HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting document packet 4-4-2012y= ALASKA. @@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Centennial Hall Convention Center, Egan Room
101 Egan Drive, Juneau, Alaska
April 4, 2013
11:30 - 1:30 pm
AGENDA
Call to Order Beltrami
Roll Call (Committee Members, Staff, Public, Phone)
Welcome New Committee Members Beltrami
Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions)
Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes)
RE Fund Program Update & Performance Briefing Skaling
Suggested Changes for Round 7 Skaling
1.
2
3
4
5
6. Approval of Meeting Minutes — January 8, 2013
7
8
9. Next Meeting Date Beltrami
1 0. Adjournment Beltrami
To participate via teleconference dial 1-800-315-6338 and when prompted enter 3074#.
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
January 8, 2013
Alaska Energy Authority Board Room, Anchorage, Alaska
1. Call to Order
MINUTES
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 10:08 a.m., with Vice
Chair Chris Rose presiding.
2. Roll Call
Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants
Vice Chair Chris Rose Sean Skaling Representative Paul Seaton
Brad Reeve (phone) Shawn Calfa (phone)
Jim Posey Sandra Moller Pat Walker, Senator
Jodi Mitchell Alan Baldivieso Hoffman's Office
Doug Ott (phone)
Josh Craft Darwin Peterson, Senator
Emily Binnian Stedman's Office (phone)
Yolanda Inga Donovan Walker, Accu-
Sara Fisher-Goad Type Depositions
Chris Gobah Brian Bjorkquist,
Jed Drolet Department of Law
Nick Szymoniak
Devany Plentovich
Rich Stromberg (phone)
Teri Webster
3. Public Comments
No public comments were made.
4. Agenda Comments
No comments on the agenda were made.
5: Approval of meeting minutes - November 15, 2012
MOTION: Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the meeting minutes from November 15, 2012,
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded by Mr. Posey. The
minutes were unanimously approved.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5
January 8, 2013
6. Review AEA Round 6 Recommendations
Mr. Skaling explained the methodology AEA used in determining the list of recommended
projects for Round 6. He provided members a prepared methodology document titled "Alaska
Renewable Energy Fund Round 6, Method for Proposal Evaluation and Grant
Recommendation."
Mr. Skaling recommended the Committee respond by Thursday with comments and he is also
available to answer questions at this point.
Vice Chair Rose asked Mr. Skaling how public support is measured for a project. Mr. Posey
asked Vice Chair Rose to clarify his question regarding public support for what REFAC does or
local support for the individual project. Vice Chair Rose stated his question is about local support
for the project. Mr. Skaling directed the Committee to page 13 of the report. He stated there are
different points given for numbers of letters of support or a resolution from the city or village
council. Mr. Skaling said letters of opposition do not count toward the measurement. He believes
there could be a better way to do this, but doesn't have a recommendation now as to what that
would be.
Vice Chair Rose requested to see if there are any examples of where there was both opposition
and support of a project. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Skaling if the term "local entity" included
individuals. Mr. Skaling read from the document, "support demonstrated by a local entity, other
than applicant, or support by two local entities or three local entities." He read the footnote,
"letters of support from legislators do not count toward the criterion."
Mr. Posey asked Mr. Skaling if there has been a problem of local opposition with any of the
projects funded so far. Mr. Skaling could not think of any.
Mr. Skaling stated with the regional spreading, sometimes projects are taken from down deep on
the list and ranking them up high and he wonders if that is displacing good projects or if they are
going to be projects that succeed. Mr. Skaling said it is better for a project to have a high
benefit/cost ratio. Mr. Posey asked why the solar project has a low benefit/cost ratio. Mr. Skaling
stated this was different add on because it is a solar thermal connecting to a biomass and boiler
system.
Vice Chair Rose asked for clarification from Mr. Skaling whether he is asking the Committee to
approve a project list that has 25 million dollars or a project list that has 50 million dollars of
more. Mr. Skaling agreed the Committee needs to approve either a project list of 25 million
dollars or a project list of 50 million dollars or more.
Mr. Posey asked Vice Chair Rose what the legislation asks the Committee to do. Vice Chair
Rose stated the legislation doesn't require the Committee to approve any amount. Mr. Posey
suggested approving the project list of 50 million dollars. Mr. Reeve agreed with Mr. Posey and
stated if we are still seeing good projects that area surfacing during every round, then we should
ask for the higher amount. Ms. Mitchell stated she agreed, as long as these are all good projects.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5
January 8, 2013
Vice Chair Rose agreed and will now focus on the pages that have the raw rankings and the
rankings in regional order.
Mr. Posey asked Vice Chair Rose how often the Legislature has selected something on the list
different from what the Committee recommended. Vice Chair Rose stated he doesn't know of
any time that has happened.
Vice Chair Rose asked the Committee if the recommendation should be limited to 50 million
dollars or to the 57 million dollars of recommend projects. Mr. Posey suggested giving the entire
list of recommended projects of 57 million dollars.
Vice Chair Rose asked Mr. Skaling if a project is really viable if it doesn't receive the full
funding they ask for. Mr. Skaling gave an example of giving partial funding for a project in order
to break the project up in steps. The request from the project would be to see the final design
first in order to gain confidence before providing them with the entire amount for the project.
Vice Chair Rose asked Mr. Skaling to give the explanation for the partial funding
recommendations for the Shishmaref project and the Allison Creek project. Mr. Skaling said
regarding the Shishmaref project, the state does not have a policy on investing infrastructure in
communities that are likely to move, but he believes that Shishmaref is building a transportable
bulk fuel facility. He stated this funding would be for a feasibility study and not infrastructure.
Mr. Reeve commented Shishmaref is trying to design a moveable tank farm system, but leaves
many open questions.
Vice Chair Rose asked Ms. Moller whether or not Shishmaref has actually chosen another
location for the community. Ms. Moller state they are working on a relocation plan now and
believes they have narrowed it to three different locations inland, but the funding for the
infrastructure has not been identified. Mr. Skaling asked Mr. Craft whether the projected
Shishmaref feasibility study where they are located now would work for where they would be
located later. Mr. Craft stated it depends on where the new location of the community is and
there is not enough information to determine whether the feasibility study would work for the
relocation.
Vice Chair Rose recommended the Committee discuss the issues regarding funding projects in
communities that are actively looking to move. Mr. Posey commented sustainability is part of the
selection process and includes viability of the community.
Mr. Ott responded to Vice Chair Rose's question regarding the Allison Creek hyrdro-electric
project. He stated the project has been at FERC for 10 months and the issuance of the license to
construct should be issued within a few months. Mr. Ott believes it is a solid project.
Vice Chair Rose requested Mr. Skaling to explain one of the concerns raised with the West
Creek Hydroelectric Project. Vice Chair Rose asked what process is AEA going to use to
determine when they stop funding reconnaissance and feasibility projects that compete for the
same load. Mr. Skaling said it is a challenging question they have struggled with and the focus
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5
January 8, 2013
of the analysis is on technical economic feasibility, clear power sales agreements and community
support versus opposition.
Vice Chair Rose asked for an explanation why there is a recommendation for full funding for the
West Creek Hydroelectric Project, but there is a list of four different concerns. Mr. Ott said that
as a project manager and working with the scoring, the merits of each project is looked at
according to the guidelines. Mr. Ott stated in this particular case, it is near the bottom of the
recommended list and not within the 50 million-dollar list. Vice Chair Rose stated he wasn't
trying to pick on this project in particular, but raising it as an example where there are competing
projects and how does AEA reconcile competition. He noted at some point there has got to be a
process for reconciling that competition. Mr. Ott stated they try to be consistent in the scoring
with the previous rounds and see if there is any new information in the application that is helpful.
Ms. Mitchell asked for an explanation regarding the Walker Lake Hydro Feasibility Project's
recommendation. Mr. Ott stated there were four reasons concerning the scoring and overall
perspective on Walker Lake. He said the most significant reason was the amount of diesel to be
displaced by this project was actually quite low and that is why it scored low.
Vice Chair Rose asked Mr. Skaling to explain how the B/C analysis might be different with
transmission and feasibility studies. Mr. Skaling stated the B/C analysis gets more accurate the
farther along in the stages of the project. He said they take into consideration the best
information they have from the applicant and statewide modeling.
Mr. Szymoniak wanted to get guidance on one of the projects which requested funds to build out
a distribution system to connect a load and wanted to know if this is the intent of the program.
Mr. Bjorkquist stated the statute includes both transmission and distribution. He believes the
intent is transmission or distribution to connect a renewable energy project with the transmission
or distribution system. Mr. Bjorkquist stated there has to be that link to the renewable energy
project, but there's no distinction between transmission and distribution in the statutory language.
Vice Chair Rose stated he was concerned this project, which would connect load to distribution,
does not meet the requirements of the program and said this would open the flood gates to other
potential applications that would also not conform to the statute. He asked for a clarification
regarding if tidal energy is now considered commercial technology, but river technology is still
under the EETF. Mr. Skaling stated that is a fair assessment. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated the goal is
to make sure that one fund or the other covers these issues so there is no gap.
Ms. Mitchell asked for clarification regarding methodology and any changes that have been
made. Mr. Skaling stated the funding becomes available on July 1st. He stated that this year they
have delayed when the applications are due by a month.
Vice Chair Rose requested setting up another meeting in early March to discuss some of the
recommendations that were made by the VEIC reports.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5
January 8, 2013
MOTION: Mr. Posey moved to approve the recommended list of projects of 57 million
dollars. Seconded by Ms. Mitchell. The recommended list was unanimously approved.
as NEXT MEETING DATE
Mr. Reeve requested to discuss issues regarding communities who may have good ideas, but may
not have the resources to put together projects in the right form to get them to the next stage.
Vice Chair Rose stated he will ask for that topic to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
The next meeting will be scheduled for a date in March 2013, possibly held in Juneau, and then a
follow-up meeting in May 2013.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:41 p.m.
bi
P
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
Xeteredaatan tale (tem iit
Heat District: In RFA, address whether
heat districts are qualified to apply.
Efficiency Requirement: Require that
heat projects are applied to energy
efficient buildings only.
Data Collection: Better define
operational data required post-
construction.
Non-Public Benefits: Better define
how AEA will score the economic and
public value of electrical sales to non-
public markets, such as saw mills,
cruise ships, mines, etc.
Transmission and Distribution: Better
define eligible transmission and
distribution projects.
Design Review: Add language to the
RFP requesting wind design and final
design documents 30 days prior to
application deadline.
Matching Funds: Simplify the scoring
of matching funds.
Scoring Local Support: Improve the
method of measuring local support.
Reason/Problem Solved
Interested applicants have requested
clarification regarding whether heating
districts would be allowed to apply.
RE projects should not waste the
energy generated.
- Some projects are not reporting or able
to report the data needed for precise
measurement of impact, including
house energy and accurate O&M costs.
Clarify and formalize the approach to
be clearer with applicants and to gather
the appropriate information for the
economic evaluation.
"Provide greater clarity to applicants.
Receiving design reviews early allows
time for adjustments and discussion
with AEA program managers and time
for a thorough review prior to scoring.
Current system is overly complex.
The current system of counting letters
of support may not correlate closely to
the actual level of local support.
Tet)
Additional work needed to check that this change is within statutory and _
regulatory parameters. The applicant would have to demonstrate that
they meet certain criteria, such as land access, energy sales agreements,
technical and economic feasibility, etc.
Applicant would prove efficiency either through evidence of low energy
use intensity (kBTU/square foot/year) or evidence of a recent energy
_ audit and implemented measures.
Grant agreement will now include project-specific data required to be
reported for five years after startup. Possibly offer “black box” data
logging and uploading.
The application will request additional information from applicants with
significant planned industrial energy sales so the economic value of the
project can be better understood and calculated. The fund’s purpose is to
provide a public benefit, therefore only direct and indirect (to the extent
known) public benefits will count toward the economic score. Other
benefits are captured in separate scoring criteria.
The applications are now due a month later than in previous years, but
the designs would maintain approximately the same due date as in
previous years.
Simplify to score on percentage basis mostly, with some weight for type of
match (previous non-state investment in project, state grant, federal
grant, private investment, in ascending order of preference).
New measurement method in discussion.
Alaska Energy Authority Recommended Changes to Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 Request for Applications
April 4, 2013 REFAC Meeting
# Recommended Change Reason/Problem Solved Notes
1 Heat RFA: Issue a separate RFA for Heating projects are different from The RFA and scoring will be substantially the same, but adjustments can
heat projects. Set a target allocation electrical projects and should compete _ be made to better match the application type. Heat would include any
of 30-40% (or $10M-$15M) of funding separately for funding. Heating project that produces heat as the primary energy output (biomass, heat
for heat projects. The application and represents 70-80% of non- recovery, geothermal for direct heat use, etc.). Two separate
scoring will be specific to heat transportation energy use in Alaska, yet | recommendation lists would be provided to the legislature, one for heat
projects. AEA will provide two represent only 8 percent of funding in projects, one for all other projects.
recommendations lists to the Round 5, 10% in Round 6 if funded at
legislature. $25M level.
2 Funding Limits: Better define project | To provide more clarity to grant See note 1 below for proposed wording.
funding limits by phase. applicants.
3. Funding Limits: Modify the list of As cost of energy changes in parts of See note 1. For heat RFA, $8M limit for communities without natural gas
locations with a $4M versus $8M the state, the higher funding limits for for heat, $4M for those with natural gas.
construction funding limit. higher cost areas should change as well. For electrical RFA, $8M limit for communities with higher than average
Heat projects should be based on heat _ electrical costs, $4M limit for communities with lower than average
costs. electrical costs. AEA will produce a community list with the RFA.
4 Geothermal Funding: Adjust funding Unlike most resources where feasibility | See note 1. Staff recommends allowing an additional $2M for the
limits on feasibility studies for studies are relatively inexpensive as combined maximum expenditure for the reconnaissance and feasibility
geothermal projects. compared to final construction, the studies. The limit would still be 20% of anticipated construction cost, with
feasibility phase of geothermal projects | a maximum of $4M. Any funding used over the typical $2M maximum
typically involves drilling exploration would be deducted from the maximum funding available from the ensuing
wells to better understand the geology _ final design and construction phases so the maximum grant allowance
and hydrology. remains the same for geothermal as other projects.
5 Heat Cost of Energy: When scoring Previously used cost of electricity only. _ The cost of energy is the single largest weighted factor in the Stage 3
heat projects for cost of energy, use Rate heat projects based on heat costs. review. Heat projects should be scored based on the cost of heating fuels the cost of heating fuels. instead of the cost of electricity, as is already performed in the economic
analysis.
6 Biomass Matching Funds: Allow Encourage communities to harvest and
points for biomass projects that season the first year’s wood fuel supply
harvest the first year’s supply of ahead of time by giving additional
biomass during the design phases. points in the match scoring.
Note 1 Grant Funding Project Limits
Table used in Round 6:
Project Type/Phase | Grant Limits
heat for sale to the public. Biofuel is a
solid, liquid or gaseous fuel produced
from biomass.
Biofuel projects where the Applicant Limited to reconnaissance and
does not intend to generate electricity or | feasibility phases only.
Juneau, Sitka, Ketchikan, Wrangell, and
Petersburg electrical grids
Final Design and Permitting $500,000 or no more than 20%
|__ of anticipated construction cost
Construction projects on the ‘Railbelt’, $4 million per project
State not mentioned above
Construction in all other areas of the $8 million per project
Below is the revised table:
Grant Limits by Location
Phase Locations with natural gas (heat),
or cost of electricity below state
average, see list (electrical)
Locations without natural gas (heat), or cost
of energy above state average, see list
(electrical)
costs, above.
Phase |,
Reconnaissance The per-project total of Phase | and II is limited to 20% of anticipated construction
Phase Il, cost (Phase IV), not to exceed $2M.
Feasibility and Design
Phase Ill, 20% of anticipated construction cost (Phase IV), and counting against the total
Final Design and Permitting | construction grant limit below.
Phase IV, S4M per project, including final $8M per project, including final design and
Construction design and permitting (Phase II!) permitting (Phase Ill) costs, above.
Exceptions
Biofuel projects Biofuel projects where the Applicant does not intend to generate electricity or heat
for sale to the public are limited to reconnaissance and feasibility phases only at the
limits expressed above. Biofuel is a solid, liquid or gaseous fuel produced from
biomass.
Geothermal projects The per-project total of Phase | and II for geothermal projects is limited to 20% of
anticipated construction cost (Phase IV), not to exceed $4M. Any amount above the
usual $2M spent on these two phases combined shall reduce the total Phase III and
Phase IV grant limit by the same amount, thereby keeping the same total dollar cap
as all other projects. This exception recognizes the typically increased cost of the
feasibility stage due to test well drilling.
JANUARY 25, 2013
ALASKA RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND
STATUS REPORT
[ALASKA ee aN asa eli esha EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rev. April 1, 2013
Introduction
The Alaska Renewable Energy Fund (REF), established by the Alaska State Legislature in 2008, and extended 10 years
in 2012, provides tremendous benefits to Alaskans by assisting communities across the state to reduce and stabilize
their cost of energy.
Implemented by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the Renewable Energy Fund provides public funding for the
development of qualifying and competitively selected renewable energy projects in Alaska. The program’s ultimate
goal is to produce cost-effective renewable energy for heat and power to benefit Alaskans statewide. As the program
matures, the quality of the proposed projects continues to rise as does the knowledge base regarding implementing
renewable energy in Alaska’s diverse climates, geographies and cultures.
This executive summary provides a brief update on the projects funded to date, and the performance and savings that
have been achieved. A full report on the recommended projects for Round VI, more detailed status reports for all
funded projects, and additional background information is available on AEA’s website, www.akenergyauthority.org.
Round VI Recommended Projects
Figure 1. Recommended Projects by Region AEA recommends 60 projects out of 85 applications
for Round VI funding, totaling $56.8M. Figures 1 and
2 indicate the recommended funding by region and
by energy source. The recommendation process
involves four stages of review and scoring, including
technical feasibility by AEA subject matter experts,
an economic review by economists, and a review by
the Department of Natural Resources. The ranked
recommendations list and review details are
provided to the Legislature for a funding
determination.
Yukon-Koyukok/ Upper Tanana
Southeast
Railbelt
Northwest Arctic
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Kodiak
Copper River/ Chugach
Bristol Bay
Bering Straits a B Attached to this executive summary are the
Aleuti . . : — . recommendations lists and maps of project
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 locations. These documents and more detailed
Millions of Dollars review comments, scoring, and economic reviews
are available on AEA’s web site.
Figure 2. Recommended Projects by Resource Type
Table of Contents
MEVRTOCLUCKIONY coe cacestcscesetsestctencczeccctcecpreaeseectesstomtstesevertettesscatstesneas 1
Round VI Recommended Projects............:cccesssssseseseseseeseseseeneneee 1
Figure 1. Recommended Projects by REgiON..........:s:ssssseeeseee 1,
Figure 2. Recommended Projects by Type ..........sssssesssssseseseeee 1
Geothermal
$0.3
Rounds | - V Progress Figure 3. Scheduled Grant Completion.
Table 1. Funding Summary Rounds I — V Performance & Savings ...........ccscsesesesseseeseeseseeeeeee 3
ry Figure 4. 2011 Construction Portfolio Benefits & Costs .......... 3
Transmissio Figure 5. Annual Fuel Savings by Typ@.........s::sssessseseseeseeseeees 3
8 Table 2. Performance of Projects 2009-2012 .........cssssssessssseees 4
i ed
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Status Report Executive Summary — Rev. April 1, 2013 Page 1
Progress: Round I - V Grants
Table 1 provides statistics on the number of applications received,
grants issued, current grant status and financial information. Of
the 228 applications funded, 62% are active, 22% completed, 5%
cancelled or combined with other grants, and 11% not yet issued.
Of those not yet issued, 16 are awaiting grantee action and 10 are
awaiting completion of a previous phase of work prior to grant
issuance.
Figure 3 shows scheduled project completion by phase. The
projected numbers are based on the current grant end date.
Many feasibility grants lead to final design grants and
construction grants in subsequent years. 95 of the 202 grants
issued to date have two or more grants for different phases of the
same project. The REF program encourages this multi-phased
approach to ensure maximal renewable energy generation per
dollar of public funds invested. By using a small amount of money
to thoroughly assess the feasibility of a project prior to spending
more on final design and construction, AEA is better able to
ensure that projects reaching the construction phase are
successful and cost effective. Many of the grants already in place
are providing a pipeline for successful construction projects in the
future.
Figure 3. Scheduled Grant Completion, RE
Fund Rounds I-V__ Based on current grant end date aii = ny 8 s 8 Cumulative # Grants Completed a o GRecon/Feasibility
@Final Design
Construction
aka
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Table 1. Renewable Energy Fund Grant and Funding Summary, as of January 22, 2013
LSet iare Round Il Round Ill
Applications Received
Round!IV RoundV_ Round VI arecity
Applications Funded
Grants Currently in Place
Grants Completed and Closed
Grants Cancelled or Combined
Grants Unissued to Date*
Amount Requested> ($M)
AEA Recommended ($M)
Appropriated ($M)
Cash Disbursed ($M)
Match Provided ($M) *
>] a Other Known Funding ($M)
Includes eleven projects from an earlier solicitation issued by AEA.
Total grant amount requested by all applicants.
These totals are for awarded grants only. Ai Ne Grants unissued are due mostly to grantee conditions requiring completion of earlier phases of work, or awaiting grantee action.
Represents only amounts recorded in the grant document and does not capture all other funding sources.
Ree TTT TET ee TTT TT TTT
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Status Report Executive Summary — Rev. April 1, 2013 Page 2
Performance & Savings
An independent evaluation of the Renewable Energy
Fund program identified a lifetime benefit to Alaska of
just over $1 billion achieved from a total cost of $508M
for a net benefit of $501M. These benefits and costs
Figure 4. 2011 Construction Portfolio
Benefits and Costs Source: VEIC Impact Evaluation
are based on the actual and projected costs and — # REF Admin
benefits from the first 62 projects to be funded for
construction. The State’s investment in these projects $800 = Wind
was $112M through the Renewable Energy Fund and an
additional $23M in other legislative appropriations for a $600 - Solar
total state investment of $135M to achieve $1.01B in g
benefits. Figure 4 includes all costs associated with 2 $400 = Hydro
these construction projects: state, private investment, =
and other funding. $200 a Heat
Figure 5 depicts the annual fuel savings from projects aeokeeme
0. J that were in operation on or before September 2012 . NPV Costs NPVBenefits ™=Biomass
(actuals), and a projection of energy savings for
the next three years. The significant jump between 2012 and 2013 results primarily from the addition of two major
wind projects, Eva Creek in the Railbelt, and Pillar Mountain on Kodiak Island, which began generating power at the end
of 2012, and the Anchorage Landfill Gas Waste to Energy Plant, which will begin operations January, 2013. The
Anchorage landfill project is expected to generate more than 56,000 megawatt hours or 26.2 percent of Joint Base
Elemendorf and Ft. Richardson’s electrical load and accounts for the significant increase in projected diesel
displacement in the biomass category.
Table 2 (following page) shows the Alaska Renewable Energy Fund is saving nearly 2M gallons of diesel equivalent per
year for Alaska communities, with a large increase in fuel savings expected in 2013 and beyond. In-depth analysis of the
performance of Renewable Energy Fund projects can be found in the Renewable Energy Grant Recommendation
Program Impact Evaluation Report, on the AEA web site www.akenergyauthority.org.
Figure 5. Annual Fuel Savings by Energy Type - Actual and Projected 2009 - 2015
~ c av 3 12 2 3 & 10
g 8
a 2 6
2 ma 4 oO S 2
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
= Wind ~ Solar @ OceanRiver m@ Hydro ™ Heat Recovery @ Geothermal @ Biomass
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Status Report Executive Summary — Rev. April 1, 2013 Page 3
Table 2. Performance of Renewable Energy Fund projects in operation during the period 2009 -2012
fer)
Alaska Environmental
Project Name
Delta Area Wind Turbines
Operation
Start Date
Sep-10
ral rab
Energy Production
rah 4 TOTAL
Fuel Displaced Energy Production Energy Production UBB) ele] Fuel Displaced Energy Production Fuel Displaced
ey]
(Gal)
(x1000
WEI
($)
eale]e/0}
eT)
(Gal)
eaiel¢/¢}
Diesel
(Gal)
x1000
WET eT] (Gal) x1000
Value
($) x1000:
ey]
(Gal)
x1000.
Value 1 (Tei tie)
($) Ey
x1000 MWh
Batre
MMBtu
aro tiles
a)
aur
MMBtu
Electrical
YAY)
To titer]
MWh
ary
MMBtu
Lalo (ier
MWh
aur)
MMBtu ator)
MMBtu Fuel Displaced
WENT)
($) (x1000
Power
Alaska Gateway School | Tok School Wood Heating Nov-10 Dist
Alaska Power & North Prince of Wales Island Sep-11
Telephone Intertie
Alaska Village Electric Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind Sep-11
Coop and Intertie
Alaska Village Electric Mekoryuk Wind Nov-10
Coop
Alaska Village Electric Quinhagak Wind Nov-10 Coop
Alaska Village Electric Shaktoolik Wind None
Coop Construction
Alaska Village Electric Toksook Wind*™ Aug-09 Coop
Aleutian Wind Energy Sand Point Wind Aug-11
Chilkoot Indian Haines (Chilkoot) Central Oct-11
Association Wood Heating System
City and Borough of Juneau Airport Grd Source May-11
Juneau Heat Pump
City & Borough of Wrangell Hydro Based Feb-11
Wrangell Electric Boilers
Cordova Electric Coop Humpback Creek Jul-11
Hydroelectric
Delta/Greely School Delta Junction Wood Chip Sep-11
District Heating
Golden Valley Electric GVEA Eva Creek Wind Oct-12
Turbine Purchase
Golden Valley Electric McKinley Village Solar Jun-10
Assoc Thermal
Golden Valley Electric North Pole Heat Recovery Nov-09
Assoc
Gulkana Village Council Gulkana Central Wood Oct-10
Heating
Gustavus Electric Co Falls Creek Hydroelectric Jul-09
Kodiak Electric Assoc Pillar Mountain Wind Sep-10
Kotzebue Electric Kotzebue High Penetration Not yet
Association Wind-Battery-Diesel Hybrid commissioned
McGrath Light & Power McGrath Heat Recovery May-10
Native Village of Eyak Cordova Wood Processing Dec-11 Plant
Nome Joint Utility Nome Banner Peak Wind Oct-10
Systems Intertie
Puvurnag Power Co Kongiganak Wind Dec-10
Unalakleet Valley Unalakleet Wind Dec-09
Electric Co
ca
att Ta ye E74 1,684.9
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Status Report Executive Summary -~ Rev. April 1, 2013
Table 2 Notes
The data provided here is gross renewable energy produced by Renewable Energy Fund projects.
Three projects were in operation during 2012 that were not listed here due to the following reasons:
Thorne Bay School Wood Fired Boiler Project (grantee: Southeast Island School District) started generating energy 4" Quarter 2012, but their first reporting cycle ends in April 2013.
The Alaska Sealife Center Ph Il Seawater Heat Pump Project, (grantee: City of Seward) found errors in their data collection methodology that has now been fixed.
e The Biomass-fired Organic Rankine Cycle System (grantee: Chena Power, LLC) did not provide data to AEA.
*The REF funded only 1 of 4 wind turbines in Toksook. This data represents only the portion covered by the REF grant.
Partial support for this report and renewable energy fund project database developed by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage is from a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, EPSCoR project DE-PSO2-O9ERO9-12, Making Wind Work for
Alaska: Supporting the Development of Sustainable, Resilient, Cost-Effective Wind-Diesel Systems for Isolated Communities to the University of Alaska.
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Status Report Executive Summary - Rev. April 1, 2013
Page 1 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund J=
Statewide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6
January 18, 2013 @@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY
OE ESPN AP RE —— ea me : : hs ENS ar e eke ae ate Teen gs Cee moor rae P| | [$2,988,000] Cons —Ful'sP | $298,000) —$2.98,000
[ 966 |High-penetration Wind Energy Project- Kokhanok “per
Egegik Wind Feasibility Study Take eP Saree Borough
| 922 [Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project | 982 [Community Facilities Woody Biomass Space Heating Project [944 | New Stuyahok Heat Recovery i ist 7 z ion_[ Fults | $486,000] $11,033,000
[967 [Gold Bay Waste Heat Recovery Project ic Ul [Feasibility —— [est] ac
| 939 [Stebbins Heat Recovery Project i i a [Galena Community Wood Heat Project i i : :
[Knutson Creck Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting i i : : 937 om Pate tape
Feat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant i i : 3.00 [10.88 | 200 [467 [oosi [12 | Treat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria ive Vil i [3.00 [1275 | 200 [433 | 68.53 [13] $668,350) E E E x $10,000[ $10,000 $1,000] " $10,000} $165,750] $132,600[ $35,150]
65.35 Sanat $1,300, '$2,600,000| Construction Full SP
C489 aes $4,000,000] $4,000,000] '$4,000,000| Construction FullsP 239 Pat fal — ta] gl nar fea
$1,990,000}
ara ae
$3,003,174] $27,186,358
ate ete ee aa = am 00 3.08 $23, $17,343,267) 453,920] Construction et 33, cn 5920 coi aH i 73 ar Lam a | soe — samt sara] — $553 927] DexpnConatnacton [Pulls [$0511 ao oa oe ame a eae [at] — sn] — nano] — tron] —Fepod Ser ee eat Reavy | 397 ans tae Ste ee caaeteeaed maT oe se Loe Doe Tete cael amr Saal arti ee sar z =i = 3.00 $30,700 000] [Feasibiity —*Y 00
= ae Pisr[ rors] sr — ea ae a meres ef ow om fof a op SSS SES
279 1683 [3.00 [13.13 [5.00 Haar [aor [se] aman] — pao] — soa, ——| Swe] [oes] Fat | Paap aaL ae [ase oor [anf oar] os sor | sar sre | | — ta — to — rn — po] — | ery |e] — ‘Fo
a $225,000]
00 $207, an 00 free Fat | a0
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim AVCP RHA Wood Biomass Heating System > [AVCP Regional Housing Authority i : ; ; : x 3 y $3,149,387|
Subtotal Count = 18 $82,386,943 $23,534,700 $20,714,079 $495,300 $1,847,398 $19,491,429
* Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana applications #933 and #925 were moved up into the first $25million of recommended funding to achieve Stage 4 Regional Spread
Tf the FY 14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, #930 cannot be fully funded as recommended and the remaining recommended $4,028,491 in funding is moved to the yellow
» 16 the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, #921 cannot be fulling, funded as recommended and the remaining $862,618 in funding is move to the peach.
SP is for Special Provision
Page 2 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund = ALASKAa j
Statewide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6 —
January 18, 2013
Corn
[ 921 [AVCP RHA Wood Biomass Heating System > AVCP Regional Housing Authority y ; x $3,149,387 905 | Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV [Northwest Arctic Borough
937,618} [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 956 | Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. i E 2 x . 5 i ri SSE pe [Alaska Power & Telephone Company E i i $51,260,118] Bristol Bay 962 |Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Study Manokotak Power Company z E : z : : 3 Feasibil i $51,403,1 i Bering Straits 957 |Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project _ [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. i : 5 z E $7,500] $51,545,618 954 |St. Mary’s / Mountain Village Wind Energy Intertie Final Design [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. : i z E $17,500 $332,500 ‘$51,878,118 ‘904 [Dimond Park Library Geothermal HVAC System [City & Borough of Juneau r 3 5 $175,000] $300,000 $52,178,118] ‘975 [Juniper Creek Hydroclectric Project Feasibility Study [Ram Valley LOD I ; . 3 z : : $44,800} $52,208,118} 909 {Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project: Phase Ill City of Saxman . . . x $100,000}
$52,708,118| 959 | Ticasuk Brown School Pellet Boiler Project- Phase 2 [Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) f iy i : : : $250,000] Construction i ae 18 926 [AGSD District Heat Loop Project sti E E : A $95,575] $2,403,743 | DesignConstruction $55,711,482
s . . : $10,000] $41,360] se ReconFeasibility $55,752,842] [Marshall Wind Energy Design and Permitting Project i ive, Inc. i $17, Design $56,085,342] ‘902 [Jack River Hydroclectric Project Feasibility Study [Native Village of Cantwell Hydro : : $11,250] $213,750 Feasibility $56,299,092] 918 | West Creek Hydroelectric Project [Municipality of Skagway Borough Hydro $84,000] $236,000 Feasibility $56,535,092] 901 |Karluk Tribal Council — Wind Energy System [Karluk Tribal Council Wind $300] $70,000 FeasibiltyDesign $56,605,092] 923 | Afognak Biomass Feasibility Study [Native Village of Afognak Biomass $1,633,974] $170,974 ReconBeasibility $56,776,066] 979 |Waste-to- Energy Feasibility Study [Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Biofuels $150,000[ $40,000] Feasibility $56,816,066] 977 [Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study [Native Village of Cantwell [Fiydeo $7,500,000] $66,500] $3,300] __ $30,000] Recon $56,846,066] Count = 19 $284,457,510) $1,419,425] $1,940,084
(Shungnak Solar Energy Construction Project ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Solar 0.66 $650,000} $65,000) [Construction NotRecomnd 961 [Atka Wind Power Project [City of Atka Wind $140,000 $50,000 ReconFeasibility NotRecomnd
Bristol Bay 910 | Igiugig Wind Turbine Design Lake and Peninsula Borough Wind 0.52 $250,000} $205,000} $45,000] Design NotRecomnd
Aleutians 969 | Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Nelson Lagoon Electric Cooperative Wind 0.93 0.56 $218,195 $5,000] [Design NotRecomnd
Southeast 938 | Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Rj Inside Passage Electric Cooperative |Geothermal 0.38 1.06 { $27,000,000} $3,485,000} Feasibility NotRecomnd [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 970 [Kipnuk Wind Diesel Power Generation and Heating [Kipnuk Light Plant Wind oat | 149 | [__ S4007,778] $2,567,778] _ $1,500,000 DesigaUonstruction | NotRecomnd ‘932 [Design and Construction of Biomass Systems in Interior Villages Taterior Regional Housing Authority Biomass 1.90 | 147 T $1,314,380 __ $1,314,380} $108,313) DesignUonstruction | NotRecomnd ‘951 [St. Michael/Stebbins Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Project | Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind i | $5,000,000] $332,500 $17,500 NotRecomnd 1950 [Russian Mission Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 052 | 0.89 $1,530,000] $142,500 $7,500 NoiRecomnd
Northwest Arctic 984 | Noatak Wind Resource Assessment Noatak IRA Wind 0.98 1.53 ull $2,000,000} $181,000} NotRecomnd
Bering Straits 973 Geothermal Resource Assessment I Feasibility City of Em |Geothermal 0.28 0.39 $10,000,000] $527,908} NotRecomnd
Aleutians 968 | False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass Electric Utility Wind 0.64 0.30 $190,195] $185,195 $5,000) jotRecomnd
Railbelt 960 |TidGen™ Array Project JORPC Alaska 2, LLC Other -0.01 0.01 $8,696,494] $2,000,000 $6,696,494 Construction NotRecomnd
|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 972 | Akiak Wind Resource Assessment Akiak Native Community/ Akiak IRA Council [Wind 0.58 1.24 $2,000,000} $181,000] Feasibility NotRecomnd Bristol Bay ‘980 [Bristol Bay Borough School District Energy Project [Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar 1.45 [| 1.06 $460,000} $45,000 $10,000 [DesignConstruction | NotRecomnd
963 | Mount Makushin Geothermal Project |The Aleut Corporation Geothermal 0.49 3.13 $311,304,000] $32,464,000} $540,000} NotRecomnd [Copper River/Chugach ‘971 [Eastern Copper Basin Geothermal Assessment Copper Valley Development Association (Geothermal 0.68 | 0.00 30) $695,950) Recon NotRecomnd | [ 905 | HydroPower Surplus to Stored Hydrogen Feasibility Study [The Southeast Alaska Power Agency (Other 0.15 $244,385] $244,385) $5,000 Feasibility NotRecomnd 919 |Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie [Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) Transmission 194 | 1.94 $14,510,599[ __ $9,570,434 DesignOonstruction_| NotRecomnd 974 [Neck Lake Hydro Project ‘Alaska Power Company (APC) Hydro 2883 | 074 | 088 $2,777,885] $297,600 $74,400 FeasibiltyDesign | NotPassStagc| 920 |Walker Lake Hydro Feasibility Project [Tlingit Haida Regional Electric Authority Hydro 29.50 | 001 | 001 $690,000] $640,000 $50,000] ReconFeasDesign | NotPassStaged| 964 [Excursion Inlet Hydro Project- Phase IT Haines Borough Hydro 29.83 | 1.09 | 1.86 $15,900,000] $213,536] $10,000 Feasibility NotPassStage] 958 [Wrangell Power Plant Upgrade (City & Borough of Wrangell [TransmissionHydro $117,136 $117,136 FeasDesignConstructi NotPassStagel [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 985 | Electrical Power Lines Western Alaska Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc. | TransmissionlWind $82,000 $82,000 Recon NotPassStagel
906 |Coffman Cove Hydropower Line Extension City of Coffman Cove Transmission 77.00 3.52 34.74 19.88 0.00 15.40 3.00 11.63 5.00 | 4.00 58.91 $175,000} $175,000} $36,000) [DesignConstruction Withdrawn [Count = 25 $408,959,852| $56,610,497] __ $9,225,207
[Count = 85 $1,004,824,649| $12,594,232] $37,197,134 $49,331,531 $56,846,066
SP is for Special Provision
Page 1
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund J= A 1. ASKA .
Regional Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6 (@@m> ENERGY AUTHORITY
January 18, 2013
| Aleutians 967 |Cold Bay Waste Heat IG&K Electric Unilit [Heat 8233, 1.58 1.58 3134 5.25 16.47 2.00 10.50 2.00 4.50, 72.05 3] 114,765} 109,765) $5,000] 000) |Keasibil Partial 000)
| Aleutians 929 | Waterfall Creek Hy ic Project ity of King Cove Hi 80.00 2.16 211 11.60, 1275 16.00 3.00 12.00, 5.00 5.00 65.35, 19} $4,300,000} $2,600, $1,300,000} 000] Construction Full SP 000}
[Aleutians 961 | Atka Wind Power Project City of Atka Wind $140,000] $50,000) ReconFeasibility Not Recomnd
| Aleutians 969 |Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Nelson Lagoon Electric Cooperative Wind 0.93 0.56 $218,195] $5,000} Design Not Recomnd
Aleutians 968 | False Pass Wind Energy Project |City of False Pass Electric Utility Wind 0.64 0.30 $190,195, $185,195] $5,000} Design Not Recomnd
| Aleutians 963 |Mount Makushin Geothermal Project |The Aleut Corporation Geothermal 0.49 3.13 $311,304,000] $32,464,000} $540,000) ReconFeasibilityDesig]_ Not Recomnd
Aleutians Total $315,908,960] $35,717,155] $1,905,000} $30,000) $2,600,000 $2,630,000!
Straits, 939 |Stebbins Heat Recovery Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Heat Recovery 87.33 3.38, 4.28 24.35, 6.00 17.47 3.17, 12.75 4.00 2.83 70.57, 9 1,341,063, 1,319,088) 21,975) $120,179) 1,198,909) jonstruction Full SP. 1,319,088} 1,319,08: Straits: 934 |Say Heat - Power Plant to Water Plant City of Say Heat Reco 81.50, 1.62 221 21.48 5.25 16.30 3.50 11.63 5.00 433, 67.49. 16) }25,701 125,701 $11,752! $425,701] Construction Full SP 25,701 1, 744,78 Straits, 948 |Wales Wind Es lity and Cor tual Pro Alaska Vil Electric Inc. [Wind 62.00, 1.04 1.33 28.10 6.00 12.40 3.33 3.75, 5.00. 3.50 62.09 27) 1. i $10,000] Beasibihi Partial 5, $1,819.78: Straits 957 |Shishmaref Wind lity and zy | Alaska Vil Electric Inc. [Wind 54.33, 0.87 130 25.79 6.00 10.87 150 0.00 5.00 2.67 51.83, 46 $2,040,000] $14: $7,500] $14: Feasibility Full $14: $1,962,
Bering Straits 951 |St. Michael/Stebbins Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Project | Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 1.64 1.76 $5,000,000) $332,500] $17,500) Design Not Recomnd
[Bering Straits 973 [Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment I Feasibility City of Elim Geothermal 0.28 0.39 $10,000,000} $527,908] Recon Not Recomnd
Bering Straits Total $19,826,764) $2,937,697} $68,727 $217,500 $120,179] $1,624,610) $1,962,289)
Bristol Bay 966 ition Wind t- Kokhanok |Kokhanok Electric [Wind 74.00 5.68 977 35.00 5.25 14.80, 483 1225 2.00 3.50 71.63 2 1 18: 000) $i Construction Full 185,000} 18:
Bristol Bay 912 Wind niki Lake and Peninsula [Wind 72.67 1.42 1.26 35.00 7.50 14.53 2.00 8.50 5.00 4.50 77.03, 3] 10,000) [Recon Partial 000) $24! [Bristol Bay 908 |Tazimina H; Capacity Increase INN Electric Cooperative, Inc. is 91.67 10.97 13.07 26.01 9.75, 18.33 433 12.38, 0.00 447 74.97 4 160,000} 000) 160,000} |Feasibilit Full 160,000} [Bristol Bay 944 |New Stuy Heat [Southwest ion School District Heat 89.67, ASA ASA 27.24 5.25 17.93 433 12.88 0.00 4.83 7247 7 000) 000) 7, 19,000) i struction Full SP_ 200) $891, Bristol Bay 976 |Knutson Creek Hy ric Project Design and. Permitting. Pedro, Bay Village Council Hydro. 47.83, 2.04 2.14 35.00 5.25 9.57 2.50 11,88, 4.00 2.00 7019 bl }3,400,000} $290,000} 500} $290, Full SP 000} $1,181, Bristol Bay 911 |Levelock Wind Reconnaissance [Lake and Peninsula Wind 67.00 117 30.63 6.00 13.40 4.67 4.50 5.00 4.00 68.19 14] 10,000} 10,000} $1,000} 1 Recon: Full 10,000] $1,191, Bristol Bay 962 |Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Study __ |Manokotak Power Company. Wind 48.00 0.99 0.66 24.06 5.25 9.60 4.00 1.38 4.00 3.83 52.12 45) $1, }193,000) $7,000} 143,000} Feasil Partial $143,000} $1.
Bristol Bay _ 910 |Ij Wind Turbine Design _ Lake and Peninsula Borough Wind 0.52 1.21 $250,000] $205,000} $45,000] Design. Not Recomnd
Bristol Bay 980 [Bristol Bay Borough School District Energy Project [Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar 1.45 1.06 $460,000] $45,000] $10,000) DesignConstruction_|| Not Recomnd [Bristol Bay Total $8,568,000] _ $1,654,000] _ $172,500] _ $373,000] __ $327,000] __ $634,000. $1,334,000]
River/Chi 982 Facilities Woody Biomass Space Heating Project, [Mentasta Traditional Council Biomass 82.00 | 1.76 | 2.08 | 29.38 | 8.25 | 1640 | 3.00 | 1263 | 000 | 3.00 | 72.65 6 $510,000} $372,000] Full SP 000]
River/Chi h 930 | Allison Creek ject * Ni Electric ation, Inc. Hy 79.33, 4.10 4.10 12.44 15.00 15.87 3.50 12.38 0.00 483 64.02 23) 804, 114, 114,000] Construction Full SP 085,509] 5, River, 930 | Allison Creck . NV: Electric Inc. Hy 79.33, 4.10 410 12.44 | 15.00 | 15.87 3.50 12.38 0.00 483 64.02, 23) 804, 114, 114,000] Construction Full SP 028,491 574 |Copper River/Chugach 971 | Eastern Copper Basin Geothermal Assessment |Copper Valley Development Association |Geothermal 0.68 0.00. $0) $695,950] Recon Not Recomnd
River/Chugach Total $78,118,000] $13,383,950 $50,000} $88,000] $12,600,000} $6,574,000)
Kodiak, 928 [Bat fic survey & marine, study to refine submarine cable} of Ouzinkie Transmission 62.50 1.04 1.04 18.12 9.75 12.50, 3.00 4.88 5.00 467 57.91 33) 129,000) 400} Full SP | Kodiak 901 |Karluk Tribal Council — Wind |Karluk Tribal Council [Wind 28.17, 043 0.48 26.25 0.00 5.63 4.00 0.38 5.00 2.67 43.93 57 $1,300, $81, $300] | Feasibili Partial $70,000) $426, [Kodiak 923 JAI Biomass i Native Village of Afognak [Biomass 57.00 |_3.47_| 3.22 | 832 | 000 | 1140] 0.83 | 11.88 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 40.43 58] $1,633,974) $170,974] $170,974] Full SP $170,974 $597,37. [Kodiak Total $9,062,974) $608,374 $25,300] $240,974] _ $356,400) $597,374]
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 937 [Heat for the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria Native Vil of Kwi Heat 84.00 1,96 248 23.65, 6.00 16.80, 3.00 1275 2.00 433 68.53, 13) 50] 050) 015) 112,335) Full SP. 50]
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 940 |Heat for the Water Treatment Plant & Community Store ity of Marshall Heat 82.67 3.64 461 22.27 5.25 16.53 2.67 12.75 5.00 3.00, 67AT. 17] 183, $183, 000) $29, 153,600) Full SP 1 51,
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 935 | Atmautluak Washeteria Heat 1 |Atmautluak Traditional Council Heat 73.67 1.10 1.49 30.63, 5.25 14.73 4.00 6.00 2.00 4.00 66.61 18) 500} $1 Construction Full SP $1,201,
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim_ 942 [Heat for the Water Treatment Plant/Washeteria Buildis Native of Tuntutuliak Heat 71.50 1.22 1.57, 28.44 5.25 14.30, 3.00 713, 2.00 217 62.28 26 138,585) 11 $12,774) 927] z Full 1 627,361)
Yukon-Kuskokwim. 936 [Heat for the Water. ity of Chuathbaluk_ Heat 59.67 0.71 0.92 35.00, 5.25 11.93 3.00 1,00, 2.00 2.67 60.85 28 199.863, 1 $5,996) 18} $17! Full SP 1 i [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim_ 945 [St Pitka’s Point Wi Alaska Vil Electric nc. Wit 61.67 4.19 415 21.88, 9.00 1 3.50 4.50 5.00. 3.67 59.88 29 153,991 15,399} tf Full SP 7
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim_ 949 |Kotlik Wind and i Vil Electric Inc. {Wind 59.17, 1.10 0.99 25.78 6.00 11.83, 1,50 3.38 5.00 3.67 57.15, 36) .! 1. 3, 1. Full 4: 1 [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 955 |St_ 's / Pilot Station Wind Intertic Construction | Alaska Electric Inc. 52.17 0.92 0.86 22.75 9.00 10.43 2.67 113 5.00 3.50 54.48 i |Construction Full SP {Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim_ 921 JAVCP RHA Wood Biomass ~ LAVCP Regi a it Biomass, 61.00 0.67 0.65 222% 7.50 12.20 | 2.00 175 5.00 3.33, 54.02 A 1. il 7 Full SP
{Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim_ 921 JAVCP RHA Wood Biomass - LAVCP He A [Biomass 61.00 0.67 0.65, 22.24 7.50 12.20, 2.00 1.75 5.00 3.33, 54.02 4M 199. 149, 144, 005,381 Full SP 18) 14 [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 956 |Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. {Wind 55.67 | 0.88 | 1.05 | 25.46 | 600 | 1113 | 200 | 0.00 [ 5.00 | 3.83 [| 53.42 43] $ $142,500] $7,500] $14: Fe Full 1 $1 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 954 's / Mountain Wind Jntertie Final Desig | Alaska, Electric Jac. {Wind 45.00 | 0.78 0.69 | 24.94 | 675 9.00 250 0.00 5.00 3.50 | 51.69 47) 449. 3: 17, Full SP. $16,714,
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 947 [Marshall Wind and att " [Alaska Electric Inc. {Wind 42.67 0.79 0.85, 2227 6.75 8.53 2.50 0.00 4.00 250 46.55, 54) 50} $33: $17, $33: [Design Full SP _$332,500) $17,047,003}
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 970 |Kipnuk Wind Diesel Power Generation and Heating. Kipnuk Light Plant Wind 0.81 1.49 $4,067,778] $2,567,778] $1,500,000} DesignOonstruction Not Recomnd
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 950 [Russian Mission Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind I 0.52 0.89 $1,530,000] $142,500} $7,500) Feasibility Not Recomnd
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 972 | Akiak Wind Resource Assessment Akiak Native Community/ Akiak IRA Council [Wind 0.58 1.24 $2,000,000} $181,000] Feasibility Not Recomnd
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 985 | Electrical Power Lines -Western Alaska Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc. | TransmissionW ind $82,000] $82,000} Recon NotPassStage1 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Total $43,233,891] $23,169,668] _$3,348,419| $285,000] _ $1,101,729] $18,809,661] $17,047,003
? If the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, #930 cannot be fully funded as recommended and the remaining recommended $4,028,491 in funding is moved to the yellow
*If the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, #921 cannot be fulling funded as recommended and the remaining $862,618 in funding is move to the peach.
SP is for Special Provision
°
Page 2 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund J=
Regional Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6 (@m> ENERGY AUTHORITY
January 18, 2013
[Northwest Arctic 941 [Heat for the Water Treatment Plant of Noorvik Heat 78.83 1.65 225 27.00 6.00 15.77 3.00 10.88 2.00 467 69.31 12) 5,808} $29,580] 4, $911,213} Full SP. 5,
[Northwest Arctic 952 |Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertic Assessment, Alaska. Electric Cooy tive, Inc. [Wind 40.00 0.64 0.65, 32.38 6.00 8.00 2.00 0.38 5.00 3.67 57.42 35) $221 11,650} $40, $1,025,80!
|Northwest Arctic 953 [Hotham Peak Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment Alaska Electric Cooy tive, Inc. [Wind 46.83 0.56 0.63 27.13 6.00 9.37 3.50 1.13 5.00 4.00 56.12 38} $23,000, $207.11 $10,900] __$207,11 100] 1, 905}
Northwest Arctic 903 [Northwest Arctic ‘Solar PV, Northwest Arctic Solar 7447 [1.21 1.21 | 1825 | 000 | 1483 | 5.00 | 5.88 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 53.96 42| $75,000] $75, $75,000] lonstruction $75, $1,307,905]
Northwest Arctic 946 |Shungnak Solar Energy Construction Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Solar 0.66 0.63 $650,000] $585,000] $65,000] Construction Not Recomnd
Northwest Arctic 984 |Noatak Wind Resource Assessment Noatak IRA Wind 0.98 1.53 $2,000,000) $181, 000} FeasibilityDesign Not Recomnd
Northwest Arctic Total $26,943,808] $2,255,255] __ $117,130] _$247,100[ _ $149,592] $911,213 $1,307,905)
Railbelt 913 [Stetson Creek Diversion /\ Lake Dam Facilities Electric Association, Inc. Hy 94.00 5.23 0.58 6.23 15.00 | 18.80 5.00, 13.00, 0.00 5.00 63.03 25) $23, 913] 45: $17, 7 Construction Full A 45:
Railbelt 924 |Seward Schools Biomass Kenai Peninsula Bor School District Biomass 89.00 5.54 6.01 841 6.00 17.80, 3.00, 12.88, 5.00 483 57.92 32] $141 464) $47,771 $1, 7 Full SP. 464] 821,
Railbelt 931 |Nenana Collaborative Biomass |Nenana City School District [Biomass 84.17 2.02 279 9.81 6.00 16.83 3.00 13.13, 5.00 4.00 57.77 34] $3,006,607] $19, Full
Railbelt 943 JOIT Inc Waste Heat Turbine Project [OTT Inc. |Heat Recovery 75.33 215 215 9.81 14.25 15.07, 1.83 12.50, 0.00 283 56.29 37 $3,258,447] $1,629,223] $1,629, Partial SP 51
Railbelt 975 [Juniper Creek Hy i ject Fea: Study [Ram Valley LLC) Hy 60.00 148 1.55 6.23 41.25 12.00 483 8.13, 4.00 3.00 ADAMS 49) 127,900] $4, $30,000] [Recon Partial SP 000) $5.54:
Railbelt 959 |'Ticasuk Brown School Pellet Boiler ject-Phase 2 Fairbanks North Star [Biomass 87.17, 1.80, 1,80, 9.81 0.00 17.43 3.17 13.00, 0.00 450 ATA 51 }350,000) $350,000] 000] Construction Partial $250,000 $5,793,274]
Railbelt 902 [Jack River i , ibility Study Native Vi of Cantwell Hy 58.00, 243 243 9.81 3.00 11.60 2.00 11.75 5.00 1.67 44.82 55 10,000,000) 13,750) 11. $213.7! iit Full SP. 213,750] 007,024]
Railbelt 979 |Waste-to- cl Electric Association, Inc. [Biofuels 45.67, 148 1.48 6.23 10.50 9.13, 0.00 8.88 0.00 3.50 38.23 59] 5: $150,000) $40,000] [Feasibility ‘Partial $40,000] $6,047,024]
[Railbelt 977 [Carlo Creek Hy Reconnaissance Native Village of Cantwell |Hydro 39.50 0.94 459 9.81 6.00 7.90 2.00 1.25 5.00 3.33 35.29 ,000) $3,500} $30, [Recon Partial $30,000] $6,077,
Railbelt 960 [TidGen™ Array Project IORPC Alaska 2, LLC Other -0.01 0.01 $8,696,494) $2,000,000] $6,696,494) Construction Not Recomnd
Railbelt Total $62,335,695] $10,225,647] $25,945,504] $313,750) $791,890] $4,971,384 $6,077,024
[Southeast 978 [indian River Hy Construction City of Tenakee DBA Tenakee Hy 80.50 1.57 1,70 30.16 9.00 16.10 3.00 11.00, 5.00 5.00 79.26 1 674, s: 000) }332,000) 988,000] Construction Full SP_ 000}
[Southeast 922 |Gartina Falls Hy Inside Electric i Hy 78.33 | 226 | 1.61 | 27.09 | 5.25 | 15.67 | 3.00 | 1213 [| 5.00 | 4.83 | 7297 5] ,009,000] 694,000] 15, 694,000] Construction Full SP. 694,000] $9,
Southeast 917 [Blue Lake Hy lectric ity & of Sitka Ls 92.50 202 202 44 44.25 18.50 5.00 13.00, 5.00 5.00 6489 20) 14! 000) 3, 000} 000, [Construction Full SP_ $13,
Southeast 983 |Wood Heat and forKake i of Kake Biomass 60.50. 0.60 0.60 27.01 9.00 12.10 233 1.38 5.00 3.00 59.82 000) Full 13,71.
916 [Hy Schools Wood Fired Boiler |Hydaburg City Schools [Biomass 90.00, 2.85 3.93 10.34 9.00 18.00 3.00 13.00 2.00 4.00 59.34 31 6 Full 13,732,700}
Southeast 965 |Haines B Pellet, ting Proj [Haines [Biomass 85.33 1.77 217 9.52 6.75, 17.07 3.50 12.75 2.00 3.83 55.42 39) 317, ,000} (7: Full $14,
[Southeast 14 Lake Hy nk i | Alaska Power & Te 0.50 4AT O11 9.52 10.50, 12.10 2.00 11.38 5.00 1.83, 52.33 44 $46,475,000] _ $1,752,000] $43: $i [Feasibility Partial $180,000] _ $14,
[Southeast 904 [Dimond Park Geothermal HVAC ity & of Juneau |Geothermal 7617 1.68 0.60 5.29 10.50 15.23 250 11.13 2.00 450 51.15 48} $875,000} $17: 7 Partial SP. $14,
Southeast, 909 Lake Hy ri ject: Phase Ill of Saxman 49.33, 3.08 8.67 446 14.25, 987 1.50 11.75 5.00 1.17 48.00 50] $51,100,000} $1. $i = Partial $15.1
Southeast 907, Sy Retrofit of [Biomass 63.83, 1.59 446 9.00 12.77 417 9.75, 5.00 4.50 46.65, 53 $51,360] 1. $10,000) $41, |ReconFeasibil Full 1 $15,
Southeast, 918 |West Creek Hydroelectric Proj [Municipality of Borough [Hydro 42.00 1.45 1.53 9.52 11.25 8.40 1.17 8.25 5.00 1,00 44.59 56] _$140,000,000] $236,000] $84,000] 000} |Feasibilit Full $236,000] $15,
Southeast 938 [Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal R{ Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Geothermal 0.38, 1.06 $27,000,000] _ $3,485,000] Feasibility Not Recomnd
[Southeast 905 |HydroPower Surplus to Stored Hydrogen Feasibility Study 'The Southeast Alaska Power Agency |Other 0.15, $244,385 $244,385] $5,000 Feasibility Not Recomnd
Southeast 919 | Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) | Transmission 1.94 1.94 $14,510,599} $9,570,434) — [Designonstruction Not Recomnd
Southeast 974 |Neck Lake Hydro Project Alaska Power Company (APC) Hydro 28.83 0.74 0.88 $2,777,885) $297,600] $74,400} |FeasibilityDesign NotPassStay
Southeast 920 |Walker Lake Hydro Feasibility Project | Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority _ [Hydro 29.50 0.01 0.01 $690,000] $640,000] $50,000 ReconFeasDesign NotPassStage2
Southeast 964 | Excursion Inlet Hydro Project- Phase II Haines Borough Hydro 29.83 1.09 1.86 $15,900,000} $213,536] $10,000} Feasibility NotPassStage1
Southeast 958 |Wrangell Power Plant Upgrade City & Borough of Wrangell | TransmissionHydro $117,136] $117,136] FeasDesignConstructif NotPassStage?
[Southeast 906 |Coffman Cove Hydropower Line Extension [City of Coffman Cove Transmission 77.00 | 3.52 | 34.74 | 19.88 | 0.00 | 15.40 | 3.00 | 11.63 | 5.00 4.00 | 58.91 $175,000] $175,000] $36,000) [DesignConstruction Withdrawn Southeast Total $457,579,581| $32,677,151] $5,384,600] $988,060] $792,000] $13,682,000 $15,462,060
Yukon rk /Uy ‘Tanana 927 |Galena Community Wood Heat Project, of Galena [Biomass 81.50 3.41 47 24.50 6.00 16.30 3.00 12.63 5.00 2.83 70.26 10} 870,635] 787,719] $82,916 }3.17,788} onstruction: Partial 17,788) 17,71
Yukon-I ‘Uy ‘Tanana 915, Solar Array Project Alaska Power (Al Solar 75.67, 158 1,52 25.85, 9.75 15.13 4.00 9.00 0.00 4.33 68.06 15] $165,750} $13: 533,150) 132,600] Construction Full SP 132,600} $4
Yukon-! 'U; ‘Tanana 933 [Biomass lity Studies in Public Facilities, Interior Interior Regic z [Biomass 76.50 1.43 1.05 28.96 0.00 15.30 2.00 9.63 5.00 150 62.39 21 168,959] $168,959} 168,959} ix i Full 168,959) 19,347]
| Yukon-! Uy ‘Tanana 925 ‘Tanana Biomass CHP Project‘ | Alaska Power & T< [Biomass 65.50 112 149 21.25 6.00 13.10 250 7.63 3.00 2.83 56.31 2 bit 000} 1,990, 000} $1, 000} Partial $1,019,347]
Yukon-1 ‘Tanana 981 |Tanana Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating Project of Tanana Solar 57.33 0.53 0.92 31.23 | 12.00 | 11.47 217 0.38 2.00 4.00 63.24 24 $81, $81, $81, Full SP. $81,700] _$1,101,04"
lYukon-I kok/ Uy ‘Tanana 926 | AGSD District Heat Loop Project | Alaska Gateway School District Heat 42.00 0.72 1.05 21.25 6.00 8.40 2.00 1,00 5.00 AAT A782 52] $2,848,939] 753, $95,575) $349,621] $2,403,743} struction Full SP. $2,753,364] $3,854,411)
'Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana 932 | Design and Construction of Biomass Systems in Intenior Villages Interior Regional Housing Authority Biomass 1.90 1.47 $1,314,380) $1,314,380] $108,313) DesignQonstruction Not Recomnd
| Yukon-! SU; ‘Tanana Total $25,450, 99, 722] $429,954] $168,959] $2,657,409] $2,618,043} $3,854,411
Grand Total $1,047, 36} $131,857,619| $37,447,134] $2,864,343] $6,240,193] $49,331,531) $56,846,066)
* Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana applications #933 and #925 were moved up into the first $25million of recommended funding to achieve Stage 4 Regional Spread
SP is for Special Provision
mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Northwest Arctic * Myon kom
A.
Yukon-Koyukuk/l Jpper/Tanana
Renewable Energy Fund - Round 6
4 Hydro other
4 Geothermal <2 Solar
@® HeatRecovery - Wind
7 Transmission A Biomass
Aleutians)= Es (<3 Energy Region
°
: re) 00 &} 65 Se. ae 300 | Prepared by AEA Energy Data/GIS Miles 1/14/13.
Renewable Energy Fund - Round 6
Recommended Projects
January, 2013
Energy Region ID Name Applicant Resource Phase Project Cost| Grant Requested Match Offerd | Recommended Funding | Rank|
Kodiak 901|Karuk Tribal Council — Wind Energy System Karluk Tribal Council Wind Feasibility Design $1,300,000 $81,000 $300 $70,000} 57
Railbelt 902| Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Native Village of Cantwell Hydro Feasibility $10,000,000 $213,750 $11,250 $213,750) 55
Northwest Arctic 903] Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Northwest Arctic Borough Solar Design Construction $75,000 $75,000 $75,000] 42
Southeast 904] Dimond Park Library Geothermal HVAC System City & Borough of Juneau Geothermal _|Design Construction $875,000 $700,000 $175,000 $300,000} 48
Southeast 907|Petersburg Community Heating System Retrofit Feasibility Study _|City of Petersburg Biomass Recon Feasibility $51,360 $41,360 $10,000 $41,360] 53
Bristol Bay 908] Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Capacity Increase INN Electric Cooperative, Inc. Hydro Feasibility $2,600,000 $160,000 $30,000 $160,000] 4
Southeast 909| Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project: Phase III City of Saxman Hydro Feasibility $51,100,000 $1,000,000 $100,000 $500,000} 50
Bristol Bay 911|Levelock Wind Reconnaissance Study Lake and Peninsula Borough Wind Recon $10,000 $10,000 $1,000. $10,000} 14
Bristol Bay 912|Egegik Wind Feasibility Study Lake and Peninsula Borough Wind Recon $90,000 $80,000 $10,000 $60,000} 3
Railbelt 913]Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Hydro Construction $23,808,913 $3,453,920 $17,343,267 $3,453,920] 25
Southeast 914|Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power & Telephone Company Hydro Feasibility" $46,475,000 $1,752,000 $438,000 $180,000} 44
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tananal 915|Eagle Solar Array Project Alaska Power Company (APC) Solar Construction $165,750 $132,600 $33,150 $132,600} 15
Southeast 916|Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project Hydaburg City Schools Biomass Design $463,216 $20,000 $5,200 $20,000} 31
Southeast 917|Blue Lake Hydroelectric Expansion Project City & Borough of Sitka (CBS) Hydro Construction $145,000,000! $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000} 20
Southeast 918]West Creek Hydroelectric Project Municipality of Skagway Borough Hydro Feasibility $140,000,000 $236,000 $84,000 $236,000} 56
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 921|AVCP RHA Wood Biomass Heating System AVCP Regional Housing Authority Biomass Design Construction | __ $3,399,387 $3,149,387 $250,000 $3,149,387] 41
Southeast 922|Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Hydro Construction $8,009,000 $6,694,000 $15,000 $6,694,000} 5
Kodiak 923] Afognak Biomass Feasibility Study Native Village of Afognak Biomass Recon Feasibility $1,633,974 $170,974 $170,974 58 |
Railbelt 924|Seward Schools Biomass Heating System Kenai Peninsula Borough School District (KPBSD) Biomass Design Construction |_ $1,415,234 $1,367,464 $47,770 $1,367,464] 32
'Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tananal 925| Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project Alaska Power & Telephone Company Biomass Design $18,000,000) $1,990,000 $60,000 $400,000} 22
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tananal 926|AGSD District Heat Loop Project Alaska Gateway School District Heat Recovery| Design Construction $2,848,939 $2,753,364 $95,575 $2,753,364] 52
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tananaj 927|Galena Community Wood Heat Project City of Galena Biomass Design Construction | $2,870,635 $2,787,719 $82,916 $317,788] 10
Kodiak 928] Bathymetric survey and marine geological study City of Ouzinkie Transmission |Design $6,129,000 $356,400 $25,000 $356,400} 33
Aleutians 929] Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project City of King Cove Hydro Construction $4,300,000 $2,600,000 $1,300,000 $2,600,000} 19
Copper River/Chugach 930]Allison Creek Project Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) Hydro Construction $38,804,000 $6,114,000 $6,114,000} 23
Railbelt 931|Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating System Project Nenana City School District Biomass Design $3,006,607: $466,890 $19,200 $466,890] 34
'Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tananaj 933] Biomass Feasibility Studies in Public Facilities, Interior Region Interior Regional Housing Authority Biomass Feasibility $168,959 $168,959 $168,959] 21
Bering Straits 934|Savoonga Heat Recovery System - Power Plant to Water Plant City of Savoonga Heat Recovery|Construction $425,701 $425,701 $11,752 $425,701] 16
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 935|Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery Project Atmautluak Traditional Council Heat Recovery| Construction $360,500 $350,000 $10,500 $350,000} 18
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 936]Heat Recovery for the Water System City of Chuathbaluk Heat Recovery| Design Construction $199,863 $199,863 $5,996 $199,863] 28
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 937|Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria Native Village of Kwinhagak Heat Recovery| Design Construction $668,350 $668,350 $20,050 $668,350} 13
Bering Straits 939] Stebbins Heat Recovery Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Heat Recovery| Design Construction $1,341,063 $1,319,088 $21,975 $1,319,088] 9
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 940] Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant & Community Store _|City of Marshall Heat Recovery| Design Construction $183,200 $183,200 $6,000, $183,200] 17
Northwest Arctic 941|Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant City of Noorvik Heat Recovery| Design Construction $985,808 $985,805 $29,580. $985,805} 12
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 942|Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant/Washeteria Building _|Native Village of Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery| Design Construction $438,585 $425,811 $12,774 $425,811] 26
Railbelt 943]OIT Inc Waste Heat Turbine Project OIT Inc. Heat Recovery| Design Construction $3,258,447 $1,629,223 $1,629,223 $225,000} 37
Bristol Bay 944|New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Southwest Region School District Heat Recovery| Design Construction $548,000 $486,000 $62,000 $486,000] 7
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 945]|St. Mary's / Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Construction $6,153,991 $5,538,592 $615,399 $5,538,592] 29
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 947|Marshall Wind Energy Design and Permitting Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Design $2,509,850. $332,500 $17,500 $332,500] 54
Bering Straits 948]Wales Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Feasibility $1,020,000: $190,000 $10,000: $75,000] 27
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 949|Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Feasibility $3,060,000 $142,500 $7,500 $142,500} 36
Northwest Arctic 952|Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Recon Feasibility $233,000 $221,350 $11,650 $40,000} 35
Northwest Arctic 953]|Hotham Peak Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Feasibility $23,000,000 $207,100 $10,900 $207,100] 38
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 954|St. Mary's / Mountain Village Wind Energy Intertie Final Design Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Design $7,449,000 $332,500 $17,500 $332,500] 47
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 955]|St. Mary's / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction Project_|Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Construction $6,202,000 $5,581,800. $620,200 $5,581,800} 40
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 956|Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design _|Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Feasibility $1,530,000 $142,500 $7,500 $142,500} 43
Bering Straits 957|Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project|Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Feasibility $2,040,000 $142,500 $7,500 $142,500] 46
Railbelt 959|Ticasuk Brown School Pellet Boiler Project-Phase 2 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Biomass Construction $350,000 $350,000 $250,000} 51
Bristol Bay 962|Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Study Manokotak Power Company Wind Feasibility $1,020,000 $193,000 $7,000 $143,000} 45
Southeast 965]Haines Borough Pellet Heating Project Haines Borough Biomass Design Construction $517,000 $472,000 $45,000 $472,000] 39
Bristol Bay 966] High-penetration Wind Energy Project- Kokhanok Kokhanok Electric Wind Construction $190,000 $185,000 $5,000 $185,000] 2
Aleutians 967|Cold Bay Waste Heat Recovery Project G&K Electric Utility Heat Recovery| Feasibility $114,765 $109,765 $5,000 $30,000] 8
Railbelt 975] Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Ram Valley LLC Hydro Recon $4,300,000 $127,900 $44,800 $30,000] 49
Bristol Bay 976|Knutson Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting Pedro Bay Village Council Hydro Design $3,400,000 $290,000 $2,500 $290,000] 11
Railbelt 977|Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study Native Village of Cantwell Hydro Recon $7,500,000 $66,500 $3,500 $30,000] 60
Southeast 978| Indian River Hydroelectric Project Construction City of Tenakee Springs DBA Tenakee Springs Electric Dept.| Hydro Construction $3,674,000 $2,988,000 $332,000 $2,988,000] 1
Railbelt 979|Waste-to-Energy Feasibility Study Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Biofuels Feasibility $550,000 $150,000 $40,000] 59
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tananaj 981/Tanana Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating Project City of Tanana Solar Construction $81,700 $81,700 $50,000: $81,700] 24
Copper River/Chugach 982| Community Facilities Woody Biomass Space Heating Project Mentasta Traditional Council Biomass Design Construction $510,000) $460,000 $50,000 $460,000} 6
=< =