Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting draft minutes 8-13-2010Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Fairbanks Governor's Office Conference Room and AEA Boardroom 1:00 pm to 4:00pm Minutes 1.) Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee convened at 1:00 PM. Chairman Vince Beltrami presided over the meeting in Anchorage with Mr. Posey Co-Chairing from Fairbanks. 2.) Roll Call: Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants Chair Vince Beltrami (Anchorage) Steve Haagenson (Fairbanks) Representative Paul Seaton (phone) Chris Rose (phone) Mike Harper (Anchorage) Jim Posey (Fairbanks) Peter Crimp (Fairbanks) Brad Reeve (Fairbanks) Butch White (Fairbanks) Jodi Mitchell (Fairbanks) Jim Strandberg (Anchorage) Senator Lyman Hoffman (Fairbanks) | Chris Rutz (Anchorage) Representative Bill Thomas (phone) Shauna Howell (Anchorage) Richard Stromberg (Anchorage) 3.) Public Comments Homer Representative Paul Seaton referred to his letter to AEA dated August 13, 2010, objecting to the new cost/benefit criteria established for funding under RE Fund Round IV applications. He said that due to the weighted nature of the cost/benefit analysis favoring widely established renewable energy technology, AEA is setting up the potential to exclude all future hydrokinetic projects from being funded. Mr. Haagenson stated this matter will be discussed under Agenda Item #10, specifically as to what technical and economic feasibility mean in evaluations. 4.) Agenda Comments There were no agenda comments. 5.) Approval of Meeting Minutes — June 8, 2010. The minutes will be available prior to the next meeting. 6.) Reimbursement Rules Mr. Crimp distributed forms to be submitted by the REFAC members for travel cost reimbursement. 7.) Review Recommendations from 6/8/2010 Meeting Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Page 1 of 10 Mr. Haagenson referred to the document “Committee Recommendations,” compiled at the June 8, 2010 meeting and provided an update on the written recommendations: 1) Incorporate Deployment Targets; 2) Define Criteria for when a Project is Stalled (we will need to get directions from the Legislature regarding stalled projects. Our goal is to get projects constructed); 3) Heat Recovery (this has been followed in our RPSU programs, is there another heat source we should be using); 4) submit Letter to RCA regarding Bethel Electric Utility Acquisition (the letter was sent to the RCA by Mr. Haagenson after his discussion with Chairman Pickett and following a visit to Bethel to talk to the City Manager about the City’s potential acquisition of the Utility, which would be a last option. TDX has a signed purchase agreement and will present it to the RCA in 2011); and 5: Advertise RFA ASAP (this has been completed and the Applications are due September 15). Mr. White stated a public notice was posted in early July and email notifications were sent out requesting comments. The RFA was issued July 21, also with email notifications. Senator Hoffman said he believed an additional action item was discussed at the last meeting but was not listed on the recommendations list — that AEA would set aside funds to support experimental renewable energy projects. Mr. Rose and Mr. Haagenson concurred and stated it could be discussed further under either Agenda Item 9 or 10. Mr. Posey was concerned that there may not be enough funds in the Emerging Energy Technology Fund to cover projects such as tidal energy and maybe Legislature should increase the funds. Senator Hoffman stated the Legislature supports this fund. Mr. Rose asked if Mr. White could explain how the deployment projects have been incorporated into the Round IV process. Mr. Crimp stated requirements for the projects have not been acted on and would require further discussion. Mr. White stated our present 80 (construction)/20(recon and feasibility) is an internal target and is not firm but just a guideline. Mr. Haagenson pointed out that this concept was intended to be incorporated into Round V, as stated in the recommendations. 8.) Project Update Mr. Crimp referred to the Juneau Energy Meeting RE Fund Update document included in the meeting handout. AEA staff presented the RE Fund Update and program implementation to the Governor's office in early August. He said we are close to getting the Round Ill grants out and are implementing a new project management system, being more structured in dealing with milestone tasks to automate as much as possible. No Round Ill grants are out yet, but most are in draft status. Although the grant agreements were written by July 1, it’s taking time to coordinate all steps. He said they are moving along fast and should be out in two weeks. Mr. Posey stated it’s important to keep the monies moving. Mr. Crimp stated by the end of the construction season, about $40-$50 million is expected to be spent. As of July 27", $32.2 million has been expended. Most funds will be obligated by start of session. Mr. Crimp stated Reynolds Creek Hydro for example was approved for a $9 million loan but did not have financing in place for the project. They have since come up with a plan and now have a grant in place. He stated that by end of year, 50 projects will be completed (23 are construction projects). We are on track to complete many projects this year. Rounds | and II projects will be in place to save 2.5 million gallons of fuel per year for 2011, and 5.5 million gallons of fuel by 2012, etc. Our message to the Governor has been that a lot of construction projects will be completed this year and many more next year. Senator Hoffman asked if there was an estimate on dollars per year in savings, which would show more of an impact for the program. Mr. Crimp stated 2/3 of the annual fuel savings is diesel and 1/3 is natural gas. Mr. Rose stated it would be helpful to show private and federal matching funds that go into the projects so the Legislature can see that the projects are not only funded by the RE Fund. 9.) Strategic Grant Making Discussion Mr. Rose suggested we be more strategic with the money we have. He asked if the committee would want to start to focus on spending the funds on driving innovation or splitting it between heat and electricity. He suggested that the committee should consider coming up with an agreement to pursue a certain area of technology, such as wind diesel, where we direct the project funds and not just accept any and all projects. He Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Page 2 of 10 4 said we should dedicate a portion of the RE Fund towards heating and concentrate on emerging technologies such as tidal and wave power. : Mr. Crimp stated it makes a lot of sense to follow The Pathway to implement these technologies; however, biomass and waste heat are untapped in the rural communities. We are just skimming the surface for projects we can come up with and maybe we should take the initiative to just figure out the issues. We could implement a ‘before the fact’ allocation or just take action and do the recon and feasibility (outside the realm) of the RE Fund. One of these projects is a GARN in a box wood heating system, a stick-fired clean burning container. We are working on one in partnership with Stebbins. It costs $200,000 for a modular wood heater with circulating pumps and a heat exchanger on skids to bring to a community with a wood supply to feed it. Mr. Posey said it would be better to go with emerging technologies or emerging deployment of technologies and pick a few pilot projects, as many communities still have not applied and we should be careful to follow Legislative direction. Mr. Rose agreed that efficiency projects should come before heat projects to be effective and we should consider what tradeoffs we want to make and which projects we want to pursue. Mr. Reeve agreed and said we are on the mark as to where the costs are for rural residents and you have to look at both, perhaps by implementing a solar thermal village pilot project using funds outside our pool we can cover a lot of ground. Our goal is to reduce the costs of energy in the communities with heat, energy and conservation. Mr. Haagenson agreed. Mr. Posey said we didn’t want to end up with ‘stovepipe projects’. We need as much integration as we can and look at what's best for each region. The program was designed with the qualification that 80% goes to rural Alaska. Mr. Reeve discussed a solar project done for Kotzebue elders. It was well-organized. Efficiency, training, technology, etc. can all be pooled together to make something stronger. Mr. Rose agreed and wondered if there was a way to provide an incentive program for communities that do a lot with energy efficiency for heating projects. Mr. Crimp asked him if he was suggesting that when proposals are ranked that we would give more points to communities with an EE plan. Mr. Rose affirmed and said it could work for electricity, too. Senator Hoffman asked if Mr. Haagenson could check if the Committee could make that change within the confines of the law. If not, we should make that a Committee recommendation to Legislature. Mr. Haagenson agreed and said he was not sure you can do that under the statues today. This is a higher level direction to get from Legislature; originally they said we had to follow the State Energy Plan. Like the Pathway, it could be different than that, but you have to show that it’s better. Chair Beltrami asked who was directing the Emerging Technology Fund (ETF) and when would the funds be disbursed. Mr. Haagenson stated Denali Commission asked AEA to manage (their) $3 million, that we will work with their advisory committee when we put our committee together which will be similar to theirs. We are actively working on the Denali Commission portion. Chair Beltrami stated we should not have to wait around for another fund if we can be making a difference in reducing heating costs, etc. we should have some kind of way to address deployment of the other fund towards more concrete pilot project concepts. Mr. Rose said he didn’t think the ETF would disburse money until next spring. We are probably the only game in town presently for tidal and wave power projects. ” Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Crimp stated that in terms of developing the ETF, Neil McMahon is managing the program for AEA and is working with Mr. White. We have been talking to potential committee members and are looking at issuing a joint RFP as soon as we can get all the details ironed out with the Denali Commission and their federal requirements. We should get the RFP out later in the fall with funds issued in spring giving us a jump on the construction season. It’s logical again to go back to the Pathway to look at what the research needs are for the state, what technological information needs to go forth, and what projects we will fund. That should be a common theme driving the funds. Mr. Rose asked if we should continue the discussion about possibly cutting percentages out of the fund with feasibility and reconnaissance studies vs. construction 80-20. We should also continue discussing 25% heat (or something along those lines) as we proceed to Round V. Senator Hoffman agreed, but stated it should be more in dollar amount targets, rather than percentages. Representative Thomas questioned if HB152 allowed this, or do we need to go back and change it to allow ETF and change the HB152 path. Suddenly we’re going for heating personal homes. Maybe that’s where we put the money in for ETF. Mr. Rose said before the ETF, this Committee said there were no other funds for tidal and wave projects. Could we say as an Advisory Committee, we want to do so much heat and so much wind? He thought HB152 would allow us to do that; it allows us to do heat already, we're just not strategically focusing on anything. Mr. Rose didn’t think we have to change HB152 for this Committee to say we'd like to have set a broad target just like we have for construction. The emerging technology questions are different. Chair Beltrami agreed. He said a portion of the heating projects fall under standard renewable definitions, so the emerging projects have trouble fitting under that umbrella. He agreed in terms of incorporating targets. Mr. Posey asked if we had a number as to what the target would be. Senator Hoffman suggested we discuss this at a future date. Mr. Haagenson suggested we wait until the Round IV applications come in to see if that gets us to where we want to go. If it doesn’t we can make a recommendation to shift the numbers around. Mr. Rose suggested AEA make recommendations based on the Pathway. He said if we’re spending twice as much money on fuel oil as we are for diesel and electricity, it seems that a pretty high number towards heat is justified. Chair Beltrami agreed. Mr. Crimp said the next agenda item would be the benefit to cost ratio discussion. As far as coming towards targets, it makes sense to take into account that the higher the economics are, generally that means more diesel is displaced. If you put a target on it, then you’re constraining the project selection to move away from benefit to cost ratio and you may end up with projects that are less economic in order to get more heating projects. That's a concern approach to think about. To counter that, Senator Hoffman said that in Western Alaska what other projects are there (when the cost of heating is so high). If those communities don’t end up with projects they will continue to have high heating costs after the program is over. Mr. Haagenson said it will depend on how we define economic feasibility. You can have a much more feasible project on heat than on PCE. Key will be how you measure the financial feasibility. Mr. Rose asked if the cost benefit ratios come out higher in heating projects. Mr. Crimp affirmed and said they generally have lower capital costs. Mr. Haagenson said capital costs are lower, but you have to pay for fuel which is not cheap, so the cost reduction isn’t as much as you would expect and will drive the benefit-cost ratio much lower. Mr. Rose said we might want to tie efficiency work to somehow give people enough points if they've done efficiency. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Page 4 of 10 10.) Benefit to Cost Ratio Regulation Applicable to Round IV Mr. Haagenson said that when we evaluate and throw out projects, we must make sure the project is not economically or technically feasible as stated in the benefit to cost ratio regulation. We need to decide what those terms mean. Mr. Crimp said in the last round we were getting a number of projects that did not appear to be economically feasible and a lot of time was expended on them. It seemed logical that we should more tightly define what was economically feasible, and the approach we took was to put out a benefit to cost ratio with some unintended consequences. The benefit to cost ratios we threw out were for construction. Then it seemed logical that before you would go for final design and construction, in order to be economically feasible you ought to be able to show a benefit to cost ratio of .8. Given the fact we are requiring robust feasibility analysis to be done before moving to final design, according to the RFA, the applicants weren't able to show they had reasonably good benefit to cost ratio that they were after. For feasibility projects he said it was somewhat more difficult. We thought it was logical to be more lenient so we went down to .6, given how sure we were going to be about data and results. Mr. Haagenson said Committee previously advised that we should not hardwire a benefit to cost ratio so we left it open and took away points in the evaluation; today we'd like to talk about ways to do it. Now that they're approved, the regulations say we must reject an application that’s not technically or economically feasible. We have the ability to define what technological and economically feasible are. The clear one we think about is total benefit and project cost and we need to divide those two numbers. Or we could divide State grant funds to look at it from the State’s perspective. If we look at it from the utility/user aspect, it would be their funds they put in — any match funds divided by total benefit. There’s different ways to craft this number looking at it from different perspectives. Just looking at it benefit to cost may not capture what we're trying to do here. How does the group visualize: 1) technical feasibility and 2) economic feasibility. Mr. Posey said he thought technical and economic were combined and not two things. Mr. White read the regulation: “Per 3AAC 107.645(b), the Authority will reject applications it determines under (a) of this section not technically and economically feasible or not provide sufficient public benefit.” Mr. Posey commented that we should not take on projects that fall within the gamut of what DOE funding does for Emerging Technology that would benefit the greater world audience than Alaska, unless we choose to change it. Part of that was to refrain from funding projects that nobody else would fund or would benefit Alaskans. We have a limited amount of money and we're doing very good getting it out the door. The regulations say, economically and technically — and being the operative word, we should stick to that and he would not propose changing it. Mr. Reeve commented that this all lends itself back to what is Emerging Technology and how it’s defined. We need projects that are going to develop and not be left with off the shelf technology that doesn’t work. Emerging Technology and whether it’s feasible or not has to come into a definition. Maybe we're the only group that can define it at this point because it plays in with our having to be technically and economically feasible. Ms. Mitchell agreed and said it seemed there is an optimal range in technological advancement we could be interested in funding. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Haagenson stated the regulations don’t define what those terms mean. The terms are clearly in the regulations but if you define it and say no we're going to use this definition, or we can use that definition to apply — there’s some wiggle room available to us. Chair Beltrami commented on the point of economic feasibility. When we were talking earlier about the millions of gallons of fuel saved corresponding dollars, it sounds like the payback on our current projects is only a few years away. That’s better than the terms of any other kind of loan out there. Some may not have a quick payback, but they are economically feasible, particularly if it's a good risk, an emerging type project that falls under our goal and ends up working in the long run. We need to dial that in to what our range is. Mr. Rose said part of it is focused on very discreet projects. We have recommended awarding money to tidal projects because there were no other funds, but we really need to be strict on giving money to projects that are economically and technically feasible. The problem has been, as with ORPC, they were actually recommended for $2 million of funding and they were going to leverage $4.5 million of money for the project, then they got cut in the veto. At the same time, the ETF was passed and now they are finding themselves cut out.. All other projects we might consider “emerging” need to go into the ETF, which there are two problems with — at least for tidal and wave: 1) the fund is relatively small, and 2) we don’t see the money being disbursed anytime soon. We have money being left on the table possibly with a project like ORPC where they have $4.5 million in private money that they could put together into this project if we can get them State money. He asked Mr. Haagenson that rather than trying to make an exception to what we all agree has to be some kind of delineation at some point, and continue to fund tidal and wave, is there any other money in AEA’s budget to do some stop-gap funding for tidal and wave power projects, until we can get the ETF up to fully support them. Mr. Haagenson said it depended on how loose you want to define the energy planning money, then deferred the question to Mr. Crimp. Mr. Crimp stated there are capital funds available for alternative energy and energy efficiency (the EE outreach, audits for commercial buildings, starting an industrial energy efficiency program, etc). Out of that we have funded the MET tower programs and things like a demo for state forestry to use a new kind of timber-typing software that can get at biomass energy resources quickly using satellite data. We use those funds to match federal funds whenever we can. A reasonable use of those funds would be for statewide hydrokinetic surveys — projects that would actually inventory state resources, shown in the Renewable Energy Atlas. There are also capital funds for planning. Mr. Haagenson asked if the Southeast tidal projects are funded by that, and Mr. Crimp said the RE Fund has addressed site specific/project specific necessary resource assessments. For the extents of statewide energy resources assessments, you could make a pretty good case that those funds should be used for that. We have been working with DNR on the Alaska Energy Inventory. That's where that data is supposed to go. We received $3 million from Legislature last year. Mr. Rose asked if those funds could be used for something like the Representative Seaton project — a feasibility study for the Kachemak Bay area — but not for a demo construction project like the ORPC project. Mr. Crimp said those funds could be used for that at AEA direction; however, they are limited when you’re talking $2 million for a construction project like that. We would always need to do it in a competitive RFP. Mr. Rose reiterated his concern, that Alaska can and should be a leader in tidal and wave power; he also stated we have 90% of the country’s tidal resources and half of the wave energy resources. We are stuck in a place where the RE Fund probably shouldn't be used for it, since we now have the EETF; but the EETF is not in place yet and there’s not very much money in it. There’s an incredible leadership opportunity that’s just sitting there. We have to figure out some kind of way to stop-gap fund it, without shifting all the rules for this fund in order to make an exception for the time being. He said he felt strongly about this and was open to suggestions from the Committee as to how we can accomplish that. Mr. Haagenson stated one way would be to have them apply for the EETF through the Denali Commission and go through their evaluation process. We don’t have a good solution on how to bend the rules to allow them to stay in that fund. It’s embarrassing because in the last round Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Page 6 of 10 (they) were approved for a project, and now we'll have to apologize because we have a different fund now, they'll have to reapply and start over. We are in a weird position. Mr. Rose agreed and said we need to have people understand that we are in that weird position. ORPC is a legitimate company, recognized as one of the leaders in the tidal energy business and we are lucky to have them operating in Alaska. If we lose this opportunity, we may lose their interest in investing in Alaska, which is a problem, especially for this project which they are looking to privately invest $4.5 million for an Anchorage area project. Mr. Reeve commented that geothermal projects have had a real turn around in the last year or so. A zero budget on the federal DOE side previously, but didn’t know if there was a change in kinetics as well. The geothermal federal budget went from zero to $365M in a year’s time with ARRA funding. Are there other funds that can be directed through the Denali Commission by our Washington, DC representatives? Mr. Posey commented the DOE is a worthy group. Our process should remain as pure as we can make it, sending (funds) to the Denali Commission as we look at what other funds may be available with the State to maybe match half of that or whatever Denali Commission may provide, we have the makings of something that will work. Let's talk it up and see what we can do between the two or three funds and try to keep it moving because we believe tidal is going to be an answer. We're not going to get any closer unless we encourage these people to continue to work. Chair Beltrami stated he would obviously push at the DC level. Mr. Reeve is also on the Energy Advisory Committee. When this fund was created at the Denali Commission, we said we don’t need to have a parallel fund doing the same thing and was a big proponent for pushing on the emerging technology side. A lot of that ground work has already been laid over there and that’s certainly an easy conversation to keep moving. Mr. Rose said there was general consensus that we should keep the regulation the way it is. We need staff to come up with what they are using as their definition of economic and technical feasibility. Strict guidelines will assist us in recommending future projects. He said he understood that the $3.2M EETF will be administered by AEA, but didn’t understand why the Denali Commission would have another chance to decide on the projects. Mr. Haagenson said AEA was asked to manage the EETF. The Denali Commission already have their rules in place, whereas our rules are not in place. We are not going to merge the funds together, they will be separate programs. Mr. Beltrami asked if AEA will be screening applications as well. Mr. Haagenson said that was correct. There will be similar applications and the procedures should be close to each other, but reiterated they will be separate programs with similar processes. Mr. Rose asked that since the EETF referenced getting the money from elsewhere, like federal funds, do we anticipate all future sources of funding might be administered by AEA separately and with separate criteria. Mr. Haagenson stated a final decision hasn’t been made but the plan is to keep them separate. Chair Beltrami asked for Committee directives for staff. Mr. Haagenson asked if a hardwired benefit to cost ratio was set in Round 4 instructions. Mr. White responded that in the RFA .6 was set for feasibility and recon and .8 for design & construction. Mr. Haagenson said staff was instructed by the Committee that they did not want to have the benefit to cost ratio hardwired and now it is. Senator Hoffman said he did not think it should be hardwired and it should be a target for flexibility. We don’t know what the projects are coming and if a project doesn’t fit, our hands are tied. Mr. Haagenson reminded that the last step to go through is regional spreading, where hardwire may not work. What does a .8 benefit to cost ratio mean. Mr. Crimp pointed out that AEA has posted the economic review template on our website so applicants can see what all the different assumptions are. The benefits are the differences in over 20 or 30 years (the project life) — the proposed activity versus the status quo. We used common assumptions. Maybe it was the first REFAC meeting that we were instructed not to put in hardwired economic requirements. We took those to mean that Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Page 7 of 10 the project should not be rejected that had a benefit cost of less than one. Our assumption is that at some point a project would need to be rejected because of poor economics. These were the places we drew the line .8 and .6. Perhaps we have not had sufficient discussion with the Advisory Committee and that’s something that we need to bring up, make them less of a yes/no. We could still do that retroactively for Round IV RFA if necessary. Mr. Haagenson said the LB&A was looking for a hardwired number above one. We're trying to focus on two different targets and not violate the Regulations. What it boils down to is what is economic and technical feasibility. There clearly is not a hardwired number in the regulations, but we will comply with and follow the regulations. It’s given us wiggle room to define what the number is. If we agree today to put hardwired numbers in, we could do that. We have a lot of flexibility, but need a consistent definition for economic and technical so we're not violating regulations. Mr. Rose agreed that Legislative skeptics should feel good about the money being spent in the program. That's why we need an economic and feasibility number. He said we need to come up with a definition of what that actually means. In tidal power projects companies (like ORPC) need to have specific guidance so they will apply in Round IV. ORPC could still apply and assert that since only one third of the project is State money, they would want the State to look at the cost/benefit ratio relative to the amount of State money in, rather than relative to the total project cost. They could also say over the course of 20 years the price of natural gas could go up and although they are a demo project today, they could make electricity and could have a cost/benefit ratio of X over 20 years. They could make that argument if their economic feasibility is based on just the State’s contribution. It's a crucial answer we need today so that companies (like ORPC) can decide whether or not it’s worth investing the time to file another Application in Round IV. Senator Hoffman commented that the LB&A was concerned that many projects would flop and that the program would be a waste of money. It would be good if the gallons we’re projecting to save in 2013 as shown on the graph could be converted to dollars and shown to them, they will be less skeptical. The numbers may be higher in the fourth and fifth rounds. Even without guidelines of a positive cost/benefit ratio, we are able to show that we are saving millions on an annual basis and in the end this program is going to pay for itself in seven to 15 years. He’s less concerned about setting a hard number for the cost/benefit ratio knowing we're saving millions of dollars and say we should have a guideline that we will not approve negative cost/benefit ratio applications. Mr. Haagenson pointed out that the formulation for benefit to cost, is really a project benefit to cost ratio and not user based. Mr. Rose asked if AEA will continue to analyze the cost/benefit ratio for economics on total project costs. Mr. Crimp affirmed this and said it’s not AEA directly, but private economists under ISER guidance. He said when he mentioned REFAC decided to advise to AEA to consider removing the hardwire not allowing projects at .8 that could be considered, he overlooked the requirement in the regulations. Mr. Rose said he understands the regulations have to be changed for AEA to ignore the hard number and the only way to get around that would be to interpret economic and technical feasibility in a way other than we do now. In some ways you're providing a dis-incentive, i.e. the ORPC project — a project with a lot of outside money. If there’s a lot of outside money coming in, the project cost is higher even though the State money is low. If you analyze the economic cost benefit based on total project cost, you're better off not having any outside money. Mr. Haagenson said previously when evaluating if there was a low benefit to cost ratio, we gave less points for it and if there was a high match, we gave higher points for that. My concern is the regulations say you must reject them if they're not economically feasible. In the Application on page 24 or 25 it says “we may recommend a portion of the funds be made available.” If it's not there, it’s not going to get past Phase 2, we must reject it. We need to define that number. If we just leave it open and go points, we’re back to where we were last time and we can say we've evaluated if it's economically feasible or not. I’m trying to figure out a way to meet the regulations that we wrote and get the right answer. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Rose agreed with Senator Hoffman that if there was a way to not have that strictness and it gives us discretion at end of day to determine what we'll recommend Legislature to fund. Mr. Rutz stated the Stage 2 evaluation threshold had three criteria that need to be met. Economic feasibility, technical feasibility and public benefit. Those things need to be defined. The statute is currently worded that if we determine that a project is not technically feasible, economically feasible or not in the public interest we have to reject it. The process is past the half-way point and we need to make sure that we’re consistent, document it and everybody is treated the same way. It needs to be measured fairly. He said he and Mr. Crimp came up with the numbers. Senator Hoffman said as long as the cost/benefit ratio is positive the project can be considered by this Committee. Chair Beltrami agreed. He said some may show that they're a lot more economical, but just because they're less economical if they're positively and not negatively economic, then they are worth considering. Mr. Crimp thought we should discuss what negative versus positive means. If a benefit/cost is zero, then no benefit occurs to anyone. No matter what the cost is, there’s no benefit. If a project has a benefit to cost ratio of one, then it breaks even. The money put into it breaks even with the benefit. If a project is a minus number, that means it costs money to operate the project —- every year on average you're going to end up having to sink money into the project. Mr. Rose commented that .6 or .8 are still less than one, which means there’s still not as much benefit as there is cost. Mr. Crimp said that was correct. That means there is less benefit than there is cost. Another way of putting it is you have a certain amount of benefit — say that’s 8 and you have a certain amount of cost and that’s 10, you can say over the project period 8 minus 10, that’s what you will get out of the project, that -2 over the long run. That has to be multiplied times the cost in order to make real numbers. It’s a negative number, you’re in the hole. Senator Hoffman stated the problem he sees is there should be a number given to this on points and evaluate everything on points. He didn’t think it was right to say that a project is going to be thrown out completely before the points are counted on the cost/benefit ratio. Mr. Haagenson proposed that we issue an addendum to remove that paragraph and go back to the point system of evaluation. We must have a way to evaluate these, the point system covers it. Mr. Crimp said if we took out that requirement, a project with a poor benefit to cost ratio would get a zero on that score -- ORPC got zero last time around for economic benefit. Their saving grace was that they had a high amount of match funds, so they ended up in the yellow — the second $25 million. Mr. Rose asked Mr. Haagenson if he was suggesting we ask these to be set out of the regulations and can we do this with an existing regulation of this size. Mr. Haagenson said that was negative, he suggests we take out the hardwired numbers and go back to the structure where they would get points for the amount of benefit/cost ratio like we did in Rounds 0 through 3. The regulation says you must reject an application that’s not technically nor economically feasible. Take out the number. Mr. Rutz suggested we just drop the threshold if six is too high, but has to be greater than zero, would that work. You could have that as the threshold and realizing that anything, probably between .1 and 1 is a subsidy. Even though it’s a subsidy there still could be some benefit. The community getting the money is an economic benefit. Whether it’s feasible or not, there’s still an economic benefit. Mr. Posey pointed out that sustainable means it will pay for itself without having future subsidies. Representative Thomas inquired as to how we weigh the reduction of oil diesel products, the carbon footprint. Do we weigh that at all when you retire 100,000 gallons in a village, by putting in a hydro project, i.e, is used as any weight anywhere in grants. Mr. Crimp replied that we have a small amount that we charge for a carbon tax, we assume there will eventually be a carbon tax and we assign a certain amount of price per gallon of diesel for that. Representative Thomas commented that it works, for instance Cordova saved 365,000 gallons of diesel. Mr. Stromberg said he had been in contact with the Cordova Coop while researching how to quantify rural energy credits and carbon offsets. They get about $30,000 a year in renewable energy credits from their Power Creek project. He said Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Page 9 of 10 there are probably formulas making it possible to give more of a dollar amount figure if we wanted to research that further. Chair Beltrami asked the Committee for their recommendations. Senator Hoffman stated he would be in favor of Mr. Haagenson’s recommendation and delete the section of the Application, .6 and .8 covering feasibility and construction. There were no objections. Mr. Rose reiterated that by next meeting the Committee receive some type of framework/proposal from staff that we can use as a Starting point in our discussions regarding Round V strategic grant making and deployment strategies. 11.) Next Meeting Date The next meeting date will be November 9, 2010 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at AEA. 12.) Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting August 13, 2010 Page 10 of 10 a = = NACOMNOONARWNH= ICI /= ALASKA ) ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Friday, August 13, 2010 Fairbanks Governor’s Office — Large Conference Room and also available at AEA Boardroom 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm AGENDA Call to Order Roll Call Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes) Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions) Approval of Meeting Minutes — June 8, 2010 Reimbursement Rules Review of Recommendations from June 8, 2010 Meeting Project Update Strategic Grant Making Discussion Benefit-To-Cost Ratio Regulation Applicable to Round IV Next Meeting Date Adjournment Beltrami Fisher-Goad Haagenson Crimp Rose Rose Beltrami Beltrami Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 102 Juneau, AK 99802 Phone: 465-2689 Fax: 465-3472 Toll Free (800) 665-2689 Representative_Paul_Seaton@legis.state.ak.us 345 W. Sterling Highway Suite 102B Homer, AK 99603 Phone: 235-2921 Fax: 235-4008 REPRESENTATIVE Paul Seaton District 35 Stephen Haagenson, Executive Director Alaska Energy Authority 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 August 13, 2010 Dear Director Haagenson: It has come to my attention that the City of Homer application for a Kachemak Bay Tidal Resource feasibility and reconnaissance study funding under the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) round four has been denied due to the a new cost/benefit criteria being applied by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). Due to the weighted nature of the cost/benefit analysis favoring widely established renewable energy technology, AEA is setting up the potential to exclude all future hydrokinetic projects from being funded. This is extremely disappointing given the amount of harvestable hydrokinetic energy in Alaska. The Emerging Energy Technology Fund has been suggested as an avenue for hydrokinetic projects. However, the size of this fund is currently inadequate to contribute meaningfully to large-scale hydrokinetic power projects that will supply much needed energy to Alaska’s Railbelt and island grid systems. As you aware from work that has been done on Cook Inlet tidal resource reconnaissance by the company Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI) from 2006 (available on line at the following link: http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/streamenergy/reports/006-AK_06-10-06.pdf ) the tidal resource in Cook Inlet is harvestable, marketable and has been studied in depth. Now not only will the new cost/benefit criteria exclude funding for a Cook Inlet tidal project, it cuts the legs out from under the City of Homer’s attempt at quantifying the tidal resource in Kachemak Bay. In reviewing the EPRI study, and comparing upper Cook Inlet’s coastline, and tidal flow with that of Kachemak Bay, it can be extrapolated that there is a vast energy resource in Kachemak Bay. Figure 1 of the EPRI study shows 116 MW of Average Power available at the Cairn Point site. A comparable site in Kachemak Bay is the tip of the Spit and Gull Island and it can be assumed that a comparable if not greater amount of power is available in Homer. | would like to suggest the AEA revisit the cost/benefit formula so that hydrokinetic projects and reconnaissance studies may be funded by the REF in the future. This fund is a crucial link for the future of hydrokinetic energy harvest in Alaska. Sincerely, Ce OK heabe Representative Paul Seaton ATTENDANCE — REFAC Committee Meeting, Aug 13, 2010 Committee Members JS. Vince Beltrami, Chairman Anon 7 Jodi Mitchell Ly ~~ Chri hee from howe ‘Representative Bill Thomas F1,~ sania Fbx -. Brad Reeve <j), Sandy Burd (Senator Hoffman’s Office) Patricia Walker (Senator Hoffman’s Office) Gene Therriault, Office of the Governor Artiv. Seacbor - phone % Hi 4 Co-Chair Fhx. AEA Staff ali Steve Haagenson ZZ, 1“ Shauna Howell Anclk A Mike Harper Arnel SareFisher-Goad </- /y YY Peter Crimp ix .~ Butch White Fh ~~ Chris Rutz Anch j “i intl ool. @ 2:50 pw val James Strandberg Ane Re May€tark- 4.1 Mike Nave, Dept. of Law Mike-Mi D f Brian Bjorkquist, Dept. of Law Rick SHronbers ) HEA fea Arch © LYS pow [orrect ab. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Friday the 13" of August, 2010 **PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY** 8 Juneau Energy Meeting = ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY Renewable Energy Fund Update August 2, 2010 Current Status Round 1-3 Grant and Funding Summary Round! Round Il Round Ill Total Applications Received 112 118 123 353 Projects Funded 73° 30 25 7133 | Grants in Place 68 26 In progress 94 Grants Cancelled 3 0 4 Amount Requested ($M) $453.8 $293.4 $223.7 $970.9 AEA Recommended ($M) $100.0 $36.8 $65.8 $202.6 Appropriated ($M) $100.0 $25.0 $25.0 $150.0 Expended ($M) $31.1 $1.1 $o $32.2 Available for reallocation ($M) $1.1° $0.9° so $1.9 1- Includes eleven projects from an earlier solicitation issued by AEA 2- Nikolaevsk Wind Farm, Southfork Hydro, & Galena Wood Heating project 3- Angoon Heat Recovery project - funded with other funds 4- Balance of Southfork Hydro, Haines Central Wood, and Cordova Wood Processor 5- Angoon grant balance + balance after grant amounts adjusted. Geothermal Construction Assessment e Funding Allocation by SEL $6.0M Development Phase Reconn & Feas Rounds 1-3 $18.4M Other $12.4 sign, 3M Outlook 100 90 +- O Reconn/Feas 80 + . . 32! @ Final Design 70 + @ Construction 60 + #Projects 4 18 ; [ e Scheduled Project E95 a Completion 30 - Rounds 1 and 2 20 — 10 i o |S am , r oe 2009 2010 2011 2012 Not Year Scheduled e Construction srojea Bee 8 See next page 8 7 . . 6 Million Gallons e Projected Cumulative Diesel/year (equiv) OWind Annual Fuel Savings : D Solar Round 1 and 2 Construction 4 0 Ocean/River Total Funding = $96 million 3 @Hydro in projects G Heat Recovery 2 @ Biomass 1 Geothermal ‘De 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year 80 70 -. GReconn/Feas 60 G Final Design e Projected Cumulative 50 @ Construction Drawdown $ Million 40 cue en 30 A VPA ol Eee Perel) Prepared Feb 2010 a 10 e Project Phasing Examples Round Project Yeo art eed hag Final Design Construction - Tok Wood-fired Boiler Completed Complete Complete Scheduled 10/10 before applied ($20.0) ($231.2) ($2,994.1) 1 Ambler Photovoltaic Completed Complete NO-GO before applied ($50.0) (reallocate $500.0) Akutan Hydro 2 Preconstruction Completed Complete Scheduled 2/11 ceegececeeeenereseceeeceeesesseseseseeee before applied (365.7) ($96.3) 3 Construction Scheduled 10/11 ($1,391.0) Whitman Lk Hydro 1 Final Design/Permitting Completed Scheduled 4/11 SS before applied ($1,300.0) 0 3 Construction Scheduled 3/12 ($2,000.0—Vetoed) Re ‘wable Energy Fund Construction Schedule (7/2613 Type Biomass Geothermal Heat Recovery Hydro Ocean/River Solar _ | Round | Renewable Energy Fund Construction Projects + (2010 1 A/S/O/|N/D t I 2011 on Pre-construction (Final Design, Contracts, Procurement) |_ L C:\Documents and Settings\showell\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\LCIZKN7T\REFund Construction Status July 2010.xisx | Construction] Commissioning Project Completion 2) pw [JTF M/A;M JJ FIM N/D Notes ne | 9 Onn | Ss | Se | af Es t+-f 1 53 |Chena Power, Biomass/ORC PC | 1 33 Haines/Chilkoot, District Heat OP 1 2 Gulkana Village Council, Boiler RB 1 26 Native Village of Eyak, Wood BT 1 49 Tok, Gateway School, Boiler RB | 1 112 __|Delta/Greeley School Dist. Wood RB 1 15 |Chistochina Central Wood Heat RB 1 68__|Anchorage Muni Landfill Gas DP 2 2 Thorne Bay School, Wood Heat DP. 3 445 __ [Ft Yukon District Wood Heating AF Si eT ree 3 [476 [Tanana Biomass DP seal See ene I ES 1 ~ Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump, Airport NMc 1 111 Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump, Aquatic Ctr NMc [4 -- __|Manley Hot Springs Geothermal, TDX NMc 3 453 __|Alaska Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pump NMc 1 105 [North Pole GVEA HR Expansion LL | 1 22 Cordova Electric Heat to Power DP. 1 61 McGrath Light & Power HE Expansion KN 2 235 ___|Kotzebue HR and Ammonia Power Cycle DP. 2 307 _ [City of Ambler Heat Recovery UL 2 271___|Unalaska Heat Recovery DP 3 $19 __|Atka Hydro Dispatch Excess Power LL | 3 448 __|St Paul Heat Recovery JJ Seti not vet etermines ft ft Pr 1 10 Falls Creek Hydro DO_|COMPLETED IN 2009 1,3 21, 407_|Cordova Humpback Creek Hydro BO 1 9 Wrangell Excess Hydro to Heat LL 1 87 Fishhook Creek Hydro DO ‘Assume completed 2012 1 23 North Prince of Wales Hydro Intertie RG 1 58 ___|Atka, Chuniisax Creek Hydro LL 1 104 _|Reynolds Creek Hydro, Haida/AP&T BO 3 469 _|Akutan Hyddro Repair & Upgrade AA 3 438 ___|Yerrick Creek Hydro AA 1 84 Ruby Hydrokinetic, YRI-CWC NMc 1 97 Nenana Hydrokinetic NMc 1 108 __|McKinley Village Solar Thermal RG_|COMPLETED IN 2009 1 7 Ambler Solar PV LL Project no-go based on study 1 103 ___|Kodiak Pillar Mountain Wind JJ__|COMPLETED IN 2009 1 50 Unalakleet Wind JJ__|COMPLETED IN 2009 1 122 Bethel Wind Project Times 4 LE Assume completed 2011 1 102 _|Delta Junction Wind, AEP 2MW JJ 1 70 Quinhagak Wind, AVEC 300 KW JJ 1 71 Toksook Bay Wind, AVEC 100 KW JJ 4 72 Mekoryuk Wind Turbine/Controls, AVEC JJ a 107 Kwigillingok Power Company 450KW. RS 1 110 Kongiganak Wind, Puvurnag Power Co. RS 1 89 _[Nikolski IRA Wind, Umnak Power JJ Ree +++ | 1,3 85,518 | Kotzebue Electric Turbines/Battery_ JJ 1 47___ [Nome Banner Creek Wind Transmission JJ_|COMPLETEDIN 200 | 4 52 Nome, Newton Peak Wind Farm RS Go/no-go following design 4 90 ___| St. George Wind Farm JJ 1 56 NW Arctic Borough Wind Farm JJ 2 222 _|Nikiski, Kenai Winds Project RS [ag | | a aaa rr Power sales agreement not in place Zi 273 __|Tuntutuliak High Penetration wind/diesel RS 2 317 _|Sand Point Wind JJ (a i A fe 2 302__|Emmonak Wind and Transmission RS 2 303 _[Shaktoolik Wind RS pt Yr | { | 3 486 [Pilot Point Wind Power and Heat JJ [apo Saal be Saas Sad ace 3 503 [st Paul Wind Diesel bape oe ARR) GR ee ras eee Revised 7/26/2010 PMC a o¢ - & ~REFAC Aapst 1B) 2010 pi eC. F be. Croverwors GZ Herre "A bie. Cea Loe +e AEA office + Cp: Staddn — (Honeleit beter Tide Ener hotter— Cost fefl 2, = Previsile 1 theolity medhad spain pend ph X%| Steve - Fem #1 will be Fadl ehotd He spat G } 0 sp uaysentl (a — ae. Cag Porm eal Tages — aaa & Lindt verders pneorpermbed in rounds {How tr honda. $ om sfol led pajech. ‘Heath fecorery — recopniving .. Allasing He. hung PtH Cop Shah Leth ob 2eA_- Spobe-u/ Chas Sig at =e "hchind ae guittin. REA Adeehise: — on the pocr “BLS TRO (teak 5 th Construct Project. ; Z Se 4 ! ? Luar Crt — fae 4 [ook perCb 7062 2 Lak | [is Set ase his ated be Che's Tide (See efit) __— 2ve a en Se bo Support Here Daj, O) — Fe vr 77 iw Here he -as if pes er : _ He this pz; - 4 ot $ fr— <P Lue nae e tind yn sap tai Sth How — yen, f Ain = _ mY 0h cb. z a. ode Lown daw Chris Rose - thee culjek “dha hap “fete — not sve fo phat eyed — Lrcorpovad Tt Aid nA pica elie helt £1 prmeineg_. | ath why beret 4- to- Cast rafio+ ws fv quiverob, foe tyjnel hare Babee. arg hig wrth at ~ wall aot trove Bch tste Pelee indore tage overnls donscch —- Sons Vitle Rot, — not fem hard Shout’ - incor porated fine Keund 5. “Paaject Update — “Pate Cry Lap. AEA AE reid +> Lo a. ve. Pr re wills ber eit Cie itd, Seger — feds a Steve - give O BW dbo tives jnrtead of -° CO ovee - Chyis Ros — Reick stadus- Hotel erpadl ¥22.2 1 #125 aM -a@ (of of vo cx) potlng thas Constyre tion. Spon = Cane pole ? Z tter— haverh updeded mid * 40750 M 432.2 uh. Cx — vein [fined na vecon. —_ obligated i bein ive Je CoA spend $ ale Gu a Je Hone projexts of. none oblizedeel oF ted Constactiom lore by ther. On track +o Comp lee prea Dut ests HY. Pe: One 2.5 evillion gadlons y 5S rillin Lb ng by 20/2. an Poe - Aa Condens é Peter — assumption Peay completed jn 09 bear frerk in 20/0, eta. Lip hid This te Croverna- — Pecpetitalle dinel me toms by lty stidies ers Hoffer — wey to pee ) : “Pelee = eA Chisel” Ve ra Oa $2.56 wl otis rivaled 4 20M yr ei ngs fro RTE 9 back He Gut _Ff * < hese — Private +tedurl ate. perject. Oeis “Rose aut stroteric. ly og. ane. A ws tas Sted Oven — w qe GpliccB ros i" ale dik bors patos i nge ‘Apt + Wave, ewer. ie Stat Fresing ow hors we Spek é Sm cit iting gel abel fey: ck @ che Hons = high corks of fastig im Paral Me > “Sine ~ 35 gellons — 60M pflons — befhe refi. o~ invest ete Crimp — rae te Pitas to inylone lease echre/eg /@s. Lied w hate Hook Crorn in a bey. - Seki, oli 9 wn 266, suD Prooelv [an cod a bebe uw i=: w~ Sls to aD wed Ap Sim Pg « ipo ists aubunne ward to 92 eacstageng 6 9 1e. aes Onkmied hd eigen che hove poh tered tHe cee. Strctwall Uy We hove. ao lot fo bo [bbe (ke Pius amid pris- bein pe Cops rv. ZF wt chalet split the ep _ trode ffs. (Bred Rocwe — lene tle cot is to Kuve pp hae to lok @ beth. Solar FleomalL -h we Met Ege a Y9% vetractiow rete Te Ue. pew technelssy — Combine — Palet ov rieets reduce Costs pene — [6,10 gallons Hera bly [ted Stoves for ofl winter long a= = + $ in —— ue pat bre 2 jek hk gain pies bras faa = bo 6g a er Sole wile OL a 4 Ce, yarn she, et0 Pl ase" King aa “9 dee ae — — pilet projects Chers Rise i ce Po yam apeetit for fner€é PAR Keating Dirprdng Chey — her ve rod tHe prevled sis evi tevie te pore > iveke ll LS ae 2 ete. : ui "cate Pectin a Gnas ot He lows. eagttne ie heen Boe ei ee He ne to Avec 0 oddyess + assist He ata rn ) : ae i ow Sei ae Heed wave “Power ..- ign a — ie pig ee woking » techaisah. side. ates acjaind A Pilla we ae aia k ordj ee sweating f + whof his fuel A> iS, 22h aE Pelioe en = tages et‘ Ee hp Tha dots “HB G2 alls this 2 vis “Kose - he Paria enon final Ce wah eo de Se much. ho ete. St_a broad 4, aa Unde tle stonelayd bil. > inCo pred 2 pe ” [29 bcorl/ be A vZlo dations s : {ie vend “HK Wea (Pere, Vane Mei nk Sevse to ae ict ees — Om fretng selection 2 ba Mle Bib fai ikl ip en — Hill Ae ee ea Pyretttte-cost vatio — Stee - be mst throw ovt a Project ClOnenw, col “eter mz voiecty thak dial / A Sp plas to be 2 aan ar he Bb Ati ve whe> j edrwmall feasiste . ye votives = FinaQ dasip, + constru low . of 8 a Ta ( Gee a ar [it Pej - optimal (eee wha 1 o1e. Dertidingy fu ere dt pe “4 wtlofipr ea te ne. Viner = 0 few — yee hy 4 fic feemsel 5. what pa! tanga Chis Rese = we fo Z yo; 4 te stevet . dhe ane ae Iyially tow “plot 2 Qa eter — eniled fied te AU “ eaemag t Planniny EL sotrtrch fasudite B shhuph resource assessned Hiinber Software — Satelite gate Aydin sivegs — insedary nesses Tht fa5 REE_site Specstic Vissaed specific Him oe i rows mutch 1S. anentlab. tre toad, © | hy “fan Tor heg sla bre hs t pe: Cfri's - Sere tle furs Could ‘be used f-..- 1) a ese 9 ack. @_féA | Ce Aaet yt Tip aes: Cusdab " v5t Emoe 6 ‘dll a a a ae yo Tine “J ARRA ford; | Aim Pity Cneovene pyle fo Orting Zo wth “Tosks é Bat 6 hetiblt, tpeoon, : (9rn ¥ Co re bla. = th nds + Shout] i pee Dargeh not rh det fete "AEA hes Dusted <f melee z less Ahr & Ls ae ve Could - Hee— CowwerAS ow ic vetuw from LBtA. 2 . ; . o/s vis (oT N49 autatian — hab 1S Scone ry ce p44 CR 2 fai Chris Rose _° i leg | eglieaxe exbarhe(esurplnt) en Hotiman — Convert galling te $ less Shap ticis nn : Stee — __Qrieet to benabit Cosh radi. a 1? Ngo? Avelyne: Cash bored st vachto x pect cocks. a Sere portent eet then Vas pac mg (cech jow~ # Not defined . Of fiji Cesroni fear techniodteas + Pucblic. thsheld. Aefive) Goustterney in evaluating. + thy Sern. Te a “7 Cee dp adecu_ - Bp ow wins. Pete - took peepee Our _.. pe — Pa, VW/- 4c 0.6 + Of fale ot hedwived Shree vg iver Doi ev mst eth «1 Stele Les Sage Yo msk rej Lis AA rp Tle aleld — syeatee fin O bin Prion — Susteinability . 212 UP a noble = DostHive. Kap. [Taormer =Carbhon. footprints © SK | Se Hetfima — chete tod section (hak aD) Med Me. Dde — or “ hoc ange Gt 1-4 @ HEA. Me | Frecenm poeprh by stall — charding pried he Rewel 5. RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2010 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BOARD ROOM COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS INCORPORATE DEPLOYMENT TARGETS Establish renewable deployment targets to increase the application of renewables in Alaskan communities. Generic deployment strategies exist in Appendix 4 of the Alaska Energy Pathway. These targets could be used in the evaluation of REF projects and could advance integration of renewables through a competitive process. We should not limit equipment to specific vendors, but a range of equipment could be selected per community and all software should be non- proprietary. This concept should be incorporated in Round V and may require program changes. DEFINE CRITERIA FOR WHEN A PROJECT IS “STALLED” The definition of a stalled project should incorporate the reasons for the stall, such as lack of: permits, financial plan, power sales agreements, project readiness (specific phases, i.e., feasibility, final design, construction). Do not allow “war chests” to be built. HEAT RECOVERY Recognizing that thermal energy costs are the greatest burden to rural residents, staff will make recommendations on means to develop thermal projects, such as diesel heat recovery following the Pathway. SUBMIT LETTER TO RCA REGARDING BETHEL ELECTRIC UTILITY AQUISITION Mr. Haagenson will first discuss with Chairman Pickett, the interconnection of renewable projects in Bethel and opportunities to lower costs through the utility structure and ownership. ADVERTISE RFA ASAP The Round IV application period will be advertised as soon as possible. a od od NASOOCMNDONARWON> RRR ORR RR /= ALASKA ) ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Friday, August 13, 2010 Fairbanks Governor’s Office - Large Conference Room and also available at AEA Boardroom 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm AGENDA Call to Order Roll Call Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes) Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions) Approval of Meeting Minutes — June 8, 2010 Reimbursement Rules Review of Recommendations from June 8, 2010 Meeting Project Update Strategic Grant Making Discussion Benefit-To-Cost Ratio Regulation Applicable to Round IV Next Meeting Date a Adjournment ¢ i iT Beltrami Fisher-Goad Haagenson Crimp Rose Rose Beltrami Beltrami Shauna Howell From: Vince Beltrami <vince@akaficio.org> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:02 AM To: Chris Rose Ce: Steve Haagenson; Shauna Howell Subject: Re: REFAC Meeting Documents for August 13, 2010 Meeting Chris, I also had to cancel my flight due to a last minute work issue I had to tend to this morning, but will be at the Anchorage AEA office. Vince Beltrami President Alaska AFL-CIO www.akaflcio.org On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Chris Rose wrote: Hi Folks I just wanted to let you know that I've decided to stay here in Anchorage and baby my broken leg. I'll be calling in for the meeting. Cheers, Chris Chris Rose Executive Director Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP) 308 G Street, Suite 207 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 929-7770 office (907) 232-0908 mobile (907) 929-1646 fax hris @ realaska. www.REalaska.org On Aug 10, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Shauna Howell wrote: Good morning, Shauna Howell ee aR a ES TESA A SE AT te AR TTT cS RAN SB RIC RS PSR te RA aE aCe RI From: Chris Rose <chris@realaska.org> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:53 AM To: Steve Haagenson; Vince Beltrami Ce: Shauna Howell Subject: Re: REFAC Meeting Documents for August 13, 2010 Meeting Hi Folks I just wanted to let you know that I've decided to stay here in Anchorage and baby my broken leg. I'll be calling in for the meeting. Cheers, Chris Chris Rose Executive Director Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP) 308 G Street, Suite 207 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 929-7770 office (907) 232-0908 mobile (907) 929-1646 fax chris @ realaska.org www.REalaska.org On Aug 10, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Shauna Howell wrote: Good morning, Attached are documents for the REFAC meeting this Friday, August 13, 2010 in Fairbanks. We have reserved space at the Governor's Office in their large conference room for this meeting. Should the Governor be in Fairbanks and need the room, we have made accommodations at an alternate location. If necessary, | will send the alternate information at a later date. Friday, August 13, 2010 1:00 pm — 4:00 pm Fairbanks Governor’s Office -- Large Conference Room 675 Seventh Avenue, Station H5 (upstairs) (this office is located next to Sadler's) Teleconference Info: Dial: 1-800-315-6338 Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 102 Juneau, AK 99802 Phone: 465-2689 Fax: 465-3472 Toll Free (800) 665-2689 Representative_Paul_Seaton@legis.state.ak.us 345 W. Sterling Highway Suite 102B Homer, AK 99603 Phone: 235-2921 Fax: 235-4008 REPRESENTATIVE Paul Seaton District 35 Stephen Haagenson, Executive Director Alaska Energy Authority 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 August 13, 2010 Dear Director Haagenson: It has come to my attention that the City of Homer application for a Kachemak Bay Tidal Resource feasibility and reconnaissance study funding under the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) round four has been denied due to the a new cost/benefit criteria being applied by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). Due to the weighted nature of the cost/benefit analysis favoring widely established renewable energy technology, AEA is setting up the potential to exclude all future hydrokinetic projects from being funded. This is extremely disappointing given the amount of harvestable hydrokinetic energy in Alaska. The Emerging Energy Technology Fund has been suggested as an avenue for hydrokinetic projects. However, the size of this fund is currently inadequate to contribute meaningfully to large-scale hydrokinetic power projects that will supply much needed energy to Alaska’s Railbelt and island grid systems. As you aware from work that has been done on Cook Inlet tidal resource reconnaissance by the company Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI) from 2006 (available on line at the following link: http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/streamenergy/reports/006-AK_06-10-06.pdf ) the tidal resource in Cook Inlet is harvestable, marketable and has been studied in depth. Now not only will the new cost/benefit criteria exclude funding for a Cook Inlet tidal project, it cuts the legs out from under the City of Homer's attempt at quantifying the tidal resource in Kachemak Bay. In reviewing the EPRI study, and comparing upper Cook Inlet’s coastline, and tidal flow with that of Kachemak Bay, it can be extrapolated that there is a vast energy resource in Kachemak Bay. Figure 1 of the EPRI study shows 116 MW of Average Power available at the Cairn Point site. A comparable site in Kachemak Bay is the tip of the Spit and Gull Island and it can be assumed that a comparable if not greater amount of power is available in Homer. | would like to suggest the AEA revisit the cost/benefit formula so that hydrokinetic projects and reconnaissance studies may be funded by the REF in the future. This fund is a crucial link for the future of hydrokinetic energy harvest in Alaska. Sincerely, EL hab Representative Paul Seaton Shauna Howell See ss S — — — — — — From: Peter Crimp Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 3:04 PM To: Shauna Howell; Sara Fisher-Goad Ce: Steve Haagenson; Butch White Subject: RE: agenda for Fox REFAC meeting Attachments: Juneau Energy Meeting.docx; REFund Construction Status July 2010.xIsx Shauna, Here are my comments (CAPS): _Reimbursement Rules for members when they attend meetings. (SARA) [schedule later in the meeting] ‘Recommendations from last meeting. Pri ; : raed Attachment from Butch White on a list of Completed Projects Funded by the RE Fund (request of Jim Posey).-- BUTCH PROJECT UPDATE{PETER) (SEE ATTACHED FILES FOR DISTRIBUTION BEFORE MEETING) — Continued-discussier-of strategic grant making (Chris Rose) ~Neéw-benefit-to-cost ratio regulation that applies to Round IV (Chris Rose) Thanks, Peter From: Shauna Howell Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:05 PM To: Sara Fisher-Goad Cc: Steve Haagenson; Peter Crimp; Butch White Subject: RE: agenda for Fbx REFAC meeting Steve had mentioned a long while ago — we had 2 members call with questions about how to get reimbursed. | believe it will be general info on what to send to us for reimbursement — not sure if there is a $ amount not to exceed. From: Sara Fisher-Goad Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:07 PM To: Shauna Howell Cc: Steve Haagenson; Peter Crimp; Butch White; Shauna Howell Subject: Re: agenda for Fbx REFAC meeting Who will go over reimbursement issues? ¢ Sent from Sara's iPhone On Aug 2, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Shauna Howell <showell@aidea.org> wrote: Here are the topics | currently have — please review asap and let me know if you have any edits/additions, etc. Thanks. Reimbursement Rules for members when they attend meetings. Recommendations from last meeting. Prior meeting minutes. Shauna Howell SEL A ANS ASE RE ae se SER NN From: Menefee, Wyn (DNR) <wyn.menefee@alaska.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 2:55 PM To: Shauna Howell Subject: FW: meeting room space FEI III II II III III III SI OIA ISIS IA Wyn Menefee Chief of Operations Division of Mining, Land and Water Alaska Department of Natural Resources (907) 269-8501 phone (907) 269-8904 fax wyn.menefee@alaska.gov From: Proulx, Jeanne A (DNR) Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 2:49 PM To: Menefee, Wyn (DNR) Subject: RE: meeting room space Yes — I’ve reserved it for you. JP From: Menefee, Wyn (DNR) Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 2:41 PM To: Proulx, Jeanne A (DNR) Subject: FW: meeting room space \ 7° Would the large conference Room be available on Aug 13 1-4pm ? Wyn Menefee g (3 90 i epi (sat at Chief of Operations | Division of Mining, Land and Water YL Alaska Department of Natural Resources iC 0 (907) 269-8501 phone ie ey (907) 269-8904 fax pe A et wyn.menefee@alaska.gov a From: Shauna Howell [mailto:showell@aidea.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 1:48 PM To: Menefee, Wyn (DNR) Subject: meeting room space Good afternoon, In yesterday’s REFAC meeting you mentioned that we might be able to use DNR’s conference room in Fairbanks for the August 13" REFAC meeting. Please let me know who | should talk with about seeing if it is available for booking. We have confirmed with the Governor's office for use of their conference room, but in the chance that the Governor is in town, we will need someplace else to hold the meeting — Steve and | thought it would be a good idea to double-book 2 places to be safe. Thanks. Shauna Howell From: Chris Rose <chris@realaska.org> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:41 PM To: Shauna Howell Ce: Vince Beltrami Subject: agenda items Hi Shauna | have a couple of agenda items for the REFAC meeting on August 13. 1) continued discussion of strategic grant making 2) new benefit-to-cost ratio regulation that applies to Round IV Thanks - and have a good weekend. Cheers, Chris Chris Rose Executive Director Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP) 308 G Street, Suite 207 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 929-7770 office (907) 232-0908 mobile (907) 929-1646 fax chris@realaska.org www.REalaska.org Cand bye @ Ser. Hott oice Yes- ETO ty | At isin October. [ofaa LBYA +6. Yay “Br A Mee. 10/9 - 19 [08 [12 peBibE Farmnily freak REFAL Prpindon Reimbumemed Rules (ste) Goro ee fray last my ae attachansrA Prior rata mi inuhes Shauna Howell etc at SS tn saan nese From: Butch White Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:07 AM To: Shauna Howell Ce: Peter Crimp Subject: RE: REFAC Not sure it is an agenda item; but Jim Posey wanted a list of completed projects funded by the RE Fund. | can work with Peter on this list. From: Shauna Howell Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:39 AM To: Steve Haagenson; Sara Fisher-Goad; Peter Crimp; Butch White Subject: REFAC It’s that time again...the REFAC meeting is August 13". | believe all of you have turned in your travel requests, but in case you haven't please do. | am putting together an agenda to get over to the Chairman for approval. Please let me know what items you want on the agenda. Here is what | have so far: Reimbursement Rules for when they attend meetings Recommendations from the last meeting Prior meeting minutes Round 4 (Butch, | will also be sure to attach the email you sent to me earlier this week.) Please email me any other topics to add to the agenda. Thanks! Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting June 8, 2010 — AEA Boardroom 1.) Call to Order 1:00 pm to 4:00pm Draft Minutes The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee convened at 1:06 p.m. Chairman Vince Beltrami presided over the meeting. 2.) Roll Call: Committee Members Chair Vince Beltrami Chris Rose Jim Posey Brad Reeve Jodi Mitchell Senator Lyman Hoffman Representative Bill Thomas (phone) Jodi Fondy, Denali Commission 3.) Public Comments There were no public comments. 4.) Agenda Comments AEA Staff Steve Haagenson Mike Harper Sara Fisher-Goad Peter Crimp Doug Ott Butch White Chris Rutz Bruce Tiedeman Emily Binnian Audrey Alstrom James Jensen Bethany McDiffett Shauna Howell May Clark Other Participants Senator Gene Therriault (phone) Pat Walker, Sen. Hoffman’s Ofc (phone) Kaci Hotch, Rep. Thomas’ Ofc (phone) Wyn Menafee, Dept. of Law Mike Nave, Dept. of Law Bob Pawlowski, Legislature Dennis Meiners, IES Ona Brause, IES Faon O’Connor, YRITWC Agenda Items 14 and 15 were removed from the agenda as being redundant. 5.) Approval of Meeting Minutes — January 13 & 14, 2010 Chair Beltrami thanked staff for timely distribution of the meeting minutes and attention to detail. MOTION: Mr. Posey moved to approve the meeting minutes from the January 13 & 14, 2010 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeve. 6.) Debrief of Legislative Session $B220, out of Energy Bill HB306, is moving forward; the emerging technology fund was established under AEA. $2 million was refunded to AEA from unexpended interest earned to manage the program, Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Page 1 of 4 June 8, 2010 fund staff evaluations and economic analyses of the REF. The fund was cut from $52.25 million to $25 million, and some projects were not funded. Senator Therriault was asked if he knew the justification as to why the governor did not follow the intent of the law and fund the $50 million in projects that were signed into law two years ago. He said the governor viewed the extra $25 million as money beyond the $150 million for the third year which meets the intent of the legislation. In our opinion, the LB&A and governor's office have sufficient information from us regarding allocations and the reason for the veto is unclear. The project regional spreading was not affected as a result of this cut. $10 million was put into the Power Project Fund and with the sale of the existing bonds to AIDEA means another $21 million into the fund. $9 million has already been approved by legislature for the Reynolds Creek Hydro project in SE Alaska. HB306 also states the PPF will be the primary funding source for renewable energy projects. The Alaska Energy Pathway document is out for public comment. With the Pathway, we will try to determine what the concept for loans and grants will be (similar to the virtual G&T concept, where everyone pays the same rate across the state, an equal energy footprint). The Pathway shows individual communities that they could step forward with alternative energy sources and not wait to be totally grant funded. 7.) & 8.) Round 0-2-3 Grant Updates Round 0 is included as they carried forward to Round 1. We have committed $79 of the $100 million as grants and have dispersed $26 million in project funds for Round 1. For Round 2, of $25 million, $10 million was awarded and $1 million dispersed. Due to the veto, we are looking at 22 projects across the state in Round 3 and should have the grant agreements out in early July. The Committee needs to determine which projects will not proceed and define when a project is stalled, what we can do about it, and whether the PPF could be utilized to get these projects moving, instead of cutting them off. In Rounds 1 and 2, both the South Fork Hydroelectric and Fishhook Hydroelectric construction projects are not moving forward. South Fork was given the grant for signature in January and one issue has been the maximum allowable cost of power in the PPA. Fishhook has permitting and finance issues. Regarding the Bethel Wind Power Project, we requested information from the City in January with no response. We need to write to the City and find out their status. Bethel Utilities is not interested in buying power from the City wind turbines as it will lower the rates. The Utilities may be up for sale, but are not interested in selling to the City. Perhaps a report on this matter would prompt the RCA and legislature to look at this situation. Senator Hoffman met with the City four months ago and if nothing can be worked out with the Utility, they are interested in seeking legislative direction. Legislative authorization is needed to move funds from one round to another, however, we need to keep regional balancing in check. 9.) Construction Project Schedule Review The timeline distributed at the meeting shows the best estimate as to when projects will complete construction, except for those seven that are already completed. By the end of 2010, 21 projects should be completed, with the remainder being completed by 2012. It was stated that having a completed project sheet is a good exhibit and is important that the project duration timeline shows that renewable energy projects take time and are not quick. The Nome Newton Peak Wind Farm Project grant is almost in place and was short-funded. We will proceed with the grant, final design and permitting and make a determination at that time. Anchorage landfill gas to electricity power project to serve the Railbelt has been approved by LB&A and the funds will not be used for compressed landfill gas and buss system. This project is moving forward though not yet in place. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting June 8, 2010 Page 2 of 4 ” Project mobilization, exploration and over cost estimates were discussed and need to be caught early during our review status. We will continue to revise the construction project review schedule. 10.) Draft Questionnaire Review — RFA Period We committed to ask the customers their thoughts about the REF process and two months ago had begun work on a questionnaire requesting input into managing our projects, however, we got bogged down very quickly, and we are now proposing an RFP to contract out this task within the next month. We expect survey results in two months. Due to summer activities, it was suggested that more time might be prudent for collection of information, perhaps later in the fall, as more people might participate. We are trying to get Round 4 Request for Applications out by July 28 so having the survey information in hand before then would be useful to tweak the next application process. September 8 is the due date for responses. It was suggested that we could utilize the survey information received up until then and keep the survey response date open longer. We want to collect as much data as possible. Various dates for the survey and the RFA application/review period were discussed. It was pointed out that we are now going into Round 4 and the proposers are more comfortable and informed with the process as we are. The RFA period will be July 21 —- September 15, 2010 and advertising will begin as soon as possible. We can start working on the Emerging Energy Technology fund regulations, but there’s a 90-day effective date from signature. 11.) Initial Reaction to Changes in Round 4 12.) Proposed Round 4 Schedule 13.) Performance Driven and/or Strategic Grant Making Each RFA has been improved from the prior one. Caps were in place, although they were done after the fact for Rounds 1 and 2 made it more difficult for us to get grants in place for Rd 3, people applied knowing what the caps were. For Round 4 we need to identify program changes and notify the applicants up front, i.e., what they are applying for and are eligible for. We need to decide if we are going to change the cap amount, limit Round 4 funding for projects that received prior round funding. We need to be specific in the RFA for construction application projects, specifically relating to permitting and being project ready. We could consider implementing deadlines that could be extended for a good reason, however, it was pointed out that hydro projects especially are time consuming. A discussion was held on how to attract the good projects, and getting local and regional planners involved. There are many good projects out there. It was pointed out that this is a grant recommendation program. Project list recommendations presented to legislature for funding are not adjusted. We will need to define “emerging technology” and “strategic grant making” industry standards. Planning and AEA technical assistance are important aspects, reiterating regional spreading and assisting smaller villages find good projects. Buying and building locally was discussed. The Pathway is a good first step. It puts together a plan for each community in Alaska — where community action is key. AEA should push wind diesel forward and make a plan now. The Committee proposed recommendations as follows: 1. INCORPORATE DEPLOYMENT TARGETS Establish renewable deployment targets to increase the application of renewables in Alaskan communities. Generic deployment strategies exist in Appendix 4 of the Alaska Energy Pathway. These targets could be used in the evaluation of REF projects and could advance integration of renewables through a competitive process. We should not limit equipment to specific vendors, but a range of equipment could be selected per community and all software should be non- proprietary. This concept should be incorporated in Round V and may require program changes. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting June 8, 2010 Page 3 of 4 2. DEFINE CRITERIA FOR WHEN A PROJECT IS “STALLED” The definition of a stalled project should incorporate the reasons for the stall, such as lack of: permits, financial plan, power sales agreements, project readiness (specific phases, i.e., feasibility, final design, construction). Do not allow “war chests” to be built. 3. HEAT RECOVERY Recognizing that thermal energy costs are the greatest burden to rural residents, staff will make recommendations on means to develop thermal projects, such as diesel heat recovery following the Pathway. 4. SUBMIT LETTER TO RCA REGARDING BETHEL ELECTRIC UTILITY AQUISITION Mr. Haagenson will first discuss with Chairman Pickett, the interconnection of renewable projects in Bethel and opportunities to lower costs through the utility structure and ownership. 5. ADVERTISE RFA ASAP The Round IV Request for Application period will be advertised as soon as possible. Chair Beltrami requested that the list of recommendations be distributed to the Committee as soon as possible. 16.) Next Meeting Date The next meeting date will be Friday, August 13, 2010 in Fairbanks, AK. 17.) Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:58 p.m. on June 8, 2010. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting June 8, 2010 Page 4 of 4 ‘ Tuesday, June 8, 2010 Be > in. AEA Boardroom Chris TR. 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm AGENDA mM. “y, call toOrder ‘OC @A Beltrami 22) Roll Call ae yy Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes) 4) Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions) @ S Co cord) &F Approval of Meeting Minutes — January 13 & 14, 2010 Ho%*7— Léy Debrief of Legislative Session Haagenson ¢7%) Round 0-2 Grant Status Discussion White <j Round 3 Grant Schedule White ay Construction Project Schedule Review ‘—— Crimp 0.) Draft Questionnaire Review Crimp 11.) Initial Reaction to'Changes in Round 4 — = Fisher-Goad 12.) Proposed Round 4.Schedule —\ Crimp Performance Dri and/or Strategic Grant Makin Rose : Update on Existing Projects SH Atmore, Arkundet -Fisher-Goad 15.) Recommendations , _—Fisher-Gead- 6: - eeting Date Beltrami 17.) Adjournment Beltrami wr C0. me : ; “en. _ Emily ; Aennes Meijer Sen Hfpra a Qe loy>~— Iie Gir Dn BAe. frose | "nC — pho Stave tt. ET. ci), | vl Pe foes tbh (Ce jp