HomeMy WebLinkAbout7c REDUCED SIZE- REFAC REF7Standard_01062014Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Standard Applications
Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread
Count Energy Region ID Project Name Applicant Applicant Type Energy Source
State-
wide
Rank Project Cost Grant Requested Match Offered Phase AEA Recomnd
EarlyRecommend
Funding
Cumulative
Funding
1 S Bristol Bay 1036 Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase II Chignik Lagoon Village Council Government Entity Hydro 2 $5,389,149 $2,352,653 $3,036,496 Construction FULL $2,352,653 $2,352,653
2 S Bering Straits 1068 Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Utility Wind 7 $3,946,050 $342,000 $18,000 Design FULL $342,000 $2,694,653
3 S Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana1027 Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project Alaska Power Company Utility Wind 10 $148,800 $119,000 $29,800 Feasibility FULL $119,000 $2,813,653
4 S Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana1077 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Native Village of Tanacross Government Entity Hydro 11 $19,000,000 $6,000,000 $11,500,000 Construction PARTIAL $75,000 $2,888,653
5 S Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1067 Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Utility Wind 12 $4,833,000 $123,500 $6,500 Feasibility FULL $123,500 $3,012,153
6 S Railbelt 1082 Stetson Creek Diversion Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project Chugach Electric Association, Inc.Utility Hydro 15 $21,772,523 $3,453,920 $13,591,226 Construction FULL $3,453,920 $6,466,073
7 S Copper River/Chugach 1015 Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project Construction Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc.Utility Hydro 16 $49,000,000 $5,914,491 $5,914,491 Construction FULL $5,914,491 $12,380,564
8 S Southeast 1025 Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Utility Hydro 17 $300,000 $275,000 $25,000 ReconFeasibility PARTIAL SP $80,000 $12,460,564
SubTotal - Top Ranking $20 million prior to stage 4 regional spreading $104,389,522 $18,580,564 $34,121,513 $12,460,564 SubTotal
9 S Bristol Bay 1072 Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and Conceptual Design Igiugig Village Council Government Entity Wind 25 $110,000 $80,000 $30,000 Feasibility FULL SP $80,000 $12,540,564
10 S Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1057 Mertarvik Renewable Energy Feasibility and Conceptual DesignUngusraq Power Company (UPC) / Newtok Traditional CouncilIPP Wind 30 $8,000,000 $375,000 $25,000 ReconFeasibility PARTIAL $75,000 $12,615,564
11 S Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1069 St Marys Pitkas Point Wind Energy Construction Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Utility Wind 31 $4,782,528 $4,274,575 $507,953 Construction FULL SP $4,274,575 $16,890,139
12 S Aleutians 1083 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project City of King Cove Local Government Hydro 34 $5,500,000 $800,000 $1,900,000 Construction FULL SP $800,000 $17,690,139
13 S Kodiak 1065 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Final Design and Permitting Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Utility Hydro 36 $8,155,000 $1,092,500 $57,500 Design PARTIAL $400,000 $18,090,139
14 S Southeast 1023 Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Government Entity Hydro 37 $13,391,869 $4,000,000 $8,813,869 DesignConstructionPARTIAL SP $560,488 $18,650,627
15 S Railbelt 1084 Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Ram Valley, LLC IPP Hydro 39 $2,350,000 $35,750 $35,750 Recon FULL $35,750 $18,686,377
16 S Aleutians 1062 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study City of False Pass Local Government Hydrokinetic 43 $5,000,000 $428,646 $137,820 Feasibility FULL $428,646 $19,115,023
17 S Aleutians 1070 Sand Point Energy Storage Project TDX Sand Point Generating, LLC Utility Storage of Renewable45 $1,397,403 $1,256,403 $141,000 DesignConstructionPARTIAL SP Y $200,000 $19,315,023
18 S Southeast 1022 SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase I and II The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Government Entity Wind 47 $170,583 $158,771 $11,812 ReconFeasibility FULL $158,771 $19,473,794
19 S Kodiak 1030 Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.Utility Storage of Renewable48 $3,800,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 Construction PARTIAL SP $1,470,548 $20,944,342
20 S Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1066 Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Utility Wind 49 $3,214,875 $353,400 $18,600 Design FULL SP $353,400 $21,297,742
21 S North Slope 1049 Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project North Slope Borough Local Government Transmission 50 $17,342,837 $2,017,818 $201,782 Design FULL SP $2,017,818 $23,315,560
22 S Railbelt 1028 Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study Native Village of Cantwell Government Entity Hydro 51 $8,340,000 $54,000 $6,000 Recon PARTIAL $35,000 $23,350,560
23 S Bristol Bay 1079 Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery New Koliganek Village Council Government Entity Wind 54 $2,566,000 $306,000 $10,000 Design FULL SP Y $306,000 $23,656,560
24 S Aleutians 1080 False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass Electric Utility Local Government Wind 55 $52,050 $47,050 $5,000 Feasibility FULL SP $47,050 $23,703,610
25 S Railbelt 1081 Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Study Chugach Electric Association, Inc.Utility Biomass 57 TBD $150,000 $100,000 Recon PARTIAL $50,000 $23,753,610
26 S Copper River/Chugach 1075 Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Blue Hole Properties, LLC (BHP)IPP Hydro 58 $2,250,000 $170,000 $30,000 Feasibility FULL $170,000 $23,923,610
27 S Northwest Arctic 1001 Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project Northwest Arctic Borough Local Government Solar PV 61 $77,000 $76,000 $1,000 Construction FULL SP $75,000 $23,998,610
28 S Bristol Bay 1018 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting City of Chignik Local Government Hydro 63 BLANK $1,375,000 $0 Design PARTIAL SP $500,000 $24,498,610
29 S North Slope 1048 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design and Permitting North Slope Borough Local Government Wind 64 $4,565,200 $440,000 $44,000 Design FULL $440,000 $24,938,610
SubTotal - All Recommended Projects $195,454,867 $37,971,477 $48,098,599 $24,938,610 SubTotal
DRAFT 1/5/2014 for REFAC Review 1 of 89
Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Standard Applications
Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread
Count Energy Region ID Project Name Applicant Applicant Type Energy Source
State-
wide
Rank Project Cost Grant Requested Match Offered Phase AEA Recomnd
EarlyRecommend
Funding
Cumulative
Funding
Not Recommended Projects:
30 S Southeast 1019 Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project Edna Bay Community Local Government Hydro $3,562,772 $62,272 $3,500 Recon Did Not Pass Stage 2
31 S Railbelt 1002 Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Demonstration Whitestone Power and Communications IPP Hydrokinetic $1,940,558 $1,560,558 $120,000 Construction Did Not Pass Stage 2
32 S Southeast 1024 Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibility Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority Utility Hydro $825,000 $700,000 $125,000 ReconFeasibility Did Not Pass Stage 2
33 S Railbelt 1029 Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Native Village Of Cantwell Government Entity Hydro $31,500,000 $213,750 $11,250 Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 2
34 S Aleutians 1056 Adak Wind Data Collection Analysis and Preliminary Design City of Adak, Alaska Local Government Wind $72,400,000 $160,000 $0 Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 2
35 S Northwest Arctic 1059 Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and Permitting Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Utility Hydro $38,660,000 $2,922,000 $150,000 Design Did Not Pass Stage 2
36 S Kodiak 1004 Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System Karluk Tribal Council Government Entity Wind $1,300,000 $81,000 $300 FeasibilityDesign Did Not Pass Stage 2
37 S Southeast 1003 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase III and IV City of Saxman Local Government Hydro $51,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 DesignConstructionNot Recommended
38 S Southeast 1020 Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual DesignHaines Borough Local Government Hydro $14,500,000 $213,536 $10,000 Feasibility Not Recommended
39 S Southeast 1034 Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Community Government Entity Transmission $14,510,599 $9,281,615 $0 DesignConstructionNot Recommended
40 S Southeast 1035 Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Utility Geothermal $49,000,000 $3,378,500 $0 Feasibility Not Recommended
41 S Bristol Bay 1046 Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase Port Alsworth Improvement Corporation Government Entity Hydro $7,224,213 $159,000 $10,000 ReconFeasibility Not Recommended
42 S Bristol Bay 1050 Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar PV Project Bristol Bay Borough School District Government Entity Solar PV $235,000 $230,000 $5,000 DesignConstructionNot Recommended
43 S Northwest Arctic 1058 Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array Construction Project Northwest Arctic Borough Local Government Solar PV $447,800 $447,800 $0 Construction Not Recommended
44 S Bristol Bay 1063 Iliamna Solar Ground Mounted Energy System Iliamna Village Council Government Entity Solar PV $2,000,000 $800,000 $120,000 ReconFeasibility Not Recommended
45 S Copper River/Chugach 1064 Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction Native Village of Chenega Government Entity Hydro $1,650,000 $1,400,000 $0 DesignConstructionNot Recommended
46 S Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1039 Four Villages lntertie Design Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative Government Entity Transmission $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $0 Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 1
47 S Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1054 Multiple Alternative Energy Sources for Napakiak Napakiak lrcinraq Power Company Utility Wind $2,284,000 $141,000 $20,000 DesignConstructionDid Not Pass Stage 1
48 S Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1086 Chefornak High Penetration Wind Diesel System Naterqak Light Plant, City of Chefornak Local Government Wind $4,358,784 $4,308,784 $50,000 DesignConstructionDid Not Pass Stage 1
Sub Total - Not Recommended Projects $298,648,726 $31,309,815 $4,625,050
Grand Total - All Applications $494,103,593 $69,281,292 $52,723,649 $24,938,610 GrandTotal
Notes
This document represents AEA's draft recommendations for consideration by the REFAC committee. This is a draft document only and is subject to change prior to AEA's final recommendations.
This view combines the heat and "standard application 'projects, for perspective. Please see the sepate heat and standard lists.
If REF 7 funding is limited to $20M exactly, #1021, Haines Borough Municipal Building Biomass would be partially funded.
H = Heat application, applications that deliver heat only, not electricity
S = Standard spplication, applications that deliver electricity, energy storage, transmission or a combination of electricity and heat.
B/C = Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project.
AEA B/C ratio uses AEA's best assumptions in the standard REF economic model
SP = Special Provisions
The Applicant B/C ratio uses the applicants assumptions in the standard REF economic model.
Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2.
Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable.
Some not recommended projects' B/C ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons.
DRAFT 1/5/2014 for REFAC Review 2 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1001 Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project
Northwest Arctic Borough
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Solar PVResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Northwest ArcticEnergy Region:
Standard Application
David LockardProgram Manager:
Project Description
This project expands on a previous Feasibility study that has been ongoing for 3 years. In 2010 a Single 175W Solar Array was installed at the proposed location to
see if Solar PV would be feasible for the Northwest Arctic. The panel has been facing south-east and is connected to a single En phase inverter that is Cogenerating
with the Kotzebue Electric Association (KEA) grid. It was found that it produced 165 Kwh during 1 year average @ $ 0.54/Kwh this equals a savings of $
89.10/year. A build-out of the array to 10 Kw would save the Northwest Arctic Borough approximately $5,091.66/year in electric bills. This would also be a good
match as the Borough operate mainly day time, when the sun is available. The project aims to match the load of the building and offset just enough energy to try to
get to stop the electric meter, this is important as we do not want to be paid for any generated electricity by the KEA Coop. The project would consist of 42 pc.
240 watt panel, for a total of 10 KWatts configured on the roof of the building in a configuration to match the load of the building. It would be a "fixed" array, non
tracking. It would also be configured in 2 directions, southeast and south, to match the electric needs of the building, so not to overproduce with one large peak
power during the day. Each individual panel will have it's own Aurora micro-inverter. The entire array will be displayed and monitored on a website that can be
accessed for educational purposes.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) is requesting funds for project construction and commissioning of a 10kW array of photovoltaic (PV) modules in
Kotzebue, Alaska. The array, located on the roof of the NWAB building, would provide electricity for the building. Kotzebue Electric Association, the local
electric utility, does not have a net metering policy but wrote a 10/22/12 letter of support for the project that does not specify project capacity, integration details,
or how KEA will view excess solar power on its grid (i.e. whether NWAB would be compensated for it or whether it would be curtailed).
The applicant did not address how it would deal with excess solar power that occurs during periods that the office is closed, for example on weekends. The
application did not provide enough information to adequately analyze this project, and in response to AEA’s request for one year of utility bills the applicant
provided one month’s utility bill. AEA recommends this project for full funding with special provisions that the applicant provide detail regarding how the solar
power will be used on weekends, holidays, and other periods of low demand.
Full Funding - Special Provision
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$76,000
$1,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.42 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$75,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$77,000
Price of Fuel: /gal
T-40 Arctic
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 3 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1001 Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project
Northwest Arctic Borough
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Solar PVResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Northwest ArcticEnergy Region:
Standard Application
David LockardProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.680.83
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)4.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)0.38
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)18.27
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)6.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)9.20
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
The Rural Energy grant should have no impacts to state land. It is for solar photovoltaic panels to be placed on the Northwest Arctic Borough building in
Kotzebue which they own. There may be a minimal benefit to state resources as they will be a slight decrease in their use of diesel fuel. If the grant is carried
out as described in the application, the Northwest Arctic Borough would not need any DNR authorizations.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
45.84 61 2
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
46.00
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 4 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1002 Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Demonstration
Whitestone Power and Communications
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydrokineticResource:
Applicant Type:IPP
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Alan BaldiviesoProgram Manager:
Project Description
The proposed project would demonstrate a prototype hydrokinetic turbine through installation of a 100 kW Poncelet Kinetics™ turbine. The project will prove the
design concepts employed for debris management, environmental impact, shallow water power generation, and electrical efficiency of the proposed design. The
technology proposed to be used was developed by Whitestone Power and Communications under the trademark Poncelet Kinetics. The project is shovel-ready
with all permits and design documents in hand.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Whitestone Power and Communications propose prototype construction and demonstration of a surface-mounted River In-Stream Energy Conversion (RISEC)
device in the Tanana River. The proposed technology is a compelling alternative to other competing RISEC designs and the project team has taken a deliberate
approach to the design of the project. Significantly, the project has also garnered the support of permitting agencies and holds key permits required for
deployment. As can be expected with a demonstration project, the economics of initial deployment do not appear to be favorable, but may improve with
subsequent deployments in areas with a higher cost of energy.
The project applied for funding in the first round of Emerging Energy Technology Fund (EETF) but was not awarded funding. A proposal was not submitted to
EETF Round 2.
Although reviewers see potential benefits of demonstrating the technology, the REF proposal was evaluated by criteria used for all applications, and did not score
high enough to pass Stage 2. Until the technology is proven, this type of demonstration and technology-advancing application is more appropriate for the EETF
program than the Renewable Energy Fund.
Did Not Pass Stage 2
Requested Grant Funds:$1,560,558
$120,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,940,558
Price of Fuel: /gal
C-06 Richardson Highway
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 5 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1002 Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Demonstration
Whitestone Power and Communications
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydrokineticResource:
Applicant Type:IPP
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Alan BaldiviesoProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.160.16
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project is will be based in navigable waters, and needs land use permit for location of float, anchors to shore, and electric line. Applicant has obtained this
already, and the permit is attached to the application file, starting on page 304 of the full application.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
39.17
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 6 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1003 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase III and IV
City of Saxman
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The 9.6MW Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project (FERC License P-11393) will provide Ketchikan and SEAPA-region residents and businesses with 41,743,000
KWH (41.7 GWH) of renewable hydropower per annum, allowing for continued economic and community growth while displacing use of diesel fuel.
Approximately 17,900,000 KWH (17.9 GWH) of power is available between November and April as winter storage. The most recent (June, 2012) cost estimate for
the project is $46,000,000 +/- 20%, making the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project one of southeast Alaska’s most affordable options for new hydropower. This
alpine lake tap project does not require construction of a dam. This application proposes State participation in the project through grant-funded cost-sharing in
remaining Phase III Final Design and Permitting tasks, and initial IV construction tasks, which will help assure the Mahoney Lake can be constructed in a manner
which benefits the Alaskan public, and provides the additional benefits of supporting new economic growth and job creation.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City of Saxman requests funds for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project to provide for the following: revise final design and specifications, obtain permits for
construction, review ways to increase storage potential of project, update cost estimate, begin power sales negotiations and prepare a business and operational plan
based upon power sales agreement. Additionally, they request construction funding, with no explanation of the source of the remaining $39 M in capital project
costs.
AEA has the following concerns: the market for the power is uncertain, given it would be the last to be used in the SEAPA system, including after the proposed
additions of energy from Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project and the proposed Metlakatla - Ketchikan Intertie. Additionally, potential issues could result if the
FERC license is reopened to reengineer the project.
The Round 6 application (#909) was recommended for partial funding of $500,000 but did not score within the funding limit. The project did receive a $200,000
FY14 legislative grant for pre-construction activities, but that work has only recently been initiated. Work to be completed under the legislative grant includes
hydrology update, license, market, operational, site, and financial reviews, design analysis, and an update of construction cost.
Given the current FY14 funding from the legislature, the project is moving forward to answer key questions; therefore, the project is not recommended for
funding from the RE Fund at this time.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$4,000,000
$4,000,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$51,000,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
Q-33 Ketchikan/Wrangell
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 7 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1004 Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System
Karluk Tribal Council
Feasibility
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
KodiakEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Rich StrombergProgram Manager:
Project Description
Karluk is located on the west cost of Kodiak Island in Alaska. The village is cut-off from any road system. Fuel oil has to be shipped by barge to Karluk. Therefore,
it is a high energy cost village with fuel oil at 4.92 $/gal. This project will perform a feasibility study and complete the design & permitting for a wind energy system
and a heat recovery system to serve the existing power plant in Karluk, Alaska. For the wind energy system, wind data from a meteorological monitoring tower
already installed at the proposed wind turbine location will be available for the analysis and design. The wind energy systems would consist of wind turbines
installed on the mountain 0. 7 miles south of the existing power plant, the transmission line to the power plant, and the electric boiler for excess energy utilization.
The heat recovery system would consist of upgrading the existing power plant generators with waste heat recovery units and installing a total length of up to
100011 hydronic heating loop to connect the power plant with the community buildings.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Karluk Tribal Council submitted this proposal in Round 6 and again this year. The community of 37 people sits on the western coast of Kodiak Island along
Karluk Anchorage and Karluk Lagoon. The wind regime ranges from relatively calm winds in town to fierce and damaging winds on the ridge 1,100 feet above
and along the coast toward Cape Karluk. This project is challenging because the community electric load is so small when compared with available options for
diesel generators and wind turbines. Finding an efficient diesel generator that can handle wind energy penetration will be difficult. The high wind regime up on the
ridge south of town is costly to develop given the size of the overall energy system. In addition to measuring the wind resource up on the ridge, a second 10-meter
tower should be installed closer to town to validate or modify the wind resource model at that location. A class 4 or 5 wind resource next to town could be easier
and cheaper to develop. The feasibility schedule looks aggressive, but doable. Wind resource studies and electrical/heat load analysis should be complete and
accepted by AEA prior to allocating money for the CDR.
Karluk is encouraged to work directly with AEA staff to explore the possibility of integrating wind or other energy systems into their community energy needs.
Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for direct assistance.
Did not pass minimum stage 2 scoring.
Did Not Pass Stage 2
Requested Grant Funds:$81,000
$300
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.60 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,300,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-35 Kodiak/Cordova
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 8 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1004 Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System
Karluk Tribal Council
Feasibility
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
KodiakEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Rich StrombergProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.761.83
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DMLW-managed lands or permit requirements apparent from the information presented.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Narrow Cape fault zone and Aleutian subduction zone.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
21.17
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 9 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1015 Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project Construction
Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Copper River/ChugachEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The Allison Creek Project is a run of the river (ROR) alternative involving construction of a diversion structure on Allison Creek at elevation 1,300 feet. Water will
be diverted from the creek into a 42/36 inch surface / buried penstock to a 6.5 megawatt powerhouse near tidewater.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
CVEA requests $5,914,491 to construct a 6.5 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Allison Creek. The funds would be used to complete construction of the
project. The project is expected to offset up to 1.4 million gallons of diesel fuel annually.
AEA has the following concerns: A portion of the land the project will use will be purchased in the future from Alyeska Pipeline, however an agreement is in
place to allow construction; and a FERC license amendment is being sought to allow penstock to be installed below grade and a portion to be within a tunnel.
Despite these concerns substantial progress has been made over the last year to advance the project including: issuance of FERC license, completion of final
design, Maximum Allowable Construction Cost contract has been awarded, PM contract awarded, turbine-generator owner equipment has been awarded, and
owner CM contract awarded.
Recommend full funding with the requirement that the grantee obtain the FERC amendment prior to expending Round 7 grant funds.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$5,914,491
$5,914,491
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.28 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$5,914,491AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$49,000,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
C-06 Richardson Highway
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 10 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1015 Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project Construction
Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Copper River/ChugachEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
3.963.68
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)4.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.12
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)12.44
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)17.87
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project is on DNR/DMLW lands, requires land use authorization. A land use permit is currently being processed by DMLW. A decision favorable to the
project was issued, but the land use authorization has not been issued, pending the results of the appeal period.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from Aleutian subduction zone.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
68.43 16 1
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
89.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 11 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1018 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting
City of Chignik
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
This project will complete the necessary design and permitting for the recommended hydroelectric project in Chignik Bay, AK. The existing hydro project currently
only serves as the community's raw source and transmission and does not produce power for the City. The existing
project is in imminent danger of failing and a replacement dam and pipeline will be required in the near future. This work will fulfill the design and permitting
needs of the replacement project.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Chignik requests funding for permitting and final design of a hydroelectric project on Indian Lake and River to replace an existing 60 kW plant which
is at the end of its useful life.
The City received a Round 1 REF grant (#2195388) for $207,500 to perform a feasibility study, conceptual design and cost estimate for a replacement
hydroelectric plant. Additionally, it was funded to enter into a MOU with Trident Seafoods to transfer the FERC license for the existing hydro to the City. The
license has been transferred but the study is incomplete.
AEA has the following concerns: The already funded feasibility study remains incomplete as of the date of application, with less than 45% of the grant funds
expended. A preliminary 13 page report was submitted with the application but significant questions of project feasibility remain unanswered, including size of
plant, project cost, project impacts to resident and anadromous fish, economy of project, etc. The requested grant funding is very high and no information has
been provided to support this large amount. Therefore, AEA recommends partial funding of $500,000 to complete design and permitting.
Special provision: AEA must receive and approve the feasibility study before any grant funds for this phase be expended.
Partial Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$1,375,000
$0
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.48 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$500,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-37 Bethel/Aleutians
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 12 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1018 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting
City of Chignik
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.021.60
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)3.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)4.88
6) Local Support (Max 5)0.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)20.81
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)0.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)10.43
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Proposal for rehabilitation and upgrade of existing facility sited primarily on non-DMLW uplands. Applicant reports that a DMLW Water Permit and Dam
Safety clearance will be required. The installed raw-water transmission line referenced in this application is approved for its crossing of Indian Creek under
SCRO Easement file ADL 229178. Any design that includes placement of additional infrastructure on the creekbed should be reviewed to determine if
additional SCRO Easement or Lease requirements apply (based on the navigable status of the stream at the specific location).
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
43.62 63 5
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
52.17
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 13 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1019 Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project
Edna Bay Community
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
Currently, all electric power in Edna Bay is provided by private gas or diesel generators. Significant gains in efficiency and reliability would be realized with the
installation of a diesel power plant integrated with a hydroelectric Archimedes type screw driven generator distribution system. The proposed project is a
reconnaissance study for the potential of Survey Creek to provide Hydroelectric power to the community of Edna Bay. In addition, the feasibility of constructing a
power plant and distribution system also needs to be evaluated. Besides private homes, the electric service would also serve businesses (including saw mills, the
General Store, and the Post Office), the school, the church, and AP&T’s communication site.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Edna Bay Community proposes reconnaissance of a 35-70 kW hydroelectric project on Survey Creek.
Edna Bay has no existing electric utility system and depends on individual privately owned generators for its local power needs. The proposal also requests
funding to study the feasibility of constructing a utility system power plant and distribution system.
AEA has the following concerns: the applicant suggests an Archimedes Screw hydroelectric technology may work, but this technology has not been constructed in
the U.S. and limited access to this remote site seems to make it a poor candidate to resolve application problems from an unproven technology; Survey Creek is
listed as anadromous fish habitat by ADF&G; the proposed site is in the Tongass National Forest and is subject to the Roadless Rule restrictions; and it is outside
the scope of the REF to evaluate the need for a conventional power plant and distribution.
AEA encourages Edna Bay to work directly with AEA staff to address the community energy needs. Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for direct
assistance.
The project did not pass the minimum Stage 2 score criteria.
Did Not Pass Stage 2
Requested Grant Funds:$62,272
$3,500
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:/kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$3,562,772
Price of Fuel:$3.80 /gal
Q-33 Ketchikan/Wrangell
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 14 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1019 Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project
Edna Bay Community
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.481.37
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No known issues
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Fairweather fault.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
39.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 15 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1020 Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual
Haines Borough
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
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 requests funds for a feasibility assessment of two hydroelectric 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.
There is no community power system, which would be necessary to distribute the power to the community.
The project received a Round 4 grant (#625) to perform a two-step reconnaissance study. The first step to determine the reach of anadromous fish habitat is
now complete. Work continues on the second half of the study.
The currently funded second half of the reconnaissance study is to 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. While the fish habitat study has been completed, the final reconnaissance study has not been reviewed or accepted by the Authority. Because this study
is not complete it provides no support for this application.
The applicant should also be aware that the Renewable Energy Fund has a strong public benefit purpose. An estimated 2 percent of the energy generated would
serve the public, while 98% would serve a private company. AEA encourages Haines Borough and Excursion Inlet to work directly with AEA staff to address the
community energy needs. Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for direct assistance.
The application is not recommended due to incomplete prior phases of the project.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds: $213,536
$10,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:/kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$14,500,000
Price of Fuel:$6.00 /gal
P-32 Downtown Juneau
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 16 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1022 SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase I and II
The Southeast Alaska Power Agency
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type: Government Entity
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Rich StrombergProgram Manager:
Project Description
Applicant accepted delivery of a 34-meter meteorological tower ('Met Tower') from the Alaska Energy Authority in July 2013 and seeks to conduct a
reconnaissance and feasibility analysis to determine if it is feasible to use wind power to supplement the energy needs and displace diesel for the communities
serviced by SEAPA. After the site assessment has determined the most suitable site for collection of raw wind data, the MET Tower will be installed to gather two
(2) years of wind data for a thorough analysis. An analysis of the wind data and a final report will be performed by a qualified consultant specializing in the field.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
SEAPA submitted a similar proposal in Round 5 and has already been given a 34-meter met tower from AEA's met tower loan program. Applicant should work
with AEA's anemometer loan program to get the existing met tower installed in Spring of 2014. Site assessment and selection should begin in 2013 with the
assistance of the AEA met tower loan program. A permitting plan can be developed at that time. Most met towers require an FAA permit which takes a shsort
time to complete, a preliminary meeting with US Fish & Wildlife Service and request for site access from the land owner. US Forest Service permission can be
requested in 2013 at very low cost to applicant. The staff at SEAPA has experience with large energy projects. Due to size of electrical load and infrastructure in
the region, a multi-megawatt scale wind project would be appropriate and allow for the best economies of scale. Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$158,771
$11,812
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$158,771AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$170,583
Price of Fuel:/gal
Q-33 Ketchikan/Wrangell
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 17 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1022 SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase I and II
The Southeast Alaska Power Agency
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Rich StrombergProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.84
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15) 13.13
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)4.47
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)18.07
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No known issues
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
53.33 47 13
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
90.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 18 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1023 Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project
The Southeast Alaska Power Agency
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type: Government Entity
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
Swan Lake is currently comprised of a concrete arch dam, 174' high and 430' long at its crest, which is located approximately 3/4 mile downstream from the mouth
of the original Swan Lake. SEAPA proposes a 15-foot lake raise, and a new reservoir level of 345 feet, raising the crest of the dam to 350 feet. SEAPA would install
a 15-foot high Obermeyer gate system as shown below in the existing spillway to achieve the new maximum normal operating pool level of 345 feet. The intake
structure would need to be raised to contain the maximum operating pool of 345 feet. This would require raising the concrete intake structure, relocating the gate
hoist equipment, and increasing the gate lift shaft.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
SEAPA requests funding to perform final design and construction to raise the Swan Lake reservoir by 15 feet. This will increase the firm energy available to the
SEAPA system and provide for an additional 7500 MWh of hydroelectric generation in an average water year.
SEAPA anticipates submitting the non-capacity license amendment to FERC in April 2014, begin design in May 2015, complete design in March 2015, bid
construction in spring 2015 and award construction contract in summer 2015.
Given the anticipated project schedule, AEA believes it would be premature to award grant funds for construction in this round. Also, a 50% cost share will allow
SEAPA to match on an equal basis through final design.
Partial funding of $560,488 is recommended to complete the final design phase.
Special Provision: Issuance of FERC non-capacity amendment and resolution of land issues before any Round 7 funds are expended.
Partial Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$4,000,000
$8,813,869
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$560,488AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$13,391,869
Price of Fuel:/gal
Q-33 Ketchikan/Wrangell
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 19 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1023 Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project
The Southeast Alaska Power Agency
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
4.074.07
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.25
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)4.47
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)16.23
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
ADL 106840 lease dam to port facility / ADL 106442 Swan Lake -Tyee Intertie. Use of additional state land required for impoundment area
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Fairweater fault.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
59.95 37 9
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
81.17
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 20 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1024 Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibility
Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
THREA proposes to conduct a Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design in an effort to further prove the Walker Lake Hydro Project and apply for a FERC license.
The Project is expected to have a 1 megawatt power output, generating 3,615 MWH of energy, using an estimated 780 feet of head and 18 cfs of flow year-round
using Walker Lake as a reservoir. Two small earthen dams will raise the lake elevation from 1,180 ft to 1,195 ft, increasing the reservoir storage capacity to allow for
year-round power production. A penstock will run from two small dam locations and join together to supply an 11,000 ft long buried penstock that terminates at
the powerhouse next to Little Salmon River. THREA proposes to work with IPEC to provide the lowest cost power from the project to benefit of IPEC's
members in the Chilkat Valley and Klukwan service areas and the Upper Lynn Canal (ULC) grid.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
THREA requests $700,000 in grant funds to perform a reconnaissance and feasibility study of a 1 MW storage or run-of-river hydro project at Walker Lake. The
primary purpose of the project would be to supply IPEC’s Chilkat Valley and Klukwan system with hydropower. THREA would be an IPP selling to IPEC.
IPEC applied for funding to study Walker Lake in Round 5 (#829) and Round 6 (#920) but did not score within the funding limit in either case. In October 2011
IPEC acquired the 600 kW Ten-Mile hydro project, which provides about 60% of the energy needed for the IPEC’s service area. The balance of their power
needs (700,000 kWh) is purchased from AP&T’s Upper Lynn Canal grid. That grid is 97% powered by hydropower, so the amount of diesel to be saved by
building Walker Lake is very limited (1,500 gallons per year).
Alaska Power Authority prepared a reconnaissance assessment for Walker Lake in 1988 with an estimated capital cost of $10.5M. Sealaska Corporation updated
the assessment in 2005. Both studies concluded that the project feasibility was marginal to poor. The current application did not include an estimated project
capital cost.
AEA has the following concerns with this project:
1. AEA has already funded reconnaissance and feasibility assessments for possible hydro projects in the region including Connelly Lake, Schubee Lake, West
Creek, and Burro Creek. These projects were found not to be economically feasible, mainly from a lack of a market to justify the capital costs.
2. The demand for the project power will be a fraction of the potential annual energy available from Walker Lake; given that, the project will spill nearly year
round.
3. While the application states that THREA will sell its power to IPEC below the APC rate, it is highly likely the cost of power from Walker Lake would exceed
that purchased from APC unless the project was fully funded with grants, given the rising costs of FERC licensing and construction for new hydro projects.
4. This project would displace very little diesel generation (approx. 1,500 gallons per year). 97% of the power purchased from APC (the load Walker Lake would
satisfy) is generated from the following hydropower projects: Lutak, Kasidaya, Dewey, and Goat Lake.
5. The amount requested for the reconnaissance study exceeds that which can be justified. If funded, partial funding is recommended.
The project did not pass the minimum Stage 2 score criteria.
Did Not Pass Stage 2
Requested Grant Funds:$700,000
$125,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.62 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$825,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
Q-34 Southeast Island
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 21 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1024 Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibility
Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.05
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
ADL 108134 easement application - HSF - UA land possible access concerns
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Denali fault.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
39.00
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 22 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1025 Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
IPEC proposes to conduct a Feasibility Study for the Gunnuk Watershed. In 1977, the Alaska Power Authority identified two potential hydroelectric projects near
Kake. The focus was on the Gunnuk Creek water shed. However, the projects were never pursued due to the relatively low cost of diesel fuel which was less than
$1.00 per gallon at that time. Since then diesel has risen sharply to over $4.00 per gallon making the potential for this hydro project more attractive as a more
economical power source for the community.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
IPEC requests funds to perform feasibility study of a hydroelectric project on Gunnuk Creek near Kake.
AEA has the following concerns: The principle study attached to the application appears to draw unsupported conclusions upon which to base award of grant
funds. Because of this, AEA recommends a new reconnaissance report be prepared using a professional engineer, qualified to perform such a study.
Recommend partial funding for a reconnaissance study.
The application did not have an estimated project cost. AEA estimated a cost of $7.5 million, from which the B/C ratio of 4.44 is derived. Once the
reconnaissance study is complete a new project cost should be available, and thus a new B/C ratio. Additionally, Kake’s powerhouse and bulk fuel facilities are
being upgraded through AEA’s RPSU program. The reconnaissance study should help determine the next course of action for Kake in regard to power
generation.
Special Provisions: All available basin records be collected and meeting transcripts between USACE, ANTHC and IPEC to provide backstop for the new study.
Field collection and analysis of data shall be conducted. Study will also consider other potential renewable energy sources to serve Kake, and in comparison to the
proposed Kake-Petersburg intertie. Elements of the study are to be as listed in the RFA.
Partial Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$275,000
$25,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.62 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$80,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$300,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
Q-34 Southeast Island
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 23 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - 〮DRAFT
1025 Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
4.28
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.63
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)27.14
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)14.60
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Gunnuk Creek - Kake Hatchery-Anadromous stream/ City Water supply conservation easements created in exchanging land at Jenny Creek
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Fairweater fault.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
68.20 17 4
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
73.00
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 24 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1027 Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project
Alaska Power Company
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper TananaEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Rich StrombergProgram Manager:
Project Description
The Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project would consist of installing a single 50 meter meteorological tower (met tower) to record wind velocities,
temperature, and humidity to determine if this site is feasible for a wind turbine installation to generate electricity for the Tok power grid.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The applicant has studied the wind resource in other locations south and southwest of Tok. AP&T has a very experienced staff working in Port Townsend as well
as the Tok facility. APC already has a 50-meter tower staged in Tok ready for deployment to the Chisana Mtn site. Access to the proposed site is relatively easy.
Met tower site is adjacent to a 15kV buried transmission line. Permitting is relatively straightforward for this project. A class 4 wind regime has been found
elsewhere in the region. The electrical load allows for a fair amount of wind energy on the system. Construction costs for this project would be among the lowest
for wind projects in the state do to the location on the road system. Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$119,000
$29,800
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.49 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$119,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$148,800
Price of Fuel:/gal
T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 25 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1027 Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project
Alaska Power Company
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper TananaEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Rich StrombergProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
2.55
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.50
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)21.46
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)17.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state lands are involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Cathedral Rapids fault.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
70.63 10 3
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
85.00
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 26 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1028 Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
Native Village of Cantwell
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The proposed project is a reconnaissance study of a 1 to 2 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Carlo Creek near the Parks Highway approximately 10 miles
north of Cantwell. The hydro project’s output would be sold to the local electric utility, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA) to reduce GVEA’s
reliance on diesel and naptha for generation.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Native Village of Cantwell requests funds for a reconnaissance study of a 1-2 MW run-of-river project on Carlo Creek to sell power to GVEA through the AK
Intertie. This is similar to the Jack River hydro site recently studied in reconnaissance through Round 4 (#606).
The Village applied for funding in Round 6 (#977) but did not score within the funding level.
Partial funding recommended for reconnaissance study.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$54,000
$6,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$35,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$8,340,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 27 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1028 Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
Native Village of Cantwell
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.901.88
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)1.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.63
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)9.81
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)12.20
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project includes a water line and intake structures on state lands. DMLW land use authorizations will be required for these structures.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Denali fault and Park Road fault.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
52.13 51 4
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
61.00
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 28 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1029 Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Native Village Of Cantwell
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The proposed project is a feasibility study of a 3 MW storage hydroelectric project on Jack River near Cantwell. The hydro project’s output would be sold to the
local electric utility, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA) to reduce GVEA’s reliance on diesel and naptha for generation. Other project configurations
with installed capacity ranging from 1.6 to 7.3 MW were identified in the 2013 Reconnaissance Study and may be considered in the feasibility study.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Native Village of Cantwell requests funds for feasibility assessment of a 3 MW storage hydroelectric project on Jack River.
The Village received grant funds in Round 4 (#606) for reconnaissance assessment of the project and has installed a stream gauge. The results of the funded
reconnaissance report were that a hydroelectric project on Jack River is technically possible with a range of installed capacities from 1.7 to 7.3 MW. The proposed
project reconnaissance report had a cost estimate of $31.5-$50.3 million. AEA used a mid-range estimate, or $40.9 million, to arrive at the benefit/cost ratio of
0.79, indicating the project is likely to have poor economics and would likely be costlier than the existing energy system.
The project was scored but did not pass minimum Stage 2 scoring.
Did Not Pass Stage 2
Requested Grant Funds:$213,750
$11,250
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.22 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$31,500,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 29 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1029 Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Native Village Of Cantwell
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.791.21
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
The State of Alaska considers portions of the Jack River to be navigable and state owned. It appears that all three prospective sites are located within the
navigable portions; landowner authorization would be require for all activities exceeding Generally Allowed Uses below OHW.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Denali fault.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
35.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 30 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1030 Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Storage of RenewableResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
KodiakEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Alan BaldiviesoProgram Manager:
Project Description
The Flywheel Energy Storage Systems (FESS) for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane is the installation and integration of two (2) ABB modular PowerStore flywheel
energy storage units at the City of Kodiak’s Pier III. Modernizing Kodiak’s shipping infrastructure with an electric crane instead of a diesel-powered crane requires
KEA to install the two new ABB flywheel energy storage systems, each with one (1) megawatt (MW) of generating capacity, in order to safely integrate the crane’s
electrical load demand onto KEA’s isolated grid. This project allows KEA to be the energy solution for the communities of Kodiak Island by making it possible to
power a critical component of the City with locally generated, clean renewable energy. The versatile grid‐stabilizing flywheel generator would mitigate the sudden
increase in electric load caused by the operation of a high‐powered electric cargo crane, and would also supplement KEA’s existing Battery Energy Storage System
(BESS) for systemwide electric grid support and conserve water utilized at the hydro facility. By being first‐in‐line to respond to rapid micro ‐second grid
frequency fluctuations, the FESS optimizes the range of frequency and voltage support provided by KEA’s other renewable generation, thereby making KEA’s
entire grid system more robust. This project is the next step in advancing KEA’s renewable energy vision for the benefit of all Alaskans by bringing renewable
energy to more sectors of Kodiak Island and by demonstrating a new energy storage technology in Alaska.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) presents a compelling proposal for the incorporation of a flywheel into their grid with numerous potential benefits including
accommodation of a new electric crane at Pier III, extension of the life of the utility’s battery energy storage system, and facilitated integration of future wind
turbine installations. KEA is well-suited to demonstrate how flywheel systems can be used for integration of variable renewable energy sources and provide grid
stability.
However, because the electric crane would serve a private entity, the offset diesel fuel by the flywheel is not included as a public benefit in AEA’s economic
evaluation, dramatically reducing the application’s Benefit/Cost ratio and overall score.
The application also proposed construction of a new tie line to relieve several overloaded feeders; although this tie line could help the integration of the flywheel,
its construction will be required regardless and was therefore removed from the recommended award amount. This had the effect of increasing the Benefit/Cost
ratio and overall score.
Partial funding recommended, excluding construction of the proposed tie line.
Partial Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$1,900,000
$1,900,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.19 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$1,470,548AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$3,800,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-35 Kodiak/Cordova
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 31 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1030 Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Storage of RenewableResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
KodiakEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Alan BaldiviesoProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.511.02
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)3.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)3.25
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)8.32
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)13.37
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No apparent DMLW permitting requirements from the project description provided; however the route of proposed new powerlines should be reviewed when
more detailed alignment plans are available to ensure that they fall entirely within ADOT&PF or municipally-managed ROWs as currently planned.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
52.44 48 2
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
66.83
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 32 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1034 Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie
Metlakatla Indian Community
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Kirk WarrenProgram Manager:
Project Description
The proposed Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie is a 34.5-kV transmission line that will interconnect the electric systems of Metlakatla Power & Light (MP&L) and
Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). The Intertie will include 14 miles of overhead wood pole transmission line on Annette Island between Metlakatla and Walden
Point and an approximate three mile submarine cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel between Walden Point and KPU’s Mountain Point Substation. The project
will also include control system upgrades to allow for the integrated operation of the interconnected systems’ generating plants.
Final design of the Metlakatla – Ketchikan Intertie is underway.
Construction of the line began in June 2010 and the overhead line to the new ferry terminal at Walden Point was completed in August 2013.
The line to the ferry terminal is scheduled to be energized at 12.47-kV in the fall of 2013.
The control system upgrades were completed in July 2011.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) proposes construction of an intertie that connects Metlakatla to Ketchikan. AEA is providing $2 million in Renewable
Energy Fund rounds 1 and 4 (applications #20 and #656). Additionally another $2 million in grant funds from the state have been awarded.
The RE Fund round 4 grant was negotiated this year (2013). Conditions of the grant support a step-wise approach to determine feasibility; conceptual design; and
completion of all preconstruction activities (including final design documents, final construction cost estimate, demonstration of site control, bathymetry, NEPA,
and permitting) prior to construction funding being awarded.
AEA is assisting MIC in complying with these conditions; however this work remains in process. The review team believes it is premature to allocate construction
funds.
$4M has previously been provided to the requesting entity and previous grants suggest a step-wise approach. Funding for this round is not recommended until
such time as the previous grant’s milestones have been met as described above.
Not recommended for funding.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$9,281,615
$0
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.10 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$14,510,599
Price of Fuel:/gal
Q-34 Southeast Island
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 33 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1035 Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Alan BaldiviesoProgram Manager:
Project Description
The Reconnaissance Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource funded by Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Grant #7040073 was completed in July
2013. The reconnaissance study was the first time this geothermal resource had been significantly studied. The surface expression of the resource is four hot springs
that occur together near the base of a hill approximately 200 feet high in a rugged, isolated, stream valley on Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska. During the field
effort in September 2011, the hot springs had surface water temperatures of between 1610F to 1760F. Geochemical sampling of water and soil, a shallow
temperature survey, and geological mapping occurred in this first field effort. Later fieldwork in the spring and summer of 2012 included infrared imaging of the
area, additional shallow temperature survey, and CO2 gas survey.
The purpose of this phase of the project is to further evaluate the viability of the geothermal resource by 1) obtaining Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data
to locate faults and obtain topographical information for design; 2) drill two slim holes to about 2,500 feet each and conduct well testing; 3) conduct an
environmental assessment to address agency and environmental issues; 4) prepare a conceptual design to develop the resource; and 5) refine the economic analysis
based on the conceptual design and more detailed economic parameters. The primary goal of the site work during this phase would be to collect the information
needed to verify resource viability and evaluate whether this project should be considered for Phase 3 investigation and development. The drill holes will be
approximately 10 inches in diameter necking down to approximately 2.5 inch core hole. Each well will have a temperature/pressure survey conducted and rock
chip samples will be analyzed for fluid inclusions and alterations. If the wells penetrate the reservoir we will conduct flow tests on the wells and collect water
samples for chemical analysis. The location, depth, size and flow characteristics are important parameters that determine the viability of the geothermal resource.
Evaluating those parameters was beyond the scope of the Phase 1 reconnaissance study. If found viable, the results of this Phase 2 investigation would provide
information necessary to support the development phase of the project.
<Project description edited for reporting purposes. See original application for full scope of work.>
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
With a Round 4 Renewable Energy Fund grant, IPEC completed a reconnaissance study to investigate the Tenakee Inlet geothermal resource. The study
indicated some encouraging early signs regarding the potential resource, but also confirmed that the significant transmission line and access road costs make the
project very expensive and economically unfavorable, with a benefit/cost ratio below 1.
While there does not appear to be demand for electricity produced by the project in either Pelican or Tenakee Springs, many residents of Hoonah demonstrated
their support for the project. Construction of a road to the geothermal site and the addition of other large electrical loads in the area could change the economic
picture for a geothermal plant, but at this point both prospects are speculative.
Without exploration wells–proposed in this application–key characteristics of the geothermal resource and the viability of a geothermal power plant will remain
unknown. But absent a clear economic justification for the power plant itself (a community energy demand and an apparent cost-effective manner to generate the
energy), costly geothermal exploration is inappropriate.
No funding recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$3,378,500
$0
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.65 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$49,000,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
Q-34 Southeast Island
Election District:
1/6/2014 10:04:13 AM Page
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1035 Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
GeothermalResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
SoutheastEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Alan BaldiviesoProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.441.24
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Source- USFS land Tenakee Creek head of Tenakee Bay. Anticipates transmitting power to Hoonah & Pelican
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Fairweather fault.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The proposed project plans to conduct a LIDAR survey initially to locate faults and topographical details to design a drilling program that will be also based on
an earlier reconnaissance study in 2011 (Renewable Energy Grant number 7040073) that included collection of detailed water analyses, conduct a shallow
temperature probe study and to locate a number of hot springs in the area. The reconnaissance study suggested that the geothermal zone at Tenakee Inlet is
broader than originally thought and that water geochemistry from this site suggests temperatures of (127°C, 260°F) are sufficient for binary electrical power
generation (Organic Rankine Cycle). It further suggests that ground-based geophysical studies such as SP and magnetotellurics would not be suitable because of
the water saturated ground and the lower temperature of the resource. It appears that is why the Round VII proposal will add a LIDAR survey to attempt to
examine local structures. This Round VII proposal includes the drilling of two slim holes to about 2,500 feet each to collect thermal temperature data and
conduct well testing. This is more within the capabilities of a slim-hole drill rig than an earlier proposal (Round VI) that called for drill holes up to 4000 feet
deep. The project will prepare a conceptual design to develop the resource and refine their economic analysis with the primary goal to collect the necessary data
to verify resource viability and determine whether the project should move on to an investigation and development in a Phase 3. The proposal costs seem
reasonable for slim-hole drilling to 2500 feet as well as the time necessary to drill two holes with a slim-hole drill rig (about 50 days for completion).
We recommend that the applicant provide a detailed outline of the methodology that will use the reconnaissance thermal probe and chemistry data along with
the LIDAR data to select and justify the drilling locations for the first drill hole, understanding that the second drill hole would be determined on the basis of
the results of the first drill hole. It may be that after the first drill hole is completed, two 1250 ft deep holes may be necessary rather than a single 2500 foot deep
hole. This is the nature of exploratory drilling. Additionally, we suggest a summary description of slim-hole drill rigs being considered and their depth
capabilities and bore hole diameters should be included. It appears from the proposal that they will not be actually coring with these rigs, but rather collecting
cutting chips for their studies that will include fluid inclusions.
Region Rank
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
1/6/2014 9:21:13 AM Page 35 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1036 Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase II
Chignik Lagoon Village Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The project is a high head run-of-river hydroelectric power plant on Packers Creek in Chignik Lagoon with an installed capacity of 167kW. The first phase of this
project, currently under construction, includes a 480 square foot powerhouse, a 1,500 foot long access road with a bridge across Packers Creek to the powerhouse,
a 3,260 foot long access trail to the intake, as well as supply of the turbine, generator, and switchgear. This grant funds the second phase of this project which
includes a 9-foot tall concrete dam, a 3,260 foot long 18-inch and 16-inch diameter penstock, a 1,750 foot long overhead power line extension to the existing
distribution system and 3,000 foot long control connection to the existing diesel power plant, interconnection to the existing diesel plant controls, addition of
dispatchable electric heat to the existing diesel plant waste heat system feeding the school, environmental upgrades to Packers Creek at the Powerhouse location
required by ADF&G, and start-up and commissioning of the new hydroelectric power plant.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Chignik Lagoon Village Council requests an additional $2,352,653 to complete construction of the 167 kW Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project. The project will
displace 97% of diesel fuel (521,000 kWh) used to generate power today and will also displace additional heat energy through dispatchable electrical heat to the
school.
The project received grants in Round 1 for permitting and design (#14) and Round 5 for construction (#836). The project was bid and all bids received were well
above the engineer’s estimate. Phase I under the Round 5 grant includes construction of access roads and bridge, powerhouse, and purchase and installation of
turbine, generator, and switchgear. Phase I is anticipated to be complete by August 2014. Phase II will complete the remainder of the project.
Despite the increase in cost the project still appears favorable and is expected to result in a decrease in electric costs from 75 cents to 33 cents per kWh.
The applicant calculation of their B/C ratio differed from AEA analysis in a few substantial ways. The applicant calculated using base system generation efficiency
of 10 gallons/kwh; AEA analysis uses 13 gallons/kwh. Applicant analysis assumed 10,000 gallons of displaced heat load; AEA analysis assumes that no additional
heat beyond that going into existing heat recovery system is used. Applicant analysis assumes generation level that is greater than current community demand;
AEA analysis uses current community demand.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$2,352,653
$3,036,496
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.69 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$2,352,653AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$5,389,149
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-37 Bethel/Aleutians
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 36 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1036 Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase II
Chignik Lagoon Village Council
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.663.85
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)5.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)30.26
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)17.27
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
A DMLW Water Permit is in force for this project under file LAS 27818. Packers Creek is not currently identified as navigable on DNR maps. If the
navigability determination of this waterbody changes, impacted creekbed sites should be reviewed for potential additional easement or lease requirements from
SCRO.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
83.36 2 1
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
86.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 37 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1039 Four Villages lntertie Design
Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Program Manager:
Project Description
This project will perform initial design, right-of-way planning, and environmental work for transmission lines between the communities shown in Table 2.2.1 in the
region. This project will connect closest and largest population center villages shown in table 2.2.1. This initial village group connection is a critical foundation
block for the region intertie system, and enables access to alternative energy options. All communities currently have diesel power plants. Subsequent phases to
complete design and perform construction are contingent upon the technical findings and community acceptance under this phase.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Ineligible for further review because the applicant is not an eligible party as defined in Section 1.4 of the Request for Grant Applications dated July 2, 2013.
The transmission project proposed does not “link an eligible renewable energy project or eligible natural gas project to other transmission or distribution
infrastructures” as required in Section 1.5.
Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$1,250,000
$0
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:/kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,250,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-37 Bethel/Aleutian
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 38 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1046 Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase
Tanalian Electric Co-op, Inc.
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The proposed project will assess hydroelectric and hydrokinetic resource potential and economics of the Tanalian River for providing electric energy to the
Community of Port Alsworth. Reconnaissance of hydroelectric at Tanalian Falls has already been complete and this project will include the feasibility and
conceptual design of hydroelectric at the waterfalls. Due to land use designations at the proposed hydroelectric power plant we would also like to include a
reconnaissance of in-river hydrokinetic along the Tanalian River. This portion of the proposed project has documented National Park Service support and may be a
viable option for an alternate location of hydropower.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Tanalian Electric Cooperative requests funds to assess hydroelectric and hydrokinetic resource potential and economics of the Tanalian River for electrical
generation for Port Alsworth.
The Tanalian River is located in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve and any hydroelectric development would require specific authorization by Congress,
indicating significant permitting challenges. The application included a support letter from the National Park Service (NPS) for investigation of a potential
hydrokinetic project; however, the letter was dated October 29, 2008 and was in support of a previous Round 3 grant application and applicant (#436), and did
not indicate any support for a conventional hydroelectric project. It is unknown if the NPS supports hydroelectric studies in the Tanalian River. Additionally, the
river is a known salmon stream and is listed as anadromous by Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
In Round 4, Alaska Green Energy submitted and was funded for a similar proposal (#436) to conduct a reconnaissance study of hydroelectric potential for Port
Alsworth. However, the grant was canceled before expending any grant funds due to inactivity and inability of applicant to obtain support letters for the project
and to hold community and agency meetings.
Although assessment of the hydrokinetic potential of the river was mentioned in the application, no detail was provided regarding the work to be performed, the
amount budgeted for the work, or the location of interest. Even if NPS support for a hydrokinetic project had been renewed, insufficient detail was provided for
consideration of this component of the proposal. Additionally, hydrokinetics is a developing technology and economics are unlikely to be positive at this time.
Until the applicant can demonstrate that a project has a reasonable chance to be developed and permitted at the location, funding is not recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$159,000
$10,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power: $0.68 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$7,224,213
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-36 Dillingham/Illiamn
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 39 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1048 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design and Permitting
North Slope Borough
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
North SlopeEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Rich StrombergProgram Manager:
Project Description
The North Slope Borough (NSB) envisions a wind energy and area-wide energy management system, consisting of wind diesel integration, end-use energy
efficiency, automated building controls, and conservation. This phase of the project is the design and permitting phase of a three phase project which will include a
phase for construction and commissioning for three anticipated wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the
community of Kaktovik. Participants in the project include North Slope Borough(NSB), a contracted engineering/design firm, and Northern Power Systems of
Barre, Vermont (wind turbine experts and supplier). The contractor will provide overall project management and system engineering during this phase of the
project. During the construction phase, NSB will recruit an engineering and construction contractor for design and installation of all civil works, erection of the
wind turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide Northwind 100B model wind turbines plus startup & commissioning
services.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Kaktovik has received REf Round 4 funding to complete a wind resource analysis, feasibility study and conceptual design. The existing power plant is easily
adaptable to integration of wind energy. Power plant description in section 3.5 and 4.2.2 of this application is one of the most detailed we've seen. Good summary
of permitting and environmental concerns. NSB has a long history of maintaining village power systems at a high level of reliability and functionality. Budget is
higher than standard wind project designs due to increased environmental assessment and permitting. Good wind resource. Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$440,000
$44,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.15 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$440,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$4,565,200
Price of Fuel:/gal
T-40 Arctic
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 40 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1048 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design and Permitting
North Slope Borough
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
North SlopeEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Rich StrombergProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.031.37
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)4.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)6.56
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)13.17
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Coastal Zone review no longer applicable since the ACMP program sunset in 2011; ADNR will not be coordinating a coastal zone management review. Project
review should take place, but should be initiated by the NSB. US Fish and Wildlife Service must be included for review given endangered species, migratory
birds, and proximity to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. No state land involved; KIC lands.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
42.23 64 2
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
65.83
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 41 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1049 Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project
North Slope Borough
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
North SlopeEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Kirk WarrenProgram Manager:
Project Description
This phase of the Barrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line Project is for final design and permitting required for the construction of the transmission line as wells as
home and building conversions to electric space heating.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
This grant request is to fund the subject Project for final design and permitting. There is a current grant to the North Slope Borough for Feasibility and Concept
Design in the amount of $210,000.
As of this current grant application review there have been $0 expended on the grant currently in place although much work has taken place.
Recommend funding of this Project commensurate with substantial completion and acceptance of the previous grant documents.
Full Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds: $2,017,818
$201,782
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.15 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$2,017,818AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$17,342,837
Price of Fuel:/gal
T-40 Arctic
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 42 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1049 Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project
North Slope Borough
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
TransmissionResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
North SlopeEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Kirk WarrenProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
3.303.55
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.38
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)6.56
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)14.83
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
2.6 and 2.7 cost figures don’t match. No state land involved; within BLM-managed NPR-A, City of Atqasuk, ASRC, and UIC. Section 4.3.3. lists state of
Alaska land use permit and easement are needed; no state land involved so no DNR authorizations are necessary.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
52.27 50 1
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
74.17
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 43 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1050 Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar PV Project
Bristol Bay Borough School District
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Solar PVResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
David LockardProgram Manager:
Project Description
This project will consist of a 50 kW (d.c. rating) 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 (200) 250-watt photovoltaic (PV) collector panels (e.g. Solarworld 250W monocrystalline or equivalent), 50 kW DC to AC power inverter capacity
(multiple smaller inverters, e.g. SMA Sunnyboy 6000TL) 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(s)
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.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The applicant proposes a 52kW solar photovoltaic system at the Bristol Bay Borough School in Naknek. This system would offset approximately 42,367 kWh of
electricity in the first year. The applicant did not provide details regarding electric load (weekday average, weekend average, summer average, etc.) or an agreement
with the utility regarding interconnection.
Naknek Electric Association provided a 10/30/13 e-mail stating that it does not offer net metering. Both the application and the utility director indicated that the
applicant had not discussed the project with the electric utility to request permission to interconnect.
AEA does not recommend this project for funding due to the lack of electric load detail and the lack of an agreement with the utility that would allow the
proposed system to be connected to the local grid.
AEA encourages BBB School District to work directly with AEA staff to address the community energy needs. Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for
direct assistance.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$230,000
$5,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.50 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$235,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-36 Dillingham/Illiamna
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 44 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1054 Multiple Alternative Energy Sources for Napakiak
Napakiak lrcinraq Power Company
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Program Manager:
Project Description
The applicant will work with Energy Unlimited, LLC on final design of an alternative energy system that includes a wind tower, solar panels, and an energy storage
system. The products we intend to use for each of these technologies are tested, warrantied, and commercially available. However, the combination of these
technologies to achieve maximum local benefits is innovative.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Ineligible for further review because the applicant did not provide a conceptual design report 30 days prior to the application deadline as required and identified in
Sections 1.12, 2.5 and Section 4 of the Request for Grant Applications dated July 2, 2013.
Section 4 of RFA, page 26
7. Wind applications requesting Phase III (Final Design and Permitting) or Phase IV (Construction, Commissioning, Operation and Reporting) funding will
submit documentation necessary to demonstrate the fulfillment of all requirements for earlier phases of the project identified in Section 2 of the RFA [i.e. Phase II
(Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design) or Phase III (Final Design and Permitting)] 30 days prior to the application deadline.
Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds:$141,000
$20,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:/kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,284,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-37 Bethel/Aleutians
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 45 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1056 Adak Wind Data Collection Analysis and Preliminary Design
City of Adak, Alaska
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
AleutiansEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Rich StrombergProgram Manager:
Project Description
The proposed project is for wind field data collection, analysis and preliminary engineering design. Wind field data collection will require a one year collection
period as recommended by AEA for location of wind generators. The wind data will be analyzed and used for the design of the wind generators and related
facilities. The City of Adak has completed a hydroelectric power feasibility analysis and preliminary engineering prepared by McMillen LLC. The report
recommends hydro – wind generation with pump storage development project that includes hydroelectric power generation, raising the Lake Bonnie Rose and
Lake DeMarie dams, construction of the penstock, powerhouse (2 MW hydro), transmission lines, wind generation (4.5 MW), wind pump from L. DeMarie to L.
Bonnie Rose storage, and associated facilities. Both lakes are in the same watershed. The hydro - wind generation with pump storage project will supply hydro and
wind generated power to the community as well as pump water to the higher elevation Lake Bonnie Rose to store potential energy for conversion into hydropower
generation to the community to meet demand (a buffering effect). The next step in the development process is wind field data collection and analysis to design the
wind generation system. The hydropower feasibility component and preliminary engineering design is complete in the McMillen report.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of Adak is proposing to conduct a feasibility analysis of including wind energy in their local energy grid. The wind resource model predicts a Class 6
wind resource at the proposed met tower site, indicating a very good wind resource. AEA is concerned that the existing community power generation and
distribution system is not currently ready to incorporate wind energy, but we also recognize that Adak is addressing the energy system and is likely to be working
with AEA through the Rural Power System Upgrade program in coming years. The amount of wind energy proposed for this community is much higher than
AEA is comfortable pursuing. AEA believes that a 0.9 to 1.0 megawatt system would be more appropriate for this community. The cost estimate to install the met
towers is twice the highest AEA has ever seen.
Weekly monitoring of the met tower site is warranted given the extreme winds possible in Adak. Electrical load data must be collected with dataloggers at the
power plant and in parallel from the fish processing plant and other self-generating users not presently connected to the grid to develop a properly sized power
generation system.
AEA encourages Adak to continue to work with AEA staff to address the community energy needs. Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for direct
assistance.
The project did not pass the minimum Stage 2 score criteria.
Did Not Pass Stage 2
Requested Grant Funds:$160,000
$0
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.81 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$72,400,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-37 Bethel/Aleutians
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 46 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1056 Adak Wind Data Collection Analysis and Preliminary Design
City of Adak, Alaska
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
AleutiansEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Rich StrombergProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.470.27
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
This project is not located 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 detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
35.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 47 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1057 Mertarvik Renewable Energy Feasibility and Conceptual
Ungusraq Power Company (UPC) / Newtok Traditional Council
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:IPP
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Project Description
The Newtok community must move due to the erosion of the existing community site and based on the Mertarvik Relocation Plan, the time has arrived to begin
the study and development of an efficient energy project for the new site. Ungusraq Power Company (UPC) is the independent power producer for the community
of Newtok, Alaska. This proposed UPC project will begin the conceptual and preliminary design and feasibility study work necessary to utilize the least diesel fuel
and to maximize the renewable energy resources for: electrical and heat generation production systems at the new Mertarvik community site.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The community of Newtok, AK is relocating due to erosion. The new community site of Mertarvik, Alaska is Southeast of the current location and the State wind
model projects a possible class four to six wind resource in the area.
Ungusraq Power Company (UPC) / Newtok Traditional Council (NTC), applying as an Independent Power Producer (IPP), proposes feasibility and conceptual
design work for a diesel power plant and distribution system and to determine the advisability of installing wind turbines, solar pv, biomass and/or heat recovery
in Mertarvik, Alaska.
Design work for the power plant and distribution system is ineligible for funding under the RE Fund. Conceptual design work for a wind or solar farm or heat
recovery loop should be done concurrently with or after the power plant and distribution system has been addressed. A biomass feasibility study should be
performed concurrently with or after a determination of which buildings could be served by a heat recovery loop.
Currently, there are two groups claiming legitimacy as the Newtok Traditional Council with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) making the determination. An
initial decision was made by BIA and is being appealed. It is anticipated that a final decision from BIA will be made in the second half of 2014. Securing site
control and obtaining a proper Waiver of Sovereign Immunity may be an issue until this situation is resolved.
Recommend partial funding of $75,000 to collect wind data at Mertarvik and electrical and thermal load data at Newtok, both for a minimum of one year, and to
write a wind/solar resource assessment.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$375,000
$25,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.80 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$75,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$8,000,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-36 Dillingham/Illiamn
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 48 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1057 Mertarvik Renewable Energy Feasibility and Conceptual
Ungusraq Power Company (UPC) / Newtok Traditional Council
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:IPP
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.14
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)4.50
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)1.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)35.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)10.60
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project appears to be entirely off of DNR/DMLW lands.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
62.77 30 8
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
53.00
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 49 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1058 Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array Construction Project
Northwest Arctic Borough
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Solar PVResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Northwest ArcticEnergy Region:
Standard Application
David LockardProgram Manager:
Project Description
Northwest Artie Borough is seeking $447,800.00 from this Grant Program on behalf of Noatak and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC), to add a
solar energy component to the existing diesel power generation system that serves the community. Northwest arctic Borough will construct a new 52.5 kW array of
210 pc. 250W, Photovoltaic (PV) modules in Noatak, Alaska. The array will be inclined at 34 degrees from May through September, and 90 degrees the remainder
of the year to take advantage of the solar angle at this northerly location. The annual power production of the array is estimated to be approximately 49,500 kWh
(with shading). The solar array will be located on a lot of land under discussion near the powerplant. A Feasibility study was performed for a system of similar size
in 2008, see attached. A request for funding was turned in at that time for round 1, Renewable Energy Fund. Since that time fuel prices have increased and
equipment( Solar Arrays) have come down in price. This have made the project more economically feasible. Considering that no other renewable energy option is
available for Noatak as Wind and Hydro is below development stage, Solar-PV is a good match for this community. Additionally Solar-PV is being successfully
installed and integrated for the regions Water-plants to help offset the use of Diesel fuel and lower the cost of living.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) proposes a 52.5kW solar photovoltaic system adjacent to the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) powerhouse
in Noatak. The NWAB intends to transfer ownership and operation of this project to AVEC. The project would generate approximately 49,500 kWh the first
year with a capacity factor of 11%.
This proposal contains a number of technical deficiencies:
- There is no design, which is typically required for a project of this size
- There is no site control in place, which is required for construction projects
- The feasibility study provided, which is the basis for the application, was performed without a site visit.
- The proposed site is between the powerhouse, which is in the floodplain, and the river
- The cost estimate did not provide cost details
- The NWAB resolution authorizing the grant application was not signed
- The Noatak powerhouse needs work: the smallest genset is in poor condition, the three phase is unbalanced, and the heat recovery system is not working.
AEA does not recommend this project for funding. The AEA powerhouse program offers technical assistance to the community and utility in planning for
improvement of the diesel powerhouse and heat recovery system, and AEA’s energy planning staff is also available for assistance.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$447,800
$0
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.74 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$447,800
Price of Fuel:/gal
T-40 Arctic
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 50 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1059 Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and Permitting
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Northwest ArcticEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
After careful consideration of the potential hydropower sources in the Cosmos Hills, as documented in the Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Report, AVEC
has chosen to move forward with design and permitting for a hydroelectric project on the Kogoluktuk River. The Kogoluktuk River project would be a run-of-
river project with a small diversion dam and intake, a long above-ground penstock pipeline, a
small Kaplan turbine and powerhouse, and a tailrace back to the river. The project would also include an access road, a transformer, and a high-voltage
transmission line. At this location, the upstream basin catchment area is approximately 424 square miles.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVEC requests $2,922,000 in grant funds for permitting and 65% design for a 690 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project on the Kogoluktuk River. The project
would serve the communities of Ambler, Shungnak and Kobuk. Shungnak and Kobuk are interconnected at present, while Ambler is not interconnected. Ambler
is 29 miles from Shungnak.
The project received a Round 1 Renewable Energy Fund grant (#74) for $1,025,000 to complete a feasibility study. A draft feasibility study was included with the
application but has not been finalized and accepted by AEA.
According to the draft feasibility study, it is still unknown if the project would require FERC licensing and the project description mentions fish ladders may be
required. FERC licensing adds additional costs to a project and fish ladders also create higher costs and a technical barrier for development. It is unknown if a
fish ladder can be permitted and operate successfully in an Arctic environment. A feasibility study generally would be more definitive with these matters.
The requested funds of $2.9M for the design phase of work are high and unsupported. The proposal does not indicate the design team members. Additionally,
small hydropower engineering and operation with long, above-ground penstocks have not been proven north of the Arctic Circle, and a major concern is system
freeze-up during sustained temperatures approaching -40 to -50 deg. F. Therefore, practical successful operation of potential projects remain speculative and
risky.
The project is estimated to provide 1,669,835 kWh of the electrical demand and displace approximately 45,000 gallons of diesel used for heat. The proposal
estimated a total capital cost of $38.66 million; however, the cost estimate did not include the cost of a transmission line to Ambler nor the cost to implement
hydro generation to be used for space heating. Although the project appears to have fairly significant benefits, the costs are more substantial and the benefit/cost
ratio of 0.38 reflects this.
Considering the concerns listed above and the challenging economics, the project was not recommended for funding. The applicant appealed AEA’s decision.
Staff reconsidered based upon new information and scored the project which did not meet the minimum Stage 2 score.
Did Not Pass Stage 2
Requested Grant Funds:$2,922,000
$150,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.74 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$38,660,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
T-40 Arctic
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 51 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1059 Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and Permitting
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Northwest ArcticEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.711.05
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Should this project move forward, a formal navigability determination should be requested to determine the status of the Kogoluktuk River. In a letter dated
8/20/2010 to AVEC, it was noted the navigability status of the river is currently unknown. If the river is navigable, state authorizations will be required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
27.50
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 52 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1062 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study
City of False Pass
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydrokineticResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
AleutiansEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Alan BaldiviesoProgram Manager:
Project Description
The City of False Pass requests Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) funding through the Renewable Energy Grant Program (RFA 2014-006) to complete Phase II
Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design Requirements (Project) for a proposed tidal energy project at False Pass in the Isanotski Straight. The City of False Pass,
like most communities of the Aleutian Islands, depends on diesel fuel to meet their electricity and heating needs. While diesel fuel is currently the most practical
option for such communities, it also creates economic, energy security and environmental problems—it has a disproportionately high carbon dioxide (CO2) output
compared to other power generation systems—at both local and global levels. The City of False Pass, fortunately, is situated near a significant hydrokinetic (tidal)
resource at the Isanotski Straight that offers a potential to significantly reduce, or eliminate, the use of diesel fuel. The viability of this resource was confirmed
through a reconnaissance study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Energy Program that included measurement of the current velocities in
the vicinity of False Pass through a full lunar cycle. This Project proposes to build on the completed reconnaissance study to accelerate efforts to develop this tidal
energy resource. The following goals will be achieved in this Project: (1) measure current velocities and collect turbulence data at 3-5 sites selected for potential
deployment of tidal turbines based on University of Alaska (UAA) circulation modeling, (2) analyze the data from the field effort including extending UAA
modeling efforts to select the optimal site(s) for tidal turbine placement, (3) collect existing environmental data and develop draft environmental study plans in
consultation with regulatory agencies, (4) initiate stakeholder outreach efforts, (5) collect additional geophysical data required to inform engineering of the project,
and (6) complete a conceptual design and economic analysis for a tidal energy project at False Pass. The Project Team is comprised of the City of False Pass;
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. (APIA); Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA); University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA); Benthic GeoScience, Inc.; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and ORPC Alaska, LLC (ORPC).
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of False Pass proposed to conduct a feasibility study for a tidal power project in Isanotski Strait, building on previous reconnaissance efforts. The
proposal was submitted in response to language in the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 7 Request for Applications (RFA) that specifically identified
reconnaissance and feasibility stage hydrokinetic projects as eligible for REF funding; this language was included in an effort to address a perceived eligibility gap
between the Emerging Energy Technology Fund (EETF) and REF.
The proposal, which calls for additional field measurements, modeling, site selection, and preparation for permitting, was submitted on behalf of a strong project
team actively involved in pioneering hydrokinetic development in the state.
As required by the review protocol described in the RFA, the proposal was evaluated by the same criteria used for all REF applications, and was disadvantaged by
the high costs and uncertainty associated with a nascent technology. The proposal is recommended for funding. As described in the RFA, in order for the
proposal to be recommended for funding ahead of its rank, it also needs to demonstrate both the importance of the proposed resource area relative to other
potential resource areas and evidence that tidal power shows potential for economic deployments in Alaska in the future.
While other strong and potential promising tidal resources exist in Alaska, the project team has made the case that the proposed resource site is exceptional
because it boasts the strongest tidal currents identified in the state being considered for power generation and is located nearby an electrical load.
With only a single grid-connected tidal installation operating in the country, it is difficult to predict how rapidly the installed costs of tidal power generation plants
will decline as the technology matures. The applicant has made the case that deployment and retrieval costs will decline dramatically as operators gain experience
equipment is improved. Although numerous challenges remain before economic deployments can be realized in Alaska, potential for such deployments exist.
AEA requests the advice of the REFAC regarding the advancement of the proposal ahead of higher ranking projects as permitted by the RFA.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$428,646
$137,820
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$428,646AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$5,000,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-37 Bethel/Aleutians
Election District:
1/6/2014 9:32:27 AM Page 53 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1062 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study
City of False Pass
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydrokineticResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
AleutiansEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Alan BaldiviesoProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.220.22
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)0.75
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)2.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)22.45
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)13.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)8.57
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
The submerged velocity monitoring research equipment referenced in this application are currently authorized by SCRO temporary permit LAS 28655.
Applicant states that "The tideland access near the airport at False Pass...is considered a municpal tideland. The area is retained in state ownership and managed
by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. If the [proposed] transmission line route is designed within the boundaries of the
airport'sjurisdiction, application and approvals would be needed from ADOT&PF." However, ADOT&PF acquired their airport management right from non-
State upland owners rather than DNR and so do not necessarily have use of adjoining tidelands. In addition, SCRO recently issued an easement for municipal
use of submerged lands near False Pass that would not have been required if an ATS to the City or Borough had been in force at the project location. Applicant
is advised to contact DMLW SCRO in addtion to ADOT&PF Airport Management personnel well prior to finalization of plans for any project component
intended for placement on tide and submerged lands in order to determine accurate jurisdiction and permitting requirements.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
54.77 43 3
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
42.83
1/6/2014 9:32:27 AM Page 54 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1063 Iliamna Solar Ground Mounted Energy System
Iliamna Village Council
Recon
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Solar PVResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
David LockardProgram Manager:
Project Description
This project entails the construction of a ground-mounted, stand-alone solar energy system to manage the energy capacities of the Iliamna Village Council and
adjacent maintenance buildings, eventually adding houses and/or additional community facilities to this solar energy powered system as funds permit. Further study
will take place during Phase I of this project to assess the measure of insolation in our location, to determine how much sunlight will be available for solar panels to
convert into electricity and how many hours of peak sunlight the location receives per day, making adjustments for Net Metering with the local power company, or
for a battery-storage system. We will assess the number of devices that will be electrically powered in total for both buildings, and the total kWh and wattage
consumption of these devices. An assessment must also be performed to determine an accurate cost for both buildings’ heating fuel requirements. Once a
thorough energy cost assessment has been completed, Phase I will meld into Phase II as further assessments are implemented to develop cost evaluations for
installing a solar electric system to successfully power total electric energy consumption requirements, as well as solar energy systems to manage both buildings’
heating needs, taking into account plausible separate and hybrid systems. Phase II will also entail developing a detailed evaluation intended to further assess the
technical, economic, financial, and operational viability of the project. Phase II will be completed by narrowing the focus of our final ground mounted solar panel
design and construction plans, to prepare for future final design and implementation of the Project, and establish pre-construction equipment, shipment costs,
time-frames etc.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The Iliamna Village Council has applied for an $800,000 grant with a $120,000 match for reconnaissance, feasibility and conceptual design of a ground-mounted
solar photovoltaic system. The system would offset heating and electrical costs at its Village Council office and possibly adjacent buildings.
Since 2009, AEA has assisted the Iliamna-Nondalton-Newhalen Electric Cooperative (INNEC) with a series of utility upgrades to repair the hydro tailrace, rebuild
hydro turbines and generators, improve the intake system, upgrade controls, and install interruptible electric boilers at the schools in Newhalen and Nondalton.
These projects are intended to benefit all three communities by improving the reliability and reducing the cost of hydropower. AEA has recently funded a
feasibility study to determine if the existing capacity at the Tazimina Hydro project should be increased.
AEA does not recommend this application for funding because of its high cost, minimal proposed fossil fuel savings, the lack of a utility net metering policy and
procedures or endorsement of the project, and the alternative opportunity to heat with interruptible hydropower from INNEC.
AEA recommends that the applicant contact the INNEC board regarding electricity rates and the possibility of heating the applicant building with excess
hydropower. Also consider energy efficiency measures in public buildings for cost-effective energy savings. The applicant may also be able to participate in the
projections of future heating and power use that will be part of the Tazimina Hydro capacity increase study.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$800,000
$120,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.59 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,000,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-36 Dillingham/Illiamn
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 55 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1064 Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction
Native Village of Chenega
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Copper River/ChugachEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The Native Village of Chenega (aka. Chenega Bay) proposes to construct a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project on Anderson Creek. The planned 64 kW capacity
project will offset power currently generated by burning diesel. The non-jurisdictional hydro will offset up to 10,406 gallons of diesel annually which translates into
$56,600 in annual savings. Engineering design is 95% complete and permit applications to the appropriate agencies have been submitted.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Native Village of Chenega requests $1,400,000 to construct the 64 kW hydroelectric project on Anderson Creek. The project is estimated to reduce diesel
consumption for electrical generation by half.
The project received grants in Round 0 for reconnaissance study and Round 3 for final design and permitting (#455).
AEA has the following concerns: Permits and site control have not been received, the Declaration of Intent has not been submitted and it is unknown if the
project is exempt from FERC licensing. Draft plans titled as 95% design were submitted with the application but did not include technical specifications, and
cannot be finalized until permitting is complete. The estimated cost for construction is $1,650,000 and it is unclear where the additional funding will come from.
For these reasons we believe it is premature to grant further funding. Not recommended.
Not Recommended
Requested Grant Funds:$1,400,000
$0
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.44 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,650,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-35 Kodiak/Cordova
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 56 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1064 Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction
Native Village of Chenega
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Copper River/ChugachEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.141.02
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)
5) Benefits (Max 15)
6) Local Support (Max 5)
7) Sustainability (Max 5)
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Applicant self-reports a requirement for DMLW Water Use Permit and on-going involvement of Water Resources Unit staff. No apparent DMLW-managed
lands or permit requirements based on the project description provided. DMLW resources do not currently identify Mountain Creek as navigable; if this
determination is amended the project should be reviewed again for potential additional lease or easement requirements from SCRO.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone and other upper plate crustal faults such as Hanning Bay and Patton Bay faults.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 57 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1065 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Final Design and Permitting
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
KodiakEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), the electrical utility provider in Old Harbor, is proposing to complete final design and permitting of a
hydroelectric project in Old Harbor, Alaska. The 262 kW (initial; nominal) basin diversion project will be located on East Fork Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek
Tributary. The project will be capable initially of generating an average of about 2,018,924 kWh annually and could grow to an annual generation of 2,725,646 kWh
when demand warrants and an additional turbine is installed. The project will run year-round and meet all the existing and future electricity demands of the
community.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
AVEC requests $1,092,500 to complete final design for a 262 kW hydroelectric project on East Fork Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek at Old Harbor.
The project received grants in Round 1 (#73) for $225,000 and Round 4 (#644) for $237,500 to complete a feasibility study, FERC licensing, and preliminary
design. Additionally, the City of Old Harbor received a Community Development Block Grant in support of the project for $250,000 to complete the FERC
License Application and permitting.
AEA has the following concerns: The FERC License Application was submitted October 2013 and it will take 18-24 months for the application to be reviewed
and granted. Site control, including an easement within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, and changes to the conservation easement with the Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill Trustee Council, remains to be established. Additionally, project economics are marginal and the requested funds for this phase of work are extremely
high and unsupported.
Recommend partial funding to complete final design.
It is suggested AVEC make every effort to keep as much of the costs down to keep this project moving ahead.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$1,092,500
$57,500
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.58 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$400,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$8,155,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-35 Kodiak/Cordova
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 58 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1065 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Final Design and Permitting
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
KodiakEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.111.79
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)5.37
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)25.21
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)11.27
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Expect a water right application and DNR is aware of the project. No other authorizations appear to be needed.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone and Narrow Cape faults.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
60.35 36 1
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
56.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 59 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1066 Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Project Description
Building on the results of the completed Conceptual Design Report (attached in Tab G), Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is proposing to
complete the final design and permitting to install three Northern Power Systems NPS 100-24 turbines, each with a 95 kilowatt (kW) installed wind capacity
(aggregate generating capacity of 285 kW), to the existing diesel power generation system in Marshall. Once work done under this grant is completed, AVEC will
seek funding to construct the turbines. A met tower in the proposed turbine site has collected 21 months of data. A wind resource report has been completed
based on data from the met tower and has revealed a Class 4 (good) wind resource at the site with an average wind speed of 6.30 m/s.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a Utility, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community
of Marshall, Alaska. The final design would be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040021.
The draft conceptual design report was submitted and reviewed by AEA prior to the Round 7 RE Fund application deadline. A final conceptual design report has
been submitted.
Recommend full funding with the special provision that the final conceptual design report be accepted by AEA prior to allocation of design and permitting funds.
Full Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$353,400
$18,600
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.50 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$353,400AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$3,214,875
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 60 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1066 Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.981.60
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)1.50
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)22.05
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)10.43
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state managed land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
52.32 49 13
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
52.17
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 61 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1067 Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Project Description
AVEC proposes to complete a conceptual design report (CDR) for a wind energy project in Mountain Village. This project will move the project towards the goal
of reducing fuel usage by establishing a renewable energy resource in the community. A met tower collected data east of Mountain Village from November 2009 to
August 2011. A wind resource report was completed and revealed a low Class 5 (excellent) wind resource with an average wind speed of 7.62 m/s. Work under this
grant will include updating the wind resource report, conducting a geotechnical investigation at a proposed wind site, completing the CDR with the preliminary
design of a wind farm.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a utility, proposes to complete a wind feasibility study and conceptual design report to study the advisability of
installing wind turbines in Mountain Village, Alaska. The applicant performed a meteorological tower study from November 2009 to August 2011. A Wind
Resource Analysis based on this study was submitted with the application and demonstrates a class five wind resource. Class four through seven wind regimes
typically support viable wind-diesel projects in Western Alaska.
A best case scenario is often used by AEA Project Managers when evaluating the merits of a feasibility project and, in regards to this proposal, resulted in higher
production estimates than the applicant. The proposed project and future design work would refine production estimates prior to construction.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$123,500
$6,500
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power: $0.54 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$123,500AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$4,833,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 62 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1067 Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.701.23
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.63
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)23.80
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)15.83
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state managed land involved.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
70.26 12 4
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
79.17
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 63 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1068 Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Bering StraitsEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Project Description
The proposed project is located near the village of Stebbins on St. Michael Island. Stebbins is located approximately 430 miles northwest of Anchorage, on the
south side of Norton Sound. Stebbins is 8 air miles from the village of St. Michael. This project will benefit both the communities of Stebbins and St. Michael as an
intertie to connect the two communities and a new joint power plant will be constructed
by 2015.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a Utility, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community
of Stebbins, Alaska. The wind-diesel system would service the communities of Stebbins and Saint Michael, Alaska. The final design will be based on a feasibility
study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040008. The feasibility study and conceptual design report have been
reviewed and accepted by the AEA Wind Program.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$342,000
$18,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.56 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$342,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$3,946,050
Price of Fuel:/gal
T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages
Election District:
1/6/2014 9:34:04 AM Page 64 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1068 Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Bering StraitsEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.802.74
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.63
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.50
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)24.42
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)7.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)16.67
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Any cross country travel (winter or summer) crossing navigable water bodies may require a permit from DNR as underlying lands are state owned, even if the
adjacent uplands are owned by a village or regional native corporation. It appears that the main intertie between Stebbins and St Michael will be within the road
right-of-way which has an existing federal right-of-way. However, if there are spur roads/lines to the wind turbines or other areas outside the existing right-of-
way and they cross navigable water bodies, an easement from DNR may be needed. For any supporting gravel mining operations, a Reclamation Plan is
required for gravel mining operations even on non-state land, if the operation disturbs more than 5 acres or excavates more than 50,000 cubic yards. There may
be a minimal benefit to state resources as there will be a slight decrease in their use of diesel fuel.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Bendeleben fault.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
72.21 7 1
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
83.33
1/6/2014 9:34:04 AM Page 65 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1069 St Marys Pitkas Point Wind Energy Construction Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Project Description
AVEC proposes to complete construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of four wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation system for
currently intertied communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. As a part of this project, AVEC will upgrade the electrical distribution line between St. Mary’s and
Pitka’s Point to a 3- phase line and upgrade the joint power plant to accommodate wind turbine energy generators. This project has been in planning for over 10
years, and with funding from this grant AVEC will complete the St. Mary’s wind farm.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a utility, proposes the construction of a wind farm along the St. Mary's/Pitka's Point inter tie along with
components necessary for the integration of wind power into the diesel power plant. The wind-diesel system would serve the communities of St. Mary's and
Pitka's Point. The basis for the proposed wind-diesel system would be a design funded through Round 4 RE Fund grant #7040017. Permitting for the project is
completed, site control has been established and a final design has been submitted to the Authority.
Recommend full funding with the special provision that the 95% design be accepted by the Authority prior to allocation of construction funds.
Full Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$4,274,575
$507,953
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.49 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$4,274,575AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$4,782,528
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 66 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1069 St Marys Pitkas Point Wind Energy Construction Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.191.47
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)5.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)4.50
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.33
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)21.60
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)13.00
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
This project is not located 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 detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
62.43 31 9
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
65.00
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 67 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1070 Sand Point Energy Storage Project
TDX Sand Point Generating, LLC
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Storage of RenewableResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
AleutiansEnergy Region:
Standard Application
David LockardProgram Manager:
Project Description
TDX Power intends to build on a successful wind‐diesel power system at Sand Point, Alaska, by adding an energy storage component to its Sand Point Generating
power plant. The additional hardware – inverter and battery bank – will allow the utility to purchase more wind power from the existing turbines and shut off the
diesel engines for approximately 30% of the year. The project includes the final design, procurement, installation and commissioning of an inverter and battery
bank and integration with the existing wind‐diesel power system in Sand Point, Alaska.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
TDX Power intends to build on a successful wind‐diesel power system at Sand Point, Alaska, by adding an energy storage component to its Sand Point
Generating power plant. The inverter and battery bank would allow the utility to purchase more wind power from the existing turbines and shut off the diesel
engines for approximately 30% of the year. The project includes the final design, procurement, installation and commissioning of an inverter and battery bank and
integration with the existing wind-diesel power system in Sand Point, Alaska.
AEA recommends partial funding of $200,000 for a feasibility study and final design to provide additional detail on the proposed project as well as alternative
savings options. additionally, AEA recommends that the applicant consult with AEA’s powerhouse design team regarding the latest innovations in diesel
efficiency, marine manifolds, heat recovery design, and dispatchable boilers for frequency control. The feasibility study should investigate the economics of
expanding the heat recovery loop to the clinic, school and/or city buildings, adding marine manifolds to one or more of the gensets, adding interruptible electric
heating to commercial customers, and/or adding a dispatchable electric boiler to the heat recovery loop. The study should consider repairing or replacing the
smallest genset to improve system diesel generation efficiency and the potential for paralleling effectively with the wind turbines. The lessons learned from other
battery installations in Alaska (Kodiak, Kotzebue, Kokhanok, etc.) will provide a valuable framework.
Partial Funding
Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$1,256,403
$141,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.58 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$200,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$1,397,403
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-37 Bethel/Aleutians
Election District:
Y
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 68 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1070 Sand Point Energy Storage Project
TDX Sand Point Generating, LLC
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
Storage of RenewableResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
AleutiansEnergy Region:
Standard Application
David LockardProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.081.01
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)4.13
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)22.55
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)9.50
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No apparent DMLW-managed lands or permit requirements according to the project description provided.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
54.17 45 4
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
47.50
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 69 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1072 Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Igiugig Village Council
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Project Description
The Village of Igiugig seeks funding to complete the final feasibility of our wind resource and conceptual design to verify the economic viability of a wind-diesel
electric generation facility. A Rural Power Systems Upgrade was completed in 2011, and a preliminary wind feasibility study was completed by Knight-Piesold
Consulting in 2012. Igiugig has a class 3-4 wind resource, and with the higher cost of diesel and the increasing electrical demand, it was determined that a high-
penetration wind turbine system is economically viable. A final feasibility study and conceptual design with a construction cost estimate remains to be completed.
The total cost of the project is $110,000 and the Lake and Peninsula Borough has committed a $20,000 match. Igiugig Village is providing a $10,000 in-kind match,
and requesting the additional $80,000 needed.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Igiugig Village Council, applying as a governmental entity, proposes to complete a feasibility study and conceptual design report to study the advisability of
installing wind turbines in Igiugig, Alaska. The applicant has finished a meteorological tower study and has submitted a Wind Resource Report with the
application.
Recommend full funding with the special provision that the Wind Resource Analysis and Feasibility Study be accepted by AEA prior to allocation of Conceptual
Design funds.
Full Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$80,000
$30,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.80 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$80,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$110,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-36 Dillingham/Illiamna
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 70 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1072 Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Igiugig Village Council
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.861.40
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)0.00
6) Local Support (Max 5)3.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)35.00
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)13.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)9.40
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Applicant's immediate funding objective is completion of a feasibility study; system plan and design efforts have not yet been undertaken. Test equipment is
proposed for placement on Village Council lands so no DMLW authorizations appear to be required at this stage of project develoment. Applicant should
provide DMLW with site location and design information when available to determine if any lease, easement, or permit authroizations are necessary for
implementation.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
66.07 25 2
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
47.00
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 71 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1075 Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Blue Hole Properties, LLC (BHP)
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:IPP
Copper River/ChugachEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The proposed project is an approximately 200 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Cascade Creek at MP 35 of the Richardson Highway. The project would
provide power to CVEA via a proposed 14-mile line extension or tie into the 138 kV transmission line that runs within ½ mile of the project site.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Blue Hole Properties, LLC requests $170,000 in grant funds to complete feasibility and conceptual design of 200 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Cascade
Creek, located at milepost 35 of the Richardson Highway and adjacent to the Tsaina Lodge.
The project is estimated to cost $2.25 million to construct and would require a 14-mi transmission to interconnect to the CVEA transmission system. It does not
appear the cost of interconnection has been included in the cost estimate. It would provide 1,040,000 kWh annually. How much would be purchased by the
CVEA system is unknown due to the Allison Creek project currently under construction and already operational Solomon Gulch.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$170,000
$30,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.28 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$170,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,250,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
C-06 Richardson Highway
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 72 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1075 Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Blue Hole Properties, LLC (BHP)
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:IPP
Copper River/ChugachEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.303.46
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)6.38
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)1.33
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)12.44
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)11.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)9.17
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project will require water right, and possibly a land use authorization from DNR/DMLW for the water line, unless included in the water right. If the generator
is outside applicant's property, it will require a land use authorization as well. Boundaries are described in USS 3905 and accompanying notes, but application is
not sufficiently descriptive to determine generator location.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone and Chugach St. Elias mountains faults.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
48.31 58 3
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
45.83
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 73 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1077 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Native Village of Tanacross
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper TananaEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The communities in the Upper Tanana Subregion to be served by this renewable energy project are economically distressed in part caused by the very high cost of
electricity at $0.51 per kWh. These communities currently rely on diesel generation to meet their electric needs.
Renewable energy is a must for this area to remain economically viable during these difficult times. The Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project, first pioneered by
Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T), would be the first renewable electric energy project for the Upper Tanana Subregion and is now a collaborative effort of
the Native Village of Tanacross, Tanacross, Inc. and AP&T.
The project site can be accessed at MP 1339 of the Alaska Highway
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Native Village of Tanacross requests $6,000,000 for construction of a seasonal 1.5 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Yerrick Creek to serve Tanacross,
Tok, Tetlin and Dot Lake, located 20 miles west of Tok. Total project cost is $19,000,000 and depends upon many other sources of funds that are not in hand
(USDA RUS, New Markets Tax Credits, BIA loan). The project is to be jointly owned by NVT and Tanacross Inc., which will form an IPP to sell power to
AP&T. The project will require 15,000 ft of penstock and 10 miles of transmission line upgrade from single phase to three phase.
AP&T will be hired to prepare final construction plans and specs.
The project was partially funded by AEA several years ago through a series of RE Fund grants when AP&T was the sole developer but ran into problems with
lack of cooperation by landowner Tanacross Inc. Funds were made available in what is called Round 0 for reconnaissance study and Round 3 (#438) for
construction.
AEA has the following concerns: All funds for construction are not available, MOA not signed, IPP not formed, land ROW not in hand, permits not in place,
design not complete, cost estimate is vague, exact siting of intake and powerhouse is unclear.
Recommend partial funding of $75,000 to finalize permits, final design and specs, cost estimate, IPP arrangements, MOA, power sales agreement, bid documents,
etc.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$6,000,000
$11,500,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power: $0.49 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$75,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$19,000,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 74 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1077 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
Native Village of Tanacross
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper TananaEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
4.239.84
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)3.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.25
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)21.46
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)11.67
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
This project was originally applied for by AP&T (ADL 418154 - easement, ADL 418921 - material sale. New application states that the Yerrick Basin will be
protected from outside intrusion: it is unlikely that DNR would issue authorizations that would impede the use of existing 17(b) access through Tanacross land
to the state land in the remainder of the basin.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Dot "T" Johnson and Cathedral Rapids faults.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
70.54 11 4
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
58.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 75 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1079 Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery
New Koliganek Village Council
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Project Description
This project proposes to install two remanufactured Vestas V20 wind turbines in the community of Koliganek. Koliganek was awarded a grant from the Alaska
Energy Authority (AEA) in Renewable Energy Fund Round IV to complete a conceptual design for installation of wind turbines, with possible construction
beginning in 2015. New Koliganek Village Council owns and operates the electric utility for the community of Koliganek. The moderate wind resource at this site
could support a medium penetration wind-diesel system.
The Draft Conceptual Design Report for the RPSU project does not currently include the prospect of integrating wind energy. Koliganek has received $300,000 for
conceptual design and design completion for the Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) project. The 2009 Conceptual Design Report (CDR) will be updated
starting in January 2014.
This project proposes that the conceptual designs of both the wind-diesel and RPSU project proceed in coordination. If the projects are designed together,
potential retrofitting expenses will be avoided and savings realized through the elimination of redundancies.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The New Koliganek Village Council, applying as a governmental entity, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in
the community of Koliganek Alaska. The final design will be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund
Grant #7040011. The feasibility study has been completed and a draft conceptual design report has been reviewed by the AEA Wind Program. A final
conceptual design report will be completed in early 2014 in conjunction with an AEA Rural Power System Upgrade Program power plant conceptual design
report.
Recommend full funding with the special provision that a final wind-diesel conceptual design report be accepted by the Authority prior to the allocation of final
design and permitting funds.
Full Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$306,000
$10,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$306,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,566,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-36 Dillingham/Illiamna
Election District:
Y
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 76 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1079 Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery
New Koliganek Village Council
Design
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Government Entity
Bristol BayEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.051.60
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)3.83
5) Benefits (Max 15)4.13
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.17
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)22.09
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)6.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)10.47
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No apparent DMLW managed lands or permit requirements according to the provided project description. Proposed infrastructure planned for placement on
non-State lands which ADOT&PF either previously or currently held limited management rights for operation of local airport.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
51.68 54 3
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
52.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 77 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1080 False Pass Wind Energy Project
City of False Pass Electric Utility
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
AleutiansEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Project Description
False Pass currently produces all their electricity from diesel generators and heating from burning fossil fuels. Analysis by Marsh Creek LLC confirms that, despite
the ample Class 4 wind resource, a Class 3 S designation is most appropriate. Turbulence from complex terrain precludes a typical rural Alaskan wind project. This
project proposes feasibility completion funding to 1) fully assess commercially available wind turbines for deployment in high turbulent locations and 2) expanding
available wind resource data at the 10 meter height on proposed sites and 3) revised Conceptual Design Report (CDR) recommending the best turbine to proceed
to design in Round 8. Vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) are potentially a mechanically and economically sound upgrade to False Pass’s current diesel generator
system. This project will consider ten (10) 5 kW Kelso VAWTs in comparison to the use of either the Xzeres Skystream and Bergie options.
The CDR recommendations will closely examine three potential turbines and research other potential options. The Vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) are
potentially a mechanically and economically sound upgrade to False Pass’s current diesel generator system. This project will consider ten (10) 5 kW Kelso VAWTs
in comparison to the use of either the Xzeres Skystream and Bergie options. This project seeks feasibility funding for the False Pass wind project. The feasibility
funding would allow for further site testing of wind resources at the proposed system height of 10M and heat recovery analysis. Conceptual Design Report Updates
will include additional HOMER analysis with wind resource data at the 10M height, Down East Heat Recovery modeling, WASP modeling, wind turbine profiles,
revised economic analysis and recommendations.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
The City of False Pass Electric Utility, applying as a local government, proposes feasibility and conceptual design work to determine the advisability of installing
wind turbines on the False Pass electrical grid. This work will augment feasibility and conceptual design work already performed under a Round 4 Renewable
Energy Fund Grant #7040051. The results of the Round 4 grant demonstrated that the False Pass wind regime contains enough energy to create a feasible wind
project but, due to complex terrain, has high turbulence. The applicant proposes to continue wind and electrical data collection to investigate other locations in
False Pass for a less turbulent wind regime and better understanding of community loads. The applicant proposes to then revise the existing Conceptual Design
Report based on the aggregate findings.
Recommend full funding with the special provision that Wind Resource Assessment(s) and Feasibility Study be accepted by AEA prior to the allocation of
Conceptual Design funds.
Full Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$47,050
$5,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.51 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$47,050AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$52,050
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-37 Bethel/Aleutians
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 78 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1080 False Pass Wind Energy Project
City of False Pass Electric Utility
Feasibility
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
AleutiansEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Josh CraftProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
0.670.61
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.50
5) Benefits (Max 15)0.38
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)1.67
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)22.45
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)9.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)9.27
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No apparent DMLW managed lands or permit requirements according to the provided project description.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
49.26 55 5
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
46.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 79 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1081 Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Study
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Helen TraylorProgram Manager:
Project Description
The project is the performance of a reconnaissance study to provide a preliminary assessment of the viability of a WtE plant in Anchorage. Other than some
recyclables that are recovered prior to disposal, 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 330,000 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 (CEA), Inc. request funding for a reconnaissance study to provide a preliminary assessment of the viability of a waste to energy
project in Anchorage. A portion of the municipal solid waste minus recyclables that currently goes to the Anchorage landfill would be used as fuel for the plant.
AEA supports the concept of utilizing municipal solid waste as an energy source. The first step in clearly understanding the viability of a waste to energy project
is a comprehensive assessment of the fuel resource availability. CEA has provided a match of $100,000 toward this effort. AEA recommends partial funding of
design and permitting to allow Chugach Electric Association (CEA) to make an informed decision about pursing a waste to energy project in Anchorage.
AEA recommends partial funding of $50,000.
Partial Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$150,000
$100,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.15 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$50,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:
Price of Fuel:/gal
K-22 Taku
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 80 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1081 Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Study
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
BiomassResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Helen TraylorProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.311.34
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)0.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)8.25
6) Local Support (Max 5)2.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)4.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)6.78
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)12.30
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
DNR/DMLW lands will not be affected by the feasibility study. The application mentions possible evolution of the current project, so if structures are to be
built under this grant, re-assessment may be needed with better location information. If the project is entirely on Chugach Electric Corporation's land in
Anchorage, no DNR/DMLW lands will be affected.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project submitted by Chugach Electric Association is for a reconnaissance study to determine the feasibility of developing a waste to energy system for
electricity generation. The waste to energy system would be located in Anchorage and utilize a portion of the approximately 330,000 tons of refuse disposed in
the municipal landfill. At this time it is not known if the project is sustainable relying solely on the landfill. Annual usage of refuse will be determined in this
study.
Region Rank
48.33 57 6
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
61.50
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 81 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1082 Stetson Creek Diversion Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
As a condition of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission {FERC) relicensing of the Cooper Lake plant in 2007, Chugach agreed to construct a project to
divert water from Stetson Creek into the Cooper Lake reservoir and a related structure to release water into Cooper Creek. The project will enhance fish habitat
and add water to Cooper Lake which will result in additional hydroelectric energy generation. Most importantly, constructing this project allows the license for the
Cooper Lake hydro facility to be renewed for 50 years.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Chugach Electric Association requests $3,453,920 to complete construction of the Stetson Creek Diversion to Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project. Project will add
6,020,000 kWh annually. It will also provide environmental benefits for increase in 1) water temperature and 2) increase flows at upper reaches of Cooper Creek
to enhance fish habitat.
Bids were opened on 9/28/12 and construction is underway. Project cost is $21,772,523. CEA received funds in Round 4 (#674) for $576,080 for design and
permitting and a State appropriation for $5,825,000 in FY13 for construction. The project applied for funding in Round 6 but failed to score within the funding
limit. CEA will continue to seek grant funding and finance any cost in excess of grant amounts.
Construction of this project satisfies the Settlement Agreement established in support of the FERC re-license of Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project, which, along
with this diversion, has annual energy of 48,000,000 kWh.
Recommend full funding.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$3,453,920
$13,591,226
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.15 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$3,453,920AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$21,772,523
Price of Fuel:/gal
N-28 North Kenai
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 82 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1082 Stetson Creek Diversion Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Utility
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
7.110.89
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)5.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)12.87
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)6.78
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)18.87
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project may involve an RS2477 trail. Applicant must apply to DNR/DMLW for any clearing, grading, or other road development within the route. This
RS2477 trail is catalogued under casefile # RST 619, Stetson Creek Trail.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
68.52 15 1
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
94.33
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 83 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1083 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
City of King Cove
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
AleutiansEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
This project will be a modest, run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility using Waterfall Creek and consisting of a concrete diversion/intake structure, 4,500’ HDPE
penstock pipeline, 16’X40’ metal powerhouse on a concrete slab, Pelton Impulse Turbine and induction generator, remote-automatic control system, and 5,000’
access road. This facility will be a working partner to the City’s existing and highly successful Delta Creek hydroelectric project, which has been operating for the
last eighteen years.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
City of King Cove requests an additional $800,000 to construct the 1 MW run-or-river Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project. The City was awarded a $200,000
grant (#887) in Round 5 to complete permitting and final design for Waterfall Creek and $2,600,000 (#929) in Round 6 for construction. Permitting, final design,
site control, and bidding all remain incomplete.
AEA supports this request though notes that permitting, final design, construction cost estimate, and bidding are not complete at this time.
Special conditions include completion of all grant requirements for #887 and demonstration of site control.
Full Funding - Special Provision
Requested Grant Funds:$800,000
$1,900,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power: $0.28 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$800,000AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$5,500,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
S-37 Bethel/Aleutians
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 84 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1083 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
City of King Cove
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
AleutiansEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
1.371.87
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.83
5) Benefits (Max 15) 7.62
6) Local Support (Max 5)5.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)5.00
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)12.26
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)14.23
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No apparent DMLW lands or permit requirements beyond the Water Use Permit self-reported by applicant in the project description. DNR resources do not
currently identify Waterfall Creek as navigable. If this determination changes, infrastructure proposed for installation on the creekbed may need to be evaluated
for additional lease or easement authorizations by SCRO.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
61.95 34 2
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
71.17
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 85 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1084 Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study
Ram Valley, LLC
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:IPP
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Project Description
The proposed project is a run-of-river hydroelectric project located on private property along Juniper Creek, a tributary of Eagle River about 10 miles upstream
from the Glenn Highway. 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 available head 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. The adjacent landowner is open to discussion, but questions the
resource and impacts. Results of the feasibility study are expected to encourage local support and participation.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Ram Valley LLC requests funds for reconnaissance study of a hydroelectric project on Juniper Creek.
The run-of-river project is located in high alpine terrain near Mile 10 of the Eagle River valley. Ram Valley LLC would sell Juniper Creek Hydroelectric power to
Matanuska Electric Assoc. 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.
AEA recommends funds for a reconnaissance study.
Special conditions: In the course of conducting the reconnaissance study, explore and define the project scheme and obtain commitments from involved
landowners.
Full Funding
Requested Grant Funds:$35,750
$35,750
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:$0.15 /kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
$35,750AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$2,350,000
Price of Fuel:/gal
M-26 Eagle River Valley
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 86 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1084 Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study
Ram Valley, LLC
Recon
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
HydroResource:
Applicant Type:IPP
RailbeltEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Audrey AlstromProgram Manager:
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(Applicant)
Benefit/Cost Ratio
(AEA)
2.453.49
4) Project Readiness (Max 5)2.00
5) Benefits (Max 15)11.25
6) Local Support (Max 5)4.00
7) Sustainability (Max 5)3.83
1) Cost of Energy (Max 35)6.61
2) Matching Resources (Max 15)15.00
3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20)14.63
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Weight)Score
Economic Analysis
Statewide (out of 86)Stage 3 Total Weight
(out of 100)
Project Rank
DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No DNR/DMLW lands affected.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone and Castle Mountain fault.
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow
avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
Region Rank
57.33 39 3
Stage 2 Total Weight
(out of 100)
73.17
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 87 of 89
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT
1086 Chefornak High Penetration Wind Diesel System
Naterqak Light Plant, City of Chefornak
Design
Construction
Proposer:
Proposed Project Phase:
App #
WindResource:
Applicant Type:Local Government
Lower Yukon-KuskokwimEnergy Region:
Standard Application
Program Manager:
Project Description
This project consists of the installation and integration of 5 each Windmatic 175 turbines 95 kWe wind turbines (490 kW) into the Naterqak Light Plant diesel
power grid. The integration of this wind energy includes the installation of load balancing boiler, 40 residential electric thermal storage (ETS) units, wind diesel
supervisory control and data acquisition system (WDSC), and improvements to the electrical distribution system which include sectionalizing, the replacement of 3
power poles and one distribution transformer, as well as the extension of the distribution by 3 power poles to the wind site. The proposed system is similar to those
installed in the neighboring villages of Kongiganak, Kwigillingok and Tuntutuliak.
AEA Review Comments and Recommendation
Ineligible for further review because the applicant did not provide a conceptual design report 30 days prior to the application deadline as required and identified in
Sections 1.12, 2.5 and Section 4 of the Request for Grant Applications dated July 2, 2013.
Section 4 of RFA, page 26
7. Wind applications requesting Phase III (Final Design and Permitting) or Phase IV (Construction, Commissioning, Operation and Reporting) funding will
submit documentation necessary to demonstrate the fulfillment of all requirements for earlier phases of the project identified in Section 2 of the RFA [i.e. Phase II
(Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design) or Phase III (Final Design and Permitting)] 30 days prior to the application deadline.
Did Not Pass Stage 1
Requested Grant Funds: $4,308,784
$50,000
Funding & Cost
Cost of Power:/kWh
Matched Funds Provided:
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Project Cost:$4,358,784
Price of Fuel:/gal
R-36 Dillingham/Illiamna
Election District:
1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 88 of 89
po
po
po
po
po
po
!.
XY
po
po
po
qp
po
po
po 1084
1083
1082
1081
1080
1079
1077
1075
1072
1070
1069
1068
1067 1066
1065
1062
1057
1049 1048
1036
1030
1028 1027
1025 1022
1018
1015
1001
1023
Railbelt
North Slope
Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana
Southeast
Bristol Bay
Northwest Arctic
Bering Straits
Copper River Chugach
Aleutians
Lower Yukon Kuskokwim
Kodiak
qp Biofuel
#*Geothermal
po Hydro
XY Hydrokinetic
Solar PV
Storage of Renewable
!.Transmission
Wind
Major Roads
Energy Regions
Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 Standard ApplicationsRecommended Projects
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1-05-14
0 180 36090Miles
Map prepared by AEA EnergyData/GIS. For additional information on AEA Energy Programs visitwww.akenergyauthority.org
The State of Alaska makes no expressed or implied warranties(including warranties of merchantability and fitness) with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of data portrayed by thisproduct or its appropriateness for any user’s purposes.
89 of 89