Oakland University Feasibility Study 03-30-2008 final

WIND ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Prepared by:

ALTERNATE ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC. Gratiot Office Plaza – 2nd Floor

23801 Gratiot Ave. Eastpointe, Michigan 48021

Phone: (586) 498-8840 Facsimile: (586) 498-8858

March 30, 2008

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This study has been prepared by Alternate Energy Solutions, Inc. (“AESI”) for presentation

to the Facilities Management Department of Oakland University (“Oakland”) per the

requirements of the Agreement between Oakland and AESI. The staff of AESI and our

retained engineering associates used their collective best efforts to compile the information

in this feasibility study for the benefit of Oakland using a conservative mindset.

This Study has been prepared from information gathered by AESI, which makes no promises,

guarantees, or representations as to the accuracy or completeness of this document,

including, without restriction, economic and financial projection, and risk evaluation. No

part of this Study should be construed as legal, financial, or tax advice.

This document shall be considered confidential and proprietary, and is intended for the

internal use of Oakland only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by Oakland in writing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................... 3

3.0 SITE VISITS AND LOCATION OPTIONS........................................................ 6

4.0 WIND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 17

5.0 WIND TURBINE GENERATOR SELECTION ............................................... 27

6.0 ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .................... 33

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................... 41

8.0 SITING AND PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS......................................... 45

9.0 BUSINESS STRUCTURE AND FINANCING MODELS ............................... 50

10.0 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES ......................................................................... 54

11.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 62

12.0 CASE STUDIES OF SIMILAR PROJECTS ..................................................... 93

13.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................... 97

14.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 99

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A MICHIGAN SITING GUIDELINES FOR WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS

APPENDIX B AWE DOCUMENTATION 54-900 WIND TURBINE

APPENDIX C ENERCON DOCUMENTATION E82 WIND TURBINE

APPENDIX D AAER WIND ENERGY DOCUMENTATION A1500-77 WIND TURBINE

APPENDIX E FUHRLANDER DOCUMENTATION 1500/77 WIND TURBINE

APPENDIX F BONNEVILLE FOUNDATION REC SALES AND PURCHASE

AGREEMENT (SHORT FORM)

APPENDIX G PRO FORMA SCHEDULES

APPENDIX H AVERAGE RETAIL PRICE OF ELECTRICITY (2002-2007)

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF SITE OPTIONS FOR TURBINES

FIGURE 2 CAMPUS TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATIONS � 268 m (880 ft)



FIGURE 5 PROPOSED SITE LOCATION 1

FIGURE 6 PROPOSED SITE LOCATION 2

FIGURE 7 PROPOSED SITE LOCATION 3 AND 4

FIGURE 8 MICHIGAN WIND MAPS OAKLAND REGION

FIGURE 9 LOGARITHMIC AND POWER LAW EXTRAPOLATED VELOCITIES

UNFILTERED RAW DATA

FIGURE 10 LOGARITHMIC AND POWER LAW EXTRAPOLATED VELOCITIES

FILTERED DATA <1 m/s

FIGURE 11 COMPARISON OF WIND TURBINE POWER CURVES

FIGURE 12 COMPARISON OF VESTAS V90 AND V100 POWER CURVES

FIGURE 13 SCHEMA OF PROPOSED WIND TURBINE ELECTRICAL

INTERCONNECTION

FIGURE 14 SECTION VIEW OF WIND TURBINE FOUNDATION PEDESTAL

LIST OF FIGURES (CONT’D)

FIGURE 15 THREADED ROD ASSEMBLY IN EXCAVATION HOLE

FIGURE 16 REINFORCING STEEL ROD MATRIX AND THREADED ASSEMBLY

FIGURE 17 FINISHED CONCRETE FOUNDATION PEDISTAL

FIGURE 18 SATELLITE PHOTO SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN

FIGURE 19 SATELLITE PHOTO OAKLAND UNIVERSITY

FIGURE 20 FOREST CITY SCHOOL’S WIND TURBINE

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 SITE ELEVATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS

TABLE 2 MICHIGAN WIND MAP VELOCITY PROJECTIONS

TABLE 3 SURFACE ROUGHNESS VALUES VARIOUS TERRAINS

TABLE 4 POWER LAW EXPONENTS FOR VARIOUS TERRAINS

TABLE 5 COMPARISION OF MEAN WIND SPEEDS USING UNFILTERED AND

FILTERED DATA

TABLE 6 MEAN WIND SPEEDS USED FOR WIND TURBINE EVALUATION

TABLE 7 ENERGY CAPTURE FOR AAER/FUHRLANDER A-1500-77 AT 80 m

TABLE 8 ENERGY CAPTURE FOR AAER/FUHRLANDER A-1500-77 AT 100 m

TABLE 9 ENERGY CAPTURE FOR AMERICAS WIND ENERGY AWE 54-900

AT 75 m

TABLE 10 ENERGY CAPTURE FOR ENERCON E82 AT 80 m

TABLE 11 ENERGY CAPTURE FOR NORDEX S77 AT 100 m

TABLE 12 ENERGY CAPTURE FOR VESTAS V90 AT 100 m

TABLE 13 DETAIL DETROIT EDISON PRIMARY SUPPLY RATE (D6)

TABLE 14 AVIAN SPECIES WATCH LIST OAKLAND UNIVERSITY AREA

TABLE 15 VERTICAL DIMENSIONS FOR WIND TURBINES

TABLE 16 HORIZONTAL DISTANCES FROM POINTS OF REFERENCE

TABLE 17 ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS BASED ON 104 db(A) AT NACELLE

LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D) TABLE 18 COMPARATIVE INSTALLATION COST FOR SELECTED TURBINES

AND PROPOSED SITES

TABLE 19 COST ESTIMATES FOR LOCATION 1

TABLE 20 COST ESTIMATES FOR LOCATION 2

TABLE 21 COST ESTIMATES FOR LOCATION 3 (OPTION 1)




TABLE 25. UNIT COST OF ENERGY RELATIONSHIP FOR TURBINES AND LOCATIONS

TABLES FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR TURBINE LOCATIONS 1-4:

TABLES 26(a)-(f) ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 80 m

TABLES 27(a)-(f) ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 100 m

TABLES 28(a)-(f) ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AWE 54-900 75 m

TABLES 29(a)-(f) ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ENERCON E82 78 m

TABLES 30(a)-(f) ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF VESTAS V90 100 m

1

1.0 Executive Summary

The Oakland University Wind Energy Feasibility Study has determined that the wind resource at

Oakland’s Main Campus holds the potential to support wind turbine development for the primary

purpose of offsetting electrical energy consumption. The scope of study focused on select wind

turbine generators having nameplate ratings between 900 kW and 3,000 kW. Wind turbines with

rotor hub heights of 75 m, 80 m and 100 m were evaluated. Taller towers were available

depending on manufacturer, but were not part of the scope of this document.

The Study determined that the Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) for a wind turbine generator installed

on main campus would likely fall into the $0.085/kW-h to $0.101/kW-h range. UCE is cost that

would be incurred for the generation of each kilowatt-hour of energy if a facility were to be built.

UCE and cost/kW installed are standard industry measures. Both were calculated using

conservative estimates for wind speed, energy capture and initial capital cost expenditures,

applied over the expected 25-year life-cycle for the project provided the wind turbine generators

are placed at elevations of 80 m and 100 m as discussed herein.

The Study had, as an initial scope of work, the evaluation of three wind turbines at one installed

location. The Energy Manager requested that the Study be expanded to include the four proposed

locations identified in this document as Locations 1, 2, 3, and 4. Furthermore, Locations 3 and 4

were further evaluated with two feeder interconnect options identified as Option 1 and Option 2.

More detail on locations which were reviewed can be found in Section 3 - Site Visits and

Location Options. Of the four locations, we found that Locations 1 and 2 have the most

economic promise for development based on construction costs, disruption to campus grounds,

and the wind data collected and analyzed. Wind turbines having nameplate ratings of 1.5 MW

could be developed at either Location 1 or 2 for approximately $3,500,000 per turbine.

We recommend that the administration of Oakland University carefully consider the installation

of two 1.5 MW wind turbines manufactured by AAER of Canada. Total initial capital cost for

the project is estimated at $7,100,000 with a projected average annual electrical generation of

6,075,838 kW-h of energy.

2

The unit cost of energy from two turbines is estimated at $0.0887/kW-h with project payback

conservatively estimated over 16 years, using a 3% escalation factor for inflation. We believe

that the historical inflation rate for the cost of electrical energy (traditionally given by economists

as 3%) will not hold and will increase to an estimated rate of 4.5-4.8%. The anticipated increase

is expected due to increased demand, fuels costs and inflation in the underlying materials and

labor used to construct new generating baseload facilities.

Additional inflation risk from increased emission controls, renewable portfolio standards, and

carbon taxes or carbon cap-and-trade allowances are complex and have not been factored into

our estimate. Over the past five years the inflation rate for electrical energy prices encompassing

the residential, commercial and industrial sectors has averaged above 4.5%. The national average

cost of electricity ending December 2007 was $0.0914/kW-h compared to December 2002 price

of $0.0720/kW-h, according to the Department of Energy (see Appendix H).

It is important to emphasize that performance results will likely exceed the pro forma estimates

contained within this document, given the high degree of wind shear present in the data recorded

at main campus. Higher tower elevations will have improved energy capture operating results;

therefore, UCE could be reduced by a factor of 5-10%, depending on actual wind velocities

realized at the higher rotor hub elevations. Pro forma estimates and project payback may be

additionally bolstered by a higher than 3% inflation in the price of electricity.

A wind power density map should be commissioned for the main campus as part of the

engineering, normally prepared in the engineering phase of project development. This will

provide additional insight on wind power density at the elevations of 80 m and or 100 m. The

result from the mapping and micro-siting will be used to further refine economic pro forma

schedules. At such time, a definitive choice pertaining to tower height and how it will affect

system payback would be made.

3

2.0 Introduction and Background

Using the wind to generate electricity is not new technology; rather, it is the innovative

integration of existing technologies applied in a new way. From the small 10 kW wind turbines

first installed in California twenty years ago to the Enercon E-126 6,000 kW prototype recently

announced (126 m diameter rotor), wind power is rapidly growing in the United States and

internationally. The industry is posting a +20% annual growth rate for the past five years.

In recent years there has been increasing attention focused on understanding and quantifying the

impact of wind turbine development on numerous air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Global climate change is now widely recognized as fact, not fiction, and this increased awareness

by governments and concerned individuals across the world has placed additional focus on fossil

fuel emissions and improving the environment.

We need only look across the border to understand that renewable energy and wind power is at

our door. Last year the Province of Ontario, in an effort to bolster electrical supply and stem the

rising cost of electricity, announced the Ontario Power Authority Renewable Energy Standard

Offer Program (RESOP). The OPA’s RESOP is a feed-in tariff guarantee for electricity

generated by wind power and solar power. The price that the OPA guarantees to wind

generators is $110/MW-h ($0.11/Kw-h) and solar producers will receive $440/MW-h

($0.44/kW-h). Hundreds of proponent corporations and municipal entities have registered

projects with the OPA in the past year that the standard offer has been in effect. The contracts are

indexed to inflation.

Renewable generation has two inherent advantages. Once the resource is naturally replenished

and generating electrical energy from wind, the turbines produce zero direct emissions of air

pollutants. This positive attribute stands in vivid contrast to the emissions that are released each

day by fossil-fuel fired generators. In addition to zero direct emissions, wind power displaces an

equal amount of generation from fossil fuel generators which have direct emission of pollutants

into the environment.

4

The primary pollutants that are offset by wind generation include: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,

particulate matter, mercury, volatile organic compounds, trace heavy metals, and carbon dioxide.

The state of Michigan has over the years dealt with several notable pollution issues, from acid

rain and haze to mercury contamination which transfers from the air into the water of our Great

Lakes and farmlands, affecting the food chain. Eight counties in southeastern Michigan have

been designated by the federal government as Non-Attainment Counties for PM-2.5 and/or the 8-

hour Ozone Standard, namely, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,

Wayne and Washtenaw.

When wind energy is compared to fossil fuel-fired generation, it tends to have an economic

advantage and may be the preferred power source because operating costs to run wind turbines

are generally very low, i.e., no fuel cost. When turbines produce electrical energy, electric

generation supply from other sources will be reduced or not brought on-line. In most all cases,

the more expensive generators will have their output power reduced or “backed-down”. This is

the “avoided” cost to the utility generator. A number of investor-owned utilities are embracing

wind power over coal-fired generation and have made major investments into wind power

project development.

In Michigan, wind power has experienced a slow start. The investor-owned utilities have resisted

the implementation of renewable energy resources as part of diversifying their generation asset

portfolios. For many years considerable opposition has been encountered with enacting net-

metering rules so that consumers could receive an economic benefit for energy generated by on-

site resources and technology that would be sold back to the electrical infrastructure. Net-

metering did pass in Michigan; however, with a meager 30kw limit it has dubious value,

essentially being written for those who cannot effectively utilize the net-metering rule. A

Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) has been debated in Lansing over the past year. The RPS

was recently sidelined and is to be included in the state’s energy bill advocating that electric

choice be rescinded, having the potential to effectively remove new competition from the electric

utility sector.

5

With the profound economic downturn being experienced by the nation and our state, emphasis

is being placed on renewable energy technologies to diversify the state’s manufacturing base and

provide much needed employment to a displaced workforce. The falling U.S. dollar has created a

unique opportunity for manufacturers in our state to capitalize on the manufacturing wind turbine

components as foreign wind turbine manufacturers begin to take a serious look at Michigan.

Background

Alternate Energy Solutions, Inc. was commissioned by Oakland University to complete an

evaluation of the feasibility of integrating wind energy with the existing electrical distribution

and substation infrastructure on the main campus located in Rochester, Michigan. The work

completed as part of this undertaking included the collection of wind data for approximately two

years, review of the electrical substation and distribution feeder diagrams, several site visits to

inspect each of four possible turbine location options, investigating potential avian

environmental issues for the region, estimating construction costs for each of four proposed wind

turbine locations using two wind turbines having different generator nameplates and tower

heights, and developing a pro-forma for project’s cash flow respective of the options identified.

Upon the completion of the data collection presented in the document entitled Meteorological

Tower Data Compilation and Analysis – Oakland University, this report was prepared to discuss

the four sites considered on main campus, and to evaluate the feasibility of installing wind

turbines based on wind resource, initial capital cost, construction constraints, and operating cost.

The rationale for investigating electrical energy generation through the use of wind energy

conversion systems by Oakland is twofold. First and foremost is the offset current electrical

consumption providing a financial hedge against escalating energy costs; the second, equally

important consideration, was to set an example of environmental stewardship for the community.

6

3.0 Site Visits and Location Options

The first visit to main campus for evaluating prospective wind turbine installation locations was

conducted during the summer of 2007 with Terry Stollsteimer, Vice President for Facilities

Management, James Tallman, Director of Engineering, and James Leidel, Energy Manager. A

total of six possible sites were explored, each given careful consideration, before arriving at a

final site list for scrutiny under this feasibility study.

On January 2, 2008 the formal site visit and engineering meeting was held at Oakland for the

purpose of initiating this feasibility study. The final site list was trimmed to four options chosen

by Mr. Leidel and conveyed to AESI. Mr. Leidel directed AESI with regard to general project

scope envisioned by the university, wind turbine siting considerations, and recent discussions

held the Energy Manager’s office with DTE Energy regarding the introduction of wind turbine

generation on campus.

The four sites that were ultimately selected by the Energy Manager for this study were:

Location 1 Southeast of Spencer Substation;

Location 2 West of Grounds & Maintenance Building;

Location 3 South of Galloway Creek; and

Location 4 Minor Ridge South of Galloway Creek.

In this Study, sites were evaluated on various factors which included accessibility to electrical

infrastructure, roads and transportation, construction staging areas, crane access, elevation and

cost to restoring grounds disturbed by construction.

7

TABLE 1. SITE ELEVATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS

SITE ELEVATION DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION

DIFFICULTY JURISDICTION

Location 1 (L1) 272 m ( 882 ft.) Soft slope, trees and grass Minimal Rochester Hills

Location 2 (L2) 269 m ( 880 ft.) Hill, trees and grass Minimal Rochester Hills

Location 3 (L3) 262 m ( 860 ft.) Hill, trees and grass Moderate/High Auburn Hills

Location 4 (L4) 268 m ( 880 ft.) Small ridge, trees and grass Moderate Auburn Hills

Note: Elevations for sites taken were taken from topographic maps provided by Oakland University.

In terms of elevation, the sites have an average level of 267.8 m ±5.6 m (878.5 ft ±18.5 ft).

Location 1 has the highest elevation and Location 3 the lowest elevation. Campus elevations

range from 283.5 m (930 ft) to 252.4 m (828 ft). The higher elevations are to the south and

southwest of the campus footprint made up of a number of hills and an 18-hole golf course.

The Oakland campus is fed from the DTE Spencer substation (“Spencer”) located east of

Squirrel Rd. and south of Lone Rd. Underground feeders extend from the substation to various

campus building load centers; of particular interest is the feeder running eastward alongside

Lonedale Rd. to the north of the Spencer substation. Locations 1, 2, 3 and 4 are labeled on the

map for reference.

8

9

FIGURE 2. CAMPUS TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATIONS Oakland University Elevation � 268 m (880 ft)

10

FIGURE 3. CAMPUS TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATIONS Oakland University Elevation � 274 m (900 ft)

11

FIRGURE 4. CAMPUS TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATIONS Oakland University Elevation � 280 m (920 ft)

12

Location 1 (L1) – Southeast of Spencer Substation

This location was selected first due to its near proximity to existing campus electrical

infrastructure. It is approximately 300 ft south of the DTE Spencer substation where electrical

distribution feeders radiate from the north side of the substation facility shown below. The DTE

Spencer substation was constructed on Oakland’s main campus and consists of the Edison side

(south) for receiving primary transmission for the university, and the Oakland side (north) for the

step-down of voltage and overcurrent protection of lower voltage distribution feeders throughout

the campus. Geotechnical information for the area is on file, being required for the engineering

and subsequent construction of the substation.

Lonedale Rd.

Even though Location 1 is very close to the substation, the feeder distance was not the shortest of

the four sites considered. In this investigation, it was decided to route the turbine conductors into

the Oakland side of the Spencer substation and use a spare breaker position in the switch gear

unit as the point of coupling. The cost of construction of a wind turbine at Location 1 was higher

than that of Location 2 partly due to work at the substation and distance for feeders. Feeders

from the wind turbine were to be encased in a conduit duct-bank.

13

Heavy equipment maneuverability and the available area for staging wind turbine components

prior to assembly were deemed to be adequate. Minor clearing of trees and overgrowth would be

required before delivery of wind turbine components and commencing construction.

In our investigation of this location, we did not know whether Oakland would be open to

construction traffic through the south side of the campus along Pioneer Drive. Therefore, we

elected to incorporate in our cost estimate for L1 the construction of an access road off of North

Squirrel Rd. Access to location L1 from Lonedale Rd. does not afford sufficient turning radius

for equipment entrance and egress.

Location 2 (L2) – West of Grounds & Maintenance Building

Location 2 is on a small hilltop approximately 298 ft south of Pioneer Drive opposite of the

Engineering Building (EB) and west of the Grounds and Building Maintenance Building. The

hilltop is covered by small trees, grass and shrubs. This site option has the advantage of having

the shortest distance from a proposed wind turbine location to feeder conductors at Electrical

Manhole # 58.

14

Location 3 (L3) – South of Galloway Creek

This site is on a hilltop approximately 195 ft south of Galloway Creek which is approximately

5.5m (18 ft) wide. Galloway Creek generally runs east and west across the main campus. This

Site Option is identified in the Figure 5 below; roughly 2,430 ft west of Adams Rd. and 3,475 ft

north of River Oaks Blvd. The site is covered by grown trees and grass. This location would pose

staging difficulties for crane maneuverability and layout of components prior to construction of

the wind turbine.

Construction costs for Location 3 were estimated higher than the other three site options. This

location would require special access routes from the north side of the campus and crossing

Galloway Creek, which would cause problems and delays with encroachment into the wetlands,

and the costs of constructing an adequate bridge or culvert across Galloway Creek. To

accommodate the request of the Energy Manager, we elected to estimate the cost of an alternate

route necessitating the use of Butler Rd., along the southern fringe of the golf course, as the

primary access. We were not directed to estimate the cost of constructing a bridge or culvert in

order to cross Galloway Creek.

Lacking any detailed flow or dimensional data that would be relative to the existing bridge over

Galloway Creek, we have used the topographic map for the area to develop a general set of

design parameters for a new heavier duty crossing. We estimate the existing bridge clearance

span to be approximately 20 feet with a waterway clearance estimated at approximately 3 feet,

below the bottom side of the existing bridge deck. Our online research indicates that Galloway

Creek is not a USGS monitored stream and therefore flow data is not readily available. A check

of the Oakland County Drain Commission also did not provide any flow information.

In our judgment the construction of a new, heavy duty bridge to span this portion of Galloway

Creek would be simply too expensive for access to either Location 3 or 4. The anticipated axle

loads of the vehicles crossing this structure could range between 15,000 pounds to 26,000

pounds, with the higher end numbers considerably above nominal highway design loads.

15

Under the Energy Manager’s direction, the cost for electrical circuit routing was calculated for

two different points of coupling into the east campus feeder bus, and will be identified as the

Option 1 (eastward feeder) and the Option 2 (westward feeder). Because of the wetland area and

creek to the north, a combination of trenching and underground boring beneath Galloway Creek

for electrical circuit routing was evaluated. This site received the highest cost estimate for

construction and project completion.

Location 4 (L4) – Minor Ridge South of Galloway Creek

The site option is on a small ridge approximately 642 ft south of Location 3. The site is covered

by grown trees and grass. In comparison to Location 3, this site has a marginally better staging

area just to the south for the construction of a wind turbine generator.

This proposed site has essentially the same construction requirements as Location 3, with the

exception of continuing the service road. Again, estimates for routing feeders from the proposed

site going eastward (Option 1) and westward (Option 2) were made and are given later in this

document. Should Oakland choose to develop on Locations 3 and 4, and not elect to improve

roads from the south as described above, we would recommend the following for a northerly

approach.

16

A pair of pre-cast reinforced concrete box culverts with an inside dimension of 8 ft x 5 ft could

be assembled to traverse Galloway Creek. Each culvert being 20 feet long, they would together

provide a total waterway crossing area of 800 square feet. We would recommend new soil

borings to determine the amount of undercut that would be required along with the amount of

stone bedding that would be needed to provide adequate support for the box culverts.

Permits may need to be obtained from the Army Corp of Engineers, the Oakland County Drain

Commission, the Michigan DNR and the Michigan DOT. Oakland’s property is identified as

state land and, therefore, under special jurisdiction and permitting regulations.

Improvements to Butler Rd would be required to handle the construction traffic. The

construction of a temporary road would also commence just east of the #15 Green and proceed

northward through the #4 and #16 Tees for a distance of approximately 500 ft. The road would

continue in a northwesterly heading for an additional 1,200 ft, crossing the #5 Fairway. At this

point the road would then progress in a northeasterly direction around the base of the hill, for

about 700 ft. to the top of the hill, the proposed worksite. An additional 400 ft. of roadway

crossing Fairway #14 would be required to reach Location 3. Geotechnical samples would be

required along the final roadway route to determine actual soil strength and road design.

17

4. Wind Resource Assessment

AESI has developed an initial wind resource assessment for Oakland from 22 months of wind

data collected by a 50 meter meteorological tower located on campus. We used the collected data

from the meteorological tower, the Michigan Wind Energy Map and the Canadian Wind Atlas to

develop this wind speed assessment. Energy capture computations were performed using

industry standard Mistaya Engineering, Windographer Analysis Version 1.12, under license to

AESI.

Michigan Wind Speed Maps Oakland is located on the fringe of wind contours as illustrated on the following wind speed

maps. These wind maps are low resolution and provide a general estimate of average wind speed.

Referencing the Michigan Wind Energy Maps for 70 m and 100 m elevations, the following

wind speed estimates are given by the forthcoming cartography:

Figure 8. Michigan Wind Maps of Oakland University Region (Blue)

70 m Wind Velocity Contour 100 m Wind Velocity Contour

Color mph m/s

Courtesy Michigan Energy Office

18

The mean annual wind speeds for Oakland’s main campus area inferred from the previous wind

maps are arrange in the following table by elevation and velocity.

TABLE 2. MICHIGAN WIND MAP VELOCITY PROJECTIONS

Michigan Wind Map Data

Mapped Elevation Projected Wind Velocity (m/s) Projected Wind Velocity (mph) 70 m 5.5 – 6.0 12.3 – 13.4

100 m 6.5 – 7.0 14.5 – 15.7

Wind Shear Assessment

The importance of characterizing the wind shear at a given location under consideration for a

utility scale wind turbine cannot be overemphasized. Wind shear describes the change of wind

velocity as a function of elevation above ground. Understanding wind shear is important because

it has a direct impact on the mechanical wind power available for conversion at turbine hub

height. Wind shear also causes cyclic loading of the rotor blades. The wind speed tends to

increase with the height above ground and is affected by season, time of day, topography,

buildings, and ground cover.

In the white paper Analysis of Wind Shear Models and Trends in Different Terrains, Ray, Rogers

and McGowan, University of Massachusetts, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory(1) the

matter of error in extrapolating wind velocity in high wind shear areas was summarized by…

“Several U.S. tall towers wind data sets were used to determine the accuracies of different

wind shear methods, especially for sites having hills or heavy wooded forests. The results

showed that the most accurate predictions for hub height wind speed characterizations were

obtained when only wind speed data greater that 4 m/s (8.94 mph) were considered. Based on

a statistical analysis of the prediction errors, there was no significant difference between the

performance of the log and power laws; using either may result in inaccurate predictions of

hub height mean wind speeds.”

19

ln

lnU(z r)

U(z)=

zo

z

z r

zo

This section contains estimates for electrical production using the two most common methods of

estimating wind shear, previously mentioned above, known as the logarithmic (log) law and the

power law. The logarithmic law is founded on the principles of boundary layer airflow. The

equation is given below.

where Z is the target height,

Zr is the reference height,

U(z) is the target velocity.

U(zr) is the reference velocity, and

Zo is the surface roughness length.

Surface roughness (Zo) is a length parameter that is used to characterize wind shear. It is also the

height above ground where the wind speed is theoretically 0 m/s. Example length parameters are

provided in the following table.

TABLE 3. SURFACE ROUGHNESS VALUES VARIOUS TERRAINS

Description of Terrain Surface Roughness Length Zo (m)

Very smooth, ice or mud 0.00001

Calm open sea 0.0002 Rough sea 0.0005

Snow cover 0.003 Lawn grass 0.008

Rough pasture and grazing land 0.01 Fallow field 0.03

Crops 0.05 Scattered Trees 0.1

Trees, hedges and scattered buildings 0.25 Forest and woodland 0.5

Suburbs 1.5 City centers with tall building 3.0

20

�

=U(z )r

U(z) zz r

The logarithmic law is deficient in that it cannot be used to represent wind shear for all wind

speed conditions. The logarithmic law becomes mathematically undefined when the wind speed

at two differing elevations is the same or equal. The logarithmic law is popular among European

wind developers. In the United States, the power law method is widely used. It is an empirically

developed relationship given by the following equation.

where Z is the target height,

Zr is the reference height,

U(z) is the target velocity,

U(zr) is the reference velocity, and

�� is the power law exponent.

TABLE 4. POWER LAW EXPONENTS FOR VARIOUS TERRAINS

The logarithmic and power law methods were applied to the data collected from the Oakland

meteorological tower and extrapolated wind velocities were derived. The result was the projected

wind speeds for elevations of 75 m and higher as depicted by the following set of curve fits

provided in the diagram on the next page. The projected wind speeds were found to have

considerably lower velocities inferred from the 70 m and 100 m wind maps commissioned for

the State of Michigan. This may be due, in part, to slightly lower than average wind velocities

recorded by the Oakland met tower over the past two years as compared to the ten year mean

wind speed.

Terrain Description Power Law Exponent (��)

Smooth hard ground, lake, or ocean 0.10 Short grass on untilled ground 0.14

Level ground with foot-high grass 0.16 Tall row crops, hedges, a few trees 0.20

Many trees with occasional buildings 0.22 – 0.24 Wooded country, small towns and suburbs 0.28 – 0.30

Urban areas with tall buildings 0.4

21

The inclusion of lower wind velocities in the logarithmic and power law analysis introduces

degradative resultant wind velocities. A filter was applied to remove wind velocities that were

less than 1 m/s from wind shear analysis. Logarithmic and power law methods were applied to

the filtered data. This resulted in moderately improved wind velocities at higher elevations, but

in all cases these velocities were still lower than those inferred from the wind maps. Increasing

the floor value for wind velocities being filtered showed significant improvement in wind speed

at hub heights of 75 m, 80 m and 100 m. The results for wind shear analysis under logarithmic

and power law methods for unfiltered and filtered data (v <1 m/s) are shown in the next two

graphs. In both instances, wind velocities increased for logarithmic law and power law function

calculations.

FIGURE 9. LOGARITHMIC AND POWER LAW EXTRAPOLATED VELOCITIES (UNFILTERED RAW DATA)

22

FIGURE 10. LOGARITHMIC AND POWER LAW EXTRAPOLATED VELOCITIES (FILTERED DATA < 1 M/S)

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF MEAN WIND SPEEDS USING UNFILTERED AND FILTERED DATA

Extrapolated Wind Speeds

Unfiltered Data Filtered Data (v < 1 m/s) Elevation

Log Law Power Law Log Law Power Law

75 m 4.8 m/s 5.2 m/s 5.3 m/s 5.6 m/s

80 m 5.1 m/s 5.4 m/s 5.5 m/s 5.8 m/s

100 m 5.5 m/s 6.2 m/s 5.9 m/s 6.6 m/s

110 m 5.7 m/s 6.4 m/s 6.1 m/s 6.9 m/s

In the course of producing the energy capture estimates, the staff of AESI opted to take the

prudent and pessimistic position that the resolution and number of data validation points used to

produce the wind maps for the entire State of Michigan did not incorporate sufficient correlated

data populations to carry significant statistical weight. At the time of their release, the 70 m and

100 m wind maps were not validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

23

Hence, we chose to utilize the lower mean wind speeds derived from the filtered data (v <1 m/s)

in our energy capture and subsequent economic analysis.

The selected wind turbines were evaluated with the projected mean wind speed at hub height.

For this feasibility study, wind turbine performance was adjusted to match the lower mean

velocities at hub heights of 75 m, 80 m and 100 m derived from the logarithmic law curve using

data filtering. Accordingly, energy capture was estimated and noted for each of the wind turbine

manufactured units listed below.

TABLE 6. MEAN WIND SPEEDS USED FOR WIND TURBINE EVALUATION

Manufacturer Model Nameplate Hub Height Evaluation Height

Estimated Mean Wind Speed

AAER/ Fuhrlander A-1500-77 1,500 kW 80 m 80 m 5.5 m/s

AAER/ Fuhrlander FL1500-77 1,500 kW 115 m 100 m 5.9 m/s

Americas Wind Energy AWE 54-900 900 kW 75 m 75 m 5.3 m/s

Enercon E82 2,050 kW 98 m 80 m 5.5 m/s

Nordex S77 1,500 kW 112 m 100 m 5.9 m/s

Vestas V90/V100 3,000 kW/ 2,750 kW 100 m 100 m 5.9 m/s

24

TABLE 7. ENERGY CAPTURE FOR AAER/FUHRLANDER 1500-77 AT 80 m (ESTIMATED)

TABLE 8. ENERGY CAPTURE FOR AAER/FUHRLANDER 1500-77 AT 100 m (ESTIMATED)

Month Valid Data

Points

Hub Height Wind Speed

(m/s)

% Time at Zero Output

% Time at Rated Output

Average Net Power

Output (kW)

Average Net

Energy Output (kWh)

Average Net

Capacity Factor

Jan 4,674 4.54 39.15 0.94 304 225,894 20.2 Feb 5,094 6.22 10.17 3.28 426 286,305 28.4 Mar 8,928 6.03 12.12 2.92 379 281,833 25.3 Apr 8,640 6.13 9.16 3.52 383 275,704 25.5 May 8,928 5.39 12.26 0.29 249 185,288 16.6 Jun 8,640 4.83 20.02 0.16 187 134,393 12.4 Jul 8,928 5.22 13.63 0.25 220 163,435 14.6 Aug 8,928 4.64 22.66 0.08 164 122,054 10.9 Sep 8,640 5.16 15.08 0.15 221 159,391 14.8 Oct 8,928 6.19 8.78 1.83 385 286,600 25.7 Nov 8,640 5.51 14.49 1.91 301 216,490 20.0 Dec 8,928 6.12 14.10 3.58 418 310,662 27.8 Total(1) 97,896 5.51 15.20 1.54 298 2,614,644 19.9

Month Valid Data

Points


(m/s)



Average Net Power

Output (kW)

Average Net

Energy Output (kWh)

Average Net

Capacity Factor


25

TABLE 9. ENERGY CAPTURE FOR AMERICAS WIND ENERGY AWE 54-900 AT 75 m (ESTIMATED)

TABLE 10. ENERGY CAPTURE FOR ENERCON E82 AT 80 m (ESTIMATED)

Month Valid Data

Points


(m/s)



Average Net Power

Output (kW)

Average Net

Energy Output (kWh)

Average Net

Capacity Factor

Jan 4,674 4.38 35.39 0.04 147 109,178 16.3 Feb 5,094 6.05 6.81 0.88 214 143,498 23.7 Mar 8,928 5.86 6.44 1.11 191 142,071 21.2 Apr 8,640 5.98 4.18 0.64 195 140,298 21.7 May 8,928 5.21 5.25 0.01 124 92,453 13.8 Jun 8,640 4.67 9.91 0.01 94.5 68,019 10.5 Jul 8,928 5.04 6.09 0.06 110 81,498 12.2 Aug 8,928 4.48 11.63 0.01 83.5 62,102 9.3 Sep 8,640 4.96 7.36 0.00 109 78,137 12.1 Oct 8,928 5.96 4.22 0.25 186 138,557 20.7 Nov 8,640 5.32 8.56 0.44 150 108,359 16.7 Dec 8,928 5.91 9.78 0.99 207 153,693 23.0 Total(1) 97,896 5.33 8.65 0.36 149 1,302,504 16.5

Month Valid Data

Points


(m/s)



Average Net Power

Output (kW)

Average Net

Energy Output (kWh)

Average Net

Capacity Factor


26

TABLE 11. ENERGY CAPTURE FOR NORDEX S77 AT 100 m (ESTIMATED)

TABLE 12. ENERGY CAPTURE FOR VESTAS V90 AT 100 m (ESTIMATED)

Note: Additional investigation is required with the V-100 due to the size and lower trajectory of the rotor blades with respect to wind shear.

Month Valid Data

Points

Hub Height Wind Speed (m/s)



Average Net Power

Output (kW)

Average Net

Energy Output (kWh)

Average Net

Capacity Factor


Month Valid Data

Points

Hub Height Wind Speed (m/s)



Average Net

Power Output (kW)

Average Net Energy Output (kWh)

Average Net

Capacity Factor

Jan 4,674 4.89 37.61 0.00 551 409,937 18.4

Feb 5,094 6.61 9.25 0.39 755 507,604 25.2

Mar 8,928 6.40 10.98 0.71 677 503,653 22.6 Apr 8,640 6.48 8.16 0.32 680 489,313 22.7 May 8,928 5.79 10.33 0.01 466 346,544 15.5 Jun 8,640 5.18 17.55 0.01 357 256,759 11.9 Jul 8,928 5.63 11.58 0.03 422 313,613 14.1 Aug 8,928 5.00 19.72 0.00 320 238,444 10.7 Sep 8,640 5.62 13.01 0.00 440 316,843 14.7 Oct 8,928 6.73 7.38 0.12 728 541,394 24.3 Nov 8,640 5.92 12.97 0.22 558 401,535 18.6 Dec 8,928 6.59 12.68 0.60 767 570,357 25.6 Total(1) 97,896 5.92 13.47 0.20 553 4,846,810 18.4

27

5.0 Wind Turbine Generator Selection

Wind turbine models selected for the feasibility study were limited to units that had technology

representing direct drive (synchronous) and gear driven (asynchronous) modes of operation,

tower hub heights equal to or greater than 75 m (246 ft), and higher rotor and system efficiencies

to maximize energy capture from the wind. Turbine availability was an important consideration

for the feasibility study.

Selected Manufacturers A total of fifteen wind turbines were analyzed by the Energy Manager and AESI staff. After

careful consideration, the final list for consideration became:

• AAER/Fuhrlander A/FL 1500-77

• American Wind Energy AWE 54-900

• Enercon E82

• Nordex S77

• Vestas V90/V100

AAER/Fuhrlander

Fuhrlander (Germany) is the Intellectual Property (IP) patent holder of wind turbine design

technology. Fuhrlander products are well recognized in the wind industry and are specifically

noted for high quality and performance dependability. Fuhrlander licensed the manufacturing

rights for their wind turbine product line to a Canadian firm called AAER, headquartered in

Montreal, Provincial Quebec. Many of the components under the AAER label are manufactured

in North America and now enjoy a small price advantage over EOM materials manufactured in

Europe, due primarily to a weak U.S. dollar. Fuhrlander turbines are of the gearbox design. Unit

availability is good with delivery dates in late 2008 and early 2009 available at the time of this

writing.

28

American Wind Energy (AWE)

AWE is a Canadian wind turbine manufacturer headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The

company is headed by Mr. Hal Dickout, former chief executive officer of General Electric Power

Division. AWE holds a license to manufacture direct drive wind turbines. The Intellectual

Property holder is the firm European Wind Turbine (EWT). The root of the direct drive

technology design was fostered by Lagerwey Wind. In the mid-1990s, Lagerwey entered into a

business contract with an Indian firm for the purchase of wind turbine units without the tower.

The towers were manufactured in India and after being installed, the inferior towers collapsed.

A suit was filed by the Indian company against Lagerwey Wind as they were pursuing capital

funding to expand manufacturing capabilities. The suit was dismissed by the courts because over

200 turbines were installed worldwide with company manufactured towers without incident.

Unfortunately, the capital drive failed and Lagerwey was acquired by EWT. There are several

AWE turbines installed in North America. The longest running unit is located in Pincher Creek,

Provincial Alberta. We researched the maintenance history of this unit in Alberta, and found that

it has been performing flawlessly since being fully commissioned into the electrical grid. Four

additional units have been recently installed in North America; no meaningful operational history

is available on these units to date. Unit availability is good with delivery in 12-13 months.

Enercon

Enercon is a family held company with headquarters in Bremen, Germany. Enercon is

considered the “Cadillac” of wind turbine manufacturers. Extremely high quality and

engineering detail are the company’s trademarks. Enercon recently won a patent infringement

law suit which was brought against the company by General Electric. While the patent

infringement suit was pending, a trade ban was leveled by the Department of Commerce,

preventing Enercon from delivering products into the United States. The trade ban was

rescinded; however, due to the suit and what was perceived as a bad business environment,

delivery of Enercon wind turbines to the U.S. market are 4-5 years out, according to recent

conversations with senior management.

29

Nordex

Nordex is a Dutch enterprise headquartered in Kolding, Denmark. The Nordex line of wind

turbines are well known in the wind industry. Nordex manufactures an extensive product line of

wind turbines and range of nameplate ratings. Manufactured quality is considered good, though

the company has had minor difficulties with gearbox failure. Turbine availability is 24 months

out. Economic analysis was not performed on this unit because the power curve was reasonably

close to that of other manufactured units having similar nameplate ratings.

Vestas

Vestas is the largest manufacturer of wind turbines headquartered in Randers, Denmark. Vestas

dominates the industry in installed capacity, having 35,000 wind turbines installed and

generating electricity making-up 23% of market share. Vestas has led the industry with

innovative design and power control techniques, making their turbines a highly sought

commodity. Vestas experienced difficulties with gearbox design and manufacture during the

period 2000 to 2003 as the manufacturer expanded its product line to multi-megawatt nameplates.

The mechanical engineering and manufacturing issues have been resolved and are supported

with standard and extended product warranty programs. In fairness to all wind turbine

manufacturers, as product nameplates were increased several encountered problems with drive-

train operation owing to significantly higher mechanical stress load placed on the gearbox from

varying electrical and rotor forces. The Vestas V90 and V100 wind turbines have sufficient

capacity to deliver power for the Oakland campus as they are rated 3,000 kW and 2,750 kW,

respectively. The Vestas V100 is an especially attractive unit because it was designed for

optimized performance in lower speed wind regimes. With regard to turbine availability, Vestas

USA tends to entertain minimum orders of 30 WM. AESI has contacts with Vestas Europe and a

European municipal wind authority which could afford access to the turbines in smaller

quantities with improved delivery timelines. Company guidance on unit availability is 18-26

months from date of order.

30

Towers

Wind speed generally increases with elevation in almost every instance; the capital spent on

obtaining a higher tower is justified by comparing the increased cost of the higher tower with the

net present value of future revenues gained by the use of the higher tower. Towers are

manufactured using rolled steel pieces that are seam welded to form cylindrical sections or

constructed with steel reinforced concrete. Larger wind turbine generators, which are seated

higher in elevation, are mounted on steel and concrete tower sections. Towers as high as 112 m

(367 ft) are available for some of the units discussed in this Study; however, the scope of study

was limited to 100 m (328 ft) structures.

Special Notes: The AWE 54-900 is shipped with a 75 m steel tower as part of the purchase

contract with the manufacturer. Senior management recently asked AESI if we would be willing

to assist in the design and delivery of a 90 m or 100 m tower to be used in high wind shear

regions. The manufacturer has provided a separate quote for the price of the AWE 54-900 wind

turbine without the tower; we have identified a U.S. based manufacturer that would be interested

in designing and building a 100 m tower for the AWE 54-900 turbine. The price differential

between the company supplied 75 m tower and the U.S. designed and manufactured 100 m tower

is estimated at $28,000 to $57,000 depending on specified design criteria that may be required

prior to certification. In addition, the unit can be purchased with a 58 m diameter rotor, yielding

an additional 15% swept rotor area and energy capture.

31

FIGURE 11. COMPARISON OF WIND TURBINE POWER OUTPUT CURVES

The Enercon E82 and the Vestas V90 have the higher power output slope of all the turbines

compared between the cut-in (start) velocity of 3 m/s and 10 m/s. All units reach their individual

rated power output at 13 m/s except for the V90 which attains rated output at 17 m/s.

The advantage of the V100 over all the wind turbines selected is the improved efficiency of the

rotor at lower wind velocities. This allows for greater energy capture and capacity factors to be

realized at a given location.

32

FIGURE 12. COMPARISON OF VESTAS V90 AND V100 POWER OUTPUT CURVES

The V100 is not currently available through Vestas USA; however, when it becomes available,

the unit should be evaluated for on-site generation at Oakland’s main campus. The V100 has a

cut-in speed of 1.5 m/s compared to the V90 at 3.0 m/s coupled with a steeper power output

slope. The low cut-in in speed is somewhat deceiving, in that the amount of energy in 1.5 m/s

wind is extremely small; however, the lower cut-in allows the rotor to become significantly more

efficient and productive at velocities of 3 m/s, 4 m/s and 5 m/s, where a majority of wind sites

have significant probability percentiles. The V100 accomplishes this improved performance by

significantly increasing the swept rotor area and lowering the counter torque placed on the rotor

and drive train by reducing the horsepower required to drive the smaller generator (2,750 kW v.

3,000 kW).

33

6.0 Engineering and Construction Considerations

Four possible wind turbine sites were selected by the Energy Manager and evaluated for

electrical interconnection requirements, construction issues, access and staging for heavy

equipment, and disruption to campus activities.

Electrical

Oakland University is located in the Detroit Edison service area and purchases power from the

utility under a partial Interruptible Supply Rate (D8) with four MW of product protection. The

production protection load is basically charged at the Primary Supply Rate (D6), while

consumption above the 4MW baseload is charged at the D8 level.

The campus recently installed 3.3MW of backup diesel generation, allowing for transition to a

partial D8 Interruptible rate. A review of the impact of this new rate structure should be

undertaken once the new costs are attained. The rate structure is detailed in the table below.

TABLE 13. DETROIT EDISON PRIMARY SUPPLY RATE (D6)

Power Supply

Demand $10.93 /kW Energy -- On Peak 2.364 ¢/kWh Off Peak 2.064 ¢/kWh Surcharges Regulatory Asset Recovery 0.0453 ¢/kWh Enhanced Security 0.0077 ¢/kWh Power Supply Cost Recovery 0.669 ¢/kWh 2005 PSCR Reconciliation 0.35 ¢/kWh Delivery Charges Service Charge $275 /mo Distribution Demand $4.55 /kW Distribution Energy 0.703 ¢/kWh Surcharges Nuclear Decommissioning 0.1234 ¢/kWh U-14838 Rate Reduction Credit -0.2041 ¢/kWh Securitization Bond 0.366 ¢/kWh Securitization Bond Tax 0.121 ¢/kWh Choice Implementation 0.05 ¢/kWh

34

As applied to the university’s projected electric loads for Fiscal Year 2008, this tariff produces

electric energy costs of 12.26¢/kWh for On Peak power (11:00am-7:00pm weekdays), and

5.31¢/kWh during Off Peak hours. Current and detailed descriptions of both D6 and D8 are

available on the Detroit Edison Company web page:

http://my.dteenergy.com/otherInformation/pdfs/detroitEdisonTariff.pdf

Primary power is received at the Detroit Edison owned & operated general service Spencer

substation by two 120 kV underground laterals running north on Squirrel Rd. The conductors

feed two 40 MVA transformers internal to the substation. Additionally, the university has 3.3

MW of standby diesel generation which was recently installed directly to the south of Spencer

substation. These generators may be used for system back-up or peak-shaving when deemed

appropriate.

In reviewing the electrical requirements for the university and discussion with the Energy

Manager, it was mutually agreed that the introduction of wind turbine generation could possibly

push electrical energy back into the Edison power grid. Operational situations resulting in back-

feeding would be most likely to occur under these conditions:

• Holiday vacations for Thanksgiving Day, Christmas and New Years when electrical

demand would be very low with the probability of strong seasonal winds and high

wind turbine output.

• Utility power grid, substation or generator plant failure.

Discussions were held with representatives from Detroit Edison on the wind turbine project. The

representatives did not take a negative position towards the venture, but there was minor

disagreement on whether or not a rider contract would be required. It is the option of AESI staff

and the Energy Manager that a rider would not be required. The University has initiated an

interconnect application for this project based upon two wind turbine generators.

35

Should the utility may not wish to accept power back into their system, appropriate power flow

relaying controls would need to be integrated into the point of coupling between the wind

turbine(s) on the distribution side of Oakland’s feeder circuit. Schweitzer 751A relays or their

functional equivalent would be employed to prevent back-feed. The utility and project engineers

would need to have a meeting of minds with regard to relay set-points.

Feeder conductors from the wind turbine(s) would be encased in concrete duct ways for

Location 1 and Location 2, underground laterals would be used should Oakland choose to

construct wind turbines at Location 3 or Location 4. The latter locations would need to be

trenched and underground boring would be used to cause the least disturbance to Galloway

Creek and the adjacent wetland areas to the north of Location 3 and Location 4.

Conductor ampacity and voltage drop requirements would be met by appropriate sizing. At the

higher feeder voltages, voltage drop is not expected to be a problem for the nameplate rating of

wind turbines being considered.

Transformer pads would need to be constructed for all wind turbines with the exception of the

Enercon E82. In many European countries, transformers are required to be mounted internal to

the tower for esthetic reasons. Preliminary interconnection schemes for the wind turbine(s) were

discussed with the Energy Manager and are illustrated herein.

36

FIGURE 13. SCHEMA OF PROPOSED WIND TURBINE ELECTRICAL INTERCONNECTION

Connection to the feeder Bus A and Bus B would be underground and access to each coupling

point would be through a manhole cover. Appropriately sized and rated disconnecting means

would be employed according to prevailing electrical codes.

Radio Communication and Radar System Impact Investigations have shown that the rotating blades and support structures can impact amplitude

modulated (AM) radio frequency (RF) signals. Frequency modulated (FM) signals are more

immune to rotating blade interference, having greatest effect when a receiver is in near proximity

to the wind turbine. Doppler and conventional radar interference has been recorded by wind

turbines and structure within the radar envelope.

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY One-Line Diagram

7,500 kW Peak Demand

37

As part of system engineering for the wind project, an electromagnetic and RF interference

intrusion study should be performed.

The following systems could be affected by the proximity of one or more wind turbines:

� Satellite up-link transmitters and down-link receivers

� Direct to Home (DTH) receiver systems

� Radar

� Airport communication and guidance

� Public broadcast

� Point to point communication links

� Point to multipoint communication links

� Cellular networks

� Seismological and infrasound monitoring equipment

Accessibility Recommendations

Location 1 and Location 2 afford easy access for the staging of wind turbine components and

maneuverability of the main crane and auxiliary crane. These two locations would not require an

extensive amount of work to clear the areas prior to receiving the equipment and construction of

the main crane. Ample turning radius for the rotor blade transport vehicles for Location 1 would

be achieved by entry from the north on Pioneer Dr. Access to Location 2 would be from the

service road to the grounds and building maintenance complex. In each case, minor road

improvements would need to be made to accommodate the transport and construction equipment.

Trees and shrubs would need to be either trimmed and or removed to a limited extent.

Access to Location 1 could also be achieved by building a roadway from Squirrel Rd. directly

across the field where the meteorological is currently positioned. However, this would add

appreciable cost to the overall construction estimate given for Location 1. Location 3 and

Location 4 will have unique staging challenges for the work crews. The ground is not as level,

there are more trees and less room to maneuver in. More extensive clearing will need to be made

with regard to trees. Significant damage to one or more fairways will be done to accommodate

equipment movement and not exceed maximum transportation slope levels.

38

Access to Location 3 and 4 will need to be from the north across Galloway Creek or from the

south from Butler Rd. Road upgrades will be required from whatever direction is chosen. In

each case there will be added cost to the project because of transport load bearing requirements

for Butler Rd., campus roads, and concrete box culverts.

Foundations

A floating concrete pad foundation was used as a template design for estimating foundation

construction costs. The minimum concrete foundation for a 75m tower would require

approximately 325 cubic yards of concrete. Larger wind turbine nameplates and higher towers

will require more concrete mass to stabilize the structure for anticipated vertical loading, tipping

moment, and horizontal shearing forces that are likely to act on the structure. Geotechnical tests

will be required prior to rendering foundation design.

FIGURE 14. SECTION VIEW OF PAD FOUNDATION

Considerable steel reinforcement is incorporated with the foundation design. A threaded rod

assembly is placed into the foundation excavation once a thin concrete pad is poured for a level

working surface. The threaded rods must be leveled and neatly integrated with the steel

reinforcement rod matrix.

39

FIGURE 15. THREADED ROD ASSEMBLY IN EXCAVATION HOLE

Photo courtesy John Colmar

FIGURE 16. REINFORCING STEEL ROD MATRIX AND THREADED ASSEMBLY

Photo courtesy John Colmar

40

FIGURE 17. FINISHED CONCRETE FOUNDATION PEDESTAL

Photo Courtesy Russ Lockhart

The single most important part of a wind turbine project is the foundation and verifying that the

threaded rod assembly is level and the rod pattern is properly aligned with correct installation of

the pattern plate (shown removed). The hole pattern on the bottom section of the tower must

align with the threaded rods smoothly.

41

7.0 Environmental Considerations

Introduction

Avian and bat collisions with wind turbines have been documented throughout North America

via carcass searches. Particularly during migration, night-migrating birds can be attracted to

turbine lights and/or fly in close proximity to the structure resulting in collisions. Diurnal

migrants, such as raptors, are also vulnerable to collisions, as are waterfowl moving through the

area. Although wind turbines typically are not involved in as many avian collisions as tall

buildings or communication towers, a range of 0-36 birds per turbine per year has been

documented (Howell and Noone 1992, Winkelman 1992). Unlike birds, significantly more bat

fatalities occur at wind turbines than at communication towers, with as many as 41.1 bats per

Megawatt (MW) per year but more typical estimates range between 0.8 bats and 8.6 bats per

MW per year (Kunz et al. 2007). Wildlife collisions with wind turbines can be minimized by

proper preconstruction studies at proposed wind turbine sites.

In addition to collision fatalities, it is important to consider the potential disturbance at the actual

turbine site. The amount of area where vegetation is directly altered by construction of a wind

turbine is approximately 0.4 to 2.6 acres (temporarily) and 0.4 to 1 acre (permanently)

(Strickland 2004). The indirect impacts of wind turbine development on wildlife can include site

avoidance by breeding, migrating, and wintering birds (Strickland 2004). Studies in Europe

suggest that birds avoid areas within 75 m to as many as 800 m of turbines (Strickland 2004).

Studies conducted in open habitats (grasslands and shrub-steppe) in the U.S. observed fewer

birds near turbines with the threshold typically <100 m (Leddy et al. 1999, Johnson et al. 2000).

Strickland (2004) suggested that the effects could range from <100 m to 3 km. Preconstruction

studies of proposed wind turbine sites allow the avoidance of areas with sensitive species.

Oakland University, located in Oakland County, MI, is in the northern areas of the Greater

Detroit Metropolitan Area. Regionally, it is located southwest of Lake Huron, and north of Lake

St. Clair and Lake Erie (Fig. 18). Specifically, Oakland University is in an area that is relatively

developed with urbanization and industry (Fig. 19). However, there are some nearby forest

corridors and more natural habitats.

42

FIGURE 18. SATELLITE PHOTO SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN

The regional location of Oakland University in Oakland County, MI, is southwest of Lake Huron, and west by northwest of Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie.

FIGURE 19. SATELLITE PHOTO OAKLAND UNIVERSITY

Map Courtesy of Mapquest

43

The Oakland University area in Oakland County, MI, is relatively developed with urban areas

and industry; however, some areas include more natural vegetation.

The rare and declining bird and bat species that potentially exist in the proposed wind turbine

development area are provided in Table 14. Depending on the specific proposed location of the

turbines, additional considerations may need to be made for rare and declining wildlife species,

ecological communities, plants, and aquatic organisms.

The Oakland University area, near Rochester, MI potentially has several rare and declining bird

and bat species. These species that are of concern are given in the table below.

TABLE 14. AVIAN SPECIES WATCH LIST FOR OAKLAND UNIVERSITY AREA

Status Common Name Scientific Name

Federal State

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii Special Concern

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodrammus henslowii Threatened

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodrammus savannarum Special Concern Long-eared Owl Asio otus Threatened

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Threatened

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulean Special Concern Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Endangered Common Loon Gavia immer Threatened Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrine Special Concern Indiana bat Myotis sodalist Endangered Endangered

Recommendations

Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) houses and maintains Michigan’s portion of the

international NatureServe database. This database consists of quality controlled information on

the location of rare and declining species of plants, animals, and ecosystems. Examination of

this database combined with site visits to the area can detect rare and declining species at the

proposed turbine sites.

44

Avian use surveys are also important to estimate the temporal and spatial use by birds within the

area proposed for wind energy development and some adjacent areas. Given the size of the

proposed project one raptor/large bird viewing station with a good viewshed of the project site

and located within the area proposed for wind development should be established. Observations

should be made at this station following methods similar to those employed by Hawkwatch

International. Approximately 4 surveys per week should be conducted beginning approximately

April 1st and continuing through May 31st and once again for fall migration beginning August 1st

through September 30th. Some flexibility in scheduling is needed and some surveys may be

missed due to inclement weather. On each survey day, surveys should be conducted for

approximately 6-8 hours. The longer time duration is applicable for areas where waterfowl

collisions are of particular concern, as it allows for the inclusion of hours when waterfowl may

be moving to and from local feeding areas and/or water sources.

All raptors, other large birds, and sensitive status species seen during each survey are recorded.

Observers should estimate distance from the observer to each bird, and record each bird’s flight

path and flight height. Bird behavior and their use of the habitat needs to be recorded. Weather

data, such as temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and cloud cover, need to be recorded in

concert with bird flight variables.

Given the potential for rare songbird species this project would also benefit from studies of the

small bird use of the area. Point counts should be established within the proposed project area

and the surrounding area. These points should be visited several times and surveyed using

standardized protocol between April and the end of June.

Prepared by: Joelle Gehring, Ph.D. Office: 517-241-4912 Senior Conservation Scientist Michigan Natural Features Inventory Michigan State University Extension Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944

45

8.0 Siting and Permitting Considerations

Wind energy projects commonly receive positive marks for being environmentally friendly and

carbon neutral. However, these projects generally do not receive preferential treatment with

regulatory zoning authorities. Enormous variations in zoning requirements are seen from state to

state and municipality to municipality.

Substantive Issues for Consideration

Avian Impact

Wind turbine impact on avian mortality has been the single largest concern that has

appeared to contest the construction of facilities. The Altamont Pass, California wind

turbine project has been sited continuously by groups objecting to wind power

development. The United States Government Accounting Office and the State of

California have separately studied the avian issue at wind turbine projects across the

country and have concluded that avian mortality is traditionally very low at wind

turbine sites. Altamont Pass, bluntly stated, was the worst possible place to site a

wind turbine development and should not be used to develop arguments either for or

against wind turbine facilities. Turbines at Altamont are of an older technology using

high speed rotor blades.

Furthermore, technological improvement in wind turbine design (slower rotor speeds)

and better siting decisions have led to a dramatic improvement in avian mortality

statistics. At least one year’s worth of avian data or study should be obtained as

evidence that the project proponent has investigated the potential of avian impacts

and received the appropriate permitting from state or federal agencies having

dominion over endangered and threatened species.

46

Non-Avian Wildlife

Wind turbine projects during construction and after commissioning have the potential

to disturb wildlife and vegetation. A thorough investigation of plant life and wildlife,

that may be indigenous to the area being considered for development, should be

conducted.

Visual and Noise Impact

Wind turbine projects will result in a noticeable and dramatic change for the local

view shed. The wind turbines being discussed in this study will have a high profile

with the height range for the rotor center hub being at 75m (246 ft) for the AWE 54-

900 wind turbine and at 108m ( 354 ft) for the Enercon E82.

TABLE 15. VERTICAL DIMENSIONS FOR WIND TURBINES

Manufacturer Rotor (diameter) Rotor Hub Blade Apogee

AWE 54-900 54 m (177 ft.) 75 m (246 ft.) 102 m (334 ft.)

Enercon E82 82 m (269 ft.) 108 m (354 ft.) 149 m (480 ft.)

The amount of noise that will be generated by the wind turbine generators will be a

function of the unit’s individual mechanical design and the then present wind velocity

acting on the rotor blades. A visual model should be generated to better assess the

potential impact of the proposed wind turbines.

TABLE 16. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM POINTS OF REFERENCE

Proposed Site Building Nearest Building Road Public Road Residential

Location 1 Spencer 82.3 m (270 ft.) Squirrel 277.4 m (910 ft.) 100.3 m (329 ft.)

Location 2 BGM 119.5 m (392 ft.) Squirrel 913.7 m (2,997 ft.) 378.0 m (1,240 ft.)

Location 3 Golf Club 532.6 m (1,747 ft.) Butler 770.7 m (2,528 ft.) 793.6 m (2,603 ft.)

Location 4 Golf Club 607.3 m (1,992 ft.) Butler 997.5 m (3,272 ft.) 1020.4 m (3,347 ft.)

47

Depending on unit and wind conditions, noise from the wind turbine during operation

may be perceived by residents immediately to the east of Location 1 and found to be

objectionable.

TABLE 17. WIND TURBINE NOISE LEVELS BASED ON 104 db(A) AT NACELLE

Attenuation of Turbine Noise with Distance

Distance from unit (m) 3 10 30 100 300 1,000 3,000

Noise Level (dbA) 104.0 93.5 84.0 73.5 64.0 53.5 44.0

Local noise ordinances should be consulted with respect to the data given in the table

above for possible ordinance infraction. A recent investigation of the noise ordinance

for Rochester Hills indicated a maximum 65 db level measured at the property line.

Navigation and Other Requirements

Compliance with FAA Navigation Rules and Regulations, the Michigan Airport

Zoning Act, and the Michigan Tall Structures Act. The proposed locations for wind

turbine installation are all outside the 20,000 ft approach envelope. Wind turbines

would be considered tall structures and permits would need to be acquired from the

FAA, the Michigan Department of Transportation, and the State of Michigan or local

administrative authority for compliance with the Michigan Tall Structures Act.

Soil and Native Habitat

The construction of a wind turbine facility requires roads for access and clearing of

the immediate area for the excavation of the foundation and as needed for staging the

components of wind turbine generator prior to construction. Although, the disturbed

area may be remediate and returned to substantially its original form, care must be

taken by the engineers and project managers to use technique and practices which

will minimize soil erosion once the facility has been erected.

48

Cultural Resource

Often fossils and native artifacts of significance are recovered during the excavation

of soil for the turbine foundations and trenching of underground electrical feeders.

Project planning typically includes a thorough site evaluation before and during the

construction phase. Proponents of wind turbine facilities working near cultural sites

of Native American significance should engage the input of local Native American

tribes. Oakland County is considered the traditional territory of the Bkejwanong

Walpole Island First Nation and Member Nations to the Three Fires Confederacy.

Storm Water

Three of the locations that are proposed as possible turbine locations are on hills and

in close proximity to wetlands and the Galloway Creek. Construction of turbines and

access roads near the wetland areas will evoke concern for natural habitats and

possible storm water regulations under state and federal jurisdiction. It may also

trigger the Endangered Species Act through any required state or federal consultation

under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Special Michigan Guideline and Property Line Setback for On-Site Use

Michigan siting guidelines for wind energy systems with a tower height greater than

20m shall be considered a Special Land Use. Property set-back shall be 1 ½ times the

height of the tower. A maximum of 55 db(A) noise limit is set at the nearest property

line. A provision allows for the 55 db(A) level to be exceeded for short term events

such as utility system power outages and severe windstorms. The Rochester Hills

noise ordinance exceeds the state guideline of this type of installation.

Timing

Community meetings should be held to inform the public of Oakland’s intention to

construct and operate one or more wind turbine generators and to educate local

citizens on wind power technology, proposed timelines, studies that are being done to

protect and assess the impact on avian and other wildlife. Oakland should also

emphasize the environmental and fiscal stewardship that has motivated the university

to investigate on-site renewable energy generation.

49

With regard to general construction permitting issues for a wind turbine installation at Oakland,

we do not envision a great degree of difficulty, as the university is situated on state land and not

directly under the jurisdiction control of local zoning authorities. The State of Michigan has

compiled a Wind Turbine Zoning Reference for local governments that do not have zoning

ordinances in place. A copy of the Michigan Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems is

provided in the Appendix.

50

9.0 Business Structure and Financing Models

The business of financing of utility-scale wind power projects in the United States has evolved

significantly in the last fifteen years, reflecting a widening and deepening of the capital markets

and appetite for wind power generating asset investments. In the period prior to 1998, investment

in wind power was perceived to be exotic and very risky. Financial institutions were turned off

from wind power due to problems with a still developing technology, relatively small and poorly

capitalized manufacturers for wind turbines dominated the original equipment sector, no

standardized metric for evaluating wind regimes and turbine performance in terms of equipment

availability and performance. Hence, there was a shortage of monies for project development.

The funds that were available were made expensive with difficult terms.

The strategic investors entered the wind power financial arena in 1998 when Enron, General

Electric, Enercon and Nordex began development of wind energy conversion systems larger than

500 kW. This marked the beginning of the current sustainable era of wind turbine industry

growth in the U.S. wind power energy sector. Institutional investment became active in 2003 and

remains strong today. Debt financing for project development is also more available. The entry

of commercial banks, at the arranging and participant levels, facilitated new transactions and

loan facilities, pushed interest rate margins down for wind project developers and proponents.

There are several models that are used to structure the financing of wind turbine projects. The

structures can be best characterized by these five basic principal points: tax appetite, capital

strength, debt leverage, timing of funding, and management.

• Tax Appetite - the ability of the project to make efficient use of tax laws and benefits

• Capital Strength - the ability of project proponent to fund initial construction costs

• Debt Leverage – project oriented limited recourse debt financing availability

• Timing of Funds – whether funds are available at outset or on installment basis

• Management – delegation of management responsibilities amongst several investors

Note: Tax benefits include accelerated depreciation under Section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a Modified Accelerated Cost

Recovery System (“MACRS”) and Production Tax Credits (PTCs), the latter being reviewed by the U.S. Congress for extension after December

31, 2008.

51

Description of select structures that may be used for financing wind turbine projects: 1) Corporate The Corporate structure is characterized by a single proponent developer/investor with the

financial strength to fund all of the project costs and sufficient tax appetite to use all of the

project’s tax benefits. The corporate proponent developer/investor typically establishes a special

purpose entity to house the assets of the project. This structure is the most widely legal form used

in the wind sector. The structure represents the simplest way to own, manage and operate a wind

turbine project. The initial capital costs in entirety are funded by the parent company using

internally generated funds from other operations, and all of the project’s net cash flows and tax

benefits flow back to the corporation. The corporation provides the funds in the form of equity to

the project company. No additional investors or limited-recourse debt financing are involved (at

least initially) at the project level. For issues regarding legal liability, the corporation may create

a subsidiary or limited liability company to mitigate exposure concerns.

2) Strategic Investor Flip This was one of the first structures developed to attract third-party equity able to utilize the tax

benefits (accelerated depreciation and production tax credits), while allowing the developer to

retain an interest in the project. The virtue of this structure is its relative simplicity. The project

developer negotiates a percentage ownership share by the strategic investor. Under this structure,

the initial funding of project costs and allocations of project cash flows and tax benefits are

shared on the same percentage basis, or pro rata, as the respective ownership of the parties.

All financial flows prior to the “Flip Point”, both in and out of the project company, are on the

same pro rata basis as ownership. This structure is useful for those project developers lacking

both the financial strength to fund initial capital costs and the appetite for the tax benefits, but

who are nonetheless unwilling to simply sell the project outright. In effect, the tax investor buys

the majority of the project and gets the lion’s share of the aggregate tax benefits during roughly

the first decade of operation, when most of the tax benefits are generated.

52

The project developer receives most of the cash and the remaining tax benefits generated

thereafter; the developer also typically has an option to repurchase the shares held by the tax

investor at that point. The investor is made comfortable that the project developer has the

incentive to manage the project capably during this first period, as the project’s success is key to

the Flip Point occurring on schedule and the developer realizing the long-term value thereafter.

The Flip Point historically has been designed to occur near the end of the ten-year period during

which the PTCs are generated. The rise in turbine and other capital costs may be leading the Flip

Point for some transactions to be extended by a few years to enable the tax investor to reach its

negotiated target return.

3) Pre-tax/After Tax Partnership Structure (PAPS) The Pre-tax, After-tax Partnership Structure is also known as the Institutional Investor Flip, the

“A/B” structure (because there are generally two classes of investors in the partnership

agreement for this transaction), or the “Babcock & Brown” structure (utilized by the investment

firm for many financial transactions). It is similar to the strategic investor flip structure, in that

the project developer brings in a separate tax investor to use the tax benefits, and there again is a

Flip Point where allocations of cash and tax benefits change hands.

Beyond these similarities, there are several important differences.

a) It is designed to bring in less-active, more-passive equity capital from institutional

investors.

b) Cash and tax benefits are initially allocated in different percentages than each investor’s

respective equity contributions.

c) The tax investor is allocated 100% of the tax benefits from the outset of project operations

which may be legally passed through the partnership.

53

4) Municipal Model

In the municipal model a governing body is the sole owner of the project. Initial capital cost

financing is accomplished by direct cash payment, preferential rate bank financing programs, or

municipal bond underwritings.

A number of municipal utilities and city governments have installed wind turbines. These

projects are popular with the local community and can help facilitate the way for additional wind

power development in the area. Generally, these projects do not qualify for the federal

Production Tax Credits (PTC) but may be eligible for Clean Renewable Energy Bond (CREB)

allocations by the U.S. Department of Treasury, a parallel investment incentive and tax credit

program subject to Congressional appropriations. CREB financing allows the borrower to

receive interest free capital for the purpose of developing a renewable energy project.

Amortization will be taken and recorded over a 10- to 15-year period. The CREB was designed

to allow municipal entities a way to realize the benefits of the Production Tax Credit awarded by

Congress and then repealed.

Municipal projects also cannot take advantage of favorable depreciation rules for wind turbines

because municipalities are not tax paying entities. Under the Modified Asset Cost Recovery

Schedule (MACRs) the entire cost of a wind project may be depreciated over a 5-year period.

However, one major advantage that municipal projects do have is their access to lower-cost

public financing, having the result of lowering development costs dramatically. As public entities,

municipalities and municipal utilities tend to have lower financial return requirements.

5) Private Public Partnerships (PPPs)

The public private partnership is a legal structure formed by and between a public institution and

a private institution for the purpose of allowing the private institution the benefit of realizing

depreciation and tax credits that are normally of no meaningful value to a public institution.

Under the terms of a public private partnership, the private entity is allowed to claim

depreciation for a portion of the project’s development cost and to utilize production tax credits

against income tax due the government. The PPP may be able to integrate features of the above

mentioned structures to maximize the overall return to the project proponent.

54

10.0 Project Cost Estimates

Project cost estimates were developed with the assistance of the engineering staff at SSOE in

Toledo, OH. The following staff personnel were involved with assisting AESI compile cost

estimates based on prior industry knowledge. Together, we believe that these estimates are fairly

representative for the work anticipated. A contingency factor of 10% was included in the cost

estimates represented in this section of the feasibility study. A preliminary engineering review

was done on the turbines sizes being contemplated for installation. The decision was made to

confine the estimating work to the smallest and largest wind turbine specified in the Request for

Quotations issued by Oakland to select wind turbine manufacturers. The confidence level on the

attached estimates for the locations and turbine installations does not exceed 80%.

The process of estimating was broken down into several categories of work generic to installing

a 900 kW turbine on a 75 m tower, a 1,500 kW turbine on a 100 m tower, a 1,500 kW turbine on

an 80 m tower, and a 2,000 kW turbine on a 98 m tower (identified as 100m).

• Wind Turbine Site Work (All Locations)

• Construction of Foundation for a 75m Wind Turbine

• Construction of Foundation for a 100m Wind Turbine

• Power and Ductbank for Location No.1

• Power and Ductbank for Location No.2

• Power and Ductbank for Location No.3 – Feeder Routing Option 1 (east-tie)

• Power and Ductbank for Location No.3 – Feeder Routing Option 2 (west-tie)

• Power and Ductbank for Location No.4 – Feeder Routing Option 1 (east-tie)

• Power and Ductbank for Location No.4 – Feeder Routing Option 2 (west-tie)

Cost estimate calculations were generated from a number of sources, which included job

estimating software (Timerland), consultation with numerous engineers and contractors in the

areas of electrical construction, crane rental and operation, trenching and underground boring,

and other project specific disciplines to arrive at what is believed to be current pricing levels for

projects of this nature.

55

It is important to note and emphasize that large crane rentals are in high demand nationwide

primarilyy due to the rapid growth of the wind turbine industry in the U.S. and Canada. There is

virtually no room for price negotiation with crane owners at this time. Mobilization and

demobilization rates are carrying historic rental premiums with reservations required 9 to 12

months in advance of the project. We believe that the timeline for crane and operator

procurement will tighten in the months to come. The cost for cranes is highly variable from one

provider to the next and subject to project timing. The price actually paid for the rental and

mobilization of required cranes could be understated by as much as 50%. Careful planning and

coordination with crane providers will be important for project and construction managers.

There would be an economic advantage to Oakland under the scenario of having two wind

turbines installed in the same project undertaking. The economic advantage is estimated to net a

cost savings of approximately 25-35% compared to installing two turbines in separate

construction projects. Notwithstanding the previously mentioned concerns with crane

procurement; installation cost could easily escalate should wind turbine components, contracted

work or weather cause unnecessary work delays. Contracts for work will need to have specific

performance clauses for work delays. Project management will need to allow sufficient timing

buffers between key project tasks. AESI staff has been working with one turbine manufacturer

and has had first-hand observation with component delivery delays from horizontally integrated

manufacturers, issues causing delays with customs and immigration, and importation duties and

tariffs.

TABLE 18. COMPARATIVE INSTALLATION COST ($/KW) FOR SELECTED TURBINES

AND PROPOSED LOCATIONS

Turbine Manufacturer & Model ($/kW) AAER/Fuhrlander 1500-77 Position AWE 54-900 75 m

80 m 100 m Enercon E82

80 m

Location 1 2,357 2,088 2,353 2,436

Location 2 2,333 2,073 2,338 2,426

Location 3 - Opt 1 (East) 3,378 2,700 2,965 2,896

Location 3 - Opt 2 (West) 3,347 2,682 2,946 2,882

Location 4 - Opt 1 (East) 3,566 2,813 3,078 2,980

Location 4 - Opt 2 (West) 3,541 2,798 3,062 2,969

56

TABLE 19. COST ESTIMATES FOR LOCATION 1

L1 Power and

Ductbank w/80m Turbine 2MW Enercon

L1 Power and Ductbank

w/100m Turbine 1500-77




w/75m Turbine 900kW AWE

Turbine and Tower (1)

AAER/FL 1500-77 (80m) 2,120,000

AAER/FL 1500-77 (100m) 2,295,000

AWE 54-900 (75m) 1,400,000

Enercon E82 (80m) 3,665,670

Transportation 130,000 155,000 130,000

FAA Navigation Beacons 10,000 14,000 10,000 10,000

Total Turbine and Tower 3,805,670 2,464,000 2,260,000 1,410,000

Structural

75m Foundation and Rebar 90,000

80m Foundation and Rebar 225,000 130,000


Civil

Site Work 17,400 17,400 17,400 17,400

Access Roadways 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Horizontal Drilling

Electrical

Concrete 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000

Wiring Methods 55,303 55,303 55,303 55,303

Raceway & Boxes 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000

Electrical Power 48,000 36,000 36,000 28,000

Crane (2)

Rental Primary Crane 115,000 220,000 115,000 60,000

Rental Auxiliary Crane 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Transportation (Mob/Demob) (3) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Labor 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000

Erection of Tower and Setting Turbine (4)

Labor 15,000 18,000 15,000 15,000

Contractor Misc. (5) 1,300 16,000 13,000 9,000

Contingencies (7%) 43,309 47,229 35,819 28,609

Project Developer/Manager (3%) (6) 134,069 96,058 84,616 55,689

Design Engineering 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000

Geotechincal 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Avain/EIS 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000

Micro-Siting 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500

Total $4,784,552 $3,479,490 $3,086,638 $2,093,502

Cost/kW $2,392 $2,320 $2,058 $2,326

NOTES:

1. Turbine cost was calculated in US Dollars after conversion from Euro Dollars and Canadian Dollars as required.

Currency conversion factors used: 1 USD = 1.54 Euro; 1 USD = 1.02 CND

2. Crane rental fees based on 14 day commitment. Prices vary widely based on size and advance reservations.

3. Crane Mob, Demob, Rental and labor is based on one turbine installation with rental for one month. 4. Erection Labor is per turbine installation

5. Contractor miscellaneous fees provide a margin for minor equipment rental, scaffolding and spent supplies.

6. Project Developer/Manager fee based on 3% of total cost of project less Design Engineering cost.

57

TABLE 20. COST ESTIMATES FOR LOCATION 2

L2 Power and

Ductbank w/80m Turbine 2MW Enercon






w/75m Turbine 900kW AWE


AAER/FL 1500-77 (80m) 2,120,000

AAER/FL 1500-77 (100m) 2,295,000

AWE 54-900 (75m) 1,400,000

Enercon E82 (80m) 3,665,670

Transportation 130,000 155,000 130,000



Structural




Civil

Site Work 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000

Access Roadways 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Horizontal Drilling

Electrical

Concrete 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Wiring Methods 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000

Raceway & Boxes 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000


Crane (2)


Rental Auxiliary Crane 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000

Transportation (Mob/Demob) (3) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Labor 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000


Labor 15,000 18,000 15,000 15,000

Contractor Misc. (5) 13,000 16,000 13,000 9,000

Contingencies (7%) 41,930 45,850 34,440 27,230



Geotechincal 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Avain/EIS 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000

Micro-Siting 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500

Total $4,774,888 $3,457,776 $3,064,923 $2,071,787

Cost/kW $2,387 $2,305 $2,043 $2,302

NOTES:




3. Crane Mob, Demob, Rental and labor is based on one turbine installation with rental for one month.

4. Erection Labor is per turbine installation



58

TABLE 21. COST ESTIMATES FOR LOCATION 3 (OPTION 1)

L3 Power and Horizontal Drilling

Option 1 w/80m Turbine 2MW Enercon


Option 1 w/100m Turbine

1500-77



1500-77



900kW AWE


AAER/FL 1500-77 (80m) 2,120,000

AAER/FL 1500-77 (100m) 2,295,000

AWE 54-900 (75m) 1,400,000

Enercon E82 (80m) 3,665,670

Transportation 130,000 155,000 130,000



Structural




Civil

Site Work 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000

Access Roadways 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000

Horizontal Drilling 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000

Electrical

Concrete 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000

Wiring Methods 235,000 235,000 235,000 235,000

Raceway & Boxes 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000


Crane (2)




Labor 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000


Labor 15,000 18,000 15,000 15,000

Contractor Misc. (5) 13,000 16,000 13,000 9,000

Contingencies (7%) 101,640 105,560 94,150 86,940



Geotechincal 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Avain/EIS 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000

Micro-Siting 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500

Total $5,714,979 $4,397,867 $4,005,015 $3,011,878

Cost/kW $2,857 $2,932 $2,670 $3,347

NOTES:






5. Contractor miscellaneous fees provide a margin for minor equipment rental, scaffolding and spent supplies. 6. Project Developer/Manager fee based on 3% of total cost of project less Design Engineering cost.

59

Table 22. Cost Estimates for Location 3 (Option 2)





1500-77



1500-77



900kW AWE


AAER/FL 1500-77 (80m) 2,120,000

AAER/FL 1500-77 (100m) 2,295,000

AWE 54-900 (75m) 1,400,000

Enercon E82 (80m) 3,665,670

Transportation 130,000 155,000 130,000



Structural




Civil

Site Work 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000

Access Roadways 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000


Electrical

Concrete 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000

Wiring Methods 218,000 218,000 218,000 218,000

Raceway & Boxes 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000


Crane (2)




Labor 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000


Labor 15,000 18,000 15,000 15,000

Contractor Misc. (5) 13,000 16,000 13,000 9,000

Contingencies (7%) 99,890 103,810 92,400 85,190



Geotechincal 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Avain/EIS 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000

Micro-Siting 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500

Total $5,687,427 $4,370,314 $3,977,462 $2,984,326

Cost/kW $2,844 $2,914 $2,652 $3,316

NOTES:








60






1500-77



1500-77



900kW AWE


AAER/FL 1500-77 (80m) 2,120,000

AAER/FL 1500-77 (100m) 2,295,000

AWE 54-900 (75m) 1,400,000

Enercon E82 (80m) 3,665,670

Transportation 130,000 155,000 130,000



Structural




Civil

Site Work 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000

Access Roadways 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000


Electrical

Concrete 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000

Wiring Methods 283,000 283,000 283,000 283,000

Raceway & Boxes 102,000 102,000 102,000 102,000


Crane (2)




Labor 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000


Labor 15,000 18,000 15,000 15,000

Contractor Misc. (5) 13,000 16,000 13,000 9,000

Contingencies (7%) 112,420 116,340 104,930 97,720



Geotechincal 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Avain/EIS 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000

Micro-Siting 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500

Total $5,884,703 $4,567,590 $4,174,738 $3,181,602

Cost/kW $2,942 $3,045 $2,783 $3,535

NOTES:








61






1500-77



1500-77



900kW AWE


AAER/FL 1500-77 (80m) 2,120,000

AAER/FL 1500-77 (100m) 2,295,000

AWE 54-900 (75m) 1,400,000

Enercon E82 (80m) 3,665,670

Transportation 130,000 155,000 130,000



Structural




Civil

Site Work 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000

Access Roadways 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000


Electrical

Concrete 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000

Wiring Methods 259,000 259,000 259,000 259,000

Raceway & Boxes 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000


Crane (2)




Labor 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000


Labor 15,000 18,000 15,000 15,000

Contractor Misc. (5) 13,000 16,000 13,000 9,000

Contingencies (7%) 110,950 114,870 103,460 96,250



Geotechincal 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Avain/EIS 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000

Micro-Siting 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500

Total $5,861,559 $4,544,446 $4,151,594 $3,158,458

Cost/kW $2,931 $3,030 $2,768 $3,509

NOTES:

1. Turbine cost was calculated in US Dollars after conversion from Euro Dollars and Canadian Dollars as required. Currency conversion factors used: 1 USD = 1.54 Euro; 1 USD = 1.02 CND






62

11.0 Economic Analysis

Project costs have been consolidated into their respective Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) value

expressed in dollars per kilowatt-hour ($/kW) to provide an indication to the anticipated cost of

generating one kW-h of electricity. The UCE was calculated by taking the total energy in kW-h

that would be generated by the wind turbine over a 25-year period divided by the projected 25-

year operating costs for each unit at each location.

TABLE 25. UNIT COST OF ENERGY RELATIONSHIP FOR TURBINES AND LOCATIONS

Projected Unit Cost of Energy for Turbines and Selected Sites

Proposed Site 54-900 75 m 1500-77 80 m 1500-77 100 m E82 80 m V90 100 m

Location 1 0.1548 0.0998 0.0889 0.1014 0.0851

Location 2 0.1538 0.0993 0.0885 0.1010 0.0848

Location 3 (Option 1) 0.1963 0.1205 0.1058 0.1165 0.0962

Location 3 (Option 2) 0.1950 0.1199 0.1053 0.1160 0.0959

Location 4 (Option 1) 0.2039 0.1243 0.1089 0.1193 0.0983

Location 4 (Option 2) 0.2029 0.1238 0.1085 0.1189 0.0980

Note: Shaded area of table is for the Vestas V90 wind turbine generator, UCE cost projections were determined without price quotation from the manufacturer.

The unit cost of energy ranges from $ 0.0851/kw-h to $ 0.1548/kW-h for wind turbines installed

in Locations 1 and 2, while ranging from $ 0.0962/kW-h to $ 0.2039/kW-h for Locations 3 and 4.

While the Vestas V90 wind turbine is listed in the table and available through Vestas USA, the

reader should note that special arrangements would need to be negotiated between Vestas and

third parties to acquire one or more Vestas V100 units; the V100 is of particular interest for the

reason that it was designed for use in lower wind speed regimes.

63

TABLE 26(A). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/80M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 80m Position Location 1 Estimate Energy Capture 2,614,644 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 19.9 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 2,483,912 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 18.9 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,260,000 Installation 826,638 Tariffs 45,200 Total ICC 3,131,838 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 1,631,838 Total Capital Funding 3,131,838 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 5 years Net Present Value 470,976 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 2,008,033 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 6,199,153 Total Projected Energy Generated 62,097,795 kW-h Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.0998 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,088 /kW

64

TABLE 26(B). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/80M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 80m Position Location 2 Estimate Energy Capture 2,614,644 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 19.9 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 2,483,912 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 18.9 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,260,000 Installation 804,923 Tariffs 45,200 Total ICC 3,110,123 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 1,610,123 Total Capital Funding 3,110,123 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 381,034 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 1,832,713 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 6,168,823 Total Projected Energy Generated 62,097,795 kW-h Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.0993 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,073 /kW

65

TABLE 26(C). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/80M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 80m Position Location 3 (Option 1) Estimate Energy Capture 2,614,644 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 19.9 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 2,483,912 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 18.9 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,260,000 Installation 1,745,015 Tariffs 45,200 Total ICC 4,050,215 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 2,550,215 Total Capital Funding 4,050,215 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -416,626 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 2,291,648 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 7,481,856 Total Projected Energy Generated 62,097,795 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.1205 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,700 /kW

66

TABLE 26(D). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/80M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 80m Position Location 3 (Option 2) Estimate Energy Capture 2,614,644 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 19.9 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 2,483,912 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 18.9 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,260,000 Installation 1,717,462 Tariffs 45,200 Total ICC 4,022,662 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 2,522,662 Total Capital Funding 4,022,662 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 59,939 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 870,293 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 7,443,373 Total Projected Energy Generated 62,097,795 Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.1199 Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,682 /kW

67

TABLE 26(E). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/80M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 80m Position Location 4 (Option 1) Estimate Energy Capture 2,614,644 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 19.9 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 2,483,912 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 18.9 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,260,000 Installation 1,914,738 Tariffs 45,200 Total ICC 4,219,938 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 2,719,938 Total Capital Funding 4,219,938 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -580,661 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 488,276 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 7,718,910 Total Projected Energy Generated 62,097,795 Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.1243 Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,813 /kW

68

TABLE 26(F). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/80M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 80m Position Location 4 Option 2 Estimate Energy Capture 2,614,644 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 19.9 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 2,483,912 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 18.9 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,260,000 Installation 1,891,594 Tariffs 45,200 Total ICC 4,196,794 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 2,696,794 Total Capital Funding 4,196,794 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -558,293 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 520,601 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 7,686,584 Total Projected Energy Generated 62,097,795 Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.1238 Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,798 /kW

69

TABLE 27(A). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 1 Estimate Energy Capture 3,197,809 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 24.3 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,037,919 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 23.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,464,000 Installation 1,015,490 Tariffs 49,280 Total ICC 3,528,770 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 2,028,770 Total Capital Funding 3,528,770 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 5 years Net Present Value 1,053,923 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 3,284,150 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 6,753,550 Total Projected Energy Generated 75,947,964 kW-h Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.0889 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,353 /kW

70

TABLE 27(B). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 2 Estimate Energy Capture 3,197,809 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 24.3 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,037,919 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 23.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,464,000 Installation 993,776 Tariffs 49,280 Total ICC 3,507,056 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 2,007,056 Total Capital Funding 3,507,056 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 1,663,495 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 3,314,478 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 6,723,222 Total Projected Energy Generated 75,947,964 kW-h Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.0885 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,338 /kW

71

TABLE 27(C). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 3 (Option 1) Estimate Energy Capture 3,197,809 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 24.3 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,037,919 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 23.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,464,000 Installation 1,933,867 Tariffs 49,280 Total ICC 4,447,147 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 2,947,147 Total Capital Funding 4,447,147 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 178,867 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 3,284,150 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 8,036,254 Total Projected Energy Generated 75,947,964 kW-h Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.1058 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,965 /kW

72

TABLE 27(D). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 3 (Option 2) Estimate Energy Capture 3,197,809 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 24.3 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,037,919 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 23.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,464,000 Installation 1,906,314 Tariffs 49,280 Total ICC 4,419,594 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 2,919,594 Total Capital Funding 4,419,594 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 198,780 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 3,147,034 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 7,997,771 Total Projected Energy Generated 75,947,964 kW-h Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.1053 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,946 kW

73

TABLE 27(E). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 4 (Option 1) Estimate Energy Capture 3,197,809 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 24.3 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,037,919 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 23.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,464,000 Installation 2,103,590 Tariffs 49,280 Total ICC 4,616,870 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 3,116,870 Total Capital Funding 4,616,870 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -6,322 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 3,011,377 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 8,273,307 Total Projected Energy Generated 75,947,964 kW-h Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.1089 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 3,078 /kW

74

TABLE 27(F). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUHRLANDER/AAER 1500-77 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Fuhrlander FL1500-77/AAER A-1500-77 Nameplate 1500 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 4 Option 2 Estimate Energy Capture 3,197,809 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 24.3 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,037,919 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 23.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 2,464,000 Installation 2,080,446 Tariffs 49,280 Total ICC 4,593,726 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 3,093,726 Total Capital Funding 4,593,726 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 375,356 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 1,827,897 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 8,240,982 Total Projected Energy Generated 75,947,964 kW-h Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.1085 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 3,062 /kW

75

TABLE 28(A). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AWE 54-900 W/75M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model AWE 54-900 Nameplate 900 kW Turbine Hub Height 75m Position Location 1 Estimate Energy Capture 1,302,504 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 16.5 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 1,237,379 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 15.7 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 1,410,000 Installation 683,502 Tariffs 28,200 Total ICC 2,121,702 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 621,702 Total Capital Funding 2,121,702 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -727,570 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) -699,819 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 4,788,289 Total Projected Energy Generated 30,934,470 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.1548 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,357 /kW

76

TABLE 28(B). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AWE 54-900 W/75M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model AWE 54-900 Nameplate 900 kW Turbine Hub Height 75m Position Location 2 Estimate Energy Capture 1,302,504 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 16.5 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 1,237,379 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 15.7 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 1,410,000 Installation 661,787 Tariffs 28,200 Total ICC 2,099,987 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 599,987 Total Capital Funding 2,099,987 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -706,583 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) -669,490 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 4,757,959 Total Projected Energy Generated 30,934,470 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.1538 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,333 /kW

77

TABLE 28(C). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AWE 54-900 W/75M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model AWE 54-900 Nameplate 900 kW Turbine Hub Height 75m Position Location 3 (Option 1) Estimate Energy Capture 1,302,504 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 16.5 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 1,237,379 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 15.7 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 1,410,000 Installation 1,601,878 Tariffs 28,200 Total ICC 3,040,078 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 1,540,078 Total Capital Funding 3,040,078 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -1,622,168 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) -1,982,521 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 6,070,991 Total Projected Energy Generated 30,934,470 kW-h Anticipated UCE - Levelized 0.1963 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 3,378 /kW

78

TABLE 28(D). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AWE 54-900 W/75M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model AWE 54-900 Nameplate 900 kW Turbine Hub Height 75m Position Location 3 (Option 2) Estimate Energy Capture 1,302,504 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 16.5 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 1,237,379 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 15.7 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 1,410,000 Installation 1,574,326 Tariffs 28,200 Total ICC 3,012,526 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 1,512,526 Total Capital Funding 3,012,526 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -1,588,542 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) -1,944,039 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 6,032,509 Total Projected Energy Generated 30,934,470 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.1950 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 3,347 /kW

79

TABLE 28(E). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AWE 54-900 W/75M TOWER


80

TABLE 28(F). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AWE 54-900 W/75M TOWER


81

TABLE 29(A). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ENERCON E82 W/78M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Enercon E82 Nameplate 2000 kW Turbine Hub Height 78 Position Location 1 Estimate Energy Capture 3,583,690 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.5 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,404,506 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.4 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 3,805,670 Installation 990,933 Tariffs 76,113 Total ICC 4,872,716 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 3,372,716 Total Capital Funding 4,872,716 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 5 years Net Present Value 408,658 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 2,653,245 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 8,630,649 Total Projected Energy Generated 85,112,638 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.1014 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,436 /kW

82

TABLE 29(B). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ENERCON E82 W/78M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Enercon E82 Nameplate 2000 kW Turbine Hub Height 78m Position Location 2 Estimate Energy Capture 3,583,690 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.5 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,404,506 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.4 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 3,805,670 Installation 969,218 Tariffs 76,113 Total ICC 4,851,001 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 3,351,001 Total Capital Funding 4,851,001 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 415,587 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 2,648,634 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 8,600,320 Total Projected Energy Generated 85,112,638 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.1010 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,426 /kW

83

TABLE 29(C). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ENERCON E82 W/78M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Enercon E82 Nameplate 2000 kW Turbine Hub Height 78m Position Location 3 (Option 1) Estimate Energy Capture 3,583,690 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.5 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,404,506 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.4 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 3,805,670 Installation 1,909,309 Tariffs 76,113 Total ICC 5,791,092 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 4,291,092 Total Capital Funding 5,791,092 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -493,001 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 2,361,764 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 9,913,352 Total Projected Energy Generated 85,112,638 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.1165 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,896 /kW

84

TABLE 29(D). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ENERCON E82 W/78M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Enercon E82 Nameplate 2000 kW Turbine Hub Height 78m Position Location 3 (Option 2) Estimate Energy Capture 3,583,690 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.5 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,404,506 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.4 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 3,805,670 Installation 1,881,757 Tariffs 76,113 Total ICC 5,763,540 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 4,263,540 Total Capital Funding 5,763,540 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -452,314 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 2,004,424 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 9,874,870 Total Projected Energy Generated 85,112,638 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.1160 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,882 /kW

85

TABLE 29(E). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ENERCON E82 W/78M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Enercon E82 Nameplate 2000 kW Turbine Hub Height 78m Position Location 4 (Option 1) Estimate Energy Capture 3,583,690 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.5 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,404,506 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.4 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 3,805,670 Installation 2,079,033 Tariffs 76,113 Total ICC 5,960,816 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 4,460,816 Total Capital Funding 5,960,816 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -1,186,084 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 1,098,547 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 10,150,406 Total Projected Energy Generated 85,112,638 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.1193 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,980 /kW

86

TABLE 29(F). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ENERCON E82 W/78M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Enercon E82 Nameplate 2000 kW Turbine Hub Height 78m Position Location 4 (Option 2) Estimate Energy Capture 3,583,690 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.5 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 3,404,506 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.4 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 3,805,670 Installation 2,055,889 Tariffs 76,113 Total ICC 5,937,672 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 4,437,672 Total Capital Funding 5,937,672 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 2,355,759 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 10,118,081 Total Projected Energy Generated 85,112,638 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.1189 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,969 /kW

87

TABLE 30(A). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF VESTAS V90 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Vestas V90 Nameplate 2750 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 1 Estimate Energy Capture 4,846,810 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.1 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 4,604,470 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 4,600,000 Installation 1,015,490 Tariffs 92,000 Total ICC 5,707,490 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 4,207,490 Total Capital Funding 5,707,490 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 5 years Net Present Value 1,732,615 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 5,508,093 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 9,796,584 Total Projected Energy Generated 115,111,738 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.0851 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,075 /kW

88

TABLE 30(B). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF VESTAS V90 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule

Turbine Manufacturer and Model Vestas V90 Nameplate 2750 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 2 Estimate Energy Capture 4,846,810 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.1 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 4,604,470 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 4,600,000 Installation 993,776 Tariffs 92,000 Total ICC 5,685,776 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 4,185,776 Total Capital Funding 5,685,776 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 2,681,305 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 5,514,159 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 9,766,256 Total Projected Energy Generated 115,111,738 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.0848 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,068 /kW

89

TABLE 30(C). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF VESTAS V90 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Vestas V90 Nameplate 2750 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 3 (Option 1) Estimate Energy Capture 4,846,810 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.1 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 4,604,470 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 4,600,000 Installation 1,933,867 Tariffs 92,000 Total ICC 6,625,867 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 5,125,867 Total Capital Funding 6,625,867 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 3,941,941 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 5,508,093 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 11,079,288 Total Projected Energy Generated 115,111,738 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.0962 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,409 /kW

90

TABLE 30(D). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF VESTAS V90 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule

Turbine Manufacturer and Model Vestas V90 Nameplate 2750 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 3 (Option 2) Estimate Energy Capture 4,846,810 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.1 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 4,604,470 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 4,600,000 Installation 1,906,314 Tariffs 92,000 Total ICC 6,598,314 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 5,098,314 Total Capital Funding 6,598,314 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 1,617,425 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 5,868,201 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 11,040,804 Total Projected Energy Generated 115,111,738 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.0959 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,399 /kW

91

TABLE 30(E). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF VESTAS V90 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Vestas V90 Nameplate 2750 kW

Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 4 (Option 1) Estimate Energy Capture 4,846,810 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.1 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 4,604,470 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 4,600,000 Installation 2,103,590 Tariffs 92,000 Total ICC 6,795,590 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 5,295,590 Total Capital Funding 6,795,590 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value 2,115,100 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 5,204,142 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 11,316,341 Total Projected Energy Generated 115,111,738 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.0983 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,471 /kW

92

TABLE 30(F). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF VESTAS V90 W/100M TOWER

Project Data Schedule Turbine Manufacturer and Model Vestas V90 Nameplate 2750 kW Turbine Hub Height 100m Position Location 4 (Option 2) Estimate Energy Capture 4,846,810 kW-h Estimate Capacity Factor 20.1 % Less Availability and System Losses (5%) 4,604,470 kW-h Energy Delivery Factor 19.1 % Current Electrical Energy Cost 0.0780 /kW-h REC Price 1st Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h REC Price 2nd Contract Term 0.0150 /kW-h Expected Life of Equipment 25 years Inflation Escalation Energy 3.000 % Inflation Escalation Insurance and Services 3.000 % Bank Note Rate 4.500 % Bank Note Term 15 years Initial Capital Cost (ICC) Turbine and Tower 4,600,000 Installation 2,080,446 Tariffs 92,000 Total ICC 6,772,446 Source of Capital Funding CREB Underwriting ( 0%, 15 years) 1,500,000 Amount Financed by Bank 5,272,446 Total Capital Funding 6,772,446 Balance Capital by Endowment or PPP Funding 0 Net Present and Future Value Discount Rate 5.000 % Number of Periods 25 years Net Present Value -133,465 Future Value (at the end of 25 years) 5,210,607 Unit Cost of Energy (UCE) Total Projected Expenditures over Life-Cycle 11,284,016 Total Projected Energy Generated 115,111,738 kW-h Anticipated UCE – Levelized 0.0980 /kW-h Capacity Installation Cost (USD) 2,463 /kW

93

12.0 Case Studies of Similar Projects

There are several renewable energy wind projects that have been constructed by educational

institutions and municipal entities across the United States. The first educational proponents of

wind energy looked at the technology as an effective hedge to rising electric utility rates. School

districts in the state of Iowa were amongst the first to develop wind power. Forest City Schools,

led by superintendent Mr. Dwight Pierson, and Spirit Lake Schools, lead by superintendent Dr.

Tim Graves, are the most noteworthy. These gentlemen have both given presentations with AESI

in 2004 for Michigan educators interested in wind energy development. Institutions for higher

learning, like Carleton College and the University of Pennsylvania have also taken lead

embracing renewable energy projects in their respective communities.

The following wind turbine generation projects will be reviewed to the extent of available

information:

• Spirit Lake Schools

• Forest City Schools

• Carleton College

• University of Pennsylvania

Spirit Lake Community Schools, Iowa

Spirit Lake began their investigation into the use of wind power in September of 1991 in

partnership with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. After verifying that there was a

suitable wind resource for such a project, the district’s administrators submitted a grant

application to the U.S. Department of Energy for three wind turbines for energy offset at the

district’s high school, middle school and elementary school. The grant requests for the high

school and middle school rejected by the DoE because the high school would require an

electrical phase change-over and the middle school was a “new construction” project that was

not fundable by the DoE under the grant. Spirit Lake did receive $119,000 in grant funding from

the DoE to fund a wind turbine at the elementary school.

94

Bids were submitted in the Spring of 1993 for the construction of a 250 kW wind turbine. The

project was constructed for $239,500 ($958/kW) and began producing electricity July 22, 1993.

To date the wind turbine has produced 3,911,676 kWh of energy and has a poor energy capture

percentile. Nevertheless, due to the good financing terms and use of grant moneys available from

the Iowa DNR, the project has saved the school district approximately $26,000/year in electrical

energy costs according to the state authorities, and has long since paid for itself.

The school’s administrators were placed with the performance of the wind turbine and the

financial and environmental benefits; they decided to install a second wind turbine having

750kW nameplate capacity. The NEG Micron 750 was installed October 29, 2001 and funded

with a $250,000 no-interest loan from the Iowa Department of Energy and a $580,000 loan from

the Iowa DNR at 5.1%. To date, the second turbine has produced in excess of 9,524,940 kWh of

electrical generation. It is our understanding that both units have paid back the initial capital

costs, respectively.

Forest City Schools, Iowa

Forest City Schools began generating electricity from their Nordex N43 600kw wind turbine in

the winter of 1999. The project began as a science investigation by a high school student and his

science instructor. The installation of the wind turbine was plagued by difficulties with the

electrical and construction contractors’ limited knowledge of wind turbines, installation

requirements for a large scale project and poor timing with regard to seasonal (winter) weather

conditions.

Dwight Pierson, then superintendent for Forest City Schools, indicated at our conference that the

district was pleased with the turbine, considering that it was generating less than 65% of the

predicted energy capture that was made by the project’s engineering consultants. It should be

noted that the anemometer was placed at the top of a water tower and that acceleration caused by

the water tower surface was not properly factoring into the capture estimates for the existing test

conditions.

95

The district anticipated that 1,300 MWh of electricity would be generated annually, covering

about 80 % of the schools’ electrical load requirement. For the first eight years of operation, it

generated an average of 850 MWh per year. With increased electricity demand due to the

installation of geothermal heating and cooling in 2004, the turbine’s average annual output

amounted to less than 40 percent of district use by 2006. The district benefits greatly from its

net-billing agreement with Forest City Municipal Utility, a simple one page contract drawn-up

between the school district and the municipal utility. The district earns production offset credits

at the same price they pay for electricity: $0.042 per kWh through May 2006 and $0.0441

thereafter.

FIGURE 20. FOREST CITY SCHOOL’S WIND TURBINE

A 250kW wind turbine adjacent to the elementary school playground.

Added revenue through the Department of Energy’s Renewable Energy Production Incentive

(REPI) for the first ten years of the project is realized by the district. The REPI credit netted the

district about $13,637 per year through 2005, but has not been fully funded since fiscal 2002.

The REPI, no longer available, was replaced by the Clean Renewable Energy Bond program

under the Energy Act of 2005.

Mr. Pierson said, “The school board and the community never dwelled on the financial promise

of the turbine; we just wanted a basic assurance that it would be revenue neutral. Locating

attractive financing is crucial.” More importantly, Pierson noted, “The turbine has become a

source of community pride and an iconic symbol of the town’s entrepreneurial spirit. Forest City

takes pride in being a progressive and innovative community. The school board, in particular,

has always taken pride and pleasure in being out front.”

96

Carleton College

The turbine is located approximately one mile from Carleton’s Northfield, Minnesota, campus.

The entire electrical output of the wind turbine generator, approximately 5,200,000 kWh/yr is

sold to the local utility at $0.033/kW-h. The Vestas wind turbine has a nameplate of 1.65 MW

and based on the energy capture figures provided above, the wind turbine has a 35% capacity

factor. An additional $0.015/kW-h is received by Carleton through a special state incentive

program. The college is using the wind turbine to offset roughly 40% of their electrical energy

usage from the local utility. The college is charged $0.053/kW-h by the utility, hence, the

difference in price between the unit cost of energy (UCE) generated by the wind turbine and

what the college would normally have paid to the utility results in a cash offset in the benefit of

the college. The power purchase agreement with the local utility was written for 20 years. A

non-competitive construction contract was issued for the installation of the unit. The college was

required to sign a utility interconnection agreement.

Initial capital cost, reported by Carleton College, for the project was $1.8 million. Insurance was

approximately $18,000 annually; the administrators noted that there were variations with the

manufacturer’s warranty period. Operation and maintenance costs were estimated at $15,000

annually.

University of Pennsylvania

In April of 2003, the University of Pennsylvania entered into a ten-year agreement to purchase

10 percent of its energy needs from wind turbine power generation, doubling its nation-leading

wind-energy purchase. The purchase of 40 million kilowatt hours annually from Community

Energy Inc. of Wayne, Pa. represented the largest single retail purchase of wind-generated

energy in the nation as of the date the agreement was entered into. As a result, the 10-year

commitment will also lead to the construction of a new wind farm in Somerset, Pennsylvania,

hosting ten 1.5 MW turbines.

In a press interview university president Judith Rodin said, “We at Penn are pleased to be a

national leader in the choice for clean energy and the development of the wind-generated power

industry in Pennsylvania. Through this example of environmental stewardship, we can continue

to raise the awareness of our students and the community about alternative fuel options.”

97

13.0 Recommendations

AESI offers the following recommendations to administration of Facilities Management at Oakland University. 1) Micro-siting/Wind Map Commission the modeling of a high resolution wind map for the main campus of

Oakland University for elevations of 80 m and 100 m, using historical databases and

with wind data provided from the on-site meteorological tower as a validation point.

Wind mapping would be handled by Windlogic, Inc. The economic analysis contained in

the previous section of this study was a conservative estimate of energy capture. It is

probable that the energy capture and capacity factors for the selected wind turbine will be

considerably higher than indicated, using the logarithmic and power law methods for

estimating wind speed at higher elevations and incorporated by this study.

The wind map would also provide added insight to areas that may have better wind

resources and allow for additional discussion if the relocation of a turbine would provide

increased capacity factors.

We estimate that this will cost approximately $15,000 for one micro-siting evaluation and

up to $23,000 for all locations to be micro-sited. The process will take approximately 6 to

10 weeks to complete, depending on stated requirements.

2) Validation of Financial Model.

After receiving the micro-siting report and energy capture figures, the pro forma

schedules can be re-evaluated to develop a high-end “optimistic” economic model for the

project. The actual economic performance will be between our economic projections

“pessimistic” and the micro-siting projections. AESI will work with the head of finance

for Oakland together to reach mutual agreement on the final projections for project

economic performance.

98

The Energy Manager and Facility Management personnel will then be able to make a

reasonable investment decision with regard to whether or not the anticipated project

performance and risk exposure is suitable for the university’s governing board to accept.

3) The finance department of the university may wish to consider writing call contracts on

the Eurodollar and or the Canadian dollar to lock-in equipment price points prior to

signing an equipment purchase agreement with a wind turbine manufacturer.

4) Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) could be sold with ten year contract terms directly

with entities interested in acquiring certificates. The buyers of certificates include tag

aggregators, municipal entities, and corporations seeking to achieve a carbon neutral

footprint.

Renewable Energy Certificate (RECs) aggregators include the following entities:

• Bonneville Power

• Sterling Planet

• Community Energy

• Native Energy

Other markets for the sale of certificates are:

• PJM Compliance Market

• Chicago Climate Exchange

• NYSE (announced and under development)

5) Oakland should consider the forward sale of RECs and tax benefits on a net present cash

value to offset initial capital costs.

6) Oakland should consider the sale of sponsorship rights for the wind project to further

minimize initial capital costs.

7) Making application for federal grants and loans under the Energy Act of 2007 to further

decrease cost of financing and lowering the unit cost of energy.

99

14.0 References Electrical and System:

Patel, Mukund R., Ph.D., P.E. 1999. Wind and Solar Power Systems.

Chapter 4 pp. 35-57 Wind Speed and Energy Distributions

Chapter 15 pp. 273-282 Plant Economy

Putman, A., and Philips, M. 2006. The Business Case for Renewable Energy. A Guide for

Colleges and Universities.

Chapter 4 pp. 45-70 Financing a Renewable Energy Project

Harrison, R., Hau, E., and Herman, S. 2000. Large Wind Turbines Design and Economics.

Chapter 2 pp. 40-45 Mechanical Drive Train and Nacelle Support Structure

Chapter 2 pp. 76-85 Speed Control and Power Limitation Strategies

Chapter 6 pp. 155-166 Economics of Large Wind Turbine Systems

Fink, D., and Beaty, H.W., 1978 Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers

Section 16 pp. pp. 16.79-16.89 Relaying and Protection

Avian and Environmental:

Howell, J. A., and J. Noon. 1992. Examination of avian use and mortality at a U.S. Windpower

wind energy development site, Solano County, California. Final Report to Solano

County Department of Environmental Management, Fairfield, CA. 41 pp.

Johnson G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shepherd and D. A. Shepherd. 2000.

Avian Monitoring Studies At The Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Windresource Area: Results

Of A 4-Year Study. Technical report prepared for Northern States Power Company, 414

Nicollet Mall, 8th Floor Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

100

Kunz, T., E. Arnett, B. Cooper, W. Erickson, R. Larkin, T. Mabee, M. Morrison, M. D.

Strickland, and J. Szewczak. 2007. Assessing impacts of wind-energy development

on nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal of Wildlife

Management 71(8): 2449-2486.

Leddy, K.L., K.F. Higgins, and D.E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting

birds in Conservation Reserve Program grasslands. Wilson Bull. 111:100- 104.

Strickland, D. 2004. Overview of non-collision related impacts from wind projects.

Pages 34-38 Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop:

understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. Washington, D.C. May 18-19, 2004.

Prepared by RESOLVE, Inc. Washington, D.C., Susan Savitt Schwartz,

ed. September 2004.

Winkelman, J. 1992. The impact of the SEP wind park near Oosterbierum (Fr.), the

Netherlands, on birds, 2: nocturnal collision risks (Dutch, English Summary).

RIN-report 92/3, DLO-Institute for Forestry and Natural Research, Arnhem.

Documents

Oakland University Feasibility Study 03-30-2008 final