HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting minutes 12-14-2009Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
December 14, 2009 — AEA Boardroom
10:00am to 12:00pm
1.) Call to Order
Minutes
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee convened at 10:08 a.m. Chairman Vince Beltrami
presided over the meeting.
2.) Roll Call:
Committee Members
Vince Beltrami, Chair
AEA Staff
Steve Haagenson
Other Participants
Brian Bjorkquist, Dept of Law
Jim Posey Mike Harper Kate Sangster, Chaninik Wind Group
Representative Bill Thomas (phone) Sara Fisher-Goad Clint White, STG, Inc.
Linda Hay — Senator Bert Stedman’s _— Peter Crimp
Office (Phone) Butch White
Sandy Burd — Senator Hoffman’s James Strandberg
Office (Phone) Chris Rutz
Devany Plentovich
James Jensen
Doug Ott
Rich Stromberg
May Clark
3.) Public Comments
Clint White of STG, Inc. provided an update on a Renewable Energy Fund 600 kW wind installation
project for the Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative (UVEC) (letter on file from Mr. James St. George,
President of STG). STG has installed approximately 85% of the utility wind projects currently operating in
the state. The project has been delivering wind generated electricity since November. In addition to the
wind farm’s primary benefit of reducing diesel fuel consumption and electricity costs for the community,
two other major benefits were noted: 1) State of Alaska’s financial commitment to the installation provided
leverage for UVEC to access supplemental project funding. UVEC received additional funding from area
entities to further expand the project with additional wind turbines; and 2) UVEC’s award and the resulting
project implementation efforts have further developed numerous Alaskan based firms’ understanding of
wind systems appropriate for the market. More than 50 Alaskan based firms, including STG, maintain
workforces composed primarily of Alaska residents.
Clint White further stated areas where improvements can be made to improve the efficiency of the REF
program to include: 1) Short funding will stall development, particularly for rural Alaska projects, due to
insufficient capital. Limit the number of projects recommended for funding but add assurances that viable
ones are actually implemented; and 2) the execution of grant agreements and disbursement of grant
funding needs to be managed more efficiently. It's unreasonable and in many cases impossible for small,
Page 1 of 7
rural utilities to implement projects on a reimbursement basis without the support of other partners willing
to offer bridge financing for project expenses; and 3) Legislative scrutiny of the REF program has resulted
in excess and inefficient oversight of REF project activities. Greater clarity needs to be established for
AEA’s role with the REF in order to reduce administrative inefficiencies associated with the program.
He commended AEA staff for their support in project activities, counsel, and reimbursement requests and
presented Mr. Haagenson with a framed photograph of the completed project. Mr. Haagenson thanked
Mr. White for the constructive criticism and advice.
[Chairman Beltrami noted Mr. Posey’s arrival at the meeting] [10:16 am]
Representative Thomas stated that we fought to get to where we are right now and wanted to thank
everybody in the room that had been working on the REF.
Introductions were made of the meeting attendees.
4.) Agenda Comments
There were no changes to the meeting agenda.
5.) Approval of Meeting Minutes — August 21, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Posey moved to approve the meeting minutes from the August 21, 2009 Renewable
Energy Fund Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Representative
Thomas. A voice vote was taken and the minutes were unanimously passed as
presented.
6.) Round | and II Update on Status
Mr. Butch White distributed a pie chart on “RE Fund Grant Status”
On Rounds | and II there are a total of 109 projects for $125 million. Seventy projects are currently under
agreement, have already been amended for various reasons, or the grant agreement has been mailed
out to the grantee. Another 24 (10 in draft — 14 draft internal) are being worked on and this past weekend
two large wind projects got done. The last 15 are still waiting for items from the grantees. Of the $125
million, $68 million is obligated, with grants that are in place, this includes $17 million actually dispersed.
The projects that have been capped and unable to move forward for various reasons will be discussed
later in the meeting. Some are tied up with lack of financing to complete their project.
Generally, they are rural projects that just do not have enough financing to move forward. For example,
Kotzebue Wind is requesting new funding to go forward up and above the cap of $4 million provided last
time. They haven't been able to come up with the balance, neither has Nome Joint Utility. Some of the
others have found funding, i.e., Nikiski Wind project, was capped but able to find additional financing.
Some projects funded in Round | are coming back to the RE Fund for additional funding. A couple of
applicants have come back and asked for Power Project Fund (PPF) loans. Even if they secure 80%
financing, this hurdle could still delay the project as planned. The 100% funded projects are moving right
along.
Over the cap funding is a major issue to be discussed at this meeting.
Page 2 of 7
/= ALASKA i= ENERGY AUTHORITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, December 14, 2009, AEA Boardroom
10:00 am to 12:00 pm
AGENDA
i /b: 650M WAY Callto Order Urnee.
im Roll Call
.) Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes)
) Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions)
2D oval of Meeting Minutes — August 21, 2009
-} Round | and Il Update on Status — wlike - Crimp
| 1 found Ill Update on Status Crimp
po ee Evaluation Issues Crimp
.) Preparation for Legislative Session Fisher-Goad
10.) Next Meeting Date ///73
11.) | Adjournment
Meee BiowegeiT B. an
ne R
Oh dberg
Der blenp—
TELECONFERENCE INSTRUCTIONS
Dial: 1-800-315-6338
Code: 3028#
Y
\o-\a __Reene
Clare aN Ace Bel bean
\-B00-3\5-~3238 Looe: 302g \ at
ROUNDS | & Il
State Description No. SHELL Grant Request Recorded on Navision 0
DRAFT Initial grant draft in process 10
DRAFT-EXT Waiting for information from grantee 15 DRAFT-INT Grant draft distributed for internal review 14
DRAFT-G Final grant draft in process 0 OPEN TOTAL OPEN and ACTIVE GRANTS 70
Total Grants fa A0o)
RE Fund Grant Status
SHELL Grant Request
Recorded on Navision, 0.
process, 10
DRAFT-G Final grant draft
in process, 0
Grant Funds:
Round | $ 100,000,000
Round Il $ 25,000,000
$ 125,000,000
Obligated Amount (Rounds | & I!) $ 68,286,169
Amount Disbursed $ 17,236,877
H:\all\EWhite\REFAC\RE Grant Management Report 1209-Jet.xls RE Grant Management Report 1209-Jet.xls
DRAFT Initial grant draft in
12/12/2009 11:50 AM
iF
' 7
December 14", 2009
State of Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee
Vince Beltrami, Chairman
3333 Denali Street, Suite 125
Anchorage, AK 99503
CC: Steve Haagenson, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority
Dear Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee:
On behalf of STG, I would like to commend your leadership and your service to this committee. The
Renewable Energy Fund (REF) represents a major commitment by our legislators to address what we
believe is one of the biggest threats facing our state, access to affordable and reliable energy. Over the
past year, STG has been leading efforts to implement one of the first awarded projects completed
through REF financial support. I have written to provide an update with this particular project, a wind
installation led by STG in Unalakleet, and to offer feedback regarding our experiences working with
the REF program.
To those of you who may be unfamiliar with our work, STG is a heavy industry contractor servicing
communities across rural Alaska. We are an Alaskan company, have been in operation since 1991,
and focus primarily on foundation and energy infrastructure construction. Among other
accomplishments, STG is also the leading constructor of utility scale wind farms in Alaska, having
installed approximately 85% of the utility wind projects currently operating in the state.
In Unalakleet, STG assumed project management and lead contractor responsibilities for the 600-
kilowatt wind installation. We also managed all communications with the Alaska Energy Authority
(AEA) throughout the implementation process and prepared the original grant application for our
client, Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative (UVEC). According to our notes, the completed project
was the first in the program to establish an executed grant agreement and now stands as one of the few
that has been taken from conception to completion through the REF program. The project has been
delivering wind generated electricity to Unalakleet since last month and continues to deliver fuel
savings to the community as we speak. We view the project as a success not just for Unalakleet, but
also for all of the companies, agencies, and individuals that have worked to support its
implementation. Based on the short operating history we have to review, it also appears that we are
11820 South Gambell Street » Anchorage, Alaska 99515 + Phone: (907) 644-4664 + Fax: (907) 644-4666
E-mail: info@stgincorporated.com + Website: www.stgincorporated.com
on target to deliver estimated fuel savings through the completed project, which would not have been
possible without the financial support of the REF and collaboration with AEA staff.
Both STG and AEA have learned a great deal together through our work to implement Unalakleet’s
new wind farm. In addition to the primary benefit of reducing diesel fuel consumption and electricity
costs for the community, there are two other major benefits that should be noted:
1. The State of Alaska’s financial commitment to this installation provided leverage for
UVEC to access supplemental project funding. In addition to UVEC’s $4 million grant
from the REF, the utility also received an additional $1.35 Million in grant funding from
Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC) and Unalakleet Native
Corporation to further expand the project with additional wind turbines. NSEDC, the CDQ
group for the Bering Strait Region, has also pledged to make an additional $14 million
available in grant funding to support community scale renewable energy projects in their other
villages. Unalakleet led the charge in getting this NSEDC program established and without
the base funding from the REF, it is possible that the NSEDC commitment might not have
materialized.
2. UVEC’s award, and the resulting project implementation efforts, have further developed
numerous Alaskan based firms’ understanding of wind systems appropriate for our
market. More than 50 unique Alaska-based contractors, engineering firms, suppliers, public
agencies, financiers, and logistics partners were involved in the execution of the Unalakleet
project. The experience gained through this project is further supporting the understanding of
relevant and successful wind energy systems for the Alaska market. These firms, including
STG, maintain workforces composed primarily of Alaska residents. The project in Unalakleet
put Alaskans to work (including local hires from the community), utilized Alaskan-owned
businesses, and further supported the State’s interests in developing local expertise. As a
result of our collective efforts, all project partners are better prepared to replicate similar
successes with future wind installations.
Our experiences have also led us to some conclusions about areas where improvements can be made to
improve the efficiency of the REF program. As one of the first projects to obtain an executed grant
agreement and receive any financial disbursements through the program, the Unalakleet installation
was subjected to a learning curve that all involved parties were forced to work through. We have
noticed improvements in the management of the REF over the past year, but there are areas we believe
should be addressed. These include:
1. Short funding will stall development, particularly for rural Alaska projects. We implore
the committee to make the tough decisions that may ultimately limit the number of projects
recommended for funding, but add assurances that viable ones, led by experienced teams
utilizing proven technology, are actually implemented. Currently, the majority of Round I
and II projects are stalled due to a variety of reasons. We believe that one of the primarily
causes for this delay is insufficient capital. While other public funding opportunities outside
of the REF do exist, it is unreasonable to assume that rural utilities will have access to debt
financing or other private means in the current credit market. The large number of projects
running through AEA project managers also presses their limitations of time and resources in
the midst of other responsibilities such as statewide energy plans, resource plans, and other
energy related studies.
11820 South Gambell Street « Anchorage, Alaska 99515 * Phone: (907) 644-4664 + Fax: (907) 644-4666
E-mail: info@stgincorporated.com + Website: www.stgincorporated.com
2. The execution of grant agreements and disbursement of grant funding need to be
managed more efficiently. It is unreasonable, and in many cases impossible, for small, rural
utilities to implement projects on a reimbursement basis without the support of other
committed partners willing to offer bridge financing for project expenses. Reimbursement
performance has improved significantly over the past few months, but for most of the project,
STG was forced into a role to provide project financing in order to meet timelines and
complete construction activities during the summer season. While financial support from
other partners helped ensure adequate project cash flows for the Unalakleet project, we believe
that our business was inappropriately stressed due to delayed REF reimbursements and denied
advanced disbursements to cover key project supplies, freight costs, and payroll
responsibilities. We understand the importance of distributing public funds in a transparent
and equitable manner, but greater consideration needs to be given to rural Alaskan projects
and the teams that have demonstrated high levels of performance in delivering successful
projects.
3. Legislative scrutiny of the REF program has resulted in excess and inefficient oversight
of REF project activities. While this committee has made determinations on projects suitable
for funding (which have also been subsequently approved by Alaska’s legislators), there have
been occasions when AEA has overstepped their bounds as grant administrators while
attempting to take on project management responsibilities during the course of our work in
Unalakleet. Greater clarity needs to be established for AEA’s role with the REF in order to
reduce administrative inefficiencies associated with the program. If additional research or
study is needed prior to the execution of any renewable energy project proposed through this
program, it should be completed prior to the issuance of an award. If projects are deemed
ready for implementation and construction by this committee, AEA needs to be given better
support and direction to allow awarded projects to be implemented as proposed without
requirements of additional studies, unnecessary reporting, and bureaucratic hurdles. AEA
seems to be caught in a ‘Catch-22’, at times being pressed by the legislature on one hand to
rapidly implement awarded projects in the midst of so many other responsibilities, while
simultaneously being scrutinized for their actions on the other. Ultimately, it is Alaska’s rural
communities and residents that suffer through the inefficiencies created through this situation.
I ask that this committee continue to voice support of this program and AEA to our legislators
so that we can more efficiently execute projects, not studies, that reduce the cost of energy for
Alaskans.
The implementation of the Unalakleet project has truly been a learning process and while we see areas
in need of further refinement, we have also received very positive support from public officials at AEA
during our experience working with the REF program. To give you an example of this, we have
repeatedly connected with AEA’s Wind Project Manager James Jenson and individuals in AEA’s
finance department such as Amy McCollum working late into the evening and over weekends to
support project activities and reimbursement requests. We have also received repeated council from
Director Haagenson who, despite a busy schedule and diverse responsibilities across AEA, has never
failed to make himself available to our team or take the initiative to address any project related road
block that has been brought to his attention. It is our impression through our experience working with
AEA over the past two decades and particularly working through the REF program, that overall, AEA
is in very capable hands under Director Haagenson’s leadership. At STG, we have also learned
through our work in Unalakleet and certainly realize that our operations are not perfect either.
Certainly, there is always room for improvement.
11820 South Gambell Street » Anchorage, Alaska 99515 * Phone: (907) 644-4664 + Fax: (907) 644-4666
E-mail: info@stgincorporated.com + Website: www.stgincorporated.com
On numerous occasions, we have heard Director Haagenson’s call for passionate individuals to step up
and be a part of the solutions that address the State’s energy challenges head on. With all confidence, I
can tell you that we are among this group. As a company, STG takes great pride in our abilities to
consistently deliver in environmentally harsh and logistically complex rural Alaskan communities.
Over time, we have also seen many struggle to effectively implement even the most well thought out
plans in bush Alaska. Executing heavy construction in these locales, indeed any type of construction
in the bush, is no straightforward task. Thus, as a company we frequently wear our passion for the
work that we do on our sleeves, view our clients as partners, and treat the community members where
we operate as neighbors. These realities result in rather blunt communications at times and I hope my
message to you today is received as constructive feedback and also relays our support for your work
with Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund.
We share a common goal in that we all want to see successful and sustainable projects implemented
through the program that effectively reduce the cost of energy for Alaskans. In working towards this
goal, we also feel that it is important to share our experiences of how the decisions, policies, and
procedures determined by this committee impact the men and women with ‘boots on the ground’ who
are working to construct, integrate, and manage these new systems across Alaska.
Again, thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to share our thoughts regarding our work
with the REF. We look forward to keeping an open dialog with this group and to celebrating
additional collective successes with well-implemented projects in the future. In Unalakleet, we believe
that we have delivered an early accomplishment for the REF program that will substantially reduce the
cost of energy for the community over the long term. Moreover, we believe that the completed project
is a success that we share with your committee and the Alaska Energy Authority.
Respectfully yours, KK.Ff
James St. George
President
11820 South Gambell Street » Anchorage, Alaska 99515 * Phone: (907) 644-4664 + Fax: (907) 644-4666
E-mail: info@stgincorporated.com + Website: www.stgincorporated.com
* ok x Ke “IDEN. = ALASKA
4 + Alaska Industrial Development @@ie) ENERGY AUTHORITY
and Export Authority
MEMORANDUM
TO: Evaluation Team Members
FROM: Peter Crimp
Program Manager RE-Fund Project
DATE: 12/9/09
SUBJECT: Guidelines for RE-Fund Application Evaluations
Here are the Guidelines for the RE-Fund Round three evaluation process. Note especially the
public benefit scoring process, the financing plan, and the project readiness criteria. If you
have any questions about this process or what your role may be please contact Chris Rutz or
me by e-mail.
Table of Contents
Stage 1 Review Process: .
Reviewers ...
Criteria.
Process. ....
Stage 2 Review Process: .
Reviewers ...
Criteria...
Process ....
Stage 3 Review Process: .
ReVIEWETS ........ sees
Criteria...
Process .
$$ Limitations on Recommendations Sec 1.14 .
Recommendation Guidelines
Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations..
Reviewers ...
Process ........
Appendix Au...
General Scoring Criteria oo
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Benefit-Cost Ratio
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan.............ccssesceeeee
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines.
Stage 3 Criteria — Match ............
Stage 3 Criteria Local Support...
Stage 3 Criteria Project Readiness...
Stage 3 Criteria Public Benefit...
Stage 3 Criteria Statewide Regional Balance.
Stage 3 Criteria Compliance with Other Awards...
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard e Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2495
www.aidea.org e 907/771-3000 ¢ FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888/300-8534 e www.akenergyauthority.org
Stage 3 Criteria Cost Of Emery ...cceseroccvvrcscersesrsessesoronsnsnssssnononnensevaeseseersnsesnesrsnseversorsenssssasvensensnesussssiess 14
These are the Evaluation Guidelines and instructions for Evaluation of The Round 3 RFA for
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Projects
Applications that do not comply with AS 42.45.45 and all of the material and
substantial terms, conditions, and requirements of the RFA may be rejected.
If an application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its application
has been rejected and the basis for rejection.
The Authority may waive minor requirements of the RFA that do not result in a
material change in the requirements of the RFA and do not give an applicant an
unfair advantage in the review process.
Upon submission of the final recommendations to the Legislature the Authority will
make all applications available for review on the Authority’s web site.
General:
e All communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through the
Grant Administrator.
The Executive Director is the Executive Director of AEA, Program Managers are those
Management Personal in AEA who have program oversight for AEA programs, Project
Managers are the subject matter technical experts, and the Grant Manager is the person
responsible for overseeing the grant process for the Authority.
All applications will be reviewed using the same process and criteria established in the
RFA.
Decisions made in each stage of the review process will be documented in writing and
made a part of the grant file.
If reviewers think they may have a potential conflict of interest, (Financial or personal
Interest, such as friend or family members) they should inform their supervisor
immediately of the potential nature of the conflict.
Reviewers should make notes of any questions they may have about an application.
Reviewers should not contact applicants directly.
If reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should contact
the Grant Administrator. If reviewers have technical questions they should contact the
Program Managers.
If an application is rejected or not recommended the applicants will be sent a letter from
the Grant Administrator explaining why their application has been rejected or not
recommended. Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Administrator the
reasons for why the application is being rejected
Notes should be made directly into the database on line. All written notes should be
kept with the application file.
All notes are considered public records and subject to Alaska public records act
disclosure requirements.
Any appeals from rejected applicants in Stage 1 or Stage 2 reviews will be directed to
the Grant Administrator. The Grant Administrator will review the appeal with the
Executive Director, Program Manager, and Legal staff as required to determine an
appropriate course of action.
Stage 1 Review Process:
All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by the Authority staff to assess
if the application is complete, meets the minimum submission requirements, and has adequate
information to proceed to Stage 2 — Technical Evaluation.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 2 of 14 12/9/0
Reviewers —
Grant Administrator and at least one Program Manager
Criteria
All criteria are scored pass/fail. Failure to meet any of these criteria results in rejection
of the Application.
1. The application is submitted by an Eligible Applicant (sec 1.2).
2. The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.3).
3. Aresolution or other formal authorization of the Applicant’s governing
body is included with the application to demonstrate the Applicant's
commitment to the project and any proposed use of matching resources
(sec 1.2).
4. The application provides a detailed description of the phase(s) of project
proposed, i.e. reconnaissance study, conceptual design/feasibility
study, final design/permitting, and/or construction (sec 2.1).
5. The application is complete in that the information provided is
sufficiently responsive to the RFA to allow AEA to consider the
application in the next stage of evaluation.
6. The Applicant demonstrates that they will take ownership of the project;
own, lease, or otherwise control the site upon which the project is
located; and upon completion of the project operate and maintain it for
its economic life for the benefit of the public. (sec 1.2)
Process
The Grant Administrator will evaluate criteria 1-3 & 6 above.
The Program Managers will evaluate criteria 4-5 above.
If it appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional
data the Program Managers (PM) may make a recommendation to the Grant Manager
for additional information. The Grant Administrator will request clarifying information
from the applicant. The applicant will have a specified amount of time to provide the
requested information. Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide information
that completes their application will result in the application being rejected.
Applications that are determined by the Grant Administrator and Program Managers and
determined to be incomplete or fail to meet the minimum requirements will be reviewed
by the Executive Director with the assistance of Legal or procurement staff prior to being
rejected at Stage 1.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application
failed stage 1.
Any requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants in Stage 1 will be directed to
the Grant Administrator. The Grant Administrator will review the request with the
Executive Director, Program Manager, and Legal staff as required to determine an
appropriate course of action.
Stage 2 Review Process:
All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for feasibility in accordance with the criteria
below.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 3 of 14 12/9/0
Reviewers —
e Project Managers — the AEA technical subject matter experts.
e Staff from Department of Natural Resources — technical experts providing specific review
and comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and natural
resource development.
e Economists - Contracted economist who will review cost benefit and other cost and
pricing information provided for each application submitted for the purpose of providing
the authority and independent assessment of the economics of the proposed project.
e ISER — University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research — is providing
coordination and Quality Assurance review of Economic Analysis work for selected
projects.
e Program Managers — Overseers of the work of the Project Managers
Criteria
e Each of the numbered criteria below will be scored with a numerical score 1-10 and
weighted per the percentages below.
Criteria Weight
: ; 20% 1. Project Management, Development, and Operation
a. The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in
adequate detail.
b. The cost savings estimates for project development,
operation, maintenance, fuel, and other project items are
realistic,
c. The project team’s method of communicating, monitoring, and
reporting development progress is described in adequate
detail.
d. Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating
and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable
and described in adequate detail.
2. Qualifications and Experience 20%
a. The Applicant, partners, and contractors have sufficient
knowledge and experience to successfully complete and
operate the project.
b. The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to
successfully complete and operate the project.
c. The project team is able to understand and address technical,
economic, and environmental barriers to successful project
completion and operation.
d. The project uses local labor and trains a local labor
workforce.
3. Technical Feasibility 20%
a. The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable
basis, and project permits and other authorizations can
reasonably be obtained.
b. Asite is available and suitable for the proposed energy
system.
Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable.
The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver
energy as planned. ao
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 4 of 14 12/9/0
e. If ademonstration project is being proposed:
e Application in other areas of the state, or another specific
benefit of the proposed project, is likely:
e need for this project is shown (vs. the ability to use
existing technology); and
e the risks of the proposed system are reasonable and
warrant demonstration.
4. Economic Feasibility 25%
a. The project is shown to be economically feasible (net savings
in fuel, operation and maintenance, and capital costs over the
life of the proposed project). In determining economic
feasibility and benefits applications a will be evaluated
anticipating the grantee will use cost-based rates.
b. The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of | 5%
the grant-funded phase and has considered options for
financing subsequent phases of the project.
c. Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated Avoided | 10%
cost rates alone will not be presumed to be in the best
interest of the public.
Process
Project Managers will carefully review the proposals for their assigned technology group
and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria and a funding recommendation.
An economist hired by AEA will review the cost benefit information and provide an
independent analysis of cost and benefits of each project. The reviewers will consider
the independent analysis when scoring the economic feasibility and benefits criteria.
Reviewers will use the formula and criteria in the attached Appendix A Scoring Matrix
Guide - for designated criteria in Stage 2.
If the Project Manager believes they need additional information they will coordinate their
request for follow-up information with the Grant Administrator. The purpose of follow-up
is for clarification and to help the Project Manager gain a sufficient understanding of the
project proposed.
Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Administrator to the
applicant by e-mail, Bcc to project manager, with a response time of 7 days or less.
Applicants that fail to respond to requests for information or to adequately address the
criteria in the technical review will be rejected in Stage 2.
The Program Managers will meet with the project managers to review the applications
and discuss final Stage 2 scoring. Scoring per the stage 2 criteria may be adjusted
based on final discussions between the Project Manager, Program Managers,
Economists, and Executive Director.
A final weighted “feasibility” score will be given for each application reviewed and will be
used to calculate the Phase 3 feasibility score.
Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may not
be recommended for funding or further review.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application
failed Stage 2.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 5 of 14 12/9/0
e The Authority will develop a preliminary list of feasible applications based on the Stage 2
review with AEA recommendations on technical and economic feasibility and a
recommended funding level to be considered in the Stage 3 review.
Stage 3 Review Process:
All applications that pass the technical review will be evaluated for the purpose of ranking
applications and making recommendations to the Legislature based on the following criteria
which include criteria required by 3 AAC 107.655 and AS 42.45.045.
The Feasibility score from Stage 2 will be automatically weighted and scored in Stage three.
The average of the Economic and Public Benefit score of stage 2 will be used for initial scoring
of Economic and Other Public Benefit Score. This score will be reviewed by the Program
Managers .
The Grant Administrator, with staff assistance, will score the cost of energy, type and amount of
matching funds, and local support, using the formulas and methods outlined in Appendix A.
Two Program Managers will review the scoring of the Project Managers and Grant Manager and
provide a score for readiness and previous success, and sustainability.
AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for the
Advisory committee to review.
The Advisory Committee will review the final Stage 3 scores regional ranking recommendations
of the Authority. The Committee may make recommendations to assist in achieving a
statewide balance but will not be rescoring based on the criteria.
Reviewers —
e Grant Administrator (Local Support and Match Criteria)
e¢ Two Program Managers
e Executive Director of AEA.
e Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations)
Criteria
e Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted.
Criteria Round 3
Weight
Cost of energy per resident in the affected project 25)
area relative to other areas (From Worksheet)
The type and amount of matching funds and other 20
resources an applicant will commit to the project. (See
formula)
Project feasibility (Score from Stage 2 weighted) 20
Project readiness. How quickly the proposed work 10
can begin and be accomplished and/or success in
previous phases of project development.
Public benefits including economic benefit to the 15
Alaska Public.
Sustainability — the ability of the application to finance, | 5
operate and maintain the project for the life of the
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 6 of 14 12/9/0
project
Local Support (See formula) 5
Statewide Balance of Funds (Evaluated as a pass fail
if there are similar projects in the same community.
Statewide Balance is done in Stage 4.)
Compliance with Previous Grant Awards and
progress in previous phases of project development.
(Evaluated as a pass fail)
Process
e Reviewers will use the Scoring Matrix Guides in the appendix for designated criteria in
Stage 2.
e Each application will be given a single weighted score.
e Where more than one evaluator is scoring a given criteria the scores of all evaluators for
that criteria will be averaged.
e Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Administrator by e-
mail, Bcc to project manager, with a response time of 7 days or less.
e The evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to determine a more complete
understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their application.
$$ Limitations on Recommendations Sec 1.14
Evaluators should take these limits into account when making recommendations as the
applicants were instructed that they would be responsible for any project costs beyond the grant
funds available to complete the project.
Project Type/Phase Grant Limits
Construction projects on the Railbelt $2. Million per project
and SE Alaskan communities that have
installed hydro power.
Construction in all other areas of the $4. Million per project
State not mentioned above.
Recommendation Guidelines
e The final recommendations will be one of the following:
o Recommend - Full funding per application
o Recommend - Partial funding with a recommended funding amount
o Donot recommend for grant funding — (basis for not recommending to be
explained)
e Final AEA recommendations may also suggest specific terms or conditions be imposed
on the grantee to assure the project is successful and the public receives value for the
funds to be expended
e Multi-phase funding guidelines
o Fund multiple phases: Multiple phases can be completed in 2010/11, and project
is well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk.
o Fund limited phases: Project construction would be 2011+, not well-defined,
expensive, higher risk, or there are competing projects for which planning is
desirable.
¢ Competing or interactive projects guidelines
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 7 of 14 12/9/0
o If AEA is aware of the potential for substantial interaction among proposed and/or
other known projects, then recommend planning with appropriate level of
analysis and public input before committing substantial funding to one or more
alternatives.
o Railbelt: If installed capacity > 10 MW or system transmission constraints are
likely, then construction funding not recommended until after Railbelt IRP Plan
consideration.
e Partial Funding Guidelines
o Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are
recommended.
o Exception 1: If proposal asks AEA to manage the project, and AEA thinks project
can be built for less, then lower figure can be recommended.
o Exception 2: Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor, fuel) not
recommended for funding.
o Exception 3 — If limiting funding to a maximum dollar limit for specific areas
groups, or types of projects would provided the best statewide balance of funds
AEA may do that.
¢ Guidelines for recommendations for bio-fuels Projects (RFA 1.14)
o Bio-fuel projects where the Applicant does not intend to generate electricity or
heat for sale to the public will be limited to reconnaissance and feasibility phases
only
e Consideration of Resources Assessment Projects
o Resource assessment associated with one or more site-specific projects is
eligible for phase 2 funding. General regional or statewide assessment, not tied
to particular proposed projects, is not eligible, and more appropriately done
through the DNR/AEA Alaska Energy Inventory Data project.
e¢ Recommendation Guidelines will be documented and a part of the grant file.
Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations
All applications recommended for grants as a result the Stage 3 evaluation will be ranked in
accordance with 3 AAC 107.660.
To establish a statewide balance of recommended projects, the Authority will provide to the
advisory committee a statewide and regional ranking of all applications recommended for grants
in Stage 3.
In consultation with the advisory committee the Authority will make a final prioritized list of all
recommended projects giving significant weight to providing a statewide balance for grant
money, and taking into consideration the amount of money that may be available, the number
and types of project within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank of each application.
In its final decision on an application the Authority may recommend a grant in an amount for the
project phases different from what the Applicant requested. In recommending a grant for
phases different from what the Applicant requested, the authority may limit its recommendation
to a grant for one or more preliminary project phases before recommending a grant for project
construction.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 8 of 14 12/9/0
Reviewers —
e Grant Administrator
e Program Manager
e Executive Director of AEA.
e Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations)
Process
e Upon completion of scoring and specific project recommendations by AEA all
applications will be grouped within geographical regions,
e Each group of applications will be ranked within their geographical region based on the
final stage three score.
e Each application will have stage three score and regional rank.
e A draft recommendation of projects for funding, (based on available funds) will be
presented to the Advisory Committee for Review along with the complete list of all
projects.
e The Advisory committee may provide additional recommendations as to the funding level
of individual projects, the final ranking of projects, and the total amount of funding and
number of project AEA forward to the legislature.
e The final list of recommended projects for funding will provide a reasonable statewide
balance of funds taking into consideration the overall score, the cost of energy, the rank
of projects within a region. '
Recommendations to the Legislature
The final recommendation to the legislature will include:
e A\list of recommended Applications based on 2009 funding
e A list of recommended Applications for 2010 funding.
¢ A list of applications recommended if additional funds may be available.
¢ A list of applications not recommended for funding.
e Alist of applications rejected as ineligible.
The Final recommendation to the legislature will also contain specific information for
each project as requested by the legislature and a summary of each project.
Applicants may be required to provide additional information to the Legislature upon
request.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 9 of 14 12/9/0
Appendix A
General Scoring Criteria
¢ Pass/Fail scoring means either the criteria are met or they are not.
e Aweighted score for each of the criteria will calculated and each complete application
will be given a total score at the end of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 review process unless
the application is determined not to meet the requirements of the RFA.
e Reviewers should use the following weighted scoring of criteria as a guide in addition to
the specific formula scoring matrices for some criteria defined in Appendix A of these
procedures.
Score | Guidelines (Intent to provide a range
10 A+ | The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the criteria
requirements and completely addresses them thoughtful manner.
The application addresses the criteria in a manner clearly superior to
other applications received. There is no need for additional follow-up
with the applicant to understand how they meet the requirements of
the criteria
7 B The application provides information that is generally complete and
well-supported. Evaluators may still have a few questions regarding
how the applicant meets the criteria but it is clear the applicant
understands what is required.
5 Cc The application addresses the criteria in an adequate way. Meets
minimum requirements under each of the criteria. Some issues may
still need to be clarified prior to awarding a grant.
3 D The application information is incomplete or fails to fully address what
is needed for the project or information has errors. The Authority may
need more info to be able to complete the evaluation or need to
resolve issues before recommending or awarding a grant.
0 FE The application fails to demonstrate understanding of the criteria
requirements or project proposed. Required information is poor or
absent in the proposal.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 10 of 14 12/9/0
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Benefit Ratio
(Maximum Stage Two points 25)
AEA staff will consider the economist evaluation when scoring this criterion. They will compare
the economists and any Applicant proposed B/C and determine which of the B/C ranges may be
most appropriate. If there is wide discrepancy between the two B/C ratios they will use their
best judgment based on their understanding of the technical aspects of the proposal to assign a score.
A project will be scored at 0 if the Cost Benefit ratio value is < .90 or if no or insufficient
information is provided by the applicant to do an economic analysis.
Benefit / Cost (B/C) Score Wf uk”
Ratio Value 0
Less than 0.90 0 4 ie \ a? (This indicates that gh 6 rue JP
there is no economic
benefit 7 a fe’
>0.90 —- =<1.00 1 sf
>1.00 - =<1.10 3
>1.10 - =<1.20 4
>1.20 - =<1.30 5
>1.30 - =<1.40 6
>1.40 - < 1.50 7
>1.50 - < 1.60 8
>1.60- < 1.70 9
=>1.7 10
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan
(Maximum Stage Two points 5)
The Financing plan score will be subjectively scored based on the applicant’s intent and level of
detail described in the application on how the applicant proposes to fund the project.
Questions to be considered under this criteria would be:
e If recommended, are funds needed to complete the work identified in the application
available and adequate to complete all the work in the Grant?
e If additional funds are needed does the applicant specifically identified where they will
come from?
e Are these additional funds secured, or are they pending future approvals?
e ls there a reasonable plan for covering potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding?
e What impact, if any, would the timing of availability of additional funds have on the ability
to proceed with the grant?
If the above questions are addressed in the application and there is an adequate plan this will
be given a point score of 5. If the plan is not adequate it will be scored lower based on the
likelihood of funding being available to complete the project or additional commitments that may
need to be made by the applicant prior to award of a grant.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 11 of 14 12/9/0
For example, an applicant may request construction funding above the RFA cap but does not
indicate how the additional funding will be obtained. They may receive a lower score than
someone who can demonstrate they have all the financial resources in place to complete the
grant work proposed in the application.
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines
(Maximum Stage two points 10) ————
The score for this criteria will be provided by AEA reviewers during the Stage two evaluation.
For the purpose of evaluating this criteria public benefits are those benefits that would be
considered unique to a given project and not generic to renewable resources. IE Clean air,
stable pricing of fuel source, won't be considered under this category.
Project review economists will provide a qualitative assessment of potential public benefits in
their project review summary for each project they review. Economists will not provide scores
for the criteria.
Each category may be scored 0-3 with the maximum total public benefit weight being no more
than 10 points.
0. no documented benefit
1 some benefit / not well documented
2 good benefit / well documented
Score a
Will the project result in developing infrastructure such as 0-2
roads that can be used for other purposes?
Will the project result in a direct long-term increase in jobs 0-2
such as for operating or supplying fuel to the facility?
Will the project solve other problems for the community, 0-2
such as waste disposal?
Will the project generate useful information that could be 0-2
used by the public in other parts of the State?
Will this project either promote or sustain long-term 0-2
commercial economic development for the community?
Are there other public benefits identified by the applicant? Q-2
Stage 3 Criteria — Match
Total of 20 points will be calculated as follows . The scoring matrix for the total amount of
match may be adjusted by the Grant Administrator after the initial review of applications based
on a reasonable threshold for each level based on the applicants match in all applications.
Type of Match 5 +/ Percentage of | 10 +| Total Amount | 5
Pts Match to total | Pts of Match (1) Pts
Grant
Request
Support of any kind referenced | 1 .01% - <5% of |1 >$1-<$15K |1
but not given a specific value IE Grant =
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 12 of 14 12/9/0
housing offered to outside
workers, administration of
project without compensation
> 49% of Grant | 10
Previous investment towards 2 =>5% - =<10% | 2 $15K - <$100K
project completion of Grant =
Another grant [State] as Match 3 >10% - =<15% | 4 $100K <$1 mil
of Grant =
Other (Grant Fed) Or private 4 >15% - =<30% | 6 $1 mil - <$6
of Grant mil
Loan or Local Cash or any 5 >30% - =<49% | 8 > $6 mil
documented In-kind Match of Grant =
(1) If there are multiple types of Match that with highest value is scored.
Stage 3 Criteria Local Support
Total of 5 Points Available
Documented unresolved issues concerning the application no points 0 points
will be given if these exist regardless of demonstrated support
Resolution from city or village council 2 points
Support demonstrated by local entity other than applicant 3 points
Support demonstrated by two local entities other than the applicant 4 points
Support demonstrated by three or more local entities other than the 5 points
applicant
Seder Stages Criteria Project Readines.
p to ten points are available and may be assigned as follows. If evaluators believe there are
other readiness criteria that should be considered they may adjust the score that when awarding
points for this criteria
Stage 3- 6 veal
Criteria Up to 10
L=— points
available
Project is currently underway with feasibility or reconnaissance work, 4 points
design work related to the project, or actual construction of the project and
the applicant is using their own funds or funds from another eligible source
to finance the activity. § ——__
Applicant has completed previous phase(s) of proposed project and desires | 2 points
additional funding to complete the next phase of project.
Applicant has completed required feasibility and/or design work for project | 2 points
and is prepared to place an order for necessary equipment for the project;
such as an item with a ‘long lead time’ to procure.
Applicant has obtained all necessary permits, met all permit requirements, | 2 points
and addressed all regulatory agency stipulations.
RE-Fund Round-3 12/9/0 Evaluation Guidelines Page 13 of 14
ronkiny
Stage 3 Criteria Public Benefit
This criteria will be scored using a weighted calculation from the Phase 2 Economic (4.a) and
Public Benefit score (4.b).
4 Ly. Stage 3 Criteria Statewide Regional Balance dlo
Rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable (NA)
Criteria | lo! ie
If there is more than one project from the same
community or area, which project has received an overall
higher score during the review and/or has demonstrated
that local residents are in favor of the project.
Project funding will provide balance to the number and/or
amount to a specific area of the State.
Stage 3 Criteria Compliance with Other Awards
Rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable (NA
Criteria Legislative | Alternative Energy Round | or
Grant Solicitation (Round | Round Il
0)
Has grantee provided all necessary
information for grant preparation for
grants awarded from previous
solicitations?
Is grantee making verifiable and
adequate progress using previous grant
funds; for this or another project?
Has grantee provided all required
financial and progress reports, per the
terms of any previous grants?
Stage 3 Criteria Cost of Energy
Based on Cost of Power by Community Location. This table will be developed by AEA with the
highest cost of electrical energy getting the most points for this criteria. All other applications
will be scored as a percentage of the highest costs against an established matrix,.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 14 of 14 12/9/0
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
August 21, 2009, AEA Board Room
9:00am to 12:00pm
Draft Minutes
1.) Call to Order
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee convened at 9:00 a.m. Chris Rose, Vice Chair
presided over the meeting in the absence of Chairman Vince Beltrami.
2.) Roll Call:
Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants
Chris Rose, Acting Chair Steve Haagenson Wynn Menefee, DNR
Brad Reeve Mike Harper Bob Swenson, DNR
Jim Posey Sara Fisher-Goad Mike Mitchell, Dept. of Law
Sen. Lyman Hoffman (phone) Butch White
James Strandberg
David Lockard
Shauna Howell
3.) Public Comments
There were no public comments.
4.) Agenda Comments
There were no changes to the meeting agenda.
5.) Approval of Meeting Minutes — May 15, 2009
MOTION: Senator Lyman Hoffman moved to approve the meeting minutes from the May 15, 2009
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Jim
Posey. The minutes were unanimously passed as presented.
6.) Renewable Energy Fund Regulations
Mr. White stated that since the last meeting a public hearing was held with no public comment received;
however, individual comments were received. A definition of “economic benefits and public benefits” was
requested. Mr. Mitchell advised that those were such broad terms that they could really not be defined in
the regulations. A definition of “biomass projects,” was requested, our standard answer is that it would
depend on the project.
Another individual requested that we follow the federal definition of an IPP. Staff determined the
definition would stand on the definition in our regulations. Mr. Mitchell clarified the difference between the
federal regulations and ours that the state definition defines the public basically within the definition by
saying it's entirely for use by the residents of one or more municipalities or unincorporated communities
recognized by DCCED. The purpose was to have a threshold of public use such as it would have to at
least be a community recognized by DCCED, rather than “2 or 4 cabins in the woods” for example. Ms.
Fisher-Goad pointed out that the feds definition states “to be used primarily by the public” and our
definition states “entirely by the residents.” She stated it's a new program amending the power project
fund definition to include IPP and the new program renewable energy fund. Mr. Haagenson stated it was
one definition being used for two different programs.
Mr. White said another comment came from the Legislative Affairs Agency attorneys and the Department
of Law regulations review section that have been assisting to develop the regulations. It clarified AEA’s
role in making recommendations to the Legislature that we are not a grant program, but it’s the
Legislature that actually approves the grants, in summary, clarifying our statutorily required scoring in the
evaluation criteria and in changing the evaluation criteria to “will consider” from “may consider.”
Mr. Mitchell said those are viewed as technical comments to conform to the statute and in the case of the
recommendations aspect to clarify that this is in the first instance recommendations to the Legislature and
then only once they approve the grants is it a grant program.
Mr. White summarized the approval process: the entire package is sent to the Dept. of Law regulations
section, they review it one last time, as does Mr. Mitchell, if approved, it’s forwarded to the Lieutenant.
Governor's office for filing and 30 days after it’s filed, we will have effective regulations with one last step
to post online a summary of what the regulations are then we truly have regulations. The public comment
period is completely closed.
Mr. Mitchell did not anticipate further changes.
A Clarification was requested on the definition of “energy,” i.e., under section 107.615 does the definition
under eligible projects include a waste heat recovery plant. Mr. Mitchell stated the Legislature specified
by statute waste heat recovery was included within the program, and, by definition, waste heat is energy
within the program.
Mr. Rose asked about the timeline and how long would it take the Lieutenant Governor's office to sign off
on the regulations. Mr. White said it would be about 30 days. Mr. Mitchell said it would depend on how
long it remained under review with the Dept. of Law. It then goes to the Lieutenant Governor's office and
when he files it, the regulations will become effective 30 days later.
Mr. Rose stated he asked about the timeline as how it would fit into the Round 3 timeline and whether or
not we wait till the regulations are effective before issuance of Round 3 RFP. Mr. Haagenson stated
September 1 is the target date to issue Round 3.
Mr. White said he felt the application period would close after the effective date of the regulations and that
the draft regulations would be placed on the website.
Mr. Reeve said he was contacted by the RCA as they are trying to understand the technical benefits of
the project as opposed to what the financial benefit to the state or the consumer should be. This would
be discussed under agenda Item 9. Mr. Rose spoke to Bob Pickett and understands the conversations
between AEA and RCA are still ongoing.
7.) Round 1 Status — PowerPoint Presentation — Peter Crimp
Round 1 status was presented by Mr. Haagenson. Peter Crimp presented the report to the LB&A
Committee on August 14. Many have submitted initial grant drafts awaiting grantee action. Three grants
out of 78 projects are awaiting AEA action. Twenty-two are waiting for final signature of the grantee.
Twenty-four are active amended. He is hopeful the six capped projects will be resolved in Round 3. Mr.
Rose asked what kinds of issues are requiring AEA action. Mr. Haagenson stated it is nailing down
milestones to create a complete package before they are signed. Those awaiting grantee action are the
grants that have been put together in a form we like and we are working with them and waiting for them to
actually develop their milestones and update any cost estimates, etc.
Mr. Rose stated that some grantees were confused regarding the process of milestones and getting
reimbursed by AEA and hoped that in Round 3 the process would be more clearly defined. A discussion
regarding the reimbursement process ensued, including monetary advances, proper use of funding by the
grantees, rules, milestones, providing important advanced information to the applicants, AEA’s ability to
manage projects and the emphasis to the grantees that this is a cost reimbursable grant process. About
2/3 of the grant applications are in place.
8.) Round 2 Status - Butch White
The Round 2 status report was given by Mr. White: Have not put any grants out, they are all drafted and
on the system, however, the focus has been on the Round 1 grants. Out of 30 projects, worth about $25
million, about one third of the grantees have provided the information needed. Ms. Goad stated that $9.6
million for 14 projects in Round 1 have been expended to date.
9.) Round 3 Request for Applications — Discussion of Issues — Steve Haagenson
Round 3 status report was given by Mr. Haagenson: Benchmark/ payments was discussed as to the
relationship between accounting and project engineering and ways to simplify the accounting certification
process and to define benchmarks, i.e., design, permitting, construction, ordering materials, and closeout;
as milestones are reached a fixed percentage of the payment will be made. The suggestion of using
contractors to help do some oversight might be of value. Audit procedural concerns were also discussed.
Mr. White stated an audit can be called up to $500,000 received in a single year. There's a federal and a
state single audit requirement pretty much along the same thresholds. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that in all
of our grant agreements there are standard provisions that require documentation and record keeping.
It was suggested that a good way to tell if the books were in order was to perhaps perform a preliminary
audit when the first milestone is reached or perhaps hiring another accountant in-house or contracted out
may be considered. AEA receives no funds to administer the grants; a discussion ensued as to how
much funding to administer would be needed in the future and that funding would be pursued through the
Governor's office and the OMB.
Mr. Swenson asked if we had a feel for the next two years of the level of new project costs. Mr. Posey
stated he felt we could get another $25 million this year, and Sen. Hoffman stated it’s critical that the
committee impress upon the Governor that we need to get back on track with the renewable energy
commitments. Mr. Rose stated we should definitely ask for $50 million, which was the intent a year and a
half ago. He felt there was at least that amount of good projects out there.
Mr. Menefee stated that the permitting that comes up afterwards, water, land, etc. should be considered.
DNR is having trouble pushing permitting through OMB.
CAPS — assume caps at application: After the fact does not work. Assume caps are in place for the
application. Ms. Fisher-Goad asked if the program could be designed with the flexibility to go higher than
the proposed cap - a cap that could be lifted if necessary. Mr. Mitchell said the cap is not in the regulation
or legislation, and as long as everyone is getting notice and treated similarly it should be okay.
Cost Based Rates: Mr. Haagenson explained the concept then opened the floor for discussion. An
extensive discussion followed regarding PERPA / RCA authority responsibilities and certifications;
definitions of IPPs, responsibilities for rate making, and a new subject of collateralizing of the grants
which should be discussed further at another meeting.
Schedule: Issue RFA by September 1, 2009 with recommendations to the Legislature by January 29,
2010.
10.) REFAC Terms
Appointed to three year terms, may be staggered terms. We will contact the Governor's office for
clarification.
11.) Next Meeting Date
Next Meeting date: Tentatively late September.
12.) Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Member Informational Dis
es Page 1 of 1
Member Informational Display
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Email : Representative Bryce Edgmon
District: 37
Building: CAPITOL Room: 416
Bill Sponsorship
CO-CHAIR:
CHAIR:
MEMBER:
MEMBER:
MEMBER:
MEMBER:
MEMBER:
MEMBER:
MEMBER:
Party: Democrat
HOUSE
HOUSE
HOUSE
HOUSE
HOUSE
HOUSE
HOUSE
HOUSE
HOUSE
Phone: 465-4451
ENERGY
FISHERIES
AK RENEWABLE ENERGY TASK FORCE
Finance Subcommittee COMMERCE, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEV
Finance Subcommittee FISH & GAME
Finance Subcommittee TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC FACILITIES
EDUCATION
RESOURCES
Finance Subcommittee REVENUE
http://www. legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_mbr_info.asp?member=EDG&house=H&session=26 12/23/2009
Member Informational Dis] Page | of 1
Member Informational Display
Representative Bill Thomas
Email : Representative Bill Thomas
District: 5 Party: Republican
Building: CAPITOL Room: 501 Phone: 465-3732
Bill Sponsorship
CHAIR: HOUSE Finance Subcommittee ADMINISTRATION
CHAIR: HOUSE Finance Subcommittee FISH & GAME
MEMBER: HOUSE AK RENEWABLE ENERGY TASK FORCE
MEMBER: HOUSE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET & AUDIT
MEMBER: HOUSE FINANCE
http://www. legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_mbr_info.asp?member=THM&house=H&session=... 12/23/2009