ferc no. p-13563 - juneau hydropower dla pdea... · enclosed is the successive preliminary draft...

Juneau Hydropower, Inc. PO Box 22775

Juneau, AK 99802 www.juneauhydro.com

Telephone: (907) 789-2775 Fax: (907) 375-2973

October 11, 2013

To All Agencies and Other Interested Parties

Re: Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project P-13563 Successive Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment Beginning of 90-Day Review, Comment, and Recommendation Period.

Dear Agency Representatives and interested parties,

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 USC 4321 et seq. (1988), and Section 2403 (b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486, enclosed is the successive Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) and Draft License Application (DLA) for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, Project No. P-13563. We request that you review the aforementioned documents and provide your written comments on the PDEA and DLA to Juneau Hydropower, Inc. and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) by J a n u a r y 9 , 2014. The addresses you should use for the Applicant and the Commission is:

Duff W. Mitchell, VP & Business Manager Juneau Hydropower, Inc. PO Box 22775 Juneau, AK 99802

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing – Room 6H-10 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426

In addition to comments on the PDEA and DLA, we would appreciate and request your Preliminary Terms, Conditions, and Recommendations for the PDEA and DLA by May 2, 2011. All comments on the PDEA and DLA for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project should be sent to the addresses noted above.

All comments must: (1) bear the heading "Preliminary Comments", Preliminary Recommendations", "Preliminary Terms and Conditions", or Preliminary Prescriptions"; and (2) set forth in the heading the name, “Juneau Hydropower, Inc.” and the project number “P-13563” of this application. Any party interested in commenting should do so before January 9, 2014. (90 days from mailing). We will then incorporate your comments and recommendations into the Final License Application and Draft Environmental Assessment and submit them to the Commission.

2

An Aquatic Working Group Meeting and a Wildlife Working Group Meeting will be held prior to the 90 day response period to discuss and clarify any issues you may have with these areas in the proposed Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project. The date and time will be determined and forwarded soon.

In addition, any agency or concerned member of the public should feel comfortable and is encouraged to contact Juneau Hydropower, Inc. to answer any questions that you might have related to this successive Draft License Application and successive Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment.

If you have any questions, please call me at (907) 789-2775.

Best Regards,

Duff W. Mitchell VP & Business Manager [email protected]

*e-filed 10/10/13

Juneau Hydropower Inc. IS-1 DLA Initial Statement October 2013

Copyright © 2013. All rights reserved

APPLICATION FOR LICENSE

SWEETHEART LAKE

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC NO. P-13563

VOLUME 1 OF 6

DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION (Exhibits A, B, C, and D)

Prepared by:

October 2013

UNITIED STATES OF AMERICA



BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION


FOR MAJOR NEW WATER PROJECT

18 CFR §5.5(b):

(1) The potential applicant or existing licensee's name and address.

Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

P.O. Box 22775

Juneau, AK 99802

Telephone Number (907) 789-2775

E-Mail Address [email protected]

(2) The project number, if any.

FERC No. P-13563--Alaska

(3) The license expiration date, if any.

Not applicable. This application is for an original license.

(4) An unequivocal statement of the potential applicant's intention to file an application

for an original license, or, in the case of an existing licensee, to file or not to file an

application for a new or subsequent license.

Juneau Hydropower, Inc.(JHI)) intends to file an application for an original

license for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project), located on

Gilbert Bay approximately 30 miles south of Juneau, Alaska

(5) The type of principal project works licensed, if any, such as dam and reservoir,

powerhouse, or transmission lines.

There are no existing Project works already licensed. All Project features

mentioned herein would be installed after this license application has

completed its NEPA review and all permits have been received.

(6) The location of the project by state, county, and stream, and, when appropriate, by

city or nearby city.

The Project is located in Southeast Alaska within the City and Borough of

Juneau, approximately 30 miles south of Juneau, Alaska on Gilbert Bay and

mailto:[email protected]



will utilize the waters of the Sweetheart Lake basin which drains into

Sweetheart Creek which drains into the eastern shore of Gilbert Bay.

(7) The installed plant capaci1ty,ij any.

The generating capacity of the Project will be approximately 19.8 megawatts.

(8) The names and mailing addresses of:

(i) Every county in which any part of the project is located, and in which any

Federal facility that is used or to be used by the project is located;

Alaska does not have counties, but does have boroughs. The Project will be in

the City and Borough of Juneau. No Federal facility will be used as none

exist near the Project.

City and Borough of Juneau

155 S. Seward Street

Juneau, AK 99801

Phone Number: (907) 586-5278

(ii) Every city, town, or similar political subdivision;

(A) In which any part of the project is or is to be located and any Federal

facility that is or is to be used by the project is located, or

The Project is to be located approximately 30 miles south of Juneau, Alaska.

A combination of submarine and overland cables will traverse from the

Project across Gilbert Bay and Port Snettisham where it will convert to a

buried line and interconnect with the Snettisham Transmission Line which

was financed by the Federal Government and is now owned by the Alaska

Industrial Development and Export Authority . No Federal facilities will be

involved.

(B) That has ·a population of 5,000 or more people and is located within 15

miles of the existing or proposed project dam;

There is no community within the United States that is within 15 miles of the

Project and has a population of 5,000 or more people. The closest

community, Juneau, Alaska , has a population of 31,275 (Census 2010).

(iii) Every irrigation district, drainage district, or similar special purpose political

subdivision:

(A) In which any part of the project is or is proposed to be located and any

Federal facility that is or is proposed to be used by the project is located; or



There are no special purpose political, or otherwise, subdivisions in the

project boundary.

(B) That owns, operates, maintains, or uses any project facility or any Federal

facility that is or is proposed to be used by the project;

None of the Project facilities proposed are owned, operated, or maintained by

an irrigation district, drainage district or special purpose political subdivision.

(iv) Every other political subdivision in the general area of the project or proposed

project that there is reason to believe would be likely to be interested in, or affected

by, the notification; and

Not applicable.

(v) Affected Indian tribes.

Andrea Cadiente-Laiti, Tribal Administrator

Douglas Indian Association

1107 W 8th St Ste 3,

Juneau, AK 99801

Ed Thomas, President

CCTHITA

320 West Willoughby Ave.

Juneau, AK 99801



UNITIED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION


FOR MAJOR NEW WATER PROJECT

18 CFR, CH. I, SUBCHAPTER B, PART 4, SUBPART E, 4.40

INITIAL STATEMENT

(1.) Juneau Hydropower, Inc., hereafter referred to as “JHI” or “Applicant”,

applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a license for

the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. P-13563, hereafter

referred to as “Project” as described in the attached exhibits. The successive and

existing preliminary permit (P-13563) for the Project was issued April 11, 2013

which expires on March 31, 2015.

(2.) The location of the Project is:

State: Alaska

County: City and Borough of Juneau

Nearest Town: Juneau

Lake: Lower Sweetheart Lake-Sweetheart Creek

(3.) The exact name, address, and telephone number of the Applicant are:

Company: Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

Address: P.O. Box 22775

Juneau, AK 99802

Telephone: (907) 789-2775

Fax: (907)375-2973

E-mail: [email protected]

The exact name, address, and telephone number of each person authorized to act

as agent for the Applicant in this application are:

Name: Duff Mitchell

Vice President and Business Manager

Company: Juneau Hydropower, Inc.

Address: P.O. Box 22775

Juneau, AK 99802

Telephone: (907) 789-2775

Fax: (907) 375-2973

E-mail: [email protected]



(4.) Juneau Hydropower, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing in the

State of Alaska. The Applicant is making no claim to preference under Section

7(a) of the Federal Power Act.

(5.) Statutory or regulatory requirements

i. The statutory or regulatory requirements of the State of Alaska in which

the project would be located and that affected the project as proposed,

with respect to bed and banks and to the appropriation, diversion and use

of water for power purposes, and with respect to the right to engage in the

business necessary to accomplish the purposes of the license under the

Federal Power Act are:

Bed and banks, and the appropriation , diversion, and use of water for

power purposes:

Water Right Permit

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and

Water (AS 46.15)

Right to engage in business of developing, transmitting and distributing

power:

A. JHI would have full control and ownership over the proposed

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 13563. JHI is a

corporation organized under the State of Alaska authorized for the

purpose that includes developing, transmitting and distributing power.

B. JHI currently operates and will continue to operate within the State of

Alaska.

ii. The steps which the applicant has taken or plans to comply with each of

the laws cited above.

A. JHI has filed and received stamped copy of Water Right Application

filing with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources on August 7,

2012.

B. JHI is a corporation in good standing with the Alaska Department of

Commerce and Economic Development.

C. JHI would operate as a Qualifying Facility as defined as a qualifying

small power production facility meeting all of the requirements of 18

C.F.R. §§ 292.203(a) , 292.203(c) and 292.204 for size and fuel use,

and be certified as a QF pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 292.207 .



(6.) Brief description of the Project:

The proposed project would consist of: (1) the existing Lower Sweetheart Lake,

raised from a surface water elevation of 551 feet (MLLW) and a surface area of

1,414 acres to a new minimum surface water elevation of 576 feet (MLLW) and a

new surface area of 1,449 acres and a maximum water surface elevation of 636

feet (MLLW) with a surface area of 1,702 acres; (2) a new, roller compact

concrete dam 111-foot-high (from the downstream toe to the top of dam) 280-

foot-long, 100 foot-thickness at the base constructed at the outlet of Lower

Sweetheart Lake; (3) an intake on the dam connecting to a 15 X 15 foot straight

leg horse shoe, 9,625-foot-long unlined tunnel; (4) a 9-foot-diameter,

approximately 870-foot-long penstock installed within the lower portion of the

tunnel, with approximately another 150 feet of buried 7-foot diameter penstock

and manifold connecting to the powerhouse; (5) a powerhouse containing three

new Francis generating units (6.6 MW each) with a total installed capacity of 19.8

MW; (6) a new natural appearing tailrace discharging flows to Sweetheart Creek;

(7) a switchyard with a salmon smolt re-entry pool located adjacent to the

powerhouse; (8) a new approximately 4,400-foot-long road from the powerhouse

to the dock/landing site; (9) a new dock/landing site for boat, seaplane,

barge/landing craft ramp and/or helicopter access, located on the east shore of

Gilbert Bay; (10) a quarry adjacent to the marine facilities that will be refilled

with tunnel spoils and provide a base for a caretaker facility and a proposed US

Forest Service cabin; (11) a new 138-kilovolt transmission line that would be a

total of 45,900 feet long (25,700 feet of submarine cable in two segments; 15,400

feet of overhead transmission line on Snettisham Peninsula; and 4,800 feet of

buried transmission line in two segments); (12) a new 10,400 foot 12.47 kV

service transmission line extending from the dam site to the marine facility; and

(13) appurtenant facilities.

(7.) Lands of the United States affected (shown on Exhibit G):

All project features except for portions of the coastal road/trail, marine facilities,

and adjacent buried transmission line will be located on lands of the United

States (Tongass National Forest).

The project boundary shown on Exhibit G-1 encompasses 1886.76 acres of

Tongass National Forest land, as indicated in the federal land table below.

Additionally, the Project encompasses 131.2 Acres of non-federal tideland

and submerged lands of the State of Alaska, as indicated in the Sta te of

Alaska land table below. The project boundary has been determined as

follows:

For the reservoir, the 650 foot contour,

For the power tunnel, 100 feet each side of the centerline,

For the access trail/road, 100 feet each side of the centerline,

For other features, a boundary approximately 100 feet beyond the



expected area of disturbance.

Federal Land Table

State of Alaska Land Table

(8.) The Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project facilities are unconstructed and

would be owned and operated by Juneau Hydropower, Inc. No other entity would

own any existing project facilities



This _____________________ is executed in the State of Alaska, City and Borough of

Juneau: Duff W. Mitchell, 3274 Pioneer Ave. P.O. Box 22775 Juneau, AK 99801 who,

being duly sworn, depose(s) and say(s) that the contents of this _____________________

are true to the best of (his or her) knowledge or belief. The undersigned applicant(s) has

(have) signed the ________________ this ___ day of _____________ 2013.

__________________

(Applicant(s))

By: Duff W. Mitchell

State of Alaska )

Ss

City and Borough of Juneau )

On this _______ day of _________, 2012, before me, a Notary Public, in and for the

State of Alaska, personally appeared Duff W. Mitchell personally known to me (or

proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this

instrument. Sworn to and subscribed before me this ________ day of _________, 2012.

________________________________

Notary Public

State of Alaska

My commission expires:

(seal)



OTHER INFORMATION

There are no federal, state, local political entities and facilities identified, or Indian tribes

affected by this Project. Notices issued in local newspapers and their proof of publication

for this licensing will be found in the Appendix V: Agency Consultation in the Final

License Application (FLA).

I hereby certify that electronic copies of this License Application were made available to

the following parties:

a. FERC – Washington D.C.

b. FERC – Portland Regional Office

c. U.S. Forest Service – Juneau Ranger District

d. National Marine Fisheries Service

e. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

f. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

g. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

h. U.S. National Park Service

i. Alaska Department of Fish & Game

j. Alaska Department of Natural Resources – Mining, Land, and Water

k. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

l. Alaska Department of Natural Resources – State Historical Preservation

Officer

On this ______ day of ___________________, 2013, before me, a Notary Public, in and

for the State of Alaska, personally appeared _________________________ personally

known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who

executed this instrument. Sworn to and subscribed before me this ______ day of

______________________, 2013

________________________________

Notary Public

State of Alaska

My commission expires:

(seal)

Juneau Hydropower Inc. A-1 DLA Exhibit A October 2013


JUNEAU HYDROPOWER INC

SWEETHEART LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

EXHIBIT A

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Exhibit A is presented herein and addresses the FERC regulation 18 CFR 4.41 (b).

The proposed 19.8 MW Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) would be a storage

hydroelectric generation project located on the east shore of Gilbert Bay and Sweetheart Lake

within the limits of the City and Borough of Juneau. Maps showing the location of the Project

and the proposed Project Boundary are provided in this Draft License Application at 4.41 (h)

Exhibit G- Project Maps.

The Sweetheart Lake watershed includes approximately 35 square miles and occupies 22,429

acres. The Project would be located on Lower Sweetheart Lake that flows into Sweetheart

Creek and then enters Gilbert Bay. The Project would include:

The proposed project would consist of: (1) the existing Lower Sweetheart Lake, raised from a

surface water elevation of 551 feet (MLLW) and a surface area of 1,414 acres to a new minimum

surface water elevation of 576 feet (MLLW) and a new surface area of 1,449 acres and a maximum

water surface elevation of 636 feet (MLLW) with a surface area of 1,702 acres; (2) a new, roller

compact concrete (RCC) dam 111-foot-high (from the downstream toe to the top of dam) 280-foot-

long, 100 foot-thick (at the base) constructed at the outlet of Lower Sweetheart Lake; (3) an intake

on the dam connecting to a 15 X 15 foot straight leg horse shoe, 9,625-foot-long unlined tunnel;

(4) a 9-foot-diameter, approximately 870-foot-long penstock installed within the lower portion of

the tunnel, with approximately another 150 feet of buried 7-foot diameter penstock and manifold

connecting to the powerhouse; (5) a powerhouse containing three new Francis generating units (6.6

MW each) with a total installed capacity of 19.8 MW; (6) a new natural appearing tailrace

discharging flows to Sweetheart Creek; (7) a switchyard with a salmon smolt reentry pool located

adjacent to the powerhouse; (8) a new approximately 4,400-foot-long road/trail from the

powerhouse to new marine facilities located on the east shore of Gilbert Bay; (9) New marine

facilities consisting of a new dock/landing site for boats and floatplanes, a barge/landing craft

ramp, and a level pad for helicopter access; (10) a rock quarry adjacent to the marine facilities to

supply aggregate for road/trail construction which will be refilled with tunnel spoils and provide a

base for a caretaker facility and a proposed U.S. Forest Service cabin; (11) a new 138-kilovolt

transmission line that would be a total of 45,900 feet long (25,700 feet of submarine cable in two

segments; 15,400 feet of overhead transmission line on Snettisham Peninsula; and 4,800 feet of

buried transmission line in two segments); (12) a new 10,400 foot 12.47 kV service transmission

line extending from the dam site to the marine facility; and (13) appurtenant facilities.

Preliminary drawings of the proposed project facilities and supporting information used as the

basis of the conceptual design are presented in 4.41 (g) Exhibit F-General Design Drawings and

Preliminary Supporting Design Report. This exhibit contains information defined as Critical

Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) and therefore filed under separate cover as required by

the Commission’s regulation at 18 CFR 4.32(k) and 18 CFR 388.112 and 388.113. Requests for

access to information defined as CEII should be made to the Commission’s CEII Coordinator.



(b) Exhibit A is a description of the project. If the project includes more than one dam with

associated facilities, each dam and the associated component parts must be described together

as a discrete development. The description for each development must contain:

4.41(b)(1) The physical composition, dimensions, and general configuration of any dams,

spillways, penstocks, powerhouses, tailraces or other structures to be included as part of the

project;

(1) PROJECT STRUCTURES

(i) Marine Access Facilities

The Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project sites (dock, powerhouse access road and

powerhouse) on Gilbert Bay and at Sweetheart Lake (dam site, work yard) are

not accessible by roads, and construction of an access road from the nearest road

system (in Juneau) is not considered feasible due to the distance, multiple water

body crossings steep terrain and the visual impacts of such a road. Therefore, the

Applicant proposes to access the sites for both construction and operation primarily by

water, with additional access by air. The proposed dock location on Gilbert Bay just

north of Sweetheart Creek provides a convenient and safe deep water location for

construction of marine access facilities, as follows:

A dual height marine ramp would be used for loading and unloading freight barges and

landing craft. The ramps would have a minimum width of 50 feet, a slope of 15 to 20%, and

a compacted rock surface. The toe of the ramp would be near EL 15 feet MLLW, allowing

low tide access without grounding of the vessels. The ramp would slope up to EL 25 feet

MLLW for high tide access. The sides and front slopes would be protected with rock riprap.

Floating docks would provide floatplane and boat access for passengers and freight during

construction and maintenance. The floatplane float is nearly 1,800 sq. ft. with three

fendered faces for multidirectional access to accommodate weather conditions. It would be

attached to a 3,000-sq. ft. heavy-duty steel and timber small boat float. The floats will be

secured by 8- to 24-inch-diameter steel piles. A 100-foot by 14-foot drive-down ramp

would connect the float to the staging area concrete abutment. The ramp will have an open

grating deck.

The staging area would be constructed adjacent to the docks and float ramp and connect

them to a powerhouse access corridor. Similar to the access ramps, the staging area would

be constructed of clean shot rock with sides slopes protected with rock riprap. The staging

area would be approximately 150 feet wide by 200 feet long to allow for materials,

equipment, and personnel needs during construction.

Rock for the ramps, staging area, and access corridor would come from quarries located

adjacent to the construction areas and from the powerhouse and tunnel excavation.

The marine facilities are primarily to be located on State of Alaska lands and provided to

JHI through a tidelands lease: 1.49 acres State of Alaska and .09 acres federal lands

administered by the Forest Service.



(ii) Quarry

There would be one quarry located above the marine facility that would provide initial

rock for construction of the coastal road/trail and surfacing material. The quarry opening

will be strategically created in order to mask and partially conceal the quarry from Gilbert

Bay. The quarry will measure approximately 100 feet by 300 feet. Upon completion of the

Project, construction, tunnel, and other rock would be partially filled back into the quarry,

and the reconditioned quarry site would be revegetated to provide the pad for a proposed

Forest Service cabin for Gilbert Bay.

The quarry area is located on federal lands.

(iii) Access Road

Coastal Trail/Road. There would be one main access road for the Project. JHI has designed

a 4,400-foot-long coastal road/trail. The road/trail would be constructed with clean shot

rock and built to Forest Service standards. Upon completion of the Project, the road/trail

will be condensed to a one-lane road, with reverse slopes sloping away from the shoreline

to help mask the roadway. The road/trail would contain a buried 138-kV high-voltage

transmission line and a 12.47-kV service transmission line. The service line would provide

power to the marine facility, caretaker facility, and proposed Forest Service cabin. The

buried 138-kV high-voltage transmission line would enter Gilbert Bay at the marine

facilities.

The coastal road/trail would traverse southward just under the rock ledge that occurs

along the eastern shore of Gilbert Bay for just over 2000 feet. This road would be laid

with fill derived from a quarry and would be cut above the dock and marine facility.

The subgrade width would be up to 25 feet to provide for large construction machinery

and equipment such as the powerhouse turbines. The subgrade will be surfaced with

additional material obtained from the power tunnel construction spoils) or quarried

along the right of way. Upon cessation of construction activities the road surface will be

reduced to a one lane width of 15 ft. through revegetation or physical reduction in surface

width.

The Coastal road/trail will sit on both federal and State of Alaska lands. 0.98 acres of

federal land and 6.83 acres of State of Alaska tidelands. This coastal road trail will tie in

with the existing man/bear main trail that currently exists in the Sweetheart Creek area.

(iv) Facilities

A planned caretaker/shop facility would be located along the access road on Gilbert Bay.

This facility would house a full-time caretaker at the location to secure and safeguard

infrastructure and to perform maintenance. The facility would measure 4,225 sq. ft.

There is a proposed Forest Service cabin to be located on top of the refilled quarry on

Gilbert Bay. This facility would provide Forest Service recreational overnight stay for

visitors to Gilbert Bay and Sweetheart Creek. The facility would measure 255 sq. ft.



Potable water would be supplied from a well system or piped from the powerhouse that is

designed to meet Alaska DEC and CBJ requirements.

There is a planned shelter facility located near the dam site to provide overnight

accommodations to operations and maintenance (O&M) personnel and for seasonal fish

barge workers. This facility would measure approximately 400 sq. ft.

These facilities would be located on federal land managed by the Forest Service.

(v) Fish Collection and Transportation

A planned fish collection barge would be seasonally placed in Sweetheart Lake to collect out-migrating sockeye smolts. Smolts would be collected and prepared for helicopter transport from Sweetheart Lake and delivered to the smolt reentry pool located in the powerhouse/switchyard area. The fish collection barge would be hauled out and stored on the northern lakeshore near the intake area. A ramp with a winch would be used to remove the fish collection barge system when not in use

(vi) Sweetheart Lake Dam

The Main Dam will be a roller compacted concrete (RCC) dam with an estimated height

of 111 feet (from the downstream toe to the top of dam) and a crest length of 280 feet.

The top of dam will be at EL 651 feet MLLW and the overflow spillway crest will be

at EL. 636 feet MLLW (the high normal pool elevation). The dam section will consist of

a vertical upstream face and a stepped downstream face with an overall slope of

0.85 horizontal to 1.0 vertical (0.85H:1.0V). It is anticipated that the steps on the

downstream face will be four feet high with a horizontal “tread” of 3.4 feet. The overall

section geometry was selected based on preliminary gravity stability analyses in

accordance with FERC criteria.

The RCC dam will extend across the full valley and tie into approved rock foundation on

both abutments. An overflow spillway will be constructed in the center of the RCC dam

and flow will be discharged directly down the stepped downstream face of the RCC to

the base of the dam. Outside of the spillway limits the dam will include a 25 foot wide

vertical chimney section. Concrete parapets will be constructed at the crest of the dam to

EL 651 feet MLLW.

RCC will be placed sequentially in 1-foot- thick lifts and there is a tendency for seepage

to develop along the lift lines, particularly when using dry (high vebe time) RCC mixes.

To control seepage along these lift lines, most RCC dams include a low-permeability

upstream facing system in combination with carefully designed RCC mix, with

attention to lift joint preparation and treatment. The proposed dam will include a grout

enriched RCC (GERCC) upstream face or a conventional concrete facing

system to lower the permeability between adjacent lifts of RCC. Air entrained RCC

may be used to improve the freeze-thaw durability. In addition, a low vebe time (wetter

mix) will be used in conjunction with a retarding admixture to improve the bond

between lifts.



Dental and leveling concrete will be used in the foundation to fill discontinuities and to

provide a level surface to start efficient RCC production. On the abutments, dental

concrete will be applied and grout enriched RCC will be used against the steep irregular

rock surface. Following construction of the RCC dam, a foundation grouting program

will be initiated from the crest of the dam. Drill holes will be advanced through the dam

in an orientation to intercept potential discontinuities based on geologic mapping

performed on the foundation prior to construction. Grouting after construction of the

RCC dam will take this activity off of the critical path and will provide better access to

steep abutment slopes from the top of the dam.

(vii) Stream Diversion Tunnel and Cofferdam

During construction, the c r e e k will be diverted through a tunnel in the right

abutment. The tunnel will be excavated by the drill-and-blast method (DBM) to a 10

foot wide by 10 foot high straight leg horseshoe shape, and will be approximately

500 feet long. Temporary lined rockfill cofferdams will be constructed upstream and

downstream of the proposed dam to provide protection from routine storms and to

provide vehicular access across the stream channel.

An upstream cofferdam will be constructed approximately 150-feet upstream of the main

dam to approximately El. 565 feet MLLW, which would be roughly 14 feet above

the current pool elevation. This height of cofferdam would provide 5 feet of freeboard

during a 10-year rainfall event. The downstream cofferdam will be constructed to

approximately El. 555 feet MLLW to control water from entering the dam excavation

footprint from the downstream direction. The actual elevations of cofferdams will be

determined during final design.

(viii) Spillway

The spillway will be located in the center of the Main Dam. The spillway will consist of

the following:

A 125-foot-wide overflow spillway. The spillway will pass the full probable

maximum flood (PMF) rainfall event with the maximum water surface at EL

651.1 feet MLLW considering only f l o w o v e r the spillway (no outlet

works or power plant discharge). All routings assume that the starting

reservoir elevation is at the spillway crest EL 636 feet MLLW.

The peak outflow for the 100-year rainfall event is estimated to be 7,007 cubic

feet per second (cfs). The peak outflow during the PMF is 20,350 cfs.

The downstream face of the dam has a slope of 0.85H:1.0V and four foot high

steps for energy dissipation. Based on preliminary geologic investigations, and

evaluation of topographic conditions downstream of the dam, we have assumed

that a formal stilling basin will not be required. We have assumed that some

armoring and anchoring of weak seams in the rock may be warranted. Additional

geotechnical investigations and rock scour analyses will be performed during final

design.

(ix) Reservoir Outlet Works

At the end of dam construction, the diversion tunnel will be converted to a reservoir



outlet works. During excavation of the diversion tunnel, a vertical shaft will be

constructed from the right non-overflow section of the dam. Following dam

construction, a concrete bulkhead will be constructed downstream of the shaft and a

roller gate will be installed to control future discharges. A portion of the tunnel under

the dam will be lined and the rock will be grouted from the interior of the tunnel, as

needed. A concrete vault will be constructed in the top of dam to protect the gate hoist

system. The outlet works will consist of the following:

A concrete headwall structure at the upstream portal of the diversion tunnel, with

provisions for installing trashracks and stoplogs or a steel bulkhead.

A concrete lined section of the tunnel under the dam crest, with a concrete

bulkhead for mounting the roller gate.

A single 6foot x 8foot roller gate for draining the lake if required.

The outlet works have been sized to allow drawdown of the reservoir from EL 636

feet MLLW (maximum normal pool) to EL. 576 feet MLLW(minimum normal pool)

in 53 days assuming an 6-foot by 8-foot gate installed in the diversion tunnel, a base

flow of 500 cfs into the reservoir, and no flow through the power tunnel. The maximum

discharge through the gate is 1,850 cfs at the normal pool elevation of 636 feet MLLW.

(x) Power Tunnel and Penstock

The power tunnel will have a 15-foot by 15-foot s t r a i g h t l e g h o r s e s h o e by

9621 foot-long power tunnel from portal to portal. The tunnel will be excavated by

DBM and the spoil volume will be approximately 71,225 bank c.y. The main tunnel

heading will be excavated from a the lower portal near the powerhouse, and the

spoils will be used for surfacing the access roads, aesthetic mound to mask powerhouse

from Sweetheart Creek and for aggregate for the dam. Spoils from the tunnel will be re-

conveyed to the dam site. Rock quality based on initial tests is very good, therefore it

is expected that the tunnel will be mostly unlined. The alignment has been selected

to minimize the length of lined tunnel and provide a convenient location for future

construction of a surge tank if that becomes warranted. Rock bolts and other support

elements will be installed as necessary, and the tunnel will be lined with shotcrete in

areas of poor quality rock such as shear zones, faults, or highly fractured zones.

The majority of the power tunnel is planned to be unlined. Approximately 896 feet from

the lower portal the tunnel the flow will transition to a 9-foot diameter saddle-supported

steel penstock with a wall thickness of about 1 inch. At the lower portal, the steel

penstock will transition to a manifold supplying flow to the three turbines and

synchronous bypass valves; total (one-dimensional) length of the manifold will be about

175 feet. The manifold will initially transition to 7-foot diameter, and ultimately branch

into 4-foot diameter feeding the turbines and 2.5-foot diameter feeding the bypass valves.

Bifurcations of the manifold will be encased in concrete as required for thrust resistance,

and the entire manifold will be buried in fill with a minimum of 3 feet of cover. A 12-

foot long section of the upper portion of the manifold will be removable to provide

access into the tunnel; the removable section will be located in a concrete vault.

(xi) Powerhouse



The powerhouse will be located in a deep excavation approximately 600 feet northwest

of the anadromous barrier on Sweetheart Creek, and approximately 2,000 feet east of the

confluence of Sweetheart Creek and Gilbert Bay. Juneau Hydropower will build the

powerhouse in the deep excavation to minimize disturbances, allow infrastructure to

blend in with surroundings, and to mitigate light and noise emitting from operations. The

intended goal is to lessen or virtually eliminate scenic and audio disturbance in the area

of powerhouse operations.

The powerhouse will be approximately 45.5 feet wide and 120 feet long. Floor level of

the powerhouse will be at EL 50 feet MLLW, with an eave height of about 35 feet and

concrete substructure up to 32 feet deep. The powerhouse superstructure will be a steel

frame with precast concrete wall panels and a metal or concrete roof. The

powerhouse will include three generator bays and a service area.

(xii) Smolt Re-entry pool

The Smolt Re-entry pool would be located adjacent to the Powerhouse and at the head of

the tailrace structure. The Smolt re-entry pool will provide temporary holding of sockeye

salmon smolt for imprinting and release into the tailrace. The re-entry pool will measure

2100 square feet.

(xiii) Tailrace

The tailrace would be an excavated channel approximately 600 feet long. At the

powerhouse, the excavation would be 32 feet deep and 90 feet wide to provide a stilling

pool (a depression in a channel or reservoir deep enough to reduce the velocity or

turbulence of the flow) for collecting outflow from the turbine draft tubes and synchronous

bypass valves. The channel would transition over a length of about 80 feet to a trapezoidal

channel with a 30-foot base width and varying side slopes. The channel would be designed

to resemble a natural creek and would include two approximate 90-degree bends,

ultimately discharging into Sweetheart Creek near the base of the anadromous barrier falls.

A velocity barrier will be installed at the upper end of the 30-foot wide channel to prevent

fish from reaching the powerhouse. The velocity barrier will be a standard NMFS design

with a sloping concrete ramp and a short overflow weir with a crest length of 50 feet. Just

below velocity barrier, the channel will be covered with an arch culvert and backfill to

provide a wildlife crossing over the channel; the backfill will also assist in screening the

powerhouse from view.

(xiv) Switchyard

The switchyard will be located adjacent to the powerhouse on fill over the manifold.

This location has been selected to allow screening by existing vegetation and the

powerhouse to the maximum extent possible. The switchyard will include the following

equipment:

Three 7.5/8.4 megavolt-ampere (MVA) 12.47-138-kilovolt (kV) transformers with

concrete basin foundations.



Three 145-kV circuit switchers for disconnect and isolation of the main power

transformers.

One 145-kV SF61 circuit breaker.

Three pairs of manual disconnect switches for isolating the circuit breaker.

Interconnection with the submarine transmission cable.

Associated buswork and metering transformers.

A 100-kW diesel generator for providing station service when the plant is not

operating, including a double-walled fuel storage tank.

An oil-water separator

4.41(b)(2) The normal maximum water surface and normal maximum water surface elevation

(mean sea level), gross storage capacity of any impoundments to be included as part of the

Project; {Note Project Datum is Mean Lower Low Water*}

*In order to apply datums for surveying or coastal management they must be

reduced to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), which is the reference datum for

predictions, bench mark publication and nautical charting.

(2) IMPOUNDMENT

The reservoir created by the main dam will have the following characteristics:

Normal maximum water level ..............................................636 feet mllw

Surface area at normal maximum water level.......................1,701.5 acres

Storage capacity at normal maximum water level ................128,109 acre-feet

Normal minimum water level ...............................................576 feet mllw

Surface area at normal minimum water level .......................1449 acres

Storage capacity at normal minimum water level.................33,969 acre-feet

Active storage capacity .........................................................94,069 acre-feet

Maximum water level (PMF)................................................651.1 feet mllw

Storage capacity at PMF water level ....:................................153,176 acre-feet

4.41(b)(3) The number, type, and rated capacity of any proposed turbines or generators to be

included as part of the project;

(3) GENERATING UNITS

(i) Turbines and generators

The powerhouse will contain three generating units with the following characteristics

1 Circuit breaker to 6,000 mechanical operations, and 3,000 operations at 6 kA



(preliminary):

Turbine type ...............................................................6.6 MW Francis, vertical axis

Turbine rated head .....................................................558 feet

Turbine rated flow............................................................158 cfs

Turbine speed...................................................................900 rpm

Generator type.................................................................Synchronous

Generator voltage............................................................12.47 kV

Generator rated capacity ............................................3 X 6,600 [email protected].

4.41(b)(4) The number, length, voltage and interconnections of any primary transmission line

proposed to be included as part of the project [See 16 USC 796(11)];

(4) PRIMARY TRANSMISSION LINE

The primary transmission line will consist of five component segments:

A buried 138 kV transmission cable from the proposed powerhouse to the marine facility

situated on the eastern shore of Gilbert Bay with a length of 4400 feet. A small service line

12.47 kV of approximately 4400 feet will run next to the 138 kV buried cable from the

Powerhouse to the Caretaker Facility and Dock facility to provide electrical service to these

pieces of infrastructure.

A 9700-foot-long 138 kV submarine transmission cable from the marine facility on the

eastern shore of Gilbert Bay to a marine facility on the western shore of Gilbert Bay.

A 15,400-foot-long 138 kV overhead transmission cable from the marine facility on the

western shore of Gilbert Bay to a marine facility located past Sentinel Point on the southern

shore of Port Snettisham.

A 16,000-foot-long 138 kV submarine transmission cable from the marine facility on the

southern shore of Port Snettisham to a marine facility located east of Mist Island on the

northern shore of Port Snettisham.

A 4 0 0 - f o o t - l o n g 138 kV b u r i e d transmission cable from the marine facility on

the northern shore of Port Snettisham.

Additionally a 10,000-foot-long 12.47kV service line from the Powerhouse through the power

tunnel and to the dam site will service and provide power at the dam site during operations.

To minimize fisheries interference, the Gilbert Bay submarine cable is positioned to minimize

impact on known Dungeness fishing grounds and traditional anchorage areas. Exhibit G-1

shows the transmission boundaries.

4.41(b)(5) The description of any additional mechanical, electrical, and transmission

equipment pertinent to the Project;

mailto:[email protected]



5. APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT

Accessory Mechanical and Electrical Equipment

The Powerhouse will contain the following accessory mechanical and electrical equipment:

48 inch butterfly-type turbine shutoff valves (per generating unit)

25 Ton bridge crane with 10 ton auxiliary hook

20-inch energy-dissipating synchronous bypass valves, with 30-inch butterfly guard

valves

Hydraulic power units (per generating unit)

Electronic governors (per generating unit)

Static exciters (per generating unit)

125 VDC station battery

12.47 kV switchgear (per generating unit)

Electronic control system for remote automatic operation

(iii) Plant Switchyard

The switchyard at the Sweetheart power plant will include:

Three 7.5/8.4 MVA 6.6-138 kV transformers

Three 145 kV circuit switchers

One 145 kV SF6 circuit breaker

Associated buswork, metering transformers, fencing, and containment systems

100 kW emergency diesel generator.

(iv) Dam site equipment

One 30 ton Crane

Log booms

Log moving vessel

Smolt Collection barge and accessory equipment

Because the project is only be accessible by boat, seaplane or helicopter, for operation

and maintenance the Applicant will assign to the project a landing craft for moving

large equipment and materials and two boats for moving personnel and small cargo.

Other O&M equipment on site will include a backhoe, ATV with trailer, snowcat, and

snow removal equipment.



4.41(b)(6) Lands of the United States enclosed within the project boundary

(5) LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES

All project features except for portions of the coastal road/trail, marine facilities, and adjacent

buried transmission line will be located on lands of the United States (Tongass National Forest).

The project boundary shown on Exhibit G-1 encompasses 1886.76 acres of Tongass

National Forest land, as indicated in the table A-1 below. Additionally, the Project

encompasses 131.2 Acres of non-federal tideland and submerged lands of the State of

Alaska, as indicated in the table A-2 below. The project boundary has been determined as

follows:

For the reservoir, the 650 foot contour,

For the power tunnel, 100 feet each side of the centerline,

For the access trail/road, 100 feet each side of the centerline,

For other features, a boundary approximately 100 feet beyond the expected area

of disturbance.

Table A-1 – Lands of the United States



Table A-2 – Lands of the State of Alaska



Figure 1- Project Boundary US and State of Alaska Lands Map by township and section



Table A-3 – Tabular Presentation - Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project Summary Statistics

Project Feature Description

Project Boundary

Federal Land 1886.76 acres

State of Alaska Land 131.2 acres

Power Output

nameplate capacity 19.8 MW

generation 116,000,000 kWh

Drainage Area

Natural drainage area 35 Square miles

Average annual natural outflow from Sweetheart Creek 332 cfs

Sweetheart Lake Reservoir

Normal maximum water elevation EL 636 mllw

Surface area at normal maximum water elevation 1,701.5 acres

Active Storage Capacity 94,069 acres

Annual Fluctuation of Reservoir 60 ft

Maximum Water Level 651.1 ft mllw

Dam

Roller Compact Concrete structure 111 ft. high, 280 ft. length, 100 ft. wide

Spillway Hydraulic Capacity 20,350 cfs

Diversion Tunnel

Length 500 ft

Tunnel Straight Leg Horseshoe 10 ft X 10 ft

Gate Operation Vertical Shaft 10 ft

Hydraulic Capacity 1,850 cfs



Intake Structure and Fish Screens

elevation of intake 547 ft

intake structure concrete length 75 ft

intake structure concrete width 25 ft

Intake structure heigth 15 ft.

Fish Screens 10 cylinders

Cylinder size 6 X 10

Power Tunnel

Total Distance 9625 ft

steel l ined reinforced 500 ft

concrete lined reinforced 1200 ft

Diameter 15 ft X15 ft

Method DBM

Penstock

Penstock lower portal 870 ft

Penstock diameter 9 ft

Penstock manifold lower portal to powerhouse 175 ft

Penstock manifold diameter 7 ft

Powerhouse

powerhouse sq ft. 5460 sq ft.

length 120 ft

width 45.5 ft

height 35 ft

Switchyard dimensions 95 ft X160 ft

Switchyard sq ft. 15,200 ft

Fenced and gated, located adjacent to powerhouse – contains power transformer, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches

Generating Units Number and Size Type

Net head (design): 558 ft

Flow (design): 158 cfs

Turbine efficiency (at rated conditions): 92.90%

Specific speed: 160

Rotational speed, rpm: 900

Turbine power: 6935kW

Required submergence: 1 ft

Generator rated capacity, kW: 3 x 6,600 kW @ 0.8 P.F.

Generator voltage: 12.47kV

Generator efficiency (at rated conditions): 96.50%

Unit’s inertia (GD2): 20 t•m2

Turbine size and type 6.6MW Francis turbines

total installed capacity 19.8 MW.

Turbine orientation vertical

cooling system water



Smolt re-entry pool

interior dimensions 30 ft X 70 ft

Tailrace

length 700 ft

width 50-80 ft

approximate area 26,000

Transmission Line

total submarine 138 kV 25,700 ft

total overhead 138 kV 15,400 ft

total buried 138 kV 4,800 ft

total service line 12.47 kV 14,400 ft

Access Road/Trail

length 4400 ft

final width reverted to one lane 15 ft

state acres for road/trail 6.83

federal acres road/trail 0.98

fil l volume required approx. 110,000 cy

Dock and Marine Facility

state acres 1.49 ac.

federal acres 0.09 ac.

fi l l required approx. 50,000 cy

pad elevations El 25 to 27' mllw

Gilbert Bay Caretaker Facility Shop

size 4,225 sq ft

proposed USFS cabin 225 sq ft.

wells 3

well depth approx 50-150 ft

line length approx 700 ft

Quarry

size approx. 100 ft X 300 ft

acreage 0.7 acres

quantity approx. 20,000 cy

Sweetheart Lake Shelter Facility

size 400 sq ft

Juneau Hydropower Inc. B-1 DLA Exhibit B October 2013 Copyright© 2013 All rights reserved


EXHIBIT B

PROJECT OPERATION AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION

Exhibit B is presented herein and addresses the FERC regulation 18 CFR 4.41 (c).

(c) Exhibit B is a statement of project operation and resource utilization. If the project includes more than one dam with associated facilities, the information must be provided separately for each discrete development.

Juneau Hydropower, Inc. states that the proposed Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project includes a dam at the mouth of Lower Sweetheart Lake and will re-regulate the natural flows of Sweetheart Creek to provide flow to the 19.8 MW powerhouse and return all water utilized into the anadromous reach of Sweetheart Creek. Aside from natural accretion of 3%, the Project will release 3 cfs for instream flow releases.

4.41(c)(1) A description of each alternative site considered in selecting of the proposed site;

(1) ALTERNATIVE SITES

(i) Alternative Sites in and around the Juneau Area

On December 14, 2009, the Applicant was issued preliminary permit P-13563 for the investigation of a lake tap, Lake Siphon hydroelectric development on the Lower Sweetheart Lake and Sweetheart Creek. On April 11, 2013, the Applicant received a successive preliminary permit.

In our analysis, we reviewed all sites in Juneau listed in previous governmental publications related to the hydropower resources that could serve the growing commercial and residential demand in the City and Borough of Juneau. The Applicant reviewed several sites within and beyond the City and Borough of Juneau. Many of these alternative sites are identified in USGS Water Supply Paper 1529 and the Federal Power Commission, Water Powers of Southeast Alaska (1947). These sites include previously developed project sites such as Sheep Creek and Tease Lake along with other small projects. Further sites were identified such as the Whiting River or the damming of the Taku River as proposed in the early 1950’s. Damming salmon bearing rivers would pose monumental environmental issues and would not be further considered by this developer or the general public. Additionally, AEL&P has developed Lake Dorothy I that with proper license amendments and financing could develop Lake Dorothy II as an alternative site.


None of these undeveloped alternative sites were determined to be superior to the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project site in generating economically viable energy at a reasonable cost of development that could serve the current and growing Juneau market demand. No other undeveloped sites within the Juneau market are of the economies of scale size necessary to deliver reliable year round power for Juneau’s needs. Other resources were therefore eliminated from additional investigation of time and investigation resources. In addition, not all undeveloped sites are federal power site classifications. The designation as a federal power site provides the federal withdrawal of the land for the reserved purpose of developing hydropower resources for the citizens of the United States. Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project is listed as a federal power site under PLO 382b as Power Site Classification 221 March 6, 1929. Because Power Site Classifications are identified by Public Land Orders, these lands potentially have inherent rights and benefits accrued by the Congressional authorizing language establishing the authority for water reservations and power site withdrawals as discussed in Section 3.3.7.

(ii) Alternative Sites in and around the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Development

The proposed project site is clearly the superior dam site and powerhouse locations in the Sweetheart Lake watershed for development of a storage dam and reservoir due to the narrow gorge just below the Lower Sweetheart Lake as it empties into the steep and narrow Sweetheart Creek. This determination of superior attributes is reinforced by previous governmental studies that invested substantial federal and state resources in configuring the location and determining the water power resource of the Sweetheart Lake watershed.

Previous studies located the powerhouse closer to Gilbert Bay at a lower elevation of Sweetheart Creek. This would provide an additional 30 to 35 feet of head and would improve the economics of the project. However, this alternative of locating the powerhouse at Gilbert Bay would likely destroy the natural and stocked salmon runs and would have secondary and third order negative impacts on the Sweetheart Creek ecosystem and the recreational attributes.

A storage project requiring a small dam as proposed is necessary to efficiently and economically utilize the Sweetheart Lake watershed resource because of the highly variable stream flows.

Nonetheless, the Applicant has identified and considered the Upper Sweetheart Lake, as described below:

The Upper Sweetheart Lake drops from an elevation of 1750 for development of storage, the waterway would consist of about 1000 feet of tunnel connecting with about 2000 feet of penstock to a powerhouse located on Sweetheart Lake. This alternative could generate up to 2.5 MW.

Although this project could be developed at a future date this alternative plan was not selected because: 1) generation would only be possible during about 6 months of the year when the value of power is lowest, and 2) mobilization of equipment and material would be prohibitive and 3) the entire cost of the transmission line for the full development


would need to be borne by the alternative, which makes the alternative cost of power economically prohibitive.

Other locations reviewed for consideration were, Boundary Lake near the Taku River, Whiting River and Taku River. These locations are either: too small to be economically feasible , too seasonal to provide reliable year round power necessary to provide energy security, too far away from current transmission assets or irresponsible from an environmental viewpoint and would be inconsistent with the 2008 Tongass Land Management and Resources Plan (TLMP).

4.41(c)(2) A description of any alternative facility designs, processes, and operations that were considered.

(2) ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS AND OPERATIONS

(i) Alternative Reservoir Characteristics, Power Plant Hydraulic Capacities, and Operations

(Note-all elevations are denoted as MLLW unless specified otherwise) The generation by the Project is determined by the water resource (available flow), the hydraulic head, and the operation of the reservoir and turbines. Other parameters, such as the tunnel diameter and the number of generating units, may be engineered to suit the operation of the facility. After quantifying the water resource, the Applicant conducted an economic analysis on the main dimensions of choice for the proposed Sweetheart Lake hydropower facility: 1) the maximum reservoir elevation, which determines the hydraulic head and 2) the operation of the facility, including operation for peaking or baseload generation, the maximum reservoir draw-down, and the maximum hydraulic capacity of the turbines. The Applicant proposes a hydropower project with a maximum reservoir elevation of 636 MLLW, 60 ft of storage (to a minimum of 576 ft), a maximum hydraulic capacity of 474 cfs, and operation for baseload generation. The economic analysis was based on the assumptions described in Exhibit D.

Alternative maximum reservoir levels at 600 feet, 650 feet, and 700 feet were evaluated, as were alternative hydraulic capacities of 500 cfs, and 600 cfs. The maximum storage (drawdown) of the reservoir was considered at 30, 60 and 90 ft. Higher maximum reservoir elevations create more power at the expense of a greater inundation area and a larger dam and associated civil cost. A larger allowable drawdown of the reservoir provides greater storage but increases the environmental impact of reservoir operation.

In addition, the applicant considered peaking and baseload operation. The analysis is sensitive to the assumptions used for the financing conditions, construction costs, and critically the market price for power by time of day and season. The Project was initiated as a 30 MW peaking project, but the optimization analysis indicates that a lower capacity facility intended for baseload generation makes full use of the hydropower resource while preserving the environmental attributes of the ecosystem in maintaining required and optimum stream flows below the barrier falls necessary for anadromous salmon. The Applicant has elected to propose in this application operations that provide relatively seasonally stable stream flows for the anadromous reach of Sweetheart Creek.


Consideration of the environmental and economic consequences of these alternatives indicates that a maximum reservoir elevation of 636 ft with 60 ft of storage (to a minimum of 576 ft) and a maximum hydraulic capacity of approximately 450 cfs makes effective use of the hydropower resource while mitigating adverse environmental impacts. These values are the same as proposed with the exception of the hydraulic capacity. The hydraulic capacity proposed in this application is somewhat to increase the operating efficiency of the powerplant.

(ii) Alternative Dam Types

The proposed dam type is a roller compacted concrete (RCC) gravity dam with a 125 foot wide overflow spillway that discharges over the RCC. This type of dam is simple, robust, and can be constructed quickly (within a single construction season). The geometry was conservatively selected to meet current FERC stability criteria for various loading conditions including the PMF. Numerous mid-sized to very large RCC dams have been built worldwide in cold and wet climates similar to conditions expected at the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility. .

The Lower Sweetheart Lake site is remote and poses significant construction challenges regardless of the dam type. Efficient construction scheduling anticipates that the power tunnel will be constructed first and the aggregate produced from the tunnel will be crushed and stockpiled near the powerhouse area for use as aggregate for the RCC dam. Upon completion of the tunnel, a batch plant will be set up in the powerhouse area and RCC will be vehicular and or belt conveyed through the tunnel to the dam site. This will reduce the disturbed area at Lower Sweetheart Lake and reduce the amount of equipment and materials necessary at the dam site. The grade and quality of the rock in the area lends itself for use as a quality aggregate in the RCC dam. Fully utilizing the local resources reduces costs, but also minimizes environmental impacts as compared to other alternative dam types.

Other dam types considered for the site include a concrete faced rockfill dam and conventional concrete. A conventional concrete dam would be similar in size to an RCC gravity dam. However, it would take more than one season to construct a concrete dam due to the limited construction season and the number of placements required by this type of construction. Extending dam construction into a second year would significantly increase the overall cost. A conventional concrete dame would require more transportation to and from the site, additional conveying to the dam site and a larger layout yard would be needed. In addition, the thermal issues associated with conventional mass concrete would increase the cost of construction.

A concrete faced rockfill dam cannot convey flows over the top of the dam and the existing stream valley is narrow, with very steep side slopes. Considering the site geometry, excavation of a large overflow spillway on an abutment is not a cost effective or practical solution. For this type of dam, a riser structure and outlet pipe would serve as the primary spillway. Due to the limited hydraulic capacity of these types of spillways we assumed that storms larger than the 100-year rainfall event up to the PMF would be conveyed through a small (~50-foot-wide) overflow auxiliary spillway excavated into


rock on the abutment. Due to the limited hydraulic capacity, the height of the dam to safely pass the PMF would be considerably higher than an RCC dam. Considering the slopes of a typical rockfill dam it is estimated that the base of the dam (upstream to downstream) would be approximately 500 feet (vs. about 100 feet for the RCC option). The large footprint, the volume of material required for this option, and the additional cost of a large riser spillway and steep abutment excavation make this option less feasible than an RCC dam.

(iii) Power Tunnel Alternatives

The power tunnel will be constructed with conventional drill-and-blast method (DBM) as is typical in many areas in southeast Alaska. The primary consideration is that the tunnel will need to be able to withstand vehicle traffic to convey goods, material and equipment to the dam site. The Applicant considered a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) alternative. A TBM has many advantages such as a faster advance rate, smoother bore for head loss and reduction in ground support requirements compared to DBM, it has one large disadvantage for the Sweetheart Lake power tunnel. The primary disadvantage is that a TBM produces a smooth round hole. Unfortunately rock trucks and wheeled equipment require a relatively flat surface. Therefore in order to provide a means to have vehicles use the tunnel, we would be required to blast a horseshoe flat bottom to the TBM tunnel. This is not cost effective and will add time and expense to the construction schedule thereby negating the advantages of a TBM.

Another primary advantage of driving a tunnel using the DBM allows for better handling of poor quality and adverse ground conditions as ground support elements can be installed quickly at the tunnel heading. In comparison, support of poor quality ground in bored tunnels is installed from the rear of the machine after the cutting head has passed the unstable/difficult ground section. The final decision has been made to use DBM as a result of the alternative cost benefit analysis.

(iv) Alternative Access Road Alignments

The proposed access road alignment has been selected based on cost, functionality, and environmental impact criteria. One primary objective is to mitigate the impact on a designated roadless area. Although hydropower developments may be an approved road building activity under certain conditions in the Tongass National Forest, the Applicant has sought to lessen the road construction activity in the Project plan in order to mitigate road building in an otherwise Inventoried Roadless Area. On May 24, 2011 Judge Sedwick entered a Roadless Rule order that ruled in part regarding hydropower developments in the Tongass National Forest, “…Nothing in this judgment shall be construed to prohibit any person or entity from seeking, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture from approving, otherwise lawful road construction, road reconstruction, or the cutting or removal of timber for hydroelectric development pursuant to the standards


and procedures set forth in the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791-823d” (emphasis added) 1

In the initial evaluation of the Project by the Applicant and developed in prior governmental hydropower studies on Sweetheart Lake, there was a several mile length road proposed in the project development. In a 1983 Sweetheart Lake plan of development called for a 2.25 mile road from tidewater to damsite. This road would cut through a Semi Remote Recreation Land Use Designation that encompasses the eastern shore of Gilbert Bay and the project area. This alternative road would have crossed wetlands and would have left a visible scar on the scenic landscape that could be seen from any point in Gilbert Bay. This 1983 alternative was ruled out by the Applicant as unnecessary and environmentally obtrusive. A secondary objective of the Applicant was to minimize visibility of the necessary road corridor that would traverse from the proposed dock area on the eastern shore of Gilbert Bay to the powerhouse. Two alternatives were developed: An upland forest road alternative and a high tide coastal road alternative. Based on several environmental factors, aesthetics and habitat disruption being primary selection criteria, the coastal alternative was selected by the Applicant.

This preferred Coastal road/trail Alternative is a 4400 ft. road that is aligned just below the cliff face along the eastern shore for 2000 feet. The proposed coastal road/trail is surveyed and engineered to be built at or just below the mean high tide and is extremely rocky and would encompass 6.83 State of Alaska acres but only .98 federal acres. The coastal road/trail would be built along this rocky section of the beach and the road/trail specifically designed and constructed to have a reverse slope where the road slopes interior. This strategic construction design would help mask the existence of a road from the Gilbert Bay anchorage area. As the road meanders southward toward the grassy Sweetheart estuary, the road would head east and increase in elevation toward the powerhouse located at elevation 50. Below are four survey sheets of the detailed boundary and land ownership map for the coastal road/trail based on LIDAR (Laser Interferometry Detection and Ranging) and land surveying conducted in 2012.

1 John W. Sedwick Roadless Rule Judgment Case 1:09-cv-00023-JWS Document 85 Filed 05/24/11


Figure B-1 Coastal Road/Trail State and Federal Areas


The powerhouse access road preferred route is the coastal alternate that runs parallel to the beach at elevation 25 feet climbing to 50 feet near the powerhouse / tailrace. The coastal road/trail will be gravel surface single lane and pullouts and be constructed from clean shot rock to USFS standards. Pullouts will be removed upon cease of construction and the berms composted and revegetated to hasten their return to a more natural looking state.

The Applicant would bury both the high voltage transmission and lower voltage service transmission cable from the powerhouse switchyard area to the dock area using the coastal road/trail alternative. Burying the cable would eliminate avian impact of eagles and waterfowl that frequent Gilbert Bay. It is the applicant’s view that the preferred alternative provides superior environmental attributes as compared to the Forest Road Alternative.

Figure B-2 Alternative Road Analysis

A Forest Road alternative of routing had been considered and was the initial alternative. In fact the forest road alternative was surveyed, engineered and drawings drafted and Therefore a substantial cost was invested in developing this alternative, but this route is not preferred. The Forest Road Alternative would originate in the same dock area and would travel upland from the marine facility and then south toward the powerhouse. The figure above depicts the two alternatives.

The computer graphic rendering below roughly represents the two contrasting road alternatives.


Figure B-3 Computer Simulation Alternative Road Analysis There are many advantages to justify the selection of the coastal/trail alternative over the forest road alternative.

1. Less road distance in length.

2. Less road impact on federal land as the coastal road is almost entirely on State of Alaska land.

3. Less impact on wetlands.

4. Less impact on scenic disturbance (buried powerlines on coastal road/trail alternative.

5. Substantially less logging required.

6. Less impact on intermittent streams along Gilbert Bay and less soil and runoff caused by erosion.

7. Less impact on waterfowl and raptors (buried powerlines on coastal road/trail alternative.

8. Combines use of trail with the roadway whereas the forest road alternative would not be used as a trail.

9. Requires less maintenance and clearing over the life of the project.

Regardless of weighting of criteria, the coastal road/trail is a superior alternative.


Table B-1 Coastal/Forest Road Comparison Chart

(v) Alternative Power Plant Locations

Initially, the Applicant reviewed previous plans to determine what was identified for power house and plant locations. All previous federal and state agency plans called for a tidewater powerhouse. Unfortunately, these tidewater power plant locations would either impair or materially destroy the natural runs of salmon and would negatively impact the recreational and personal use sockeye fishery. For these reasons, the previous suggested power plant locations were ruled out by the Applicant as unacceptable.

It is recognized that the terrain is rocky, uneven, steep and difficult alongside the banks of Sweetheart Creek and it is understandable that previous studies desired to avoid the additional engineering design and construction necessary to place the powerhouse upstream. However, it is an upstream location that is needed to produce a hydropower project in this environment that would have little or no impact on anadromous species. The net result is over 30 feet of lost head and the economic impact of this loss is significant representing more than a 5% loss of head by placing the powerhouse upstream, but will little to no impact on the anadromous species utilizing Sweetheart Creek.

Therefore an upstream power house alternative was the only alternative considered. The Applicant selected an area on the north side of Sweetheart Creek where a tailrace could re enter water below the barrier falls of Sweetheart Creek. Several engineering reconnaissance trips were conducted in the area at different times of the year. In 2012, the Applicant had the entire Sweetheart Creek area surveyed to determine the best location for a powerhouse and tailrace to work with nature. Based on the survey and overlaid with LIDAR, a power plant location was selected away from the southern bank of Sweetheart Creek in recognizable difficult terrain.

The selected power plant location was subsequently chosen because; 1) it minimizes potential impacts to Sweetheart Creek by discharging tailrace water back into Sweetheart Creek close and below the barrier falls of the anadromous reach. 2) This location allows partial screening of the power plant by existing forest and hidden by strategic placement of mounds to minimize aesthetic disturbance 3) the location allows the power plant to be

Coastal/Forest Road Comparison Chart1

Total Length (feet) Total Wetland Fill (acres) PF04 Filled (acres) Rocky Intertidal Filled (acres)

Cleared to 200’ (acres) Impacted Streams (feet) Transmission Line Yellow Cedar Density Coastal Road

4400 0.54 0.29 0.25 0 25

Buried Low

Forest Road

5900 1.62

1.62 0

26.16 671

Overhead High

1Reproduced from Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 13563


partially buried in order to minimize acoustic disturbance. 4) This location provides an opportunity to for the Project to expand the stream distance to provide additional fishing stream bank for recreational fishers and wildlife.

(vi) Alternative Transmission Line Types and Alignments

The Project will employ a combination of transmission line types: buried, overhead and submarine. Submarine and buried cables tend to be exponentially more expensive than overhead transmission due to their manufacture and ability to withstand a harsher environment.

There were two transmission line alternatives from the power plant location to a marine terminal/dock area located at Gilbert Bay. The alternatives for this segment will be discussed first before exploring the transmission line interconnection alternatives from Gilbert Bay to the connection at the Snettisham transmission line. The alternatives of overhead versus buried cable for this segment was embedded with the alternative for the road/trail alternatives discussed earlier.

Topography between the Sweetheart Creek powerhouse and extending to the Gilbert Bay marine terminal/dock area is rocky and forested on the upland and has lower elevation forest and rock beach fringe at the lower elevations along the shoreline. The Applicant first explored and surveyed a forest road alternative because it was thought that this route was intuitively the preferred environmental alternative. This previously considered forest road alternative would have employed an overhead transmission line. There are many gullies and rock embankments thereby making the terrain unacceptable to buried transmission lines. Further, the area gullies have seasonal floods which could damage or wash out sections of buried line.

Therefore the forest road alternative would have an overhead transmission line that due the dense forest would require a right of way timber clearance of 200 feet. The opening of the forest area would impact the current habitats and would need large cut and fills in order to lay a road sufficient to move equipment and turbines. In addition, many culverts would be required and future washouts from gullies would require diligent maintenance. This alternative would require a large scare on the aesthetic appearance on the eastern shore of Gilbert Bay of a similar terrain scarred nature that is current with the Snettisham transmission line. Due to the aesthetic scarring effect of this road/transmission alternative and upon consultation with the Applicants environmental engineers, another alternative was developed that would have less impact on the environment. This alternative road and transmission was dismissed.

The Applicant has developed a coastal road/trail alternative that would require less invasiveness of the environment in that it is shorter in length and would require less cutting into the hillsides. The coastal road would emplace a more expensive buried transmission line that would serve to eliminate avian impacts from eagles, costal birds, and seasonal waterfowl. Over the 50 year life of the project, the buried transmission line would not only eliminate aesthetic disturbance but it will virtually eliminate any chance of an avian strike.. An overhead transmission line would cause avian strike issues and


would defeat the aesthetic features of the coastal road/trail alternative. The Applicant will emplace a 12.47 kV service line alongside the high voltage 138 kV buried transmission line to provide electrical service to the dock, and caretaker/shop facility. For these reasons, the Applicant selected the coastal road/trail alternative to have a buried transmission line.

(vii) Gilbert Bay to Snettisham Interconnection Transmission Line Alternatives.

The Applicant considered two alternatives from the marine facility/dock at Gilbert Bay to a Snettisham transmission line interconnection just north of Mist Island on the northern shore of Port Snettisham.

The first consideration was where the interconnection to the Snettisham transmission line should occur. The entire northern shoreline of Port Snettisham is situated in an Old Growth Habitat Land Use Designation which is designated as a more sensitive environment when considering activities and power line infrastructure. However this entire Old Growth Habitat LUD along the northern shore of Port Snettisham is dominated by the existing high voltage Snettisham Transmission Line. The northern shore of Port Snettisham was analyzed to determine the optimum location for an interconnection point.

One alternative was to make a connection directly across Point Sentinel. The advantage is that it is a shorter and perhaps less costly route. However, it would require substantial hillside logging, deforestation and earthwork to ensure a stable and reliable transmission interconnection. The disadvantage is that it would require a very large intrusion on an Old-Growth Habitat LUD and would create a large scenic disruption to the landscape for any vessel entering or leaving Port Snettisham.


Figure B-4 Earlier Considered Port Snettisham Submarine Transmission Alternative

Figure B-5 TLMP Land Use Designations Port Snettisham Area Therefore, this interconnection point was ruled out by the Applicant. The shoreline investigation determined that there was an excellent landfall location combined with a relatively small intrusion on the Old Growth Habitat LUD. This location was selected as it would best fit the needs of the Project as well as for the TLMP management prescriptions.

The alternative analysis for the Northern Port Snettisham transmission segment then switched to whether to use an overhead or buried transmission line from the shoreline to the Snettisham Transmission Line. It was decided that for the short distance (less than


500 feet) that a buried cable would provide safe and reliable transmission while removing scenic disturbance that would be caused by an otherwise overhead transmission line poles and interconnection.

The analysis then focused on whether to employ entirely a submarine transmission cable from the Gilbert Bay marine facilities to the northern shore of Port Snettisham or to use a combination of submarine and overhead transmission lines.

The western shore of Gilbert Bay is situated in a Timber Production LUD which has environmental management prescriptions since it is designated as a future timber harvest area. Therefore it was determined after reviewing the Timber Production LUD TLMP management prescriptions that this LUD was an acceptable LUD to build transmission corridors. The Applicant’s 2012 survey with personal use fishermen indicated that the large response of survey respondents were equally divided on an all submarine cable versus a combination submarine overland cable.

The Applicant conducted an analysis and gave an in depth consideration to routing a 100% submarine transmission line, but abandoned that idea due to the likely interference with longline and crab fishermen who harvest thousands of pounds of fishery resource with gear that uses anchors. The socio economic impact on commercial fishermen over the life of the project was weighed in the transmission routing considerations as over 40,000 lbs of commercial harvest occurs in Gilbert Bay annually. It was determined that there could be a high likelihood of gear/anchor interaction with a 100% submarine transmission cable would not only economically impact the fishermen with potential lost gear but that lost gear would continue to ghost fish and not be environmentally friendly. Another factor was that longline gear and anchors interactions and potential snagging on the cable could lessen the longevity and useful life of the marine transmission cable.

An earlier alternative was considered that would have the routing cross the eastern shore of Gilbert Bay in a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD, then traverse to cross the Whiting River and then cut across the Port Snettisham to interconnect with the Snettisham Power line. However this alignment would be longer, problematic with depth and bottoms and the terrain is steeper and therefore would be more costly. Therefore the alternative for using was abandoned in favor of a western shore route.

Additionally, a previous plan developed prior to JHI’s involvement with the Project considered an overhead power line from Sweetheart Creek over the Gilbert Bay flats. This alternative is aesthetically unpleasing but would also produce a significant avian hazard for migrating waterfowl. Therefore this alternative was ruled out early in the investigative process as environmentally irresponsible.

Upon completion of the investigative process, the Applicant has selected the combination overland submarine cable for several reasons. 1) The personal use fishermen survey was equally divided on all submarine vs. a combination overland submarine cable so there was no clear preference. 2) The west shore of Gilbert Bay is a Timber Production LUD, the least restrictive LUD for timber harvest, road building and emplacing Transportation and Utility Systems (TUS) LUD. Therefore a Transmission and Utility System corridor is most consistent with this land use designation. 3) This alternative lessens the socio economic impact on commercial fish harvesters who use Gilbert Bay on a large


commercial basis. The impact of these fishermen and on the harvestable fishery resources for the life of the project is an important economic consideration. 4) Lost commercial fishing gear entangled on a submarine cable could ghost fish aquatic resources and further could also present a hazard to marine mammals.

Construction of a conventional overhead/submarine cable transmission line route along the western portion of Gilbert Bay was judged to be preferable over an all submarine cable. The routing of the submarine portions of the overland/submarine transmission alternative was strategically analyzed to avoid crab, halibut, and shrimp producing and productive harvesting areas. An all submarine cable alternative would cross all of these harvesting these productive fishing areas.

Figure B-6 Final Transmission Corridor from Alternative Analysis After the decision was made to choose the an overhead transmission segment over the western shore of Gilbert Bay, a route analysis was conducted considering environmental considerations of wetland impact, botanical impact, scenic impact, recreational impact, and wildlife impact as well as economic impact on the cost of construction. As a result of input from the Applicant’s environmental contractors, a route was selected for the overhead transmission segment alternative for the eastern shore of Gilbert Bay. The proposed project transmission terminates at the primary transmission line at the existing Snettisham Transmission line at the proposed Sweetheart/Snettisham interconnection point just east of Mist Island on the north side of the Snettisham entrance.


4.41(c)(3) A statement as to whether operation of the power plant will be manual or automatic, an estimate of the annual plant factor, and a statement of how the project will be operated during adverse, mean, and high water years;

(3) PROPOSED OPERATION

(i) Operation Mode

The project will normally operate under automatic control, with manual control as a selectable option.

(ii) Annual Plant Factor

The estimated plant factor is 67% (annual generation of 116 GWh and an installed capacity of 19.8 MW).

(iii) Operation During Adverse, Mean, and High Water Years

The project will be operated to provide firm power according to a schedule determined by the power off takers and in accordance with the water release agreements. For the purposes of this application, the Applicant has assumed a delivery schedule to maximize revenue from power sales to serve a steady commercial load with excess generation to be called upon by the utility receiving power. This schedule assumes steady operation of 12-13 MW (300-325 cfs) during all months and allowing the reservoir to fill from spring/summer run off. This schedule also has positive effects for the anadromous reach of Sweetheart Creek by providing a stable “spring runoff” water level that is considered by some accounts beneficial to aquatic life cycles. During typical generation, two of the three turbines will be used and will operate at near peak efficiency. Any one of the three turbines and generators can be serviced without affecting normal plant operations.

During adverse water years, the Project will operate at approximately 12 MW. The reservoir will be drawn down to near minimum levels by late April or early May, and will refill during the summer and fall. Any surplus water will be released for non-firm generation at a rate to maximize efficiency and revenue. Based on historical data, the reservoir model shows the project will deliver firm power even in adverse water years.

During mean water years, there may be somewhat more water available during the winter months than in adverse years. Nevertheless, the Project will be operated to provide only the required firm power delivery of 12-13 MW and the reservoir will not draw down as far as in adverse water years. Once the reservoir refills in the summer, there will be more water available for non-firm generation. There may be some brief periods during the summer when the inflows are so high that additional water must be released through the spillway or the outlet works. Firm power will be provided with two of the three turbines operating. Additional non-firm power will typically be produced with three turbines operating.


During high water years, the operation will be similar to that during mean water years, except there will be longer periods of non-firm generation and potential spill.

Figure B-7 shows reservoir levels during typical adverse, mean, and high water conditions. The numerical modeling of the reservoir included ten continuous years, and the level of reservoir during one year is affected by the water conditions of the previous year. Therefore the lowest reservoir levels are not necessarily during the driest years, nor are the highest levels during high water years. The highest and lowest conditions for the reservoir are shown.

Figure B-7 Reservoir Level During Adverse, Mean and High Water Conditions

4.41(c)(4) An estimate of the dependable capacity and average annual energy production in kilowatt-hours (or mechanical equivalent), supported by the following data:

(i) Estimated Dependable Capacity

Monthly dependable capacities are the values shown in Table B-1. These energy production values have been determined by numerical simulation of ten years of continuous hydrologic record from calendar years 1921-1930 and reservoir and turbine operation. This period of record has the desirable characteristics of having the same mean annual flow as the entire period of record and contains both the driest and second wettest years on record. Firm power and monthly dependable capacities are based on the year (1922) with the lowest annual power production during the ten-year simulation. The Project is designed and expected to deliver dependable capacity between 12.5 and 12.9 MW of firm power throughout the year.


Table B-2 Assumed Dependable Capacity MW

(1) Firm capacity is based on the year (1922) with the lowest annual power production during the ten-year simulation discussed in section

(ii) Estimated average annual energy production in kilowatt hours The net average annual energy contribution of the Project to the Juneau market is expected to average 116,000 MWh or 116,000,000 kWh annually.

4.41(c)(4)(i) The minimum, mean, and maximum recorded flows in cubic feet per second of the stream or other body of water at the powerplant intake or point of diversion, with a specification of any adjustment made for evaporation, leakage minimum flow releases (including duration of releases) or other reductions in available flow; monthly flow duration curves indicating the period of record and the gauging stations used in deriving the curves; and a specification of the critical streamflow used to determine the dependable capacity

The Sweetheart Lake watershed above the dam site is approximately 35 square miles. The drainage area above the Sweetheart Creek gaging station is 36 square miles. A U.S.


Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow gaging station at “Sweetheart Falls Creek Below Sweetheart Falls” (USGS Station 15030000) was established and operated from 1915 through 1927.2 The USGS extended the stream gaging record by estimating the monthly run off in the 1928-32 and 1949 to 1956 water years from records of the Long River near Juneau and determining a relationship between the monthly runoff of Sweetheart Creek and Long River in a period of overlapping records.

In 2011, the Applicant contracted with Civil Science Inc. (CSI) to establish and maintain a stream and lake gage for the Project. The stream gage was installed at Sweetheart Creek at the same location, just below the barrier falls, as the USGS gage operated between 1915 through 1927. The Applicant conducted extensive research to find original USGS records in order to install the stream gage at the exact site of the gage that operated in early of the last century. The newly installed gage began recording at its location below Sweetheart Falls on September 23, 2011. A second gage was added and began recording near the potential dam site (i.e. at the outlet at Lower Sweetheart Lake) on the next day. By using the two gages it was verified that approximately 3% of the flow at the lower gage, as would be expected from drainage areas is due to accretion in Sweetheart Creek below the lake outlet.

CSI developed an extended flow record based on data from the USGS gage at Long River (15034000). The USGS had previously extended the monthly record of Sweetheart Creek. The USGS extension was made by estimating the flow in Sweetheart Creek in the 1917-18, 1928-32 and 1940-56 years from records of recorded flows in nearby Long River.3

The CSI monthly correlation models were based on daily discharge data. A separate relationship was developed for each month of the year. Monthly flow correlation formulae, expressing flow in cfs per square mile of drainage area (csm) at the Sweetheart Falls Creek gage (USGS 15030000) as function of the flow in USGS Station 15034000, Long River near Juneau. The formulae were developed through least-squares regression and took the form of the following power function:

QSHFC = C QLRn

where:

QSHFC = Daily flow at Sweetheart Falls Creek (USGS Station 15030000), csm

C = A coefficient, typically around one, ranging from 0.32 (August) to as much as 1.67 (June)

n = An exponent, ranging from 0.77 (June) to 1.22 (January)

QLR = Daily flow in Long River, csm

2 USGS gaging station records 15030000. 3 USGS Water Supply Paper 1529 page 49


The correlation models were used to create a synthetic data flow record for portions of 1917, 1918 and 1934 plus full years for 1927-1933 and 1952-1968. The synthetic record, combined with the original USGS data and data from the new gaging station, yielded approximately 39 years of flow data, including two 17-year periods of continuous record. The final extended record had an average annual flow of 336 cfs for the lake outlet. Comparatively, the USGS had estimated, using monthly flows, that lower Sweetheart Lake outlet would have produced an average annual flow of 335 cfs when pro-rated to the lake by drainage areas over the combined periods of the Sweetheart Falls Creek record and the period data calculated from Long River through 1956 (USGS Water Supply Paper 1529, 1962). Minimum, mean, and maximum average daily flows for the gaged periods as well as the extended record are shown in Table B-3.

Table B-3 Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Avg. Lower Sweetheart Lake Outlet Discharge in cfs.

Gaged Flows Date Synthetic Record

Date

Minimum 16.3 Jan. 17, 2012 11.1 Jan 1, 1930

Mean 336 337

Maximum 3,617 Sept. 14, 2012 2,781 Oct. 3, 1961

The applicant plans to release 3 cfs either through quantifiable seepage or though dedicated release to ensure that the bypass reach maintains a flow from the toe of the dam to downstream. This 3 cfs release would be additional to the natural 3% accretion that naturally exists. An allowance of 3 cfs was made for 1) evaporation, assumed to be minimal because the area around Sweetheart Creek is cool and wet and 2) seepage through the dam.

The estimated monthly stream flows available at the Project intake are summarized in Table B-4


Table B-4. Estimated Monthly and Annual Discharge at Project in cfs.

Lower Sweetheart Lake Outlet Estimated and Gaged Monthly Discharge in cfs. Period of Record-POR = 1915-1933, 1952-1968, & 2011-2013.

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Annual1915 - - - - - - - 486 508 399 163 98 -1916 37 37 42 151 357 764 486 565 617 602 188 85 3281917 55 123 48 79 340 628 566 659 564 514 557 92 3521918 79 41 19 83 332 730 604 646 600 364 381 187 3391919 248 52 41 143 331 519 595 560 586 475 149 132 3191920 220 91 38 49 230 603 551 620 406 339 267 51 2891921 62 92 62 111 383 611 465 415 412 580 158 283 3031922 88 29 24 112 406 657 557 535 509 336 391 112 3131923 56 91 129 223 460 608 468 351 689 480 473 197 3521924 65 39 72 112 568 804 751 567 797 439 278 158 3881925 37 29 43 82 463 672 618 360 410 295 342 476 3191926 557 140 255 409 352 438 334 292 231 474 304 216 3331927 105 36 75 94 384 744 467 331 574 301 121 48 2731928 184 126 122 248 550 708 605 437 511 434 326 316 3811929 194 42 98 97 353 715 506 409 464 808 422 143 3541930 11 45 51 157 323 638 514 541 504 439 478 331 3361931 143 234 43 143 490 801 545 547 503 541 168 82 3531932 38 54 51 126 362 661 472 427 596 525 119 71 2921933 30 40 34 338 538 792 - - - - - - -1952 24 38 41 172 440 653 591 474 671 836 388 119 3711953 42 65 40 99 568 794 530 510 540 688 137 137 3461954 54 244 51 60 325 668 470 297 552 390 409 372 3241955 69 54 51 80 291 605 587 577 517 297 191 53 2811956 18 30 32 83 488 554 578 691 412 322 377 353 3281957 107 45 27 102 473 702 477 390 623 466 385 116 3261958 180 68 41 172 547 859 556 492 329 583 229 140 3501959 52 68 51 116 428 771 679 438 362 461 249 199 3231960 71 54 64 169 474 632 591 482 597 639 293 294 3631961 116 118 93 230 506 842 754 776 444 702 190 53 4021962 174 75 87 100 309 695 516 406 671 477 350 305 3471963 135 194 104 132 391 657 537 364 751 587 123 218 3491964 109 102 61 180 317 829 674 414 305 546 247 203 3321965 231 111 122 127 256 626 498 429 365 703 145 110 3101966 36 45 57 150 387 697 530 526 677 548 207 53 3261967 35 54 37 57 389 927 495 551 800 342 322 119 3441968 42 125 237 128 435 600 516 320 774 343 168 90 3152011 - - - - - - - - - 429 201 212 -2012 117 85 70 122 518 927 711 603 1085 274 133 52 3912013 138 176 51 149 900 984 - - - - - - -Min. 11.1 29.1 19.2 49.3 230 438 334 292 231 274 119 47.6 273Mean 107 83.5 69.2 140 423 706 554 486 554 486 271 170 336Max. 557 244 255 409 900 984 754 776 1085 836 557 476 402

USGS Gage 15030000. Sweetheart Falls Creek below Sweetheart Falls.Synthethic Record for Sweetheart Creek via same-day flow correlation with USGS Gage 15034000 (Long River nr Juneau)New JHI Gage established 9/24/2011. Lower Sweetheart Lake Outlet near Juneau.Year has gaged and synthetic monthly flow values.

Minimum Month: 11.1 cfsMean Monthly Flow: 337 cfs

Maximum Month: 1085 cfs


The record of flows for Lower Sweetheart is 39 full years, based on gages and synthetic data, and 3 partial years.

The Minimum Monthly discharge was estimated on for January 1930 at 11.1 cfs.

The Maximum Monthly gaged discharge was for September 2012 for 1,085 cfs

The Average or mean of gaged discharge is 333 cfs. The average for the complete record of gaged data and synthetic data is 337 cfs.

The proposed project will operate using reservoir storage to regulate flows. As such, this Project’s firm capacity depends largely on the storage capacity of the reservoir and not a critical streamflow as with a run-of-the-river project.

The critical streamflow period used to determine the dependable capacity is water year 1922. Firm power and monthly dependable capacities are based on the year (1922) with the lowest annual power production during the ten-year simulation.

Annual and monthly flow duration curves are shown in Figures B-8 and B-9 below.

Figure B-8 Annual Flow Duration Curve

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Low

er S

wee

thea

rt L

ake

Out

let D

isch

arge

, cfs

Portion of time that Flow is Equaled or Exceeded, %

Lower Sweetheart Lake OutletAnnual Flow-Duration Characteristics

Annual Data

Long-term (~36 yrs) data set includes:Pro-rated USGS data from Sweetheart Falls Creek Station (No. 15030000), Pro-rated data from correlation with USGS


B-9 Monthly and Annual Duration Curve

4.41(c)(4)(ii) An area-capacity curve showing the gross storage capacity and usable storage capacity of the impoundment, with a rule curve showing the proposed operation of the impoundment and how the usable storage capacity is to be utilized;

Reservoir Characteristics

Capacity and area curves for the reservoir are shown in Figures B-11 and B-12. As described above, the project will not be operated on a rule curve, but rather on a firm energy delivery schedule. Therefore, a rule curve is not provided. The planned reservoir operation will draw down the water level a maximum of 60 ft from the dam spillway. Figure B-10 illustrates the proposed operation of the reservoir. The levels shown are from the reservoir simulation. The reservoir draws down to near minimum level (576 ft) from April to May and fills approximately June through October to near maximum (636 ft).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Low

er S

wee

thea

rt L

ake

Out

let D

isch

arge

, cfs

Portion of time that Flow is Equaled or Exceeded, %

Lower Sweetheart Lake OutletMonthly and Annual Flow-Duration Characteristics

Annual DataJanuary

February

March

April

May

Long-term (~36 yrs) data set includes:Pro-rated USGS data from Sweetheart Falls Creek Station (No. 15030000), Pro-rated data from correlation with USGS


Fig B-10 Reservoir at Proposed Operations

Figure B-11 Sweetheart Lake Capacity Curve

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

J F M A M J J A S O N D J

El. (

ft)Reservoir at Proposed Operations

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

Max Elevation

Max DrawDown


Figure B-12 Sweetheart Lake Area Curve

4.41(c)(4)(iii) The estimated minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity of the powerplant in terms of flow and efficiency (cubic feet per second at one-half, full and best gate), and the corresponding generator output in kilowatts.

Table B-5 Minimum and Maximum Hydraulic Capacity


4.41(c)(4)(iv) A tailwater rating curve

The lower tailwater of the Project is the existing Channel of Sweetheart Creek where water from the Project will be returned to Sweetheart Falls Creek. This pool’s water surface elevation is controlled by a bedrock sill that forms control for the gaging station. This rating is well-defined (Figure B-13; Table B-6) and will improve with ongoing maintenance of the gage and station rating.

Figure B-13 Project Tailwater rating curve

37.5

38.0

38.5

39.0

39.5

40.0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Tailw

ater

ele

vatio

n, fe

et M

LLW

Power plant discharge, cfsWeir crest El 37.61

One unit at

Two units

Three units


Figure B-14 Project Sweetheart Falls Station Rating Curve

Table B-6. Sweetheart Falls Creek Station Rating Elevation (feet

MLLW) Discharge (cfs)

28.29 0 30.11 200 30.28 250 30.42 300 30.56 350 30.68 400 30.79 450 30.90 500

24.29

25.29

26.29

27.29

28.29

29.29

30.29

31.29

32.29

33.29

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Wat

er S

urfa

ce E

leva

tion,

Fee

t ML

LW

Gag

e H

eigh

t, fe

et

Discharge, cfs

Sweetheart Falls Creek below Sweetheart FallsStation Rating

Measurements

Predicted Values

#4 MCSJune 11, 2012752 cfs @ 7.00 ft #1 DST (main) & MCS (side)

Sept 24, 20111090 cfs @ 7.53ft

#2 DSTFeb. 7. 201292.9 cfs @ 5.31 feet

#3 DSTMar. 15, 201268.7 cfs @ 5.21 feet

Q = 43.37 (GH - 4) 2.55

R2 = 0.9983

or Q = 43.37 (WSE - 28.29)

#5 MCSAug. 18, 2012564 cfs @ 6.73 ft

#6 MCSAug. 19, 2012

456 cfs @ 6.50 ft

GZF = 4.0 feet(Estimated)

Datum Offset to Station Staff Gage:Gage Reading + 24.29 ft = Elevation, Feet MLLW

#7 MCSApril 25, 2013259 cfs @ 6.05 ft

#8 DSTApril 28, 2013501 cfs @ 6.65 ft


The tailwater elevation at the power plant will be controlled by the crest of the weir of the velocity barrier structure at the head of the tailrace channel. The weir crest has been set at EL 37.61 to provide suitable flow conditions in the tailrace channel. The crest length of 50 feet has been set to provide a maximum depth of flow of 2.0 feet over the weir crest as specified by the National Marine Fisheries Service guidelines published in the Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design, July 2011. 4.41(c)(4)(v) A curve showing powerplant capability versus head and specifying maximum, normal, and minimum heads

The maximum net head is 590 ft. when the reservoir elevation is 636 ft and one turbine is operations. The normal head is 558 ft. when the reservoir is 606 ft. and two turbines are operating. The minimum net head is 524 ft. when the reservoir elevation is 576 ft. and three turbines are operating. Note that while the stated minimum is possible, the Applicant does not intend to operate three turbines when the reservoir level is near minimum. Figure B-15 illustrates the output of the powerplant at 158 cfs rated flow for each turbine operating at various net heads and corresponding reservoir elevations.

Figure B-15 Plant Capability vs. Head Curve


4.41(c)(5) A statement of system and regional power needs and the manner in which the power generated at the project is to be utilized, including the amount of power to be used on-site, if any, supported by the following data:

(i) Power Needs

The project will be interconnected with the State of Alaska, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) owned Snettisham Transmission line (managed and operated by Alaska Electric Light & Power). Theoretically, generation could be utilized by AELP customer in their service area or by any customer outside their certificated service area. Currently, the Kensington Mine that has an approximately 60,000,000 kWh annual is located within the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) but is not connected to the Juneau grid system and is outside the AEL&P service area. The current CBJ Comprehensive Plan and the CBJ Climate Action Plan call for connecting industrial loads currently serviced by diesel electrical generation to renewable hydropower generation. The Hecla Greens Creek mine and several other interruptible customers may desire to receive full time firm electrical service if more economical and reliable year round hydropower electricity becomes available. Interruptible customers have witnessed a substantial increase in energy production costs and a very high disparity of cost between diesel self generation and lower cost hydropower generated electricity. It is likely that market substitution would occur if options are made available to interruptible customers.

Market substitution is already occurring in firm electrical energy ratepayers in Juneau as ratepayers are switching to hydropower generated electricity from more expensive diesel heating fuel for space heating needs to electric heat. This phenomena is further compounded that virtually all new construction in Juneau in 2013 is base board electrical heating (AELP personal communication 2013). Aside from market forces and substation occurring in space heating needs, there is small but continued growth in electrical transportation. Both, increases in local hydropower production and increases in electrical transportation are supported in the CBJ Comprehensive Plan and CBJ Climate Action Plan.

Data Sources: AELP Regulatory Commission of Alaska quarterly filings, AELP FERC Form No. 1, 2013, CBJ Comprehensive Plan, CBJ Climate Action Plan, Juneau Empire, AELP Press Releases.

4.41(c)(5)(i) Load curves and tabular data, if appropriate

Not Applicable


4.41(c)(5)(ii) Details of conservation and rate design programs and their historic and projected impacts on system loads; and

At this time, the Applicant does not have any conservation or rate design programs that could or will impact historic and or projected impacts on system loads.

4.41(c)(5)(iii) The amount of power to be sold and the identity of proposed purchaser(s)

Power Sales Purchasers

The Applicant expects to operate as a FERC certified Qualifying Facility and thereby sell all of the firm project generation through a combination of sales to, AEL&P, a certificated Juneau utility for demand within their service area and to sell directly by contract to industrial demand customers outside the certificated boundary of the Juneau utility.

4.41(c)(6) A statement of the applicant's plans for future development of the project or of any other existing or proposed water power project on the affected stream or other body of water, indicating the approximate location and estimated installed capacity of the proposed developments.

At this time, the Applicant has no plans for any future water power project developments in the affected stream, lake or other body of water.

C-1 Juneau Hydropower Inc. DLA Exhibit C October 2013

Copyright©2013 All rights reserved


EXHIBIT C

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Exhibit C is presented herein and addresses the FERC regulation 18 CFR 4.41 (d).

Exhibit C is a proposed construction schedule for the project. The information required may

be supplemented with a bar chart. The construction schedule must contain:

4.41(d)(1) The proposed commencement and completion dates of any new construction,

modification, or repair of major project works;

(1) COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION DATES

A preliminary construction schedule is shown in Figure C-1, based on the following

assumptions:

Final License Application and EA submitted to FERC in December 2013-January 2014

License Application and EA reviewed and approved by FERC June 2014

Final designs will be completed and submitted in Design Packages as follows:

o Dock and Coastal Road

o Tunnels & Shafts

o Powerhouse Civil/Structural

o Powerhouse Mechanical/Electrical

o Roller Compacted Concrete Dam

o Switchyard

o Tailrace

o Transmission System

Final design submittals allow for a 60 day design review by FERC prior to construction

authorization

Construction would begin on features as the design packages are approved

Year round work is anticipated at the Gilbert Bay facilities

4.41(d)(2) The proposed commencement date of first commercial operation of each new major

facility and generating unit; and

(2) COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION

Based on the schedule described above, the Applicant expects that full commercial operation of

the Project would be in 2016. The generation and control systems are expected to be installed

by late 2015, and sufficient water can be stored prior to the spring runoff to allow testing.

C-2 Juneau Hydropower Inc. DLA Exhibit C October 2013

Copyright©2013 All rights reserved

Reservoir filling will take up to 6 months depending on timing of completion. It is expected that

all generating units will become operational at the same time.

4.41(d)(3) If any portion of the proposed project consists of previously constructed, unlicensed

water power structures or facilities, a chronology of original completion dates of those

structures or facilities specifying dates (approximate dates must be identified as such) of:

(i) Commencement and completion of construction or installation;

(ii) Commencement of first commercial operation; and

(iii) Any additions or modifications other than routine maintenance.

(3) EXISTING STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES

There are no existing structures or facilities at the site.

Figure C-1 Design and Construction Schedule

Juneau Hydropower Inc D-1 DLA Exhibit D

Copyright ©2013 All Rights Reserved October 2013


EXHIBIT D

PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING

Exhibit D is presented herein and addresses the FERC regulation 18 CFR 4.41 (e).

Exhibit D is a statement of project costs and financing

4.41(e) (1) A statement of estimated costs of any new construction, modification, or repair,

including:

(i) The cost of any land or water rights necessary to the development;

(ii) The total cost of all major project works;

(iii) Indirect construction costs such as costs of construction equipment, camps, and

commissaries;

(iv) Interest during construction; and

(v) Overhead, construction, legal expenses, and contingencies;

(1) COSTS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION

(i) Cost of Land and Water Rights

The Project will occupy lands of the United States managed by the United States Forest

Service (US Forest Service) in the Tongass National Forest and occupy tidelands of the

State of Alaska managed the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (Alaska DNR).

The Applicant does not expect any capital costs associated with the Federal and State

lands. However, the Applicant expects to pay costs associated with processing special use

applications under the cost recovery regulations 36 CFR§ 251.58 and these costs are

separate from fees charge for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands.

The Applicant has applied for Water Rights with the Alaska Department of Natural

Resources and has paid the $900 application fee. The marine facilities and the coastal

road will require a tidelands lease of which an application has been filed with the Alaska

Department of Natural Resources (Alaska DNR). These costs will be determined at a

later time after the lease is approved.

(ii) Cost of Major Project Works

The construction cost estimate for the Project is summarized in Table D-1. The total

direct construction cost prior to contingencies, escalation or indirect costs is estimated at

$107,413,000.00 (2014 bid level, 2016 on-line). These costs were compiled in September

2013.



Table D-1 Estimated Construction Costs and Capital Requirements

The construction cost has been determined by applying unit costs to construction

quantities from specialized engineers and contractors experienced in their respective

discipline and specialized area of construction that have been hired to assist JHI in

producing accurate cost estimates for the Project. For example, road and dock costs were

developed from the selected road and marine construction contractor; transmission line

Description

Land and Land Rights (1) $0.00

Design Fees and Pre-Construction Services $3,680,000.00

Mobilization $7,085,000.00

Man Camps $9,283,000.00

Temporary Power $2,512,000.00

Marine Access Facilities $3,087,000.00

Coastal Access Road $3,937,000.00

Power Tunnel and Control Structure $20,541,000.00

Intake Structure and Fish Screen $2,119,000.00

Diversion Tunnel and Control Structure $1,959,000.00

RCC Dam $3,497,000.00

Powerhouse and Tailrace $13,813,000.00

Turbines and Generators $8,198,000.00

Switchyard and Transmission System $25,061,000.00

Site Improvements and Maintenance Facilities $2,641,000.00

Subtotal $107,413,000.00

Contingencies (17.5%) $18,797,275.00

Subtotal $126,210,275.00

Escalation (2 years at 2%) $5,048,411.00

Direct Construction Cost (Bid 2014, on-line 2016) $131,258,686.00

Indirect Costs (2) and Construction Fee (Combined 15%) $19,688,803.00Interest During Construction (3) $15,094,749.00

Total Investment Cost $166,042,238.00

Financing Costs (1.50%) $2,474,255.00Reserve Fund (4) $8,410,000.00

Total Capital Requirements (Bid 2014, on-line 2016) $176,926,493.00

Estimated Construction Costs and Capital RequirementsAmount

Notes:

(1) Land and land rights costs included in annual costs as taxes and fees.

(2) Indirect costs include licensing, construction management, and administration.

(3) Interest is based on 2 year construction period and 5.0% interest rate.

(4) Approximately one year of debt service.



costs were developed from an experienced transmission line design and construction

firm, dam and tunnel costs were developed by engineers, and then analyzed by likely

contractors and then verified by independent third parties. This rigorous analysis is

necessary due to the recent Southeast Alaska public utility shortcomings in determining

engineer costs versus that actual bid costs submitted. Therefore, each cost component of

infrastructure has a derived cost from an experienced and specialized engineering and

construction contractor that, in theory, should provide an accurate estimate of the current

cost for each component. Equipment and material costs were provided and updated by

key component suppliers.

The construction quantities have been calculated from the preliminary layout of the

project structures as shown in Exhibit F of the Draft License Application (DLA), and the

unit costs have been determined from published data, preliminary equipment and

materials quotations, and the Applicant’s contractors experience with construction of

construction, tunnel, transmission and hydropower projects in Southeast Alaska and

elsewhere.

Escalation of prices has been assumed at 2.0% per year from 2014 to the estimated

midpoint of the construction period (2 years of escalation). Applicant expects the rate to

remain the same for the next few years. A contingency of 15% was determined and

calculated by the level of risk provided in these estimated The total direct construction

cost for the expected 2016 on-line date is estimated to be $131,258,686.00

(iii) Indirect Construction Costs

Indirect construction costs are estimated to be 15% of the direct construction costs,

including:

Licensing and permitting ...................2.0% of direct construction cost

Design engineering ............................5.0% of direct construction cost

Construction management .................7.0% of direct construction cost

Administrative and legal costs ...........1.0 % of direct construction cost

For planning purposes, the total indirect cost was estimated at 15% of the direct

construction costs: $19,688,803.00

(iv) Interest During Construction

Interest during construction is estimated to be 5.0% of the direct construction cost, based

on a preliminary cash flow projection for a 2 year construction period and an interest rate

of 5.0%. The sum of the direct construction costs, indirect construction costs, and

interest during construction is termed the total investment cost, and amounts to

$166,042,238.00

(v) Other Costs

Additional capital costs are estimated as follows:

Financing costs...................................1.5% of total investment cost



Reserve Fund .....................................one year of debt service

The reserve fund is assumed to be a financing requirement, but the applicant will seek

fewer funds to be set aside in a Reserve Fund. Interest earned on the reserve fund is

estimated at 2% per year.

The sum of the total investment cost, financing costs, and Reserve Fund is termed the

total capital requirement, and amounts to $176,926,493.00

4.41(e)(2) If any portion of the proposed project consists of previously constructed,

unlicensed water power structures or facilities, a statement of the original cost of those

structures or facilities specifying for each, to the extent possible, the actual or

approximate total costs (approximate costs must be identified as such) of:

(2) ORIGINAL COST OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES

Not applicable, as there are no existing structures or facilities.

4.41(e)(3) If the applicant is a licensee applying for a new license, and is not a municipality or a state, an estimate of the amount which would be payable if the project were to be taken over pursuant to section 14 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 807, upon expiration of the license in effect including: …

(3) AMOUNT PAYABLE PURSUANT TO FPA SECTION 14

The Applicant is applying for an original license, not a new license. Therefore, an estimate of

the amount payable if the Project were taken over pursuant to Section 14 of the Federal Power

Act is not applicable.

(i) Cost of capital (equity and debt);

(ii) Local, state, and Federal taxes;

(iii) Depreciation or amortization,

(iv) Operation and maintenance expenses, including interim replacements, insurance,

administrative and general expenses, and contingencies; and(v) The estimated capital cost and

estimated annual operation and maintenance expense of each proposed environmental

measure;

(4) AVERAGE ANNUAL PROJECT COSTS

(i) Cost of Capital

There are no public instruments in place yet for financing the construction cost, nor can

there be until after the license is issued, delivered cost of power contractually finalized,

and a power sales agreement is in place. Therefore, the calculation of the cost of capital

must be based on assumptions regarding the financing terms. For the purposes of this

application, the financing has been assumed to 80% by debt with an interest rate of 5.0%

and a term of 30 years. The applicant shall perhaps pursue the Alaska Industrial

Development and Export Agency (AIDEA) renewable energy loan with a 50 year loan

term and a loan guarantee program and or under the US Department of Agriculture

Section 9007-Rural Energy for America Loan Program (REAP) with a 30 year loan term



for which the Applicant would be eligible for. These governmental loan programs, if

used would supplement private financing in which the Applicant has been negotiating

with private institutions and would be dependent upon the conditions of the final license.

The Applicant will prepare a confidential and detailed plan of finance for review and

approval by the Commission prior to the start of construction.

(ii) Taxes and Fees

Based on current policies, the Applicant expects the taxes and fees to be incurred directly

by the Project are Alaska DNR water rights and submerged land fees and FERC annual

charges. For this application, the total of these fees plus any others has been assumed as

0.1% of the total investment cost, or $176,962/yr.

Federal taxes would depend on variables such as the finalized financing costs,

depreciation schedules and therefore cannot be determined at this time. As a State of

Alaska registered corporation, the Applicant would be expected to pay the appropriate

state and federal income tax. Depending on variables that impact taxable income from the

project the estimated annual tax payment would be between $500,000 and $1,500,000.

(iii) Depreciation and Amortization

Depreciation and amortization rates are applied on a straight line basis. The industry

average annual depreciation rate applied to hydroelectric facilities is 2.00% which

equates to a 50 year life of the facilities. The annual depreciation expense is estimated at

$5,533,000. Taxable depreciation may be calculated with an accelerated rate.

(iv) Operation and Maintenance

Annual operating costs are estimated to be as follows (2020 cost level):

$472,000 operations and maintenance cost (labor and expenses)

Administrative and general costs equal to $53,000 a year

Insurance cost equal to $200,000 a year

Interim replacements cost of $300,000/year.

Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Expense of Proposed

Environmental Measures of $172,5,000 per year

Earnings on reserve fund of 2% per year.

Based on these assumptions, the first-year cost of power at a 2018 cost level is estimated

to be as follows:

Debt service .............................................$9,624,000

Taxes and fees .............................................$176,962

Operating costs.........................................$2,194,000

Earnings on reserve fund ............................$168,200

Total annual cost ....................................$11,826,762



(v) The estimated capital cost for environmental measures and the estimated annual

operation and maintenance expense of each proposed environmental measure;

The estimated capital cost and estimated annual operation and maintenance expense of

each proposed environmental measure is listed in Table D–2 and Table D–3

respectively. These up front capital cost figures for environmental infrastructure

components and initial cost on environmental measures are listed in Table D-2. A. All

costs in Table D-2 are accounted for and embedded in the estimated construction cost

component identified in Table D-1. The estimated annual operation and maintenance

expense for each proposed environmental measure listed in Table D-3 is listed in (4) (iv)

Operating Costs listed above.

Table D-2 Estimated Capital Cost of each proposed environmental infrastructure

and environmental measures

Measure Component of Measure Estimated Cost

Infrastructure

Buried Powerhouse- Additional Cost of

Capital over traditional powerhouse

Buried Power house for natural aesthetics to blend

with environment

$2,000,000.00

Additional cost of capital for a Buried

Transmission line Coastal Road Powerhouse

to Dock

Buried Transmission to improve aesthetics,

eliminate avian interference

$780,000.00

Sockeye Salmon Smolt Intake and

Transport system

Improve aesthetics by replacing smolt line with

smolt tank transport; Improving fisheries

$2,000,000.00

Additional capital cost for Natural Tailrace

from powerhouse to creek

Improve aesthetics and improve fishery areas $1,000,000.00

Additional cost for a Submarine Cable

Gilbert Bay vs. an overhead line across

Gilbert Bay

Improve aesthetics, eliminate avian hazard $2,000,000.00

Buried Pennstock Additional Cost of capital Improve aesthetics $400,000.00

Avian APLIC protocol transmission Line

measures

reduce avian interference $1,000,000.00

Proposed USFS Recreatonal Cabin Improve recreational opportunities $350,000.00

Proposed Trail improvements beyond

Coastal Road Trail

Improve recreational opportunities and decrease

habitat erosion

$25,000.00

Trail signage and interpretation Improve recreation and mitigation of bear human

interaction

$7,000.00

Install mooring buoys in Gilbert Bay Improve recreational opportunities $25,000.00

Total Additional Capital Requirements for

Initial Environmental Infrastructure Measures

$9,587,000.00



Table D-2- Estimated Capital Cost of each proposed environmental infrastructure

and environmental measures.

Measure Component of Measure Estimated Cost

Environmental Compliance

Monitor (ECM) Monitor and document compliance with

environmental measures ,plans, permits, license

articles

$12,000

Geology & Soils

Best Management Practices (BMP's) Maintenance of slope stability and prevention of

severe erosion

$200,000

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) Protection during construction and implementation

of postconstruction ground restoration efforts to

stabilize disturbed areas and prevent future erosion

$200,000

Hazardous Materials Containment/Fuel

Storage Plan

Project/Contractor Requirement $25,000

Spill Prevention, Control and Containment

Plan (SPCCP)

Project/Contractor Requirement $25,000

Restoration of temporary access route,

disturbed areas

Project elements of concern: temporary

construction access route

$200,000

Water Use and Quality

Stream Gauging Install and Maintain permanent stream gauges,

collect and analyze data

$200,000

Weather Station Rain Gauge Install and Maintain permanent weather station and

rain gauges; collect and analyze data

$50,000

Aquatics

Monitoring equipment for Smolt intake Install and maintain permanent monitoring

equipment to collect and analyze data

$25,000

Terrestrial-Vegetation, Wetlands, Habitat

Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) Restoration of any disturbed areas, weed/invasive

species management

$20,000

Wetland Mitigation Measures Facilitate Land Transfer for Wetland Mitigation $200,000

Recreation

Recreation Management Plan Signage, maintain road and trail $40,000

Total Additional Capital Requirements for

Environmental Measures

$1,197,000.00



Table D-3 Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Expense for Proposed Environmental

Measures, Infrastructure and Plans

Organization /Estimated

Additional Cost

Measure Components of Measure Agency Request Annual

Environmental Compliance

Monitor (ECM) Monitor and document compliance with

environmental measures ,plans, permits, license

articles

JHI Proposed Measure $1,000

Annual Compliance Report Yearly report summarizing compliance with

PM&E measuresJHI Proposed Measure $2,500

Geology & Soils


severe erosionJHI Proposed Measure $5,000



stabilize disturbed areas and prevent future erosionJHI Proposed Measure $5,000

Restoration of access route, any disturbed

soil areas

Protect and restore any disturbance along

construction access routeJHI Proposed Measure $5,000


Storage Plan

Developed for Construction, will continue through

O&MJHI Proposed Measure $500

Water Use and Quality

Stream Gauging Install and Maintain permanent stream gauges,

collect and analyze dataJHI Proposed Measure $17,500

Weather Station Rain Gauge Install and Maintain permanent weather station and

rain gauges; collect and analyze dataJHI Proposed Measure $2,500


Storage Plan


O&MJHI Proposed Measure

included above


severe erosion and avoid impact on water runoffJHI Proposed Measure

included above



stabilize disturbed areas and prevent future erosion

and impact on water

JHI Proposed Measure

included above

Spill Prevention, Control and Containment

Plan (SPCCP)


O&MJHI Proposed Measure $1,000

Water Right compliance Water Right compliance JHI Proposed Measure $2,000

Aquatics

Monitoring equipment for Smolt intake Install and maintain permanent monitoring

equipment to collect and analyze dataJHI Proposed Measure $2,500

Ramping rates compliance Develop and implement ramping rates to safeguard

effect on aquaticsJHI Proposed Measure $500

Minimum Instream Flows compliance Develop and implement instream flow

measurementsJHI Proposed Measure $500

Terrestrial-Vegetation, Wetlands, Habitat

Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) Restoration of any disturbed areas, weed/invasive

species managementJHI Proposed Measure $500

Wetland Mitigation Measures Creation, restoration, and perhaps payments in lieu

of mitigationJHI Proposed Measure NA

Section 404/ Section 401 Application and compliance: 404 Permit and 401

Certificate of Reasonable AssuranceJHI Proposed Measure $1,500

Avian APLIC protocol transmission Line

measures

maintain and reduce avian interference. Strike

minimization through location of features and bird

deterrence design/technology


$7,500



Table D-3 Continued. Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Expense for Proposed

Environmental Measures, Infrastructure and Plans

4.41(e)(5) A statement of the estimated annual value of project power based on a showing of

the contract price for sale of power or the estimated average annual cost of obtaining an

equivalent amount of power (capacity and energy) from the lowest cost alternative source of

power, specifying any projected changes in the costs (life-cycle costs) of power from that

source over the estimated financing or licensing period if the applicant takes such changes

into account;

(5) VALUE OF PROJECT POWER

Power generated by the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project will be sold to a utility within the

service area of Juneau or to customers outside the service area of Juneau. The proposed addition

of the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project provides additional capacity and flexibility in

Juneau utility system operations. Under certain circumstances, the Juneau utility would be able

Recreation

Recreation Management Plan Plan, monitor and establish maintenance JHI Proposed Measure $1,500

Annual Trail/Road Maintenance Maintain and support trail characteristics JHI Proposed Measure $10,000

Annual Mooring Buoy Maintenance Inspect and Maintain JHI Proposed Measure $1,000

Annual Visual Berm Maintenace/Tailrace

Maintenance

Inspect, Maintain and Repair as neededJHI Proposed Measure $2,500

Annual USFS Cabin Maintenance Inspect, Maintain and Repair as needed JHI Proposed Measure $3,000

Waste Management Plan Construction and operations requirements: waste

management to reduce bear-human interactions JHI Proposed Measure $500

Sockeye Salmon Smolt Intake and

Transport system

Improve aesthetics with smolt tank transport;

Improving fisheries

JHI Proposed Measure$95,000

Maintenance cost for Natural Tailrace from

powerhouse to Sweetheart creek

Improve aesthetics and improve recreational

fishery areas

JHI Proposed Measure$2,500

Land Use and Ownership

Public Safety and Access Plan Restrict Publc Access to Powerhouse and

Switchyard area

JHI Proposed MeasureNA

Fire Prevention Plan Plan to prevent fires- infrastructure and USFS

cabin

JHI Proposed MeasureNA

Cultural Resources

Contractor and Employee Training Cultural Resources training and awarness in

Project Area

JHI Proposed Measure $1,000

ESCP Measures Reduce risk of exposing buried resources or

impacting known resources


included above


Storage Plan

Reduce risk of contaminating resourcesJHI Proposed Measure

included above

Illicit Artifacts/Human Remains Notification and proper handling JHI Proposed Measure $500

Aesthetic Resources

Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) Restoration of any disturbed areas to make

appearance naturalJHI Proposed Measure

included above

Local sourced materials and rock Ensure that materials blend with Project Area JHI Proposed Measure $0

Total Annual Expenditure on Environmental

Measures and Plans$172,500



to maintain a higher lake level at some of their hydropower storage facilities with available flow

from the Project.

The Applicant expects to enter into a power purchase agreement with a large end customer and

or the area utility to displace diesel generation for the long-term sale of the power generation, but

it would be premature to begin negotiations before receipt of the FERC license, since the license

provisions can significantly affect the marketability of the power.

Within the current system load, the Juneau utility could utilize the Project capacity during low

and average water years. The Applicant is expected to generate 116 GWh/year of clean

renewable hydropower from the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project with an approximate

avoidance of 8,285,714 gallons of diesel fuel currently used by mines, docking cruise ships while

in Juneau, and home heating space demand.

At the current cost of diesel home heating fuel ($4.27)1 the annual expenditures are projected to

be $35,380,000 in of offsetting diesel fuel with lower cost and cleaner electricity if all the Project

electricity was used to offset diesel electrical generation. The savings to the Juneau business and

residential community are significant now and for the life of the Project. The Diesel

Displacement value is represented in Table D-4. The diesel fuel inflation in the Juneau area

since the Applicant originally filed on a Preliminary Permit for Project has increased by 42.8%.

Based on projections provided by the Energy Information Administration and the State of Alaska,

Department of Revenue, the cost of oil and diesel derivatives is not expected to decrease.

Table D-4 Annual Diesel Displacement in 2013 cost of diesel

The comparative cost of a kilowatt hour produced by diesel generation in the Juneau area (using

a 14 kWh per gallon diesel generator efficiency rating) is $0.31 a kWh- Table D-5. The local

cost per diesel kWh compares relatively accurately to the AEL&P cost of diesel generation as

identified in their Tariff Advice 418-1 Schedule 44 Purchase of non-firm power from a

Qualifying Facility dated July 1, 20132 which under Option B fuel cost calculation the cost of

AEL&P generated diesel kWh is $0.3280.

Table D-5 Cost per diesel generated kWh in the Juneau Area.

Project Displaced Diesel at 14 kWh efficiency Diesel

Displaced Diesel Gallons Cost of diesel 2013 Total Cost kWh produced Cost per diesel kWh

8,285,714 $4.27 $35,380,000.00 116,000,000.00 $0.31

1 Alaska Department of Commerce Current Community Conditions Alaska Fuel Price Reports July 2013

2 RCA AEL&P Tariff Advice 418-1 July 12, 2013



Therefore the offsetting cost of the Project hydropower is significantly lower than the diesel

generation alternative.

In addition to the savings in direct fuel costs associated with the burning diesel to generate

electricity, the Juneau community would receive benefits associated with reduced costs and

environmental effects associated with fuel handling and storage; and, positive aesthetics and

health benefits resulting from reduced emissions associated with burning diesel.

Estimated Revenue

The Applicant has estimated the revenue from the sale of project power based on the

following assumptions:

The bulk of the output (90 GWh annually) is to be sold into the Juneau electrical

market to meet current and future residential and industrial demand on a firm

basis. This firm power also provides Juneau economic energy security by

providing new source of power for load growth to meet new industrial use-electric

transportation, district heat pump, server farm, other.

The balance of power can be used to seasonally supply the 2/3 of cruise ships not

currently connected to shore power in the summer; assist in switching

interruptible customers from expensive diesel to lower cost electric, to assist

AEL&P offset diesel generation during winter months in low and average water

years and to offset the small but growing demand from electrical vehicle

transportation.

The Applicant has modeled the project operation and generation for a 36 year period

of streamflows, including two 17 year periods of continuous record as described in

Exhibit B of this application. The calculated generation and revenue for the first year

of operation are as follows (2017 cost level).

Table D-6

Generation and Revenue

Levelized Net Annual Benefits

Based on the estimated power sales revenue and annual costs described above, the first

year net annual benefit will be $2,093,238 (2017 cost level). The revenue will increase

with time as the power sales rate escalates, but the annual costs will also increase at a



slower rate since most of the cost is fixed debt service with terms of 30 to 50 years. To

account for this and to provide a more complete measure of the project benefits, the

Applicant has calculated a levelized net annual benefit according to the following

assumptions:

2017 first full year of operation

The assumed non-firm energy price of $130/MWh escalates at 3.15% per.

The assumed firm energy price of $65/MWh escalates at 3.15% per year.

Operating costs escalate at 3.0% per year

30-year term of analysis

5.0% discount rate (to 2017)

Based on these assumptions, the 25-year levelized annual revenue, costs, and net benefits

will be as follows (2017 cost level):

Levelized annual revenue .......................................... $13,920,000

Levelized annual costs ............................................... $11,826,762

Levelized net annual benefits before taxes ................ $2,093,238

JHI does not represent in this estimate any indication of the future value of wholesale electric

energy or Project production levels.

4.41(e)(6) A statement describing other electric energy alternatives, such as gas, oil, coal and

nuclear-fueled powerplants and other conventional and pumped storage hydroelectric plants;

(6) ELECTRIC ENERGY ALTERNATIVES

(i) Fossil-Fueled Power Plants

The Applicant does not consider fossil-fueled power plants (i.e., coal, natural gas, oil, or nuclear)

to be legitimate alternatives to the Project, even though the cost of power from such sources may,

in some cases, be less than the cost of power from the Project. Diesel fuel prices have

aggressively and steadily increased 42.8% since the preliminary permit was awarded for this

project. The State of Alaska projections3 for its North Slope oil revenues are predicted to be

higher in the future which translates that diesel fuel prices are not expected to abate or decrease

over the life of this project. There are no supplies or supply chain logistics, or distribution

networks from coal or natural gas suppliers for the community of Juneau. In 2011, Juneau

energy was consumed for transportation (43%), buildings (40%), mining (12%), and powering

various kinds of heavy equipment (5%). The burning of fossil fuels generates 75% of local

energy used, mostly for transportation and home heating. Electricity, which powers most

3 State of Alaska Dept. of Revenue predictions Commissioner of Revenue, Bryan Butcher’s letter to Governor Parnell dated

December 15, 2011 for the Fall 2011 Revenue Sources book:

http://www.tax.alaska.gov//programs/documentviewer/viewer.aspx?2443f

http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/documentviewer/viewer.aspx?2443f



lighting, appliances, and some building heating systems, provides the remaining 25% of energy

consumed in the borough4.

The Juneau firm ratepayer demand increased by 5.66% from 2010 to 2011

5. This capacity is

more economical to fill with additional hydropower resources built at economies of scale than

from fossil fuel or other alternative sources.

Additionally, the City and Borough of Juneau’s Comprehensive Plan and the City and Borough

of Juneau’s Climate Action Plan call for the reduction of fossil fuel use and therefore it is

unlikely that additional major fossil fueled power plants will meet local public acceptance.

Therefore the Applicant believes that the only legitimate and cost effective alternatives are other

renewable energy sources. Accordingly, no description of fossil-fueled or nuclear powered

alternatives is provided in this Exhibit.

(ii) Other Hydroelectric Power Plants

There are other existing hydroelectric projects in the City and Borough of Juneau of

larger size, comparable and of smaller size that operate at varying efficiencies. There are

no transmission interconnections to Juneau for any project located outside the City and

Borough of Juneau and no interconnection is foreseeable at this time. These existing

local hydroelectric facilities operate at maximum efficiency in low and average water

years. Each of these projects has their own macro economics, environmental

considerations and feasibility/financing considerations. While the internal cost

projections of these projects is not shared publicly, it is highly unlikely, based on

hydrology and construction cost from their engineering aspects, that any of the yet

preliminarily planned and unconstructed projects are competitive in power cost with the

Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project. Sweetheart Lake has been analyzed by the US

Government for construction on several occasions in the past and the determination not to

proceed was due to lack of market for the generated power. Market conditions have

changed and the demand for electricity in Juneau is now present and growing.

Because of these characteristics, the Applicant expects that the Project will be

competitive in future power considerations with the local Juneau utility and with

industrial customers outside the Juneau service area.

The Applicant does not consider pumped storage hydroelectric to be an economically

feasible or legitimate alternative to the Project. Pumped storage is valuable for utilizing

excess baseload generation and for allowing integration of intermittent generation, such

as generation by wind and solar projects. There is a significant loss of energy involved

with pumped storage. The Project is primarily a direct substitute for fossil-fueled

generation and a direct substitute for diesel home heating. With its significant amount of

storage, the Project could also be used to lower costs for AEL&P through strategic use of

water management for their portfolio of hydropower facilities with the integration of the

Project.

4 City and Borough of Juneau Climate Action Plan. November 2011 5 AELP Tariff 400-1 December 13, 2011, Sales Report



4.41(e)(7) A statement and evaluation of the consequences of denial of the license application

and a brief perspective of what future use would be made of the proposed site if the proposed

project were not constructed;

(7) CONSEQUENCES OF LICENSE APPLICATION DENIAL

If the license application is denied, then the renewable energy that could be generated by the

Project would not be available to displace generation by fossil fuels now or in the immediate

future. The Project would provide energy security and a hedge against the continuous cost

increases in diesel home heating fuels. These community benefits would be denied with a license

denial. The energy security and the hedge against future fuel oil increases leave the capital city

of Alaska vulnerable and at risk with diesel fuel price volatility. Home heating fuel prices have

increased over a $1.286 (42.8%) Table D-4 since the Applicant received the Project preliminary

permit for a first preliminary permit in 2009 to January 2013. Once the Project is built, the cost

of electricity from the project will be stable, predictable and create a hedge against fuel cost

inflation for the community of Juneau. The safeguard against future oil increases is in itself a

persuasive public benefit reason to approve the license application.

Another aspect is that the Project meets the City and Borough of Juneau’s Climate Action Plan

goals of reducing Greenhouse Gasses and Pollutants. Although FERC regulations do not request

Applicants to quantify these costs, the Project will significantly reduce and offset the amount of

emissions and pollutants generated in the City and Borough of Juneau. As Table D-6 and D-7

depict, the Project generation of 116 GWh will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in the City

and Borough of Juneau by 116,002,384 kg (or 255,205,244 lbs).7

Table D-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Criteria Pollutants reduced by 1 kWh of hydropower

Source: International Carbon Bank & Exchange

Table D-7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Criteria Pollutants reduced by Sweetheart Lake

Hydroelectric Project

6 Alaska Department of Commerce Current Community Conditions Alaska Fuel Price Reports July 2011- January 2013

7 International Carbon Bank & Exchange, calculating greenhouse gasses http://www.icbe.com/emissions/calculate.asp

CO2 1 CO 0.00015

CH4 0.00001 NMVOC's 0.00002

N2 O 0.00001 SO2 0.005

SF6 0.00000055 NOx 0.0025

Greenhouse Gases kg Criteria Pollutants kg

http://www.icbe.com/emissions/calculate.asp



Furthermore, there are unquantifiable health benefits associated by offsetting diesel electrical

generation and diesel space heating with Project generation. These benefits of reduced green

house gas emissions and lower levels of pollutants would be lost as a consequence if the

Applicant is not granted a license.

4.41(e)(8) A statement specifying the sources and extent of financing and annual revenues

available to the applicant to meet the costs identified in paragraphs (e) (1) and (4) of this

section;

(8) SOURCES AND EXTENT OF FINANCING

The Project is a large investment that is within the capability of the Applicant and its

shareholders to finance through either equity or debt. Therefore, the Applicant anticipates

raising capital but more likely debt to secure financing the construction and initial operation of

the Project. The Applicant’s analysis, as summarized in this Exhibit D of this DLA, indicates

that the value of the Project exceeds the cost by a significant amount such that the project

remains an attractive renewable energy investment.

As mentioned previously in this Exhibit D of this DLA, the Applicant will avail the Project to

governmental loans and loan guarantees designed to incentivize rural energy development and

specifically hydropower and combine these loans with private financing.

(9)An estimate of the cost to develop the license application; and

(9) COST TO DEVELOP LICENSE APPLICATION

The estimated cost to develop the FERC license application to date exceeds $2.2 million. These

costs include administration and management, legal, engineering, geological services, hydrologic

services, environmental contractor services, surveying, LIDAR mapping services, support

services, special use permit fees, transportation, other contractors and accounting. The Applicant

management has also developed several plans as environmental measures that are attached as

Appendices to the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment that is a component of this

Application. All of environmental measure plans and development costs are included in the cost

to develop this license application to date.

This cost to develop this license application is included in design and preconstruction fees listed

in Table D-1 of $3,680,000. This amount includes all funds expended to date and projected to

provide design construction packages through licensing.



(10) The on-peak and off-peak values of project power, and the basis for estimating the values,

for projects which are proposed to operate in a mode other than run-of-river.

(10) ON and OFF PEAK VALUES OF PROJECT POWER

The Project does not intend to sell into a market that currently differentiates between Peak and

Off Peak. The Project, as proposed will operate as a storage project. The project will generate

approximately 90 GWh of firm power and associated values with the approximate balance of the

annual production approximately 26 GWh at non-firm. The value of the firm power was rated

higher than non-firm demand even though this non-firm production will likely offset more

expensive diesel generation. The 90 GWh of firm production may be a conservative estimate. In

the Applicants power output analysis the average annual output for the Project is 116 GWh, as

described in this application. The basis for estimating values of the energy was based on an

internal optimization analysis looked at a variety of factors, such as underserved demand in the

Juneau area (and beyond the utility service area), current and future demand over the life of the

project stabilizing capacity and current avoided costs.

ferc no. p-13563 - juneau hydropower dla pdea... · enclosed is the successive preliminary draft...

Documents