Application Forms and Instructions



Download 157.63 Kb.
Page2/3
Date02.02.2017
Size157.63 Kb.
#16436
1   2   3




SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.

3.1 Project Manager

Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include a resume and references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.



Vern Neitzer, AP&T’s Chief Engineer, will be the Project Manager. Mr. Neitzer is located in Skagway near the Project location, and has extensive experience in managing hydroelectric development. A resume for Mr. Neitzer is included in Section 10.


3.2 Project Schedule

Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.)



A bar schedule of the expected reconnaissance, feasibility analysis and conceptual design sequence is provided in Section 10. The following summarizes key activities and dates of the schedule. A FERC license will be required for this project since it will be located on Federal land.
Phase II: Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design:

FERC Preliminary Permit Application summer 2010

USFS Special-Use Permit Application summer 2010

Stream gage installation summer 2010

Hydrology studies spring 2011

Conceptual design/optimization summer 2011

Geotechnical reconnaissance summer 2011

Draft feasibility report fall 2011

Scoping – Agency/Public Meeting fall 2011

Final feasibility report winter 2011-12


3.3 Project Milestones

Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. The Milestones must also be included on your budget worksheet to demonstrate how you propose to manage the project cash flow. (See Section 2 of the RFA or the Budget Form.)



The key tasks and decision points for Phase II are as follows:

  • Apply for FERC preliminary permit - summer 2010 (AP&T may elect to take this step earlier if the cost can count as part of AP&T’s matching contributions)

  • Apply for FS Special Use Permit for investigations - summer 2010

  • Install stream gage - summer 2010

  • Hydrology studies – spring 2011 after sufficient gage data has been collected to allow reasonable correlation of flows (to be updated as more data is collected)

  • Optimization of the conceptual design, including alternatives to discharge to either Lynn Canal or Kasidaya Creek – summer 2011

  • Geotechnical reconnaissance of likely alternative arrangements – summer 2011

  • Preparation of a draft feasibility report documenting the studies to date and the selection of a preferred alternative – fall 2011

  • Scoping of environmental issues and proposed studies based on optimized conceptual design – fall 2011

  • Preparation of the final feasibility report that incorporates the results of the environmental scoping – winter 2011-12



3.4 Project Resources

Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application.



Key AP&T personnel involved in the project development and their roles will be:

  • Vern Neitzer, Project Manager

  • Bob Berreth, Electrical Design

  • Ben Beste, Mechanical Design

  • Larry Coupe, Civil Design

  • Glen Martin, Resource Assessment and Permits


Phase II: Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design

In this phase AP&T will conduct the permitting and feasibility evaluation work indicated in 3.2 and 3.3 above. All of that work will be by the AP&T personnel noted above, except for the geotechnical reconnaissance, which will be by a contractor (probably GeoEngineers, Inc.).


3.5 Project Communications

Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.



During Phase II, AP&T proposes to provide quarterly reports to AEA regarding the status of the work and use of the grant funds. AP&T has provided similar reports to AEA and other grant funding agencies in the past several years on other projects, and has established the necessary procedures for producing the reports expeditiously.


3.6 Project Risk

Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.



Site Control – AP&T will apply to the Forest Service for an investigative Special Use Permit to conduct the necessary studies.
Seismic – Geotechnical investigations will be conducted to provide an adequate level of knowledge about seismic and other geotechnical risks. Project components will be designed appropriately for seismic activity, since the Project will be located in a moderate-risk seismic zone. Structures will be buried as much as possible to minimize seismic impacts.
Inclement Weather – Working conditions in the lake area are very harsh during the winter. The proposed schedule assumes no work during the winter at the lake.
Environmental Opposition – AP&T is aware that some Haines area residents support development of the Schubee Lake Project as an alternative to the Connelly Lake Hydro Project, which they oppose. Nevertheless, other parties may oppose Schubee Lake for other reasons (it is located in an inventoried roadless area and the Forest Service Land Use Designation for the area is Semi-Remote Recreation, which may be restrictive).




SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS

  • Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of the RFA.

  • The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds.

  • If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a plan and grant budget form for completion of each phase.

  • If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.

4.1 Proposed Energy Resource

Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.



Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project.

Potential Energy Resource: At this time only a rough estimate can be made of the energy potential of this site based on drainage area and average precipitation. The energy potential is estimated to be about 30 GWh per year. The installed capacity would be approximately 6.0 MW.
The Upper Lynn Canal (ULC) region is short of hydro energy for peaking between December 1 and April 15 of each year, requiring another storage hydropower project to reduce reliance on diesel generation during these periods and to allow for growth into the future for this region. The Schubee Lake site is one possibility. Other potential storage sites include Connelly Lake near Haines and Walker Lake near Klukwan. The primary advantages and disadvantages of these three sites, as estimated by AP&T at this time, are as follows:





Schubee Lake

Connelly Lake

Walker Lake

Energy potential

30 GWh/yr

45 GWh/yr

5 GWh/yr

Land ownership

Federal

State

State

Restrictive land use classification

High

Moderate

Moderate

Anadromous fish issues

None

Minor

Minor

Local support or opposition

Unknown

Known opposition

Unknown

Relative cost

High

Moderate

Moderate


Based on this simple assessment, AP&T does not consider Walker Lake to be a preferred alternative because of its relatively small energy potential. However, the assessment does not make a clear case for either Schubee Lake or Connelly Lake.
AP&T is not aware of any feasible wind, tidal, wave, geothermal or other renewable energy sites in the area.
Compared to diesel generation, the Project will have the following advantages:

  • less expensive to operate than diesel (lower O&M);

  • no need to purchase fuel;

  • no air emissions;

  • fewer hazardous substances;

  • no particulate matter emissions;

  • can come on-line after a power outage almost immediately, but diesel can’t;

  • lower and more stable electric rates for customers

As with all hydroelectric projects, the initial cost of development is much higher than for diesel generation.

4.2 Existing Energy System

4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System

Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.



The existing ULC energy system configuration is as follows:

Unit

Type

Capacity, kW

Efficiency, kWh/gal

Age, years

Goat Lake

Hydro (storage)

4,000

N.A.

11

Dewey Lakes

Hydro (storage)

943

N.A.

106

Lutak

Hydro (run of river)

285

N.A.

9

10-Mile(1)

Hydro (run of river)

600

N.A.

8

Kasidaya

Hydro (run of river)

3,000

N.A.

0

Skagway #6

Diesel

855

14.69

22

Skagway #7

Diesel

1,100

14.80

12

Skagway #8

Diesel

500

14.89

17

Skagway #9

Diesel (refurbished)

930

?

0

Haines #1

Diesel

800

12.64

39

Haines #2

Diesel

1265

12.93

25

Haines #3

Diesel

1600

14.92

19

Haines #4

Diesel

2865

12.83

13

(1) AP&T purchased power from Southern Energy’s 10-Mile hydro project until 2002. Purchases resumed in 2008.
Haines and Skagway are interconnected by a 15-mile-long, 34.5-kV submarine cable with a capacity of approximately 20 MW. Skagway and Dyea are connected by a 7.3-mile long 7.2-kV distribution line, and Haines and the IPEC system are connected by a 10-mile long 12.47-kV distribution line.


4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used

Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.



Although the installed capacity of AP&T’s existing hydroelectric resources in the ULC system are greater than the peak demand of the interconnected grid, diesel generation is sometimes required due to water not being available for generation. Icing conditions also curtail hydro generation.
The generation in the ULC system since the beginning of 1998 is summarized in the following table. Kasidaya Creek hydro will became operational in late 2008, and has an annual energy potential of 12 GWh. AP&T began supplying power to the IPEC system in 2007.





Annual Generation, MWh

Year

Goat Lake

Dewey Lakes

Lutak

10-Mile

Diesel

Total

1998

10,046

3,021

0

692

9,486

23,246

1999

17,159

3,511

0

861

2,237

23,768

2000

17,999

3,737

0

1,088

888

23,712

2001

18,457

3,267

0

837

669

23,230

2002

18,016

3,449

609

174

1,366

23,613

2003

18,711

3,439

583

0

284

23,017

2004

18,563

3,391

827

0

761

23,541

2005

19,533

3,646

810

0

255

24,244

2006

22,151

3,438

479

0

89

26,159

2007

22,090

3,242

695

0

1,414

27,441


The Project will be fully incorporated with the other hydro resources so that the renewable resources will be dispatched as an integrated system. It is expected that the Project will eliminate essentially all diesel generation in the interconnected grid.


4.2.3 Existing Energy Market

Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers.



It is expected that the Project will be able to supply loads in any of the interconnected communities in the ULC system, as well as IPEC loads in the Chilkat valley. Currently, it is sometimes necessary for AP&T to use diesel generation to supplement the hydro generation, either due to low streamflows, low lake levels, long-lasting cold springs, or outages. Load increases and expansion of the system have exacerbated this situation. When diesel generation is required, electric rates increase and cause fluctuations in customer energy bills that can be difficult to anticipate or adjust for. Adding more hydro capacity to the ULC grid will alleviate fluctuating electric rates for customers.

The Project could provide in the near-term an incentive for additional economic development in the Haines and Skagway areas because there would be a surplus of economical power available.



Download 157.63 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page