an initial estimate of available biomass on Galena village corporation lands was conducted by Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program in
June 2012. The estimate confirmed that adequate supplies of biomass are available. The estimate was general in nature and a more detailed estimate has been
contracted with Geographic Resource Solutions. This project would also be able to potentially harvest timber on nearby state lands however, detailed estimates of
available timber volume from these lands has not been conducted. This project appears to be well thought out and likely to be successful given the fact that a
significant amount of pre-planning has been undertaken. The village corporation has signed a letter of support and is willing to enter into a contract for the sale of
timber which will support procurement of the biomass. This commitment combined with nearby state lands that would also be available as a raw wood supply
should provide a means for a sustainable timber harvest operation in this area of Alaska.
1/2/2013 10:42:33 AM Page 2Page 54 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
928 Bathymetric survey and marine geological study to refine submarine cable route
City of Ouzinkie
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
Kirk WarrenAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
This phase of the overall project is recommended in the completed feasibility report regarding extending Kodiak Electric Association’s Monashaka feeder line to the
City of Ouzinkie, dated April 2011. (attached) The line extension will tie KEA’s current electrical grid, including hydro and wind power generation, to the City of
Ouzinkie. Necessarily, the inter-tie will include a submarine electrical cable of approximately 1 to 1.4 miles (depending on route) in length between the Island of
Kodiak and Spruce Island. The report reads, “as the project moves forward, the recommendation is to perform bathymetric surveys and marine geophysical
studies to refine and verify the submarine feasibility.” The City of Ouzinkie currently has both electrical and hydro power generation but of limited capacity and
reliability. Connecting Ouzinkie to the KEA power grid will provide virtually unlimited, primarily renewable, reliable power to the community and thereby facility
community growth and economic development. The feasibility report, attached, was jointly funded by the Ouzinkie Native Corporation and Kodiak Electrical
Association.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
This phase of the project is to complete a bathymetric survey and marine geological study to refine cable route needed to extend Kodiak Electric Associations
feeder line to the City of Ouzinkie. The extension will tie KEA’s current electrical grid to Ouzinkie. The intertie ultimately will include a sub-marine cable of 1 to
1.4 miles in length dependent upon the results of the survey and geological study.
AEA recommends full funding for this project conditional upon a letter of support from Kodiak Electric Association.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$356,400
$25,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$381,400
Funding & Cost
Kodiak
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.41 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$356,400AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$6,129,000
1/2/2013 10:43:42 AM Page 1Page 55 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.041.04
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -4.88
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -18.12
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -9.75
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -12.50
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
57.91
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Feasibility study to include bathymetric survey and geological marine study. No AS 38.05.850 permits needed at this time unless coring or placement of utility lines
takes place.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The proposed project does not cross any known fault zones. The closest seismic sources are the Narrow Cape fault zone and the Aleutian subduction zone. Both
sources are capable of generating strong ground motions and should be considered in future project design (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 10:43:42 AM Page 2Page 56 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
929 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
City of King Cove
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will be a modest, run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility using Waterfall Creek and consisting of a concrete diversion/intake structure, 4,500' HOPE
penstock pipeline, 16'X40' metal powerhouse on concrete slab, Pelton Impulse Turbine and induction generator, remote automatic control system, and 5,000'
access road. This facility will be a working partner to the City's existing and highly successful Delta Creek hydroelectric project, which has been operating for the
last seventeen years.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City was awarded a $200,000 grant (#887) in Round 5 to complete permitting and final design for Waterfall Creek. These activities are underway at this time.
The City now requests construction funding to build the 1 MW run-of-river Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric project. AEA supports this request though notes that the
final design and construction cost estimate are not complete at this time and the City continues further discussion w/ ADF&G about the amount of stream flow
reserved for resident fish.
Special conditions include completion of all grant requirements of Grant 887, resolution of amount of instream flow reservation, demonstrate site control, etc.
before any R6 grant funds are disbursed.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$2,600,000
$1,300,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$3,900,000
Funding & Cost
Aleutians
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.27 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$2,600,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$4,300,000
1/2/2013 10:45:57 AM Page 1Page 57 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
2.162.11
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -11.60
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -12.75
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -16.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
65.35
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 application LAS 27738 currently on file with DMLW.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Aleutian subduction zone which is capable of generating strong ground motions at the site (see
Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Designs should be implemented to withstand these forces.
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 10:45:57 AM Page 2Page 58 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
930 Allison Creek Project
Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA)
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Allison Creek Project is a run of the river (ROR) alternative involving construction of a diversion structure on Allison Creek at elevation 1,300 feet. Water will
be diverted from the creek into a 42 inch surface / buried penstock to a 6.5 megawatt powerhouse near tidewater. Attachment A is the Final Feasibility Study
which provides details on this project as presented and approved by the CVEA Board of Directors.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
CVEA requests $6,114,000 to construct a 6.5 MW r-o-r hydroelectric power plant on Allison Creek. The funds would be used to purchase owner-furnished long
lead items for the project. The project is expected to defer (annually) over 4 million gallons of diesel fuel now used for power generation.
AEA has the following reservations with this request: the FERC license application is being processed but has yet to be issued; the final design documents and a
final construction estimate are not complete; the items to be purchased are not identified; CVEA already has $10M in state capital funds to purchase long lead
items needed; the project development schedule provided is quite aggressive;
Despite these shortcomings, it is a valid renewable energy project.
Special provision: Complete prior grant funded activities and acceptance by AEA for: final design documents, construction cost est., construction schedule and
plan of finance
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$6,114,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$6,114,000
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.28 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$6,114,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$38,804,000
1/2/2013 10:47:02 AM Page 1Page 59 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
4.104.10
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.38
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -12.44
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -15.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -15.87
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
64.02
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Hydroelectric project. AS 38.05.850 permits/easements required for electric transmission line and penstock. Easement applications ADL 231698 rec'd 10/25/2012.
LAS 27334 (land use permit) and LAS 28393 (water right application) also on file for this project.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The Aleutian subduction zone, faults of the Chugach-St. Elias fold and thrust belt, and the Patton Bay fault have potential to cause strong ground motions at the
site (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Appropriate design should be implemented to withstand these
forces.
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 10:47:02 AM Page 2Page 60 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
931 Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating System Project
Nenana City School District
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
The “Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report” dated July 24, 2012 states that, “Connecting the school with several
nearby buildings with a wood fired district heating system appears to be an economically viable project.” (p. 2 of 13) The buildings for the City of Nenana include
the Water Plant and the Fire Department. The building included for the Nenana Native Council is the Youth Educational Resource Center (YERC), which houses the
Early Learning, Head Start, and Youth Center programs. The school district buildings included in the project are the Nenana City Public School, the Administration
Building, the Warehouse/Vocational Education Building, and the Nenana Student Living Center. Though the Nenana Student Living Center is located approximately
six blocks from the Nenana City Public School, the “Pre-Feasibility Assessment” states, “The additional energy saved by connecting several buildings together
offsets the significant additional cost of underground piping and pumping costs. . . . Even with the significant piping costs, the extra pumping energy, and the
extra wood fuel needed to offset the heat loss of the long pipe runs, this option remains the strongest relative to other options.” (p. 2 & 3 of 13)
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Nenana City School District in Nenana, AK (Interior Alaska) requests funding for engineering design phase to build a district wide heating system for following
buildings: Nenana City School; Administration Building; Warehouse; Nenana Student Living Center; Nenana Native Council Day Care; City Water Plant; City Fire
Department . The project has the potential save the Nenana City School District in excess $3,516,725 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; business plan with heat sales agreement; harvest
plan; inventory plan.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds: $466,890
$19,200
Total Potential Grant Amount:$486,090
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$466,890AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$3,006,607
1/2/2013 10:47:48 AM Page 1Page 61 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
2.022.79
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -13.13
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -9.81
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -16.83
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
57.77
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Application references State lands within the future Nenana Tochacket Agriculture Project as a potential source of wood, noting that purchasers of state land must
clear timber to prepare for cultivation - while this is true, it must be clearly understood that Ag land sold by the state of Alaska is subject to covenants, and
development of the parcel (including the extent and nature of clearing) must take place consistent with a state-approved farm conservation plan.
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
Three entities including the Nenana City School District, the City of Nenana, and the Nenana Native Council have submitted this project for design of a wood fired
district heating system. Toghotthele Corporation owns a significant amount of timber land near Nenana and has offered support for this project and is interested in
participating in sales of the raw resource. The area is also close to the Tanana Valley State Forest which maintains a logging road infrastructure and offers timber
sales in the Nenana area. This raw resource woodshed combined with volume potentially from state land agriculture clearings and Mental Health Trust Authority
lands should ensure a sustainable harvest operation. It is anticipated that this project will utilize a woodchip boiler that requires approximately 1,037 green tons
(30% moisture content). The Tanana Valley State Forest Inventory update estimates 59 tons of above ground biomass per acre. Thus approximately 20 acres of
timber per year would be required for this project. The amount would be quite sustainable for this area of the Tanana Valley.
1/2/2013 10:47:48 AM Page 2Page 62 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
932 Design and Construction of Biomass Systems in Interior Villages
Interior Regional Housing Authority
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
The project will design and construct wood heating systems in three Interior Alaska rural communities. IRHA has conducted eight feasibility assessments including
forest inventories and wood harvest assessments in eight Interior communities. Based on the feasibility studies, design and construction of biomass systems and
wood storage facilities will begin design and construction in spring 2013 in Nikolai, Koyukuk, and Anvik. Round 6 funding is being requested for three more
biomass systems in three more communities in the region. Projects will be selected based the likelihood of successful project implementation which includes
identification of a project champion in the community, projected simple payback and adequate, sustainable forest inventory. IRHA will partner with Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium and the individual tribes. Renewable Energy Fund Round 4 IRHA received funding for biomass feasibility studies for: Koyukuk Nikolai
Anvik Holy Cross Nulato Hughes Ruby Kaltag Renewable Energy Fund Round 5 IRHA received funding for design and construction for three biomass projects to be
determined by Round 4 feasibility studies( completed in August 2012) Nikolai, Anvik and Koyukuk are selected for design and construction based on the highest
annual savings, lowest simple payback and biomass stocking figures that indicate sustainable harvest plans. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 IRHA submitting a
Round 6 application for construction of three more biomass projects to be determined suing feasibility studies and forest inventories. IRHA submitting a Round 6
application for feasibility studies for seven more communities in the Interior- Alatna, Allakaket, Beaver, Stevens Village, Grayling, Shageluk and Northway.
The location of the three biomass systems to be designed and constructed will be in three of the following communities:
Hughes (66.048890 N, 154.255560W), Ruby (64.739440 N 155.486940W), Nulato (64.719440 N 158.103060 W), Kaltag (64.327220 N 158.721940 W), Holy
Cross(62.199440 N 159.771390 W), Alatna (66 .566920 N 152.666390 W), Allakaket (66.562610 N 152.647560 W), Shageluk (62.682220 N 159.561940 W),
Grayling (62.903610 N 160.064720 W), Northway (62.982220 N 141.951670 W), Beaver (66.359440 N 147.396390 W) or Stevens Village (66.006390 N
149.090830 W).
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) requests funding for the design and construction of wood biomass heating systems for three communities to be
identified in the future from feasibility studies that were conducted with funding from the Renewable Energy Fund Round 4.
Interior Regional Housing Authority was funded for the construction of three communities in Round 5. IRHA is currently selecting these communities.
AEA is supportive of small scale biomass heating systems in Interior Alaska that are economically viable within sustainable communities. The review team
considered this application premature and the applicant should wait for the completion of the next round of feasibility studies to assure that the proposed projects
are economically viable and sustainable.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$1,314,380
$108,313
Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,422,693
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.65 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,314,380
1/2/2013 10:49 AM Page 1Page 63 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.901.47
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) -28.22
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -7.50
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
37.72
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Biomass resource ownership not identified. If on state land, resource sale likely required. Even if not on state land, state easements or permits may be required
depending on access routes.
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 Interior Regional Housing Authority would design and construct wood heating facilities in three Interior Alaska communities out of a total
of 12 that have conducted or will conduct feasibility assessments. The studies include forest inventories and wood harvest assessments prepared by Tanana Chiefs
Conference Forestry Program and use a combination of existing inventory data and classified satellite imagery. Tanana Chiefs has currently assessed the villages of
Hughes, Ruby, Nulato, Kaltag, and Holy Cross. The selection process will also look at village capacity to help ensure a particular project’s success. It is likely that
the wood heating systems will be similar to the village of Tanana which utilizes Garn boilers. Many of these villages are within forested areas along the Yukon
River. A sustainable supply of wood is generally thought to be available for the scale of these projects.
1/2/2013 10:49 AM Page 2Page 64 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
933 Biomass Feasibility Studies in Public Facilities, Interior Region
Interior Regional Housing Authority
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
The seven communities named in this proposal- Alatna, Allakaket, Northway, Grayling, Shageluk, Beaver and Stevens Village- have all participated in energy
planning meetings with IRHA and other organizations and have identified wood heating in public facilities as a key opportunity to displace fuel oil, reduce energy
costs, utilize locally available renewable resources and create local employment. This proposal calls for feasibility assessments that include the study of public
facilities where wood heating may be applicable, pre-engineering analysis of the size and type of boilers that would be required (including "boiler in a box"
option), estimated fuel displacement and cost savings, capital cost and payback period, and forest inventory and wood harvest plan. Of the seven communities
selected for this project, Stevens Village, Beaver and Northway had Preliminary Feasibility Assessments conducted in 2008. The 2008 studies suggested that
biomass was a viable option for the communities, but that further analysis was necessary. For these three communities, the 2008 studies will be updated and
expanded upon. Forest inventories will be completed as well. For the communities of Shageluk, Allakaket, Alatna and Grayling, IRHA proposes a two-pronged
approach: (1) subcontract with a qualified biomass energy specialist to conduct a 1-2 day site visits in each community and prepare a feasibility assessment for
each community, (2) subcontract with Will Putman, head forester for Tanana Chiefs Conference to conduct forest inventory and wood harvest planning. Following
completion of these reports, project staff Kim Carlo and Nadine Winters of IRHA will continue to communicate with residents of the communities and facilitate
their internal planning processes to determine whether each community wants to move forward with final design and construction phases of the respective wood-
heating projects, pending available funding . It bears mentioning that this proposal is identical in scope to one submitted by IRHA under Round 4 of the
Renewable Energy Fund. It was funded and eight biomass feasibility studies are completed as a result. This represents a deliberate approach whereby the
applicant is proceeding in stages with conducting feasibility work prior to conceptual design, final design and construction. It is anticipated that the phased
approach will allow IRHA to conduct full assessments for most communities in the region.
Alatna 66.566920 N 152.666390 W, Allakaket 66.562610 N 152.647560 W, Shageluk 62.682220 N 159.561940 W, Grayling 62.903610 N 160.064720 W,
Northway 62.982220 N 141 .951670 W, Beaver 66.359440 N 147.396390 W, Stevens Village 66.006390 N 149.090830 W
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) requests funding for feasibility assessments and forest inventories in 7 communities to evaluate the potential use
of biomass systems for heating. This is the 3rd application for feasibility assessments. A project for 8 communities was funded through Round 4, and a project
for 7 communities was recommended for funding through Round 5, but was not funded. The proposed communities for this round are: Grayling, Northway,
Beaver, Shageluk, Allakaket, Alatna, and Stevens Village.
IRHA has assembled a strong team with a biomass energy and resource experience. AEA believes that the proposed approach is well-conceived.
Recommend full funding of $168,959 for feasibility and biomass energy resource assessment.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$168,959
Total Potential Grant Amount:$168,959
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.66 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$168,959AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$168,959
1/2/2013 10:49:53 AM Page 1Page 65 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.431.05
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -9.63
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -1.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -28.96
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -15.30
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
62.39
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Appears to be study only, with no development. If development were to occur, the biomass resource ownership not identified. If on state land, resource sale likely
required. Even if not on state land, state easements or permits may be required depending on access routes.
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 Interior Regional Housing Authority will provide feasibility studies for additional Interior villages. The project is essentially a continuation
of last year’s project # 822 proposal. It will provide for a feasibility study of seven Interior villages and for pre-engineering analysis of the size and type of boilers
required. The studies will examine the use of proposed cordwood fueled Garn boiler heating systems similar to the facility in use for the village of Tanana but, the
analyses are not limited to these systems. The proposal seeks to acquire forest inventory data from Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program. The studies will
include forest inventories and wood harvest assessments prepared by TCC and will use a combination of existing inventory data and classified satellite imagery.
This project will continue work to determine an operable sustainable biomass resource supply for individual communities within the region.
1/2/2013 10:49:53 AM Page 2Page 66 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
934 Savoonga Heat Recovery System - Power Plant to Water Plant
City of Savoonga
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
Currently, AVEC is not utilizing either the jacket heat from its diesel engines or the heat generated by the electric boiler installed to dispose excess wind energy.
This project would recover heat from both sources at the AVEC plant and send that heat to the water treatment plant to heat the building, the circulated water
loops, and the water storage tank. The AVEC power plant and the Savoonga water treatment plant are located next to each other in Savoonga. A feasibility study
has been done for this project, the design has been completed and a construction cost estimate has been prepared. These are attached. Funds are being
requested
for construction only.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Savoonga in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC power
plant and an excess wind electric boiler to the water treatment plant, water loop, and water storage tank. This project is estimated to displace 100% of the
current fuel oil usage of 8800 gallons.
The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2011 and the heat recovery design was completed in 2012. The wind design of this project must be
completed.
The heat recovery system will be operated and maintained through the ARUC program.
Recommend full funding contingent on a heat sales agreement and accepted final design. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy
efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$425,701
$11,752
Total Potential Grant Amount:$437,453
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.49 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$425,701AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$425,701
1/2/2013 10:50:45 AM Page 1Page 67 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.622.21
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -11.63
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.33
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -21.48
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -16.30
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
67.49
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential 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 10:50:45 AM Page 2Page 68 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
935 Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery Project
Atmautluak Traditional Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the washeteria. Waste heat infrastructure will include waste heat transmission lines
and upgrades necessary in the power house and washeteria. For more detailed information, see the attached feasibility study by Alaska Energy and Engineering.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Native Village of Atmautlaulk in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the construction of a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the
community power plant to the washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 4395 gallons of the annual fuel oil usage of 4800 gallons.
The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2011 and the design was completed in 2012. The project is ready to purchase long lead items and to
proceed into construction.
Recommend full funding contingent on the successful negotiation of a heat sales agreement. AEA encourages the grantee to accelerate the installation so that the
system can be operational for the 2013 heating season.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$350,000
$10,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$360,500
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.70 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$350,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$360,500
1/2/2013 10:51:50 AM Page 1Page 69 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.101.49
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -6.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -30.63
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -14.73
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
66.61
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project is not on DMLW managed 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 10:51:50 AM Page 2Page 70 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
936 Heat Recovery for the Water System
City of Chuathbaluk
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water system. The estimated fuel oil savings to the community water plant is
projected to be 1 ,400 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached Chuathbaluk, Alaska 2012 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Chuathbaluk in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction of a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from
the community power plant to the water treatment water loop and water storage tank. This project is estimated to displace 1400 of the current fuel oil usage of
1834 gallons.
The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012.
AEA is concerned that there is no preliminary heat sales agreement and there is no mention of the operations and maintenance plans for the new system.
Recommend full funding contingent of a heat sales agreement and an O&M plan. Construction funding is contingent on acceptance of the final design. AEA will
work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$199,863
$5,996
Total Potential Grant Amount: $205,859
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.85 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$199,863AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$199,863
1/2/2013 10:52:59 AM Page 1Page 71 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.710.92
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -2.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -35.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -11.93
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
60.85
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project is not on DMLW managed 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 10:52:59 AM Page 2Page 72 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
937 Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria
Native Village of Kwinhagak
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the washeteria and combined utility building. The estimated fuel oil savings to the
combined utility building and washeteria is projected to be 14,200 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached Quinhagak,
Alaska 2012 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Native Village of Quinhagak in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat
from the AVEC power plant to the water treatment plant/combined utility and washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 62% or 14,200 gallons of the
current fuel oil usage per year.
The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations.
A project is currently underway to prove the viability of marine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this
project will be significantly less.
Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is
contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that
building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$668,350
$20,050
Total Potential Grant Amount:$688,400
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.54 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$668,350AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$668,350
1/2/2013 10:54:06 AM Page 1Page 73 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.962.48
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.33
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -23.65
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -16.80
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
68.53
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project is not on DMLW managed 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 10:54:06 AM Page 2Page 74 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
938 Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
Alan BaldiviesoAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
The purpose of this project is to further investigate the known geothermal resource at Tenakee Inlet and evaluate its potential to produce power and to evaluate
alternative uses of the source. Hot springs encountered during our reconnaissance study have the highest recorded surface temperature (176° F) of any of the
numerous geothermal springs tested on Chichagof Island. The reconnaissance study has indicated a viable resource with fluids having encountered subsurface
temperatures of 260° F, and that the resource is larger in size than originally anticipated. We request funding for a feasibility study and conceptual design project
with a timeline of approximately 28 months. We are currently completing a reconnaissance study that included mapping, remote sensing, and geochemical
sampling of water and soils. A paper presented at the Geothermal Resource Council in October 2012 is attached. We also submitted a draft interim report to AEA
in December 2011 with all of the data collected at that point. We propose for this feasibility study to continue our investigations by advancing one to two slim drill
holes, conducting a feasibility analysis and developing a conceptual design of how best to develop the resource. Future work would include production level
drilling, permitting, and power plant and infrastructure construction.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
A reconnaissance study was funded in Round 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund. The conceptual model and economic analysis from the reconnaissance study are
due after this review was conducted; the final report from the applicant is due in June 2013.
As a low-temperature geothermal resource, Tenakee Inlet remains potentially promising and continued exploration would contribute to a greater understanding of
geothermal resources in Southeast AK. Development of a small-scale ORC (organic Rankine cycle) geothermal plant would help determine the viability of
additional and possibly larger scale geothermal plants in the region and in other parts of the state.
Tenakee Springs is currently pursuing construction funding for a run-of-river hydroelectric project which would supply 90% of the existing load. That project
scored well in this Round 6 REF recommendation program and will be a recommended project. Pelican is in the midst of an AEA-managed upgrade of its hydro
plant to cover 100% of its current load.
Transmission line costs, potential access routes, and SeaAlaska’s involvement/the development of tourism facilities are large unknowns which could significantly
impact the economics of the project; however, there is no clear indication that any of these factors will bring down project costs in the near future. Funding for
the second phase of a project should be justified by the results of the first phase. Because the first phase has not been completed—in particular the economic
component—additional funding would be premature.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$3,485,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$3,485,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$27,000,000
1/2/2013 10:54:56 AM Page 1Page 75 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.381.06
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -27.09
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -7.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
39.84
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Feasibility study and 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
The proposed project plans to conduct mostly slim-hole drilling for up to two drill holes, each to about 4000 feet, to evaluate the geothermal resources. An earlier
Renewable Energy Grant (grant number 7040073) provided funds to conduct a reconnaissance study in 2011 that included collection of detailed water analyses,
conduct a shallow temperature probe study and to locate a number of hot springs in the area. This study suggests that the geothermal zone is broader than
originally thought and that water geochemistry suggests temperatures (127°C, 260°F) sufficient for binary electrical power generation (Organic Rankine Cycle). It
further suggests that ground-based geophysical studies such as SP and magnetotellurics would not be suitable because of the water saturated ground and the
lower temperature of the resource. A conceptual model has been developed as the result of the earlier study, and the geothermal resource may be shallow rather
than deep. The proposal costs seem reasonable for slim-hole drilling as well as the time necessary to drill two holes with a slim-hole drill rig (60-75 days). We
recommend that the applicant should provide a detailed outline of the methodology that will be used to select and justify the drilling locations for the drill holes.
Additionally, a description of slim hole drill rigs being considered and their depth capabilities and bore hole diameters should be included, along with information on
drill coring (continuous or selective) and how these cores will be used in the study.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 10:54:56 AM Page 2Page 76 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
939 Stebbins Heat Recovery Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will provide recovered heat from the new AVEC power plant to the new water treatment plant {WTP}, existing WTP, washeteria, clinic, Head Start
Building, and school. The estimated fuel reduction for the six buildings combined is estimated to be 57,000 gallons a year with an expected savings of $240,000
annually.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative in collaboration with ANTHC and the community of Stebbins is proposing the design and construction a waste heat
recovery system to connect recovered heat from the community power plant to the new Water treatment plant, existing water treatment plant, washeteria, head
start building, clinic, and school. This project is estimated to displace 57,000 gallons of fuel oil out of an annual usage of 69,000 gallons.
The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction
with this project.
Recommend full funding. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$1,319,088
$21,975
Total Potential Grant Amount:$1,341,063
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.56 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$1,319,088AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,341,063
1/2/2013 10:55:42 AM Page 1Page 77 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
3.384.28
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.17
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -2.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -24.35
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -17.47
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
70.57
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DNR land authorizations appear to be required.
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 10:55:42 AM Page 2Page 78 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
940 Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Community Store
City of Marshall
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water treatment plant and village store. The estimated fuel oil savings to these
two facilities is projected to be 7,700 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached Marshall, Alaska 2012 Heat Recovery
Feasibility Study.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Marshal in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC
power plant to the Water treatment plant and Community Store. This project is estimated to displace 100% or 7,700 gallons of the current fuel oil usage per
year.
The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations.
A project is currently underway to prove the viability of marine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this
project will be significantly less.
Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is
contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that
building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$183,200
$6,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$189,200
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$183,200AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$183,200
1/2/2013 10:56:36 AM Page 1Page 79 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
3.644.61
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.67
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -22.27
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -16.53
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
67.47
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
AS 38.05.850 permits/easements needed for transmission lines on state land. Possible lease needed for community store.
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 10:56:36 AM Page 2Page 80 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
941 Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant
City of Noorvik
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water treatment plant. The estimated fuel oil savings to the community water
plant is projected to be 18,600 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached Noorvik, Alaska 2012 Heat Recovery Feasibility
Study.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City of Noorvik in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC
power plant to the water treatment plant. This project is estimated to displace 87% or 18,600 gallons of the current fuel oil usage per year.
The heat recovery system will be operated and maintained through the ARUC program.
The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations.
A project is currently underway to prove the viability of marine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this
project will be significantly less.
Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is
contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that
building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$985,805
$29,580
Total Potential Grant Amount:$1,015,385
Funding & Cost
Northwest Arctic
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$985,805AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$985,808
1/2/2013 10:57:27 AM Page 1Page 81 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.652.25
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -10.88
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -27.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -15.77
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
69.31
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DNR land authorizations appear to be required.
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 10:57:27 AM Page 2Page 82 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
942 Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant/Washeteria Building
Native Village of Tuntutuliak
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water treatment plant/washeteria. The estimated fuel oil savings to the
community water plant and washeteria is projected to be 6,000 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached Tuntutuliak, Alaska
2012 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Native Village of Tuntutuliak in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat
from the community power plant to the water treatment plant and washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 6000 gallons of fuel oil.
The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction
with this project.
Recommend full funding. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$425,811
$12,774
Total Potential Grant Amount:$438,585
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.65 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$425,811AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$438,585
1/2/2013 10:58:28 AM Page 1Page 83 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.221.57
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -7.13
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -2.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -28.44
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -14.30
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
62.28
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project is not on DMLW managed 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 10:58:28 AM Page 2Page 84 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
943 OIT Inc Waste Heat Turbine Project
OIT Inc.
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Karl ReicheAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description as defined by applicant
Organic Incineration Technology (OIT) incinerates non-hazardous petroleum contaminated soils, absorbent pads and sludges generated by Alaskan industries in a
regulated, environmentally safe facility in Moose Creek, AK. The waste treatment process generates a substantial amount of energy which is currently exhausted
and therefore wasted. Through the installation of a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), a steam turbine generator system and condenser, OIT intends to
capture the waste heat from the existing incineration process and turn that energy into electricity to be used on-site and placed onto the grid for use by the
surrounding community. Through the implementation of this system, OIT would be utilizing an existing energy resource to reduce the community’s dependence
on traditional utility power sources fueled by the burning of fuel oil.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AEA will partially fund the completion of the final design, permitting, business plan, and power sales agreement.
The proposed energy recovery project is promising as it would be an addition to an operating waste incineration facility near Fairbanks, AK. Applicant proposes to
generate electric power (via a steam generator) for both on-site use and for resale to GVEA. Proposer indicates the upgrade will allow the business to operated
year-round vs. present half-year. Project costs (including construction) are estimated to be $3,258,000: funded half by an AEA grant and half through OIT (cash,
revenue, and bank loans). Proposer indicates that reconnaissance, feasibility, and conceptual design have been completed.
Prior to evaluating for funding of construction in future rounds, proposer will be requested to provide copies of:
• The feasibility study
• Conceptual design
• A loan approval letter from a bank (mentioned pg 16)
• A copy of OIT’s business plan
The business plan should address OIT’s operational history, long term contracts, a financial pro forma, SWOT discussion, and written confirmation from GVEA
regarding the power purchase rate and terms.
RESCORE after they provide more information.
Partial Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$1,629,223
$1,629,223
Total Potential Grant Amount:$3,258,446
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$225,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$3,258,447
1/2/2013 11:03:23 AM Page 1Page 85 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
2.152.15
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -1.83
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.50
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -2.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -9.81
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -14.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -15.07
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
56.29
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DNR land authorizations appear to be required.
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 11:03:23 AM Page 2Page 86 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
944 New Stuyahok Heat Recovery
Southwest Region School District
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Jim VailAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project includes upgrades to the AVEC power plant cooling system, installation of heat exchangers at the AVEC plant and school boiler module with
appropriate pumps and controls at both sites and 700 feet of underground piping between the plant and school boiler module.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative and the Southwest Region School District are proposing to provide recovered heat from the existing New Stuyahok power
plant for heating the adjacent New Stuyahok High School, built in 2007.
The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment for the AVEC Power Plant and New Stuyahok School project was completed in 9/19/12.
Recommend full funding contingent on a heat sales agreement and accepted final design.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$486,000
$62,000
Total Potential Grant Amount: $548,000
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$486,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$548,000
1/2/2013 11:04:22 AM Page 1Page 87 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
4.544.54
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -4.33
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.87
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -27.24
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -17.93
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
72.47
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project is not on DMLW managed 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 11:04:22 AM Page 2Page 88 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
945 St. Mary’s / Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Josh CraftAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is seeking $5,538,592 from this Grant Program to add a wind energy component to the existing diesel power
generation system that presently serves St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. The project will construct one 900 kW EWT turbine at a location 2.5 miles from St. Mary’s
and 1 miles east of Pitka’s Point, and will connect it to the existing power generation system. The EWT is expected to produce 2,717,000 kWh annually at 80%
turbine availability. This project would also involve upgrading the existing power line between St. Mary’s and the new wind turbine site from 2-phase to 3-phase.
The total estimated project cost is $6,153,991 with AVEC contributing $615,399 as its match. This project, using previously awarded REF funds, is currently under
design. Geotechnical work has been completed and permit applications have been submitted. The FAA approval has been obtained. Permits are expected to be in
hand by December 2012. Final design will be completed by the end of 2012.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is proposing the construction of a Wind-Diesel system to serve the interconnected communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s
Point. AVEC has also filed applications for interties from this St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point wind project to Mountain Village (#954-design) and to Pilot Station (#955-
construction). The size of the proposed turbine could serve two or all four communities.
AVEC is currently working on a 95% design for the proposed Wind-Diesel system under RE Fund Grant #7040017.
Recommend full funding with the special provision that the 95% design under grant #7040017 be accepted by AEA prior to allocation of construction funds.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$5,538,592
$615,399
Total Potential Grant Amount:$6,153,991
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.50 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$5,538,592AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$6,153,991
1/2/2013 11:05:41 AM Page 1Page 89 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.191.15
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -4.50
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -21.88
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -9.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -12.33
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
59.87
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Proposed project access road and tower 62Y07 (see propoal page 59 and 71) appear to be potentially located on top of a portion of RST 120 (Kotlik-Marshall).
The issues with locating RS2477s can add complexity to the permitting as there may be disagreement between parties regarding location of the easement. Rest of
land private.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Kaltag fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944).
However, this fault is located north of the project and likely should not affect the proposed project.
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 11:05:41 AM Page 2Page 90 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
946 Shungnak Solar Energy Construction Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is seeking $585,000 from this Grant Program to add a solar energy component to the existing diesel power
generation system that serves two communities. It will construct a new 50kW array of 288 Photovoltaic (PV) modules in Shungnak, Alaska. The array will be
inclined at 34 degrees from May through September, and 90 degrees the remainder of the year to take advantage of the solar angle at this northerly location, and
would serve Shungnak and Kobuk via an existing electrical intertie. The annual power production of the array is estimated to be approximately 44,623 kWh (with
shading). The solar array will be located on a lot just northwest of the existing Shungnak power plant which has been committed to AVEC for this use. Total
project cost is $650,000 and AVEC is prepared to match grant funds with $65,000.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Even with the high fuel costs in Shungnak and Kobuk, the economics of this project as proposed are poor. A similar project in Ambler was cancelled due to poor
economics driven in part by the high cost of a triodetic mounting structure. Nationwide and worldwide, solar PV panels, inverters and mounting systems costs
have dropped by more than half. Similarly, balance of plant costs have dropped as installers adopt mounting systems that require less time to install.
While remote Alaska will always be more expensive to install energy systems, the significant drop in component costs should be seen in Alaska even when labor
costs do not change. This project proposed a cost of $13 per watt. Other solar PV projects have been proposed this year with costs in the $4 to $7.50 per watt
range for top tier PV and inverter suppliers. Those price ranges begin to make solar PV cost effective in areas of Alaska with the highest cost of fuel. AVEC's
Kaltag (previously funded) and Upper Kalskag (not funded) proposals came in at $10 per watt over the past two years.
While the proposal is feasible from a technical perspective, a less expensive approach is needed to improve the economics of this project.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$585,000
$65,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$650,000
Funding & Cost
Northwest Arctic
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.80 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$650,000
1/2/2013 11:06:54 AM Page 1Page 91 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.660.63
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -35.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -8.25
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
48.25
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DNR land authorizations appear to be required.
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 11:06:54 AM Page 2Page 92 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
947 Marshall Wind Energy Design and Permitting Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
Building on the results of the already completed Concept Design Report (attached in Tab F), Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is proposing to
complete the final design and permitting to install two Northern Power Systems Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines for a 200 kilowatt (kW) installed wind
capacity, to the existing diesel power generation system in Marshall. Once work done under this grant is completed, AVEC would seek funding to construct the
turbines.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative proposes the design of a Wind-Diesel system in the community of Marshall. The design would be based on Conceptual Design
work funded through a round 4 Renewable Energy Fund Grant (#7040021).
The review team has the following concerns:
1) The applicant has not completed the minimum 12 month long meteorological "met" tower study.
2) The Wind Resource Assessment submitted with the application is based on an incomplete met tower study.
3) The Conceptual Design Report submitted with the application is based on an incomplete Wind Resource Assessment and does not address a variety of wind
turbine models and quantity configurations as required by Grant #7040021.
Completion of RE Fund Grant #7040021 will address these concerns.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$332,500
$17,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$350,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,509,850
1/2/2013 11:07:38 AM Page 1Page 93 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.790.85
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -22.27
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.75
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
33.02
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Proposed project site potentially within right-of-way for RST 168 (Paimute-Marshall). ; unclear if RST and project are colocated. If not, lands are private, no
DMLW authorizations needed. The issues with locating RS2477s can add complexity to the permitting as there may be disagreement between parties regarding
location of the easement.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Kaltag fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944).
However, this fault is located north of the project and likely should not affect the proposed project.
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 11:07:38 AM Page 2Page 94 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
948 Wales Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
AVEC proposes to install two wind meteorological (met) towers and complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Wales in
order to get a better understanding of the good wind regime in Wales. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the
placement of the met towers and geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, transporting and installing met towers at two locations, studying the wind resource for one
year, and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the sites. A conceptual design at one site will be
created based on the outcome of the met towers’ recordings and geotechnical investigation. Permits and site control will be obtained for the project.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Even though Wales was known to have strong winds, which was the prime motivator for development of the original project, there are many aspects of a wind
regime that must be quantified - such as turbulence, severe winds, Weibull K distribution, and other factors - before an optimum wind-diesel system can be
constructed. Further, study of the existing power system and electric loads is needed to design a proper solution. The original intent of the Wales pilot project was
to demonstrate the capability of running in diesel-off mode. To that extent, the project was a success, but long term operation proved complex and some
components were difficult to maintain. The system produced a modest amount of power in 2005/6 and only 1,198 kWh in 2009. The old system is in need of
major repairs, plus at least one turbine foundation is compromised due to settling or frost jacking.
AEA supports the applicant's willingness to start over and pursue a new course in Wales with a wind resource analysis and conceptual design. Later stage funding
will remain unallocated until a met tower study and wind resource analysis have been accepted by AEA. AEA recommends funding of this feasibility project to the
amount that the remaining Denali Commission funds will not cover. Applicant requested $190,000; there is approximately $120,000 of Denali Commission funding
remaining. AEA recommends $75,000 REF grant with a $7,500 match from the applicant.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$190,000
$10,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$200,000
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.64 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$75,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,020,000
1/2/2013 11:08:50 AM Page 1Page 95 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.041.33
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.33
5) Benefits (Max 15) -3.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -28.10
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -12.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
62.09
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Actual Met tower placement appears to be on non-state land, however state easements or permits may be required depending on access routes and equipment
type.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Bendlebeden fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.
gov/pubs/id/23944). However, this fault is located north of the project and likely should not affect the proposed project.
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 11:08:50 AM Page 2Page 96 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
949 Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
AVEC proposes to install a wind meteorological (met) tower and complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Kotlik. The
work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the placement of the met tower and geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, transporting
and installing a met tower at this location, studying the wind resource for one year, and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions
and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical investigation.
Permits and site control will be obtained for the conceptual design of this project.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
A class 4 wind resource is possible according to the wind resource model and is assumed for this analysis. This feasibility will provide data to confirm or revise that
assumption. AEA believes that the wind resource study and electrical load data collection should be completed prior to additional money being spent due to the
presence of lower wind regimes in the vicinity.
Permitting plan, budget and schedule look reasonable although $23,750 appears to be high for a geotech recon study. AVEC should collect village electric load
data simultaneously with wind met tower study. Applicant should ensure that the conceptual design report addresses all the factors listed in the Alaska Wind
Program Guidelines for Conceptual Design Reports http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Useful%20documents/Alaska%20Wind%20Program%20Guidelines%20for%
20Conceptual%20Design%20Reports%20-%20Rev%202.docx
AEA agrees closely with power assumptions, although not all power in a 31% penetration system will be used to offset electricity. Some (~11%) will need to be
diverted to a heat load at a lower economic benefit. AEA projects 39,761 gallons of diesel displaced and 1,849 gallons of heating fuel.
Recommend funding with the caveat that the wind resource analysis and electrical load analysis be completed before allocation of remaining funds.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$142,500
$7,500
Total Potential Grant Amount: $150,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$142,500AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$3,060,000
1/2/2013 11:37:53 AM Page 1Page 97 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.100.99
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -1.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -3.38
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -25.78
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -11.83
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
57.15
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient information to review. Request for funding for feasibility study. No location selected for placement of meteorological study tower at this time. DMLW
permit required if DNR managed land selected.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Kaltag fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944).
However, this fault is located north of the project and likely should not affect the proposed project.
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 11:37:53 AM Page 2Page 98 of 170