LCCC - ACC Project - Copyright 2005 Bluefeather

Meetings And Reports - August 2005

BLUEFEATHER HOME

Report for 8/1/2005 – 8/5/2005 – LCCC – Albany County Campus

Prepared by Seth A. Carson

Correspondence 8/1/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Hi Nicole,

I will talk this over with Seth today as we finalize the supplemental grant request. The problem I see with this bid is that there is no total cost listed. It has the material cost, per hour labor costs, and costs per week for fork lift and man lift. But it does not list the number of hours, days or weeks each of those items will be charged to complete the job. Do you have a total cost for this part of the job? We can't ask for money if we don't know how much to ask for. Thanks for your email and I look forward to hearing from you. Phil

Correspondence 8/1/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Tom Wacha

Tom,

Could you please sent a rough estimate on creating the green touch screen energy website for the Laramie County Community College and providing one touch screen for the lobby. Please make the proposal as all inclusive as possible and separate the touch screen and directory as separate line items. I really need it by the 4:00PM today if at all possible. We have a budget grant meeting in the morning and I need to the numbers for your work. Sorry about the late notice. I have listed the rough scope as follows:

Tab One:

2D School Directory (will send you CAD files) containing room numbers, schedules, and phone/email for staff.

Tab Two:

Solar/Wind Page. We need to show wind speed, current weather (temp, conditions, ie. weather.com plug in) and energy produced by the solar array and single turbine.

Tab Three:

Building Performance page. This will need to show building floor plan with heat pump locations/zones. I would like to use the input from all 26 heat pumps and indicate on the floor plan with blue or red with each zone it is in heating or cooling. I need on motion (one where the heat pump turns) picture of a heat pump show in the building is primarily in heating or cooling. Temperature gauges for the ground loop. Motion pics of the main pumps.

I also need to use all of the input from out current meters to sum together and indicate the amount of kwh the geo-exchange system is using and the total kwh from the light panels. One graph showing the the total energy used from the main meter. Then one graph indicating the electrical/geo-exchange (monthly/yearly summaries). One graph with the energy produced and energy used for comparison.

Tab Four:

LEEDs information and energy facts/links.

Meeting 8/1/2005 – Seth Carson, Nicole Buscher, and Don Davis

The group met at Fremont Electric to discuss the energy grant as it related to the lighting. Good brainstorming was conducted and Nicole and Don were very helpful in providing good information in preparation to the meeting with the WBC. Also discussed was the smartboard and the RFI. Don needed to know if the J boxes needed a receptacle power to them since there was power in the ceiling and in the podium floor box. Seth stated he would respond later in the day.

Site Visit 8/1/2005 – Seth Carson visited the Site

Seth visited the site briefly and observed the progress that was made with the south pod interior wall steel framing and SIPS erection.

Correspondence 8/1/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Hi Seth,

When do you want to meet today to work on that grant? I have a student coming in at 10 but it should not take more than about 45 minutes. I am free the rest of the day. Were you thinking of plugging this Kiosk interface into the Automated Integration System line on the budget? Phil

Meeting 8/1/2005 – Seth Carson and Phil Neal met at the LCCC

Seth and Phil discussed the grant spreadsheet and smartboards. Seth and Phil call Cheyenne campus and received some information about the smartboard setup procedure and measurements. Seth and Phil met later at Seth’s office and prepared the cover letter and information packet/spreadsheet for the meeting with WBC.

Correspondence 8/1/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Tom Wacha

Hi Seth,

Thanks for the email. I'm working on the estimate and proposal for you. I'll have it to you in a few hours.

Talk to you soon,

Tom

Thomas Wacha

Correspondence 8/1/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Tom Wacha

Hi Seth,

Attached is a proposal for the development of a Green Touchscreen kiosk for Laramie County Community College. All of the items you mentioned in your email are included, although I grouped them by development item rather then by page, so the estimate is more broken down.

I assumed that you wanted a 19 inch touch screen monitor mounted in or on a wall. If you need this or anything else changed, let me know and I will send you a revision.

Thanks,

Tom Wacha

Confidential Correspondence 8/1/2005 – Email to LCCC Team from Jerry Harris

Correspondence 8/1/2005 – Email to LCCC Team from Bob Cox

Hi Folks --

I have run into a problem with being able to meet at 9. A meeting of the college president’s has been called to discuss the formula funding model. In Chuck’s absence, and given the magnitude of this budget meeting, I have to attend it via conference call. I will need to rely on you to carry this discussion with Tom unless we can reschedule the meeting. I will probably be available at either 11 or 1:30.

Thanks

Bob

Correspondence 8/1/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to LCCC Team

Attached is an updated energy grant spreadsheet with the Fremont efficient light fixtures and sunscreen support steel added.

*Note: I had to adjust Fremont's original lighting budget so that I didn't double up. I've attached a revised SOV backup sheet accordingly.

Solarban Glass: Information is attached. Tim has also been able to provide the following information: "The goal of providing daylighting is to reduce the amount of electrical energy used in lighting spaces during daylight hours. It is widely recognized that the highest consumption of energy in typical commercial and institutional buildings is energy used for lighting. In order to reduce this demand for power, spaces can be designed to maximize the use of available daylight. As stated in the product brochure you attached, the combination of the Solarban 60 coating with starphire glazing optimizes the amount of visible light while still controlling the amount of solar heat gain.

Daylighting spaces directly relates to one of the stated goals in the energy grant for this building. That goal, as written in the grant, is to optimize energy efficiency. Daylighting was important enough in the grant application that it was separated into it's own category.

Thanks, Timothy Laughlin, Midyette Architects"

Lighting: Included in the lighting fixture package, we've identified $14,941 for costs incurred to provide electronic ballasts and/or bulbs, compact flourescent fixtures/bulbs and LED exit lighting. The project scope currently has 405 fixtures, of which 361 fixtures have one or more of the energy saving features listed above (89%). Some of the energy saving characteristics are as follows. Electronic ballasts and bulbs use approx. 8% less wattage than their magnetic counterparts. Compact flourescent fixtures provide the same illumination, but use approx. 70% less power (watts). LED exit lights use less power and use 'clean' power in lieu of the tritium or radioactive equivalent. (Radioactive models also require hazardous material disposal.)

Seth, I hope this is helpful. I've be available tomorrow at #303-419-7405.

- Nicole

Correspondence 8/1/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson

Seth, can you send me Jake's phone number with Custom Stucco?

Thanks, Nicole

Correspondence 8/2/2005 – Email from Tim Laughlin to Seth Carson

Hi Seth,

Attached is a zip file of the site plan with the title block some font files and the plotstyle table. Let me know if you need anything else.

Timothy Laughlin

Correspondence 8/2/2005 – Email from Tim Laughlin to Seth Carson

Hi Seth,

I sent the CAD file to you in a separate email.

In regards to the operable windows, neither J nor myself remember a specific request from LCCC for the operable windows. However, the energy grant did mention controls for the HVAC system that would determine whether windows were open in a zone and would consequently slowly setback the heat pump to conserve energy while the window was open. The theory assumes that if the window is open then the user is comfortable with the temperature of the outside conditions and there is no need to fully condition the space.

Furthermore, we also provided operable windows because it is good design. It is well known that user comfort and satisfaction increases when the user has control over aspects of their environment even if they do not use those controls. Fresh air and thermal comfort are two of the most important factors in user satisfaction of indoor spaces.

That said, if the client does not want the operable windows then they should be eliminated.

Finally, we did want to mention that if LCCC is going to apply for more funds from the WBC, it makes no sense to remove items out of the energy grant column until we know whether additional funds can be procured or not. So, in general, anything that is justifiably part of the energy grant should be left in the project until such time.

Thanks,

Timothy Laughlin

Correspondence 8/2/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson

Bob, Seth -

As discussed last week, Taylor Kohrs had contacted an HVAC contractor regarding cost savings to go from a geotherm to a conventional HVAC system. Air Comfort's contact (low bidder on HVAC) is back from vacation and advised that there could be approx. $3/SF savings to go from the designed heat pump system to a roof top unit conventional system.

Therefore, the cost difference would be as follows:

Cost Difference from Heat Pump to Conventional - $78,600

Delete Loop Field - $120,000

Re-design HVAC & review electric loads & structural loading ~ $30,000 Overall cost difference ~ $168,600

It is my understanding that the approved costs from the energy grant for geotherm would therefore be void ($286,000).

Please review and advise if LCCC would like Taylor Kohrs to pursue this further.

Also, four (4) sets of specifications and half-size plans were left with the receptionist on Monday morning (8/1).

Thank you,

Nicole Buscher

Correspondence 8/2/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Jerry Hankin

Jerry,

Taylor Kohrs wanted to clarify a review comment with you for the LCCC project.

Covenant Comment #2.e. - Curb at parking area. We wanted to confirm that if LCCC receives approval from the Turner Tract Covenant to have curbless parking as originally submitted, the City would also approve.

Please review and respond.

Thank you,

Nicole Buscher

Correspondence 8/2/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson

Attached is RFI #007, Smartboard Locations, for your review. Please respond by the stated due date.

Thank you, Nicole

Meeting 8/2/2005 – Energy Grant Meeting was at the WBC in Cheyenne

All of the LCCC Team was present and Tom Fuller from the WBC. Phil and Seth went over the request for financial assistance. Good feedback was given from Tom to focus on completing the energy components in the building first and not to loss sight that this project is to be a showcase. In was agreed that the grant funds could be reallocated and that an official variance request would need to be made. The variance request would not require the DOE but just Tom Fuller’s signoff. Tom suggest creating a decision tree that would help him and Dow understand the critical timelines as they related to the financial project decisions.

Tom Fuller requested that the architect provide backup analysis for the solar angles, daylighting and sunshades. Seth said that he would request this information.

Also discussed was the interactive energy monitoring. Critical timelines were discussed and Tom agreed that these could come out of the pv/wind until more grant money was obtained. Tom also agreed that the DDC were alos important in making the project a success. It was agreed upon that LCCC would return to Tom with a letter of variance in the next week and apply for supplemental grant funding when the entire grant items costs were finalized.

Site Visit 8/2/2005 – Seth Carson visited the site.

Seth visited the site and spoke with Ralph Knox. Seth spoke with Todd from Fremont Electric and confirmed that the smartboard layout was going to work.

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Tom Fuller to LCCC Team

Seth, After our meeting yesterday, I realized that there is significantly more overlap between the LCCC instrumentation/controls and the UW Net Zero Building project. I would like to meet with you and UW to adjust their request to more accurately reflect what UW will actually be providing.

Will you be available on Tuesday or Wednesday?

Confidential Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Confidential Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Donna Regan to LCCC Team

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Hey buddie,

I never did get that file you and I worked on the other night. Could you email that to me? Thanks a bunch.

Phil

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Bob Cox to Nicole Buscher

Good Morning Nicole --

I'm not sure what you are telling me. I think you are saying that had we proceeded with a traditional roof top system, our cost "difference" would be $168,600? Compared to what? The $286,000? $100,000 less?

You've identified design costs, but my experience with this is that we may need a structural engineer to evaluate the weight of these units on the roof. I'm not sure the current design will be able to hold these units up, thus requiring additional construction costs. We replaced two units a couple of years ago over our library. Ultimately due to the size requirements of those units compared to the '70's vintage units being replaced, we had to build a superstructure through the building to hold them up. I'm not sure the design of the ACC building ever contemplated that issue. I guess, given that we are this far down the path with the geotherm system, I need to know if there are commitments as well as design issues that would eat up any savings at this point.

So, please help me understand what you are reporting to us.

Energy Gant Update:

Let me advise you that we did meet with Tom Fuller at the Workforce Development office and feel we received a favorable response to proceed with funds we have available from both the building funds of the grant and the energy generation funds (windmills etc) to complete the

building. He also will submit an expanded request on our behalf based

on the information you are providing to complete the various systems. If we do not receive these funds then the windmills will be the last items to go up if there is any money to do it.

Thanks

Bob

Confidential Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to LCCC Team

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to LCCC Team

Bob,

Sorry for the confusion, I will try to clarify.

We currently have a uncommitted costs of $308,150 for the heat pump system, not including DDC Controls, and $120,000 for the loop field.

(Total = $428,150)

Based on the preliminary information Taylor Kohrs has received a conventional HVAC system (RTU's) would be approx. $235,800 and would not require the loop field. I also had identified some re-design costs of $30,000. These would include such things as designing the conventional HVAC system, re-evaluating the electrical loading of different mechanical equipment, and verifying structural loading. Without knowing how many roof units would be needed, it's difficult to say what the structure could accept.

Hopefully, this cleared things up and didn't muddy the waters further.

Nicole

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to LCCC Team

Attached is an agenda and meeting minutes for tomorrow's meeting.

I'll update the schedule and send it out in a separate e-mail tomorrow morning.

Let me know if you have any items which need to be added to the agenda.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Bob Cox to Nicole Buscher

So, does the $235,800 include the $30,000 redesign? Is the cost difference then $428,150 minus $235,800 ($265,800) = $192,350 ($162,350) savings.

Sharon asked if we switched to conventional will there be adequate funding without the grant geotherm funds to pay for the conventional system and probably more importantly, will it put the whole grant into jeopardy if we don't do the geotherm system? (This is a question to Seth and Phil).

Since we have support from Tom Fuller to use any of our energy funds to build the geotherm system it occurs to me that it is in our best interest to stay the course, but we need clarification.

Thanks

Bob

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Nicole Bucher and LCCC Team

Nicole and LCCC Friends,

I appreciate your extra effort these past few weeks to bring this project back on track. Thanks!!! I have listed below my comments, questions/answers to everyone’s recent grant/budget questions. Please note that these are my suggestions to both LCCC and TK. I think the commitments that I mention below need to be discussed and that we need to finalize the grant money flow at tomorrows OAC.

First, Nicole do you think you TK could commit to a final amount (NO PRICES ADDED/NO SURPRISES) by the 27th of August to completely finish the project? Not to put your deadline back on you but LCCC needs to have EVERY cost identified before the grant request can be successful. I believe that the easiest way for LCCC and the WBC to know what the final cost are complete (not contingency needed) is if all the contracts to finish the project are on the table before the end of the month. After yesterday’s meeting with the WBC I believe LCCC is comfortable with funding our current grant requests with the fail safe that if a supplemental funding was not funded, that we could deduct from the SIPS credit and pv/wind budget a bit. At this point, it is my opinion that the geo-exchange system stays in place and that we plan to do the necessary rough-in ($24,665) for the DDC controls. The WBC felt that this was very important to have the DDC.

I would request that we send Bob Berry everything, (specs, operations, functions) about the DDC this week. Bob is also waiting to review the shop drawings for the geo system and well field.

My interpretation of the numbers of the geo system (w/ taking out the energy grant) for the conventional system is this: $419,200 - $286,000 = $133,200 left for the conventional system. Using your price for the conventional system = $235,800 - $133,200 = $102,600 deficit for the standard HVAC sysytem with no funds to go after to pay for it. This compares to the deficit of $143,866.56 for the geo-exchange system which we have been giving the go ahead and ask for additional and reallocate funds from the existing grant source. We can also drop out the $45,000 left for the controls if the supplemental grant does not come in the coming months. This would leave $98,866.56 to reallocate with-in the grant from the SIPS credit and pv/wind budget. We would need to spell out it this in the variance request for the WBC on or before the 27th. Locking to geo system in, guaranties that LCCC will NOT be stuck with any overruns for any if the HVAC system or type. WIN-WIN

Let’s get these guys hired for the geo system and get the DDC guys to let us know what we need for rough in. Is this something that Fremont can do?

Also, I think that we need to go ahead and commit to using the energy windows (Sungate 500). They are $15,212 but if we don’t do it that won’t give us any money for the windows. This can also come from the SIPS credit and the pv/wind budget if the supplemental grant is not approved. What I don’t want to have happen is the windows not in come till snow season. We need to dry the building in. Let’s commit now and not worry about winter protection for the inside work. This reminds me, when is the roof bid and contractor going be hired and perform their work?

At this point, Phil and I are working on the automatic system. It appears that TK will not be involved in this. There is some overlap with the UW grant and additional items that the WBC and LCCC would like to include in this line item. Phil and I are working up the prices, etc. We will be asking for additional funds for some of this and this will also allow TK to focus their efforts in other areas.

Lastly and FYI, Phil and I combined all of the lighting and rough in together and call it “Energy Efficient Lighting – Fremont” for $186,362 in the spreadsheet. We thought we might as well try and get the entire lighting overrun of $149,961.00 from the WBC and see what happens. I did not appear that this was a problem at the meeting yesterday.

See you all tomorrow.

Best Wishes,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email to Team from Jerry Harris

Nicole and Seth,

I have two (2) action items for your comment and input related to the statue area, to include:

1. Is there an estimate available for the seating base around the “eagle statue”? This would be the area where the park benches will be placed.

2. Eileen Ely has requested that we use an 8’ x 8’ boulder to mount the “eagle” statue on. This boulder will be donated, but we would have to come up with transportation and installation costs. At this time, I don’t know what type of rock the boulder is made of, so the question now remains, what has been done and where do we stand on the design and engineering regarding the eagle base?

I am not authorizing any expenditures to engineer and design the above two items, I am simply gathering data so we can pursue the proper course of action.

Thanks

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to LCCC Team

The redesign is not included in the $235,000. Cost Difference:

$428,150 - $235,800 - $30,000 = $162,350 in savings.

Nicole

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Steven Turner

Steven,

Attached is a zip file with the AutoCAD site plan files inside. Also attached is Cad file of a concept schematic for all of the energy things that are going on with this project along with my old site plan. Please review it and let me know what components might need to be added and who is responsible for what.

Cheers,

Seth Carson

Bluefeather DBA

Correspondence 8/3/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Steven Turner

Thanks Seth

Email works - I'll try this with SolidWorks and get back to you.

Steve

Site Tour 8/3/2005 – Seth Carson conducted a site tour for the ACC Advisory Committee.

Seth also conducted a site observation and photos are posted here.

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Hi Seth,

I am starting to work on the letter of variance. But I would like to get as many cost estimates as I can. Do you have time to meet so we can talk about this? I have schedule time to work on it for about an hour this afternoon before our OAC meeting, and most of the day tomorrow. I guess the main thing is whether you have heard from Don about how much the current monitors would cost to install? Also, could you email me a copy of the Kiosk system quote? I am hoping that Nicole has some hard numbers on the ground source and windows. Or are the window costs locked in for sure? Hopefully today’s meeting will clear up some of that stuff. Thanks

Phil

PS. I can’t remember if I asked you what time the meeting is at on the 8^th?

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to LCCC Team

Jerry,

The plans did not locate the benches. Low walls were shown at the sides of the concrete entering the building; however, these have been deleted. Therefore, benches could be placed along the side instead. As for the base and exact location, Taylor Kohrs hasn't seen anything.

I've copied Tim Laughlin, Midyette, on this e-mail so that he can shed any other light on the statue.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Nicole Buscher

Nicole,

Jake’s number with Custom Stucco is 307-745-0129 and his cell is 307-760-3494.

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Nicole Buscher

Nicole,

Don received the information regarding the smartboards he needs late 8-2-2005. I will bring a paper copy to the OAC meeting for your file in response to RFI #007.

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to Nicole Buscher

Nicole,

Thanks for the update. When you hear from Tim at Midyette, let me know and I will then make a decision on how to handle these items.

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to Nicole Buscher

Nicole,

LCCC will sign both the temporary and permanent agreements. I will take care of this today regarding the temporary agreement.

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to LCCC Team

Attached is the schedule we'll use for today's meeting.

Nicole Buscher

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Nicole Buscher

Nicole and Don,

After speaking with Bob Berry and receiving his blessing, I am requesting information regarding the “Natural Gas to Duct Heater(s)”. I thought that we could eliminate the gas line, trenching, pipe, etc. to and through the building since the gas was removed from the science lab and all that is left is the preheat duct heater for the HRV. Bob Berry confirmed that a resistance coil heater could substitute the gas heater. It would be great to eliminate all onsite fossil fuels from the campus to meet our “energy goals”. It would also eliminate the duct work and vent through the roof. Don, could you work with Nicole and Randi to get the design cost change to size a electric heater and put together a price comparison? I think we could be beat the MSI quote by at least half. This could be another $2500 cost savings.

Best Wishes,

Seth Carson

OAC Meeting 8/4/2005 –Seth Carson, Eileen Ely, Phil Neal, Tim Laughlin, Bob Cox, and Chuck Bohlen Present

The geo-system was discussed in detail. Nicole indicated that she was waiting for MKK to finish the design and be in accordance with MEP on the design numbers. She stated that she expected to the design to be done next week and bids back in two weeks. Phil voiced his concern for the timeline.

Also discussed were the doors and windows. Seth stated that he would contact Tim Macnamara regarding the laminate doors vs. the solid. Seth also agreed to ask Tim about the gas line and the HRV pre-heater and if they could be eliminated. Nicole stated that her price in the grant breakdown was just for the inside work for the pre-heater and that she didn’t know about the gas line trench costs yet. Windows were discussed in detail. Tim explained that the Solarban 60 starphire was grant applicable and that the Solarban 60 clear was only 3-4% energy better. He stated that first one was the window that MKK was designing there heat/cooling loads from.

Lastly discussed were the art/science rooms. Phil’s email below summarizes this discussion.

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Tom Fuller

Tom,

Thanks again for your support regarding the LCCC project. Tuesday the 9^th in the afternoon works (2:00PM) for me to meet with you and UW. Wed. is no good. I assume you will set it up with UW. Let me know and confirm before Tuesday.

Also, I am going to add to my energy monitoring plan the details (things UW wants to do) that I am interpreting from their grant. If you have a copy of their final grant, could you send it before the weekend via email? That way we are all working from the same documents.

Lastly, I believe that we can get a variance request to you sometime soon. When will we need to get it to you by this month so that you can return it to us before the 27^th of August??? Right now I think we can nail down everything on the building side of the grant before the 15^th. It is my hope to have the wind/solar priced out before the end of the month too. That way we can ask for the entire amount with all variances in place before the beginning of September.

Thanks,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Tom Fuller

I'll let Cenk know, he had said that he had all day Tuesday available. The proposal that you have is the same as the one I have. Lets plan on meeting at their offices.

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Michael Walters

Seth --

The camera is not working at the job site. Would you please send me the phone number of the job site so I can give them a call.

Thanks,

Michael

Correspondence 8/4/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Ted Hanlon

Seth-

We are committed to providing a detailed cost estimate, which should include at least one hard dollar bid for each portion of the project. We anticipate having this to you by August 8.

However, we really need to know the budget impact of the work already accomplished and planned by the building contractor that will be charged to this budget, in order to have a real number.

My desire is to finish up the bid package, which was our original scope of work, shortly after providing the cost estimate. At that point, if you and LCCC believe that the best course of action is to allow us, Fremont Electric, and Energy Management Systems to perform the work for our estimated price, that would be great. On the other hand, if you believe it is prudent to bid the work out, we will understand that, too. What I don't want is "scope creep" that results in all of us being unhappy with the final product and the final price.

Thanks,

Ted
-- Ted Hanlon Manager High Plains Solar Wind, LLC

Confidential Correspondence 8/5/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/5/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Hi Seth,

I was just thinking about the wind turbines and the possibility of adding a second large turbine in the future as well as the small Teaching Tower. How will we plug them into this system? Can we run the wires in such a way that they plug into the transformer on the first large turbine? If so can we monitor the production of each turbine individually or will their power output be combined into one stream coming into the building on one circuit? If we have them running on different circuits, do we need extra wiring in the conduit to the turbines? Frankly, I don’t think we would add another turbine to this site unless we added another building or more land. But I am thinking about the teaching tower, because even if we don’t get anymore grant money, we still should be able to fund the PVs and the Teaching Tower. Speaking of the PVs, will they have their own feed to the building or will their power be combined with the wind? As I think this over, I think I remember someone saying that they will have a data line connection which will feed data back to the kiosk as to how much power each would be generating. I just want to make sure that after all this money we are spending on monitoring systems that we will be able to tell how much each system is producing versus a cumulative reading that all the systems are producing together. What you’re your thoughts? Talk to you later.

Phil

Confidential Correspondence 8/5/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to LCCC Team

Correspondence 8/5/2005 – Email from Elizabeth Hite to LCCC Team

Bob Cox would like to meet with Angela Glode, Sabrina Lane, WM Stalcup, Sharon Keizer, Seth Carson, Jerry Harris and Dr. Bohlen from 9 - 10 am and then have Scott and Nicole come to the meeting.

Please respond to Elizabeth Hite either through email or Business Services (307) 778-1153 for your availability.

Thank you,

Elizabeth Hite

Correspondence 8/5/2005 – Email from Tom Wacha to Seth Carson

Good morning Seth,

I'm just checking in to see if everything worked out with the Green Touchscreen proposal I sent you on Monday for the Laramie County Community College project.

Please let me know how things are progressing when you have a moment. If you have any questions or need the proposal modified, I would be happy to take care of that for you as well.

Thanks and have a wonderful weekend.

Sincerely,

Tom Wacha

Correspondence 8/5/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to LCCC Team

Hi everyone,

After the Compressed Video meeting was ended yesterday, Nicole brought up the costs for the Science Lab and Art Studio. She met with Seth, Tim Laughlin and myself. I am not sure why she did not bring this up during the meeting, but I wanted to make sure that all of you knew what happened and was discussed.

She wanted to talk about the value management items related to those two rooms. She said that when TK stated in the Value Management Ideas document that LCCC could save $49,024 by deleting the casework and plumbing for those two rooms. When LCCC decided to add half of each line item back into the project to cover the cost of cabinetry and plumbing in the science lab (approximately $24,513), TK had to calculate if simply adding half of each of those lines back would cover the cost of the science room. The costs associated with each of those rooms were presented as follows:

Art Room Science Lab

Cabinetry $10,725 $18,584

Plumbing $10,713 $10,021

Total $21,438 $38,311

When I confronted her as to why the two totals do not add up to the amounts listed in the Value Management Ideas document TK presented to us, her answer was, “That was a conservative number.” The total listed for the science lab includes two (2) fume hoods. If we want to delete one (1) of them, we could save approximately $5000. She also mentioned that we could delete the hot water circulation pump for that room, which was a spec.d item by MKK. This pump slowly circulates hot water to the faucets in the science lab so when someone turns on a hot water faucet, there is immediate hot water. Without the pump, you would have to let the water run for a few seconds until the hot water traveled from the hot water heater (across the hall) to the faucet. She did not know how much that pump would save us if we eliminated it, but would find out and get back to us. The last item she mentioned we could cut to save money was the cabinetry in the science storage/prep room, but did not know how much that would save.

Phil Neal

Correspondence 8/5/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Tim Laughlin

Tim,

It appears that we may be able to save some money by changing the spec on the membrane roofing. Therefore, wanted to check with you on the revision.

Spec'd system: Single Ply Ballast Roof (6" Iso, 60 Mil EPDM, Ballast, 15 Yr Warranty)

Alternate System: GenFlex TPO, 45 Mil, over 6" Iso, 15 Yr Warranty.

By the way, thanks for the information on Weathercraft. Gregg did get me a number, but it wasn't within the project's budget.

Thank you, Nicole

Site Visit 8/5/2005 – Seth Carson visited the site.

Seth visited the site and observed that no work was taking place at 2:15 on Friday afternoon. Seth observed that some steel interior wall framing had begun in the North pod. The photos are posted here from the site visit.

Report for 8/8/2005 – 8/12/2005 – LCCC – Albany County Campus

Prepared by Seth A. Carson

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Michael Walters to Seth Carson

Seth --

Would you please email me the job site phone number?

Michael

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Michael Walters

Michael,

Attached is the close out letter for the smartboard RFI for your files. As you will read, there are some instances that electrician was smart and placed in the slab the data conduit in the side wall (directly under the cable tray along the corridors) to the podium box. This will result in easier data wiring instead of running it to the other wall and down through the J Box to the podium box.

Also, I reset the web-cam. Most of the time the superintendent is not in the job trailer he is outside working, but here is trailer number, 742-6227.

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Michael Walters to Seth Carson

Seth --

I did not receive the attached SmartBoard diagram you mention in your memo. Would you be able to email that to me?

Michael

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Tim Laughlin and Nicole Buscher

Tim and Nicole,

The electrician has request information regarding the finished ceilings heights in the various rooms throughout the building. He is especially interested in the slope changes/heights in the exterior classrooms. I have reviewed the plans and since only a limited numbers of rooms are indicated on the section pages, we will need more information. I thought you could generate a simple spreadsheet with the room number; indicate if ceiling was flat/sloped, heights at front and rear of ceiling if sloped. This is something I believe they need with the next 24 hours. Please copy to me and Nicole.

Also, Tom Fuller indicated at the energy grant meeting that he would like to see the solar analysis that was done to calculate the sunshade sizes, heights, etc. Tim, you had indicated that you had run something like this in the computer when you designed the building. Can you print something out to put in our grant application for supporting the expense and energy savings?

Thanks,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Tim Laughlin to Seth Carson

All of the ceiling heights are called out on sheet A800 - Reflected Ceiling Plan. There is a number in each room with a flat ceiling that looks something like +11'-0". This is the elevation above the concrete floor for the ceiling. In rooms with sloping ceilings there is a number with a leader at both the high and low edges of the ceiling. There is also a note in the general notes for that sheet.

We did do some analysis as well as computer modeling and animation for the sunshades. However, I would check with MKK to see what they did for calculating their heat gain and heat loss loads. They should be doing those loads on a room-by-room basis and would have more accurate numbers already computed.

Thanks,

Timothy Laughlin

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Tim Macnamara

Tim,

Could you please send a reply back soon on the following. Thanks.

First, as a cost savings idea, the Foundation Board selected the cost savings in a number of areas. One was selected was interior doors. It consisted of and would save just $768.50 for the entire building to downgrade from solid red oak doors to solid laminate doors. There was some concern with maintenance at the last OAC meeting. In my opinion, nothing beats a solid oak door for long term life and refinish. Please comment on this.

Second, I had an idea to save some money and fall inline with have a green campus (no onsite fossil fuel burning). I received Bob Berry’s blessing on this one too. The idea was to substitute the gas preheater in the hrv duct and replace it with an electric resistant one. Since the gas was eliminated in the science lab, this would be the only thing that is left that would use gas in the building. The bathroom hot water heaters are electric and HVAC is the geo-system. This would eliminate the $5K+ worth of gas plumbing, exhaust ducting, and the preheater material/labor. Nicole also said there were also unknown additional costs in trenching and hookup fees for the gas coming into the building. My question for you is whether or not it would be unwise to not run gas into the building thinking inline with future scenarios for the building. If the gas was free to stub in the outside, should we do it? Are their monthly fees if LCCC is not using any gas? I thought that if the science lab needed gas that they could have an buried propane tank right out side the classroom as an optional future add on. Please comment.

Thanks for you input,

Seth A. Carson

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Tim Macnamara to Seth Carson

Seth-

As we spoke on the phone, our experience with the solid laminate doors is they delaminate easily and are a maintenance issue. Our current residence hall is a good example. We would prefer the sliced red oak doors.

As far as gas to the building, that might be an issue for Eileen and the future need for gas. If the only need for gas now is the pre-heat of the make up air unit, it doesn't seem cost effective to spend $5000 if it can be done electrically. Of course, electric heat is more expensive than gas, so electrical operational costs will be greater, but I don't know by how much.

How easy is it to get gas to the building in the future if needed? Do we want to at least make some foundation penetrations (or similar infrastructure accommodations) for future gas piping if needed?

Tim

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Tim Macnamara to Seth Carson

Nicole-

I didn't know what the Genflex TPO system was, so we did a little research. From what I can gather the Genflex TPO is a thermoplastic membrane system that is fully adhered to the insulation. Apparently they even have a peel and stick version of the system. We have no thermoplastic membrane systems, so our hands on experience is limited. Couple of thoughts though:

- We generally like the thicker membrane and generally specify 60 mil, so going from 60 mil to 45 mil is something we generally don't like to do.

- Not sure how the thermoplastic systems will behave in the altitude and exposure to changes in roof system temperatures experienced in Laramie. During the day time, in the sun, the temp of the roof system can get upwards of 140 degrees, then get as low as 20 degrees below at night. From what I read today, some thermoplastic systems do better than others in that kind of environment.

Not sure I provided any help, but there is our "two cents worth" Tim

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Bob Cox to Nicole Buscher

FYI

Hi Nicole --

While I know you are relatively new to many of the issues put before you, let me express my frustration with some of the processes we followed which now seem to be either ignored or fallen through the cracks.

I know that early on, prior to signing the contract with you folks, Tim Macnamara and staff sent a list of preferred construction materials. Why some of these items have fallen through the "cracks" is problematic. I don't know if it's a communication issue with Jay Midyette and Tim Laughlin and yourselves or what. Several times I have heard or it has been stated that Powers was contacted regarding our locking/hardware/opener preferences. Now we are looking at a system that is not compatible with our keyway system.

I am also concerned about the roofing system being proposed. Tim Macnamara has informed me that the system being proposed is substandard. It is supposed to be a 15 year roof system but looking at the materials and grade, it appears that Tim's observation is correct. I am concerned about the durability in Laramie's climate.

I know we are desperately trying to bring this project into budget or some agreed upon variation thereof, but I am having a hard time doing so at the expense of some minimum level of durability.

How much more expensive is it to use the Schlege system we use here? Regarding the roof system, same question? How much more expensive to get it back to the originally designed roof?

Thanks

Bob

-----Original Message-----

From: Macnamara, Tim

Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 11:32 AM

To: Cox, Bob

Cc: Harris, Jerry; 'Nicole Buscher'

Subject: RE: Builder's Risk/ ACC key system

Bob-

Jerry gave me a copy of the project specs last week, and Nicole is correct, the specs do call for Sargent locksets with Corbin Russwin and Yale as approved substitutes. Apparently Midyette didn't follow our preferred equipment list when they wrote the specification for locksets and specify Schlage. Many of the items in the door hardware submittals are the equipment we asked for, but the locksets, door closures, panic hardware, and some other things are not. Without using Schlage locksets, it's my understanding we can't use our restricted keyway from Schlage. The keying system at ACC will not be compatible with the one on the Cheyenne campus. Tim

-----Original Message-----

From: Nicole Buscher [mailto:NicoleB@taylorconstrgrp.com]

Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:51 AM

To: Cox, Bob

Cc: Harris, Jerry; Macnamara, Tim

Subject: Re: Builder's Risk/ ACC key system

Bob,

Taylor Kohrs does have the Builder's Risk coverage for this project.

I've asked for a copy of the policy and will forward it to you once I receive it.

As for the locksets, the project manual specified both Sargent mortise & cylindrical locksets. The submittals identified all locksets/passagesets to be Sargent cylindrical level locks. These submittals were left for Tim MacNamara on Monday, 8/1. As with all submittals, we ask that the college notify Taylor Kohrs within seven (7) calendar days if any are changes needed. To date, Taylor Kohrs has not been informed of any changed to this submittal. (It is our understanding from Powers Products, however, that these materials match what they are supplying the Cheyenne campus.)

Thank you, Nicole

>>> "Cox, Bob" <BCox@lccc.wy.edu> 08/05/05 05:14PM >>>

Nicole --

Two questions.

Do you have a builder's risk policy on this project? If you do, please send a copy to me.

Tim Macnamara has asked if the specs for the lock set have been changed from the Schlege keyway we use. Please advise.

Thanks

Bob

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to LCCC Team

Hi Folks,

We need to make a quick decision today on the windmill in Medicine Bow. Ted and his partner called me on Friday and stated South Dakota windmill firm they would like to use will have the onsite tech. person there this week. For $785 we can have this tech person thoroughly examine the tower/turbine/blades and prepare a very detailed scope of work to refurbish and make the thing like new before it gets to Laramie. Kind of like a house inspection to find out if it is a good car or a lemon. We would save in travel cost since their onsite and we would have in hand in the next 2 weeks the contract/price to renew the turbine and turnkey this part of the project. I would have to believe that Tom Fuller would encourage us to bill him for this out of the grant funds. They would like to have us tell them around lunch time if this is ok. I would strongly recommend this. Going with this turbine, if it is a good one will free up a lot of funds to reallocate in other places.

Please send back your thoughts. Bob I will give them the go ahead we I hear from you.

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

I would highly recommend this also. The other unknown on this item is the price "Old Bill" is going to give us for the turbine. Have either Ted or you talked to Bill about the donation/sale of the turbine? Phil

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Steven Turner to Seth Carson

Hi Seth --

It seems that this would be an appropriate expense to turn in through the grant. Please work with Jerry regarding the purchase of this service. We will then charge the expense to the grant.

Thanks

Bob

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Steven Turner to Seth Carson

Hi Seth

I contacted Bill Young to give him a heads up that there may be a

technician that will need access to the Nordtank. Let me know if this is approved and I will pass Bill's contact info on to EMS so that they can negotiate a time.

Over the weekend, Ted suggested that we just go ahead and pay for this ourselves (still an option if you want), but it looks like you will have this handled soon. The technician will be there through to the end of this week, but the sooner they know the better.

I asked Bill if he knew a firm cost on the Nordtank. He said that we should talk to Paul Warila of Platte River Power Authority at (970) 229-5604. I'm not sure who should make the call, or if negotiations are already in progress. I'm happy to do this if you want, but there was mention that the price could be low on the basis of a "donation" towards the college, so a direct negotiation might work better. Let me know.

Other cost information should be coming in today. Kevin is completing our 1-line drawings.

Steve

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Tom Wacha

Tom,

Thanks for the very quick proposal last Monday. I’m sure it will need a bit of tweaking, but overall it was what we needed, very impressive!!! We have a meeting with the University of Wyoming tomorrow to discuss their grant that is pig backing off of ours. They will be spiting out some data information as well. In short, the scope may grow a bit. I also need you to send me more detailed specs (processor, speed, memory, etc.) on the touch screen computer/screen for our IT to review. Thanks.

Seth A. Carson

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Tom Wacha

Hi Seth,

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad the proposal was what you were looking for. No problem about increasing the scope - just let me know what else you have in mind and I'll be happy to develop a revised version.

Regarding the more detailed specifications for the monitor and computer, I have attached a diagram of the ELO 19 inch monitor we recommend for the Green Touchscreen. I have also attached a document that details other physical requirements, from placement to computer specifications.

If you need anything else, please let me know.

Thanks Seth,

Tom Wacha

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Seth Carson

Scott and Nicole,

I received a telephone call this morning (Monday, August 8, 2005) from Eileen Ely of our Albany County Campus regarding the project in Laramie. Eileen was contacted today by Tim Laughlin of Midyette Architects asking for her input on some construction suggestions regarding materials and technique.

If you recall, Dr. Bohlen issued a directive clearly defining the “chain of command” for the ACC project, which was recorded in the meeting minutes of July 26, 2005. Tim’s contact is a direct violation of this process, so I am asking that you contact your sub-contractors and consultants and ask that they comply with this directive as soon as possible.

I would appreciate a written response to this request.

Thank You

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/8/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson

Seth,

In this e-mail you requested that all DDC information be sent to Bob Berry last week. Just wanted to let you know that Bob has updated plans and specs. Therefore, he has everything I have. I won't be receiving any additional information until a submittal is put together on this product.

Thank you, Nicole

Confidential Correspondence 8/9/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to LCCC Team

Confidential Correspondence 8/9/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to LCCC Team

Confidential Correspondence 8/9/2005 – Email from Bob Cox to LCCC Team

Confidential Correspondence 8/9/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to LCCC Team

Correspondence 8/9/2005 – Email from Lindsey Blatz to LCCC Team

Attached are meeting minutes from Thursday's meeting. Our next scheduled meeting is Thursday, August 18th.

Also, attached is an updated schedule for your use and review along with the pictures from the month of July.

Thank you,

Lindsey Blatz

Correspondence 8/9/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Tim Laughlin

Hi Seth,

We did talk about the doors at the last OAC meeting. First, in either scenario the doors themselves are solid not hollow core. The difference we are discussing is the surface material that is laminated to the door core. The door weight, sturdiness, thickness, sound transmittance properties, etc. will for all purposes be equal. Plastic laminate is probably a more durable surface, but natural wood is obviously more appealing.

In regards to the natural gas supply. We have no issue with replacing the gas pre-heater with an electric one. Either will serve the purpose. As far as our opinion on bringing gas supply to the building; we would recommend that a supply line be brought to the building even if it is not used initially. This scenario would entail working with the utility company with the understanding that the line may never be used or would be used in the future for the science program.

As I mentioned at the OAC meeting, bringing the gas line into the building after construction is completed will require significant planning and coordination. Several things like vertical loop wells, heat pump piping, tele/data cabling, electrical cabling, and water supply for the fire hydrants, will need to be located and avoided. Additionally, you would be tearing up portions of the site, and depending on the proposed path, may need to get special permission to dig up the fire access turnaround as the building will be occupied at that time. None of this is unsurmountable, but requires considerable planning and coordination, which usually translates to a higher cost and a longer timeline.

So if LCCC ever plans on using gas in the building it would be easier to install the supply now if the utility company is willing to, knowing that it may never be used or at least not used for a period of time.

Thanks,

Timothy Laughlin

Correspondence 8/9/2005 – Email to Nicole Buscher from Bob Cox

Hi Nicole --

I believe we are now looking at Friday at 10 a.m.. Jerry Harris is working on an agenda and will have that sent to you by noon on Wednesday (tomorrow).

Let me know if that will work for you.

Thanks

Bob

Correspondence 8/9/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Bob Cox

Bob,

Scott and I are available Friday at 10am.

Thanks, Nicole

Meeting 8/9/2005 – Seth Carson, Phil Neal, Eileen Ely, Don Davis, Bob Parks, Chuck Polson, Steve Turner, Kevin Luke were present at Fremont Electric

First, the project details were discussed with Pacific Power. Bob suggested that when LCCC is done with the design to contact John Youni. He is the final design sign off from Pacific Power. Bob mentioned that John may or may not want to do a power quality study. Seth stated he would contact John in the near future. Also discussed was the planned cogeneration wiring method for LCCC. It was agreed that the disconnect switch would come before the step down transformer in the process and be located next to the meter in a lockable box.

Second, the one-line diagram for the co-generation was discussed in great detail. Steven delivered some of the specifications to Chuck. Steven explained that the pv/wind are both grid tie and are not electrically charged if the main grid is down. It was agreed that Chuck needed to design the inter-tie system and that Steven and Ted would assist Chuck by providing the appropriate technology information and specifications.

It was agreed upon that Fremont Electric would put together a design/build proposal to check and sign off on the integrated grid-building tie system and deliver/perform the materials/labor from the building to the interior base of the turbine. This work would include the following:

1. Prepare a cost for the design/build services below.

3. Provide labor/materials for solar array step up transformer, and main electrical room co-generation step down transformer and all necessary grounding, conduit, wiring for this equipment. Provide the step up transformer for the solar in the turbine base and all necessary grounding, conduit, wiring for this equipment.

4. Provide labor/materials for disconnect switch and all necessary breakers/panel in the building and in the turbine base.

Next, the current monitors were discussed in great detail. It was agreed that the recommended current monitors would work in the GE remote panels. Steve was asked and verified later in the week that the data ribbon was rated for 300V that was to go from the panel to the data box located directly under every panel in the building. It was agreed upon that Steven and Ted would assist Fremont with these systems and that Fremont would pull the wire in a daisy chain form from data box to data box. Steven agreed to provide Don with the data wiring method/plan for these current monitors and data boxes. It was agreed upon that Chuck and Don were not responsible for the data collection or software program/planning and that UW and Steven would take care of this.

Overall, the meeting was successful.

Meeting 8/9/2005 – Seth Carson, Phil Neal, Tom Fuller, Cenk Yavuzturk were present at the University of Wyoming

The group met at the UW Architectural Department board room. First, the group discussed the geo-exchange system. Cenk voiced his concerns about the static ground temperature of 54 degrees. He stated that is should be more like 44 degrees. Seth agreed to send Cenk the CT results. Specifically the far field temperature was important and needed to be correct for the system to work at optimum efficiency stated Cenk. He also wanted to review the temperature profile for the test well and offered to check the design/CT results.

Next the data that the Cenk was planning to collect was discussed. He explained that his grant would cover the computers needed to accept the incoming information. He also explained that the data would come through a SX1000 National Instruments module chassis and that he would be organizing the information in a program called lab view. Cenk explained that he could assist LCCC in providing the end result web-ready analysis.

Specifically it was agreed that LCCC would provide the power production information from the wind/solar that UW would have real time access. UW also stated that they would need power and data lines at the base of the turbine for their weather station. It was also agreed upon that LCCC would provide this.

Seth explained the current monitors and it was agreed upon that LCCC would share this information to UW for there demonstration and analysis of the energy efficiency of the building grant items (heat pumps, photocell classrooms, and beyond).

Cenk stated that he wanted the information regarding the heat pump operations (entering/exiting fluid temp./air temp., room temperatures and energy used) by all the heat pumps in the building. Seth explained that the DCC should provide this information and LCCC would provide this along with the correlating current monitors.

Cenk stated that he would be responsible in his grant for providing and retrofitting the geo-ground loop piping to obtain information about the entering/exiting fluid flow rate/temp. gauges, etc. He also explained that he would perform and install the devices for the building envelope performance analysis. Seth stated that Cenk needed to come out to the jobsite and decide where these devices need to go. Lastly, Cenk stated that he would provide and install the occupancy sensors.

Correspondence 8/10/2005 – Email to Nicole Buscher from Bob Cox

Thanks -- Jerry is working on the agenda. If you have items you want to include, please let us know.

Bob

Correspondence 8/10/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to LCCC Team

Hi all,

Donna, it sounds like we can go with this letter if you would like to give it your official LCCC touches and cover page, have Chuck sign it and let me know if you want me to deliver it to Tom – you are more than welcome to do it if you have time. However, there is one statement that Tom Fuller wants us to add. Seth, Tom Fuller, Dr. Jenk (UW) and I met yesterday to resolve the overlap between the UW grant and our project – this was the issue we discussed with Tom last week in Cheyenne at the meeting you all were at. We had a very good meeting and did get some things resolved. Seth will be getting you a report on this meeting. I just spoke with Tom and he would like us to put a statement in the letter of variance saying that LCCC and UW coordinated the two grants so there is no duplication of services, rather, they now coordinate with, and compliment one another.

Thanks for all of your help.

Phil

Correspondence 8/10/2005 – Email from Jim Cavalli to LCCC Team

Seth:

I received a call from Bob reference soils information for the LCCC wind turbine. Aspen-Banner had nothing to do with the gathering of soils information for the project. I would imagine they used a geo-tech out of Cheyenne such as Terracon or one of the other firms. I have never seen the report as we did not do the pavement design. You probably need to either talk to Taylor-Khors (Ralph Knox is superintendent) or the architect.

LCCC may have a copy of the geo-tech report.

My guess would be that the report they had done may not give you enough detail for the turbine site as they may not have drilled to the depth you need for turbine foundation but that is purely a guess on my part.

Sorry I don't know more

Jim Cavalli

Correspondence 8/10/2005 – Email from Lindsey Blatz to Seth Carson

Seth,

I faxed you RFI #9 that I would like you to answer, however, I remember you saying that your fax machine doesn't work 100% of the time, so I will attach it to this e-mail just incase. Let me know if you have any questions today or Thursday, otherwise give Nicole a call because my last day is Thursday.

Thanks,

Lindsey Blatz

Correspondence 8/11/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson

Seth,

As discussed last week, the cost to finish the Science Lab and Science Lab Storage, is $33,311. This includes one (1) fume hood, acid piping, safety shower and lab casework.

*Note: LCCC had only approved $24,513 for plumbing and casework.

Please review and advise as to how Taylor Kohrs is to proceed.

Also, I have confirmed that the fume hood included in this pricing is the 'Earthline' model by Kewaunee. This model is approx. $1,000 more than a standard fume hood but conserves energy.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/11/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Tim Macnamara

Tim,

The 'LCCC Construction Quality Standards' list, dated 1/31/05, identifies a couple toilet accessories to be used.

Towel Dispensers by Kimberly Clark

Soap Dispensers by Georgia Pacific

Could I get either model numbers of these manufacturers or cut sheets?

The towel dispenser doesn't appear to have an integral waste receptacle. Does the college prefer a stand alone basket on the floor?

Finally, for the remainder of the toilet accessories, are Bradley or Bobrick manufacturers acceptable?

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/11/2005 – Email from Michael Walters to Seth Carson

Seth --

I left you a voice message several days ago, but wanted to put in writing the answers to your questions.

You wanted to know who was going to hook up the Smartboards, projectors, etc.

Taylor/Kohrs should install the projector mounts (some rooms will have two others will have only one, but room for the second) in each room to the ceiling. LCCC will provide instructions, distances, etc. and the hardware. LCCC will pull the serial cable to connect the Smartboard and the projector. Taylor/Kohrs will wire up all data and electrical.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Michael

Correspondence 8/11/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Michael Walters

Michael,

Thanks for the responsibility clarification regarding the smartboards. This is the link (http://www.bluefeatherdesignbuild.com/LCCC/ACC/DesignandPhotos/August2005/LCCC-ACCSmartboard8-1-2005.mht for the smartboard diagram if I didn’t give it to you earlier. Nicole needs to know it there is any extra wall blocking needed for the smartboards in the walls? I will tell here that she is to install the hardware. Also the electrician needs to know were the data/phone jacks are on the outside SIPS walls. I believe he means outside in the patio areas. I would make sense that they would be at the same height as the wall outlet (18”). FYI, pics of the smartboard conduit are on the August photos page on my project page.

Thanks for response,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/11/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to LCCC Team

Good Day Everyone,

Attached is the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting, scheduled for 10:00 am in the Admin Bldg Board room.

Thanks

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/11/2005 – Email from Seth Carson

Michael,

Attached are the specs for the touchscreen. Please review and let me know what you think.

Correspondence 8/11/2005 – Email from Tim Macnamara to Nicole Buscher

Nicole-

Towel dispensers - we use Kimberly Clark paper roll style, lever action and the only number I can find on the box is 09707-30

Soap dispensers - we have been using Georgia Pacific - Cormatic 8008. But I don't think these meet ADA criteria anymore. I'm being told the lever to release the soap has to be pushed now and not pulled as it is on the 8008. We haven't found a new model number yet for the ADA compliant soap dispenser. Frankly, the reason we like the Cormatic 8008 is so that we only have stock one size and type of hand soap refill bottle. Since ACC can stock whatever soap they want, I'm not sure we need to insist on a certain model. We probably do want to make sure it meets the latest ADA requirements.

Waste receptacle - we generally prefer a stand alone waste basket on the floor, usually the half-round ones

Remaining toilet accessories - Bradley or Bobrick are fine.

Tim

Correspondence 8/11/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to LCCC Team

Hi Folks,

I wanted to wait till after our meeting with Tom on Tuesday afternoon to comment on the variance letter. Also, I didn’t get a copy of the revised letter with everyone’s comments, but I’m sure their comments are fine. I have a couple of thoughts and revisions I believe should go in.

First, I agree that the tentative idea should be there, but let’s use the wording “current projected cost” or similar wording. Tentative sounds like we don’t know what we are doing. My memory serves that we were just going to give Tom a draft letter until later in the month when more numbers were set in stone. With this being the case, I don’t think Chuck need to sign anything until that point.

Second, I would urge you to remove the specific request of variance from identifying the specific part B wind turbines. Stating this confines us to having money left just for the solar and limits our options if the supplemental grant is not funded later. I would suggest being general in our variance request to just say $229,607 from EG-1 funds and funds from Part B.

Next, the monitoring funds next to be adjusted to include the current quote I have for the kiosk and software integrated monitoring for $20,130 and $32,000 estimate for the current monitors we have from High Plains Solar. After visiting with Tom, UW, and Phil on Tuesday, there was consensus that LCCC should pursue and facilitate these devices, without them we can’t get the data and justify the main purpose of having a Kiosk. We wouldn’t really have an “integrated” system without information that comes from the DDC and current monitors. It was agreed that UW would interrupt this data and facilitate all other remain devices and data that the website firm would use for the kiosk. Tom was very receptive and agreeable to this and I believe that this is important energy management tool and more than just a kiosk. These devices are going to need to be integrated, purchased, installed all completed in the next 7 weeks. This is well before the supplemental grant is awarded. In short, putting these in the integrated monitoring line item is the proper place. I would hate to bill for them towards the the pv/wind Part B and not any pv/wind stuff to show for. Our original thought process for putting them with solar and wind was fine but this is where they should go. Were money a lot of funds around, lets get it right and Tom will have not problems with us in the future.

That is all I have to say about the variance report. In summary, this will fix the building grant issues (with what we know now for Nicole’s numbers) and leave us $91,500 in the part B of the grant. This will get us a decent solar array even if the supplemental grant is not funded. WIN-WIN.

Correspondence 8/12/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to LCCC Team

Good Morning Everyone,

I spoke with Seth Carson yesterday afternoon regarding the concerns raised during our last internal meeting, specifically who was responsible for knowing what was in the large bound “Construction Documents Project Manual” issued by Taylor Kohrs and Midyette Architects. Seth Carson is familiar with this book, and does check this book against the drawings, submittals, and other documents as the project goes forward. I have also spoken with Tim Macnamara, and he is willing to assist Seth when the need arises. Tim has reviewed the aforementioned document also in an effort to ensure that critical construction materials/methods are in place when and where possible.

Thanks

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/12/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to Seth Carson

Seth,

Attached is the latest letter of variance that I have.

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/12/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to Seth Carson

I have already signed a letter and I suspect it has been delivered. Donna has the draft that I singed.

Chuck

Owner-Contracting Meeting 8/12/2005 - Meeting was held in Cheyenne.

Meeting notes are confidential.

Site Visit 8/12/2005 –Seth Carson visited the site.

Seth visited the site and observed the following. The fire suppression system rough-in in the south pod was near completion. The roof drain holes had be placed and were set in both the south and north pod. The glu-lams were set successfully in the commons area. A large percentage of the IT in-the-wall conduit was completed in the south pod.

The north pod had about fifty percent of the interior steel framing left to complete. The north pod also appeared to have all of the SIPS set in place with the appropriate headers set for the steel light shelves.

Also of note is that the Boulder Drive entrance and exit were in progress. Grading had been done and the drive was progressing.

Correspondence 8/12/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to LCCC Team

Just wanted to confirm with the college that Taylor Kohrs will be proceeding with the roofing system as specified in the project manual.

Ballasted EPDM, 60 mil, roof

Thank you, Nicole

Report for 8/15/2005 – 8/19/2005 – LCCC – Albany County Campus

Prepared by Seth A. Carson

Correspondence 8/15/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Phil Neal

Hi Seth,

Where do we stand with the items we agreed to at the meeting with Jenk and Tom? Did you send out a report from that meeting so everyone else knows what was discussed? I want to make sure they all know and agree. Thanks

Phil

Correspondence 8/15/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Phil Neal

Hi LCCC Energy Team,

Below are the meeting notes from the Fremont Electric and UW additional grant meeting from last week. Please read, review, and respond with concerns and questions you have about your finalized responsibilities.

Thanks,

Seth Carson

Meeting 8/9/2005 - Seth Carson, Phil Neal, Eileen Ely, Don Davis, Bob Parks, Chuck Polson, Steve Turner, Kevin Luke were present at Fremont Electric

1. Prepare a cost for the design/build services below.

2. Deliver the necessary conduit/grounded wiring from the main electrical room to service the turbine/solar array, interior turbine receptacles/work lights, exterior turbine tower light, fiber optic data communication access for PLC, Inverter, and UW grant weather station, power meters, and anemometer. 3. Provide labor/materials for solar array step up transformer, and main electrical room co-generation step down transformer and all necessary grounding, conduit, wiring for this equipment. Provide the step up transformer for the solar in the turbine base and all necessary grounding, conduit, wiring for this equipment.

4. Provide labor/materials for disconnect switch and all necessary breakers/panel in the building and in the turbine base.

Overall, the meeting was successful.

Meeting 8/9/2005 - Seth Carson, Phil Neal, Tom Fuller, Cenk Yavuzturk were present at the University of Wyoming

Correspondence 8/15/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson and Bob Berry

Bob,

Attached is MEP's well field design. Let me know if you have any comments. We'll be sending this out to contractors either today or tomorrow for bidding.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/15/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Cenk Yavuzturk and Bob Berry

Hi Bob and Cenk,

I have attached the information about the LCCC CT and l atest loop-field design to this email. Please review and respond. Bob, I know you have seen the CT test results but Cenk (UW Professor) thinks that the static ground temp. may be wrong (44 degrees is his thinking) and that it may be should be retested. Thoughts??

Thanks,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Cenk Yavuzturk

Seth,

Below, I have made some changes and added some comments to your notes as I recall them pertaining to our meeting. Would you please correct them.

Thanks.

C. Yavuzturk, Ph.D., C.E.M.

(Note: Seth, the last paragraph is partially incorrect! We have agreed that retrofitting of the ground heat exchanger system for data acquisition would be provided to UW. Actually, the agreement was that all necessary retrofitting of subsystems except for the analysis of the building envelope performance and except for occupancy sensors in selected zones would be provided by LCCC up to the NI modules. In fact, based upon the agreement, UW has reflected this change in the latest revision of its proposal to WY Energy Commission by providing a significant cost reduction. Recall a number of about $10K was discussed..)

Lastly, we should have an field site meeting ASAP as your schedule allows..

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Phil Neal

Hi Seth,

It was my understanding that Cenk was to buy the weather station out of his grant and we would provide the wiring needed to run power and data to and from this unit.

Thanks

Phil

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Cenk Yavuzturk

Seth,

Thank you the report and the drawing. As I stated before, I have some concerns with respect to the undisturbed ground temperature of 54F. Having read the ground thermal conductivity report it seems to me that this temperature was not measured at the site but rather obtained from published isothermal charts of the US. It should be kept in mind that such charts are very inaccurate (in many instances wrong) and determination of ground thermal conductivity and system design based such charts leads to erronous system designs that in a few years would simply fail.

I recommend the following course of action:

1) The undisturbed ground temperature should be measured at the actual site using the available test borehole.

2) The ground thermal conductivity should be recalculated using the actually measured undisturbed ground temperature.

3) If possible the test borehole should be used (incorporated, piped in) in the larger ground heat exchanger. Otherwise you would be "wasting" a good borehole.

Thanks.

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Cenk Yavuzturk

Phil,

That is correct...

Thanks.

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email to LCCC Team from Phil Neal

Hi all,

I wanted to check in with everyone about the supplemental grant we are going to submit to Tom Fuller. We have completed the Letter of Variance and it is delivered to Tom. Now we must get the grant request to him and I was under the distinct impression that he wants it by the end of the month. Who do we want to write this? Since we are all very busy with school starting back up, I did not want this laying on the back-burner. Also, do we have all the hard bids from Taylor-Kohrs so we can write the request?

Phil

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email to LCCC Team from Jerry Harris

Phil,

I would suggest that you and Donna Regan start the grant request document. At this time, we don't have hard bids from TK, but was promised same sometime this week.

Thanks

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Phil Neal

Hi Seth,

Can you check with this guy about the wind turbine. I am not sure who he is or what he wants. Thanks Phil

Hi Phil

Our contact on this is Seth and Ted Hanlon. I don't have Ted's number handy right now but can follow up when I get back to my office.

Bob

Hi Bob,

I thought I would check with you regarding this issue. I did not want to talk with anyone who might be a sub-contractor without your approval. I am not sure who he is or what he wants. Thanks Bob.

Phil

Phil, would you be able to contact this person to answer his questions?

Thanks, Marilyn

Hi Marilyn,

I received a phone call today from George Luce (sp?). He has some questions about the wind turbines for the ACC. He wants to know what type of turbines we are going to use. Would someone (John Ely/Phil Neal) be able to help him? He is hard of hearing so it is difficult to talk to him. His number is 307.742.4836.

I will be out of the office tomorrow and I understand that you are out of the office today which is why I am emailing you.

Thanks,

Jayne

Jayne Myrick

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from Chuck Polson to Seth Carson and Don Davis

Don,

When is this job (Wind and Solar Evaluation) going to start?

I have yet to receive one item from Steve Turner on the systems that are going to be installed.

What came of the meeting with the University? I am highly skeptical with regards to the Square D plug and play solution proposed at our meeting. The proper way to implement a monitoring system is to design it, bid it, then install it. Not install it, then design it.

Below is a link to the Data trax contractor I told you about at the meeting.

http://www.datatraxsystems.com/Services/default.asp

My contact is Russ Morland (303) 582-3104. I recommend LCCC and the University really take a hard look at and evaluate what they want from the monitoring system prior to rushing into what appears to be a non comprehensive solution.

Let me know what I need to do.

Respectfully,

Chuck Polson P.E

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from Steven Turner to Seth Carson

Seth:

I called the accounts department at EMS and explained that LCCC wanted to pay for the inspection made on our PO. No problem. Have them call EMS at (605) 272-5398 and ask for Deb Vanderstein. She will set up the account and organize an invoice direct to LCCC.

Steve

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Jerry Harris, Chuck Bohlen and Bob Cox

Hi Guys,

I spoke with Bob from MSI and it sounds like he is not as worried as Don at Fremont Electric about his payment. I need to know what to tell Don. He is by far the most crucial sub-contractor we have for the project. We absolutely need to put in this revised contract with TK that the subs are paid quicker.

FYI, TK requires that their subs give them the months invoice by the 24^th of each month. If this is the case, TK needs to get us the invoice quicker, say by the 5^th. Then we can get them a check and TK can pay the subs before they issue their next months invoice. The subs need to get paid to keep them on the site by the 24^th of every month from the previous months invoice. However we get this in writing with TK, the better. If Fremont does not get paid this week they will walk. This late payment is a habit of Scott’s that Don is no longer going to deal with. Jerry and Bob, can you get me the date that all of the checks went out for this project so I can officially find out if TK is violating their contract with Fremont? Thanks.

Also, below is the information regarding the turbine inspection and PO. The inspection was performed this past Sat. and I expect a verdict any day on the cost and feasibility of this equipment working for LCCC.

Seth:

Steve

August month’s reports are posted on the project website. Please review and respond with questions.

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from Eileen Ely to Team

Good afternoon,

I just received a call from Terry Haugen (City of Laramie) about the ground source heating system, the number of proposed wells and possible effects on the Casper Aquifer. Apparently, a potential bidder from Minnesota contacted the City inquiring about possible aquifer concerns; they did not want to place a bid if there were potential problems. In my brief conversation with Terry, he indicated that the City has some concerns that need to address ASAP. If possible, someone needs to contact Terry this afternoon at 721-5241.

Thank you.

Eileen

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from Bob Cox to Team

Hi Nicole and Scott –

In an effort to help you, here is another rumor; this one regarding the ground source issue.

Let me know what you find out.

Thanks

Bob

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from Bob Berry to Team

Cy,

That rascal Seth is spreading bad information, as usual! I spoke with MEP, the wellfield design firm, and they informed me that their design is based on 48 degrees undisturbed.

In case you are not aware, MKK, the HVAC system designer that ran the original loads and annual model, overestimated the internal loads and came up with a very heavily dominated cooling load, even in January. We all agreed that these numbers needed adjustment, so MEP and MKK, asked for more specific load info from the IT department. The result was that the heat rejection values of PC's, monitors, etc. were reduced, as were the unoccupied hours heat gains to the space. The net result was still a system with a higher cooling load than a heating load.

Therefore, if the ground temperature is actually closer to 44, then the amount of heat exchange pipe in the ground, which is based on the peak cooling load, will actually be greater than the 10% margin of error used in the current design.

In a building with lower internal heat gains, which would have a higher heating demand, the lower ground temperature would lead to a greater amount of heat exchange surface. But for this building's characteristics, the lower ground temps will work in our favor and lead to higher efficiency levels.

Bob Berry

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from Steven Turner to Chuck Polson

Chuck:

Following up on our meeting last Tuesday at Fremont Electrical, here is some of the information you requested:

Re: Rating for ribbon cable to current transformers for Square D Model BCM42
Ribbon cable with a 300 V rating is available (e.g., 3M 3319 series, see attached PDF file: "3M Ribbon Cables"). I assume that this or better has been used as part of the UL 508 listing for the BCM42. I sent Square D technical support a request to conform the 300V rating, but I have not heard back yet. In any case, we can build new cables if necessary. We will probably have to do this anyway to extend the cables to the instrument boxes mounted below each panel board. 3M also make a jacketed cable (3603 series), or add-on jacketing (3616 series) that would provide additional protection, or a rounded cable (3659 series) that might make a neater installation. If this answers your concerns, please let me know and I will work with Dave to see if his inspector will also find this acceptable. Otherwise, let me know what else you need. I would like to have Fremont purchase one unit ASAP to get the mounting issues sorted out before the panels are installed since we may need to bolt on some standoffs from the back of the panel box.

Re: Fiber Optic cable pulled in with 120 VAC feed to tower
All fiber optic cores are non-conductive, but for some types the protective sheathes are conductive. NEC 770.133 indicates that Fiber Optic cables with non-conductive sheathes can be run in the raceway with Class 1 light and power lines up to 600V. I think this means that we can use one of the 4 inch raceways for the 480 VAC feed and the other for 120 VAC light, power and communications. To allow for possible future expansion of monitoring and other instruments and equipment around the tower, I suggest a fiber cable with at least 6 individual fibers. This will provide spares for damaged fibers as well as the option to put an ethernet router in the tower to network other instrumentation (weather, etc.). Attached is a quote that I received that includes a 650 ft fiber optic cable (with a pulling eye) that is totally waterproof in case any water ever collects in the conduit.

Re: Cable type for RS-485 network interconnect for BCM-42 modules
I have no problem with using a specialized RS-485 cable rather than Cat 5e. I am looking at several cables recommended for RS-485 and I will get back to you with a final recommendation. Alpha 6222C provides excellent overall shielding with a drain wire and costs approximately $525 per 1000 ft. Other alternatives are Belden 9842 ($412 per 1000 ft) or plenum rated 82842 ($885 per 1000ft). Belden 8723 ($148 per 1000ft) is also often recommended for RS-485 and has individually shielded pairs, but the impedance is unusually low (48 ohm).

Note: The RS-485 standard does not actually specify a cable type, but it is common practice to use the cable specified by the RS-422 standard which calls for 100 to 120 ohm impedance twisted pairs with up to 15 pF/ft capacitance and individual pair or overall shielding. Cat 5 and 5e cable is cheap and meets the main electrical requirements, so it is often used for RS-485, but it does not usually provide any shielding. In noisy electrical environments this sometimes means that data rate has to be lowered a notch. At the risk of some extra inconvenience and expense, we might as well make certain that we can use the highest possible data rate for the given length of the cable run.

Re: Grid tie
The Xantrex solar inverters are listed for UL1741 grid tie applications. In any combination with other power sources or loads, these units will always synchronize automatically to the grid frequency and phase, and disconnect automatically if the grid frequency or voltage deviates from programmed limits. The smaller 1 kW wind turbine is also UL1741 listed.

The Nordtank 65 kW turbine predates the UL1741 standard, but it was designed for grid tie applications. Since it is based on an induction generator, it is inherently self-syncronizing and reactive power must be available on the grid before any power can be generated. In addition, EMS (the company that will probably recondition the Medicine Bow unit) has added frequency and voltage monitoring to the control PLC. This means that when we tie the wind and solar systems together at the tower, and the grid fails or the disconnect is thrown, all units will shut down almost instantly because the voltage or frequency will rapidly diverge from normal. Attached are the schematic and specs from EMS. They will also provide a letter describing why the Nordtank can be used for grid tie applications (actually, can only be used for grid tie applications). I will send you more details as they arrive.

Re: Software for power monitoring
I have been talking to Dwight Stewart of Quality Attributes, one of the companies bidding on creating the campus web site and display kiosk. We are both confident (as much as we can be without having a working system to play with) that the Square D approach will eliminate most of the software problems that you and I have seen on other projects. PDF files for the main components are attached (BCM42 and EGX Handouts). There is a live site (see link below) that you can look at to see the way in which simple web pages can be created to display any of the data from the metering modules. Dwight can then pull this data straight from the web page.

Go to : www.powerlogic.com/demos.cfm
and follow the link for "REAL TIME PLUS INTERVAL LOGGING". This seems to be a live EGX-400.

Finally, what is your opinion on labeling the transformers? According to normal use of the terms "Primary" and "Secondary", power is applied to a primary and is converted to a different voltage that supplies a load on the secondary. The actual direction of power flow will mostly be from the solar and wind energy source to the building load. Since this is backwards from the normal power flow direction, the normal use of terms may cause confusion that could even lead to a transformer being installed backwards. For this reason, is it better to label primaries on the grid side and secondaries for the solar/wind side? Either way, we will put notes on the drawings to make it clear which voltage windings go on which side.

Regards
Steve Turner

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from CY to Bob Berry

Bob,

Thanks for the note. However, it is my opinion that the design should be based on actually measured undisturbed ground temperatures and not on some assumed value as it has no justification (How was 48F determined?).

If an undisturbed ground temperature of 48F has actually been measured at the site, then I would like to see the measurement report (We have actually measured much lower temperatures nearby, more like 40-42F).

Looking at the report of ground thermal conductivity testing it appears to me that the undisturbed ground temperature was not measured and the thermal conductivity is determined based on an assumed far-field temperature. You will find the ground thermal conductivity to be significantly different once the this temperature changes and this will significantly change the size of the loop field.

Furthermore, I find it very disturbing that the building loads have yet to be calculated with some reasonably acceptable confidence as they are very fundamental to the design. I also find it highly unlikely that we will see a highly cooling-dominated building unless there are extremely large internal loads in the space (also unlikely). Looking at the

detailed building drawings I would still expect somewhat of a

heating-dominated building or a balanced building if there are large internal loads in this climate.

That low ground temperatures are good for cooling-dominated buildings is of course true but very much beside the point here and the margin of error you mention hardly correlates linearly..

Let me reiterate my suggestions once again:

1) The undisturbed ground temperature should be measured at the actual

site using the available test borehole. We simply cannot go off using some assumed value. The test borehole is there at the site and it should be fairly straight forward to determine the undisturbed ground temperature (for example, by lowering a thermocouple down the fluid in the U-tube and reading the temperatures, say every 10 ft. vertically).

In the design, we should consider and use actual conditions on the field.

2) The ground thermal conductivity should be recalculated using the actually measured undisturbed ground temperature. The actual far-field temperature (again, which I expect to be lower than 48F) will change the prediction of this value and it will correspondingly change the overalldesign.

3) If possible the test borehole should be used (incorporated, piped in) in the larger ground heat exchanger. Otherwise you would be "wasting" a good borehole.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss the design process further.

Regards.

C. Yavuzturk, Ph.D., C.E.M.

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from WM Stalcup to Team

Could someone put Eileen's comments in English for me? Thank you, wms

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Team

Hi LCCC Friends,

I spoke with Bob Berry our geo-expert and commissioning firm agent this afternoon concerning the wells and aquifer. I immediately met with the department head of public works Terry Haugen regarding the matter in response to the public works concern about city ground water supply protection.

I shared with him my non expert opinions in response to his concerns that the LCCC ground loop would not harm the nearby (1000ft+) Turner city water well. I believe that his concerns have lightened and in no way threaten our project. Since the LCCC property is located outside the aquifer protection zone, it is my understanding that City of Laramie Public works has no say in anything, legally or otherwise. We have a building permit and sign off from the city engineer and the City of Laramie has approved our project. As you may remember, I asked the city water rights staff and Jerry Hankin the city building permit administrator to state that our system was legit months ago. Also, there is no state permit that is needed as far as I know for this activity.

Although, and as a good gesture to the public works, I am going to have Berry facilitate some background safety and technology information about the ground loop to Terry. Remember, his job is to give the City of Laramie clean water, his concern was warranted given his lack of knowledge about the sysytem. Like I said, Terry really has no say in what were doing, but I would be in LCCC’s best interest to satisfy his cautious curiosity.

Lastly, in the absolute worst case scenario, the general contractor and sub-contractor would have to cleanup a problem if a leak did occur. I will report back to you with future discussions I have with the city. I also let Terry know that I am the contract for this project.

Best Wishes,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/16/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Bob Berry and CY

Cenk and Bob,

You guys may or may not be aware of out latest communication project policies. Please do not send anymore emails regarding this project to anyone directly except threw me and Bob Cox. It doesn’t matter if you guys discuss internally, but don’t send out information to other project members with out Bob or my approval.

Thanks,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/17/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to Seth Carson

Please see below

Jerry L. Harris

Jerry,

A while back I had asked Tim Laughlin for samples of the color chips for the new campus. Would you please see if we can get some. So we can show others the color scheme?

Thanks, Marilyn

Correspondence 8/17/2005 – Email from Bob Berry to Seth Carson

Seth,

First, I hope you recognize that my calling you a rascal and spreading bad info was meant as light-hearted way to introduce my response to Cy to assure him that the sky is not falling. I apologize for not addressing the response to you for forwarding.

It appears that Cy feels pretty strongly about this, but he needs to be a little less combative. His fourth paragraph, particularly, is likely to unsettle the LCCC officials, and of course, MKK and MEP. If it has, then I'd suggest that you may need to get MEP and MKK to respond to LCCC that they are confident in their ability to properly calculate loads, and that they are registered professionals, applying their stamps to the drawings, etc. Also, MEP should respond to Cy's concerns as they see fit.

When you signed on to this rodeo, did you ever expect such a wild ride?!! As an ol' city boy from back east, I love making those wild west references.

Bob Berry

Correspondence 8/17/2005 – Email from CY to Seth Carson

Seth,

I got your message and tried to call on your cell phone (didn't leave a

message though). I would be able to go to the site either tomorrow

(Thursday) around 4pm or Friday morning (around 11am).

Let me know what is best for you and will meet at the site.

Thanks.

C. Yavuzturk

Correspondence 8/17/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to Team

Everyone,

Attached please find the meeting minutes from August 12, 2005 meeting, composed in a Word file for your review and comment. DEADLINE FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT: Wednesday, August 24, 2005.

Thank You

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/17/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Hey Seth,

Did Cenk ever look over the conductivity test? If so, what did he think? Thanks Phil

Correspondence 8/17/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson

Attached is the roofing submittal for your review.

Please respond by Friday, August 19th, if any changes are needed.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/18/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Team

Attached is the agenda and meeting minutes for today's meeting.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/18/2005 – Email from Tom Fuller to Phil Neal and Seth Carson

I forwarded your draft letter to Barb Alderson, here are some questions she had.

Also, I've been following along on the Ground Source Heat pump, ground temp issue. Has this been resolved? Did the consultant actually take the ground temp? It's very important to me that this project be successful and it seems that that is a critical piece of design information.

Hi, Tom --

I reviewed LCCC's letter and spreadsheet you faxed to me yesterday and have several questions and comments:

1) On the spreadsheet, EG 3: Integrated Autom. System does not include the $11,500 in the Standard Costs column. The $11,500 was included in the original request submitted by LCCC and approved by DOE. Why was this figure not included on the August 10 spreadsheet?

2) The article in yesterday's issue of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle states that LCCC cut $221K by eliminating "special finishes". It also states that Taylor Kohrs agreed to waive $90K in fees and an additional $70K of the overrun. Do these cuts affect the building components in the grant? If so, are they reflected in the figures on the August 10 spreadsheet? Please identify the reductions.

3) Per their August 10 letter, LCCC is requesting that the grant funds be used to pay for all of the cost overruns, a net total of $229,607. Apparently, LCCC did not consider increases in the Standard Costs they outlined in their original grant request. When preparing the updated budget, LCCC should revise the figures in the Standard Costs column of the spreadsheet to more accurately reflect the cost for each component. Doing so will distribute the cost overruns equitably between the grant and LCCC.

4) If I recall correctly from our conversation yesterday, you asked LCCC to explain the significant increase in costs. Please provide this office a copy of LCCC's response to this, and any other question you posed to them.

5) Is it expected that the car, PV and wind turbines may have similar cost overruns?

Per the news article, there is a LCCC trustee meeting tonight. Should anyone ask for DOE's stand on this issue, the answer would be that DOE will defer consideration of any variance until additional information is received from LCCC through the Wyoming Business Council.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Thanks,

Barbara

Barbara Alderson

U.S. Department of Energy

Correspondence 8/18/2005 – Email from Tim Macnamara to Nicole Buscher

Nicole-

We have no problems with the roofing submittal

Tim

Confidential Correspondence 8/18/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to LCCC Team

Correspondence 8/18/2005 – Email from Steven Turner to Don Davis

Don:

Further to our conversation earlier today, if you get Chuck's approval on the current monitoring, do you still want to meet with your inspector before we proceed? If so, I can send you a set of PDF files for the BCM-42 CTs and ribbon cable components that we plan to put in each panel board.

If we proceed, we will want RS-485 shielded cable to loop through each instrument box mounted below each panel board. Please let me know what NEC ratings you require for this cable. Alternatively, let me know the make and part number for the Cat 5e cable and I will make sure we match it.

The cable run will start in the main switchboard room with the

fiber-optic converter that extends the network out to wind turbine tower. From there we need to loop through each instrument box for each panel board, and end up in the server room. The actual route and order doesn't matter, but the shortest path appears to be:

EC-ED-EE group to EA-EB group to WA-WC group to WB to WD to SP (server panel).

To measure all breakers in all panels will require ten (10) of Square D model BCM-42, and one (1) EGX-400. I also need to select other power monitoring units from the same Square D PowerLogic line to go in the tower to monitor the power generated by the two wind turbines and the one or two solar systems. I will let you know as soon as these are selected.

My main concern is to purchase and mount the BCM42 units before it is too late. I expect we will need to add mounting feet for the CT strips inside each panel board, and this will probably require threaded standoffs mounted in the panels. This will probably be easier to do before the panels are wall mounted.

As we discussed earlier, we will also need 120 VAC to each panel board instrument box, and probably an extra instrument box in the main switchboard room and the server room for the fiber-optic converter and the EGX-400 respectively. Note: Square D sell a pre-wired box for the EGX-400 if you think it is good value (see attached PDF file).

I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the details of box sizes and locations, etc., probably when you get the BCM-42 units so we can also figure out the mounting details.

Please let me know how the schedule is looking for wall-mounting the panels, and pulling in the wiring.

Steve Turner

Correspondence 8/18/2005 – Email from Tom Fuller to Seth Carson and Phil Neal

Talked to Barb Alderson today. She cautioned that we need to be aware that the additional grant request must be for the differential between the current "Standard" costs and the current "Energy Efficient" costs. That means that LCCC may end up having to cover the difference between the orginal "Standard" costs and the current "Standard" costs, if there is one.

Correspondence 8/18/2005 – Email from Tim Macnamara to Seth Carson

Seth-

A few thoughts concerning your e-mail and I know some of them are beyond your responsibility:

- who is supporting/maintaining all this complex wind generation system/equipment?

- it seems we are quite far along in the geo-therm process to be still discussing ground water temp

- who responds to occupant heat/cold complaints?

- any plans for back up heat?

- is the grant funding only a one time thing? Is money available for support/maintenance?

- has CW industries been notified of what appears to be additional monitoring points for entering/exiting fluid temp at heat pumps?

Tim

Payment Request #8 8/18/2005 – Created by Seth Carson

Bob and Jerry,

I have reviewed Taylor Kohrs’s payment request #8 and find it satisfactory. Payment should be released immediately to help assist in the sub-contractor payment.

Please note that the August billing for the month of July active tasks are in yellow. Please note that the items in read on the “Current Monthly Report” in the cost over budget should be accurate. New items and known additions to the selected bid column include the framing/drywall contract for $193,977. This is less than the newest GMP budget revision sheet from TK amount of $221,698.00. So we may have some room to move with this item if there are not any TK executed change orders or other items unaccounted for here.

Also, note that the Three Sons excavation contractor contract went down just a bit. This is in the back part of the payment request packet.

Please let me know if there are any questions about the numbers, etc.

Best Wishes,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/18/2005 – Email to Tom Fuller from Phil Neal

Hi Tom,

Thank you for both emails today. Dr. Bohlen asked if I would get in touch with you regarding the Letter of Variance. We will try to obtain current standard costs for the letter, as requested by Barb.

For the sake of being clear and expeditious, we had a few questions: 1. Other than the standard cost issue, is there anything else you need in the Letter of Variance, or is that the format you were wanting? It was our understanding that you wanted a draft Letter of Variance with the totals listed but that the detailed itemization of costs would come in the later supplemental grant request. Is this correct? 2. How do you want us to handle Barb's other questions? A letter to you? A letter to her? An addendum to the Letter of Variance?

3. Is it required that DOE approve the Letter of Variance or is this function within your control? It was our understanding that you had the authority to issue a variance but that any further funding, above and beyond the original grant, would have to be approved through the DOE.

Thank you for you continued support and I look forward to hearing from you.

Phil Neal

Confidential Correspondence 8/18/2005 – Email from Seth Carson

Confidential Correspondence 8/19/2005 – Email from Bob Cox to Team

Confidential Correspondence 8/19/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/19/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to CY

Hi,

Your annswering machine at your office has been fishy the past two days.

Anyways, I free today to visit the site after 11:00AM. We could meet at my office and drive up there. I am at 211 Grand. Call me at 760-5998 to confirm.

Seth Carson

Bluefeather DBA

Correspondence 8/19/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Bob Cox and Jerry Harris

Bob and Jerry,

I have reviewed Taylor Kohrs?s payment request #8 and find it satisfactory.

Payment should be released immediately to help assist in the sub-contractor payment. My spreadsheet and more detailed report is in the mail.

Cheers,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/19/2005 – Email from Terry Haugen to Seth Carson

I tried to catch you at your office this afternoon, but just missed you. Can you get us the details of the proposed borings you talked to me about earlier this week? We still have concerns and would like to be able to speak intelligently about the proposal when we start making calls to the pertinent parties.

Terry S. Haugen, P.E.

Correspondence 8/19/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Team

Here is Tom's response.

Phil

-----Original Message-----

From: Tom Fuller [mailto:tfulle@state.wy.us]

Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 2:21 PM

To: Neal, Phil

Subject: RE: Exxon

1. The letter format for the Variance request is just fine. We will need to address the "standard cost" issue in the variance. I need to think about whether the detailed costs need to be in the Variance Request or just in the Supplemental Grant Request.

2. Correspondence should go through me since this office manages the EXXON funds.

3. DOE will, at the very least, need to review the variance to assure themselves that the variance is appropriate.

Correspondence 8/21/2005 – Email from Ted Hanlon to Team

Gentlemen:

Attached is a document discussing the power production potential of the proposed renewable energy project, and an agenda for tomorrow's meeting.

Additionally, I received a call from PP&L on Friday night. There are some specific and required steps that must be taken to authorize the project through PP&L. LCCC has to select a representative with signatory authority to contact John Younie in Portland. (503-813-5960) We need to fill out an application, which I can take care of, but I cannot be the one who is the official contact with Mr. Younie. Money will also change hands. A minimum of $2,000, but it could be more, depending on how complex they think our project is.

-- Ted Hanlon Manager High Plains Solar Wind, LLC

Report for 8/22/2005 – 8/26/2005 – LCCC – Albany County Campus

Prepared by Seth A. Carson

Confidential Correspondence 8/22/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to LCCC Team

Correspondence 8/22/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Team

Hi Seth and Team,

I need some guidance on which direction to go, and I wanted to keep you updated on the part of the project you asked me to work on.

Seth and Donna,

Have you heard anything from Nicole about the updated standard costs? I read your email from last week and it sounds as if she gave you some numbers, after Thursdays meetings, off the top of her head. But has she given you any hard numbers from vendors? The reason I ask is that I have Donna Regan coming to Laramie today to help me work on this grant and letter of variance revision, but I do not want her to drive all the way over here if we do not have the information to use. So at this point, Donna, I am asking that you put our meeting on hold until you hear differently.

Team,

Also, you all should have received Tom Fuller’s email regarding the format of the variance letter revision, and he said he needed to think about how detailed he thought the Letter of Variance needs to be, and that he would get back to me. I have not heard back from him on this – have any of you heard from him?

I am trying to keep you updated because we are getting close to the end of the month, which is when we told Tom that we would have the supplemental grant information to him. But at this point, I have nothing to go on because bids are still out on the geo system, we do not have any hard #’s from Nicole about standard costs, and we have not heard back from Tom about exactly what he wants.

Talk to you all soon.

Phil Neal

Confidential Correspondence 8/22/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to Team

Submittal Review 8/22/2005 –Review of Roofing Submittal by Seth Carson

Seth reviewed the submittal for the Ballasted EPDM Single 60 mil Ply Membrane Roof. The submittal was presented by Douglas Roofing and is section 07531 in the construction documents project manual. The submittal met the specifications for the 15 year warranty. Seth noted that the inspection takes place by a Firestone representative and then the warranty period begins. Seth also noted that the Firestone roofing system appeared to meet all of the specifications given forth by the architect. Also of note is that the LCCC Construction Standard brand for roof is the Siplast. This is not the brand in the submittal but was approved by Tim Macnamara on 8-18-2005.

Correspondence 8/22/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Nicole Buscher

Hi Team,

This letter is in response to the concerns about the light monitors and grant information. The two attachments are the details for monitor windows. As you will notice, they are not skylights, i.e. they have no horizontal glass to leak in from. As far as the maintenance, they will be easy to clean on the roof at the same time the commons upper windows are cleaned. Also, since this is a grant item for the daylighting and LEEDs credit, it won’t affect the budget. In short, if we don’t do them, it lowers our grant request by the same amount. I would strongly recommend them. Trust me, you will love the light in the hallway, plus no lighting should be needed during the day as a result. You know what that means, less energy used!

Please indicate by the end of today what your thoughts are. I will forward them on to Nicole tomorrow late tonight.

Also, Ted and I have locked in the Med. Bow turbine for $3K as a gift to LCCC from Platt River Power Authority. This is best buy. LCCC just received a great deal. We are in the working out the service agreement with the wind turbine installer/refurbisher (EMS) to contain a 5-10 year service agreement. I believe that the grant should pay for this now, so LCCC doesn’t have to later. When the agreements are finalized, they will go to Jerry Harris for the final review and purchase. The soils testing should take place in the next 10 days for the wind foundation, then the final design can occur. It is our intent to have the turbine foundation installed by the end of October. I have given at a lot of thought to the timelines of the solar/wind. I know that some of you are in no rush but I am convinced that prices are going to continue to go up this year with conduit, concrete, etc. In short, we will face the same issues as the building with part B of the grant unless we aim to complete it this fall. Plus, now that we know who is doing what, there is really no reason to not complete the Part B of the grant this fall. At least at a minimum, the rough needs to be down and ready for the turbine next spring. Also, it would be really helpful to have to preoccupancy time to test the grid tie, etc.

Lastly, I am still brainstorming the standard cost concerns for the grant. I think we can get that numbers to be close to the original variance, but we do need to raise them a bit so not to be as obvious. The bond is the only buffer I can see in this right now.

That’s all for now,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/22/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Nicole Buscher

Nicole, I have reviewed the roof submittal. I know we discussed it’s approval last week but here is my email for the record. I noticed that the roof earns it’s 15 year warranty after a Firestone Representative approves the system. I would request that the warranty be sent to Tim Macnamara and me for recorded keeping. Also, I really think Tim and I should review the roof before the crew pulls off the site in case any more work needs to be done. I know LCCC has had issues with this company in the past in Cheyenne. Could you please indicate when this might be down the road?

Also, I noticed that the specifications for the metal roof panels section 07411 and section 07412 for the metal wall panels will change since the material is switching to regular decking and stucco. I assume changes like this will be sent as attachments to the Construction Documents Project Manual? When and how?

Lastly, I am planning and scheduling the installation for the solar/wind tasks. Could you please indicate what days Fremont will begin pulling electrical homeruns. Also, could you indicate what day Fremont will begin their site work for the parking lot. We would like use them for the ditching and conduit up the hill for the solar/wind at the same time. Also, I hope to have an answer from LCCC on the roof light monitors today.

Thanks,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/22/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to Seth Carson

Seth, did you get my e-mail regarding the energy grant variance that I sent this morning?

Chuck

Correspondence 8/22/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Nicole Buscher

How-D,

Bob, could you please contact Terry Haugen at the City of Laramie. He has some questions about the ground water/safty stuff etc. I cannot answers. He is at thaugen@ci.laramie.wy.edu. His number is 307-721-5241.

Thanks,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/22/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Nicole Buscher

Hi Seth,

I would agree with you on the windows - let's keep them in there. As far as Part B of the grant, I think the price on the turbine is a great deal. The only worry I have is that if we are granted a variance and we use the Part B money to pay of the items inside the building (Part A), then we do not get grant money to replenish Part B, how do we pay for the turbine and solar components that we committed ourselves to? Thanks Phil

Correspondence 8/23/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Chuck Polson and Fremont Electric

Chuck, Don, and Melissa,

Steven from Analogic Engineering sent out and email last Tuesday with all of the stuff Chuck requested. I found out yesterday that Chuck never got it. Sorry. I dropped of paper copies to Melissa yesterday with all of the stuff I received from Steven. Also, here is the link http://www.bluefeatherdesignbuild.com/LCCC/ACC/Energy/Grant/LCCCACCGrant.htm to all the products and information. Go here first to get the information if you already don’t have it Chuck. Steven has specified a 300V ribbon cable for the current monitors. So I think were ok and just need a price on the labor and materials for those devices. Let’s get a price and order them. Let me know if you get this email Chuck. Call me at 307-760-5998 after you get it. Thanks.

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/23/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Hi Bud,

Let me know if you need help with anything. This week and next week are our two busiest weeks of the year because classes start on Monday. I can usually rearrange my schedule to accommodate working on projects for the building, but this time of year I may not be able to drop everything and come running. So if you anticipate needing me for anything, let me know with a little advance warning and I will do my best. And don’t feel obligated to pull me in if you think things go more smoothly using other folks. I have no territoriality with this project – I just want to see it get done and want to offer my help whenever and wherever I can be useful. Talk to you later.

Phil

PS. Great job on the Welldog issue. I think this was a controversial but correct move by the city to promote economic development

Correspondence 8/23/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Seth Carson

Hi Seth,

Somehow a subcontractor out of Colorado found my name and left me a voice mail. He is Ron Davoo from Global Bolting Technologies (303-794-4649). They do torque and tensioning products and heard that we are putting in a wind turbine and would like to be involved. I have not contacted him but wanted to pass the info on. Talk to you later.

Phil

Correspondence 8/23/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Team

Hi Team,

I have been continuing to work on geo issues with the City, Bob Berry, Cenk, and some new folks, PhD candidate Karl Taboga ktaboga@cbma.inc.com , John Passehl 307-777-5623, and Kevin Fredrick 307-777-5985 at the DEQ office. In turns out that we will need a DEQ permit for our well system. I don’t believe that this will be a big deal; we just need to get a permit. I assume that this is the G.C. responsibility and I will leave it to Nicole to obtain it successfully. This should help with the City’s concerns when we obtain the state approval. Also, I would request that Nicole contact the geo design team and provide the city, DEQ, and LCCC with a brief environmental risk assessment. In short, detail the amount a glycol percentages, amounts, possible impacts, alternative solutions in the fluid mixture, changes to the number of wells as it relates to the fluid recipe, etc. I have been told that we might be able to use a saline mix, and drill more wells??? I have asked Bob to help with this a bit to. I would like to have all involved parties in complete transparent understanding by the end of this week. I know Nicole is planning on hiring a driller tomorrow, they also need to be aware of these issues.

Anyways, the name of the permit is called a UIC (Underground Injection Control) 5A2 Permit. It is outline in the Chapter 16 rules on the Wyoming DEQ website. I suggest that now that we know how many wells are being drilled, we file the permit ASAP. I think it take 2-3 weeks, I think??? It might be that the well firm takes care of this too. They usually fill these things out all the time anyway.

The other half to this story is tackling the design and aquifer concerns. I met with Cenk yesterday and he highly urged me to look at the design, especially the ground temp and the building loads. By chance yesterday I got in touch with Karl Tagoga. He knows all of the surrounding wells in great detail since he is researching the ground water at the T.T. for his doctorate. Several of his test wells are pretty much next door to the ACC site. The good news that I receive from Karl is that the he has conducted numerous thermal tests on all the wells, and is sure that the local ground temperature is 47 degrees, not low 40’s. This is great news because the designers based their numbers on 48. This is close enough for me. I believe that this issue is done. Also, Karl has volunteered to do a thermal log for free on our test well already on site this weekend. I told him he could use the well for his research in exchange. This will be a more detail temp. data log than the one we paid for. I think that this will satisfy Cenk. Cenk can also use Karls more detail data for his baseline research.

The second half to the concerns that Cenk had were the building loads. I would agree that his concerns are some what valid that the building will only be in heating mode for 3 months could be off. This is Laramie, after all. I explained to him all of the equipment and the computers, etc. but I agree that this needs to be looked at in more detail. Remember, thermal comfort is the most important aspect of a building. We can’t get this wrong. I believe his concern can be addressed if Nicole requests the design calculations from MEP and MKK. They might take insult and feel challenged to this since they are professionals, but they owe it to LCCC as owner’s, the full details and reasons not yet given for the design. Once again, I also need them any way’s for our LEEDs submittal. Nicole, please have them sent to me this week. THANKS!!!!

Well that is all for know,

Seth Carson

Bluefeather DBA

Confidential Correspondence 8/23/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/23/2005 – Email to Chuck Bohlen from Seth Carson

Chuck and Folks,

I did receive the email yesterday about the building and the variance letter. Your email today says something about a warranty. I don’t know what this is in regards to??? I think you put it very well in your first email though. Keep in mind that this all of this will be somewhat speculative and hypothetical. A lot of what if’s backed with numbers. I’m comfortable with this stuff if you are. I plan to outline the notion about the two story or other non-grant design solution.

What should be my aim to tweak to standard costs level to? If your goal is to keep the number the same in our variance, the story we come up with will need to be more involved in what the non grant building would have been and then what it would have cost. I think what you saying is that the standard building would not have even been the same shape, configurations, etc. I guess I would ask Tim to justify that his design solution were specific to the grant and that his solutions would have been a two story or something else if the energy grant did not exist. That something else, Tim needs to describe for the DOE, then Nicole can provide the numbers by SQFT as they relate to the grant. There could be one problem with this, did Tim’s floor plan get to the Tom and DOE before the grant was awarded? I think it did, which kills our arguments, because this says Tim’s design solution for the standard cost GMP budget was the same floor plan, just less windows, etc. Tim please outline everything in the building design and project scope that was a result of the grant and what would not have been in the standard project solution. In short, we need a grant building inventory. This needs to be compared to this other non-grant building that would not have had these systems, and then cost it out. Also, what we cannot indicate is that we got better building as a result of the energy grant. We got a standard building, plus additions of the energy grant and the design solutions that are integrated as a result of the energy grant solutions.

Also, another angle to look at this is for example to say that we moved the building more to the east to accommodate the well field. I don’t know if this was the main reason, but as it result it affect the paving costs, etc. and made the grant item successful (less expensive option than the horizontal). Should the grant pay for these other grant affected items? In a way it should.

Keep the dialogs flowing on this item. We have to have this resolved ASAP.

Thanks, Seth

Correspondence 8/23/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to Seth Carson

I believe I used waiver instead of warranty - if I used warranty I meant waiver. Thanks for responding.

Chuck

Correspondence 8/23/2005 – Email from Robert Berry to Seth Carson

Terry,

Seth Carson asked me to contact you regarding your concerns about the geothermal wells in close proximity to your municipal water supply wells.

First of all, you are certainly not alone in your concerns about these systems. They have been installed in over a thousand communities in the U.S in the last 10 years, and if the concerns were not satisfied at the local levels, the industry would have come to a grinding halt.

But the opposite has occurred. The industry is growing exponentially, due in large part to the significant energy efficiency benefits of the system, relative to the minute risk of environmental contamination.

The heat transfer fluid, 75% water/ 25% propylene glycol (actual product name Safe-T-Therm, see attachment), is circulated in polyethylene piping with all joints made with a heat fusion process. The joints actually become stronger than the pipe. Only the horizontal joints, shallow-buried, are made in the field. The u-bend joints at the bottom of the welds are factory-made. Each vertical pipe set is pressure-tested to 100 psi before it is backfilled. After the horizontal piping is assembled into six branches of seven wells each, each branch will be pressure-tested to 100 psi. Each branch has isolation valves on its supply and return side.

The fluid is considered food grade by the FDA, (see letter and MSDS on the website: http://www.houghton.com/fluids/safe-t-therm/index.html).

If a leak were to occur in the system, the system pressure would be reduced and initiate an alarm, allowing the staff to respond rapidly to shut off all isolation valves. This would be followed by a trial-and-error procedure to locate the leaking branch, and then the individual well, if a well were actually leaking, could be located and then fixed or sealed and abandoned. In my experience, only one leak occurred, and that was on a horizontal, shallow-buried pipe. I am aware of no well leaks that have ever occurred.

The likelihood of large quantity leaks of this material leaking into the aquifer are slim. Any small quantities would quickly be diluted to practically immeasurable concentrations.

The State of Iowa has one of the largest amounts of systems in the U.S. and their DNR has monitored the risks very carefully, and has approved hundreds of permits. A contact name is listed below.

I hope this explanation has helped to alleviate your concerns.

Bob Berry

Correspondence 8/23/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to Seth Carson

Seth, one more - we were counting on getting a variance of $209,000 + . I went to the Board with this. We used all our funds in making up the T-K non energy grant overrun. Quoting you, "the story we come up with will need to be more involved in what the non grant building would have been and then what it would have cost." This is the absolute case. Please, not quick run with Nicole's model. We have to go back and ask Tim to help us with this. I am asking you to lead this effort. We do not want to be dishonest or unethical, but we have to attempt to get to at least the $209,000.

Thanks again,

Chuck

Correspondence 8/23/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson

Seth,

Attached is the geotherm design which was issued last week for bidding.

Thanks for the information on the DEQ. I'll do some more investigating tomorrow. However, if you know of any contacts, I'd appreciate the info as my preliminary information from bidders is that the permitting process could take 45-60 days. (Maybe if I can talk to someboday, we could get it through in 2-3 weeks.)

Nicole

Correspondence 8/24/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson

Seth,

At last week's meeting Taylor Kohrs had requested confirmation that the light monitor was staying in the project. We were to hear back from the college yesterday.

Roofing is being delivered 8/30. We need to know what we're doing with this opening.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/24/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson

Seth,

The roof warranty, as well as all other Operation & Maintenance Manual documentation, will be bound and provided to the college at the end of the project.

Tim MacNamara is welcome to come and inspect the roofing as often as he'd like. I spoke with Douglass today and they plan to be delivering material 8/30.

Section 07412, Metal Wall Panels, will simply be deleted. Submittals for the stucco system will be provided which will identify the products to be installed prior to ordering material. (Currently planning to use a 1/2" STO "Powerwall" Stucco System. See attached.)

As for Fremont, I'll follow-up with Ralph to see what their schedule is.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/24/2005 – Email from Chuck Polson to Team

All,

I have reviewed the packet submitted by Steven and offer the following:

· Adonai Professional Services, Inc (APS) is not involved with the Environmental Monitoring System (EMS) design, construction, programming ect. Per the below mentioned meeting, ANALOGIC ENGINEERING, INC. is the designer/engineer/programmer for the EMS system, thus they are the responsible party to assure all components of their system is code compliant/functional. APS assumes no responsibility for any portion of the EMS system and thus has no comment with regard to the following:

o Re: Rating for ribbon cable to current transformers for Square D Model BCM42

o Re: Cable type for RS-485 network interconnect for BCM-42 modules

o Re: Software for power monitoring

· Re: Fiber Optic cable pulled in with 120 VAC feed to tower

o APS recommends you keep the fiber optics and general tower power separated. Install a 3^rd conduit.

· Re: Grid tie

1. I didn’t receive any information on the proposed PV system, I found the attached O&M manual for the Xantrex 10208 Grid-Tied Photovoltaic Inverter. Per your comments below the unit does self synchronize, it also says it will disconnect it self in the event of normal power loss. This all seems copasetic when your only dealing with 2 power sources, however with the addition of a 3^rd power source (wind turbine), we question what happens if all 3 systems are producing power and the Utility power drops out, how does the inverter know if it was the Utility source or the wind turbine source that has dropped out, or will it actually see the power loss at all since the systems are synchronized together? Technical support at Xantrex couldn’t answer the questions and I am currently waiting for their engineering guru to call back with an answer?

2. Who at Energy Maintenance Service are you working with? I would like to contact them and get the O&M Manual for the control system they would provide.

3. If frequency and voltage monitoring are added to the control of the wind turbine PLC once again how does this recognize a utility loss from an inverter loss?

4. If utility company is producing 208V @ 60Hz, the inverter is producing 208V@60Hz and the wind Generator is producing 208V@60Hz don’t you have to loose 2 of three system for the 3rd to shut down? If utility power is lost isn’t the inverter still producing 208V@60Hz thus keeping the wind turbine going, and isn’t the wind turbine still producing 208V @60Hz thus keeping the inverter going? How are these two system talking to each other to say “I am not utility power”? I think we are missing something.

· NEC 705 Interconnected Electric Power Production Sources

o 705.12 Point of Connection: The outputs of electric power production systems shall be interconnected at the premises service disconnecting means.

o Since there is no physical space in the main electrical room to locate the equipment for the renewable source equipment at the premises service disconnecting means, the electrical service for the base building will have to be altered to accommodate the code. This would involve the following:

§ Provide new exterior mounted EUSERC Metering with new main 1600 amp premises service disconnecting means.

§ Locating the new renewable source equipment next to the premises service disconnecting means.

§ See the attached sketch sk-1.

Respectfully,

Chuck Polson P.E.

Correspondence 8/24/2005 – Email from Steven Turner to Seth Carson

Seth:

Attached is EMS report. Essentially, all components that will be part of the final system are in average to excellent condition for this turbine. The gearbox oil report was OK. Any problem components such as the worn yaw bull gear and the controller are going to be replaced with new parts. I will forward on the revised EMS quote (probably tomorrow)after they finalize the final warranty and service options.

Steve

Correspondence 8/24/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Team

Attached are meeting minutes from last week's meeting.

Nicole Buscher

Correspondence 8/24/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson

Seth,

I received "LCCC-ACC Important Geo-System Information" yesterday (8/23).

Thanks.

No one emailed me back on that the light montitor was still a concern.

I sent everyone the detail. So it's a go. Frame it up. Also, one of the emails I sent you bounced yesterday. Could you let me know which ones you did get from me and I will send you the missing one. Thanks.

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Chuck Bohlen

Chuck,

Attached are some pictures of the stone for the project. You may have already seen them, but here is another look with more of a wall constructed. The masons are on the site and are ready when we give them the go ahead. Tim Laughlin stated to me that if we tell him today, the stone can be here on Monday. Until then the masons can put down the first block spacer course. Personally, the stone and grout color look fine to me. Although it is different than the first sample we saw. Plus, I thought that we were going to get the “dry stack” look. This would be have non-visible grout and be flat, thin, and stacked more horizontally. This demo wall looks like a UW pattern. Although UW, uses a gray grout and more bubbled out and speckle free stone. Well those are my thoughts.

Also, I thought of a couple more energy grant items to help us. The ceilings in the classrooms are sloped to outside wall to allow for the upper windows and day lighting. This adds more ceiling tiles, and metal grid work. Plus it adds to the amount of drywall, finishes, paint, etc. on the high end of the slope. A “standard building” would have flat ceilings and they would be lower by a bit. I would guess that this resulted in a 10% increase in these systems. I would also think that the height of the building could have been lower as well. This would add a lot of material to every wall, both inside and outside as a result.

Best Wishes,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Chuck Bohlen

Hi Seth --

I just got off the phone from Nicole and she is looking at a methodology to calculate square foot costs for standard construction using RS Means. From there, she would then compare that to the square foot cost calculated for the building with the energy grant items to determine a difference. I think she is struggling with trying to determining the variances you note below (i.e. more ceiling tiles, etc)

You should call her and follow up. I am concerned however whether Nicole's approach to standard costs would be adequate for Tom Fuller.

Thanks

Bob

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Chuck Bohlen

Seth, I agree with your report and approach. We cannot do a quick and dirty calculation to determine the standard costs. You determine some of the design differences and these need to be costed. I personally do not believe RS Means are detailed enough to pick up these cost differences. I remind everyone, we our counting on an increase in the energy grant to make up the costs - we have to justify and a thousand here and a thousand here will add up.

Chuck

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Chuck Bohlen

Seth, I did not get any pictures in an attachment.

Chuck

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email to Bob Cox from Eileen Ely

Good morning Bob,

Harvey Ridgeway (Mt. West Farm Bureau) just contacted me regarding the soil conditions at the Farm Bureau. Apparently, they are having problems with many of their shrubs and trees due to high alkaline levels in the soil. They are attempting to correct the problem, but it is an added expense. He wanted the architects or our facilities personnel to know about this problem as we budget for trees, shrubs, fertilizers, etc. While our soil may different slightly from Mt. West’s soil, he suggested that it may pay to have the University Extension Agent test our soil at some point prior to ordering landscaping materials or planting.

Eileen

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email to Chuck Bohlen from Seth Carson

Sorry, Here are the photos.

Seth

Stone Photo 1, Stone Photo 2, Stone Photo 3, Stone Photo 4

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Bob Cox to Seth Carson

Hi Seth --

Dr. Bohlen has given us his ok on the stone.

Thanks

Bob

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Team

I just wanted to clarify after my conversation with Seth on the mock-up.

'Dry Stack' look - Since the stone is natural and load bearing, the grout joints need to be fully bedded. Therefore, a 'dry stack' look cannot be achieved.

Stone color - Midyette had originally selected and presented a stone with more of a pink or red look. However, Taylor Kohrs presented a cost saving option using the buff colored stone which the mock-up was built.

With this in mind, is the mock-up panel and material selections acceptable? The buff stone is available once released and the colored block can be processed quickly, if ordered this week. Otherwise, Robinson's next run is in 3-4 weeks.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Chuck Bohlen

Dr. Bohlen,

I left a voice message for you yesterday on the mock-up panel approval.

Besty returned the call today and said that she wasn't sure if you had received it and that you are gone tomorrow.

Can I get a formal response from the college on the mock-up? Or, does Seth's previous e-mail provide approval?

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to Nicole Buscher

Nicole,

Dr. Bohlen spoke with me earlier today about this issue, and he has given his approval to your mock-up panel. Bob Cox is traveling today and has his blackberry, but I believe he is going to formally issue a written OK.

Thanks

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Michael Walters to Seth Carson

Seth --

I have been thinking about the data/phone jacks. With the possibility of snow drifting, should they and the electrical be higher that 18 inches? What is your recommendation?

Michael

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Michael Walters to Seth Carson

Looks good to me. We prefer to use the standard LCCC CPU but the monitor can be this one.

Michael

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Tim Macnamara

Tim,

The LCCC Standards did not state whether CW Industries control package is to have 2-Way or 3-Way control valves.

Does the college have a preference?

Also, just a heads-up, I'm expecting the interior mechanical submittal (minor control package) tomorrow. I will be forwarding them to you after my review tomorrow and will be asking for a quick turn around.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Steven Turner to Seth Carson and Ted Hanlon

Seth and Ted:

I have received a response from Square D Technical Support verifying that the UL listing for the BCM-42 is not conditional on using Square D panel boards. Although Square D panelboards would certainly be more convenient since mounting tabs for the BCM-42 are built in, these current monitors can be placed into GE panelboards and maintain UL compliance.

Please let me know if this will be sufficient to answer everyone's concerns, and if you wish me to forward this to Chuck or Fremont directly, or if further discussion and/or additional information is required.

Steve

Correspondence 8/25/2005 – Email from Bob Berry to Nicole Buscher

Nicole,

If I may comment, and you know me, I usually do. The piping plan, sheet M210, shows most of the heat pumps using 2-way control valves, with seven of them using 3-way valves. The reason for this generally applies to hot and chilled water systems, which use the 3-way valves at the end of dead-end runs of pipe, to ensure that the water in these legs don't cool off or heat up, so that the units at the end of these runs get rapid response when the valve opens for heating or cooling duty.

However, in a heat pump system, the only reason for the valves is to stop the flow to individual heat pumps to reduce the system flow rate when the compressors of many units are not operating. This allows the pump VFD to slow down and save energy. But the VFD's have a minimum flow rate below which they cannot operate, usually about 25% of maximum flow. Therefore, the system should be designed to let this minimum flow rate occur.

Coincidentally, the flow to the seven dead-end units represents about 25%. Therefore, these units should get no valve at all and just get constant flow, which is what a 3-way valve would achieve. All the others should get 2-way valves. This will save the initial cost of the 7 valves, as well as future repairs and replacements.

Please forward this message to MKK for their concurrence with this recommendation, and allow them to respond if they disagree with the analysis.

Bob Berry

Correspondence 8/26/2005 – Email from Michael Walters to Seth Carson

Seth,

Our A/V guy has reviewed the plans and has a couple of changes. First the top of the Smartboard should be 7'0" from the floor and the other measurements should be changed accordingly. Also, the 6"x6" box lower right corner of Smartboard only need to be a single gang box. Finally, you asked about blocking for the boards. They install into the drywall with equipment sent by the vendor. No blocking is necessary. Don Myers, our A/V guy, will work with the installers to make sure they are installed correctly and their questions are answered. Just let us know when they need us.

If you have any other questions, please let me know.

Michael

Correspondence 8/26/2005 – Email from Ted Hanlon to Chuck Polson

Chuck,

Attached is our response to your questions on the renewables system. I will call you on Monday, when you have had a chance to look this over. Thanks for your help.

Ted
-- Ted Hanlon Manager High Plains Solar Wind, LLC

Correspondence 8/26/2005 – Email to Ted Hanlon from Chuck Polson

Wade,

Thanks for the info.

Per the Description of Operation for Asynchronous Induction Generator: The induction generator requires reactive power for excitation. It cannot operate without this reactive power, so when the connection to the utility is broken, or the utility goes offline, the induction generator receives no reactive power and is therefore not able to generate real power.

This is reasonable when your dealing with only (2) sources: Utility and this Asynchronous Induction Wind Generator.

On this particular project: we have the 4 separate power sources we are synchronizing and connecting into the same grid:

1. Normal Utility Power Connection

2. 10KW PV array/inverter

3. 10KW PV array/inverter

4. 65KW Nordtank wind Turbine Generator.

This totals 85KW of onsite power production. This particular building has an NEC dictated calculated demand load of 414KW, in reality the actual maximum draw on the system will speculatively be in the 30-40% range or 124-165KW, therefore it can be assumed that at certain times this site will be producing more power than it will use or at least equal to what it will use.

Your Description of Operation goes on further to say: In addition to the inherent islanding prevention of the generator, the voltage and frequency monitoring components of the control system will disable the soft start assembly, in turn disconnecting the generator from the utility source in the rare instant that a local capacitive element in the grid were to resonant with generator. In this scenario, the relatively large size of the source compared to that of the load would quickly diverge both voltage and frequency from their normal range at which point the protective relays would open the generator circuit.

What happens when you lose your utility source but are still receiving the required reactive power for the wind turbine from one of the other power sources on site and connected into the same grid?

We are not talking about the “rare instant that a local capacitive element in the grid resonating with the generator” we are saying reactive power from another separate source will keep the generator going and island the system.

And since the on site sources and building usage have the possibility of being relatively equal the voltage and frequency range would not diverge when the normal power was lost and thus allow the protective relays to open the generator circuit thus islanding the system.

I need to understand how this is avoided. Do you have any examples of projects you have worked on in the past that are similar to this one?

Respectfully,

Chuck Polson P.E.

From: Wade Wiechmann [mailto:Wade@energyms.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:29 PM
To: chuck@apsinc.biz
Subject: Laramie, WY wind turbine

Hello Chuck,

I received a message to forward to you some information regarding the operating characteristics of the wind turbine that is to be installed in Laramie, WY at the Laramie County Community College, LCCC after remanufacturing. This turbine will have a new control system assembled and tested in our UL508 panel shop in Gary, SD. I have attached a few descriptions for you to review...please call me and I will be happy to answer any questions

Thanks

Wade Wiechmann

Correspondence 8/26/2005 – Email to Ted Hanlon from Chuck Polson

Respectfully,

Chuck Polson P.E.

From: Wade Wiechmann [mailto:Wade@energyms.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:29 PM
To: chuck@apsinc.biz
Subject: Laramie, WY wind turbine

Hello Chuck,

Thanks

Wade Wiechmann

Correspondence 8/26/2005 – Email to Seth Carson from Nicole Buscher

The mechanical submittals will be at your office Monday morning. As is noted on the transmittal, I'm asking for a quick turn-around due to the timing with the construction schedule.

Please respond by end of day Tuesday, August 30th, if any changes are needed.

Jean, please return copies to our office.

Thank you,

Nicole Buscher

Correspondence 8/26/2005 – Email to Nicole Buscher from Tim Macnamara

Nicole-

Our thought is we only need 2-way valves except as required to meet the 25 gpm minimum flow. Tim

Report for 8/29/2005 – 9/2/2005 – LCCC – Albany County Campus

Prepared by Seth A. Carson

Correspondence 8/29/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to Seth Carson

Hi, Hopefully you got the word that the stone look is very acceptable.

Chuck

Correspondence 8/29/2005 – Email from Bob Berry to Team

Lisa,

Thanks for your help. The project name is the Laramie County Community College Albany Campus Building.

The general Contractor for the project is Taylor Kohrs Construction.

The State agency contact info is:

        DEQ/Water Quality Division
        122 West 25th Street
        Herschler Building, 4th Floor-West
        Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

Contact name:   Kevin Frederick

     Water Quality Division's main telephone number: 307-777-7781

     DEQ/WQD fax machine number: 307-777-5973

Thanks for your help.

Bob Berry

Correspondence 8/29/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Michael Walters

Michael,

The smartboard conduit and 6x6 boxes in the south pod have been in for sometime now with the 6’5” measurement as originally instructed. They had a couple of rooms left in the north pod to do this week. We are a little late for your changes. This project is full speed ahead. At the last OAC meeting, we made a decision to put backing in for you anyways since we went with the cheaper metal studs to save money. If your want to hang the smartboards at 7’ that would be ok, but the 6x6 box would just be a little below the board.

Best Wishes,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/29/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Chuck Bohlen

Chuck,

The stone approval was passed on for sure to everyone. They should be working on it this week. Have a good day.

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/29/2005 – Email from Bob Berry to Nicole Buscher

Nicole,

Lisa is with IGSHPA, at Okla. State U. She volunteered to send them a packet of info about geothermal systems, with case studies, and other info intended to educate and allay the fears of agencies not familiar with the systems.

I think you should follow up, say, about Thursday with Mr. Frederick, to see if he received the info and still insists on a 5-agency, 60-day review period.

If he's still stubborn about it, perhaps LCCC needs to get a legal opinion as to whether the DEQ can actually regulate this installation, since, as Ralph says, they have no laws that govern putting closed-loop, plastic pipes in the ground. They do have laws to regulate withdrawing groundwater, and re-injecting it, but that's not what we're doing.

Bob Berry

Correspondence 8/29/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Nicole Buscher

Nicole,

This email is a notice for TK to prepare a zero financial impact change order. Approximately thirteen plug receptacles were removed from smartboard J-boxes that were not needed. I have discussed with Don and he has agreed to replace these receptacles in areas close to the sub-panels, mech. room, and several other various locations to assist with the energy grant monitoring devices and UW grant equipment. At this time I am in the process of finalizing those locations with Ted and UW. I expect them to be approved by the team mid-week. I would request that a PCO be put together and request from Fremont and TK that the work by completed successfully after I provide the locations.

Thanks,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/29/2005 – Email from Ted Hanlon to Chuck Polson

Chuck,

Have you had a chance to look over the information sent to you by us and EMS? Do you have any questions or concerns? Please let me know. We intend to finalize the design in a day or so.

-- Ted Hanlon Manager High Plains Solar Wind, LLC

Correspondence 8/29/2005 – Email from Steven Turner to Seth Carson

Seth:

We have finalized the scope of work and cost for EMS to retrieve, recondition, install and commission the Nordtank. This is a turnkey package that only requires that we provide the foundation and the grid connection. Let me know if you spot anything we have missed.

They will have the final quote (including all warranty and service options) to me today or tomorrow, and I will forward it to you for your review. To save time, Ted has suggested that they should mail the quote directly to:

Jerry Harris

Purchasing

Laramie County Community College

1400 East College Drive
Cheyenne, WY 82007

He will let Jerry know to expect the quote.

Steve

Correspondence 8/30/2005 – Email from Steven Turner to Seth Carson

Seth:

Here is the final EMS scope and quote. This will be a darn near new 65 kW turbine for equivalent purchase price of $63,950 (with 4 year warranty) - great value. Plus, doubles as the solar equipment shed!!!

Ted is writing up interim recommendations to proceed on this turbine.

Steve

Correspondence 8/30/2005 – Email from Steven Turner to Chuck Polson

Chuck:

I have confirmed with Xantrex engineering staff (Brad at 925-245-5438) that the solar inverters are actually an AC current source synchronized to the line voltage by a digital phase-locked loop. The frequency control loop is designed to destabilize (i.e., diverge from 60 Hz) if the grid is lost, in order to comply with UL 1741. The output current is a sine wave (output PF regulated to 1.0), and the current magnitude only depends on the available solar power, not on the line voltage. These are not at all like voltage source type generators, i.e., they have no ability to regulate line voltage or frequency, apart from tripping off line if tight voltage or frequency limits are exceeded.

The Nordtank induction generator is also incapable of regulating line voltage. In addition, the Nordtank output frequency would tend to drift once the steadying influence of the grid was lost. Even if the turbine continued at exactly the same speed, the percentage of slip (and consequently the output frequency) would vary with any change in net load. In addition, the turbine speed would begin to change unless the generator input shaft torque was exactly balanced by the generator load torque. The EMS protection system added to the Nordtank will trip the generator off line if the line voltage or frequency deviates past tight preset limits.

Therefore, in any combination of induction generators, UL 1741 devices such as the Xantrex inverters, and building loads, there is no stabilizing source for voltage or frequency, so it will be impossible for any island to be maintained for more than a fraction of a second. Even during this time, before each power source trips out on the individual voltage or frequency limits, the voltage and frequency will be, by definition, within an acceptable range. Therefore, nothing in the island will be stressed or damaged during shutdown.

Let me know if you need further details.

Steve Turner

Submittal Review 8/30/2005 –Review of Roofing Submittal by Seth Carson

Seth reviewed the submittal for the Mechanical Submittals. The submittal was presented by Air Comfort and is section 15010-1 in the construction documents project manual. Seth reviewed the specifications for the system heat pumps, hrv, flow valves, duct work, and pumps were reviewed. The climate master heat pump system and controls passed the review except that for the control protocol interface.

Seth also noted that the model SC Series 6 200 series pre-heater will be gas. At one point Seth suggest using electric resistance heat but after reviewing the submittal, Seth noted that the electric resistant heat would need to be the same 200,000 BTUH. This would have resulted in a very large an impractical

Seth confirmed with Bob Berry and Tim Macnamara that the 2 way valves and Berry’s comments should be implemented.

Correspondence 8/30/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Team

I reviewed the submittal for the Mechanical Submittals. The climate master heat pump system and controls passed my review except that for the control protocol interface. THIS NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. THIS SUBMITTAL DOES NOT PASS UNTIL IT IS CORRECTED.

The solid state control system (CXM) needs to have the optional MPC (Multiple Protocol System) interface system included. Not including this option defeats the entire purpose of the grant, energy monitor, maintenance monitoring, etc. and the main point for even having controls. I confirmed with the energy management programmers that this is necessary and the correct protocol to get a clean data stream from the system. LCCC will not be able to do out kiosk, or have Tim Macnamara or LCCC staff monitor the system remotely with out this. THIS IS CRITICAL THAT THIS IS ADDED. NICOLE, PLEASE CORRECT THIS WITH AIR COMFORT RESUBMIT THE CONTROLS SECTION ASAP.

I will also note to LCCC that the model SC Series 6 200 series pre-heater will be gas. At one point I suggest using electric resistance heat but after reviewing the submittal, I noticed that the electric resistant heat would need to be the same 200,000 BTUH rating. This would have resulted in a very large and impractical resistant heater.

Seth confirmed with Bob Berry and Tim Macnamara that the 2 way valves and Berry’s comments should be implemented.

Also, I assume that that the DEQ permit has been filed for the ground loop as per my email last week. Nicole, please confirm that this is the case. Nicole, I also haven’t received that building loads stuff I requested of anything on the grant variance from you or Tim Laughlin. What is the status of this?

Thanks for you reply,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/30/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Seth Carson and Team

The control package (i.e. CW Industries) has yet to be submitted.

Therefore, I noted that the controls provided with the heat pumps will need to interface with the DDC control package.

Thank you for your comments and I will verify them with Air Comfort.

Bob Berry, have you had a chance to review this submittal?

Nicole Buscher

Correspondence 8/31/2005 – Email from Ted Hanlon to Seth Carson and Jerry Harris

Gentlemen-

Paul Della with PP&L emailed me again yesterday, asking for a contact with the college to get the contract going for the power sale. As I mentioned in my email of last week, I am available to help the designated representative fill out all of the required paperwork, but I cannot represent the college in this matter--it will take someone with signatory authority. We need to get back to Paul soon, because they need to start working on this.

-- Ted Hanlon Manager High Plains Solar Wind, LLC

Correspondence 8/31/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to Ted Hanlon and Seth Carson

Ted,

I will be the contact person for now. At this point I don’t have any paperwork affiliated with this project, so if you can steer me in the right direction, I will get the paperwork started.

Thanks

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/31/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to Team

Everyone,

The OAC teleconference meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 1, 2005 has been changed per the following:

Ø An on-site inspection and meeting will take place at the construction site in Laramie instead of the usual teleconference. In the event room space is required, we will then adjourn to the current ACC campus classroom facility.

Ø The normal teleconference has been cancelled in lieu of this change.

Thanks

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/31/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to Ted Hanlon and Seth Carson

Ted,

The purchase order # for this work is #17161. I have faxed a copy of the PO to WWC in the amount of $4,200.00. They did not specify a date when they would be on-site, but ask for a two (2) week notice. The contact person is Michael Lewan at (307) 473-2707.

Thanks

Jerry L. Harris

Correspondence 8/31/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Team

Nicole and Everyone,

I had a brief conference call with Harvey from CW and Matt from Air Comfort this morning. I understand that controls are separate and where the delineation line stands between CW and Air Comfort. We discussed the responsibilities of these individuals for my clarification. I am on the same page as you now.

As you know, it is my task to make sure that grant is successful and that the information is available and correct for the heat pump system. I discussed with them some of the information that LCCC needs and wants to obtain from the controls and heat pumps. I think the heat pumps are fine and the submittal passes. Although, we may need a different heat pump model with the right built equipment, gauges, sensors, etc. to send to the controls if CW and Air Comfort cannot correctly provide LCCC with the information request below. This should be resolved with the information I have listed below. I am expecting that Matt and Harvey will work the final details out and provide the information stream that is listed below as it is pretty standard. If CW can provide LCCC with the below information with the submitted heat pump, Matt can order the heat pumps.

The heat pumps and controls should have the following data streams to and through the controls in a Modbus and/or N2 protocol, web friendly output.

1. Space temp in all zones.

2. Leaving hp water temperature.*

3. Entering hp water temperature.*

3. Discharge air temperature.

4. Command of space temperature setpoint through controls.

5. Cooling Status.

6. Heating Status.

7. Low temperature sensor alarm.

8. Low pressure sensor alarm.

9. High pressure sensor alarm.

10. Condensate overflow alarm.

11. Hi/low voltage alarm.

12. Fan “ON/AUTO” position of space thermostat as specified above.

13. Unoccupied/occupied command.

14. Cooling command.

15. Heating command.

16. Fan “ON/AUTO” command.

17. Fault reset command.

18. Itemized fault code revealing reason for specific shutdown fault.

*Note: The University of Wyoming has stated that they need the following be provided for all 27 heat pumps. Please review and provide the request data.

“Heat pump entering/exiting fluid temperatures on both the load and source sides to be provided. This will allow for the performance assessment of the heat pump system, specifically the heat pump coefficient of performance (COP), as the difference between the entering and existing heat pump temperatures is a measure of the heat pump energy consumption.”

The mechanical room controls should have the following data streams to and through the controls in a Modbus and/or N2 protocol, web friendly output.

1. Entering ground loop field temperature.

2. Exiting ground loop field temperature.

3. Entering/exiting ground loop field flow rate.

4. Pump status/speeds

The HRV-1,2 controls should have the following data streams to and through the controls in a Modbus and/or N2 protocol, web friendly output.

1. Entering outside air temperature.

2. Exiting exhaust building air temperature.

3. Discharge duct air temperature.

4. Pre-heater Status.

5. Itemized fault code revealing reason for specific shutdown fault.

The building envelop controls should have the following data streams to and through the controls in a Modbus and/or N2 protocol, web friendly output.

1. Ten Building envelop temperature** readout on each sides of the building and one of the roof. There will be four in pairs with one being placed on the outside of the building envelop (outside building surface), and one in the building wall cavity. The last pair will be for the roof with one being on the surface of the roof and one being on the metal decking. The wall and roof performance will be measured and compared with the space temperature provided above and calculations can be made to determine the actual thermal performance of the wall/roof system

**This specific locations and temperature gauges will be provided by Seth Carson and the University of Wyoming when needed. Coordination will be made with CW to provide the correct temperature devises. If, CW can provide these devises, it would be helpful.

Thank you all and let me know what questions you may have. 307-760-5998.

Seth Carson

Correspondence 8/31/2005 – Email from Harvey Ganzel to Seth Carson

Hello Seth,

I looked over the list that you provided and have one question. Why didn't the mechanical design engineer have any of these requirements in his design? I will respond to your other issues, but I need to know the answer to that fundamental question.

Thanks,

Harvey

Correspondence 8/31/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Team

Attached are meeting minutes, agenda and updated project schedule for tomorrow's meeting.

I'll be sure to have enough hard hats available for everyone tomorrow.

Thank you, Nicole

Correspondence 8/31/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Team

Hi there,

I just received the agenda for tomorrows building meeting and Nicole said she should have enough hard hats for everyone. Are we meeting at the job site, or at our campus? I will have to leave the meeting shortly before 4:00, if it goes that long. Have a great day.
Phil

Correspondence 9/1/2005 – Email from Nicole Buscher to Team

Attached are the cover pages to contracts which have been written this past week.

It's my understanding that any contracts written prior have been provided by accounting.

Thank you,

Nicole Buscher

Masonry Contract

Ballasted Roof Contract

Drywall Contract

Glass Contract

HVAC Contract

Correspondence 9/1/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to Team

Cheyenne Folks plan on arriving at job site at approximately 1:30. Looking forward to seeing you.

Chuck

Correspondence 9/1/2005 – Email from Bob Cox to Nicole Buscher

Hi Nicole --

Thanks for the cover pages. The cover page does not show the contract award however and I thought we were going to receive that information, too.

Thanks

Bob

Correspondence 9/1/2005 – Email from Tim Macnamara to Seth Carson

Seth-

As I mentioned before, some of the data points we are asking CW to provide, such as heat pump entering and leaving water temps, are not necessary to provide a working system and seem to be something UW wants for their data collection. If there is additional cost to provide those data points I'm not sure who should pay for them, LCCC's energy grant or UW's. Tim

Correspondence 9/1/2005 – Email from Harvey Ganzel to Seth Carson

Hello Seth,

Yesterday, I sent you an e-mail requesting some additional information. I thought about it and determined that that really doesn't matter right now and that it would do well for us just to get together and determine what it will take to get to where we need to be. I apologize if I came across in the wrong way. I just look forward to closing the gap on this project.

Thanks,

Harvey Ganzel

Correspondence 9/1/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Team

Hello Team,

After our OAC meeting, I believe Nicole, Tim and I have come up with a final solution for the grant variance issues. We believe that the best solution is to utilize the following approach:

As you know, Tom Fuller and DOE approved the grant and the original standard cost column in conjunction with that grant last winter. What that says to me is that they believed that those numbers were correct a year a go, and simply need to be adjusted to reflect the current Laramie construction market. Barb’s stated that her main concern now is that the standard cost must have gone up as per all the newspaper, articles, budget overruns, etc. have indicated. The simplest answer that LCCC could give her and Tom is that the yes, in fact standard costs have gone up too. Our most relevant and best answer to how much that amount totals too, is the overall project budget overrun, non-grant or “standard cost” shorfall. This amount would be the $1,033,091 shortfall minus the grant overruns $224,097 = $808,994. This amount reflects the increase to the “standard cost” portion of our project. In percentage, it is 21.75 percent above the $3,718,719.00 original budget. In short, the best, most accurate and believable approach to increasing the grant standard cost column is to add 21.75 percent those items as well. I believe that this is the most relative approach and should be easy for Barb to digest.

Now, for the flip side or the energy grant increases, we need to add or 21.75 percent to those as well to get us back to the variance amount we need. This is the “leave no stone unturned” list of ideas that we have come up with. These items will need to total $80K. Nicole calculated some rough numbers and we believe we can justify these amounts. As you know, these are items that are not direct grant components but were increased in size or what ever as a result of the grant. These items will be added to the grant cost spreadsheet and the revisions will be made to the standard cost before next Wednesday. Then we wait for the loop field bid to be finalized and back to Tom and Barb we go.

Also, I strongly believe that the bottom half of the grant can be priced completely and finalized in the time were waiting on the loop field prices/permit. If all of our ducks are in row, I would strongly recommend that the supplemental grant go in at the same time or shortly after finalized variance letter. It may be that the variance letter and the supplemental grant can circulate at the same time for signatures and in a month or so we will have refilled to kitty.

Best Wishes,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 9/1/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Cenk Yavuzturk

Cenk,

Things are moving along with the LCCC project. I assume you received the email I sent out on 8-31-2005 regarding the geo-system controls and specifications. Please respond asap if I missed some item or data stream that you need for your research on the geo controls.

Also, we hit another bump in the road with our well field. Were trying to determine if we need permits from the state or DEQ. Did you get permits on you test wells on 287? If so, what was the timeline, permit type, etc? If you could respond quickly, that would be fantastic.

Thanks,

Seth Carson

Correspondence 9/1/2005 – Email from Cenk Yavuzturk to Seth Carson

Seth,

Yes, we did need to obtain well permits from the state of Wyoming. Our

contact was

John Harju

Ground Water Division

Wyoming State Engineer's Office

307-777-6689

I am not sure if John is still at the same position since this was four years ago. Also, our wells are marked as control/monitoring wells (since we only have four), a designation, which you may most likely not use since you will have a lot more boreholes.

We did not have to deal with DEQ as our wells are fully grouted and thus sealed against any possible leaks (we spent quite a lot of money on this actually). I am not sure if your design calls for full grouting as I haven't seen it.

I do not recall how long it took us to run the permit through the

system. We needed to have a locate run first on the site as there are natural gas pipe lines there. If I had to guess I would say it took us about a month maybe including the scheduling of the locate. There was some minor paperwork involved for monitoring wells, which again may be different in your case. Note that all this is something that is typically taken care of by the drilling/geothermal heat system contractor.

I did receive your listing of system parameters to be monitored. I will get back to you asap on that.

Thanks.

C. Yavuzturk, Ph.D., C.E.M.

Correspondence 9/2/2005 – Email from Phil Neal to Team

Hi all,

First, did Nicole hear back from the state regarding the permit?

This approach to the letter of variance sounds reasonable to me. There is one concern (playing devil's advocate here) I can see being raised by Tom and/or Barb, and we need to be ready to address it. And then I have another concern about the process of giving them both documents at once.

1. Anything we add to the grant now that was not originally in the grant (ie. Extra wallboard due to curved ceilings) might not be considered.

2. By sending out the variance letter and the supplemental grant, at the same time, lays all of our cards on the table at once and we have no way of pulling the supplemental grant back if they see something wrong. I believe that Tom wanted the draft letter of variance first because it allows him to approach Barbara with a taste of what we are wanting without giving her the complete picture. If she does not like something in the variance letter then we have not shown her the supplemental grant details and we can change something if need be.

I think we have a great argument for point #1 and am not too worried about that. As per point #2, I know we want to get this approved asap. But I think we should give Tom a few days to get Barb's approval of the letter, and then the grant request should be simple formality to follow a few days later.

Have a great weekend all.

Phil

Correspondence 9/2/2005 – Email from Chuck Bohlen to Team

Phil and All,

Phil, thanks for plaaying devils advocate but I believe we can reasonably argue that the grant should pay for any energy features that would not be in standard construction. This would include design features that cost more. We did not get a grant to just change out the HVAC system - we also changed the design of the building to accommodate the use of natural light and passive solar energy.

I agree that we should keep the waiver request separate from the grant application to restore electrical production that will be reduced by the waiver. We must not do anything to delay or reduce the waiver and it seemed to me that Tom saw the waiver as the higher priority.

Chuck

Correspondence 9/2/2005 – Email from Matt Rausch to Team

I think we should have a meeting next week either Wednesday or Thursday to talk about the controls. We need to get all the questions answered so we are able to finish up the submittals, should we meet at the job site?

Matt Rausch, CEO

Correspondence 9/2/2005 – Email from Jerry Harris to Nicole Buscher

Nicole,

As promised, here is the company information regarding carpet and floorcovering purchases.

Ø Carpet manufacturer - Tandus US Inc., Dalton GA, (706) 259-9711

Ø Account Rep – Mark Truex, Englewood CO, Phone: 303-741-0051, cell phone (303) 332-8264

Ø Contract #10113

Ø Tandus is a subsidiary of “Collins and Aikman Floorcoverings”

You may reference LCCC when discussing this with Mark in an effort to take advantage of the contract. If LCCC must be involved to take advantage of the contract pricing, please let me know, because we are willing to procure where possible in an effort to save costs and taxes. Also, please note that the contract requires that a “certified” installer lay the carpet.

Thanks

Correspondence 9/2/2005 – Email from Seth Carson to Cenk Yavuzturk

CY,

Below is the email with the DDC stuff for you to review.

Nicole and Everyone,

The heat pumps and controls should have the following data streams to and through the controls in a Modbus and/or N2 protocol, web friendly output.

1. Space temp in all zones.

2. Leaving hp water temperature.*

3. Entering hp water temperature.*

3. Discharge air temperature.

4. Command of space temperature setpoint through controls.

5. Cooling Status.

6. Heating Status.

7. Low temperature sensor alarm.

8. Low pressure sensor alarm.

9. High pressure sensor alarm.

10. Condensate overflow alarm.

11. Hi/low voltage alarm.

12. Fan ?ON/AUTO? position of space thermostat as specified above. 13. Unoccupied/occupied command. 14. Cooling command. 15. Heating command. 16. Fan ?ON/AUTO? command. 17. Fault reset command. 18. Itemized fault code revealing reason for specific shutdown fault.

*Note: The University of Wyoming has stated that they need the following be provided for all 27 heat pumps. Please review and provide the request data.

?Heat pump entering/exiting fluid temperatures on both the load and source sides to be provided. This will allow for the performance assessment of the heat pump system, specifically the heat pump coefficient of performance (COP), as the difference between the entering and existing heat pump temperatures is a measure of the heat pump energy consumption.?

The mechanical room controls should have the following data streams to and through the controls in a Modbus and/or N2 protocol, web friendly output.

1. Entering ground loop field temperature.

2. Exiting ground loop field temperature.

3. Entering/exiting ground loop field flow rate.

4. Pump status/speeds

The HRV-1,2 controls should have the following data streams to and through the controls in a Modbus and/or N2 protocol, web friendly output.

1. Entering outside air temperature.

2. Exiting exhaust building air temperature.

3. Discharge duct air temperature.

4. Pre-heater Status.

5. Itemized fault code revealing reason for specific shutdown fault.

The building envelop controls should have the following data streams to and through the controls in a Modbus and/or N2 protocol, web friendly output.

1. Ten Building or five pairs of envelop temperature** readout on each sides of the building and one of the roof. There will be four in pairs with one being placed on the outside of the building envelop (outside building surface), and one in the building wall cavity. The last pair will be for the roof with one being on the surface of the roof and one being on the metal decking. The wall and roof performance will be measured and compared with the space temperature provided above and calculations can be made to determine the actual thermal performance of the wall/roof system.

**These specific locations and temperature gauges will be provided by Seth Carson and the University of Wyoming when needed. Coordination will be made with CW to provide the correct temperature devises. If, CW can provide these devises, it would be helpful.

Thank you all and let me know what questions you may have. 307-760-5998.

Seth Carson

Correspondence 9/2/2005 – Email from Bob Cox to Seth Carson and Team

Hi Seth and all --

I think I understand your methodology, but I am wondering if you applied the correct numerator to the correct denominator. Your numerator is $1,033,901 shortfall minus energy grant shortfall of $224,097 equals $809,994 as you identified. But, should the denominator be the total cost of $3,718,719 minus the energy grant $520,125 equal $3,198,594? Run the calculation and the percentage is 25.29% instead of your 21.75%. This doesn't help us when applied to the standard cost number in the grant. Standard costs go from $369,158 to $462,518. Subtract the Actual Costs of $1,113,380 gives a cost difference of $650,862. Subtract the grant of $520,125 and the new difference is $130,737 instead of the original $224,097. Therefore, based on these numbers, we would need to find another $93,390. Of course we backed out about $18,000 in window controls and some other costs were added for other tweaks which lowered our $224,097 difference to $208,645, so we now need to find $77,938, if we can agree to this calculation method.

Correspondence 9/2/2005 – Email from Chuck Polson to Seth Carson

Respectfully,

Chuck Polson P.E.

Adonai Professional Services Inc.

From: Wade Wiechmann [mailto:Wade@energyms.com]

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 9:13 AM

To: Steven Turner; Chuck Polson

Subject: RE: LCCC wind/solar

We do business with one of the authors of the NREL conference paper that you forwarded (operations and maintenance contract for the Oak Creek Energy turbines in Tehachapi, CA). He has many years in distributed generation and would probably have some insight...I will be in CA the week of 9/12 and will be meeting with him on some other issues. No promises but he might be one possibility for a resource on this. I did look into the UL standard for the Xantrex inverter (1741 not 1471...sorry Chuck), but they want $300 for a copy so I'm sure it would be more economical to get a statement from Xantrex describing the standard and their adherence to it rather than buying a copy of the standard itself. Btw...good thought on the NREL study. I'm sure they have addressed this issue in their testing schedule but I'm not sure if they have released a paper on it...will check though.

Will try to keep you both up to date as I progress...

Thanks

Wade Wiechmann

Technical Projects Director

Energy Maintenance Service, LLC

PO Box 158, 129 Main Ave

Gary, SD 57237

V: 605 272 5398

F: 605 272 5402

C: 507 829 3495

www.energyms.com

-----Original Message-----

From: Steven Turner [mailto:analogic@prairieweb.com]

Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:35 AM

To: Wade Wiechmann

Subject: LCCC wind/solar

Hi Wade

Attached are some articles that might help, although you are probably already up on this.

Perhaps we could get some NREL or DOE money to do a simulation (ETAP? CYMSTAB?) of a hybrid wind/solar system and then confirmation on our site. We have received several research grants over the years on other topics.

Steve

Correspondence 9/2/2005 – Email from Chuck Polson to Seth Carson

Respectfully,

Chuck Polson P.E.

Adonai Professional Services Inc.

From: Wade Wiechmann [mailto:Wade@energyms.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 1:13 PM
To: Chuck Polson
Subject: RE: Laramie, WY wind turbine

Chuck,

Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday...I was out of the office. I have requested some further information on the solar inverters as well as some contacts at Xantrex to hopefully help answer some of these questions. This is our first application where we are installing our equipment with another manufacturer's energy source that doesn't require reactive power. I do, however, have some ideas on how we might open all of the circuits feeding both energy sources in the event that we loose power on the line side of the service.

We might look at using reclosure controller monitoring power on the utility side to control shunt or low voltage trip coils on the branch circuit protection feeding both systems (i.e. Beckwith, ABB, or something similar)

Will update you with what I find by tomorrow

Thanks

Wade Wiechmann

Technical Projects Director

Energy Maintenance Service, LLC

From: Chuck Polson [mailto:chuck@apsinc.biz]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 1:52 PM
To: Wade Wiechmann
Subject: FW: Laramie, WY wind turbine

Wade,

Any info on the last e-mail sent?

Respectfully,

Chuck Polson P.E.

Adonai Professional Services Inc.

From: Chuck Polson [mailto:chuck@apsinc.biz]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:55 PM
To: 'Wade Wiechmann'
Cc: scarson@bluefeatherdesignbuild.com; FREMONT ELECTRIC
Subject: RE: Laramie, WY wind turbine

Wade,

Thanks for the info.

This is reasonable when your dealing with only (2) sources: Utility and this Asynchronous Induction Wind Generator.

On this particular project: we have the 4 separate power sources we are synchronizing and connecting into the same grid:

1. Normal Utility Power Connection

2. 10KW PV array/inverter

3. 10KW PV array/inverter

4. 65KW Nordtank wind Turbine Generator.

What happens when you lose your utility source but are still receiving the required reactive power for the wind turbine from one of the other power sources on site and connected into the same grid?

I need to understand how this is avoided. Do you have any examples of projects you have worked on in the past that are similar to this one?

Respectfully,

Chuck Polson P.E.

Adonai Professional Services Inc.

From: Wade Wiechmann [mailto:Wade@energyms.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:29 PM
To: chuck@apsinc.biz
Subject: Laramie, WY wind turbine

Hello Chuck,

Thanks

Wade Wiechmann

Technical Projects Director

Correspondence 9/2/2005 – Email from Chuck Polson to Seth Carson

Respectfully,

Chuck Polson P.E.

Adonai Professional Services Inc.

nstedt [mailto:Kris.Jernstedt@Xantrex.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:39 AM
To: Chuck Polson
Subject: RE: LCCC

Chuck,

I'm not completely clear on your project expectations. In general Xantrex does not engineer hybrid solutions such as the one you have proposed. For three phase applications we manufacture OEM grid interface wind converters specifically to turbine manufacturer requirements, and PV inverters solely for net-metered solar installations.

1. The PV series inverters do not regulate the AC voltage - they simply source current into the grid for net-metered applications.

2. In the case of loss of grid voltage (or essentially "AC voltage regulation", the anti-islanding feature will normally cause the Xantrex inverters to stop operating and disconnect from the grid (certified to UL 1741).

3. The issue of what the Nordtank generator will do in the case of the loss of the utility grid we can't answer. We do not provide any power electronics for this type of generator design and are unfamiliar with it.

In general if the Nordtank unit does have a method of voltage regulation, then the inverters should stay on-line in the event of utility loss.

I hope this helps you.

Best regards,

Kris Jernstedt
Director, Wind Power Business
Xantrex Technology Inc.
Email: Kris.Jernstedt@xantrex.com
Website: www.xantrex.com
t: 925/245.5420
c:925/980.1818
f: 925/245.1022

From: Chuck Polson [mailto:chuck@apsinc.biz]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 2:52 PM
To: Kris Jernstedt
Subject: LCCC

Kris,

On this particular project: we have the 4 separate power sources we are synchronizing and connecting into the same grid:

1. Normal Utility Power Connection

2. 10KW PV array/inverter (Xantrex 10208)

3. 10KW PV array/inverter (Xantrex 10208)

4. &n