HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft_REF6_950-985DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
950 Russian Mission Wind 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 Russian
Mission. 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
The review team is concerned that there is no developable wind site near Russian Mission. Our best estimate for in/near town is only a class 2 which would not
result in an economically viable project. In addition, the presence of tall trees around Russian Mission prevents the possible use of a low-cost 10-meter met
tower. The closest potentially viable wind regime is approximately 5 miles southwest. The cost of a transmission line would likely make the project economically
infeasible. Since both the wind resource model and the airport data reflect class 1 wind speeds, this project is deemed high risk and unlikely to produce an
economically feasible project.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds: $142,500
$7,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$150,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,530,000
1/2/2013 11:38:42 AM Page 1Page 99 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.520.89
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) -23.86
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
34.86
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
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 11:38:42 AM Page 2Page 100 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
951 St. Michael/Stebbins Wind Energy Final 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 wind resource (V3 Energy LLC), economic modeling (Northern Economics, Inc.) and conceptual design reports
(HDL Engineering Consultants), Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is proposing to complete the final design and permitting to install one EWT 900
wind turbine to supplement the existing diesel-fired power generation systems in St. Michael and Stebbins. Work under this grant would also be expended to
design necessary wind integration controls for the power generation system at the new power plant in Stebbins. AVEC has completed the final design and
obtained permits for the intertie between St. Michael and Stebbins. Once work done under this grant is completed, AVEC could seek funding to construct the
turbines and an intertie to serve both communities.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative proposes the design of a Wind-Diesel system in the community of Stebbins. The Stebbins Wind-Diesel system would supply
power to St. Michaels via a proposed intertie expected to be constructed in 2013. The design would be based on Conceptual Design work funded through RE
Fund Grant #7040008.
The review team has the following concerns:
1) The applicant has not completed the minimum 12 month long meteorological "met" tower study at the proposed wind turbine site.
2) A complete Wind Resource Assessment has not been accepted by AEA.
3) A complete Conceptual Design Report has not been accepted by AEA.
Completion of RE Fund Grant #7040008 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
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.56 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$5,000,000
1/2/2013 11:39:27 AM Page 1Page 101 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.641.76
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) -24.35
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
36.10
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Proposed wind turbine is not on state land.
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).
Due its close proximity to the fault, appropriate design considerations should be employed for seismic shaking.
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 11:39:27 AM Page 2Page 102 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
952 Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Northwest Arctic Borough is very large and the communities are small and isolated. Typically larger transmission systems have not been possible due to
challenging construction and steep economics. Constructing an intertie is a large capital investment but can reap significant benefits in the form of reduced energy
costs. This proposed project will include the completion of a Wind Resource Assessment in Cosmos Hills near Wesley Creek. The placement of the met tower will
be north of Shungnak approximately five miles. In order to fully reap the benefits of wind energy in the Upper Kobuk region, and to reduce the cost of electricity
for those communities, an intertie between Ambler and Shungnak will also be evaluated. All three communities are members of Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
(AVEC) who has completed other similar studies for greater community benefit. AVEC has installed numerous interties between communities, some with wind
turbine generators, and has been able to successfully reduce the cost of power.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
$233,000 is a lot of money to spend for an area with no validated wind resource. The ridge tops of the Cosmos Hills likely have strong winds, but the 1,500 to
2,500-ft elevation change and steep terrain make these sites difficult to develop. Significant wind reconnaissance should be performed to find suitable project sites
prior to expending more money. The communities have great need due to their very high costs of power, but the high costs to intertie all communities represents
a significant barrier.
Recommend partial funding of $40,000 to purchase, ship and install one 34-meter met tower and up to three 10-meter met towers to collect data for one year or
longer (longer is advised due to data from the wind model and airport) and write a wind resource analysis report. Hourly electrical load data should be collected in
all three communities simultaneous with wind data collection.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$221,350
$11,650
Total Potential Grant Amount:$233,000
Funding & Cost
Northwest Arctic
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.74 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$40,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$233,000
1/2/2013 11:40:24 AM Page 1Page 103 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.640.65
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -0.38
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -32.38
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -8.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
57.42
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Most uplands in the area of the project are not state lands; however, if geotechnical work/future intertie cross state-owned beds of navigable waterways, then
DMLW authorizations may be needed.
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 11:40:24 AM Page 2Page 104 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
953 Hotham Peak Wind Resource and lntertie Assessment
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
The Northwest Arctic Borough is very large and the communities are small and isolated. Typically larger transmission systems have not been possible due to
challenging construction and steep economics. Constructing an intertie is a large capital investment. The intertie between Noorvik, Kiana, and Selawik would
intertie three AVEC utilities and would be over 50 miles in length. The construction of an intertie could reduce the cost of energy in the community by equalizing
the cost of diesel to that of the community with the cheapest fuel: in this case, Noorvik. Additionally, an intertie would provide generation support and increased
reliabi lity for the overall electrical system. The construction of an intertie would also allow for installation of distributed generation at the most ideal location, in
this case Hotham Peak which, through observations and modeling, has a superb wind resource. A greater wind resource provides the opportunity for installation
of larger scale wind turbines. According to modeling completed in the 2012 Noorvik Wind-Diesel Conceptual Draft Report, the most ideal location for a larger
turbine would be on the southwest slope of Hotham Ridge, between Noorvik and Selawik.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
This proposal has the potential to conflict with two other REF projects that have already been awarded funds. The first, grant agreement 2195377 from REF 1
totaling $10.8 million, was awarded to the Northwest Arctic Borough allowing up to $4 million in design and construction funds for Noorvik along with similar
funding guidelines for Buckland and Deering. The second, grant agreement #7040030 awarded $85,000 to AVEC in Round 5, provides for a feasibility study to
evaluate the potential to upgrade/replace the existing AOC wind turbines in Selawik.
A draft conceptual design report has already been completed for Noorvik under the NWAB grant.
The economics on this project are difficult to pin down at this phase with many unknowns for the actual cost of interties and the wind energy potential at the
proposed site. Presently, there is a lot of value in the learning from this feasibility study, so a B/C ratio of less than 1.0 isn't a large negative at this phase of the
project. These communities have few options for renewable energy nearby, so wind from a centralized location with transmission lines may be their best option.
Recommend funding, but with the provision that the proposed site must complete a wind resource study prior to allocating the remainder of funds. The NWAB
and key stakeholders in Noorvik will need to be consulted to gain buy-in and consensus on this proposal since it creates a delay/change in the 2195377 project.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$207,100
$10,900
Total Potential Grant Amount:$218,000
Funding & Cost
Northwest Arctic
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$207,100AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$23,000,000
1/2/2013 11:41:19 AM Page 1Page 105 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.560.63
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.13
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -27.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -9.37
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
56.12
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
As this project is in the assessment phase, exact locations for the facilities and intertie routes, geotech work, etc and not specified - while most uplands in the
vicinity of the project are not state lands, DMLW authorizations may be needed if project work involves state-owned beds of navigable waterways.
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 11:41:19 AM Page 2Page 106 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
954 St. Mary’s / Mountain Village Wind Energy Intertie Final Design
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
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 $332,500 from this Grant Program to (final) design and permit an electrical intertie between the
communities of St. Mary’s and Mountain Village. AVEC will contribute $17,500 as a cash match. The intertie will be designed with fourteen (14) miles of new
connection along the existing gravel road that connects the two communities and will require an upgrade from single-phase to three-phase of an existing eight (8)
miles. The conceptual design work indicates the intertie will not require any water crossings; it can be constructed in summer months and will need pole spacing
of 125 feet. At present, St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are connected by a distribution power line, but Mountain Village is a stand-alone diesel powered community.
This project would electrically intertie Mountain Village to the St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point system. Standby generation capability will be maintained in Mountain Village
but primary generation will be delivered by the existing St. Mary’s power plant. AVEC has submitted another Round 6 Renewable Energy Grant Program
application to build a wind energy system for the intertied communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. This project will add Mountain Village, about 20 miles from
St. Mary’s, to that wind system.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative is proposing the final design and permitting of an intertie between the communities of Mountain Village and St. Mary’s. AVEC
has also filed applications for a wind project in St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point (#945-construction), and an intertie to Pilot Station (#955-construction). The size of the
proposed turbine could serve two or all four communities.
Recommend full funding with the special provision that a 35% design, including construction cost estimates, be accepted by AEA prior to the allocation of the
remaining funds.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$332,500
$17,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$350,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.57 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$332,500AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$7,449,000
1/2/2013 11:42:02 AM Page 1Page 107 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.780.69
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -24.94
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.75
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -9.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
51.69
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW permtting requirements evident. Land not state owned.
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 11:42:02 AM Page 2Page 108 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
955 St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction 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 $5,581,800 from this Grant Program to construct an electrical intertie between the communities of St.
Mary’s and Pilot Station, the total cost of which is $6,202,000. AVEC will contribute $625,000 cash as its match. The intertie will be designed with 14 miles of new
connection through undeveloped terrain. The completed design work-to-date indicates the three-phase electrical intertie will require two river crossings and six
slough/lake crossings, must be constructed in winter months, and will need pole spacing of 185 feet. Completed design work on the intertie is included in Tab F.
At present, St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are connected by a distribution power line, but Pilot Station is a stand-alone, diesel-powered community. This project
would connect the electric system of Pilot Station to the St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point system. Standby generation capability will be provided with a new standby
generation module in Pilot Station, but primary generation will be delivered by the existing St. Mary’s power plant and an EWT wind turbine. Another Round 6
Renewable Energy Grant Program application requests funding to build a wind energy system for the intertied communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. This
project will add Pilot Station, about eleven miles from St. Mary’s, to that proposed wind system.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative is proposing the construction of an intertie between the communities of St. Mary’s and Pilot Station to connect to renewable
energy source of the proposed St. Mary’s wind farm. AVEC has also filed applications for a wind project in St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point (#945-construction), and an
intertie to Mountain Village (#954-design). The size of the proposed turbine could serve two or all four communities.
Recommend full funding with the special provision that the St. Mary’s (#945) project be funded or constructed prior to the allocation of funds for this project.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$5,581,800
$620,200
Total Potential Grant Amount: $6,202,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.52 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$5,581,800AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$6,202,000
1/2/2013 11:43:08 AM Page 1Page 109 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.920.86
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.67
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.13
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -22.75
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -9.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -10.43
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
54.47
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW permtting requirements evident. Land owned by four village corporations.
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 11:43:08 AM Page 2Page 110 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
956 Goodnews Bay 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 Goodnews
Bay. 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 5 wind resource is assumed and supported by the 30-meter wind resource model developed by AEA/NREL/AWSTruepower. This feasibility will provide data
to confirm or revise that assumption. Permitting plan, budget and schedule look reasonable, except that $23,750 is probably high for a geotech reconnaissance
study. AVEC should collect village electric load data simultaneously with wind met tower study. Later stage funding will remain unallocated until a met tower study
and wind resource analysis have been accepted by AEA.
AEA agrees closely with power assumptions, although not all power in a 47% penetration system will be used to offset electricity. Some will need to be diverted to
a heat load at a lower economic benefit. AEA projects 26,216 gallons of diesel displaced and 760 gallons of heating fuel. The challenge in the CDR phase will be to
find a turbine solution with good economic payback.
Recommend full funding.
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:$0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$142,500AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,530,000
1/2/2013 11:44:27 AM Page 1Page 111 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.881.05
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -25.46
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -11.13
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
53.42
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW permtting requirements evident. Land not state owned.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Denali fault (Togiak-tikchik section) (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.
alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Consideration of seismic shaking should be done in assessing project costs during feasibility studies.
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 11:44:27 AM Page 2Page 112 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
957 Shishmaref 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 Shishmaref.
The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the placement of the met tower, geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, transporting
and installing a met tower at this location, studying the wind resource for one year, and conducting a reconnaissance-level geotechnical investigation to determine
the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical
investigation. This project will also consider other turbines that can be relocated, if the village decides to move to another location.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
A class 5 wind resource is assumed and supported by the 30-meter wind resource model developed by AEA/NREL/AWSTruepower. This feasibility will provide data
to confirm or revise that assumption. Permitting plan, budget and schedule look reasonable, except that $23,750 is probably high for a geotech reconnaissance
study. AVEC should collect village electric load data simultaneously with wind met tower study.
AEA believes that this site is a class 5 wind regime as opposed to a class 6 proposed. AEA projects 31,298 gallons of diesel displaced and 1,268 gallons of heating
fuel. The challenge in the CDR phase will be to address concerns over possible village relocation.
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
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$142,500AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,040,000
1/2/2013 11:48:06 AM Page 1Page 113 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.871.30
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -1.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -2.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -25.79
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -10.87
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
51.83
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Exact location of project site in still undetermined, but most uplands in the area are not state-owned.
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 south of the project (>140 miles) 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 11:48:06 AM Page 2Page 114 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
958 Wrangell Power Plant Upgrade
City & Borough of Wrangell
Design
Feasibility
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
AEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
Wrangell has recently experienced an unprecedented increase in our electrical distribution load. The increase is a result of customers removing their expensive
diesel fuel burning heating systems and replacing them with lower cost (hydro) electric units. During the 2011/2012 winter season Wrangell bad a record peak
load demand of 9.5 MW. Currently the Wrangell Power Plant is capable of producing 8 MV A. If there were a catastrophic event that disrupted Wrangell's
hydroelectric power supply from Tyee, such as the landslide that affected the Juneau area in January of 2009, our standby generators could not supply electricity
to all of our customers. Preliminary indications are that Wrangell must install an additional standby generator. This project will evaluate, recommend, design and
install the upgrades needed at the Wrangell Power Plant that will insure our ability to continue to support all of our customers and their renewable energy choices.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$117,136
Total Potential Grant Amount:$117,136
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$117,136
1/2/2013 11:49:13 AM Page 1Page 115 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -
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
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land interest.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The proposed upgrades should consider seismic shaking from the Queen Charolotte-Fairweather fault in design considerations (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 11:49:13 AM Page 2Page 116 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
959 Ticasuk Brown School Pellet Boiler Project-Phase 2
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB)
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) proposes the installation of a wood pellet boiler at the Ticasuk Brown Elementary School. Phase 1 of this project is
currently underway through an AEA managed grant agreement with the FNSB. The $550,000, funding for Phase 1 of this project was provided by the 2012
Legislature through a DCCED grant to AEA. This proposed project, or Phase 2 of this project, will be comprised of: 1) Modular pellet boiler unit anchored to
concrete sleepers, 2) heat loop to existing school boiler room. The boiler room is to be equipped with new heat exchanger for heat transfer to school system,
including heat exchanger, manifolding, controls and re-circulating pump, 3) connection of electrical service from a panel in the existing boiler room, assuming
required electrical capacity is available and 4) install pellet silo and auger system for pellet fuel storage and fuel supply stream. To ensure project continuity, the
FNSB proposes this final phase of the project also be an AEA Managed Project.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The FNSB is proposing Phase II for the installation of pellet-fired boiler systems to heat Ticasuk Brown Elementary School. Phase I: Design and heat module
procurement was funded through State of Alaska Legislature Appropriation. This project is estimated to displace a total of 20,000 gallons per year of fuel oil.
The application includes substantial support from the community and the Borough. This project will develop an anchor tenant for pellet supply in the Interior
Alaska region and will potentially support the development of pellet manufacturing infrastructure.
AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Grantee requested AEA continue to manage
the project. AEA concurs.
Recommend partial funding.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$350,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$350,000
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$250,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$350,000
1/2/2013 11:49:56 AM Page 1Page 117 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.801.80
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.17
5) Benefits (Max 15) -13.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -9.81
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -17.43
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
47.91
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No 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
This project submitted by the Fairbanks North Star Borough seeks additional funding to continue with the construction of a wood pellet boiler for the Ticasuk Brown
Elementary School in North Pole. It is expected that 20,000 gallons of fuel oil will be displaced annually by the wood boiler. The installation of a pellet boiler is
expected to save the school district an estimated $31,000 per year. The supply of pellets should not be a problem since Superior Pellet Fuels is located only a short
distance from the school and manufactures pellets for the Fairbanks area. The supply of raw wood to the pellet plant is also sustainable and is in part being
sourced from state timber sales in the Tanana Valley State Forest. In the project proposal it mentions working with the local supplier of pellets and alternative
sources if the local provider is unable to meet demand. This is a plus for this project to have multiple supply sources identified. The proposal provides an estimate
of $295 per ton as the delivered price of pellets to the wood boiler.
1/2/2013 11:49:56 AM Page 2Page 118 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
960 TidGen™ Array Project
ORPC Alaska 2, LLC
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
OtherResource:
Alan BaldiviesoAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description as defined by applicant
ORPC Alaska 2, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC, (collectively, ORPC), is a global leader in the development of
hydrokinetic power systems and ecoconscious projects that harness the power of ocean and river currents to create clean, predictable renewable energy. ORPC
works in partnership with coastal and river communities to create and sustain local jobs while promoting energy independence and protecting the environment. Its
technology includes the proprietary TidGen™ Power System, which includes one or more TidGen™ devices connected to an on-shore station with power and data
cables. In ORPC’s TidGen™ Array Project, ORPC will install a four-device TidGen™ Power System in Cook Inlet with a rated generating capacity of 600 kW in a 6-
knot current. ORPC’s REF Round 4 grant (award document signed) will help fund the first device of what eventually will be a four device TidGen™ Power System.
REF Round 6 funding will help fund the TidGen™ Array Project to expand to a four-device system by adding an array of three TidGen™ devices.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
ORPC has demonstrated a commitment to a sustained presence in Alaska and has been a pioneer in hydrokinetic development in Alaska and the in the country,
and has a track record of hiring local contractors. Significant work has gone into resource evaluation and permitting for what will be the first tidal installation in
Alaska. ORPC has garnered significant local support, including that of Homer Electric Association.
Initial costs are high and projected to drop for subsequent installations. The benefit/cost ratio increases as the project expands (roughly $4M for the first unit,
and $4M for the next 3 units). However, according to AEA’s analysis, the B/C ratio remains below 1 even for a 100 MW plant.
Given the high risk associated with the installation of a new technology in Cook Inlet and the uncertainty surrounding costs, it is logical to wait for the results of
the installation of the first turbine before committing funds to expand the project.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$2,000,000
$6,696,494
Total Potential Grant Amount:$8,696,494
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.20 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$8,696,494
1/2/2013 11:50:46 AM Page 1Page 119 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
-0.010.01
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) -8.63
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -14.25
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
27.88
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Currently under permit for study phase (LAS 28046). Additional AS 38.05.850 permits or lease will be required for Phase VI (the post study phase).
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The proposed project should consider shaking from earthquakes along Cook Inlet fault-cored folds and Aleutian subduction zone (see Quaternary fault & fold
digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944).
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 11:50:46 AM Page 2Page 120 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
961 Atka Wind Power Project
City of Atka
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project seeks funding for completion of a reconnaissance and feasibility study for wind generated energy in Atka. The study will analyze whether wind power
used in combination with the recently completed Chunixsax Creek Hydro-Electric project and diesel generated power can provide additional power needed to
support electric heat to the entire Atka community and a planned expansion of Atka Pride Seafoods (APS) to a year-round processing operation with increased
energy needs. Atka Pride Seafoods is a subsidiary of the Aleutian/Pribilof Community Development Association(APICDA) and is partially owned by the community
of Atka. The ultimate goal is to meet 90% or more of Atka energy needs using renewable energy sources.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Atka has recently completed a hydroelectric project under the Renewable Energy Fund. A detailed understanding of the new electrical load demand
and diesel demand are not presently known. Work needs to be done to quantify the electrical load profile for Atka Pride Seafood (APS). Aleutian Pribilof Island
Community Development Association (APICDA) has already agreed to purchase and install a met tower near the community.
City of Atka is not current with Power Cost Equalization (PCE) reporting and this raises concerns.
Not recommended for funding. wind program managers will work with APICDA to analyze met tower data using Windographer(TM) software and hourly
electrical load data collected for the city and for APS using HOMER(TM) software.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$140,000
$50,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$190,000
Funding & Cost
Aleutians
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.70 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:
1/2/2013 11:51:42 AM Page 1Page 121 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
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) -30.80
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -11.25
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
47.05
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land or authorization for this wind project.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The feasibility study should consider the impacts of strong seismic shaking due to earthquakes on the Aleutian subduction zone on project design costs (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 11:51:42 AM Page 2Page 122 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
962 Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Study
Manokotak Power Company
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Project proposes a further look at the viability of wind to produce electricity for residential and non-residential uses. A
2009 wind resource report written by V3 Energy, LLC indicates a mid-Class 2 (marginal) resource, but given the position of the community in relation to nearby
elevation (for a higher wind class) and an old landing strip (for a solid foundation) a further look is warranted. The project proposes using the Wind Atlas Analysis
and Application Program (WAsP), a software application from Denmark, to further analyze the current met tower data and investigate options for the installation
of 3-4 small met towers for additional resource data collection and analysis. The end result would be a conceptual design report in compliance with the Alaska
Wind Program Guidelines for Conceptual Design Reports that includes in broad categories a wind resource analysis, electrical system overview, and heat load
overview.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The proposed budget is 30% larger than comparable wind feasibility studies. Recommended funding is capped at $143,000 in line with similar projects elsewhere
in the state.
There may be an economic wind resource in the community if a developable wind resource is found. One 10-meter met tower should be placed at the same site
as the original 30-meter met tower. 10-meter met towers may need to be equipped with NRG dataloggers and sensors in order to quantify turbulence. Electrical
load data should be collected at the powerhouse simultaneous with the new met towers. A new wind resource study (that may include WAsP analysis) should be
completed and accepted by AEA prior to allocation of funds for later-stage activities.
Conceptual design report should follow AEA guidelines for CDRs posted on the wind program Web page.
Recommend partial funding of $143,000.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$193,000
$7,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$200,000
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$143,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,020,000
1/2/2013 11:52:33 AM Page 1Page 123 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.990.66
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.38
6) Local Support (Max 5) -4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -24.06
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -9.60
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
52.12
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient information regarding location of study towers. Possible authorizations required if 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 11:52:33 AM Page 2Page 124 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
963 Mount Makushin Geothermal Project
The Aleut Corporation
Construction
Design
Feasibility
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
Alan BaldiviesoAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description as defined by applicant
Mount Makushin geothermal energy potential has been discussed and evaluated by the State of Alaska and others for the last twenty or so years. An exploratory
drilling program, funded by the Department of Energy in the early 1980s made the determination that the Makushin geothermal resource is the only proven high
temperature geothermal system in Alaska that could be used for power generation. While the data has been encouraging there has not been a sustained effort to
develop the resource beyond its current status since 1995 when the design and permitting reports were completed for a 12MW power plant for which the
financing was approved by the Alaska State legislature. This grant will help the Aleut Corporation re-characterize the Makushin resource and develop the
preliminary design of a production facility with the intention of building and operating a geothermal plant on Unalaska for the benefit of the Island. The cost
elements in this grant are based on a 30MW plant – which we expect to be the maximum size project (likely project size range 10-30 MW). During this phase we
will evaluate all options and determine the optimum size of the project as well as the optimal location of the steam field and other facilities.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The geothermal resource on Mount Makushin at the USGS ST-1 Test Well has been demonstrated to exist at a high temperature and high pressure. Significant
access and transmission challenges are posed by the remoteness of the location and the rugged terrain; these challenges complicate the economics of the project,
particularly for the development of a smaller plant sized to meet only the City’s load.
Successful development of the Makushin geothermal resource will require, at a minimum, agreement and participation between land owners, subsurface rights
holders, and the City of Unalaska. Failed negotiations over the past five years between the City, the applicant, and the land owners have prevented additional
exploration and development; a 2008 legislative appropriation of $1.5 million for additional geothermal exploration remains unspent due to failed negotiations.
Without the support of all parties or a clear indication of a forthcoming agreement, no additional funding is warranted.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$32,464,000
$540,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$33,004,000
Funding & Cost
Aleutians
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.45 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$311,304,000
1/2/2013 11:53:27 AM Page 1Page 125 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.493.13
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -19.64
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
26.39
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Water permit, tideland lease and possible AS 38.05.850 permits required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Facilities should incorporate design to withstand strong ground shaking due to the Aleutian subduction zone (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:
//www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944).
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The proposed project is requesting ~$32.5 million for geothermal reconnaissance that will include drilling, feasibility, design and permitting and construction of a
road to the drilling area. $20 million is indicated for drilling of test wells. The proposal plans to design a field exploration campaign to delineate the geothermal
system as accurately as possible and will use reservoir modeling and other tools to analyze the exploration and drilling data as the project proceeds. The proposal
lacks sufficient information to review the approach that will be used to select the drilling sites in the reconnaissance phase. The applicants should provide a
detailed outline of the methodology for this proposed study, what necessary information it will provide that will directly lead to development of the geothermal
resource, and provide a detailed list of the planned drilling and geothermal testing operations. This information should include a description of the current data
that indicates the existence and quality of a geothermal resource in the planned project area, any planned non-drilling mapping of the field, how the wells will be
located, the type of drill rig and diameter of the drill holes for the test wells (i.e. are these production test well size?), and how the geothermal reservoir and flow
testing will be evaluated. Additionally, it will be important for the applicant to show how these operations will change what is currently known about the resource
from work performed in the 1980s. It is not possible to evaluate this proposal without significant additional information.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 11:53:27 AM Page 2Page 126 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
964 Excursion Inlet Hydro Project- Phase II
Haines Borough
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
A Phase II Feasibility Study would be carried out, including the following tasks:
>Project scoping
>Detailed energy resource analysis
>Identification of land and regulatory issues
>Permitting and environmental analysis
>Detail analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets
>Assessment of alternatives
>Conceptual design analysis and cost estimate.
>Conceptual business and operations plan
>Final report and recommendations.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Haines Borough proposes feasibility assessment of two run-of-river hydro projects totaling 3 MW and 1.5 miles of transmission to connect to the Ocean
Beauty's fish processing facility and residences in the non-organized community of Excursion Inlet. The processor and most residences are seasonal; population is
14. There is no community power system.
The project received a round 4 Renewable Energy Fund grant (#625) to perform a two-step reconnaissance study. The first step to determine the reach of
anadromous habitat has been completed and work on the second half of that study has begun. As the proposal notes "barriers to project development will
include anadromous fish concerns.... Major concerns with protection of these species include minimum flows below a diversion facility and the potential need for
fish passage at the intake structures". The balance of that grant-funded work remains incomplete.
The reconnaissance study will address fish habitat, electrical service and estimated load for the Borough subdivision, establishment of community utility, business
arrangement for selling power to the fish processor Ocean Beauty, site control and land ownership, and FERC jurisdiction. It will include consideration of fish
habitat issues as it affects the cost, capacity, and energy output of the project and environmental licensing concerns.
This application did not score high enough to pass Stage 2 review. Not recommended for funding.
Did Not Pass Stage 2
Requested Grant Funds: $213,536
$10,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$223,536
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$15,900,000
1/2/2013 11:54:22 AM Page 1Page 127 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.091.86
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -3.63
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -5.97
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
16.84
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
This is the same project as reviewed in the previous rounds. This project proposes to put two small dams, one on South Excursion Inlet Creek (type is rockfill 5’
high by 40’ long) and the other on North Excursion Inlet Creek (type is concrete diversion 5’ x 70’). The two proposed locations of the dams are on Federal land
but both streams have mean annual flows of about 120 cfs, comparable to Montana Creek. The gradients from the topo map indicate a relatively low gradient and
both streams are identified as anadromous. The division may recommend that a navigability determination be made for these two streams. For North Excursion
Inlet Creek a portion of the project is on state land the improvements includes portions of the flume, the powerhouse, and portions of the transmission line. For
the South Excursion Inlet Creek it is more difficult to determine but a short section of the flume may have to go into State land. There may be some resource
concerns rearding the flumes that would divert water from fairly significant lengths of both streams and if there would be sufficient remaining water to support the
fish.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Feasibility should consider ground motions due to earthquakes on the Denali fault (Chilkoot River section) for design purposes.
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 11:54:22 AM Page 2Page 128 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
965 Haines Borough Pellet Heating Project
Haines Borough
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
Project funds will be used to design, purchase and install six wood pellet boilers and storage silos at the following Borough-owned buildings: sewage treatment
plant, human resources I preschool building, Haines Borough School District vocational education building (also referred to in this application as voc-tec building),
swimming pool, Borough administrative offices, and visitor center.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Haines Borough is proposing final design and installation of pellet-fired boiler systems to heat Borough-owned buildings: sewage treatment plant; human
resources/pre-school building; Haines Borough School District vocational education building; swimming pool; Borough administrative offices; and visitor center.
This project is estimated to displace a total of 30,745 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 263 tons of pellets per year. The project has completed
feasibility/conceptual design phase work.
The application includes substantial support from the community and Borough. Haines Borough has already purchased and installed a pellet system Borough
Senior Center. This project will develop an anchor tenant for pellet supply in the Southeast Alaska region and will potentially support the development of pellet
manufacturing infrastructure.
AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding, with requirement of AEA acceptance of final design, logistics plan, and operational plan.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$472,000
$45,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$517,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$472,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$517,000
1/2/2013 11:55:14 AM Page 1Page 129 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.772.17
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -9.52
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.75
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -17.07
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
55.42
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
The consultant identifies that the Haines State Forest will be the majority provider of pellets for this project. Forestry should comment.
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 Haines Borough seeks funding to conduct design and construction of six wood pellet boilers and storage silos in several Borough-
owned buildings. It is expected that the pellet boilers will displace 31,000 gallons of fuel oil annually for a savings of over $50,000. This is based on a pellet
delivered price of $350 per ton. The borough is working with Sealaska and other potential pellet suppliers to provide a secure, long-term supply of pellets. Pellets
are sourced from Washington and delivered by Sealaska of Juneau. This project appears to be well thought out and likely to be successful given the fact that the
Sealaska Corporation already is utilizing a significant amount of pellets with a proven fuel delivery system. The proposal also mentions that Chilkoot Indian
Association in Haines is considering the construction of a pellet plant in Haines. If this materializes, it could provide another source of pellets to the borough.
Timber resources in the Haines State Forest are adequate to provide a significant local source of raw material for pellet production. The State Division of Forestry
is currently updating the Haines State Forest inventory to be able to more accurately describe the volume estimates of its lands.
1/2/2013 11:55:14 AM Page 2Page 130 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
966 High-penetration Wind Energy Project- Kokhanok
Kokhanok Electric
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
By the end of 2011, the high development costs of the Kokhanok wind-diesel project drove Sustainable Automation out of business. Sustainable Power Systems
LLC was subsequently formed to pursue new business opportunities in the field of renewable energy systems integration. Given adequate funding, Sustainable
Power Systems is ready and willing to take on the task of completing the remaining system development and commissioning work that will be required to make
the Kokhanok project a success. What remains to be done at this point is to complete the development, testing, and commissioning of the software for the Hybrid
System Supervisory Controller, the component that monitors and orchestrates the operation of all other system components. Specifically, the following functions
remain to be fully implemented:
• Automatic diesel dispatch
• Automatic inverter dispatch
• Automatic feeder control
• Data logging to a local database
• Fault logs for each component
• Data log exporting
• Automatic report generation
• Fault notification
• Public portal
Much of the remaining work can be accomplished in the Sustainable Power Systems offices and power lab in Boulder, Colorado. However, because they represent
major changes to the system operation, the automatic dispatch algorithms in particular will require on-site installation and testing as part of a final commissioning
process. To be able to undertake this work and continue to pay its staff, Sustainable Power Systems requires an immediate source of funds. The company is
therefore requesting that 50% of the grant amount be paid up front, with the remaining 50% of each task invoiced increments as each task is completed.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Kokhanok wind project has been running in curtailment mode for more than a year. The equipment has all been installed. Wind turbines are functioning.
Applicant is seeking funding to complete the hybrid supervisory controller development. Applicant has not requested REF for this project in the past. If successful,
Alaska turns a curtailed project into a successful one. This project is gating other proposed high-penetraion wind systems. Until we have success and learning on
the Kokhanok system, AEA is holding off funding for other proposed high-penetration systems. Wind resource is very good.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$185,000
$5,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$190,000
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.90 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$185,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$190,000
1/2/2013 11:56:01 AM Page 1Page 131 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
5.689.77
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -4.83
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.25
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -35.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -14.80
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
77.63
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Insufficient info regarding scope of project and land ownership to determine if DMLW authorizations required. If all development sites are within the community,
no state land is affected.
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 11:56:01 AM Page 2Page 132 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
967 Cold Bay Waste Heat Recovery Project
G&K Electric Utility
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Heat RecoveryResource:
Devany PlentovichAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description as defined by applicant
Cold Bay requests funding for this waste heat recovery study as a step towards supplementing the high cost of diesel generators currently in use. The waste heat
recovery study and will satisfy Phases I, Reconnaissance and Phase II, Feasibility, and the study will result in a feasibility report on the technical, economic,
financial and operational viability and guidelines of implementing the next three phases of a waste heat recovery system. The grant would be managed by the
Aleutians East Borough and calls for the solicitation of a contractor to perform the analysis and a community meeting with the contractor for presentation, review
and discussion of the results. Participants in the project will include:
1. G&K Electric Utility
2. Aleutians East Borough who will provide overall project management.
3. A contracted firm who will provide civil and electrical system engineering.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
G&K Electric Utility proposes a Feasibility/Conceptual Design study for the implementation of diesel heat recovery at their existing power plant. The grant will be
managed by the Aleutians East Borough.
This Cold Bay utility is a good candidate for a heat recovery system as identified in the Alaska Energy Pathway. AEA has worked extensively with heat recovery
feasibility studies in the past few years. A feasibility study with sufficient information to qualify for Design and Construction funding through the Renewable
Energy Fund should not cost more than $30,000.
Recommend partial funding of $30,000.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds: $109,765
$5,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$114,765
Funding & Cost
Aleutians
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.72 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$30,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$114,765
1/2/2013 11:56:50 AM Page 1Page 133 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.581.58
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -10.50
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -31.34
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -16.47
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
72.05
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW authorizations 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 11:56:50 AM Page 2Page 134 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
968 False Pass Wind Energy Project
City of False Pass Electric Utility
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
False Pass currently produces all their electricity from diesel generators and heating from burning fossil fuels. Data from a met tower set up several years ago was
compromised and has data gaps when bears damaged the equipment, but the data still may be useful if analyzed using appropriate assumptions and software.
The wind resource may prove to be good, but we won't know until the data is analyzed and a wind resource report is completed. In addition, an avian study will
determine if birds will be of concern and/or if mitigation measures are necessary.
This project seeks design and permitting for the False Pass wind project. The design and permitting phase will include project scoping and community solicitation
for planning and design, permit applications and acceptance, final environmental assessments and mitigation plans, resolution of land rights and right of way, final
system design, engineers cot estimate, updated economic and financial analysis, and final business plan and operational plans.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
A similar application was received and reviewed in round 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund. AEA’s comments at the time were as follows: "False Pass may need
to do extensive feasibility work to find the right solution given the wind resource, terrain, small population, avian and FAA issues. Alternatives from residential
systems to high penetration should be considered. Community may need additional funding to complete this work. B/C is difficult to calculate due to the
variables. Estimating actual construction costs on a very hypothetical configuration is difficult. Wind resources in the region warrant a feasibility and CDR and the
budget looks reasonable."
AEA does not have a conceptual design to review prior to the submission of this REF round 6 request and thus we do not have enough information to decide
whether to move the project forward to the design phase. US F&WS requires more detailed study but the scope has not been quantified, and actual site selection
(which may include additional met tower data collection if the proposed turbine site is moved considerably relative to the terrain that is causing high turbulence) is
still undetermined.
Not enough research has been conducted in the feasibility phase for this application to be reviewed for final design. Guidance on this step can be found at AEA’s
web site under the wind program: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programwindanalysisdata.html
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$185,195
$5,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$190,195
Funding & Cost
Aleutians
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$190,195
1/2/2013 11:57:36 AM Page 1Page 135 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.640.30
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) -22.40
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
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
29.65
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No State land involved for this wind project.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Feasibility study should incorporate impacts of strong ground shaking due to earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone on design costs and design plan (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 11:57:36 AM Page 2Page 136 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
969 Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project
Nelson Lagoon Electric Cooperative
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
Nelson Lagoon requests funding for this wind study as the first step towards supplementing the high cost of diesel generators currently in use. The wind study will
result in a feasibility report on the technical, economic, financial, and operational viability and guidance of implementing the next three phases of a wind energy
system. The grant would be managed by the Aleutian East Borough and calls for the solicitation off a contractor to perform the analysis and a community meeting
with the contractor for presentation, review and discussion of the results Participants in the project will include:
1. Nelson Lagoon Electrical Cooperative (owned by the Native Village of Nelson Lagoon)
2. Aleutians East Borough who will provide overall project management
3. A contractor firm who will provide civil and electrical system engineering.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The lack of an accepted conceptual design prohibits awarding funds for design activity as AEA is unable to properly assess the viability of the wind resource, the
powerhouse, the electrical distribution system, community heat loads and the various wind turbine and integration options evaluated. The applicant should
proceed with the feasibility and conceptual design work already funded through round 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$218,195
$5,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$223,195
Funding & Cost
Aleutians
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.77 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:
1/2/2013 11:58:33 AM Page 1Page 137 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.930.56
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) -33.50
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
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
40.75
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW authorizations required if existing facility selected.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Feasibility study should incorporate impacts of strong ground shaking due to earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone on design costs and design plan (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 11:58:33 AM Page 2Page 138 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
970 Kipnuk Wind Diesel Power Generation and Heating
Kipnuk Light Plant
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
Kipnuk Light Plant is proposing to complete the final design, permitting and construction of a community wind diesel system for the community of Kipnuk, Alaska.
The project will be owned and operated by the Kipnuk Light Plant and the community of Kipnuk. Construction of the wind plant will be conducted in conjunction
with the construction of a new school, powerplant and bulk fuel facility in the community. The new school is currently under construction and is anticipated to
completed in late 2013, early 2014. Funding has been received for a new diesel powerplant and bulk fuel storage facility. The new powerplant construction will
take place in the winter of 2014. The wind project would be completed at the same time. The design of the wind system has been completed and is
straightforward, in that is similar to the systems which have been installed in Kongiganak, Kwigillingok and Tuntutuliak. The only design elements remaining to be
completed, are: the installation and wiring diagrams for the specific installation of the load balancing boiler, system master control, communications gateways and
static var compensation in the new powerplant. These design elements will be conducted concurrently with the design and construction of the new diesel
powerhouse.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The review team's concerns remain virtually unchanged from feedback in Renewable Energy Fund rounds 4 and 5. 1) A meteorological tower study and wind
resource assessment have not been completed at the proposed turbine location. 2) An acceptable conceptual design report that covers the planned diesel and
wind generation and distribution systems has not been prepared (see AEA CDR guidelines at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programwindanalysisdata.html
3) a more accurate electrical and heat load model is needed for the community 4) Final design and permitting need to be completed prior to approving
construction funds. AEA offered the community a met tower in 2012 through the state anemometer loan program.
AEA expects the funds from the 2009 Legislative appropriation to be spent on a met tower study, a wind resource analysis, a conceptual design report and final
design and permitting activities prior to requests for construction funds.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds: $2,567,778
$1,500,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$4,067,778
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$4,067,778
1/2/2013 11:59:19 AM Page 1Page 139 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.811.49
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -25.18
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -12.75
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
37.93
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No State land involved or DMLW authorizations 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 11:59:19 AM Page 2Page 140 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
971 Eastern Copper Basin Geothermal Assessment
Copper Valley Development Association
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
Alan BaldiviesoAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will conduct the much delayed follow up on the Wescott report. In 1985 Wescott and Turner study published the results of their geothermal
investigations in the Copper Basin during the 1982 field season. They recommended that additional detailed gravity and self-potential data be taken at the
confluence of the Tazlina where a high helium anomaly was located. In addition they also recommended self-potential surveys in two other anomaly areas and
one area was recommended as a prime drilling target.1 We are requesting funds to do further reconnaissance by completing the recommended studies using
modern tools and efficiencies as well as compiling other research and exploration that has been done since 1985 in the Eastern Copper Basin
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
A reconnaissance-level investigation of the geothermal potential of the area could be a valuable addition to the work done to date based on recommendations
from previous studies and anecdotal reports of high surface temperatures. However, the likelihood of identifying a geothermal resource capable of powering a
250 MW plant is remote.
No work plan detailing the survey methods that would be used in the reconnaissance is identified in the application and no justification for the proposed budget is
provided. The applicant does not present supporting evidence indicating that a geothermal plant of any size could be economically favorable; without such
evidence, funding exploration work is not justified.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$695,950
Total Potential Grant Amount:$695,950
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.28 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$0
1/2/2013 12:00:01 PM Page 1Page 141 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.68
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.75
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -12.44
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -5.43
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
19.63
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project describes usage of state managed land. Possible .850 permits may be required during the study phase.
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
This project proposes to conduct detailed gravity and SP geophysics in several areas where a study published in 1985 suggested there are helium anomalies that
may denote geothermal potential. One area in the 1985 study was suggested as a drilling target. The proposed project states on page 18, under .Milestone or
Task 2c “Conduct geothermal resource studies”. In order to complete our review of the geologic feasibility of this proposal, the applicant needs to provide details
on the specific geothermal resource studies they plan to conduct, what geological and/or geophysical methods will be used, what are the results these methods
will report, and where these studies will be conducted (including location maps). Additionally, the proposal should address their plan for transmitting energy from
the proposed geothermal sites to the local power grid.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 12:00:01 PM Page 2Page 142 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
972 Akiak Wind Resource Assessment
Akiak Native Community/ Akiak IRA Council
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project is a feasibility study to evaluate the potential wind resource in Akiak.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The wind resource is likely poor-to-marginal in the Akiak region. The initial data coming in from the Kwethluk and Akiachak met towers support the wind resource
model estimates, which show a poor wind resource, and the wind regime continues to drop off the further upriver one goes on the Kuskokwim. The economics
look poor for developing either a class 2 wind site near town or a class 3 wind site 4 miles east of town. The latter would involve a 4-mile transmission line across
poor soils and involve an approximate half-mile span across the Kuskokwim which would be very costly.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$181,000
Total Potential Grant Amount: $181,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.63 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,000,000
1/2/2013 12:00:46 PM Page 1Page 143 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.581.24
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -27.56
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
27.56
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient info regarding scope of project and land ownership to determine if DMLW authorizations required. No final site has been determined. The proposed
site involves no state land, nor would any site within approximately 10 miles of central Akiak.
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 12:00:46 PM Page 2Page 144 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
973 Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment I Feasibility
City of Elim
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
Alan BaldiviesoAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The AEA Energy Pathway 2010 indicates hot springs located on Elim Native Corporation land surrounding Elim are potential energy sources, but only
comprehensive analysis can determine how, and under what conditions, geothermal energy might be viable. The City of Elim, the Native Village of Elim, Elim
Native Corporation, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks propose a Resource Assessment (Reconnaissance} I Feasibility Analysis of Elim geothermal sites. It will
use low cost airborne and ground-based reconnaissance and mapping techniques to develop a conceptual model. Feasibility, cost analysis, and design of viable
solutions will follow.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The reconnaissance-level geothermal exploration proposed is well-planned and reasonable and would contribute to the understanding of the region’s geology and
geothermal potential. Use of the area’s geothermal resources for power and/or heating for Elim has been the subject of considerable speculation due to the
presence of numerous hot springs; a better understanding of the potential capacity of the resource and a more detailed assessment of the costs to develop it
could assist the community in its energy planning.
However, the estimated cost of transmission from the resource to the community, the small size of the community energy demand, and the distance to other
possible communities makes the economics of a geothermal project look poor under every scenario.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$527,908
Total Potential Grant Amount:$527,908
Funding & Cost
Bering Straits
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$10,000,000
1/2/2013 12:01:34 PM Page 1Page 145 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.280.39
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -25.67
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -0.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
30.67
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Feasibility study should incorporate impacts of strong ground shaking due to earthquakes on the Bendlebeden fault on design costs and design plan (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
The proposal seeks to explore near the village of Elim for low to moderate temperature geothermal resources to determine their potential for binary (Organic
Rankine Cycle - similar to Chena Hot Springs) electrical power generation for the community. The proposal recognizes the need to locate a nearby geothermal
source that is of sufficient temperature to be economically viable to generate electricity using a binary system. They propose a 4 stage approach to evaluate any
potential geothermal resource: 1.) Thermal Infrared Mapping and Analysis; 2) Ground Based Reconnaissance-water chemistry and geologic mapping. 3) Develop a
Conceptual Model of the System; and 4) Preliminary Design Analysis and Cost. We concur that collecting new chemistry data for Clear Creek hot springs is an
important step and would show if there are any changes in the predicted reservoir temperatures from the earlier 1970’s era chemistry and is a valuable component
of this proposal. Visiting the other four springs identified in Figure 1 and collecting water temperature and water chemistry data is important as well. Assuming
those results are positive, the next step in evaluating the potential geothermal resource, after the reconnaissance investigation is completed, would be to
determine the best location to conduct test drilling. It is not clear in the proposal how these determinations will be made, and we recommend that the applicant
provide details on how the thermal and geologic mapping will be used to select the best drill sites with the highest chance of encountering the active hydrothermal
system, and sufficient porosity and permeability to evaluate the resource potential.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 12:01:34 PM Page 2Page 146 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
974 Neck Lake Hydro Project
Alaska Power Company (APC)
Feasibility
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
APC proposes to construct a small run-of-river hydroelectric project at Neck Lake, a 1,000 acre lake located 1.5 miles southwest of the community of Whale Pass
on Prince of Wales Island. The Project would supply power to the community of Whale Pass, and would offset diesel generation, which is currently the sole source
of electricity. The relatively high and modulated flows from the lake combined with the steep drop at the lower end of the outlet stream provide a good
opportunity for a small run-of-river hydroelectric development. Facilities would include an access road, intake structure, 400 feet of penstock, a containerized
power plant, a tailrace channel, and upgrade of 4 miles of transmission line. The hydroelectric facilities will be designed to avoid interference with the existing
salmon rearing and collection facilities operated at Neck Lake by the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA). APC conducted a
reconnaissance study of the site in 2008, and determined that there is sufficient potential to almost always provide enough generation for Whale Pass loads (see
Section 11 for a copy of the reconnaissance report). The Project will provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate stabilization and lower rates for APC’s
Whale Pass customers.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AP&T proposes to perform a feasibility study, permitting and final design for a 124 kW run-of-river hydroelectric facility on Neck Lake to serve Whale Pass. The
proposed plant would be co-located adjacent to the SSRAA aquaculture facility on State lands. The project received funding in round 2 of the Renewable Energy
Fund (#223) to perform reconnaissance study and again in round 3 (#440) to perform feasibility study. AP&T later returned most of the round 3 grant after FERC
jurisdiction was declared, however they now plan to utilize FERC’s expedited small hydro licensing approach and have once again requested feasibility funds.
SSRAA has a lease for the site and has expressed reservations about impacts to their operations from the proposed project. The population in Neck Lake has
declined from 58 in year 2000 to 31 today.
The application fails to pass Stage 2 due to low scores. In particular the benefit/cost ratio of 0.74 indicates that the project would cost more than the accrued
benefits.
Did Not Pass Stage 2
Requested Grant Funds:$297,600
$74,400
Total Potential Grant Amount:$372,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.60 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,777,885
1/2/2013 12:02:18 PM Page 1Page 147 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.740.88
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -0.12
6) Local Support (Max 5) -3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -26.17
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -9.75
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -5.77
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
44.81
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
This is the same project as proposed in previous rounds and AP&T has worked with the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA) and
developed a better project description and layout with respect to where the project components will be located and integrated with SSRAA’s existing aquaculture
facility.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider earthquakes along the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather fault in 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 12:02:18 PM Page 2Page 148 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
975 Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Ram Valley LLC
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:IPP
Project Description as defined by applicant
The proposed project is a run-of-river hydroelectric project located on private property along Juniper Creek in the Eagle River Valley, approximately 10 miles from
Eagle River, Alaska. The proposed project would include an intake / diversion structure at approximately the 1900-foot elevation and powerhouse at the 1500-foot
elevation. The design flow is estimated at 10 to 20 cfs, for an estimated installed capacity of 250 to 500 kW. Participation of adjacent downstream property
owners would increase the head available for the project from 400 feet to either 900 feet or 1,100 feet if one or two adjacent land owners were to participate.
This would increase installed capacity to as much as 1,300 kW. Ram Valley expects to determine the participation status of these land owners prior to the start of
the feasibility study.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The r-o-r project is located in high alpine terrain near Mi. 10 of the Eagle River valley. Ram Creek Valley LLC would sell Juniper Creek Hydroelectric power to MEA
as an IPP. Several different development options are proposed for the project from 250 to 1,300 kW, some of which involve private landowners not currently
committed to the project. The project would generate seasonally as proposed.
Given that no prior formal reconnaissance report has been prepared for this site, AEA recommends this report be prepared and the project scheme be explored
before requesting funds to advance into feasibility study.
Special conditions: In the course of conducting the recon study, explore and define the project scheme and obtain commitments from involved landowners.
Partial Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$127,900
$44,800
Total Potential Grant Amount:$172,700
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.14 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$30,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$4,300,000
1/2/2013 12:03:03 PM Page 1Page 149 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.481.55
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -4.83
5) Benefits (Max 15) -8.13
6) Local Support (Max 5) -4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -6.23
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -11.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -12.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
49.43
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Water permit required. While the physical project is on private land, the effected lands could include Chugach State Park, possibly requiring additional DNR
authorizations.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider earthquakes along the Castle Mountain fault in 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 12:03:03 PM Page 2Page 150 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
976 Knutson Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting
Pedro Bay Village Council
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
The proposed project is an approximately 150 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Knutson Creek near Pedro Bay. The hydro project will provide most of the
electricity needs of the village, as well as providing a significant amount of interruptible energy to heat the tribal council building, church, school, and potentially
other buildings.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
A recon study was completed in 2009 for the Knutson River Hydroelectric Project in Pedro Bay. Since then the school and clinic have closed and the village
population decreased to 44. A feasibility study has been drafted. Neither of these studies were funded by the Renewable Energy Fund. The proposed 150 kW r-
o-r hydro project appears to be oversized for community needs, especially since village is losing residents. Additionally, there is > 1 mile of Knutson Creek with
anadromous and resident fish habitat which will be affected by the proposed project leading to substantial licensing challenges. It is unknown if the project will
be found jurisdictional by FERC.
Recommend special provisions as follows: (1) AEA to receive feasibility study and must review and approve its findings before any REF funds committed; and (2)
project size to be re-evaluated based upon current village population reduction.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$290,000
$2,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$292,500
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.91 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$290,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$3,400,000
1/2/2013 12:03:55 PM Page 1Page 151 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
2.042.14
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.50
5) Benefits (Max 15) -11.88
6) Local Support (Max 5) -4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -2.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -35.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -9.57
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
70.19
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Water permit. No additional authorizations needed.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Lake Clark fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.
gov/pubs/id/23944). The relative activity of this structure is unknown.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
1/2/2013 12:03:55 PM Page 2Page 152 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
977 Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
Native Village of Cantwell
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
Cantwell is currently served by GVEA via the power transmission line between MEA and GVEA (Alaska Intertie System). The Native Village of Cantwell wishes to
improve the reliability and lower the cost of the community of Cantwell’s power system. To accomplish this we propose to study a run-of-river hydroelectric
project on Carlo Creek, approximately 10 miles north of Cantwell along the Parks Highway.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Native Village of Cantwell proposes a reconnaissance study of a 1.5 MW run-of-river project on Carlo Creek to sell power to GVEA through the AK Intertie.
This is similar to Jack River hydro site now being studied in reconnaissance by NVC through the Renewable Energy Fund.
Partial funding recommended for reconnaissance study.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$66,500
$3,500
Total Potential Grant Amount:$70,000
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$30,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$7,500,000
1/2/2013 12:05:29 PM Page 1Page 153 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.944.59
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.25
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.33
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -9.81
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -7.90
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
35.29
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
While most uplands in the vicinity of the project are not state lands, DMLW authorizations may be needed if project work involves state-owned beds of navigable
waterways.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Earthquakes on the Denali fault and Park Road fault should be considered in 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 12:05:29 PM Page 2Page 154 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
978 Indian River Hydroelectric Project Construction
City of Tenakee Springs DBA Tenakee Springs Electric Department
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Doug OttAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
Replace diesel generation of electricity for the community of Tenakee Springs with renewable hydroelectric power. The City of Tenakee Springs proposes to
construct a hydroelectric project on Indian River. This will be a 180 kW low head, run-of-river plant displacing the use of 31,400 gallons of diesel fuel annually, or
90% of annual electric utility diesel consumption. At least 6,500 additional gallons of fuel oil can be displaced by heating public buildings with excess energy from
the hydro project.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
A 180 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project to offset 90% diesel generated electricity for Tenakee Springs; Will have excess hydro energy available to offset some
heating needs. Prior REF grants funded feasibility (#16) and permitting and final design (#895).
Special condition: No funds from this request are to be used for activities already funded from prior grants. No funds are authorized until all prior funded R4
grant activities have been submitted and accepted by AEA.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$2,988,000
$332,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$3,320,000
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.69 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$2,988,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$3,674,000
1/2/2013 12:06:25 PM Page 1Page 155 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.571.70
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -11.00
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -30.16
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -9.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -16.10
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
79.26
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
This project has not changed from the previous rounds. DMLW is now in a position to issue an Early Entry Authorization under case file number – ADL 108047.
This permit will allow the City of Tenakee Springs to construct the project and then complete the as-built survey of it so DMLW will be able to issue the easement.
DMLW public notice process is done and no public comments expressing concerns were received.
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 12:06:25 PM Page 2Page 156 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
979 Waste-to-Energy Feasibility Study
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiofuelsResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Utility
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project is to perform a feasibility study, including a conceptual design, to assess the viability of a WtE plant. Other than some recyclable materials, municipal
solid waste (MSW) in Anchorage is largely disposed of in the municipal landfilL The quantity of refuse currently being disposed of in this manner is approximately
375,000 tons per year. There may also be an opportunity to incorporate other fuel, such as wood being disposed of in local woodlots. WtE plants, while somewhat
rare in the U.S., are very popular, efficient and environmentally effective in many European and Asian countries. If feasible, a WtE plant would be expected to
provide energy, environmental, reliability, economic and community benefits.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Chugach Electric Association, Inc. proposes to fund a feasibility study and conceptual design to assess the viability of a waste to energy plant. A portion of the
municipal solid waste that currently goes to the Anchorage landfill would fuel the plant.
AEA supports the concept of utilizing municipal solid waste as an energy source. The first step in accessing the viability of waste to energy is a thorough
understanding of the resource availability through a waste stream characterization study.
AEA recommends partial funding of $40,000 for a waste characterization study/resource inventory.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$550,000
$150,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$700,000
Funding & Cost
Railbelt
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.14 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$40,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:
1/2/2013 12:07:11 PM Page 1Page 157 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.481.48
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -0.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -8.88
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -6.23
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.75
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -9.13
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
34.48
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Feasibility study only with no final site selected. No authorizations needed at this time.
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 12:07:11 PM Page 2Page 158 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
980 Bristol Bay Borough School District Energy Project
Bristol Bay Borough School District
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
1. Solar PV Installation This project will consist of a 50 kW (DC) ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) system, to be installed next to the school building. The PV
system will generate clean, renewable power for decades to come, reducing the amount of electricity the school buys from the local utility and reducing pollution
associated with burning fossil fuels. The system will also provide an opportunity for the school's students and the wider community to learn about PV. The system
will be composed of (185) 270-watt photovoltaic (PV) collector panels, (1) 50 kW DC to AC power inverter and a data acquisition system with a graphical display
inside the building and accessible through the Internet. The panels will be wired in multiple DC series circuits called strings. The strings will be wired to a
combiner box, then connect to the power inverter which transforms the DC power into AC power suitable for use by the building's existing electrical system. The
inverter assures that the PV generated power is compatible with the power supplied by the utility grid and will disconnect from the electrical system in the event
of a utility power outage to prevent "back feed" to the utility grid. The proposed system is sized to supplement current electric usage and peak demand only, as it
will not store power. The proposed system will be interconnected with the electrical system and controlled to "follow" the existing systems' electrical
characteristics. A dedicated data acquisition system tied directly to the inverter will display the performance of the PV system and describe how it works through a
dedicated live display setup in the lobby. A revenue grade utility meter will also be installed on the PV system to accurately measure the power generated. The
existing electric systems supply 208-volt, three phase power for larger loads and 120-volt, single-phase for most of the distributed loads from a three phase
service provided by NEA. The average monthly electric demand for the school is approximately 137 kW.
2. Heat Recovery from Exhaust Air Sensible heat-recovery systems that transfer sensible (dry-bulb) heat from the exhaust air to the supply air entering the
building are proposed to be installed for the fresh air supply air handling units using cross flow heat exchangers. This system transfers energy through a crossover
grid or through plate heat exchangers made of metal or plastic. Warm air passing between the plates transfers its energy by conduction through the material to
another grid or plate where the air is warmed. The plates form alternating exhaust and ventilation air pathways. Efficiencies (also referred to as effectiveness) of
these systems vary from around 60% to 70%. It is proposed to install flat plate heat recovery units for (7) fresh-air units, to pre-heat roughly 12,000 cfm of fresh
air with the exhaust air from the space. The HR units would be tied to existing building management system to ensure proper functioning and provide visibility to
building operator.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Technically, this solar photovoltaic (PV) project is simple to install and integrate within the Naknek power system. The key questions surround the accuracy of
cost estimates for an installed 50kW system along with how the power is valued for economic benefit. The standard maximum net metered system is 25 kilowatts
of nameplate capacity. If Naknek Electric will allow net metering for 50kW, then the benefit can be calculated using retail electrical savings. We would need a
letter from Naknek Electric in support of this approach.
Other solar PV projects and heat recovery projects recommended for funding had provided initial drawings, calculations and cost estimates from a qualified
contractor. The applicant has not provided that level of detail. Without more information, it is risky to recommend for funding.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$45,000
$10,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$55,000
Funding & Cost
Bristol Bay
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$460,000
1/2/2013 12:07:58 PM Page 1Page 159 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.451.06
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -22.13
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
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
27.38
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land involved or DMLW authorizations 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 12:07:58 PM Page 2Page 160 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
981 Tanana Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating Project
City of Tanana
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
SolarResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Project Description as defined by applicant
The Tanana Solar Public Facilities Heating Project seeks to implement the market transformative benefits of combining biomass space heating technologies
currently being installed at Tanana’s public facilities with solar thermal collectors. This Round 6 Renewable Energy Fund application has been revised since its
original submission during Round 5 and limit solar thermal application to best “low hanging fruit at Tanana which is the large domestic hot water demand at the
Tanana Tribal Elders Residential complex and the City’s Senior housing four-plex. The synergistic benefits of the village existing biomass thermal storage capacity
with solar thermal collectors will serve to result in reduced imported petroleum consumption and also serve to optimize operation of the biomass boilers currently
being installed at Tanana.
Heat energy is, by far, the greatest financial burden facing Alaskans, and particularly those in rural Alaska. It is also the most critical as heat during Alaska’s
extreme winters is a matter of survival. Many rural communities in Alaska are moving in the direction of biomass as an alternative to fuel oil for heat energy
generation. Tanana has become a model in Alaska for demonstrating the effective use of renewable energy to reducing heat energy operational costs. Tanana
was one of the first villages in Alaska to incorporate the use of GARN biomass boilers for offsetting the high expense of fuel oil for generating hot water in the
community washeteria. In 2011, as a part of a major biomass expansion project, systems are being installed in numerous commercial and residential scale
buildings.
Solar thermal is an excellent complement to the biomass boilers. During the winter months the heat energy generated by the biomass boilers offsets a substantial
amount of the fuel oil normally required. The cordwood fuel source also allows many of the operating costs to remain in the community since the supply of the
cordwood and manpower required to feed and boilers is local. During the summer the biomass boilers are a less desirable alternative. The focus and energies of
the community are diverted to essential traditional cultural activities. The solar thermal, which is a passive heat energy source that can operate largely
unattended, allows those activities to continue uninterrupted. Thus it is an excellent companion to the biomass and can contribute substantially to the heat energy
requirement for at least nine months of the year. The combination of the two heat energy sources virtually eliminates the dependency on fuel oil as the heat
energy source.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Technically, the project is feasible. This project does not degrade the economic benefit of the biomass project. Schedule and overall budget look reasonable.
Contractor has experience in this scope of work. AEA must accept design prior to construction funding.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds: $81,700
$50,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$131,700
Funding & Cost
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.71 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$81,700AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$81,700
1/2/2013 12:08:48 PM Page 1Page 161 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.530.92
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.17
5) Benefits (Max 15) -0.38
6) Local Support (Max 5) -2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -31.23
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -6.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -11.47
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
57.24
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No 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 12:08:48 PM Page 2Page 162 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
982 Community Facilities Woody Biomass Space Heating Project
Mentasta Traditional Council
Construction
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
Mentasta’s predicament, as is the case for most of rural Alaska, is its dependence on imported expensive petroleum for space heating of community facilities.
Mentasta’s community facilities are centrally located and can be serviced by one woody biomass heating plant strategically located adjacent to Mentasta’s
clustered public facilities (see Map - Attachment II). The project is estimated to cost $460,000 of Round VI funds and donated building space with estimated value
of $50,000 and will serve the school, teen center, clinic and tribal offices/post office building and are expected to displace approximately 22,000 gallons of heating
oil.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Mentasta Village Council proposes final design and construction of a cordwood boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of the school,
teen center, council building, post office, and clinic. The system would consume approximately 220 cords per year and displace 22,000 gallons of fuel oil per year.
Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. MVC is supplying a building to house the boiler
(s) as a match.
AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuel wood market in the Tok area. AEA will work
with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project.
Recommend full funding with requirement that Mentasta provide a fuel supply plan and final design acceptable to AEA before construction funds are disbursed.
Full Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$460,000
$50,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$510,000
Funding & Cost
Copper River/Chugach
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.67 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$460,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$510,000
1/2/2013 12:09:29 PM Page 1Page 163 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.762.08
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) -12.63
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -29.38
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -8.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -16.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
72.65
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Possible Forestry permit if wood harvested from DMLW managed lands.
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 proposal submitted by Mentasta Traditional Council (MTC) seeks construction funding for the installation of a cordwood fueled Garn boiler heating system for
four community facilities located centrally in the village of Mentasta. MTC has consulted with the City of Tanana and Gulkana Village Council which both have
operating Garn units. This project hopes to displace approximately 22,000 gallons of heating oil. This would require the burning of about 220 cords annually to
meet the heating loads of the four facilities. The amount of wood stoking may be somewhat optimistic given that the village of Tanana is burning between 35 and
50 cords per Garn unit. However, this depends on the number of times per day each Garn boiler is fired.
Seasoned cord wood sells for $200 per cord in Mentasta. This supply is expected to come from vendors in the Tok area. Harvest of Tok fuel wood is managed on
a sustainable basis by the State Division of Forestry, Tok Area Office. The harvest generally occurs on Tanana Valley State Forest lands which have established an
annual allowable harvest amount. The delivery of 220 cords annually would not exceed this amount.
1/2/2013 12:09:29 PM Page 2Page 164 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
983 Wood Heat Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design for Kake
Organized Village of Kake
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Helen TraylorAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:
Project Description as defined by applicant
This proposal will focus on a feasibility assessment and conceptual design for a wood heating system and district heating loop for an office building and lodge
owned by the Organized Village of Kake (OVK), a federally recognized tribe. The overall goal of the feasibility study is to determine what kind of wood heating
system will best meet the objective of the tribe’s energy planning targets which are to: reduce the cost of energy, reduce the environmental impacts of energy
consumption, explore locally sourced sustainable energy supplies and to provide energy related job opportunities. The assessment will expand on previous
reconnaissance work performed by Dan Parrent in 2008 (Preliminary Feasibility Assessments for High Efficiency Low Emission Wood Heating in Kake, Alaska) for
the Kake School and Community building and provide an analysis of the economic and social benefits of high efficiency low emission cordwood/multifuel systems
(e.g. Garn and Wood Master) versus pellet systems for the two tribal buildings. The scope of the feasibility study will include assessing the suitability and
economics of various wood boiler systems including storage and delivery infrastructure, comparing the costs of locally sourced cord-wood and imported bulk fuel,
conducting a thorough resource inventory for local cord-wood production and evaluating and comparing the potential of locally sourced wood and imported pellets
to create jobs. This feasibility study will also include collaboration with efforts of the Renewable Energy Alaska Project to determine how, if at all, efficiency
measures may decrease the OVK campus energy loads and influence the final system design, as well as to what degree switching to biomass heating may help to
recirculate money back into the community that would otherwise be spent on imported fuel oil. The outcome of the feasibility study will be a conceptual design
and final system recommendation based on the economic, logistical, environmental and social objectives of the community. The state recently released a regional
energy plan (Southeast Integrated Resource Plan) that recommends significant conversions from fuel oil to wood based heat. The tribe also recognizes the
potential of wood based heat to support a sustainable community energy portfolio by offsetting imported fuel oil with renewables, reducing costs, creating local
job opportunities and aiding in forest health. The tribe has identified wood heating as one of four energy priorities in its Community Economic Development
Strategy Plan (CEDS updated 2012) and during its ongoing energy planning process as part of DOE’s START (Strategic Technical Assistance Response Team)
program. In addition, the tribe has taken a significant leadership role in the community on energy issues and biomass specifically, and in June 2012 invited a
number of technical experts to educate the community on the types of technologies available and lessons learned from projects throughout the state. The
information resulting from this feasibility study will be a significant contribution in the community’s energy planning and project efforts.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Organized Village of Kake is proposing a feasibility assessment and conceptual design for a wood heating system and district heating loop for an office
building and lodge owned by the Organized Village of Kake (OVK), a federally recognized tribe. This project is estimated to displace a total 4,800 gallons per year
of fuel oil; the fuel source will be determined in the study. The application includes substantial support from the community and the endorsement from the Kake
Community Energy Committee.
Recommend full funding for feasibility study/conceptual design.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$30,700
$5,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$35,700
Funding & Cost
Southeast
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
$30,700AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:
1/2/2013 12:10:12 PM Page 1Page 165 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.600.60
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -2.33
5) Benefits (Max 15) -1.38
6) Local Support (Max 5) -5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -3.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -27.01
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -5.25
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -12.10
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
56.07
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state land interest.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital
database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for feasibility and design of a wood heating system and district heating loop for an office building and lodge owned by the Organized Village of Kake.
The assessment will expand on previous reconnaissance level work performed by Dan Parrent in 2008. The scope of the study will include examining the suitability
and economics of various wood boiler systems, comparing costs of locally sourced cordwood and imported bulk fuel and conducting a resource inventory for local
cordwood production. The study will also compare job creation attributes between locally sourced wood and imported pellets. At this time no known sources of
forest inventory information exist for this area but potential sources could include the Forest Service, since much of the surrounding area is within the Tongass
National Forest. Sealaska or the Division of Forestry may also maintain some useable inventory data. It is expected that adequate biomass resources are available
to sustain the project given that the project proposal estimates a demand of 53 cords per year.
1/2/2013 12:10:12 PM Page 2Page 166 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
984 Noatak Wind Resource Assessment
Noatak IRA
Feasibility
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Rich StrombergAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project is a feasibility study to evaluate the potential wind resource in Noatak
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
$181,000 is a large amount of money to spend in an area with no validated wind resource. Both airport data and the statewide wind resource model suggest that
class 1 winds are in the region.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$181,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$181,000
Funding & Cost
Northwest Arctic
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:$0.74 /kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,000,000
1/2/2013 12:12:32 PM Page 1Page 167 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.981.53
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -32.55
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -0.00
3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) -
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Overall Rank
(out of XX)Stage 3 Total Score
(out of 100)
Scoring & Project Rank
32.55
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No 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 12:12:32 PM Page 2Page 168 of 170
DRAFTAlaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary
985 Electrical Power Lines -Western Alaska
Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
Kirk WarrenAEA Program Manager:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Project Description as defined by applicant
This project will involve exploration and research regarding installation of transmission lines between the communities shown in Table 2.2.1 in the Nuvista region.
Some of the communities have wind turbines and all communities have diesel power plants. The final report will present a plan for connecting communities into
small power grids to increase efficiency and reliability.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$82,000
Total Potential Grant Amount:$82,000
Funding & Cost
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Energy Region:
Cost of Power:/kWh Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$82,000
1/2/2013 12:13:21 PM Page 1Page 169 of 170
DRAFTBenefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
4) Project Readiness (Max 5) -
5) Benefits (Max 15) -
6) Local Support (Max 5) -
7) Sustainability (Max 5) -
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) -0.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15) -
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
DNR/DGGS General Comments on Hazards Applicable to all Projects
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Preliminary study, no authorizations needed at this time. Utility easements and other DMLW authorizations would be required if project moves forward.
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 12:13:21 PM Page 2Page 170 of 170