Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting documents 12-14-2009ye ALASKA @@ ENERGY AUTHORITY Renewable Energy Advisory Committee Meeting December 18, 2008, AEA Board Room Call-in number: 1-800-315-6338, enter code 3073# Webinar: https:/Awww2.gotomeeting.com/join/283465266 Agenda: 1) Call to Order 2) Roll Call (for Committee Members) 3) Public Roll Call 4) Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions) 5) Approval of Meeting Minutes (November 25, 2008) 6) Briefing on Status Peter/ Jim 7) Coordination of Individual Projects Peter/ Jim 8) Regional Spreading Peter/ Jim 9) Next Meeting Date: Review Project List for up to $95 million. 10) Member Comments. 11)Adjournment (. ) Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee 12/18/08 Agenda Public Session se 204 ONES Approve agenda Ji mo Posy, Rep. Themes Review and approval of last meeting minutes Ze Briefing on status (Peter Crimp) Public comments Executive Session Sy 6. Briefing on results to date by region (Peter Crimp) Examples of individual proposal review (Peter Crimp) Public Session 7. 8. 9. Agenda. tems Se next meet; Direction from RE Fund Advisory Committee (Chris Rutz) a. Comments on draft Evaluation Guidelines? b. How to balance allocation of funding among regions? c. 80%: 20% allocation construction : preconstruction d. Other? Schedule Next meeting date oD c. ) REFAC. 3-20-09 4:05 e (ph) (Bute whet. Wyn Menefee oc Laifehel ott Vinee Bullyém: Chris Rute Mike Miehe tI Rep themes. (ph) | Mike Now per Brad Rewe Sin. Hotfwan Peter Crimp is Pose (4) | See Haagensen Cacista lane s Jensen | Jerse Shrardllacecy Macge | Minutes 5.) \e Chirig Rose ARYOuLal 128 Brad ‘Reewe | Pyoaess L) Same nal prethed AS Rdinct_| Quaid duving @ | raiddle of 4ne\ better je this Lime Gurtinnd : + ISER pearangel He gconomrte_ Gralysis < tte llen jab -1f pooyeee was Ab vtnatecl LA Slag Lov as ISER dick pot mwalucte |__- 3 sheeds developed o. Steunctewel — proce ¢lorsk _Spreacdsheed NA Cours ros + duns Seenaxwto rT | paced —scoci ia_Shiga. 2 ae projstor Wee, AQ _pot (eer mntralecl i< Wrtre ware project Hat pewol Lforworel beet dots nok hove an ereonenric. analysis e@ | Saye projects LECOMmrtnderl fr Pati Fomeling (different Lon capping) due to A edyotion of SCope @ Pporery a wos |e Yavoue Q Gorey e spleadsheet 2 aL “i | Green night ights > = & 26 mt lors es rank ) e@ | been ph E ace — = [howe “Gal, list of DSO tien cals separated out \ + Clemeelobi ne -by gin we “ Hot rewcun => Mish. to FELL me Cured pt fA pehn utes ee | Mewti Ons Disnitis Bay, indo: ope Brel _ Nuliosn ope kule Qre i weialted veGtenaA spread: lan | APPS look at Jag Spread sheet _ _ en ie Sustemale\ lity Gnd locas Support are er SK- locaA Support > daw not leer he seocc if |\eten of ais owe. ss <r SCect_yatses Wwittn support ) L¥QuAD NE Corben Lote. wviteot Funcling | , j | fe feast bitu, m Stucly bral - Rep. Tras speade tne On his Mncbinters With |ocal “Guppect Gr | the Peajeet— Ren thr = S Stull e_ an__estal)ishet huainess | Or COmSaun in Maska pbefrre betaoy Qiten bom BoP 3 Nowe to have @ putes giles egunend @ Stte a foe Blan but a huge list € a A) wwe er ieee Rewe Wold [ke ge inte ewe e. Ses pier, - Mee Mitekell adduessed er rules «Lf eyce sesen - alu s Lose ce ike Wier “eo LPP submit b RCA CaQudot en whiety iabrie tli VPC Ase | N3. je | spatihls_eybaly of) os Gee. Deso~ *e J ie Brad Reeme reac ccorating te Get SZ IA C4 Cowss ‘Rose moti Ce Ucs Jaa: yes Sk ye> dt: aH hte Ad ie tant side de hye Carrs bing (Ee Place, 4, awe Une 2 Sng, Pwce ss Qs Reinet |” [Cas Rose => dean foparol CADNag to he. Consistent Sun. Thomas - be Crnsistint — apply Caps like Rowe ( , [oe With Wan | rarad fom Raillel+ Cay “ neeessonsy se iat at IP? 5 + a Lwoudol applyray @ | uN gaat GG tb Aixconss Ps hetausce eg raowry aFlect Yr ide o F-AGe | = Supper t being Consistent Mow bai alo ye Sat Te te a, aa Ref wo Yi ~ NecktE ate] lL — pro = carteol [ied let pane ee Ae ale va ph Coma 1 Pvejcoty @ TE pote mae proj cots — a (egok a a TY paced 00st af power ars jaa | )0eK t Tt _—— Pe cLoeece - Maou aj ects tn giles Petts uel peel Pade as J \ Be ot Poy a inn Wye 8 Z ’ ) Apply he Caps — Yee exclusion | ale! apply 7 + ee ShAncuinrt ear aila to oes voted parton s [a eae ead epee, 4Ocer ag a Statewiole roan Wie) 7 | Eiaes Stee > UEP 7 i | AGA Sta fbn _ptopesed 7 | put Dieu Am leydged dh adr n\ ster =e Hl rae it | Dur, Sale “ Once a x appoveel_, olaes a ce DNR look ot anol examine pow mudh Lat |stafhu my re pea Hee pracess ull Eee + ce oceeeet @ aeeeeeerne = Ghunr AeA can i Shure ie : _ Lee _ towards Mare ‘ine ine OCess Fe ete | -. | thie SYFce OE timeny Mabe? " (woes) a - RSA degsn'+ necessert do amg bhi. Perm n if there are only So” hye | staf —h id noe G04 C2 4 » q> Ve ) | |os ) | GY q a Discussion Topics ° Approach and Schedule ° Summary of Proposals Received Review Process Steps ® Issues _— ————— —— Sanat an <<< sence er a SS Approach and Schedule ° Fundamental approach e Balance moving state funds into projects in a short timeframe, with e Custodianship of state funds. ° Carefully read and assess proposals. e Try to understand how they may be viable—not why they are flawed. e Schedule “Summary of Proposals Receive ed — Round! & Il Stage II: . eis Pe wea <telttje Aleutians 5 $6,155,930 Bering Straits 4 27,653,406 Bristol Bay 8 26,093,500 Copper River/Chugach 8 12,942,225 Kodiak 2 9,875,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 10 20;/65;370 Northwest Arctic 9 2,9053,362 Railbelt 20 12,9620,802 Southeast 21 102,935,093 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana (2 34,425,863 Total 99 $402,111,199 Stage I Apps not passed: 12 Round II: Total Apps 121 Total Funding Request $316,076,095 Total App Round I&II: 232 Total Funding Request Round I&II : $770,538,093 adh yay. @d SS ——= ——_—..., ee ——_— = Review Process Phase 1 — Completeness and Eligibility ° 12 proposals did not pass Staff e Butch White: Project and applicant eligibility e Peter Crimp and Jim Strandberg: Completeness and minimum capabilities — enero _ Pen a Review Process Phase 2 — Technical and Economic Feasibility SSS ae eee *- —» Technical Review e Led by AEA Program Manager ¢ Biofuels: James Jensen Hydro and Interties: Doug Ott e Biomass: Ron Brown Wind: Martina Dabo e Geothermal/Ocean: David Lockard e Consistency review: Strandberg, Crimp e Resource and Permitting: DNR - » Economic Review v e Economists Work with Program Managers e Tom Lovas, Mike Hubbard Dick Emerman e Linda Snow Robert Logan e Northern Economics: Pat Burden, Leah Cuyno, Cal Kerr e ISER: Fuel Price Projections and QA on analyses +. ¢s Allison Lake Hydro Example -> File Maker easel Review Process Phase 3 — Final Evaluation and Ranking » Ranking (See draft Evaluation Guide) i. Cost of Energy (30%): 1-10 based on residential cost of power (pp 9-12) Matching Funds (25%): (p8) Econ and Tech Feasibility (20%): score from stage 2 Project Readiness (5%): Econ and Other Alaska Benefit (10%): Sustainability (5%): Local Support (5%): (p8) se ewie Balance of Funds. Rank by region iM Tay sy =» ALASKA (> ENERGY AUTHORITY tom mm Miles @45075100 BP lh tO -—Tssue: @d ———— ~ ° Ensure that public receives proper benefit from grant funded IPP-developed projects. Recommendation: ° Power Projects. Require that IPP obtain RCA CPCN. RCA establish cost-based tariff » Heating Projects. No CPCN. AEA approve rate and periodically audit “Issue: ° AEA Recommendations —Multi-phase funding. Recommendation: ' Fund all phases: Project can be constructed in 2009, and is well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk. * Fund fewer than all phases: Project construction in 2010+, not well-defined, expensive, higher risk, or there are competing projects for which planning is desirable. -—I§sue: ° AEA recommendations —Competing/Interacting - projects. Recommendation: ° 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. ° Railbelt: If installed capacity > 10 MW or system transmission constraints are likely, then construction funding not recommended til after Railbelt IRP Plan consideration. e AEA Recommendations - Partial funding levels. Recommendation: © Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are recommended. ° Exception1: If proposal asks AEA to manage the project, and AEA thinks project can be built for less, then lower figure can be recommended. e Exception 2: Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor, fuel) not recommended for funding. setae ——— -—|§sue: ° Projects that may be less than optimal are proposed - o e.g. small wind turbine instead of larger. Recommendation: » Score as Proposed. Note concerns in comments. “Issue: Eligibility of fuel projects (biodiesel, waste vegetable oil, fish oil, pellets, cordwood) Issues: Are proposers IPPs? ® How should economic analysis be conducted (e.g. savings over diesel?) e Should grants for construction and equipment costs be made? Recommendation: ° Government projects eligible for construction/equipment funding ° Non-government : limit funding to preconstruction activities -—T§sue: © Eligibility of resource assessment projects. Recommendation: ° 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.