HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting REF round 8 evaluations 1-9-2015
Renewable Energy Fund Round 8 - Heat and Standard Combined
Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread
Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority
Our)
Sure)
‘Angoon Low-Income Housing Pellet District Heat Gov Entity [Biomass 1 $292,184} $240,592} $266,592|Design, Constr [Full SP $240,592]
Southeast Island School District Wood Boilers Southeast Island School District Gov Entity — | Biomass 25 2 $872,635] $832,635} $124,708}Construction |Full $832,635]
1109 [Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion [Craig City School District [Gov Entity _ [Biomass 82.50] 1.98] $0.26] $4.10] 17.95] 13.00] 14.17] 3.00] 13.88] 3.00] 450] 69.50[ 3 $679,950] $493, 100] '$186,850| Design, Constr |Full $493, 100]
[Southeast 1161 [Hoonah Biomass District Heating Loop [Hoonah Indian Association [Gov Entity [Biomass 78.00] 1.67] $0.68[ $4.30] 1880] 15.00] 1267] 233] 1238] 5.00[ 3.00] 69.18[ 4 3 $45,000] $30,000] Feasibility Full $45,000]
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1118 [Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery Assessment and Conceptual Design Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility HeatRecovery 7.00[ 10.39[ 150[ 11.75, 5.00] 283] 69.07] 5 '$9,000,000] $645,613] $33,980] Feasibility Partial CI $325,000] $1,936,327]
Aleutians ‘Sand Point Excess Wind Utilization ITDX Power, Sand Point Generating Utility Heat Wind 11.00] 11.89] 3.33] 11.50[ 4.00[ 4.00] 6758[ 6 $383,900] $307,120] $76,780] Design, Constr [Full $307,120] $2,243,447]
‘Sitka: Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump cer ‘and Borough of Sitka Public Works Department Utility HeatPump 17.87] 11.00] 14.50 483[ 66.70[ 7 $740,000] $627,000] $168,278) Peven Con Constr [Full $627,000]
$500,000}
Fyhbag City School District
"| 1108 [Neck Lake Hydropower Project
[Alaska Vil
[TDX Power, In
Metlakatla Indian Community
[Alaska Power Company
Gov Entity
(Gov Entity ae
17.01
17.78
ae a 35 66.70 $10,000,000}
7.00 14. 5.00 65.78 $660,977]
<n ca
$620,977] 10.00 3.33] 61 MW
ean 77.00 S00 11.75[ 3.00[ 3.67] 61.12] 12 —— $3,445,040]
63.50] 0.94] $0.5
ca sar 011,475]
"$350,000]
$40,000] ae ‘Constr oe
$390,000} Sabi
$34,450) ofDaies Constr Fal
-- ame
$5 226,46
617,
peatires Artic 1133 |Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project [City of Kotzebue [Gov Entity [Biomass 64.33 1.14] $0.40] $5.97] 26.10 8.11 ‘$2,692, 700] $2,495, 189] $25 0.000 a Partial 200, $8,817,664
Northwest Artic 1125 [Ambler Washeteria and City Office Biomass Heating System (City of Ambler Local Gov [Biomass 47.67] 1.12] $0.62| $10.67] 35.00] 8.00] 256] 250] 612] 5.00[ 1.17[ 6035| 15 $433,379) $379,583] $13,796] Design Full SP $379,583] $9,197,247]
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1143 [Scammon Bay Community Facilities Heat Recovery [City of Scammon Bay Local Gov [HeatRecovery | 62.67[ 1.26[ $0.64[ $7.18[ 31.40[ 6.00| 7.56[ 217[ 625, 300] 317] 5955] 16 $763,898) $756,335] $7,563) Design [Partial '$60,000[ $9,257,247]
[Southeast 1142 Sees Borough Recreation and Schools Central Heating Plant Design Ketchikan Gateway Borough Local Gov [Biomass 89.33} 1.97] $0.12) $4.10] 17.95 16. ae 3.67 | 13.13 59.19 '$2,200,000] $220,000] aS Dees eee $9,477,247
117 |Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project, Southeast 1114 |Klawock Low-Income Housing Pellet Heat Co SS Pita Pont
/Alaska Village Electric Tne. Tlingit Haida Regional Heston a [Ataska Vi
Gov Entity [Wind
Biomass
fay [wet | Ser
ae Lt
1.09 ae [$6.95 Leste] an] sm] se] sa mp se a [roma ena aac [Construction _|
$1,634,500] $102,275] 4.00] 5.50 a5 14
3.33[ 4.75] 5.00 56.78] 19
sien
— 00]
a Constr
$9,703,022}
[Souheat tres ee ea at [Chigni 105, 0¢ eee 00 eg reat | aa Seen cn nr een nie z 2 erSeTy p Sern
Bristol Bay 1166 | Chignik ee Project Design and Permitting City of Chignik Local Gov | Hydro 2 22 $6,610,000] $1,305,000} Design [Partial SP $445,304)
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanj 1126 | Huslia Water System and Clinic Biomass Boiler Project City of Huslia Local Gov [Biomass 40.67 | 0.67] $0.60{ $6.79] 29.71] 11.00] 0.22[ 300] 1.75| 500] 383] s451| 23 $503,990 $499,000) Design Partial $58,000] $15,503,304
Southeast 7140 [KGB — Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Construction Ketchikan Gateway Borough Local Gov _| Biomass 83.17] 1.46] $0.12| $4.10] 17.95| 0.00] 1439[ 450| 9.63| 3.00] 5.00] 5447| 24 $1,408,908} $1,288,018 Construction _ [Full $1,288,018] $16,791,
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tan] 1120 | Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project Upper Tanana Energy, LLC (UTE) TPP Hydro 47.00} 1.21] $0.50] $4.38] 21.68| 15.00] 233[ 167| 600] 400] 3.33] 5401] 2 $24,000,000] $8,000,000] (Construction [Full SP $8,000,000] $24,791,52
(Copper River/Chugach 1110 | Wood Boiler for the Native Village of Tazlina Native Village of Tazlina Local Gov [Biomass 68.67| 1.06| $0.18] $3.83] 16.76| 11.00] 9.56] 283] 5.25| 400] 4.00] 5340| 26 $324,807] $270,807] Design, Constr [Full Y $270,807] $25,062,129]
Bering Straits Ti22 [Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery (City of Koyuk Local Gov |HeatRecovery | 49.33] 0.70| $0.60] $6.20] 900] 311[ 300[ 075] 5.00] 483] 5281| 27 $729,600] Design Partial $50,000 $25,112,129]
North Slope 1137 [Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project North Slope Borough (Utility Transmision | 79.17| 219] $0.15| $1.36 9.00] 13.06[ 233] 13.00] 200] 450] 5045| 28 $2,017,818 2| Design Fall $2,017,818] $27,129,947
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1148 |Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project (City of Scammon Bay Local Gov _ | Hydro 40.83] 171] $0.64] $7.18 600] 0.28[ 117[ 7.25[ 5.00[ 200] 49.74| 29 '$305,000] Recon Partial Y '$90,000[ $27,219,947]
Bering Straits 1132 | Wales Water System Heat Recovery ‘City of Wales Local Gov HeatRecovery 49.33 0.58 $0.69] $6.29] 6.00 3.11 3.00 0.75 4.00 4.50] 48.89 30 $706,701 $699, 163} Design Partial $50,000] $27,269,947]
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1154 [Eck Water System Heat Recovery (City of Eek Local Gov |HeatRecovery | 48.00| 0.59| $0.63] $6.37| 600] 267| 300] 050| 400] 433] 4838| 31 $299, 754) $296,786] $107,968 Design Partial $50,000 $27,319,947]
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanj 1124 | Grayling Water System Heat Recovery City of Grayling Local Gov |HeatRecovery | 50.00[ 0.75| $0.63] $5.58] 700] 3.33] 300[ 0.75] 500] 450] 47.98] 32 $458,716 $26,439| Design Partial $50,000] $27,369,947
[Northwest Artic 1119 [Shungnak Wind-Diesel Design Native Village of Shungnak Local Gov [Wind 40.00} 0.69] $0.68] $8.90 7.00 063] 400[ 217] 4551] 35 ‘$6,000, 000] x $27,036| Feasibility Partial '$95,000| $27,464,947)
Aleutians 1158 | Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project (City of King Cove Local Gov _ [Hydro 40.00] 1.25] $0.30] $4.16] 13.12| 15.00 638] 5.00| 317] 45.00] 34 $5,461,000] __ $1,800,000] __$1,061,000[ Construction _ |Full $1,800,000] $29,264,947]
FYukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tan{ 1105 | Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project [Alaska Power Company (Utility Hydro 42.83] 1.23] $0.50| $4.38] 21.68| 11.00 5.88] 200{ 250] 4467] 35 $15,922,000] $413,600 $103,400] Feasibility Partial '$40,000[ $29,304,947)
Northwest Artic 1112 [100 Kilowatt Solar Array for Kotzebue [Kotzebue Electric Association Inc. (Utility Solar 42.00] 1.30] $0.40[ $5.97] 17.53| 11.00 713] 200[ 3.00] 41.83] 36 $449,178] $384,730) $64,448) Feasibility Partial '$20,000[ $29,324,947
Kodiak 1138 | Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project (City of Ouzinkie Local Gov _ [Hydro 42.83| 0.62] $0.37| $4.48] 16.09[ 6.00 0.63] 5.00] 333] 3449][ 37 $5,541,549] $88,400) $8,840| Feasibility [Partial SP Y $88,400| $29,413,347
Railbelt 1146 | Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC TPP Hydro 45.67| 1.28] $0.18 $4.18] 7.91] 11.00 5.63 3.00[ 333] 34.09[ 38 $59,067,808} $358,000] $36,000| Design [Partial SP $358,000] $29,771,347]
Railbelt 1145 [IRHA Facility Biomass Feasibility Study Interior Regional Housing Authority Gov Entity _ [Biomass 36.00| 0.97| $0.18] $4.11] 17.98] 0.00 237[ 200] 3.00| 3251] 39 $50,000] $19,338] Feasibility Full $50,000 $29,821,347]
North Slope 1136 |[Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design North Slope Borough [Utility Wind 48.83] 1.02] $0.15] $1.46] 656| 9.00 3.75| 200| 467| 31.92] 40 $440,000] $44,000| Design Full SP $440,000] $30,261,347
STURM UB Cees mse ae) $37.072.640 SLR st we Lis) $30,261,347
Bristol Bay 1101 [Manokotak Renewable Energy Feasibility Project Manokotak Natives Limited: Manokotak Power Company IPP Wind 37.33] 0.87] $0.55] $6.58 $2, 100,000 $185,000] '$15,000]Recon, Feas [Did Not Pass Stage 2
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1139 [Cheformak Wind Heat System (City of Chefornak/Naterkaq Light Plant Local Gov _| Wind 30.33] 0.71] $0.90] $6.58 $4,526,458] $382,400 $7,500| Design Did Not Pass Stage 2
Southeast 1159 [Elfin Cove Hydroclectric Permitting ‘Community of Elfin Cove, Elfin Cove Utility Commission Usility Hydro 34.83] _0.99[ $0.80] $5.08 $3,380,000 $102,300 $56,900] Design Did Not Pass Stage 2
Southeast 1160 [Indian River Hydroelectric Project Construction City of Tenakee Springs DBA Tenakee Springs Electric Dept [Local Gov _ [Hydro 36.00| 0.96] $0.74] $4.60] $4,526,280 $977,000 $280[Constraction [Did Not Pass Stage 2
Railbelt 1164 [Port Graham Community Building Biomass Heat Distribution Project Port Graham Village Council Gov Entity [Biomass 35.67| 0.36] $0.18] $5.74] $236,602 $341,465] $79,300[ Construction _ [Did Not Pass Stage 2
Kodiak 1102 | Upper Hidden Basin Diversion Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. (KEA) Usility Hydro 3.57] $0.16] $4.42] $50,000,000[ __$1,250,000[ _$1,250,000|Design Not Recommended
[Southeast 1106 [Mahoney Lake Hydropower Project City of Saxman Local Gov _ [Hydro 1.28[ $0.12] $4.09] $45,320,707 $800,000] $100,000] Design Not Recommended
Southeast 1107 [Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project "The Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) Utility Hydro 3.21[ $0.12] $4.09 $13,391,869 $2,797,935] _ $6,695,934| Construction _ [Not Recommended
(Copper River/Chugach 1123 | Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project (Chitina Electric Inc. (CE) Usility Hydro 0.95 | $0.71] $3.94] $7,770,000] __ $7,620,000 $500,000] Design, Constr [Not Recommended
(Aleutians 1127 [Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska City of False Pass Local Gov _ [Hydrokinetic 0.09 | $0.42] _$4.08| $6,870,575 $428,646] $62,500] Feasibility Not Recommended
Bristol Bay 1128 [Igiugig RivGen® Power System Project Tgiugig Village Council d/b/a Igiugig Electric Company Local Gov _[Hydrokinetic 0.34{ $0.81] $8.08] $2,458,622] __ $2,016,509 $296,500] Design, Constr [Not Recommended
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanand 1129 [Nikolai Community Biomass Heating System City of Nikohit Local Gov _ [Biomass O71] $0.90] $7.76 $705,893) $698,904) $6,989|Design, Constr [Not Recommended
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanand 1130 [Holy Cros Power Plant Heat Recovery for Water Distribution System (City of Holy Cros: Local Gov _|HeatRecovery 0.50] $0.60] $6.94] $439,453) $390,449) $74,009|Design, Constr [Not Recommended
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1134 |Kwigillingok Wind Heat System — Electric Thermal Storage Kwig Power Company Utility HeatWind 0.18] $0.61] $5.84] $284,562 $279,562] $5,000|Design, Constr [Not Recommended
Northwest Artic TI4T [Sclawik Water System Heat Recovery (City of Selawik Local Gov __|HeatRecovery 0.46] $0.62] $7.64] $200,718 $198,731 $105,773] Design, Constr [Not Recommended
Southeast 1144 |Kake Senior Housing Solar PV Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority Gov Entity _ [Solar 0.42] $0.68] $5.09] $60,000] $56,000] $4,000[Construction _|Not Recommended
Railbelt 1149 [Southcentral Small Hydro Assessments (Chugach Electric Association, Inc (Utility Hydro 7.66] $0.13] $4.13 3 $75,000] $75,000[ Recon Not Recommended
Aleutians 1150 [Adak Community Energy Baseline Study [Adak Generating, LLC., A Subsidiary of TDX power, Inc (Utility Other $1.20] $5.61 3 $85,000] $17,000[Recon Not Recommended
Aleutians Tist |St. Paul — 80% Renewable by 2020— Community Energy Baseline Study [TDX Power, Inc (Utility Other $0.53] $5.04 $ $202,696 $50,673|Recon Not Recommended
Bristol Bay 1152 [Lake and Peninsula Borough Wood Boilers Take and Peninsula Borough Local Gov | Biomass 1.06[ $0.73] $6.03} $309,450 $247,560 $61,890|Design, Constr [Not Recommended
Bering Straits 1153 [Unalakleet Wind-Diesel Optimization Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative( VEC Unity Wind 0.7| $0.42] $6.26 $ $295,775] $29,650|Recon, Feas [Not Recommended
Northwest Artic 1155 | City of Noorvik Solar-PV City of Noorvik Local Gov [Solar 0.69| $0.65] $6.36] ‘$165,000 $165,000 $1,000|Design, Constr [Not Recommended
Northwest Artic 1156 [Northwest Alaska Wind Resource Assessment and Intertie Study [Northwest Alaska Tribal Energy Organization (NATEO) Local Gov _| Wind, Trans 0.40] $0.63] $5.61 $25,000,000 $230,000 $0| Feasibility Not Recommended
North Slope 1157 |Deadhorse Waste Heat to Energy Plant PTDX Power, North Slope Generating Unity HeatRecovery 0.00] $0.17] $4.37 $13,717,479] $4,000,000 _ $10,497,695, All Not Recommended
(Copper River/Chugach 7165 | Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction Native Village of Chenega Gov Entity [Hydro 0.82| $0.67] $7.00] $1,750,000] __ $1,750,000 $0|Design, Constr [Not Recommended
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 7121 [Biomass for Akiachak Native Community Electric Company (Akiachak Native Comm Electric Company/ANC IRA Council [Utility Biomass $0.60) $6.77 $3,100,000] __ $3,000,000 $100,000[ All Did Not Pass Stage 1
Sub Totals. Not Recommended Pr $186,313.668 "ey 20.092
Ce RUM terry See ne Se) $30.261.347 TOTAL
Renewable Energy Fund Round 8 - Heat and Standard Combined
Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread
Notes
This document represents AEA's draft recommendations for consideration by the REFAC committee. This is a draft document only and is subject to change prior to AEA's final recommendations. This view combines the heat and standard application projects, for perspective. Please see the sepate heat and standard lists.
If REF 8 finding is limited to $15M exactly, #1166, Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting would be partially funded. To fully fund the project, a total of $15,445,304 must be appropriated. B/C - AEA Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project.
SP - Special Provisions
Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of Oto 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2. Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable.
Some not recommended projects’ B/C ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons.
DRAFT 1/2/2015 For REFAC Review
Renewable Energy Fund Round 8 - Heat Applications Only
Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread
Soest ue) C Peru ead
2 SS a SE | oe selected steel alo 3} SI 21S} seh eee PAM 1 seals als alae 00 FEEEEEEE | gy PEPE bi 3 2] el ey TECH. 8 Sahay nm [SRST | OP STB re] 25-8 e801] = =e ea Comienetion rea [=| soca] sor] oe ove fol TV] — srr] san ao
poeeyng 2 sor ooot “seria iS 35.00 . 267
IHeatRecovery | 50.00 3.33 3.00 5 bh. — Tis, —
Biomass 56.00 .' 3 i 5.33 1.83 .. x ! , -
y Port Graham Village Council v Entity [Biomass 18] $5.74 , 465] $79,300] Construction i
i City of Nikolai y [Biomass , 5 , , Constr [Not Recommended
y (City of Holy Cross [HeatRecovery 5 : E $74,009| Design, Constr [Not Recommended
i = Kwig Power Company Tality HeatWind : 279,562] 5, , Constr [Not Recommended
Selawik Water System Heat Recovery (City of Sclawik 7 |HeatRecovery , $198, $105,773] Design, Constr [Not Recommended ssi 53 Co fee a] Oe [salon @a7 ar re ao aor Rees Las | OR at E id Moa sala aa AEE alld ltl elo i
|
|_ $4.08) |_ $4.06) | 46
| $10.67} | $7.18) |_ $4.10) | $4.12)
| $3.83] |_ $6.20} | $6.29)
1152 |Lake and Peninsula Borough Wood Boilers Lake and Peninsula Borough Biomass MV Ie ’ , Constr [Not Recommended
1157 |Deadhorse Waste Heat to Energy Plant 'TDX Power, North Slope Generating y HeatRecove: 5 ,000, $10,497,695,All INot Recommended
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1121 [Biomass for Akiachak Native Community Electric Company [Akiachak Native Comm Electric Company/ANC IRA Council Biomass , 100, ,000, . Did Not Pass Stage 1 $10,930,656
$45,778,021 $24,654,781 $12,875,603 eRe TOTAL
als. Not Recommended Projects
Grand Total, All Applications
Notes
This document represents AEA's draft recommendations for consideration by the REFAC committee. This is a draft document only and is subject to change prior to AEA's final recommendations.
B/C - AEA Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project
SP ~ Special Provisions
Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2.
Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable.
Some not recommended projects’ B/C ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons.
DRAFT 1/2/2015 For REFAC Review
mea rad
Power and Water Project
eer
droel
nd Final
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
— Geotechnical Study
Nr ese ee ketene acts
fir ese epee | 1108 [Neck Lake Hydropower Proj
[Tower Vukon-Kuskokwim [1115 [St Marys-Pitkas Point Wind Energy Construction Project | BC [1166 |Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting | qe rf z Renewable Energy Fund Round 8 - Standard Applications Only
Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread
Seon)
3
a or a crt a Ee ec
) 1) a) (i) i)
Total
ed ee
ry ry
PL)
rr) aid
re
Te De Cr Ticc) cri Pere d Cc] : laska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
eens Cena
6. iu ee ee ee a nd Se eo) Fe) (5) COM cs Requested Offered eM) PCy rr
00T 3.85] 66.70] 8 J $10,000,000], __ $500,000] $250,000] Freas, Design JFullSP [| 500,000} $5000 | 61.69[ 10 | — $9,200,000[ $400,000 ___—«$20,000|Design _—='Partial:~=—Ss« =f ~—~—=—=«S-400,000] $900,000)
Se CM ke fer acy ON Te laska Power Company Taska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. h ‘Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA’
City of Chigni
1.03] $0.55} 4.
g| 3g Upper Tanana Energy, LLC (UTE)
North Slope Borough 8 a
335,000 SO] Feabiiy [$350,000] — $1,250,000 $391,200] 97,800] Feas, Design Pa Feasibility
ee I saad $6,610,000] $1,305,000} $70,000] Design Partial SP $859,696] _ $7,101,678}
PSTOUI ey erin ERP PSipeeed| ia)
| _ $7,546,982]
$15,546,98:
See aac | S| 3] 5 Zi $ City of Scammon Bay Tat] 3064] $71
Native Village of Shungnak 08
[City of King Cove '$1,061,000| Construction
[Alaska Power Company $103,400] Feasibility
(City of Ouzinkie 358, $8,840] Feasibility ¥
1101 |Manokotak Renewable Energy Feasibility Project
5.63
North Slope Borough
Manokotak Natives Limited: Manokotak Power Company
400} $88,400} 333| S609] 38 [$55,067,808] $358,000] $96,00|Design ____[Parual SP__|_[___ $358,000] $20,056,200 L200] oT] 152] | $4,505,200) $440,000) $44,000] Design [al P| | $440,000] $20, 96,200 $188,474,756 $21,574,530 $18,713,158 Seren
$2, 100,000} $15,000]Recon, Feas [Did Not Pass Stage 2
1139 |Chefornak Wind Heat System (City of Chefornak/Naterkaq Light Plant $4,526,458] Did Not Pass Stage 2
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting Tadian River Hydroclectric Project Construction Upper Hidden Basin Diversion Mahoney Lake Hydropower Project Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project
(Community of Elfin Cove, Elfin Cove Utility Commission City of Tenakee Springs DBA Tenakee Springs Electric Dept [Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. (KEA) (City of Saxman The Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA)
$3,380,000}
$4,526,280]
$50,000,000}
$45,320,707
$13,391,869]
Did Not Pass Stage 2 Did Not Pass Stage 2 INot Recommended $280] Construction
$100,000[ Design
$6,695,934] Construction |Not Recommended
Copper River/Chugach Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project [Chitina Electric Inc. (CE $500,000]{Design, Constr [Not Recommended
Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska Tgiugig RivGen® Power System Project [Kake Senior Housing Solar PV [Southcentral Small Hydro Assessments
Aleutians
Bristol Bay
[Southeast
Railbelt
[City of False Pass Tgiugig Village Council d/b/a Igingig Electric Company
Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority Chugach Electric Association, Inc
INot Recommended
INot Recommended
$62,500] Feasibility $296,500] Design, Constr $4,000] Construction
$75,000]Recon
INot Recommended INot Recommended
(Aleutians [Adak Community Energy Baseline Study [Adak Generating, LLC., A Subsidiary of TDX power, Inc. $17,000[Recon Not Recommended |
(Aleutians St. Paul — 80% Renewable by 2020 — Community Energy Baseline Study (Unalakleet Wind-Diesel Optimization
(City of Noorvik Solar-PV
[Northwest Alaska Wind Resource Assessment and Intertie Study
Bering Straits Northwest Artic Northwest Artic (Copper River/Chugach [Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction
Sub Totals, Not Recommended Projects feu M RC MET ote
Notes
ITDX Power, Inc. (Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative[UVEC |Not Recommended
|Not Recommended
'$50,673[Recon
'$29,650[Recon, Feas
City of Noorvik Northwest Alaska Tribal Energy Organization (NATEO) [Native Village of Chenega
‘Wind, Trans Hydro
This document represents AEA's draft recommendations for consideration by the REFAC committee. This is a draft document only and is subject to change prior to AEA's final recommendations
B/C - AEA Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project
SP ~ Special Provisions
|Not Recommended
INot Recommended
INot Recommended
$1,000] Design, Constr $0 [Feasibility ‘$0|Design, Constr $19,419,261 TET SURE SL LER) Star)
eer es $20.496.200 TOTAL
Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2.
Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable.
Some not recommended projects! B/C ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons
DRAFT 1/2/2015 For REFAC Review
[= ALASKA
@@mml ENERGY AUTHORITY
Renewable Energy Fund
Round VIII
AEA Evaluations
1/9/15
DRAFT for REFAC
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Manokotak Renewable Energy Feasibility Project
App #1101 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Bristol Bay
Applicant: Manokotak Natives Limited: Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility
Manokotak Power Company (MPC)
Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility
roject Dew pith on 25252125252 Ios £5 EEE aa Ease SESE Bo oe need ee
Manokotak Power Company (MPC) is proposing to install up to 4 small meteorological towers to determine a location with the
following criteria: (1) a location with class 5 or better wind resource, (2) a location nearest to the road system and (3) location
suitable for the installation of a wind turbine. The project would complete a conceptual design to establish and further the
development of the project at a suitable wind turbine site and offer viable design configurations from available wind resource
turbines and equipment. The conceptual design will offer a determination of the optimal capacity of any wind turbine system
to be incorporated into the community's existing power plant (260 kW diesel powered generators). Based on similar
configured systems, a system with two (2) 100 KW wind generators would be optimal in a class 5 wind environment.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Water general comment: Many construction projects will require use of water and may require Temporary Water Use
Authorizations during construction regardless of land ownership. This is not noted in each project.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 1/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _ (Ql ENERGY AUTHORITY
Manokotak Renewable Energy Feasibility Project
App #1101 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 37.33
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.87
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $2,100,000 Cost of Electricity $0.55/kWh
Grant Fund Request $185,000 Price of Fuel $6.58/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $15,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2
AEA's primary concern with this project is the current condition of the power generation and distribution system. The utility
needs to develop a plan to get their four original gensets in good working order and follow a maintenance schedule that
ensures long-term operation before the addition of a wind energy project can be pursued. AEA has programs available to
provide technical assistance to the utility to help with this.
A preliminary wind study has been conducted in the Manokotak vicinity in 2008/9. That data was used to feed economic and
technical assumptions into a wind-diesel model, which indicated that there may be an economic wind resource in the
community. The next steps, once the current power generation system is prepared to accept wind energy, is to identify the
specific location of the best local wind resource through the installation of meteorological tower(s), as requested in this
application. At that time, AEA wind staff should be consulted prior to selecting the met tower locations.
This project did not pass the Stage 2 (economic and technical evaluation) minimum score.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 2/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Upper Hidden Basin Diversion
App #1102 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Kodiak
Applicant: Kodiak Electric Association, Proposed Phase(s): Design
Inc. (KEA)
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design
Project Description
Kodiak Electric's (KEA) application is for final design and permitting for basin diversion project to augment existing Terror
Lake (P-2743) hydroelectric generation serving Kodiak. No additional storage or capacity would be added by the project. The
diversion is expected to produce 30,000 MWh of energy through the existing Terror Lake hydro at an estimated project cost of
$50 million. Hydropower generated by the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project is KEA’s primary energy source. Enhancing
water availability to Terror Lake with a new diversion would allow KEA’s future electrical load growth to be continually
powered with renewable energy. The Upper Hidden Basin Diversion would supplement the available water supply for the
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility by capturing additional snow melt and rain in the upper reaches of the Hidden Basin
watershed and conveying it to the existing Terror Lake reservoir. Structural components for the proposed project would
consist of two dam embankments connected by an approximately 0.4 mile long channel, an intake structure connected to
subterranean tunnel that would run through a mountain ridge for approximately 1.2 miles, and a gravel road for construction
and future maintenance access. These diversion components would be a simple, non-mechanical design intended for un-
manned water conveyance. Once the water from the Upper Hidden Basin diversion flows into the Terror Lake reservoir, the
additional hydropower would be generated from the existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project and fed directly into the KEA
grid.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Existing SAPA Terror Lake Hydroproject previously approved under SCRO lease ADL 204024, is seeking to add diversion
works from Hidden Basin creek into Terror Lake. SCRO has an active permit to KEA under LAS 29042 for stream gauges. A
portion of the proposed tunnel, and the entirety of the diversion dam and access road are proposed for construction on State-
owned lands and would require SCRO authorization if built. Additional authorization from the DMLW Water Section may also
be later required.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 3/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA...
Upper Hidden Basin Diversion
App #1102 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 5.57
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $50,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.16/kWh
Grant Fund Request $1,250,000 _ Price of Fuel $4.42/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $1,250,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The design phase request is not recommended at this time. For design funding the prior phase of feasibility shall be complete
so that the project viability and the future funding needs can be determined per the AEA Request for Applications 15003
section 2.2 to 2.6.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia
Page 4/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The City and Borough of Sitka proposes to design and construct an effluent source heat pump system to provide space heat
to the Wastewater Treatment Plant on Japonski Island. The heat pump system would capture heat from screen effluent
through a stainless steel heat exchanger and water-to-water heat pumps for use in the buildings hydronic heating system.
Effluent currently passes by the boiler at an average temperature of ~50 F; the 72-ton heat pump system is expected to
perform with a higher efficiency as a result of the warm source fluid, with a coefficient of performance of approximately 4.0.
Backup heat would be supplied by a new 955 MBH fuel oil boiler. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study
completed by Alaska Energy Engineering and a 2014 HVAC assessment complete by CH2MHiill.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 5/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score _ Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.87 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 83.50
2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.41
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 14.50
4. Project Readiness (5) 4.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 9.00 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 7
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 5
7. Sustainability (5) 4.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 66.70
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 66.70
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $740,000 Cost of Electricity $0.11/kWh
Grant Fund Request $627,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.08/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $168,278
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The proposal to use wastewater effluent as a source for a heat pump system is a compelling use of an otherwise unused heat
source, and could serve as a model for similar systems in other parts of the state. The high temperature and availability of
effluent would result in a higher heat pump COP than seen in other heat pump installations in the state. Cost savings
identified by the applicant since a Round 7 Renewable Energy Fund submission have dramatically improved the project's
economics.
Full funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $627,000 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 6/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment
App #1104 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Southeast
Applicant: The Southeast Alaska Power Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility
Agency (SEAPA)
Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility
Project Description
Applicant accepted delivery of a 34-meter Met Tower from the Alaska Energy Authority in July 2013 and seeks to conduct a
reconnaissance and feasibility analysis to determine if it is feasible to use wind power to supplement the energy needs and
displace diesel for the communities serviced by SEAPA. After the site assessment has determined the most suitable site for
collection of raw wind data, the Met Tower will be installed to gather two (2) years of wind data for a thorough analysis. An
analysis of the wind data and a final report will be performed by a qualified consultant specializing in the field.
Page 7/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment
App #1104 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 5.25 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 81.83
2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.79
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 13.94
4. Project Readiness (5) 1.67 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 12.12 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 7
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 11
7. Sustainability (5) 3.17 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 56.15
Total Stage 3 Score (100) == 56.15
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $170,583 Cost of Electricity $0.12/kWh
Grant Fund Request $88,742 Price of Fuel $4.09/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $81,842
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
SEAPA submitted similar proposals in Rounds 5 and 7 and was recommended by AEA, but never funded due to the project's
rank and funding availability those years. SEAPA has been given a 34-meter met tower from AEA's met tower loan program.
Whether funded or notin Round 8, the applicant is encouraged to coordinate with the AEA wind program, which can assist in
site assessment, site selection and permitting. If future REF funding will be applied for, the applicant should attempt to start
collecting data as early as possible in order to complete either one or two full years of wind data collection prior to applying
for the next phases of project development, which are typically due in September. The project schedule is thorough and
achievable. The staff at SEAPA has experience with large energy projects. Due to the size of the electrical load and
infrastructure in the region, a multi-megawatt scale wind project would be appropriate and allow for the best economies of
scale. AEA recommends full funding.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $88,742 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg
Page 8/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA...
Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project
App #1105 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
Applicant: Alaska Power Company Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Project Description
Alaska Power Company's application is for a feasibility study for a new 1 MWrun of river (no storage) hydro project on
Clearwater Creek to serve Tok and surrounding area producing 3,400 MWn's of energy at an estimated cost of $16 million.
Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), requests $413,600 in AEA Renewable
Energy Fund Round VIII grant funding support for Phase Il Feasibility / Conceptual Design activities for the Clearwater Creek
hydropower project. The proposed project is a 1 MWrun-of-river hydroelectric project on Clearwater Creek, which is located
approximately 15 miles southwest of the community of Tok on the Tok-Cutoff Highway (Glenn Highway). The project would
supply approximately 3.4 GWh annually to Tok and surrounding interconnected communities. Clearwater Creek’s project
features would consist of a small diversion structure, a 1 MW generating system (Turgo turbine), approximately 20,000 feet of
penstock, an open tailrace channel, substation, approximately 5 miles of access road, and a distribution line. The project
would interconnect with the Tok region grid via a 14-mile transmission connection made utilizing existing highway right-of-
way.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project involves state land. Phase Il involves placement of stream gauges, which may require DMLW permits, though
application states that none would be required until phase Ill. If futue phases of the project are undertaken, infrastructure will
require DMLW authorizations. Access is described as going through a state campground - consultation with Division of Parks
early in process will be necessary.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 9/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J = ALASKA __ (@llm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project
App #1105 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 21.68 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 42.83
2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.23
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.94
4. Project Readiness (5) 0.67 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 5.88 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 14
6. Local Support (5) 2.00 Regional (of all applications) 4
7. Sustainability (5) 2.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 44.67
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 44.67
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $15,922,000 Cost of Electricity $0.50/kWh
Grant Fund Request $40,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.38/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $23,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
The applicant requested funding in the amount of $413,600 with match and in-kind support of $103,400 for complete
feasibility and conceptual design phases. There is limited supporting data in terms of potential hydro energy production, that
if available, could increase AEA's confidence of the project economics. A number of conditions should be met before
undertaking this secondary hydro development in the Tok region including additional assurance with regard to energy
availability and project operability and subsequent economics. Stream gauging is recommended to evaluate the energy
resource prior to undertaking more extensive studies. The gauging will improve confidence in energy availability for nearby
Yerrick Creek as well. Demonstration of cost and operability of Yerrick Creek is also recommended before proceeding with
Clearwater Creek development.
AEA's funding recommendation is therefore limited to the proposed stream gauging work in the application consisting of $40k
of REF grant, $10k grantee matching funds, and $3k other funds.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $40,000 Election District: C-6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border
Page 10/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Mahoney Lake Hydropower Project
App #1106 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast
Applicant: City of Saxman Proposed Phase(s): Design
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design
Project Description
City of Saxman's application is for design of the FERC licensed (P-11393) project that will create 9.6 MW of new hydroelectric
capacity on Mahoney Lake with a storage capacity of 4,000 acre-ft and 41,700 MWh of energy at a cost of $45 million to serve
Ketchikan and surrounding communities. Approximately 17,900,000 average annual KWH (17.9 aGWH) of power is available
between November and April as winter storage, allowing the project to meet the key SEIRP (Southeast Integrated Resource
Plan) objective of increasing winter storage. A detailed cost estimate was performed by Mead & Hunt, a third party
engineering firm, in August of 2014, which estimated the project's total cost at $45,320,707, making the Mahoney Lake
hydroelectric project one of southeast Alaska’s most affordable options for new hydropower energy and capacity. This alpine
lake tap project does not require construction of a dam, and the project's FERC license has already been issued. Project
proponents are requesting $800,000 AEA REF Round Vill funds, and are proposing $100,000 match (cash and in-kind) to
follow through on $200,000 of work funded to date by a SFY14 Capital Appropriation from the State of Alaska.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Ketchikan George Inlet 2013-08-28 KPU requests Resolution to Endorse Project. Uplands-native corporation land.
Anadromous stream Adjacent tidelands. Water Right LAS 14359.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 11/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Mahoney Lake Hydropower Project
App #1106
Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.28
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $45,320,707 Cost of Electricity $0.12/kWh
Grant Fund Request $800,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.09/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $100,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The applicant did not adequately demonstrate feasibility. For a design/construction project the applicant must provide
sufficient information to complete an economic and technical evaluation. This application did not provide sufficient
information on the amount and cost of diesel generation (the alternative to the proposed project) and a clear, verifiable
demonstration of how much diesel generation is expected to be offset by the proposed project.
A Southeast Alaska hydro needs assessment has been funded by the State to identify the next most economical hydro needs
in the region. This work is underway but not yet complete, and when complete may help the applicant better demonstrate the
feasibility of this project.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0
Page 12/138
Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg
01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 j= ALASKA. ENERGY AUTHORITY
Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project
App #1107 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast
Applicant: The Southeast Alaska Power Proposed Phase(s): Construction
Agency (SEAPA)
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Construction
Project Description
Southeast Alaska Power Agency's application if for construction of a project that will raise the normal reservoir height 15' (5%
head increase) at the existing Swan Lake hydro project, FERC No. P-2911, creating an additional 21,600 acre-ft of storage
resulting in an average annual energy generation of 7,500 MWh's ata total cost of $13 million. The Swan Lake Hydroelectric
Project is currently comprised of a concrete arch dam 174' high and 430' long atits crest, an intake structure near the dam, a
rock tunnel and penstock water conveyance system, and a power house located near tidewater. It is located 22 air miles
northeast of Ketchikan, Alaska and generates renewable energy for the communities of Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell.
SEAPA proposes to raise the existing dam by 6' and install a gate system (fuse type and vertical gate) in the fixed spillway
slot, which will result in an overall reservoir height increase of 15'. This will provide additional 25% increase in active
reservoir storage. Modifications to the concrete intake structure will also be required, including raising the height and moving
internal equipment to a higher elevation.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
ADL 106840 lease dam to port facility / ADL 106442 Swan Lake -Tyee Intertie. Use of additional state land required for
impoundment area. Water Rights application received. FERC project.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The proposed project is ~150 km from the queen Charlotte/Fairweather fault, however given the size of the dam ground
motions from earthquakes on this source should be considered in design. All projects proposing the development of
permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural
hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges,
ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be
required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of
proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http:/AWwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 13/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA __
Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project
App #1107 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.21
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $13,391,869 Cost of Electricity $0.12/kWh
Grant Fund Request $2,797,935 Price of Fuel $4.09/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $6,695,934
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
AEA does not recommend the requested phase of this project be funded at this time due to unsupported feasibility claims and
incomplete prior phases. For a design/construction project the applicant must provide sufficient information to complete an
economic and/or technical evaluation. This application did not provide sufficient information on the amount and cost of diesel
generation (the alternative to the proposed project) and a clear, verifiable demonstration of how much diesel generation is
expected to be offset by the proposed project. Additionally, the application did not demonstrate the fulfillment of all
requirements of earlier phases. This application indicates that that the final design and permitting tasks are not yet
complete.A Southeast Alaska hydro needs assessment has been funded by the State to identify the next most economical
hydro needs in the region. This work is underway but not yet complete.No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg
Page 14/138 01/06/2015
[Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 j= ALASKA __
Neck Lake Hydropower Project
App #1108 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast
Applicant: Alaska Power Company Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility, Design
Project Description
Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), requests $391,200 for Phase Il and
Phase Ill activities for the Neck Lake hydropower project. The 124 kW Neck Lake Hydroelectric Project will be located below
the outlet of Neck Lake, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the community of Whale Pass on Prince of Wales Island,
Alaska. The Project will displace as much as 450,000 kilowatt hours of diesel electric energy per year to the community of
Whale Pass which is currently the sole source of electricity for residents. The relatively high and modulated flows from the
lake combined with the steep drop at the lower end of the outlet stream provide an attractive opportunity for a small run-of-
river hydroelectric project. Project features would include an access road, intake structure, 400 feet of penstock, a
containerized power plant, a tailrace channel, and 4 miles of distribution line upgrades. The hydroelectric facilities will be
designed to avoid interference with the existing salmon rearing and collection facilities operated at Neck Lake by the
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA). APC conducted a reconnaissance study of the site in 2009
and determined that there is sufficient potential to almost always provide enough generation meeting 100% of current and
future Whale Pass loads. This Project will provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate stabilization and lower rates for
APC’s Whale Pass customers.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
SSRAA Lease ADL 106174. Uplands designated Public Facilities (P) and Public Recreation Undeveloped (Ru). ADFG has
also recently inquired to place a trail in this area.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The proposed project is ~150 km from the Queen Charlotte/Fairweather fault, ground motions from earthquakes on this
source should be considered in design.All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a
geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes,
active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and
erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site
survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on
active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 15/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _ (mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Neck Lake Hydropower Project
App #1108 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score __ Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 25.61 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 63.50
2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.94
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 7.83
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 7.50 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 4
6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 8
7. Sustainability (5) 3.33 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 60.77
Total Stage 3 Score (100) : 60.77
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $3,011,475 Cost of Electricity $0.59/kWh
Grant Fund Request $391,200 Price of Fuel $4.01/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $97,800
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
AP&T's reconnaissance study indicates this project may be economical despite the very low population and energy demand
in Whale Pass. The application indicates that demand is expected to increase because several residents in Whale Pass lack
connection to the local utility.
AEA recommends feasibility analysis to include assessment of project size and economics for offsetting heat demand and the
growth potential for the community followed by design and permitting if warranted.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $391,200 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 16/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The project will consist of engineering and layout; acquiring machinery and equipment, installation of fuel delivery systems;
and acquiring and installing biomass boilers to be integrated into the existing heating system of the Craig High School. The
system will use dried fuel from the AEA funded dryer at Viking Lumber and benefit Viking Lumber by expanding the market
base for dry wood fuel. The installed boilers would heat the 53,319 square foot high school using wood chips generated by
operations at a local lumber mill. Feedstock for the mill and the resulting wood chips comes from timber logged from the
nearby Tongass National Forest, Southeast Alaska State Forest, Alaska Native Corporation lands and other private lands.
The project is similar in scope to the Craig wood-fired boiler and will share an existing contract to provide wood chips for the
boiler. A preliminary feasibility study for conversion from fossil fuel to wood heating for the Craig High School was prepared
for the Craig City School District by Robert Deering, Biomass Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, Tongass National
Forest. An energy audit has also been completed for the facility.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project was reviewed for the Round 7 application period. This project is for construction of a new biomass boiler to heat
the Craig High School. The boiler will be in addition to one that is currently operational and is heating the elementary and
middle schools. The system will use dried wood fuel from the AEA funded drier at Viking Lumber. Wood supply for this project
appears sustainable because Viking’s raw wood supply originates from a variety of land owners including the Tongass
National Forest, Southeast State Forest and village corporation lands.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 17/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.95 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 82.50
2. Matching Resources (15) 13.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.98
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 14.17
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 13.88 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 3
6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 3
7. Sustainability (5) 4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 69.50
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 69.50
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $679,950 Costof Electricity $0.26/kWh
Grant Fund Request $493,100 Price of Fuel $4.10/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $186,850
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The Craig High School District in Craig, AK requests funding for engineering design and construction of a chip fueled
biomass heating system for the Craig High School. The project is estimated to displace 18,485 gallons of fuel/year. The Craig
City School District has over 6 years of experience in operating and maintaining a chip system at their middle school,
elementary school, and pool complex. The chips will be supplied by a local sawmill and will be dried by dryer funded through
the Renewable Energy Fund. Energy efficiency improvements are underway or completed at the high school to maximize the
efficiency of the heating system.
Recommend funding for design and construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final
engineering design and the final business/operational plan prior to starting the construction phase.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $493,100 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 18/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Native Village of Tazlina is proposing a small wood boiler to heat four community buildings: Community Hall,
Clinic/Police Station, Office, and Shop. A centrally located boiler will supply heat through underground insulated pex pipe
running to all four buildings. The existing oil boilers will remain as backup.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Timber harvest for biomass supply may require DNR Division of Forestry to be notified, but no SCRO involvement. (Proposed
location for Biomass plant is near/within a building complex on Native alloted land, but within the vicinity of an ILMA with
DOTPF ADL 52590, the Tazlina River, and a conveyed subdivision.)
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project was reviewed for the Round 7 application period and is for design and construction of a wood chip fired boiler at
Tazlina. The system would be used to heat four collocated community public buildings. The supply of chips is expected to
come from NRCS funded moose habitat clearings occurring on Ahtna lands and on BIA funded hazard fuel breaks. Roughly
116 green tons will be required annually. Based on state lands inventory data collected in the Glennallen area, roughly 30
green tons per acre of above ground biomass is present on the forest lands. The amount of raw material required for Tazlina
would be quite sustainable if harvested in the Copper River Basin area. In the event these publicly funded projects are
unable to provide biomass, Tazlina is willing to procure the raw material at an estimated cost of $90.00/green ton. They would
also be willing to purchase fuel wood locally at $250-300 per cord and then chip prior to burning. At a fuel price of $90.00/
green ton, the annual fuel purchase price would be $10,400. This amountis significantly lower than the annual cost
($39,582) of 8,078 gallons of fuel oil. Tazlina expects to use information from the Mentasta village boiler for possible
purchase ofa similar system for trial. If it does not perform adequately for Mentasta then Tazlina may default to a more
standard Garn solid wool boiler.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 19/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 16.76 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 68.67
2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.06
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 9.56
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.83 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 5.25 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 17
6. Local Support (5) 4.00 . Regional (of all applications) 2
7. Sustainability (5) 4.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 53.40
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 53.40
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $200,000 Cost of Electricity $0.18/kWh
Grant Fund Request $270,807 _ Price of Fuel $3.83/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $54,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. The
buildings to be heated by this project are in need of energy efficiency upgrades, and the amount of fuel displaced would be
significantly less after the energy efficiency work. The Copper Valley Region has embraced biomass as an alternative fuel
source and has operating systems in Kenny Lake, Gulkana, and Glennallen. The Native Village of Tazlina has shown
commitment to a successful wood heating project through persistence in their applications to the RE Fund. There is a
sufficient wood supply through a BLM wildfire mitigation contract. The Alaska demonstration of the boiler technology
proposed for this project is in the start-up phase in Mentasta Lake, and AEA is monitoring the performance.
AEA recommends full funding for a cordwood boiler system. The applicant has requested that AEA manage the project. The
project will examine energy efficiency within the served buildings.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $270,807 Election District: C-6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border
Page 20/138 01/06/2015
(@@mm ENERGY AUTHORITY [Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA.
Crater Lake Power and Water Project
App #1111 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro, Storage, Other Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach
Applicant: Cordova Electric Cooperative, Proposed Phase(s): Design
Inc.
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility, Design
Project Description
Cordova Electric's application is for design and permitting for a storage hydro using Crater Lake creating an estimated 400
acre-ft of storage for a 500 kW capacity project capable of generating 2,000 MWh's of electricity at an estimated cost of $10
million. Crater Lake is a perched lake located directly above existing City of Cordova chlorinator building and water supply
line to Cordova, and a CEC transmission line from the Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project to Cordova. The
reconnaissance study (Appendix B) indicates the project can deliver 2,000,000 kWh of direct energy, and up to 2,000,000 of
additional energy by eliminating the need for Power Creek Hydroelectric Plant and Orca Diesel Generation Plants to provide
spinning reserve — the most significant waste of hydro and diesel fuel resources on the CEC system. The Crater Lake
Hydroelectric Project represents a relatively low risk, low cost, high value hydroelectric project with multiple extended public
benefits.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Most of dam, intake, penstock, etc are proposed for construction on DMLW managed water or fee estate and will require
SCRO authorization. Issued SCRO pededrian public access easement ADL 226467 may be affected. A Water Rights
application recieved. Non FERC project. One or more stream gauges are presently installed on DMLW lands without
application/authorization.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Strong ground motions from subduction zone earthquakes should be considered in design. All projects proposing the
development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects
from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence,
storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on
location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 21/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Crater Lake Power and Water Project
App #1111 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.01 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 71.67
2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.30
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 10.56
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.67 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 12.63 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 1
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) q
7. Sustainability (5) 3.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 66.70
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 66.70
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $10,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.39/kWh
Grant Fund Request $500,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.48/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $350,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
The proposed budget for the feasibility analysis appears insufficient for the project scope that should include stream gauging,
operational modeling, sensitivity analysis and capacity recommendations, conceptual designs, cost estimating and economic
analysis for the hydro, water supply system, and spinning reserve alternative analysis.
Recommended for funding with the special provision that the prior phase of feasibility is included in the grant scope followed
by design and permitting contingent on results and AEA acceptance of feasibility report.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $500,000 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia
Page 22/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA (mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
100 Kilowatt Solar Array for Kotzebue
App #1112 Standard Application
Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Northwest Artic
Applicant: Kotzebue Electric Association Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction
Inc. :
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction
Project Description
Kotzebue Electric Association (KEA) has applied for final design, permitting, and construction funding of $384,730 fora
$449,178 solar project. The project as proposed is a 100kW, dual-axis tracking solar photovoltaic system to be installed at
KEA’s wind farm approximately four miles from Kotzebue. There are no prior REF grants directly associated with this project,
although it would be constructed at KEA’s wind site which did receive REF funding for two 900kW EWT wind turbines and
associated equipment.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 23/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA __
100 Kilowatt Solar Array for Kotzebue
App #1112 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 7 17.53 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 42.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.30
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.67
4. Project Readiness (5) 0.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 7.13 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 15
6. Local Support (5) 2.00 Regional (of all applications) 4
7. Sustainability (5) 3.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 41.83
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 41.83
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $449,178 Cost of Electricity $0.40/kWh
Grant Fund Request $384,730 Price of Fuel $5.97/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $64,448
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
The application as proposed and additional information received did not fully address the feasibility and conceptual design-
level issues expected to be complete prior to providing REF funding for final design and construction. AEA recommends
partial funding of $20,000 to complete a feasibility study for solar PV development in Kotzebue. The study should consider
fixed, single and dual tracking systems.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $20,000 Election District: T-40 Arctic
Page 24/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
A biomass district heat system will be installed to serve eight multiplex residential buildings and one community center in
Angoon, Alaska. The buildings are currently heated with one oil boiler per residence and also one boiler for the community
center. The objective of this project is to reduce fossil fuel consumption and operating costs by installing a wood-fired pellet
heating plant to serve all nine buildings in the complex. This project is expected to displace 11,400 gallons of heating fuel
annually.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land. Longitude does not appear to be correct.
DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments
The project is for the replacement of an oil fired boiler with a pellet boiler to provide heat for eight residential buildings and
one community center in Angoon. Pellets would be provided by existing pellet manufacturers either in Southeast, Interior or
out of state suppliers. It is estimated that the annual fuel cost would be $360.00 per ton with an annual fuel usage of 103 tons.
Delivered pellet vendor price estimates were not included in the proposal though commercial scale pellet utilization is
successfully occurring in various Southeast communities.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 25/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 22.75 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 75.83
2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.79
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 11.94
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.33 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 12.87 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 1
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1
7. Sustainability (5) 4.33. Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 75.22
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 75.22
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $292,184 Costof Electricity $0.68/kWh
Grant Fund Request $240,592 Price of Fuel $5.20/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $266,592
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority proposes a biomass district heat system to serve eight multiplex residential
buildings and one community center in Angoon, Alaska. This project is expected to displace 11,400 gallons of heating fuel
annually.
THRHA have demonstrated that pellet and cordwood heating systems can significantly reduce the heating costs in their
buildings. They are successfully operating and maintaining the systems and helping to develop the pellet supply
infrastructure in Southeast. The engineering complexity of this project is a concern and AEA recommends careful integration
and budget planning.
Recommend full funding for design and construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final
engineering design and the final business/operational plan.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $240,592 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 26/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority proposes a biomass pellet heat system that will be installed at the (18) unit senior
housing center in Klawock, Alaska. The building is currently heated with oil. The project will entail the installation of a single
biomass heating system and will reduce the cost of heat by offsetting 4,750 gallons of fuel oil with 42 tons of pellets per year.
The biomass heat system will be located within the existing building.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
The project is for the replacement of an oil fired boiler with a pellet boiler to provide heat for eight residential buildings and
one community center in Klawock. Similar to the above grant application 1113, pellets would be provided by existing pellet
manufacturers either in Southeast, Interior or out of state suppliers. It is estimated that the annual fuel cost would be $330.00
per ton with an annual fuel usage of 42 tons. Delivered pellet vendor price estimates were not included in the proposal
though commercial scale pellet utilization is successfully occurring in various Southeast communities.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 27/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 18.04 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 59.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.09
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 6.33
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.33 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 4.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 14
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 10
7. Sustainability (5) 4.33 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 56.78
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 56.78
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $102,275 Cost of Electricity $0.26/kWh
Grant Fund Request $102,275 Price of Fuel $4.12/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $314,381
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
THRHA have demonstrated that pellet and cordwood heating systems can significantly reduce the heating costs in their
buildings. They are successfully operating and maintaining the systems and helping to develop the pellet supply
infrastructure in Southeast. There are few details for the engineering design in this proposal and AEA is concerned that it
might be difficult to complete the design within the budget allocations.
Recommend full funding for design and construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final
engineering design and the final business/operational plan.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $102,275 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 28/138 01/06/2015
ALASKA __ = i= (@@lmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
St. Mary’s-Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
App #1115 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Proposed Phase(s): Construction
Cooperative, Inc.
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Construction
Project Description
AVEC proposes to complete construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of four wind turbines to supplement the
existing power generation system for currently intertied communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. As a part of this project,
AVEC will upgrade the electrical distribution line between St. Mary's and Pitka’s Point to a 3-phase line and upgrade the joint
power plant to accommodate wind turbine energy generators.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 29/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
St. Mary’s-Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
App #1115 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 25.59 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 56.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.00
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 5.33
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.83 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 2.63 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 4
7. Sustainability (5) 5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 56.38
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 56.38.
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $4,886,000 Cost of Electricity $0.59/kWh
Grant Fund Request $4,348,540 Price of Fuel $6.95/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $537,460
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a utility, proposes the construction of a wind farm along the St. Mary's/Pitka's
Point intertie along with components necessary for the integration of wind power into the diesel power plant. The wind-diesel
system would serve the communities of St. Mary's and Pitka's Point. The basis for the proposed wind-diesel system is a
design funded through Round 4 RE Fund grant #7040017. Permitting for the project is completed, site control has been
established and a 65% design has been submitted to the Authority.
Recommend full funding with the special provision that the 95% design be accepted by the Authority prior to allocation of
construction funds.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $4,348,540 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta
Page 30/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... @mm® ENERGY AUTHORITY
Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Geotechnical Study and Final Design
App #1116 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Kodiak
Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Proposed Phase(s): Design
Cooperative, Inc.
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design
Project Description
AVEC requests funds to complete geotechnical and final design for a 262kW (initial) 525kW (future) run of the river
hydroelectric project with water diverted from East Fork Mountain Creek in Old Harbor on Kodiak Island. Hatch was
contracted by AVEC for the feasibility report. The 4-6 foot high by 100 foot long intake structure is proposed to be concrete.
The 16 to 20 inch, 10,350 long buried penstock will consist of HDPE and steel. The 11,700 foot long intake access trail will be
12 foot wide. The hydro powerhouse is expected to be 25 x 35 x 12 foot metal building. The new 6,200 foot long road to the
turbine will be 24 foot wide. A new 7,700 foot long 7.2kV 3 phase distribution tie lie will follow the new road alignment. The
project will divert 5.9 to 11.8 cfs of water from East Fork Mountain Creek to the Lagoon Creek. The FERC license application
was submitted in October 2013. FERC license anticipated to be issued in December 2015.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
SoA holds the development rights for a significant portion of the project under an EVOS acquisition; Feds hold the fee (LSH
478). SoAs Conservation easement may preclude the construction of the project, however, Cindy Schoniger / Title is
presently working to modify the consevation easement to allow (no ADL reference). Water Right application received.
Requires FERC review.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider ground motions from earthquakes generated on the Narrow Cape fault zone and the Aleutian
subduction zone. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey
to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis,
landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and
incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a
condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is
available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 31/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA.
Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Geotechnical Study and Final Design
App #1116 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 27.52 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 61.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.36
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 7.00
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.17 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 8.50 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 2
6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 1
7. Sustainability (5) 4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 61.69
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 61.69
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $9,200,000 Cost of Electricity $0.63/kWh
Grant Fund Request $400,000 ‘Price of Fuel $5.53/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $20,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
The project received grants in Round 1 (#73) for $225,000 and Round 4 (#644) for $237,500 to complete a feasibility study,
FERC licensing, and preliminary design. Additionally, the City of Old Harbor received a Community Development Block Grant
in support of the project for $250,000 to complete the FERC License Application and permitting. FERC license application
processing could cause delay. Significant site control issues could arise since the project lands include Kodiak NWR anda
conservation easement by Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. Turbine and penstock are oversized anticipating future
growth. Requested funds for this portion of work are excessive. AEA recommends partial funding to advance final design
work, excluding geotechnical work, with the special provisions that 1) the grantee maximize the use of excess hydro or
reduce hydro size to maximize the public benefit and project economics, and 2) provide a detailed design budget a list of the
proposed consultants prior to grant execution.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $400,000 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia
Page 32/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA. (@@m> ENERGY AUTHORITY
Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project
App #1117 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility
Cooperative, Inc.
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Project Description
AVEC proposes to use wind data to be collected by AEA and to complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of
installing wind turbines in Goodnews Bay. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the
geotechnical fieldwork and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering
at the site. A conceptual design will be created based upon the wind data and geotechnical investigation.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 33/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA.
Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project
App #1117 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 27.53 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 59.33
2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.17
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 6.44
4. Project Readiness (5) 4.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 5.50 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 7 5
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 3
7. Sustainability (5) 3.67 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 59.14
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 59.14
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $1,634,500 Costof Electricity $0.63/kWh
Grant Fund Request $123,500 Price of Fuel $5.28/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $6,500
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
AVEC (Alaska Village Electric Cooperative), applying as a utility, proposes feasibility and conceptual design work to
determine the advisability of installing wind turbines in Goodnews Bay. AVEC is working with AEA, through the wind
program's Anemometer Loan Program, to install a meteorological tower and study the wind for a minimum of 12 months.
AVEC would perform geotechnical work and investigate multiple turbine types and quantities in the process of preparing a
conceptual design report.
Recommend full funding.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $123,500 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim
Page 34/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative proposes to complete a detailed assessment of the existing 40 year old heat
recovery system and prepare a conceptual design report of essential upgrades to the existing system and potential new
recovered heat connections. The project would also consider additional heat capture using exhaust gas heat exchangers.
Assessment of the existing system would include installation of BTU meters and inline ultrasonic inspection of the 10”
pipeline mains. Heat is recovered from the powerhouse’s six 2.2 MWEMD 16-645 E4D generators. The application is based
on a reconnaissance study completed by Coffman Engineers in 2014. Recommendations in the report include ultrasonic
inspection, consideration of a list of potential future users of recovered heat, and evaluation of the installation of exhaust gas
heat exchangers for system evaluation.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land. (Inspection of existing facility.)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 35/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 30.6 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 71.17
2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.63
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 10.39
4. Project Readiness (5) 1.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 11.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 5
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1
7. Sustainability (5) 2.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 69.07
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 69.07
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $9,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.60/kWh
Grant Fund Request $645,613 Price of Fuel $6.99/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $33,980
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
Bethel has ample waste heat available for recovery and numerous significant heat loads within a one mile radius of the
powerhouse. The existing heat recovery system is near the end of its useful life and will require both immediate and ongoing
repairs and modifications to prolong operation for an additional 20 years. Construction costs associated with repairs to the
existing system are not eligible for Renewable Energy Fund funding, however, expansion of the existing system is eligible.
Estimates of the cost of new connections to the heat recovery system were not provided although expansion does appear to
be economical under a broad range of scenarios. The addition of exhaust gas heat exchangers contemplated in the proposal
appears to increase the amount of heat available for recovery beyond the demand projected for the potential heat loads
identified in the application; AVEC believes that additional loads may be identified that could increase demand to the point
where additional heat capture could be beneficial.
AEA is concerned with the high cost of ultrasonic testing of the existing main pipeline proposed in the application and
believes that alternate methods may prove more cost effective. Such methods could include an assessment of maintenance
history of the distribution pipes to identify common failure points, and physical removal and inspection of sections of the pipe.
However, AVEC may choose to complete ultrasonic testing as a part of its operation and maintenance plan for the system.
Partial funding in the amount of $325,000 is recommended to complete conceptual design of expansion of the heat recovery
system.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $325,000 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim
Page 36/138 01/06/2015
= DLASKA
(@mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Shungnak Wind-Diesel Design
App #1119 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Northwest Artic
Applicant: Native Village of Shungnak Proposed Phase(s): Design
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Project Description
Based on the conclusions of a completed wind resource data collection report, the Native Village of Shungnak will, with
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) assistance, complete the design process to successfully install a wind-diesel system in the
community. This includes automated controls and the equipment necessary to regulate, control and deliver reliable wind
energy to the residents of the community. The project will produce the final designs and plans and complete the necessary
permitting for one projected wind turbine and the associated equipment installations to upgrade the existing power
generation and distribution system to produce power from a wind turbine-diesel engine configuration. The Native Village of
Shungnak will hire and contract with an engineering consultant to complete this design project and provide management
oversight of any subcontracted engineering/design firms. The consultant will also complete the construction solicitation
package by working closely with NANA Regional Corporation, Shungnak Power Plant operator, and the Native Village of
Shungnak.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project does not appear to involve state land; however RS 2477 rights-of-way ( RST casefile 105, 115, 124) are in the vicinity.
If RS 2477 routes are intended to be used for the project, applicant should contact DMLW Northern Region to review
proposed use.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 37/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA...
Shungnak Wind-Diesel Design
App #1119 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 29.71 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 40.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.69
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.00
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 0.63 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 12
6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 3
7. Sustainability (5) 2.17 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 45.51
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 45.51
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $6,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.68/kWh
Grant Fund Request $525,000 ‘Price of Fuel $8.90/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $27,036
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
Because a full conceptual design has not yet been completed, several key technical considerations remain unknown. Without
an intertie to Ambler, the combined load for Shungnak and Kobuk are not large enough to support more than 400kW of wind
power without designing very complex controls. The Shungnak power plant is not currently scheduled for upgrades that
would facilitate variable wind energy. The most significant factor influencing the developability of this project is the recent low
river levels and resultant unpredictable barge deliveries. The project would need to incorporate turbines, materials and
construction equipment that could be mobilized through alternate methods - likely by air cargo. This might eliminate larger
turbines that offer better economies of scale and would add costs that are well above existing benchmarks. The applicant
should work to finish the conceptual design report (CDR) that has been self-funded to date. In addition to the standard
deliverables in AEA's wind Guidelines for Conceptual Design Reports, the applicant should address the logistical challenges
that are unique to this location in the CDR.
Recommend partial funding to complete the CDR.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $95,000 Election District: T-40 Arctic
Page 38/138 01/06/2015
(@@lm™m®> ENERGY AUTHORITY [Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA...
Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project
App #1120 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Yukon-Koyuk/Upper Tanana
Applicant: Upper Tanana Energy, LLC Proposed Phase(s): Construction
(UTE)
Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Construction
Project Description
Upper Tanana Energy's application is for construction of a new 1,500 kWrun of river hydro on Yerrick Creek serving the
communities of Tok and surrounding area capable of producing approximately 7,000 MWh's of energy annually at an
estimated cost of $19 million. The communities in the upper Tanana region (Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, Dot Creek) are currently
dependent upon diesel-fired generation of electricity and pay energy costs of $0.50/kWh (before PCE). Upper Tanana
Energy, LLC is requesting $8,000,000 through the AEA REF Round VIII program for Phase IV — Construction which is the
estimated level of funding support required by the State of Alaska that will result in a project which produces clean energy for
half of the cost of diesel-fired generation of electricity. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will displace approximately 40%,
or 4,900 MWh’s, of the region’s diesel-fired generation. Tanacross Inc., the Native Village of Tanacross, and AP&T signed a
Memorandum of Understanding expressing willingness to work cooperatively on the Yerrick Creek project in August of 2014.
The three entities established a new partnership named Upper Tanana Energy to develop, own, and operate the project as
an independent power producer (IPP). Yerrick Creek is located on private and State lands and has received a non-
jurisdictional determination from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) making it possible to develop this
hydropower project in a timely fashion without undergoing federal permitting processes through FERC. Construction is
anticipated to be complete by 2017. Project partners anticipate that all remaining permitting, power sales agreement, and
other pre-construction activities will be complete by the 2015 construction season. Unlike other communities in Alaska, Tok
and surrounding communities of the upper Tanana region have not yet had the opportunity to transition from 100% diesel-
fired generation to an energy mix including renewables. If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in
the future, these communities will also benefit. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become
connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Some of the infrastructure will be on state land and require DMLW easements or leases and material site designation.
Easement and material applications were filed during a previous phase of the project, but were suspended in 2010 when
non-state land use negotiations faltered. On July 16, 2013, APT was notified that the files were being closed out due to non-
action and no updates from applicant. The notice informed them that applicant would need to contact DMLW to re-activate
applications if project resumed. To date, no re-activation requests have been received. No Water Right application received.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Ground motions from earthquakes generated on the nearby Dot "T" Johnson and Cathedral Rapids faults should be
considered in project design. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical
site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults,
tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and
incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a
condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is
available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 39/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project
App #1120 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 21.68 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 47.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.21
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 2.33
4. Project Readiness (5) 1.67 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 6.00 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 9
6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (ofall applications) 2
7. Sustainability (5) 3.33 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 54.01
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 54.01
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $24,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.50/kWh
Grant Fund Request $8,000,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.38/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $16,000,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
AEA REF review staff originally concluded that this application did not demonstrate a verifiable technically and economically
feasible project for the following reasons:
+ _ Insufficient information was provided on the intake geotechnical conditions, hydraulic design, and design documents
with sufficient information to evaluate the technical feasibility and cost of the project.
+ _ Insufficient information was provided on the stream gauging data and hydrology analysis to verify the economic
feasibility of the project.
AEA’s review staff performed a more detailed evaluation and found that the technical feasibility can be expected to be
resolved in a timely manner, that the project is still economically viable even when the project operation and cost is adjusted
to alleviate economic concerns.
AEA recommends full funding with the special provision that the design be finalized and approved by AEA prior to issuing a
grant for the construction phase.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $8,000,000 Election District: C-6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border
Page 40/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
Akiachak Native Community Electric Company (“the Utility”) proposes a biomass project to save fuel and reduce costs for the
generators and community buildings. The project includes all phases of development including reconnaissance, feasibility,
design and construction. The project would be located on Akiachak, Alaska about 18 air miles east of Bethel.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Timber harvest for biomass supply may require DNR Division of Forestry to be notified. Likely no SCRO involvement:
Community roads (ADL 222349) or RST 22 and 32 possibly required for travel; project vehilces may exceed GAUs, as page 5
includes dump trucks, loader, etc. No DMLW fee simple involvement; biomass to be sources from Akiachak Village Corp
Lands, and further there are no substantial areas of DMLW fee estate for 80+ miles from village.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project's first step is examining the feasibility of offsetting fuel oil use with biomass. The source of biomass will be from
forests on village corporation lands. Forest inventory data for this area is lacking and the only known sources are LandFire
and the National Land Cover Dataset which have rather coarse estimates of biomass volume per acre. Depending upon how
much biomass is ultimately needed this dataset could be used to provide initial resource estimates. Other data sources
include recent Spot and Quickbird satellite imagery which covers much of the area around the village. More detailed forest
inventory estimates may be required if timber resource sustainability becomes a question.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 41/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $3,100,000 Cost of Electricity $0.60/kWh
Grant Fund Request $3,000,000 _‘ Price of Fuel $6.77/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $100,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
This project did not pass stage 1 eligibility requirements.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim
Page 42/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Koyuk and use it to heat the city’s water system via a heating connection into the water
treatment plant's hydronic heating system. The heat recovery system is projected to save the water treatment plant 11,971
gallons of the estimated 12,300 gallons of heating oil used per year. The existing water treatment plantwasheteria is located
850 feet from the powerhouse and also provides heat to the circulating water lines and heat to the community water storage
tank. The proposed connecting pipe will be buried 3-in polypropylene and fiberglass composite carrier pipe insulated with
3.5-in foam insulation and an HDPE outer jacket. The powerhouse’s DDS60 1800 RPM generator would be equipped with a
marine manifold as a part of the project increase the amount of recoverable heat. The application is based on a 2014
feasibility study completed by ANTHC.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Application does not appear to involve state land, however DOT ILMA (casefile ADL 55622) is in immediate vicinity; if pipe
systems must cross property, coordination with DOT would be appropriate.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 43/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 27.12 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 49.33
2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.70
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 3.11
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 0.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 18
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1
7. Sustainability (5) 4.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 52.81
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 52.81
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $729,600 Costof Electricity $0.60/kWh
Grant Fund Request $729,600 Price of Fuel $6.20/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $92,296
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a significant amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the
project demonstrates marginal economic value. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the design
phase that can significantly improve the project economics.
AEA recommends partial funding of $50,000 to complete the final design phase only.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta
Page 44/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA.
Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project
App #1123 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach
Applicant: Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI) Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction
Project Description
Chitina's application is for design and construction of a new 300 kWrun of river (no storage) hydro on Fivemile Creek serving
the community of Chitina producing approximately 2,000 MWh's of energy The proposed Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric
Project consists of the following major components: 1. Creek diversion/intake structure- The proposed diversion/intake
structure would divert a portion of the flow from Fivemile Creek into a pipeline (penstock and would also create a small
impoundment that would provide freeze protection. 2. Penstock — The proposed penstock would transport water from the
intake structure to the turbine powerhouse. The penstock will be buried, and will consist of insulated HDPE pipe (low
pressure reach) and schedule 20 welded steel pipe (high pressure reach). The pipe will range from 12-20 inches in diameter
and will be roughly 10,400 feet long. 3. Diversion Access Road — An access road will be constructed between the existing
jeep trail and the proposed diversion/intake structure location. This road will be approximately 2,850 feet long and will
provide access for construction and maintenance of the diversion/intake structure. 4. Turbine Building — the turbine building
will house a 300 kW pelton wheel turbine/generator and controls. The building foundation will include a tailrace that will
return water from the penstock to the creek. 5. Electrical Intertie - A 4-mile long overhead transmission line will connect the
turbine power plant step up transformer to the community grid. The transmission line was constructed utilizing federal grant
funds in 2008. 6. Diesel Integration - The proposed hydro switchgear will be linked to the community's existing diesel
powerhouse controls. The diesel plant will function primarily as a backup system after the hydro is constructed. 7. Heat
Recovery — An electric boiler will be installed in the existing diesel module and connected to the existing hydronic heat
recovery system currently utilized to heat the clinic building and the AST used to store diesel fuel for the diesel plant. The
boiler will provide frequency control and allow for continued utilization of the existing heat recovery system infrastructure. 8.
Excess energy utilization — During most times of the year, excess water flow will be available to produce electricity above and
beyond the community’s electric demand. During these times the excess energy will be delivered to dispatchable loads
throughout town. The dispatchable loads will include electric heaters installed at community buildings, residential living
facilities and commercial facilities.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Proposed project is entirely on Chitna Native Corp fee estate and/or BLM 17(b) access easement. However, page 8 of the
2014 application notes that Chitina Electric has abandonded an existing hydro project located partially within Town Lake
(aka Trout Lake?) in Chitina; lake is not BLM meandered, but is approximately 35 acres in size. Removal of abandoned
infastructure needed? A Water Rights application received.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 45/138 01/06/2015
App #1123
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project
Standard Application
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.95
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100) Wi
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $7,770,000 Cost of Electricity $0.71/kWh
Grant Fund Request $7,620,000 ‘Price of Fuel $3.94/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $500,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
AEA does not recommend funding the requested phase of this project at this time due to incomplete prior phases, per the
AEA Request for Applications 15003 section 2.2 to 2.6. The project appears to have marginal economic benefit and the final
design and cost estimates may impact the economic viability.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0
Page 46/138
Election District: C-6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border
01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Grayling and use it to heat the city’s water system via a heating connection into the water
treatment plant’s hydronic heating system. The heat recovery system is projected to save the water treatment plant 6,669
gallons of the estimated 8,004 gallons of heating oil used per year. The water treatment plant is located 250 feet from the
powerhouse and will also provide heat to the circulating water lines the community water storage tank. The proposed
connecting pipe will be buried 2.5-in PEX pipe insulated with 3.5-in foam insulation and an HDPE outer jacket. The
powerhouse’s DDS60 1200 RPM generator would be equipped with a marine manifold as a part of the project increase the
amount of recoverable heat. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No SCRO involvement.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 47/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 24.4 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 50.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.75
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 3.33
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 0.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 21
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 3
7. Sustainability (5) 4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 47.98
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 47.98
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $458,716 Costof Electricity $0.63/kWh
Grant Fund Request $454,277 Price of Fuel $5.58/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $26,439
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a significant amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the
project is marginally economical. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the design phase that can
significantly improve the project economics.
Partial funding of $50,000 recommended for the final design phase only.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 48/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
In 2013-2014, the Northwest Arctic Borough, through funding provided by the AEA Renewable Energy Fund, contracted with
Tetra Tech, Inc. and Dowl HKM to complete a biomass feasibility study and initial engineering design for the Upper Kobuk
villages of Amlber, Shungnak and Kobuk. This study concluded that Ambler’s City Hall / Washeteria building offered the best
opportunity in the region to integrate biomass heating into an existing community facility. The proposed project will build from
this initial work to complete the design and construction of a biomass heating system to serve the City Hall / Washeteria in
Ambler. Specifically, the project will install a manually-fed cordwood boiler to be housed in a prefabricated building and
integrated into the existing building via a circulating glycol heat transfer loop. Modifications to the existing building heating
system will be carried out as needed to ensure effective utilization of biomass heat as part of a separate Ambler Washeteria
Upgrades project funded by the Indian Health Service (match to this project). The estimated heating oil reduction resulting
from this biomass project is projected to save the Washeteria and City Office 3,516 gallons of heating oil per year.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Infrastructure and most potential biomass resources proposed are not on state land. If biomass is proposed for harvest from
state lands at some phase of the project, applicant will need to obtain timber sales from the State of Alaska.
DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for design and construction of a biomass heating system to heat the City Hall and washeteria. A manually fed
cordwood boiler would be installed in a prefabricated building. It is estimated that 30 cords annually would be needed ata
price of $210.00/cord. Resource availability has been previously examined by the Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry
Program. A detailed inventory report was written that provides a preliminary assessment of the biomass energy resources
within a 25-mile radius of Ambler. A significant volume was available indicating that the 30 cords can be harvested relatively
close to the village. A detailed harvest plan will be written as part of this proposal. This harvest plan should answer resource
sustainability and harvest location concerns.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 49/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 35 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 47.67
2. Matching Resources (15) 8.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.12
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 2.56
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 6.12 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) ‘a
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (ofall applications) 2
7. Sustainability (5) 1.17 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 60.35
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 60.35
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $433,379 Cost of Electricity $0.62/kWh
Grant Fund Request $379,583 Price of Fuel $10.67/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $13,796
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
ANTHC and the City of Ambler propose the final design and construction of a cordwood-fueled biomass heating system to
serve the Washeteria and City Office building in Ambler, Alaska. The proposed biomass heating system would be manually-
fed and housed in a pre-fabricated building. The system is anticipated to displace 3,516 gallons of heating fuel per year. The
request is a continuation of a Round 2 grant, "Upper Kobuk River Biomass".
The economics of this project are marginal and there is opportunity to reduce the overall cost of the project. The design phase
should focus on a lower cost installation. The community must also develop an acceptable operations and maintenance plan
for this project, including contingencies for staffing and wood supply.
Recommend full funding with the special provision that no construction funding be released until the final design and
business/operating plan is approved.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $379,583 Election District: T-40 Arctic
Page 50/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
In 2013, AEA provided funding to the community of Huslia through the Renewable Energy Fund for initial planning and
conceptual design of a biomass heating system to serve community buildings. Under this previous grant, Huslia partnered
with ANTHC to engineer a conceptual design and to develop an initial woody biomass resource assessment and a draft
operations plan. The proposed project will build from this initial work to complete the design and construction of a biomass
heating system to serve the Health Clinic and Washeteria/Water Treatment Plant in Huslia, Alaska. Specifically, this project
will install a manually-fed cordwood boiler to be housed in a prefabricated building and integrated into the existing buildings
using circulating glycol heat transfer loops. Modifications to end user building heating systems will be carried out as needed
to ensure effective utilization of biomass heat. The estimated heating oil reduction resulting from this biomass project is
projected to save the Clinic and Water Treatment Plant 8,474 gallons of heating oil per year.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Infrastructure is not on state land, and most biomass resource proposed for use is not state-owned; however, reports cited in
application note potential for some state-owned biomass resource. If state timber resources are planned for harvest, state
timber sales will be required.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for design and construction of a biomass heating system to heat the Health Clinic and Washeteria/Water
Treatment Plan. A manually fed cordwood boiler would be installed in a prefabricated building. It is estimated that 77 cords
annually would be needed at a price of $300.00/cord. Resource availability has been previously examined by the Tanana
Chiefs Conference Forestry Program. A detailed inventory report was written that provides a preliminary assessment of the
biomass energy resources within a 25-mile radius of Huslia. A significant volume was available indicating that the 77 cords
can be harvested relatively close to the village. A detailed harvest plan will be written as part of this proposal. This harvest
plan should answer resource sustainability and harvest location concerns.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 51/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 29.71 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 40.67
2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.67
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.22
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 1.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 15
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1
7. Sustainability (5) 3.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 54.51
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 54.51
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $503,990 Costof Electricity $0.60/kWh
Grant Fund Request $499,000 Price of Fuel $6.79/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $89,990
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
ANTHC and the City of Huslia proposed the Final Design and Construction of a manually-fed cordwood heating system to
serve the Health Clinic and Washeteria/Water Treatment Plant in Huslia, Alaska. The project is estimated to save the Clinic
and Water Treatment Plant 8,474 gallons of heating oil per year. The economics of this project are challenging, but there has
been significant community involvement in the initial planning of the fuel supply. The community champion has attended
biomass workshops and is knowledgeable of the proposed system.
Recommend partial funding of $58,000 to complete the design phase only and work to improve the economics of the project.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $58,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta
Page 52/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA...
Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska
App #1127 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydrokinetic Energy Region: Aleutians
Applicant: City of False Pass Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Project Description
The City of False Pass proposes to follow up a study of the tidal resource in Isanotski Strait with a feasibility study and
conceptual design of a tidal power project. The proposed phase would include current profile surveys at 3-5 sites, submission
of draft study plans to regulatory agencies, detailed economic analyses, conceptual design, cost estimates and operations
plan, and completion of a sub bottom survey. The project envisions installation of a seafloor-mounted 200kW TidGen device
made by Ocean Renewable Power Company. Power would be delivered first to the False Pass community grid with excess
power sold to the recently expanded Bering Pacific Seafood fish processing plant. The city estimates that the project can
generate 730,000 kWh and offset 58,400 gallons of diesel annually.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
On DMLW tide and/or submerged lands. DMLW permit LAS 28655 in place, additional permit applications planned for
submission May 2015 correspondending to next phase of project.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Ground motions from earthquakes generated along the Aleutian subduction zone and associated tsunami hazards should be
considered in project planning and design. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a
geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes,
active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and
erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site
survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on
active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 53/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _ (@@mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska
App #1127
Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.09
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) is
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100) i
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $6,870,575 Cost of Electricity $0.42/kWh
Grant Fund Request $428,646 Price of Fuel $4.08/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $62,500
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The City of False Pass proposed to conduct a feasibility study for a tidal power project in Isanotski Strait, building on previous
reconnaissance efforts. The proposal, which calls for additional field measurements, modeling, site selection, and
preparation for permitting, was submitted on behalf of a strong project team actively involved in pioneering hydrokinetic
development in the state.
Itis difficult to predict how rapidly the installed costs of tidal power generation plants will decline as the technology matures.
The applicant has reasoned that deployment and retrieval costs will decline dramatically as operators gain experience and
equipment is improved. Although numerous challenges may remain before economic deployments can be realized in Alaska,
the potential for such deployments does exist.
The project does not compete economically with other renewable energy projects using mature technology types, and
therefore is not recommended for funding.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0
Page 54/138
Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
Igiugig RivGen® Power System Project
App #1128 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydrokinetic Energy Region: Bristol Bay
Applicant: Igiugig Village Council d/b/a Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction
Igiugig Electric Company
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction
Project Description
The Igiugig Village Council requests REF in the amount of $2,016,509 for Phase Ill Final Design and Permitting and Phase IV
Construction of a RivGen® Power System on the Kvichak River by Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC (ORPC). This
Project will be the first commercial installation of a river hydrokinetic power system in the state of Alaska and follows the
Igiugig Village Council's successful completion of previous project phases — Phase | Reconnaissance and Phase II
Feasibility and Conceptual Design, as well as ORPC’s successful demonstration of the RivGen® Power System, which
generated electricity from the Kvichak River in August 2014.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
An easement will be required for any submerged electrical cable in the Kvichak River, and a lease or permit from SCRO will
likely be required for the RivGen unit itself. (Depending on how ORPC connects a submerged electric cable from the unit in
the Kvichak River, it could impact ADL 226067, an avigation and hazards easement to DOT&PF, Central Region, ADL
221403, a Management Right issued to DOT&PF, ADL 230875, a private, non-exclusive easement issued to United Utilities,
Inc., and ADL 231288, a public utility easement issued to the Village of Igiugig. If any portion of electrical cable would cross
uplands it may impact three seperate management agreements (ADLs 221403, 224031, and 228387) for the Airport at
Igiugig.)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 55/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Igiugig RivGen® Power System Project
App #1128 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.34
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $2,458,622 Cost of Electricity $0.81/kWh
Grant Fund Request $2,016,509 Price of Fuel $8.08/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $296,500
Page 56/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Igiugig RivGen® Power System Project
App #1128 Standard Application
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The proposal from the Igiugig Village Council to complete final design and construction of a river hydrokinetic power project
follows years of work starting in 2008 with resource assessment and continuing with site characterization through device
demonstration. It also builds on experience and information gained from an Emerging Energy Technology Fund (EETF)
award and other significant state and federal investments in hydrokinetics. The community has actively pursued a
hydrokinetic installation and the project team has been on the forefront of hydrokinetic development, including design and
permitting.
The proposed location in the Kvichak River is widely considered the most promising for a hydrokinetic device in the state with
clear water, consistent current velocities, and lack of river ice formation. Significant salmon runs will play a central role in
project permitting and require extensive biological monitoring. While the site and river characteristics are unique in Alaska,
many aspects of the project could result in information transferrable to other sites and other device types and could contribute
to lowering costs for similar projects in the future.
The project proposes to use a second generation device that has not yet been constructed and would still need to overcome
numerous hurdles to be successful. As a first-of-a-kind project, costs are expected to be high. Costly device retrieval and
redeployment would need to occur annually, ata minimum.
Given the state of development of the technology, the proposed project does not compete favorably in the Renewable Energy
Fund (REF) process on economic or technical terms with more mature technologies. However, a successful project would
represent a major step forward and could help pave the way for other projects to better compete on equal terms.
AEA recognizes that the quality of the resource, the commitment of the community and project team, and the investment in
site characterization and preparation combine to make this a compelling river hydrokinetic project. However, the substantial
technical risk associated with deployment of a device that is still under development and the related economic uncertainty do
not make this a suitable Renewable Energy Fund (REF) project. Therefore AEA does not recommend funding this project at
this time.
AEA and the REF Advisory Committee have identified a potential gap that exists between the EETF and REF programs in
which technologies that have demonstrated some level of technical feasibility through an EETF award may still be unable to
compete successfully for an REF award; this proposal appears to fall into that gap. AEA will be requesting the advice of the
REF Advisory Committee regarding the appropriateness of funding projects that fall in the gap between the programs.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 57/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The proposed project will install a manually-fed cordwood boiler into a prefabricated building to heat the City of Nikolai’s
community building, city lodge, school, and city shop using circulating glycol heat transfer loops. Modifications to end user
building heating systems will be carried out as needed to ensure effective utilization of biomass heat. The estimated heating
oil reduction resulting from this biomass project is projected to save the City and school district approximately 9,630 gallons
of heating oil per year.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Timber harvest for biomass supply may require DNR Division of Forestry to be notified. (Biomass Plant is in the vicinity of
three separate management agreements to DOT&PF (ADLs 221521, 221534, and 221522) for the Nikolai Airport. DNR,
Division of Forestry should be consulted regarding any potential harvest of timber from State land for use in the Biomass
plant.)
DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for the installation of a manually fed cordwood boiler to heat the community building, city lodge, school and city
shop. It is estimated that 81 cords annually would be needed ata price of $300.00/cord. Resource availability has been
previously examined by the Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program. A detailed inventory report was written that
provides a preliminary assessment of the biomass energy resources within a 25-mile radius of Nikolai. A significant volume
was available indicating that the 81 cords can be harvested relatively close to the village. A detailed harvest plan will be
written as part of this proposal. This harvest plan should answer resource sustainability and harvest location concerns.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 59/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.71
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $705,893 Cost of Electricity $0.90/kWh
Grant Fund Request $698,904 Price of Fuel $7.76/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $6,989
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
ANTHC and the City of Nikolai propose to complete the final design and construction of a biomass heating system to serve
the community building, school, city lodge, and city shop. This system would be a manually-fed cordwood system and is
anticipated to displace 9,630 gallons of heating fuel annually. The applicant did not demonstrate an economical project nor
strong community involvement that is crucial to the successful implementation of a manually stoked cordwood system. AEA
recommends no funding at this time, but encourages the City of Nikolai to work with AEA staff and the Alaska Wood Energy
Development Task Group to identify potential operators and wood fuel suppliers.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Page 60/138
$0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Holy Cross and use it to heat the city’s water system via heating connections into the
water treatment plant’s hydronic heating system and the lift station. The heat recovery system is projected to save the water
system 4,159 gallons of the estimated 4,826 gallons of heating oil used per year. The existing water treatment plant is located
750 feet from the powerhouse and also provides heat to the circulating water lines and heat to the community water storage
tank. The lift station is located 200 feet from the powerhouse and is heated with electric resistance heaters. The proposed
connecting pipe will be buried 2-in PEX carrier pipe insulated with 5-in foam insulation and an HDPE outer jacket. The
powerhouse’s DDS60 1200 RPM generator would be equipped with a marine manifold as a part of the project increase the
amount of recoverable heat. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not state land. (This project would occur inside an existing power plant.)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 61/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.50
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $439,453 Cost of Electricity $0.60/kWh
Grant Fund Request $390,449 Price of Fuel $6.94/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $74,009
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The applicant did not demonstrate an economical project with clear public benefits. The long distances to the heating loads
from the power plant and the potential to offset only moderate amounts of heating fuel make the economics of a heat recovery
system at Holy Cross challenging. Additionally, there were numerous discrepancies between the 2013 and 2014 feasibility
studies for a heat recovery system that should be clarified.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 62/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Hydaburg City Schools in Hydaburg, AK on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska proposed the design and
construction of a cordwood fired boiler system to heat the school buildings. The project involves placing four Garn type wood
fired boilers adjacent to the school site and running underground pipes from the wood fired boiler to plumb into the school’s
heating system, four teachers housing units, and a greenhouse. The system is anticipated to displace approximately 25,500
gallons of heating fuel annually.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project was reviewed for the Round 7 application period. No changes for wood requirement have been made in the
current application (212 cords annually). This amount is well within the realm of sustainability as the Tongass National Forest
is stated to have an annual resource availability of 60-70 million board feet. There are commercial vendors available who are
currently supplying biomass boilers for Coffman Cove and Thorne Bay schools.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 63/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.78 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 86.50
2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.95
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 15.50
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 14.50 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 8
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 6
7. Sustainability (5) 3.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 65.78
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 65.78
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $660,977 Cost of Electricity $0.26/kWh
Grant Fund Request $620,977 Price of Fuel $4.06/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $40,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The Hydaburg City Schools in Hydaburg, AK on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska has proposed the design and
construction of a cordwood fired boiler system to heat the school buildings. The project will be a district heating system for the
school buildings, four teachers housing units, and a greenhouse. The system is anticipated to displace approximately 25,500
gallons of heating fuel annually. The Hydaburg City Schools is under the same leadership as the Southeast Island School
District (SEISD). SEISD has proven the successful operation of cordwood boiler systems and has integrated the operation
and maintenance of these systems into their culture. Greenhouses heated by the biomass systems have been installed on
Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove, and more are planned in conjunction with this project. SEISD is a success story for the State
of Alaska Biomass Program.
Recommend full funding.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $620,977 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg
Page 64/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC) power plantin Wales and use it to heat the city’s water system via a heating connection to the planned
water treatment plant's hydronic heating system. The heat recovery system is projected to save the washeteriaMwater
treatment plant 9,619 gallons of the estimated 12,475 gallons of heating oil used per year. The new water treatment plant will
be located 200 feet from the powerhouse will also serve as the community washeteria and will provide heat to circulating
water lines and the community water storage tank. The proposed connecting pipe will be buried 2-in PEX carrier pipe with
1.5-in foam polyurethane foam insulation and an HDPE outer jacket. The most frequently used generator (DDS60k4, 1200
rpm) will be equipped with a marine manifold to increase the amount of recoverable heat.The application is based on a 2014
feasibility study completed by ANTHC.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project not on state-owned land, however RS 2477 Right of Way is in the vicinity. If RS T 1623 will be used as a route for pipe
system, DMLW should be contacted to determine if use will require public notice or permitting.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 65/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 27.53 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 49.33
2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.58
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 3.11
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 0.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 19
6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 2
7. Sustainability (5) 4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 48.89
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 48.89
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $706,701 Cost of Electricity $0.69/kWh
Grant Fund Request $699,163 Price of Fuel $6.29/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $7,538
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a significant amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the
project appears uneconomical. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the design phase that can
significantly improve the project economics.
Partial funding of $50,000 recommended for final design phase only.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta
Page 66/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The City of Kotzebue is proposing final design and construction for a waste to energy/biomass project to heat the Kotzebure
Public Works buildings — water treatment facility and maintenance shop. Feedstock for this system would consist of sorted
and separated cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper, and wood materials from the city of Kotzebue's waste stream. The city's
waste management equipment will be used to collect materials, either as source-separated material from the producers or
mixed with the city's MSW waste stream. RDF fuel will be separated from the waste stream in the Bailer building, in
conjunction with an aluminum and tin recycling program.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No state lands are affected, as the project is proposed for City property.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 67/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 26.1 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 64.33
2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.14
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 8.11
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.33. Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 7.13 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 10
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1
7. Sustainability (5) 3.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 60.67
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 60.67
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $2,692,700 Cost of Electricity $0.40/kWh
Grant Fund Request $2,495,189 Price of Fuel $5.97/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $250,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
The City of Kotzebue is proposing the design and construction of a refuse derived fuel (RDF) fired boiler system to heat two
city owned buildings. This project is estimated to displace a total 98,000 of gallons per year of fuel oil, using cardboard,
paper, and construction debris supplemented with wood pellets. Feasibility was completed with Round 4 funding through the
Renewable Energy Fund. This project has the opportunity to provide key direction for rural communities struggling with
municipal solid waste disposal. AEA recommends partial funding of $200,000 for the final resource inventory/operations plan,
final design, and permitting. The City of Kotzebue should first assess the waste fuel availability and develop an operating
plan to confirm the economics of this project. Final design and permitting must select appropriate technology to meet EPA’s
new emissions standards for incinerators.
Recommend partial funding.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $200,000 Election District: T-40 Arctic
Page 68/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
This project would expand the heat storage capacity of Kwigillingok Wind Heat Smart Grid System by increasing the number
of electric thermal storage (ETS) devices from 27 to 50 units. The community of Kwigillingok (Kwig) has an operational, utility
scale wind project that is designed to produce excess wind energy, and this excess energy is captured in residential ETS
devices to displace home heating fuel. Additional ETS storage capacity is needed to make use of the full capacity of the wind
system.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not state land. (This project would occur inside an existing power plant and within existing homes in Kwigillingok.)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 69/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.18
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $284,562 Cost of Electricity $0.61/kWh
Grant Fund Request $279,562 Price of Fuel $5.84/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $5,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
Kwigillingok received Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 1 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five
Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity
by diverting surplus kilowatt-hours to residential heat loads. The current performance of the wind system is only 27% of the
goal according to FY2014 PCE data - well below the level that could be explained by curtailing of wind turbines due to a lack
of additional ETS heaters. The average benefits seen for the existing 27 ETS installations would be significantly lower if the
number of heaters were increased to 50 as proposed in the application. The applicant has not been timely in submitting
required quarterly operations and maintenance reports on the existing wind energy project and has not provided as-built
drawings and an operations and maintenance plan required to close out the REF Round 1 grant. There is a pending grant to
upgrade the Kwigillingok power distribution system. When the REF Round 1 deliverables have been met, the distribution
system upgrade is underway and wind system performance increases significantly, and economic viability can be
demonstrated, the applicant could consider reapplying in a future funding round.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim
Page 70/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to design and construct a ground source heat pump system to provide
heat for the Lepquinum Wellness Center in Metlakatla. The heat pump system would capture heat from the ground via a
vertical bore loopfield and water-to-water heat pumps and tie into the facility's existing hydronic heating system, which would
retain the oil-fired boilers for supplemental and backup heating. The heat pump system is projected to save the center 47,200
of the estimated 49,500 gallons of heating oil used per year. The loopfield would be located under the existing parking area;
each of the approximately 80 6-in boreholes would be drilled to over 300-ft deep and use a 1-in HDPE pipe loop and thermal
conductive grout. The proposed system would be sized to satisfy 92% of the building’s overall heat demand. The existing
heating system would be modified to use the lower temperature water heated by the heat pump system. The application is
based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by Alaska Energy Engineering.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Lat/Long indicate limited state holding (Ded Division Law and Finance)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 71/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 20.37 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 77.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.80
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 12.33
4. Project Readiness (5) 4.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 11.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 9
6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) i
7. Sustainability (5) 3.67 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 61.12
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 61.12
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $3,479,490 Cost of Electricity $0.09/kWh
Grant Fund Request $3,445,040 Price of Fuel $4.66/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $34,450
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The high cost of heating fuel, low cost of electricity, and moderate climate make Metlakatla well suited for heat pump systems.
Although little data is available documenting the performance of commercial scale ground source heat pump systems in
southeast Alaska, the large discrepancy in heating oil and electrical costs result in project economics that appear favorable
even if the system performance is well below what is anticipated.
The proposed project can take advantage of excess hydropower and offset a significant amount of heating fuel. The fuel
savings from the project will result in additional income to the local public utility and reduced operational costs for a
community facility.
Full funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $3,445,040 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg
Page 72/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA.
Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design
App #1136 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: North Slope
Applicant: North Slope Borough Proposed Phase(s): Design
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design
Project Description
The North Slope Borough (NSB) envisions a wind energy and area-wide energy management system, consisting of wind
diesel integration, end-use energy efficiency, automated building controls, and conservation. This phase of the project is the
design and permitting phase of a three phase project which will include a phase for construction and commissioning for three
anticipated wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Kaktovik.
The contractor will provide overall project management and system engineering during this phase of the project. During the
construction phase, NSB will recruit an engineering and construction contractor for design and installation of all civil works,
erection of the wind turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 73/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design
App #1136 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 6.56 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 48.83
2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.02
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 2.94
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 3.75 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 18
6. Local Support (5) 2.00 Regional (of all applications) 2
7. Sustainability (5) 467 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 31.92
Total Stage 3 Score (100) i 31.92
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $4,565,200 Cost of Electricity $0.15/kWh
Grant Fund Request $440,000 ‘Price of Fuel $1.46/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $44,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
North Slope Borough, applying as a utility, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power
system in the community of Kaktovik, Alaska. The final design will be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design
report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040025. The feasibility study and conceptual design report have been
reviewed and accepted by AEA.
AEA recommends full funding with the special provision that a 65% design, that includes all necessary permits, be accepted
by AEA prior to the release of funds for final design work. It is recommended that during the 65% design process the applicant
re-evaluate the installation of a single wind turbine capable of meeting the project goals in order to increase the economic
viability of the project.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $440,000 Election District: T-40 Arctic
Page 74/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = AbLdSKA... ENERGY AUTHORITY
Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project
App #1137 Standard Application
Project Type: Transmission, Other Energy Region: North Slope
Applicant: North Slope Borough Proposed Phase(s): Design
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design
Project Description
This phase of the Barrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line Project is for final design and permitting required for the construction
of the transmission line and home and building conversions to electric space heating.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 75/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 ‘= ALASKA... (@@mm®> ENERGY AUTHORITY
App #1137
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)
Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project Standard Application
Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)
Matching Resources (15)
Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 13.06
Benefits (15)
2:
3.
4. Project Readiness (5)
5.
6. Local Support (5)
7. Sustainability (5)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
50.45
Total Cost Through Construction
Grant Fund Request
Total Matched Funds Provided
$26,272,407 Cost of Electricity
6.56 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 79.17
9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.19
2.33 Project Rank
13.00 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 10
2.00 Regional (of all applications) 1
4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 50.45
$0.15/kWh
$1.36/Gal $2,017,818 Price of Fuel
$201,782
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
This current application is for final design and permitting for the “Barrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line and Home
Conversions to Electric Space Heating”.
This project was funded in rounds 2 and 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund for feasibility study and conceptual/preliminary
design. The North Slope Borough also applied for but did not receive funding in round 7 as the preliminary design from round
4 was not yet complete.
AEA recommends full funding for the final design and permitting of this project.
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Page 76/138
$2,017,818 Election District: T-40 Arctic
01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project
App #1138 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Kodiak
Applicant: City of Ouzinkie Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Project Description
ANTHC on behalf of the City of Ouzinkie proposes to complete the final design, permitting and construction of a replacement
penstock and replacement hydro turbine for the City of Ouzinkie. The new project will provide increased hydroelectric
capacity. A new 5,100 foot, 20 inch penstock will replace the one installed in 1987. Anew 150kW Ossberger type turbine will
replace the existing 125kW turbine. The penstock is also used for the City water supply. The old wood dam at Mahoona Lake
has recently been replaced by ANTHC with a rock and concrete dam. The new dam will utilize the existing penstock and the
existing hydro turbine. It is scheduled to be back online generating electricity mid Nov 2014. The dams replacement cost was
estimated at $2,087,000, of which the majority, $1,800,000, came from a 2013 Alaska Legislature appropriation.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
A Water Rights permit pending. Non FERC project. Lat/Long is incorrect. No SCRO involvement. (Final design and
construction of a hydro including run of the river with penstock and power house on lands owned and managed by Ouzinkie
Corperation.)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider ground motions from earthquakes generated on the Narrow Cape fault zone and the Aleutian
subduction zone. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey
to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis,
landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and
incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a
condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is
available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 77/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project
App #1138 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 16.09 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 42.83
2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.62
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.94
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 0.63 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) il 16
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 2
7. Sustainability (5) 3.33 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 34.49
Total Stage 3 Score (100) mI 34.49
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $5,541,549 Cost of Electricity $0.37/kWh
Grant Fund Request $88,400 Price of Fuel $4.48/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $8,840
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding with Special Provision
The City of Ouzinkie partnering with ANTHC has recently replaced their previously condemned wooded dam with a new rock
and concrete dam with $2,087,000, of which the majority, $1,800,000, came from a 2013 Alaska Legislature appropriation.
The existing penstock and turbine started producing hydro power again with water from the new dam in mid November 2014.
This proposed new replacement penstock and turbine is an addition to the existing hydro project. As such only the projected
incremental increase in hydro power production is allowable in the economic analysis. The incremental increase of hydro
power produced is projected to be about 141,218 kWh per year saving and additional 11,100 gallons of diesel generator fuel.
Adding a new load bank and a new dispatchable electric boiler could increase the public economic benefits and reduce fuel
consumption for both the diesel generators and heating fuel.
AEA recommends partial funding for completion of the design and permitting. Once the design is complete with the maximum
hydro benefit to the community considered the applicant may consider applying for construction funds in a future funding
round.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $88,400 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia
Page 78/138 01/06/2015
ALASKA __ ta /= (@@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY [Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Chefornak Wind Heat System
App #1139 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Applicant: City of Chefornak/Naterkaq Proposed Phase(s): Design
Light Plant
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design
Project Description
This project consists of the installation and integration of five Windmatic 17S turbines 95 kW wind turbines (475 kW) into the
Naterkaq Light Plant's generation system. The integration of this wind energy includes the installation of a load balancing
boiler, 40 residential electric thermal storage (ETS) units, wind-diesel supervisory control and data acquisition system
(WDSC), and improvements to the electrical distribution system which include sectionalizing, the replacement of3 power
poles and one distribution transformer, as well as the extension of the distribution line by 3 power poles to the wind turbines.
The proposed system is similar to those installed in theneighboring villages of Kongiganak, Kwigillingok and Tuntutuliak.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not state land. (Final design and permitting for 5 wind turbines on City of Chefornak lands.)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 79/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 ‘= ALASKA...
Chefornak Wind Heat System
App #1139 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 30.33
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.71
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) \
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $4,526,458 Cost of Electricity $0.90/kWh
Grant Fund Request $382,400 Price of Fuel $6.58/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $7,500
Page 80/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Chefornak Wind Heat System
App #1139 Standard Application
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2
The City of Chefornak, applying as a local government, and working with Intelligent Energy Systems, proposes to complete a
final design of and permitting of: a 475 kWwind farm; distribution repairs and upgrades; a secondary load at the power plant
in the form of an electric boiler to control grid frequency and for the capture of excess wind power for use as heat; and 40
secondary loads to be installed in residential homes in the form of electric thermal storage (ETS) units that would capture
excess wind power for use as heat. The proposed system would serve the community of Chefornak, Alaska. The final design
would be based on a feasibility study and CDR (Conceptual Design Report) performed under a Round 4 Renewable Energy
Fund (REF) grant #7040056. A feasibility study and CDR have been submitted for review.
This project did not score high enough to pass the stage 2 technical and economic evaluation minimum score of 40. The
primary contributing factor for the low score was the economic feasibility scores in criteria 4a which comprises 25 percent of
the score. AEA's calculated benefit/cost ratio is 0.71. This score reflects a reduction in predicted annual energy production
due to the underperformance of comparable projects. A score below 0.9 earns 0 points for criteria 4a. Other significant
contributing factors to the low score are the tardiness of deliverables and reports and the underperformance of comparable
systems in Kongiganak, Tuntutuliak, and Kwigillingok.
The current CDR does not validate the selection of the proposed project. AEA recognizes that the wind resource in Chefornak
is good and that a CDR that compared various turbine types and quantities and various secondary heat loads could identify
an economical project for the community. AEA has met with Intelligent Energy Systems to discuss the project potential and
improving the project economics.
In addition to the low economic score, AEA has the following concerns that also influenced the stage 2 score: tardiness of
project deliverables, progress reports and financial reports on the existing Chefornak wind feasibility grant, the
underperformance of comparable high penetration systems, and the CDR not addressing the causes of the existing similar
systems' low performance and recommending remedies in the proposed new conceptual design.
Additionally, the application identifies upgrades and repairs to the distribution line that are required to proceed with the
project as planned. Repairs are not eligible for funding and the upgrades required will need to be as a direct result of the
proposed wind-diesel system to be eligible for funding. Any required, ineligible, upgrades or repairs necessary for the
proposed project will need to be addressed prior to funding. AEA will continue to work with the applicant and their contractor
towards completion of their CDR.
No funding recommended. Did not pass stage 2 minimum score.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim
Page 81/138 01/06/2015
Page 82/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Ketchikan Gateway Borough plans to replace two of three oil-fired boilers in the Ketchikan High School with pellet
boilers, displacing approximately 108,715 gallons of fuel oil annually. This project received design funding through the US
Forest Service and School Bond CIP Fund and has contracted Wise Wood to complete the work.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not state land
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for construction of two pellet fired boilers for the Ketchikan High School. Pellets are being made locally in
Ketchikan and are also available from commercial vendors in Southeast. Itis estimated that 1,049 tons of pellets would be
required annually at a price of about $275.00 per ton. Currently the Federal Government, Forest Service and City of
Ketchikan have pellet boilers in service so delivered prices as well as a reliable supply chain should be well established in
this area.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 83/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.95 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 83.17
2. Matching Resources (15) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.46
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 14.39
4. Project Readiness (5) 4.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 9.63 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 16
6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 12
7. Sustainability (5) 5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 54.47
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 54.47
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $1,408,908 Costof Electricity $0.12/kWh
Grant Fund Request $1,288,018 Price of Fuel $4.10/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $00
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The Ketchikan Gateway Borough requests funding for the construction ofa pellet fueled biomass heating system for the
Ketchikan High School. The project is estimated to displace 108,715 gallons of fuel/year. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough
received funding through the US Forest Service to complete the design of this system. They have demonstrated their
capability with the installation, operation, and maintenance of pellet systems through their library installation. The Borough is
completing the design of a pellet boiler for the airport complex, and has received construction funding through the
Renewable Energy Fund — Round 7. Ketchikan is an example of the effective use of pellet heating to stem the conversions to
resistance heating that are occurring due to the low cost of hydroelectric generation.
Recommend full funding for construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design
and the final business/operational plan.
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Page 84/138
$1,288,018 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metiakatla/Hydaburg
01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) proposes to insulate above ground existing waste heat lines from the
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant to the city’s water plant. ANTHC estimates that insulating the heat
recovery lines between the power plant and the WTP will save an additional 1,935 gallons annually of fuel. The existing 20+
year old insulated piping system dates back to the original heat recovery system construction. The round trip length of arctic
pipe to be insulated in 1,600 ft. The existing pipe and degraded insulation would be enclosed in closed cell Engineered
Polymer Foam Insulation (EPFl) formed into clamshell sections for installation over the existing pipe, then wrapped with a self
healing multi-ply embossed UV-resistant aluminum foil / polymer laminate with a layer of rubberized asphalt (Alumaguard). A
wear barrier of 24 gauge galvanized steel will be installed over the exterior of the weather barrier and secured with stainless
steel straps. The existing pipe supports would be re-used with new mounting hardware and two piece saddles to allow pipe
movement.The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not state land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 85/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.46
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $200,718 Costof Electricity $0.62/kWh
Grant Fund Request $198,731 Price of Fuel $7.64/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $105,773
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The proposal to insulate existing heat recovery pipes in Selawik does not demonstrate favorable economics based upon the
proposed high cost and relatively small amount of heating fuel that would be offset. The economics of the project may
improve if significant cost reductions could be identified. AEA recommends that BTU meter data from the existing system
should be collected and analyzed to support assumptions regarding the performance of the existing system.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: T-40 Arctic
Page 86/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Ketchikan Gateway Borough proposes the feasibility and final design and permitting for biomass-fueled boilers for five
buildings: Schoenbar Middle School, Valley Park School, the Gateway Recreation/Aquatic Centers (two buildings) and the
School District Maintenance Facility. This project could displace 209,900 gallons per year of heating fuel.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not state land
DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments
This project is similar to the above project 1140 because it is a conversion to pellet boilers from fuel oil. This project is for
feasibility and design of a larger scale system that will supply heat to a variety of Gateway Borough owned buildings from a
central installation. It is estimated that 2,203 tons of pellets would be required annually at a price of about $275.00 per ton.
Currently the Federal Government, Forest Service and City of Ketchikan have pellet boilers in service so delivered prices as
well as a reliable supply chain should be well established in this area.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 87/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.95 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 89.33
2. Matching Resources (15) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.97
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 16.44
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.67 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 13.13 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 13
6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 9
7. Sustainability (5) 5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 59.19
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 59.19
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $2,200,000 Cost of Electricity $0.12/kWh
Grant Fund Request $220,000 _‘~ Price of Fuel $4.10/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $00
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The Ketchikan Gateway Borough requests funding for the construction of a pellet fueled biomass heating system for the
Ketchikan High School. The project is estimated to displace 108,715 gallons of fuel/year. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough
received funding through the US Forest Service to complete the design of the Ketchikan High School and have requested
construction funding. They have demonstrated their capability with the installation, operation, and maintenance of pellet
systems through their library installation. The Borough is completing the design of a pellet boiler for the airport complex, and
has received construction funding through the Renewable Energy Fund — Round 7. Ketchikan is an example of the effective
use of pellet heating to stem the conversions to resistance heating that are occurring due to the low cost of hydroelectric
generation.
Recommend full funding for feasibility update and design.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $220,000 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg
Page 88/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Scammon Bay and use it to heat three community buildings and the city’s water system
via heating connection into the adjacent water distribution loop main. The heat recovery system is projected to save 10,933 of
the estimated 11,578 gallons of heating oil used per year. The City Office and Old Clinic are both hydronically heated and
had been served by a heat recovery system that is no longer in use. The planned Community Hall will also be hydronically
heated; all buildings would be served by a heat recovery loop approximately 400 feet in length. The existing water
distribution loop is located 300 feet from the powerhouse; heat recovered from the power plant and injected into the
circulating distribution loop can also be conveyed to the more distant community water storage tank. The proposed
connecting heat recovery pipe will be buried 2-in PEX carrier pipe insulated with 3-in polyurethane insulation. The
application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on State Land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 89/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 31.4 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 62.67
2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.26
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 7.56
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.17 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 6.25 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 12
6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 2
7. Sustainability (5) 3.17 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 59.55
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 59.55
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $763,898 Cost of Electricity $0.64/kWh
Grant Fund Request $756,335 Price of Fuel $7.18/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $7,563
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
Extremely high fuel costs and accessible heating loads make powerhouse heat recovery particularly attractive in Scammon
Bay. Unfortunately, numerous issues in the supporting feasibility study and application raise concerns regarding the
thoroughness of effort made to accurately estimate project costs. A more deliberate approach is warranted; AEA recommends
standalone funding for project design prior to committing funding for the construction phase.
Partial funding of $60,000 is recommended to advance the project through final design.
AEA Funding Recommendation:
Page 90/138
$60,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta
01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA __ ENERGY AUTHORITY
Kake Senior Housing Solar PV
App #1144 Standard Application
Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Southeast
Applicant: Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Proposed Phase(s): Construction
Authority
Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Construction
Project Description
THRHA proposes to install a ground-mounted PV solar array at the Kake Senior Center. The Senior Center is currently
undergoing expansion and modernization to include new community and residential space, which will almost double the
current electrical usage. The PV system will be designed to produce a minimum of 10,000 Watts and will displace
approximately 25% -30% of the projected increase in electrical load at the Senior Center. The intent is to keep electrical
operating costs sustainable. It will not reduce the current utility usage, and therefore will not have a negative impact on the
local utility (IPEC). The PV system is intended only to avoid additional utility costs on a percentage of the new added usage
expected when the modernization improvements are completed. The system will be parallel to the utility grid system, isolated
with a non-grid tie inverter, and will not feed back into the utility grid system. The system will have battery storage to allow for
night-time operation of specific house loads. The Project will include final design and installation of the PV system.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not state land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 91/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Kake Senior Housing Solar PV
App #1144 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.42
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $60,000 Costof Electricity $0.68/kWh
Grant Fund Request $56,000 ‘Price of Fuel $5.09/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $4,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed solar photovoltaic system would perform technically or
economically. Specifically missing from the application were battery specifications, hourly load data, hourly solar production
data, interconnection specifications, compliance with utility cogeneration policy, and other technical information. The project
economics appear weak with an estimated benefit/cost ratio of 0.42.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 92/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
IRHA is proposing a biomass feasibility study in order to examine the costs and possibilities of various appliances and woody
biomass sources for three IRHA facilities - the IRHA office building in Fairbanks, the IRHA warehouse in Fairbanks and the
Meda Lord Center which is a 15 unit senior housing complex in Nenana. All three facilities currently are using heating oil,
and have been weatherized.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Feasiblility study/reporting phase will likely not require DMLW permits; however, if in future a biomass project is pursued,
biomass products which are expected to be purchased on the open market may come from timber sales from state land.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for a feasibility study for three Interior Regional Housing Authority facilities in Fairbanks and Nenana. The study
will look at various types of biomass for heating that include cordwood, wood pellets and pellet logs. All these biomass types
are available in the Fairbanks-Nenana area and with the State Division of Forestry, Toghotthele Corp. and the Fairbanks
North Star Borough all offering timber sales, supply should not be a problem. Superior Pellet Fuels is also producing wood
pellets and pellet logs in North Pole. Fairbanks Area state forestry is currently offering timber in the area well below its
allowable cut threshold.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 93/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.98 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 56.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.97
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 5.33
4. Project Readiness (5) 1.83 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 2.37 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 22
6. Local Support (5) 2.00 Regional (of all applications) 2
7. Sustainability (5) 3.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 32.51
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 32.51
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $50,000 Cost of Electricity $0.18/kWh
Grant Fund Request $50,000 _—~ Price of Fuel $4.11/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $19,338
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
Interior Regional Housing Authority is proposing a biomass feasibility study in order to examine to potential is using woody
biomass to heat three IRHA facilities - the IRHA office building in Fairbanks, the IRHA warehouse in Fairbanks and the Meda
Lord Center which is a 15 unit senior housing complex in Nenana. All three facilities currently are using heating oil, and have
been weatherized. AEA strongly supports this project and the use of high efficiency, low emissions biomass heating in the
Fairbanks and Nenana areas. AEA recommends full funding and recommends considering a natural gas option in the
feasibility report for the Fairbanks buildings.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 Election District: A-1 Downtown Fairbanks
Page 94/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (@mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project
App #1146 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Railbelt
Applicant: Kenai Hydro LLC Proposed Phase(s): Design
Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Design
Project Description
The Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility is a proposed 5 MW storage hydro project undergoing licensing (FERC P-13212)
located near Moose Pass on the Kenai Peninsula in Southcentral Alaska and serving the railbelt. The project features include
an existing lake to provide approximately 15,900 acre-ft of storage, a conveyance tunnel, annual energy of 19,500 MWh at an
estimated cost of $60 million. The proposed project is comprised of an intake structure in Grant Lake, a tunnel, a surge tank, a
penstock, a powerhouse, a tailrace detention pond, a switchyard with disconnect switch and step-up transformer, and an
overhead or underground transmission line. The intake would be in Grant Lake near its outlet. Water would be conveyed from
the intake through a 3200’ tunnel and a 150 foot penstock to a powerhouse containing two Francis-type turbines. The
powerhouse would be located near the bank of Grant Creek and would discharge through a tailrace into Grant Creek. A
transmission line would connect the facility to the Railbelt grid near Moose Pass. Supplemental water will be routed from the
intake tunnel to provide instream flows for fish in the bypass reach.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project is on DNR managed land and DNR authorization required for the project. Current authorizations are for the
environmental studies only. No applications received for any facility authorizations and consultation not complete for the
Iditarod National Historic Trail. Concurrence required from USFS, KPB, KRSMA and SCRO for any trail reroutes per the area
plan. Iditarod National Historic Trail is at this location and project is within KRSMA. Water Right application received. Itis a
FERC project.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider ground motions from earthquakes generated on the Aleutian subduction zone. All projects proposing
the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental
effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction,
subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate
the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits,
depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold
digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 95/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA...
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project
App #1146 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 7.91 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 45.67
2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.28
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 1.89
4. Project Readiness (5) 1.33 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 5.63 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 17
6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 1
7. Sustainability (5) 3.33. Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 34.09
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 34.09
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $59,067,808 Cost of Electricity $0.18/kWh
Grant Fund Request $358,000 Price of Fuel $4.18/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $36,000
Page 96/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= ALASKA _. (mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project
App #1146 Standard Application
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding with Special Provision
The Applicant made an appeal to the AEA Executive Director contesting the original recommendation of no funding due to
incomplete prior phases and incomplete information sufficient to perform an economic and technical evaluation. The AEA
executive director accepted the appeal for reconsideration.
AEA staff performed the stage 2 scoring of the application as required by the appeal process and performed a subsequent
review in order to establish a recommended funding amount and any special provisions. AEA staff anticipate that Kenai
Hydro may be able to perform the geotechnical component of design related activity in FY2016. AEA estimates geotechnical
investigations will cost $394,000 with Kenai Hydro providing $36,000 (9%) as match. Recommended grant funding under
Kenai Hydro’s application is $358,000.
In order to receive design funding, Kenai Hydro will be required to complete the feasibility and concept design report to
include, among typical feasibility work, analysis of alternative schemes including the no action alternative, alternative tunnel
and powerhouse locations, a bored intake gate shaft with multilevel lake taps in lieu of a concrete intake structure, assess
need for upper grant lake channel dredging, perform detailed energy modeling with reservoir levels, prepare quantity based
cost estimates of alternatives, and provide economic analysis of benefits using tariff/contract/market based projected savings.
The study shall include consideration of Falls Creek diversion using HDPE conveyance and recommendations for Grant Lake
power house and turbine sizing if Falls Creek diversion may be constructed at a later date. Report shall be prepared under
the direction of a qualified PE and shall be subject to AEA approval.
Kenai Hydro LLC did not include proposed staff or resumes for qualified Alaska PE’s to perform the proposed design work.
Kenai Hydro will be required to publicly solicit qualifications based proposals for performing the design work funded through
this grant. Contract and award shall be subject to AEA approval.
AEA recommends partial funding with the special provisions listed above.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $358,000 Election District: P-31 Homer/South Kenai
Page 97/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The project proposes the design and construction of cordwood boiler systems for Hollis, Naukati, and Whale Pass Schools
(including teacher housing and greenhouses), and the replacement of the Thorne Bay school GarnPacs. The GarnPacs
currently operated by the Thorne Bay School will be relocated Hollis and Whale Pass. The project will use wood biomass to
replace diesel as the heat energy source by installing wood fired boilers in four school communities. The applicant has
purchased a greenhouse for Naukati that will also use the heat from the boiler and will provide healthy, nutritious food for
students and the community, in addition to giving students opportunities to learn life-long skills. Thorne Bay School received
an AEA grant in 2009 to install two GARN wood fired boiler units, and while the system has been operating, it has proven too
small for the job. The units currently in use, (proto-types), can easily be moved with a forklift, so part of the proposal is to
install them at two other school sites, Whale Pass and Hollis Schools. In order to heat the facility in Thorne Bay, which
includes a teacher housing unit and a hydroponic greenhouse, the current system would be replaced with 2 GARN 3200's,
and a structure built to house the boilers. Very little reconstruction would be necessary in Thorne Bay due to the portability of
the current Garn Pacs. In Whale Pass and Hollis, structures would be built to house the boilers. A wood storage area will also
be constructed at Hollis, now the only one of the four communities where there is no wood storage shed. At Naukati School a
wood fired boiler (2 2200 Garns) would be installed. The Naukati School is the same size as Howard Valentine School, in
Coffman Cove, which has a currently operating Garn system. Naukati will be modeled after the Coffman Cove set-up. Wood
storage facilities have already been built in Naukati and Whale Pass, with 30 cords in Naukati and less than 10 in Whale
Pass. Southeast Island School District is committed to moving in a direction of local energy independence, breathing life into
small business enterprises such as wood cutting, and involving students in growing food, stoking the boilers, and acquiring
both work and meaningful life skills.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not state land
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project was reviewed for the Round 7 application period. No changes for wood requirement have been made in the
current application (approximately 250 cords per year). This project is for upgrade of two Garn boilers at the Thorne Bay
School to larger capacity units. The original units would be moved and installed in the Whale Pass and Hollis Schools. The
project would also fund a Garn installation at the Naukati School. All of the schools are located within the Tongass National
Forest on Prince of Wales Island. The proposal states that approximately 20-40 million board feet is available sustainably per
Forest Service estimates. A vendor has been delivering wood to the Thorne Bay School and it appears other vendors are
available. A sustainable wood supply for the approximately 250 annual cord consumption does not seem to be a problem.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 99/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 18.25 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 89.33
2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.33
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 16.44
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 14.50 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 2
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 2
7. Sustainability (5) 4.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 69.69
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 69.69
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $872,635 Cost of Electricity $0.42/kWh
Grant Fund Request $832,635 Price of Fuel $4.17/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $124,708
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The Southeast Island School District currently operates cordwood fueled heating systems at their Coffman Cove and Thorne
Bay Schools. The Thorne Bay system is undersized, so the school district is proposing the relocation of the Thorne Bay
boilers to the schools in Hollis and Whale Pass. The application also includes the design and construction of replacement
boilers for Thorne Bay and the design and construction of a heating system for the Naukati School to replace the heat
recovery system that is being eliminated by the decommissioning of the Naukati power plant. The Southeast Island School
District has proven the successful operation of cordwood boiler systems and has integrated the operation and maintenance
of these systems into their culture. Greenhouses heated by the biomass systems have been installed on Thorne Bay and
Coffman Cove, and more are planned in conjunction with this project. SEISD is a success story for the State of Alaska
Biomass Program.
Recommend full funding.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $832,635 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 100/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project
App #1148 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Applicant: City of Scammon Bay Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Recon
Project Description
Scammon Bay requests funding for feasibility and conceptual design for a 188 kW R-O-R hydro project on Hillside Creek.
Proposed activities include surveying, 3 years of stream gauging and a 35% project design. Capital cost is estimated at
$4.3M. Services to be provided by ANTHC DEHE. The basin resource size is limited at 0.7 sq mile, which reduces in flow
during winter months. Existing electrical generation and distribution system in Scammon Bay is operated by AVEC. Project
features would include an intake structure with coanda screen, 4300 If of 16” dia penstock, and a powerhouse with a single
188 kW dual nozzle pelton turbine, controls, etc. Expect FERC will have jurisdiction as Scammon Bay is located within the
Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. Scammon Bay has requested Rnd 8 REF grant for heat recovery. AVEC has applied to
REF for wind turbines to be installed in Scammon Bay. This application includes a feasibility study performed by Hatch for a
hydroelectric project entitled Hillside Creek Hydroelectric Project. Completed in September 2014, the report was funded
through a Round 5 REF grant (#847). However, there are a number of items within the report that raise questions, such as
how a hydro project on Hillside Creek would interact with current community water supply for Scammon Bay (on the same
creek) water is diverted for community use and/or needs to be re-pumped; over-estimation of hydro generation in 5 months of
winter; under-estimation of capital cost from leaving out steep access road (13.5% grade) needed for intake/penstock
construction; under estimation of licensing costs due to lands within the Wildlife Refuge, etc.)
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
A Water Rights Certificate likely not required during feasibility study. The in-river equipment may need DMLW permits.
Feasibility and Conceptual Design phase, three years of in stream gauging and 35% of design for the hillside hydro project.
Penstock is on land owned by the Askinu Native Corp.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 101/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project
Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 28.04 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 40.83
2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.71
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.28
4. Project Readiness (5) 1.17 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 7.25 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) ae a
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 5
7. Sustainability (5) 2.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 49.74
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 49.74
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $4,283,056 Cost of Electricity $0.64/kWh
Grant Fund Request $305,000 ‘Price of Fuel $7.18/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $3,050
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
ANTHC requested funding on behalf of Scammon Bay for a feasibility and conceptual design; plus 2 to 3 years of stream
gauging. Scammon Bay's application was based on a feasibility study completed by Hatch in mid-September 2014. Stream
gauging is typically done during reconnaissance. AEA recommends the project be partially funded to complete stream
gauging. AEA and the applicant discussed and agreed to AEA management of this phase of the project.
AEA has concerns with the lack of stream gauging information; the fact that earlier hydro studies questioned the feasibility;
the fact that Hatch recommended additional 2 to 3 years of stream gauging; and concerns that the feasibility tended to be
optimistic considering other concerns noted above.
AEA recommends partial funding of $90,000 for stream gauging/reconnaissance phase only.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $90,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta
Page 102/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Southcentral Small Hydro Assessments
App #1149 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Railbelt
Applicant: Chugach Electric Association, Proposed Phase(s): Recon
Inc.
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon
Project Description
The project is to assess the hydroelectric energy potential of Lowell Creek and Ship Creek. The proposed work includes
review of the public record, the installation of stream gauging equipment at each location to measure annual water flow of
each of the creeks, site reconnaissance, identification of permit requirements, and concept development.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Initial reconnaissance phases of proposed run-of-river hydro electric generation plants in Lowell Creek near Seward and
Ship Creek at Ft. Richardson. No maps, plans or specific site locations yet provided but general project description indicates
that DNR-managed state upland and shorelands underlying potentially navigable streams (depending on specific site
location) may be involved. Proposed setting of stream gauges within navigable waterways will require authoriztion from
SCRO Permitting Unit. Additional DMLW authorizations from SCRO and /or Water Resources appears likely for any
development beyond this investigative phase.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 103/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _
Southcentral Small Hydro Assessments
App #1149 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.66
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) ni
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $ Cost of Electricity $0.13/kWh
Grant Fund Request $75,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.13/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $75,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
A reconnaissance study can be completed for the suggested projects without performing stream gauging. There are years of
data compiled on Ship Creek stream flow available through the USGS and agencies holding water rights. There are also
enough gauges in the Seward area to support a reconnaissance level analysis to assess potential hydroelectric generation.
Without the stream gauging component, the applicant has committed sufficient match to perform reconnaissance level
studies. No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: L-23 Taku
Page 104/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Adak Community Energy Baseline Study
App #1150 Standard Application
Project Type: Other Energy Region: Aleutians
Applicant: Adak Generating, LLC.,A Proposed Phase(s): Recon
Subsidiary of TDX power, Inc.
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon
Project Description
TDX believes that there is sufficient hydro, wind, or hydrokinetic renewable energy at Adak that eventually 70% of the total
energy consumption for electricity, heating, and ground transportationon the island could be sourced from renewable energy
resources. TDX is committing to reaching a goal of 70% Renewable by 2023. Although the first steps have been taken there
are a number of important steps that need to be completed to fully develop and implement this vision. Under this grant
proposal TDX is asking for support to conduct and implement a Community Energy Baseline study. This study would define
the energy sources and energy resources, energy use in Adak for electricity, heat and transportation, and provide a solid
baseline of current needs. This information would also be used to create a roadmap to define specific approaches to both the
reduction of energy consumption as well as the design of the renewable energy delivery system and required auxiliary
components.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No SCRO involvement. (Adak community energy use baseline study and products including collection of data and production
of reporting tools. No Installation of infrastructure or other land usages proposed. No DMLW authorizations required based on
reported methodology.)
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
Geothermal could be considered as a potential energy source as well. The Navy conducted a study from 1976 to 1982 and
drilled geothermal observation holes, reported in Katzenstein, Allan M., and Whelan, James A., 1985, Geothermal potential of
Adak Island, Alaska: China Lake, California, Naval Weapons Center, NWC TP 6676, 92 p. They reported that: “Favorable
results point to the desirability of further drilling to verify the existence of an economic geothermal energy source.” The Adak
Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Report (AEA REF Grant #2195450, August 29, 2011) reports that a consultant hired to
evaluate geothermal potential on Adak was unable to obtain the results of those test. DGGS recently obtained a copy of this
report and AEA has this document as well.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 105/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Adak Community Energy Baseline Study
App #1150 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $ Cost of Electricity $1.20/kWh
Grant Fund Request $85,000 Price of Fuel $5.61/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $17,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
Adak Generating LLC, a subsidiary of TDX Power, is applying for an $85,000 grant, and offering $17,000 in match, to perform
a community energy baseline study in Adak.
The application did not demonstrate that the proposed work is eligible under the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) as defined
in section 1.5 of the request for applications. Specifically, the applicant stated in question 4.1 regarding the proposed energy
resource:
“The proposed Community Energy Baseline Study does not include identification of renewable energy resources. Previous
studies conducted by TDX Power and others have shown that Adak is in a location where sufficient hydro is available for
abundant electrical power generation. This study defines energy use, transportation and efficiency.”
A Round 2 REF grant used to study potential hydro, geothermal and wind resources, used a portion of the funding to
determine the community load. This and other existing research was not cited in the application. Finally, key sections of the
application form were marked “N/A”.
While AEA supports the general “baseline study” approach outlined in the application to better understanding energy
efficiency opportunities and energy generation and distribution needs in a community, the application as presented does not
fit within the scope of the Renewable Energy Fund. The proposed work is in alignment with the Aleut Regional Energy Plan,
currently underway with AEA funding. AEA recommends that the applicant incorporate this proposal into the regional energy
plan for further development and prioritization. AEA staff will work with the applicant and other regional planners to
incorporate aspects of the proposed baseline study.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 106/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (@@mm® ENERGY AUTHORITY
St. Paul - 80% Renewable by 2020 - Community Energy Baseline Study
App #1151 Standard Application
Project Type: Other Energy Region: Aleutians
Applicant: TDX Power, Inc. Proposed Phase(s): Recon
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon
Project Description
TDX believes that there is sufficient wind energy at St. Paul that eventually 80% of the total energy consumption for electricity,
heating, and ground transportation on the island could be sourced from renewable energy resources. Given the fifteen years
of continuous wind power experience and recent improvements in controls, electrical storage and heat utilization, TDX is
committing to reaching our goal of 80% Renewable by 2020. Although the first steps have been taken there are a number of
important steps that need to be completed to fully develop and implement this vision. Under this grant proposal TDX is asking
for support to conduct and implement a Community Energy Baseline study. This study would define the energy sources and
energy resources, energy use on the island for electricity, heat and transportation, and provide a solid baseline of current
needs. This information would also be used to create a roadmap to define specific approaches to both the reduction of
energy consumption as well as the design of the renewable energy delivery system and required auxiliary components.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No SCRO involvement. (St. Paul community energy use baseline study and products including collection of data and
production of reporting tools. No land usages or infrastructure installation proposed. No DMLW authorizations required based
on reported methodology.)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 107/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (@@mm® ENERGY AUTHORITY
St. Paul - 80% Renewable by 2020 — Community Energy Baseline Study
App #1151 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) i
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) i
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $ Cost of Electricity $0.53/kWh
Grant Fund Request $202,696 _ Price of Fuel $5.04/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $50,673
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
TDX Power, is applying for a $202,696 grant, and offering $50,673 in match, to perform a community energy baseline study in
St. Paul.
The application did not demonstrate that the proposed work is eligible under the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) as defined
in section 1.5 of the request for applications. Specifically, the applicant stated in question 4.1 regarding the proposed energy
resource:
“The proposed Community Energy Baseline Study does not include identification of renewable energy resources. Previous
studies conducted by TDX Power and others have shown that St. Paul is in a location where sufficient wind is available for
abundant electrical power generation. In addition, 15 years of continued operation of the wind farms on St. Paul have
validated the resource. This study defines energy use, transportation and efficiency.”
While AEA supports the general “baseline study” approach outlined in the application to better understanding energy
efficiency opportunities and energy generation and distribution needs in a community, the application as presented does not
fit within the scope of the Renewable Energy Fund. The proposed work is in alignment with the Aleut Regional Energy Plan,
currently underway with AEA funding. AEA recommends that the applicant incorporate this proposal into the regional energy
plan for further development and prioritization. AEA staff will work with the applicant and other regional planners to
incorporate aspects of the proposed baseline study.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 108/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Lake and Pen Borough proposes the construction of cordwood wood boilers for the communities of Port Alsworth
(Improvement Center and Fire Hall), Nondalton (single structure or multiple units), and Pedro Bay (Smokehouse Bay Annex).
This project will displace approximately 9,104 gallons of heating fuel.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Possible Div. of Forestry authorization if tree harvest on State lands is proposed but otherwise no evident DMLW permit
requirements for this proposal.Wood-burning boiler installation to displace current use of fuel oil in 3 communities: Nodalton,
Pedro Bay and Port Alsworth. Tree harvests on private updlands identified for Nondalton and Pedro Bay but no information
on wood source provided for Port Alsworth.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for construction of cordwood fueled outdoor wood boiler heating systems located in the Lake Illiamna region of
southwest Alaska. The heating systems would be installed in three different villages within the region (Nondalton, Pedro Bay,
and Port Alsworth). It is estimated in the proposal that 9,104 gallons of fuel oil per year would be offset annually at an average
price of $5.65 per gallon. The proposal states that area landowners support the project and have signed letters of intent to
provide wood for the boilers. These landowners comprise the associated village corporations in the area. It is estimated that
20-80 cords of wood in total would be needed per year for the project. The annual wood cost is estimated to be about
$29,000 or about $360 per cord. It is unclear what extent of timber resources is available in these particular villages although
a boiler is currently operating in Kokhanok. The Tanana Chiefs Conference has performed Native Allotment inventories in the
Kokhanok area and these volumes per acre summaries could provide useful data concerning the forest resources in this
area. At first glance however, the relatively small amount of wood required for this project appears to be sustainable.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 109/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.06
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $309,450 Costof Electricity $0.73/kWh
Grant Fund Request $247,560 Price of Fuel $6.03/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $61,890
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The Lake and Pen Borough proposes the construction of cordwood boilers for the communities of Port Alsworth
(Improvement Center and Fire Hall), Nondalton (single structure or multiple units), and Pedro Bay (Smokehouse Bay Annex).
This project would displace approximately 9,104 gallons of heating fuel. This application is based on a feasibility study that
was completed in June of 2010 that recommends different technology from what is proposed in this application. There is no
discussion of the engineering design or the business/operational plan of the proposed system. Wood inventory work has only
been completed on Native Allotments in this area. While the volume of wood required for this project is very small, the
applicant has not adequately demonstrated the sustainability of this project without a business/operating plan. AEA
recommends no funding at this time, but encourages the Lake and Pen Borough to apply for updated feasibility studies
through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group and to further develop the business and operational plan for the
biomass systems.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 110/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= ALASKA... ENERGY AUTHORITY
Unalakleet Wind-Diesel Optimization
App #1153 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Bering Straits
Applicant: Unalakleet Valley Electric Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility
Cooperative/UVEC
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility
Project Description
The hybrid wind-diesel system in Unalakleet is operational, but not performing to its full potential. UVEC will work with Marsh
Creek to deploy a data collection system that will provide reliable synchronized information at a 1 Hz data rate from the wind
farm, the feeder from the wind farm to the power plant, and all equipment in the diesel plant. Along with voltages and currents
it will acquire waveforms of voltages under certain conditions. Marsh Creek will coordinate with NorthernPower to ensure
useful data is obtained from the wind farm. The data will be reviewed by Marsh Creek, Northern Power and the Alaska Center
for Energy and Power/ACEP. Informed hypotheses to address and mitigate problems with the system will be developed and
modeled. From this work a conceptual design for modification to the system will be developed.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No SCRO involvement. (Exact location is unclear, but it appears the project will not be within the boundaries of USS 4394 or
RST 456. If it does cross the boundaries of either, location should be moved.)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 111/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 ‘= ALASKA.
(mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Unalakleet Wind-Diesel Optimization
App #1153 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.77
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $ Cost of Electricity $0.42/kWh
Grant Fund Request $295,775 _—_— Price of Fuel $6.26/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $29,650
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
Unalakleet Village Electric Cooperative (UVEC) has applied for a $295,775 grant, with $29,650 in matching funds, to collect
and analyze high-resolution electric power data from the hybrid diesel-wind project in Unalakleet. The results of the data
collection and analysis would be used to model the system and as the basis for a conceptual design report describing system
improvements to optimize its performance in terms of power quality, electric grid stability, and fuel savings.
The UVEC wind farm is performing nearly as expected in a class four wind resource and UVEC's recent improvements to the
controls will result in further performance improvements. There is limited potential for improving the production performance
of the UVEC diesel-wind hybrid project. At a proposed cost of over $300,000 for the data collection and analysis, the potential
incremental performance improvements do not support these high costs. AEA does support continued improvements to the
wind-diesel system performance and recommends continuing to work with AEA's wind and powerhouse programs and staff to
identify specific areas to improve grid stability and efficiency in a more cost-effective manner.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta
Page 112/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Eek and use it to heat the city’s water system via heating connection into the adjacent
water distribution loop main. The heat recovery system is projected to save the water system 4,000 gallons of the estimated
5,900 gallons of heating oil used per year. The existing water distribution loop is located 100 feet from the powerhouse; heat
recovered from the power plant and injected into the circulating distribution loop can also be conveyed into to the more
distant community water storage tank. The proposed connecting heat recovery pipe to the will be buried 1.5-in twin PEX
carrier pipe insulated with a minimum of 1.25-in polyurethane insulation. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study
completed by ANTHC.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No SCRO involvement. (Improvements are to existing heat infrastructure.)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 113/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 27.88 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 48.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.59
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 2.67
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 0.50 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 20
6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 6
7. Sustainability (5) 4.33 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 48.38
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 48.38
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $299,754 Costof Electricity $0.63/kWh
Grant Fund Request $296,786 Price of Fuel $6.37/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $107,968
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a moderate amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the
project demonstrates marginal economic value. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the design
phase that can significantly improve the project economics. Partial funding of $50,000 recommended for final design.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim
Page 114/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= ALASKA...
ENERGY AUTHORITY
City of Noorvik Solar-PV
App #1155 Standard Application
Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Northwest Artic
Applicant: City of Noorvik Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction
Project Description
With Round Vill AEA Renewable Energy funding, the City of Noorvik would install a 10kW solar photovoltaic array on the City
building as well as install another 10kW solar photovoltaic array on the Noorvik IRA Council building. The anticipated annual
generation, according to the new version of the PVWatts Calculator, will be approximately 8,982 kWh/building for a total of
17,964 kWh for both the City and IRA buildings, for an annual average of 2.85 kWh/m2/day per building. That translates into a
total of $11,742 electrical savings per year for the City and IRA combined at an electrical rate of $.65/kWh.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for a feasibility study for a biomass district heating system. The system would heat multiple buildings and a
proposed greenhouse. Up to 32,000 gallons of heating fuel would be displaced using biomass. The Forest Service has been
involved with Hoonah in looking at solutions to the high energy costs. Two mills near the town produce waste material that
may be suitable for biomass. Landowners including the Forest Service, Hoonah Totem, and Sealaska may also be a source
of biomass. The project appears to have adequate supplies of raw material available. Firewood is currently available for
$250/cord. The study would determine a delivered price of wood pellets.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 115/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA.
City of Noorvik Solar-PV
App #1155
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Standard Application
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.69
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) a
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100) aaiiGILll
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $165,000 Cost of Electricity $0.65/kWh
Grant Fund Request $165,000 Price of Fuel $6.36/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $1,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The City of Noorvik applied for $164,000 in grant funding for construction of a $165,000 20kW fixed-tilt solar photovoltaic
project in Noorvik. 10kW of panels would be installed on a City building and 10kW would be installed on a Council building.
This application is not associated with previous REF grant funding.
The AVEC tariff regarding “qualified co-generators and small power producers” states an 18.2 kW cap for the community of
Noorvik. There is an existing solar installation of 12 kW at the water treatment plant, leaving only 6.2 kW available, less than
the proposed project. AEA requested a letter of support, MOA or copy of applicable utility rates and standards from the
applicant but did not receive the requested information. AEA confirmed with the utility that even though the applicant does not
intend to sell power back to the grid, if they are connected to the grid, the tariff applies.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0
Page 116/138
Election District: T-40 Arctic
01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J = ALASKA _ lm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Northwest Alaska Wind Resource Assessment and Intertie Study
App #1156 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind, Transmission Energy Region: Northwest Artic
Applicant: Northwest Alaska Tribal Energy Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility
Organization (NATEO)
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Project Description
NATEO proposes to assess the wind energy resource potential on Hotham Peak, between Noorvik and Selawik, along with
an intertie between Noorvik, Kiana, and Selawik. According to modeling completed in the 2012 Noorvik Wind-Diesel
Conceptual Draft Report, the most ideal location for a larger turbine would be on the southwest slope of Hotham Ridge
between Noorvik and Selawik. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection for placement of a met tower and
geotechnical fieldwork on Hotham Peak; permitting, purchasing, transporting, and installing a met tower; studying the wind
resource for one year; and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering
at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical
investigation. The Intertie between Noorvik, Kiana, and Selawik will be evaluated by looking at land use, permitting, and cost.
AC and DC power transmission systems wiil be considered for cost estimating and O&M purposes.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Although precise met tower locations are not known/identified, the general location apears to be within Selawik National
Wildlife Refuge - not on state land.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 117/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Northwest Alaska Wind Resource Assessment and Intertie Study
App #1156
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Standard Application
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.40
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100) nn
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $25,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.63/kWh
Grant Fund Request $230,000 _— Price of Fuel $5.61/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $00
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The applicant was not able to demonstrate in their application, and through follow-up questions, that they are an eligible
applicant for the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) as outlined in the Request for Applications and in statute.
Additionally, the proposed project is already covered under the scope of an REF Round 1 grant to the Northwest Arctic
Borough entitled "Buckland Deering and Noorvik Wind Construction" (grant number 2195377). These funds should be used
first to study the new location on Hotham Peak and further investigate possible benefits of an intertie beyond what was done
in the existing conceptual design report. The applicant should consider approaching the grantee for 2195377, Northwest
Arctic Borough, to team up on that project. AEA’s community assistance staff and technical staff can assist as needed.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0
Page 118/138
Election District: T-40 Arctic
01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
TDX proposes to install (3) 800 kWe Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) power generation units to generate electric power from
waste heat in the flue gas of two Solar Turbine Taurus 70 gas turbines. Furthermore TDX intends to utilize low grade waste
heat downstream of the ORC topre-heat turbine inlet air to significantly improve the emissions profile at low temperatures.
This new facility will require an extended 40x64’ structure to the west of the new gas turbine plant building. Approximately
10.5 MWth waste heat would be drawn from the gas turbine stacks and used to produce 2.1 MWe (net) electricity year round
through the ORC system. Downstream the flue gas is exhausted through a separate stack. Systems are built on a pile
foundation with an air gap. The extended facility will remain on the footprint of the existing gravel pad. Glycol fluid coolers are
placed on the roof of the extension from lower level switchgear and shop rooms. Heat is intercepted downstream of the ORC
and upstream of the fluid coolers and used in a coil to preheat inlet combustion air from each side of the main turbine room.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Proposed project is within the Deadhorse Airport DOT ILMA - coordination/approval from DOT/PF will be necessary.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 119/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.00
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $13,717,479 Cost of Electricity $0.17/kKWh
Grant Fund Request $4,000,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.37/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $10,497,695
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
The proposed heat recovery project would make excellent use of wasted heat. The project could serve as a demonstration of
Organic Rankine Cycle generators operating in arctic conditions and may prove economical even if performance were lower
than expected. However, as described in Section 1.6 of the Request for Applications (RFA AEA 15003):
"During the economic evaluation and scoring of applications, only the economic benefits to the public, direct and/or indirect
will be included in the benefit/cost analysis. For example, if 50 percent of the energy produced is for the purpose of providing
power to one private industry user, that portion of the energy will not count as a public benefit in the economic evaluation."
TDX North Slope Generating, Inc. exists to serve Prudhoe Bay oil service companies. AEA has concluded that the project
does not provide an economic public benefit consistent with the above description that could be used in an economic
evaluation. Per program regulations 3 AAC107.645(b):
"The authority will reject applications that it determines under (a) of this section not to be technically and economically
feasible, or not to provide sufficient public benefit, and will notify each applicant whose application is rejected of the reasons
for rejection."
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: T-40 Arctic
Page 120/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA... (@@lmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
App #1158 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Aleutians
Applicant: City of King Cove Proposed Phase(s): Construction
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Construction
Project Description
The Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project will result in a modest, run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility using Waterfall Creek
and consisting of a concrete diversion/intake structure, 4,500 feet of HDPE penstock pipeline, 16 feet by 40 feet metal
powerhouse on a concrete slab, Pelton Impulse Turbine and induction generator, remote-automatic control system, and
5,000 feet access road. This facility will be a working partner to the City’s existing Delta Creek hydroelectric project, which
has been operating for the last eighteen years. It will produce 1 megawatt (MW) of electricity.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
A Water Rights permit issued from the Water Section. No opposition known. Non FERC. No SCRO involvement. (Likely no
SCRO involvement as it appears Delta Creek and tributaries are not navigable.)
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone. All projects
proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes,
liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures
to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction
permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault &
fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 121/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (mmm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
App #1158 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 13.12 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 40.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.25
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.00
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.33 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 6.38 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) iieiel 13
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 3
7. Sustainability (5) 3.17 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 45.00
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 45.00
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $5,461,000 Cost of Electricity $0.30/kWh
Grant Fund Request $1,800,000 Price of Fuel $4.16/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $1,061,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
A Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 6 grant (#7060929) in the amount of $2,600,000 was provided by AEA to fund the
construction phase of the proposed project through completion. The grant application was evaluated at the time using the
grantee’s expected total project cost provided at the time. The project is currently expecting higher construction costs and is
seeking additional funding of $1,800,000 from REF in the current Round 8 evaluations to initiate the construction phase. Itis
noted that the applicant has encountered significant delays in the submission of required deliverables, and the applicant has
not yet demonstrated site control.
AEA recommends full funding with special provisions.
The applicant shall satisfy the following special provisions prior to the issuance of a R8 grant or expenditure of any existing
project grant funds. Any obligation of project funds prior to the acceptance by AEA of the special provisions shall be at the
applicants risk.
1. Demonstrate site control
2. Become current on financial and progress reports
3. Amend existing grants to reflect proposed milestone and deliverables
4. Provide detailed project management plan addressing project controls, reporting, and change management
AEA Funding Recommendation: $1,800,000 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 122/138 01/06/2015
= ALASKA __ (@@imm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting
App #1159 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast
Applicant: Community of Elfin Cove Non- Proposed Phase(s): Design
Profit Corporation, Elfin Cove Utility
Commission
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design
Project Description
The community of Elfin Cove proposes a hydroelectric project that would be located on Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake,
located approximately one mile south of Elfin Cove at 58.19N, 136.35W. The project will include a run-of-river hydroelectric
plant between Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake (upper project) and a storage hydroelectric project between Jim's Lake and
tidewater (lowerproject). A January 20, 2014 updated sizing analysis from Polarconsult recommended a configuration with a
35 kWrun-of-river upper project with a 105 kW storage lower project for a total installed capacity of 140 kW, based on
updated hydrology and utility load data. The recommended project is estimated to displace 89% of the annual diesel fuel
consumed by the electric utility generators. This funding request supplements the community's existing funding for project
permitting. FERC declared that the project was not eligible for license exemption in August 2014, so the project will require a
FERC license. Based on recent FERC licensing processes in Southeast Alaska, the community anticipates more extensive
resource studies than expected when the permitting budget was developed in 2010. The community is requesting this
supplemental grant so the FERC licensing process can be completed without delay arising from funding constraints.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Does not qualify for FERC exemption. Wishes to develop existing ADL 100853 upland ROW & possible needs authorization
for below MHW. Plans Spring 2015 site visit. Water Right application received.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Queen Charlotte/Fairweather fault system
located ~30 km from the project. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a
geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes,
active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and
erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site
survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on
active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 123/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting
App #1159 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 34.83
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.99
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) ll
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $3,380,000 Cost of Electricity $0.80/kWh
Grant Fund Request $102,300 Price of Fuel $5.08/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $56,900
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2
While the proposed project appears to be technically feasible using an available local hydro resource, which if paid for by
REF grant funds could reduce the cost of electricity for Elfin Cove, the project did not pass the stage 2 (technical and
economic evaluation) minimum score.
The primary contributing factor to the low stage 2 score is a relatively low benefit/cost ratio of 0.99. This coupled with high
technical complexity associated with operating a two-stage hydro project, and increasing construction costs (22% higher)
over those presented in earlier grant applications, and late deliverables for the applicant's current grant for the same project,
all contributed to the stage 2 score.
Not recommended for funding; did not pass stage 2.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 124/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA __ (@mm® ENERGY AUTHORITY
Indian River Hydroelectric Project Construction
App #1160 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast
Applicant: City of Tenakee Springs DBA Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction
Tenakee Springs Electric Department
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Construction
Project Description
The City of Tenakee Springs is constructing a hydroelectric project on Indian River. This will be a 180 kW low head, run-of-
river plant displacing the use of 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually, or 90% of annual electric utility diesel consumption. At
least 6,500 additional gallons of fuel oil can be displaced by heating public buildings with excess energy from the hydro
project. The city successfully completed construction of Phase 1 of this project in June 2014, which consisted of extending
access roads and trails to the powerhouse and intake sites. Phase 2 will commence this fall, which will construct the balance
of the project. The final engineer's cost estimate exceeds the funds the city has available for this project, so the city is
requesting additional grant funds to ensure Phase 2 can be completed without disruption.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Queen Charlotte/Fairweather fault system
located ~70 km from the project. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a
geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes,
active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and
erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site
survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on
active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 125/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 ‘= ALASKA... (@lm®> ENERGY AUTHORITY
Indian River Hydroelectric Project Construction
App #1160 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 36.00
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.96
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) fail
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $4,526,280 Cost of Electricity $0.74/kWh
Grant Fund Request $977,000 Price of Fuel $4.60/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $280
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2
AREF Round 6 grant (#7060978) in the amount of $3,300,000 funded complete construction of the proposed hydro facility.
The grantee is seeking an additional grant of $977,000.
The proposed project did not pass the stage 2 minimum score and is not recommended for funding. The primary reason for
the low score was the economic feasibility of the project scored in criteria 4 a, b and c, which comprise 40 percent of the
score. With the additional $977,000 of costs requested in this grant, the benefit/cost ratio dropped from 1.57 when the project
was reviewed in fall 2012 to 0.96 in the fall 2014 economic evaluation. This resulted in earning only 1 point out of 10 for
criteria 4a. Additionally it is noted that the applicant has encountered significant delays in the submission of required
deliverables associated with project milestones.
AEA's Community Assistance program provides help with identification of funding for energy projects; the applicant is
encouraged to contact this program for assistance moving the project forward. Additionally, the applicant may be eligible fora
loan from AEA's Power Project Fund (PPF) loan program.
Not recommended for funding; did not meet stage 2 minimum score.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 126/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
Hoonah Indian Association (HIA) proposes a feasibility study and conceptual design for a district heating loop for Hoonah
School/pool, autoshop/carving shed, Boys and Girls Club, HIA Cookhouse, Headstart, city hall, and a large privately owned
commercial building (apartments, laundry, and store). This heating loop could potentially be operated as a heat utility by HIA.
HIA is also pursuing a community greenhouse, but this is not included in the feasibility study.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state land
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for a feasibility study for a biomass district heating system. The system would heat multiple buildings and a
proposed greenhouse. Up to 32,000 gallons of heating fuel would be displaced using biomass. The Forest Service has been
involved with Hoonah in looking at solutions to the high energy costs. Two mills near the town produce waste material that
may be suitable for biomass. Landowners including the Forest Service, Hoonah Totem, and Sealaska may also be a source
of biomass. The project appears to have adequate supplies of raw material available. Firewood is currently available for
$250/cord. The study would determine a delivered price of wood pellets.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 127/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 18.8 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 78.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.67
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 12.67
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.33 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 12.38 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 4
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 4
7. Sustainability (5) 3.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 69.18
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 69.18
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $ Cost of Electricity $0.68/kWh
Grant Fund Request $45,000 Price of Fuel $4.30/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $30,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The Hoonah Indian Association proposes feasibility and conceptual design for a district heating loop for Hoonah School/pool,
autoshop/carving shed, Boys and Girls Club, HIA Cookhouse, Headstart, city hall, and a large privately owned commercial
building (apartments, laundry, and store). This heating loop would be operated as a heat utility by HIA and could displace up
to 32,000 of heating fuel annually.The community of Hoonah has developed a collaborative for energy planning and biomass
development and is demonstrating initiative to understand potential biomass solutions to their high heating costs.
Recommend full funding.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $45,000 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 128/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Phase Il
App #1162 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Aleutians
Applicant: TDX Power, Inc. Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Project Description
TDX previously completed an REF funded reconnaissance level analysis for a hydroelectric power plant in Adak. The
reconnaissance study showed that a series of alpine lakes in the immediate vicinity of the city have the potential to displace
the diesel power plant as the primary energy source for Adak. Resource availability, engineering considerations, land
ownership and permitting issues were all considered. The proposed project is a continuation from the previous study that
recommended two development options for further consideration and additional data collection and analysis before making a
recommendation for future development. The first configuration consists of an intake at Lake Bonnie Rose and a powerhouse
at Mitt Lake, with a preliminary capacity 440 kW and capable of generating 3,200 MWh’s at an estimated cost of $8 million.
The alternative project utilizes the existing raw water transmission pipeline from Lake Bonnie Rose to the water treatment
plant having a capacity of 75 kW to 90 depending on the domestic water needs and capable of producing approximately 760
MWr's at an estimated cost of $2.75 million. An area of concern that required additional investigation are the instream flow
requirements that significantly affect the economics of all of the diversion projects using water from the lake system.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Lakes targeted for feasibility study are unclear, but may include Lake De Marie, Lake Leone and Lake Bonnie Rose, all of
which are BLM meandered, so any structures eventually placed on lands below mean high water within this water bodies will
require a DMLW authorization. It doesn’t appear that any improvements will run under Sweeper Cove, so authorization will
not be required there. No uplands are state-owned.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone. All projects
proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes,
liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures
to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction
permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault &
fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 129/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _ (@@mm® ENERGY AUTHORITY
Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Phase II
App #1162 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 35 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 61.50
2. Matching Resources (15) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.52
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) TAT
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.83 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 10.00 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) in 3
6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 2
7. Sustainability (5) 3.33 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 61.33
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 6133
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $1,400,000 Cost of Electricity $1.20/kWh
Grant Fund Request $85,000 Price of Fuel $5.61/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $00
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
AEA recommends continued feasibility work consistent with the reconnaissance study. TDX’s application is focused on the
smaller of the two hydroelectric options identified. In order to fully address the feasibility of hydro development in Adak it is
recommended that the scope of work and budget be increased to examine all recommendations in the reconnaissance
report. Specific recommendations include performing feasibility level studies to further evaluate future load growth (or
decline) along with fish processor loads, perform hydrology data collection and analysis, develop more detailed project cost
estimates, and provide project capacity and storage recommendations with concept designs. Additional requirements for this
phase include aquatic investigations and review of environmental flow restrictions, agency consultation, appropriate
permitting investigations, and coordination with other community rehabilitation efforts particularly related to water and energy
use. AEA recommends funding of $390,000 to complete a larger scope of work to include stream gauging, mapping,
additional aquatic investigations, data collection as necessary, energy and economic modeling, concept designs, preliminary
design criteria, initial agency consultation, and final recommendations for design and permitting.
Recommended for funding with the special provision that additional funding be used to expand the scope of the feasibility
study as described above.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $390,000 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 130/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
TDX AWE is requesting phase Ill and IV funding for installation of electric boilers at public facilities to utilize non-firm excess
wind power for heating. This work was originally proposed in 2008 as part of the Sand Point wind turbine installation, but not
implemented due to wind turbine project cost and schedule difficulties. Presently, lacking means to deliver excess wind,
considerable excess wind energy is dissipated into a resistive dump load, and the Island’s two 500KWwind turbines are
curtailed to 300KW each. This project proposes to install thermal nodes at 2 community facilities — the Sand Point School and
Health Clinic - with total installed nameplate electric boiler capacity of 600 kW. Preliminary energy auditing (incorporating
previous reports) will be performed on the facilities to determine the “energy baseline” from which project impact can be
measured going forward. The project also includes integration of building energy use data into the existing power plant
SCADA system such that ongoing operational performance can be measured and optimized.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No SCRO involvement. Applicant does not identify land ownership, but review indicates that the project is not on State-owned
lands. No DMLWinterests such as Section Line Easements or RS 2477 Rights of Way.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone. All projects
proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes,
liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures
to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction
permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault &
fold digital database: http:/Avwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 131/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 21.86 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 75.67
2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.94
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 11.89
4. Project Readiness (5) 3.33 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 11.50 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 6
6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 1
7. Sustainability (5) 4.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 67.58
Total Stage 3 Score (100) 67.58
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $383,900 Cost of Electricity $0.49/kWh
Grant Fund Request $307,120 Price of Fuel $5.00/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $76,780
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
This project shows a very good economic payback and much of the design work is already complete. The wind turbines have
been operating for more than two years and there is an established performance baseline on which to model and design the
secondary load system. Applicant has submitted a year (2012) of electrical load data along with wind turbine speed, a
HOMER modeling file and hourly modeling of excess electricity. Additional high-resolution data (1-second interval) has been
made available to study power quality with the existing system to identify if other factors need to be addressed in the final
design. An earlier power sales agreement between the utility and the city is no longer in place. A new power sales agreement
will be needed with the city and with the school/borough prior to allocation of construction funds. A 65% design has been
completed for a 100KW electric boiler at the Sand Point health center and 500KW electric boiler at the school. AEA will need
to accept the final design prior to release of any construction funds. Recommend full funding.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $307,120 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 132/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Project Description
This project proposes the construction of a cordwood system in Port Graham to heat 4 community buildings: village council
Offices, clinic, public safety/fire station, and the Corporation offices. The Corporation will be invoiced for the heat for its
building. This project will displace approximately 5,365 gallons per year of heating fuel. Design was funded through round 4
for $75,000.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
As noted by the applicant, timber harvest for biomass supply may require DNR Division of Forestry to be notified. No SCRO
involvement. The project and related biomass sources are not located on State-owned lands. No DMLWinterests such as
Section Line Easements or RS 2477 Rights of Way.
DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments
This project is for construction of a Garn biomass district heating system that will heat four community buildings. Cordwood
would come from road accessible village corporation lands near the facility. Itis anticipated that 100 cords per year would be
needed. A biomass inventory assessment prepared by Chugachmiut Forestry stated that the annual allowable harvest on
Port Graham village corporation lands is over 7,000 cords. As long as harvest areas are agreed upon, the resource should
well be able to sustain this biomass system. The project proposal states that fuel source agreements are currently being
negotiated with Port Graham Corporation and some Native allotment owners.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the
potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides,
volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of
receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in
the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 133/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 35.67
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.36
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $236,602 Costof Electricity $0.18/kWh
Grant Fund Request $341,465 Price of Fuel $5.74/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $79,300
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2
The Port Graham Village Council proposes the construction of a cordwood fired biomass boiler system to supply a small
district heating system consisting of four buildings: community hall; the clinic/police; an office; and a shop. The system would
displace 5,365 gallons of fuel oil per year. The design and business/operating plan were funded in Round IV of the
Renewable Energy Fund for $75,000. The project also received $127,640 from the US Department of Energy for design and
permitting activities. The economics of this project are very challenging due mostly to the small amount of fuel that will be
displaced and resulting in a benefit/cost ratio of 0.36. The applicant submitted additional heat loads that could be added to
the system at the time they appealed AEA's decision to not fund the project. The integration costs associated with these loads
was not included. The project B/C ratio would still be less than 1.0 with the additional loads, and even lower with the
additional integration costs. This proposed change did not elevate the stage 2 score above the minimum threshold.
No funding recommended. Did not pass stage 2.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia
Page 134/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8
Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction
App #1165 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach
Applicant: Native Village of Chenega Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction
Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction
Project Description
The Native Village of Chenega (aka. Chenega Bay) proposes to construct a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project on
Anderson Creek. The planned 64 kW capacity project will offset power currently generated by burning diesel. The non-
jurisdictional hydro will offset up to 10,400 gallons of diesel annually which translates into $56,600 in annual savings.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
A Water Rights Certificate may be required from the DMLW Water Section. No SCRO involvement. The project is not located
on State-owned land and the hydro source is not shown as navigable according to a review of DNR records.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone and associated
tsunami. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to
determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis,
landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and
incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a
condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is
available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 135/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA _ (@@lmm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction
App #1165 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.82
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $1,750,000 Cost of Electricity $0.67/kWh
Grant Fund Request $1,750,000 _— Price of Fuel $7.00/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $00
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended
This application was submitted for construction funding. However, permits, land use authorization, construction ready design
and specifications, final design cost estimate and an updated business plan need to be completed prior to consideration for
construction funding, per the AEA Request for Applications 15003 section 2.2 to 2.6.
No funding recommended.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia
Page 136/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA... mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting
App #1166 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Bristol Bay
Applicant: City of Chignik Proposed Phase(s): Design
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design
Project Description
Complete final design and permitting for a 420-340kW storage hydroelectric project on Indian Lake in Chignik Bay. The
project would consist of an approximately 25 foot high by 125 foot long concrete faced, rock filled dam impounding up to 204
acre feet of water, 7,280 feet of 22 inch underground penstock, 9,170 feet of new access road and trail, Turgo impulse hydro
turbine and generator in a 26 x 26 foot powerhouse, tail race that returns water into Indian Creek above the anadromous
reach of the creek, above ground insulated City water supply line, 1,600 feet of electrical tie line. This project would replace
the existing, 1947 era, 60kW, nonfunctioning hydro. The new proposed project will continue to supply raw water to the City.
The existing 60kW project was re-licensed by FERC in 2006. The application is based upon the findings of a the feasibility
study funded by REF round 1 for $207,500 As required by the grant the City received control and ownership of the hydro
resource from NorQuest Seafoods owned by Trident Sea Foods in the fall of 2012.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Existing project installed in 1947 needs upgrades. Pipeline crossing of Indian Creek authorized by Public Utility Easement
under ADL 229178; replacement or upgrade of the lines authorized under ADL 229178 requires prior notification of DMLW
and additional authorizations may be required. Otherwise, the project is not on state-owned lands. A Water Rights Permit
issued from the Water Section. Non FERC project.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone and associated
tsunami. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to
determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis,
landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and
incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a
condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is
available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944
Page 137/138 01/06/2015
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA. ENERGY AUTHORITY
Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting
App #1166 Standard Application
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) 24.02 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 63.00
2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.03
3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 7.67
4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) 4.50 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) ! 8
6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1
7. Sustainability (5) 4.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 54.69
Total Stage 3 Score (100) = 54.69
Funding & Cost
Total Cost Through Construction $6,610,000 Cost of Electricity $0.55/kWh
Grant Fund Request $1,305,000 Price of Fuel $4.46/Gal
Total Matched Funds Provided $70,000
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
The City of Chignik using the services of CE2 Engineers and Hatch produced a feasibility study for a hydro project on Indian
Creek. The $207,500 in funding for the feasibility study came from previous REF. As required by the previous grants the City
received control and ownership of the hydro resource from NorQuest Seafoods owned by Trident Sea Foods. Water rights for
up to 18 cfs will need to be requested above the existing 2.7 cfs. The existing dam and penstock have historical significance.
They will require studies and documentation before they can be considered for removal. Easements will be required for new
facilities from the City. LIDAR mapping, stream gauging and geotechnical investigations will be needed. Potential issues with
FERC, SHPO and DNR must be resolved as early as possible. Include upgrades at the existing diesel powerhouse to
integrate the hydro power and their associated construction costs. The design must maximize the use of the excess hydro by
additional sales to the local processor or by heating fuel displacement and include any additional construction cost.
Recommend for full funding with the special provision of receiving a detailed design budget and a list of the proposed
consultants prior to grant execution.
AEA Funding Recommendation: $1,305,000 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 138/138 01/06/2015