The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREFAC Meeting Agenda and Minutes 5-8-2015Y= ALASKA > ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Harrigan Centennial Hall Sitka, Alaska Friday, May 8, 2015 2:00 pm — 5:00 pm Teleconference: 1-888-585-9008, code 683-021-989# Webinar to view documents: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/584227781 AGENDA Ww, Call to Order go “4 Roll Call (committee members, staff, public) ! ane Approval QM 0 FOL Now - NST bxpvht 4 CO WoRUM Sopl . we Thank you to Hosts, City of Sitka. Blue Lake Dedication Follow-up AL : MAM i nsond 5. Approval of Minutes: January 9, 2015 and January 28, 2015 Ww Public Comments wv. Overview of Program S Px S. (ss) df. Projects Funded J. REF Annual Timeline and REFAC Responsibilities of Financing Options Presentation by AEA and AIDEA Cry Low Teee S a oe Committee Recommendations Regarding Round IX Request for App jeAtions7 10. Meeting Dates for Next 12 Months [= : \ 11. Committee Member Comments fx ™e 12. Adjournment V) } —— 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 1 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044 N \. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 January 28, 2015 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 28, 2015 Two locations via video conference: Alaska Energy Authority Board Room Anchorage, Alaska Legislative Information Office Terry Miller Conference Room 129 Sixth Street Juneau, Alaska 4:01 p.m. to 5:03 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES 1. Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 4:01 p.m., with Chair Chris Rose presiding. There was a quorum. 2. Roll Call (committee members, staff, public) Committee Members Present Attended of Total 2014-15 Meetings Chair Chris Rose 5 of 5 Representative Bryce Edgmon 5 of 5 Brad Reeve (phone) 5 of 5 Bradley Evans 3 of 5 Senator Lyman Hoffman 5 of 5 Jodi Mitchell 4 of 5 Kathie Wasserman (phone) 3 of 5 Senator Anna MacKinnon 4 of 5 Representative Charisse Millett 3 of 5 Committee Members Not Present Attended of Total 2014-15 Meetings AEA Staff Present: Josh Craft, Sara Fisher-Goad, Emily Ford, Jennifer Haldane, Yolanda Inga, Cady Lister, David Lockard, Sandra Moller, Devany Plentovich, Sean Skaling, Rich Stromberg, Sam Tappen, and Gene Therriault. Other Participants Present: Miranda Studstill, Accu-Type Depositions; Unidentified Speaker, AIDEA (phone); Jason Custer, Alaska Power and Telephone; Eric Hanssen, Dan Rice (sp), Suzanne Wolf (sp), Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) (phone); Steve Gilbert, Anna Sattler, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC); Unidentified Speaker, Bristol Bay School District (phone); Wynne Auld, Gray Stassel Engineering and Energy Action; Bob Baldwin, Kenai River Watershed Foundation (phone); Gary Hennigh, King Cove (phone); Kord Christianson, TDX Power; and Danny Consenstein, USDA Farm Service Agency. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 January 28, 2015 ax Agenda Approval MOTION: A motion was made by Representative Millett to approve the agenda. Seconded by Representative Edgmon. The agenda was approved. 4, Public Comments Bob Baldwin, President of the Kenai River Watershed Foundation of Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, informed the Foundation protects and defends the integrity of the Kenai River and its watershed. The Foundation is strongly opposed to the recommended Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grant to Kenai Hydro, LLC, owned solely by Homer Electric Association (HEA), for the Grant Lake hydroelectric proposal near Moose Pass. Mr. Baldwin noted the Grant Lake project is outside the HEA service area and would not supply electricity to utility members. He believes HEA has been totally indifferent to very strong public opposition over the past seven years. The fear is the other three original hydroelectric proposals will be revisited if Grant Lake is constructed. Mr. Baldwin stated Kenai Hydro, LLC has not applied for a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydroelectric project license after stretching two preliminary permits over a maximum period of six years. The Grant Lake hydroelectric proposal is clearly not consistent with Alaska's current need for fiscal austerity. Mr. Baldwin requested no funding be recommended for the Grant Lake hydroelectric proposal. Danny Consenstein, State Executive Director for the USDA Farm Service Agency, stated their mission is to support viable farm operations and increased food production in Alaska. Mr. Consenstein urged the Committee to consider opportunities that incorporate greenhouses or combined renewable energy and food production. 5. REF Regional Distribution Following REFAC Recommendations 1/9/15 Mr. Skaling informed staff reviewed the feedback from the January 9th Committee meeting addressing the Stage 4 regional distribution of funds. The recommendations for implementing a new system were provided. The three-step approach includes using a regional population weighted "burden of energy cost" metric to establish regional funding bands, capping all individual projects at $1.5 million, and capping the regions that exceed the target funding band so their share of the overall fund cannot grow. Mr. Skaling explained the table identifying by energy region, the REF funding to date, the burden of energy cost per household income, Round 8 funding before the new criteria, and Round 8 funding after the new criteria is applied. Ms. Mitchell commented the burden of energy cost varies greatly within individual communities in the Southeast region. Angoon, for instance, has a very high burden which is not reflected in the Southeast regional burden number of 10%. She does not agree with this representation. Mr. Skaling explained staff's reasoning is to allow the Southeast communities who have the highest cost burden be the first projects to fill the eligible Southeast regional funds and the lowest cost burden communities in Southeast end up below the recommended $15 million line. Ms. Fisher- Goad noted the energy burden cost shown in the table is specific to the region and not to the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 January 28, 2015 individual community. She stated staff will add a column showing the cost burden for the individual communities. Mr. Evans requested explanation as to why there are Railbelt region projects on the new list that were not on the previous recommended list. Mr. Skaling explained the intent is that the wedge for the over-served regions should not grow over 22% and there were not enough Railbelt projects to grow that wedge. Ms. Fisher-Goad informed placing the $1.5 million cap on the recommended projects, particularly in Southeast, has increased project eligibility and has allowed more projects to be funded while maintaining the regional spread. Senator MacKinnon expressed her appreciation to staff for reviewing the comments and offering a new system, as directed, to address regional spreading. She expressed concern and disagrees with partially funding feasibility studies and entry level projects. Senator MacKinnon expressed disagreement with the cap of $1.5 million because she believes this will inadvertently allow projects to begin, without having the full amount of funding necessary to complete the project. She requested the record reflect the methodology used has projects qualify that may not have risen to the top otherwise. Mr. Rose asked whether staff knows if there are lines of credit available for the projects whose initial grant request was greater than will be received. He expressed concern regarding the possibility of projects abandoning their efforts because they receive less than requested, particularly the project who has been recommended for $400,000 of a $4 million request. Mr. Rose noted the cap and partial funding may not be as effective as anticipated. Ms. Mitchell requested clarification and asked if the $1.5 million cap was only for this round. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated staff shares the concerns regarding the $1.5 million cap. The dynamic of funding the projects has changed because the budget decreased from $20 million to $15 million. Ms. Fisher-Goad does not believe the $1.5 million cap is permanent. She advised none of the applicants have been given the opportunity to respond to the proposed funding amounts and provide feedback as to whether or not their grant amount is workable or will allow lines of credit. Ms. Fisher-Goad requested the Legislature be asked to provide an indication of budget funding for the next round, in order to determine if a similar cap is necessary and to give notice to potential applicants. Ms. Fisher-Goad suggested discussing the option of providing authorization for a Power Project Fund (PPF) loan to those recommended projects who are capped at $1.5 million or otherwise partially funded. Feasibility projects are eligible for PPF loans. Representative Edgmon commented this is not an ideal situation because of the limited budget amount of $15 million and the compressed timeframe to provide this recommendation to the Legislature within the statutory deadline. Ms. Wasserman asked if there are ever project maintenance costs before project completion. Mr. Skaling agreed there may be maintenance costs before project completion. Ms. Wasserman believes project maintenance issues need to be addressed during this process. Mr. Skaling informed impacts of operations and maintenance are reviewed within the economic metrics for each project. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 January 28, 2015 Representative Edgmon suggested moving forward with the current recommended list. Chair Rose asked if staff is confident the projects with a cost/ratio of less than one can succeed. Mr. Skaling informed all projects on the recommended list are technically viable. The question is whether or not the projects are economically viable over their estimated 20-year lifespan and this is addressed during the design stage of the project. Representative Millett expressed her unease regarding the potential effects of projects being stalled because of the $1.5 million cap. She supports going forward with the recommended list and noted concern this may be setting up communities for some failure. Ms. Mitchell echoed Senator MacKinnon's concerns and stated her inclination to fund the dollars requested for feasibility at closer to 100% rather than partial funding. MOTION: A motion was made by Representative Edgmon to accept the recommended list as presented and provide it to the Legislature. Seconded by Representative Millet. The motion passed. 6. Next Meeting Date - May 14, 2015 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The next meeting is tentatively set for May 14, 2015. Representative Edgmon noted previous discussion regarding the next meeting to be held in a Southeast venue. Senator MacKinnon suggested reviewing budgets before determining the location of the next meeting. Chair Rose requested the meeting be held on May 13th if it is in Southeast. Mr. Skaling stated staff will review the meeting options and inform the Committee. = Committee Member Comments Mr. Evans believes many good questions were raised and feels uncomfortable the recommendations were pushed out without having full answers to the questions. The Committee set criteria for staff to review the issues and some of the regional spreading objectives were achieved, yet it created new problems. Mr. Evans noted practically everybody on the Committee had some issue with the recommended list and it would not have been pushed out if this discussion occurred in a boardroom. He expressed feeling awkward about the actions during this meeting. Mr. Reeve believes more discussion needs to occur on the new criteria, especially regarding caps and additional funding for projects, including bonds or loans. Ms. Fisher-Goad expressed her appreciation for the Committee comments and noted work will continue with the senators and representatives as the recommended list moves to the legislative arena. Additional discussion will occur regarding partial funding. Ms. Fisher-Goad hopes concerns and questions will be answered in Round 9. Chair Rose expressed his appreciation to staff for their work. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 January 28, 2015 Ms. Auld requested to ask a clarifying question regarding Senator MacKinnon's comments. Ms. Auld asked if the partially funded grants reduce the scope of work in the grant agreement or if the community accepts and sign a partially funded grant agreement, including the full scope of work. Mr. Skaling answered for staff, noting partially funded grants are for a reduced scope of work. The recommended projects indicated by the double asterisks are partially funded due to the cap and additional money would be needed for those projects to advance. Senator MacKinnon clarified her concerns regarding a feasibility study receiving partial funding. She believes it is important for feasibility and design work to be fully funded so the projects can continue moving forward. Senator MacKinnon informed she will work staff to ensure the understanding of each project funding before it is advanced. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:03 p.m. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 14 January 9, 2015 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 9, 2015 Alaska Energy Authority Board Room Anchorage, Alaska 10:02 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES 1. Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 10:02 a.m., with Chair Chris Rose presiding. There was a quorum. Ds Roll Call (committee members, staff, public) Committee Members Present Meetings Attended of Total Meetings Chair Chris Rose 4of4 Representative Bryce Edgmon 4 of 4 Brad Reeve (phone) 4 of 4 Bradley Evans (phone) 2 of 4 Senator Lyman Hoffman 4o0f4 Senator Anna MacKinnon 3 of 4 Committee Members Not Present Meetings Attended of Total Meetings Jodi Mitchell 3 of 4 Kathie Wasserman 2 of 4 Representative Charisse Millett 2 of 4 AEA Staff Present: Alan Baldivieso, Shawn Calfa, Josh Craft, Sara Fisher-Goad, Emily Ford, Daniel Hertrich, Yolanda Inga, Cady Lister, David Lockard, Sandra Moller, Devany Plentovich, Sean Skaling, Rich Stromberg (phone), Unidentified Speaker, and Unidentified Speaker. Other Participants Present: Miranda Studstill, Accu-Type Depositions; Anna Sattler, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC); Erin Whitney, Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP); Eric Hanssen, Dan Reitz, ANTHC; Ron Vecera, Chugach Electric; Jason Jussup, City of Kotzebue (phone); Randy Walker, City of Kotzebue (phone); Clay Koplin, Cordova Electric Cooperative (phone); Chelsea Ward-Waller, Denali Daniels & Assoc.; Rachel Gaoidhas (sp), Governor's Office; Doug Johnson, Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC); Adam Berg, Representative Edgmon's Office; Jeff Turner, Representative Millett's Office; Pat Walker, Senator Hoffman's Office (phone); Emma Kelly, Stantec; Kord Christianson, TDX Power; and Peter Crimp, Crimp and Associates (phone). 3. Agenda Approval Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14 January 9, 2015 MOTION: A motion was made by Representative Edgmon to approve the agenda. Seconded by Senator Hoffman. The agenda was approved. 4. Public Comments Doug Johnson of ORPC expressed his appreciation to the Committee members. He informed the project in Igiugig is an extremely successful operation and has funding for the 2015 season. Mr. Johnson discussed modeling has shown turbine performance improvements of up to 30% can be implemented. This emerging technology industry is in a very precarious position and needs to continue working in the public/private partnership to bring this technology into the marketplace. Mr. Johnson believes it is important to learn more information about how to integrate renewables with the microgrid to help build the economy. Chair Rose asked if Mr. Johnson has any recommendations how the REF Committee could help. Mr. Johnson stated ORPC is between an emerging technology company and a commercial technology company. The Emerging Energy Technology Fund (EETF) was instrumental to ORPC and funded their programs. Mr. Johnson noted ORPC is not yet eligible for REF funding, which places them in a precarious position until eligibility in 2016. Erin Whitney informed she oversees ACEP's data collection efforts for EETF and REF projects. She expressed appreciation to AEA for their interactions with ACEP. Ms. Whitney noted a reimbursable services agreement (RSA) was in place at the beginning of the summer to begin infrastructure development for the data collection and management program. She believes there is an intention to fund a second RSA for field deployment of these data collection and management efforts for current REF projects. Ms. Whitney informed ACEP would like to help AEA demonstrate requirements to the Legislature, justifying the programs and showing the value of the projects. She requested an update on that process. Senator Hoffman asked if there are more than two RSAs. Ms. Whitney stated she does not know the sequence of RSAs. Kord Christianson of TDX Power informed they operate five utilities around the state. Two of those are wind-diesel and can be operated in the wind-only mode with the diesel off. EETF funding has provided TDX with a flywheel energy storage system, which should increase the wind-only mode by an additional 10% to 15%. Mr. Christianson explained dispatchable loads are necessary to operate 100% diesel-off. He encouraged the Committee to review renewable combined heat and power projects as a key element for the success of high wind penetration systems. Mr. Christianson provided a handout to the Committee showing a snapshot of five years' of operations data. 5 Approval of Meeting Minutes - September 22, 2014 MOTION: A motion was made by Senator Hoffman to approve the meeting minutes from September 22, 2014, Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded. The minutes were approved. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14 January 9, 2015 6. REF Program Update Mr. Skaling informed all of the information regarding today's meeting is on the AEA website under the REF grant program links. Mr. Skaling provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation entitled Preliminary Status Update. AEA is in the process of compiling the updated information to present during the annual status report to the Legislature for the January 30th delivery date. A map of all the REF projects from Rounds I through VII was shown. The overall program benefit/cost ratio is 2.8. A map of the recommended projects from Round VII (R7) was shown. The bold numbers indicate recommended projects within the $15 million Governor's budget and the lighter numbers indicate recommended projects outside the $15 million Governor's budget. There have been 732 applications received through R7 and 277 were funded. Currently, there are 122 grants in place. Approximately $250 million has been appropriated to date. Mr. Skaling explained the pie charts depicting R1-7 funding amounts by size, and in terms of energy source, wind, hydro, and biomass were the largest. In terms of phase, construction, feasibility, and design were the largest. In terms of the regions of the state, Southeast is the largest, with the remaining regions represented fairly evenly. The applications received for R1-7 were predominantly wind, hydro, and biomass. For R8, the applications received were predominantly hydro, biomass, wind, and an increasing amount of heat recovery. Mr. Skaling explained the pie chart on slide 13 depicting all R8 recommended applications by funding size, and in terms of energy source, hydro, biomass, and wind were the largest. In terms of phase, construction and design are the largest. In terms of applications from regions of the state, Southeast is the largest, with the remaining regions represented fairly evenly. In terms of funding size by region, Southeast and Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana are the two largest, followed by the Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim. Mr. Skaling reported on the slide showing the summary of community assistance provided for each project. Representative Edgmon commented he attended the Rural Energy Conference in Fairbanks. It was obvious to him REF is playing a large and important role in Alaska, providing savings and tangible benefits to Alaskans. This deserves recognition and legislative discussion to keep the program moving forward, especially in light of the current budget reductions the state is facing. Chair Rose requested information outlining indirect benefits of the program, including job creation and economic activity. He noted ISER and other organizations are capable of providing that type of analysis. Senator MacKinnon requested an electronic version of the REF Preliminary Status Report presentation. Mr. Skaling agreed to provide an electronic version to members. Ts REF/PCE Interactions Mr. Skaling introduced Ms. Lister, AEA's lead economist, who provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation entitled REF/PCE Interactions, Incentives, Illustrations. The PowerPoint is included on the AEA website under the REFAC Meeting 1/9/15 link. Ms. Lister advised this presentation is in response to the mis-perception that the state PCE program is the primary beneficiary of Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 January 9, 2015 savings associated with REF projects built in PCE communities. The presentation clarified the impacts of REF projects on PCE. Ms. Lister reviewed the PCE program, summarized the characteristics of eligible communities, discussed what happens when a REF project is introduced, and explained the distribution of REF project savings. There are currently 188 communities who benefit from approximately $40 million in annual disbursements. Approximately 28.5% of all kWhs sold are eligible for PCE. This is a weighted average across all PCE communities. Approximately 40% of all kWhs sold are PCE eligible on an unweighted PCE community average. Communities with small populations tend to have a higher percentage of eligible kWhs. Ms. Lister provided PCE definitions. The base rate is the weighted average cost per kWh in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. This is calculated annually and currently is $0.1482. The PCE level is the state subsidy per eligible kWh, which is calculated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) for each community. RCA primarily uses either cost-based or rate-based calculations. The effective rate is the cost per kWh the customers will actually pay for each PCE eligible kWh. Ms. Lister explained REF projects create price stability, protecting against uncertain and uncontrollable diesel prices in the community. There is a potential for increases in non-fuel costs when a renewable energy project comes online in a community. The PCE level for that community is expected to change and depends on the ratio between PCE eligible and ineligible kWhs. In 2013, there were 26 generating REF-funded energy projects in PCE communities. Of those, 19 were electric and seven were heat. Eighty generating REF projects in PCE communities, 38 electric and 42 heat, are anticipated in five years. The large majority of savings associated with REF projects are being felt by rate payers or by facilities that benefit from heat projects. The REF projects also provided an estimated savings of $1.7 million to the state PCE program. Ms. Lister reported statewide energy consumption percentages and noted the Railbelt at 77%, Southeast at 13%, Kodiak at 2%, and the entire remainder of the state at 8%. REF funds are invested heavily in PCE communities in a larger number of small projects, covering 70% of the total project costs. REF investments outside PCE communities are in a fewer number of big projects to serve the much greater energy demands of those communities, covering 31% of total project costs, not including direct appropriations by the state. Of the 37 currently generating REF- funded projects, 26 are in PCE communities and 11 are in non-PCE communities. Most of the savings comes from Anchorage Landfill Gas, Eva Creek, and Pillar Mountain projects. Representative Edgmon asked how much of the funds stay in Anchorage or other populated areas to cover costs like administration and construction design. Ms. Lister noted the capital investment includes expenditures outside the project communities for services including consultants and engineering firms. The savings shown are place-based community savings, not including the PCE retained savings. Chair Rose noted the slide stating $75.6 million of state funds were spent on 37 projects. He asked if Ms. Lister knew how much additional non-state investment were spent on those 37 projects. Ms. Lister stated she has that number, but not with her today and will provide that to the Committee. It is a substantial amount. She believes approximately 50% of the total investment in ~ Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14 January 9, 2015 non-PCE communities has been private investment and approximately 30% of the total investment in PCE communities has been private investment. Ms. Lister advised 100% of the savings from heat projects stay in the community. In 2013, the seven operating REF-funded heat projects saved an estimated $1.3 million in displaced heating fuel costs in addition to creating local jobs. This year, there will be 22 operational REF-funded heat projects, including biomass, heat pumps, and heat recovery. Senator Hoffman requested Ms. Lister review his question and provide an answer at a later date. He stated customers in communities in the YK Delta report the utilities have included fuel surcharges for years. The customers believe there could be substantial electric savings if the fuel surcharges were added to the base of the operations of the utility. Senator Hoffman requested an analysis of possible community savings if the fuel surcharges were included in the operation of the utility. He asked if the current fuel surcharge system is a result of the utilities not asking the RCA for approval or is a result of RCE not responding in a timely manner. Senator Hoffman believes the intent of the PCE program is not being fully implemented. He asked if this issue can be addressed administratively by the utilities and RCA, or if legislative policy action is necessary. Ms. Lister stated she will review the issue and work with RCA. Ms. Fisher-Goad informed a series of meetings between AEA and RCA regarding PCE issues is ongoing and she will discuss the calculation structure of the fuel surcharge. 8. Wind to Heat Evaluation Mr. Skaling commented Ms. Lister has done a great job delving into questions posed to AEA regarding the wind to heat analysis. This model can be used to factor in the specifics in any one community to see what is most cost effective. AEA is also using this model to take overall view of the cost effective curve of renewable energy projects across the state. Ms. Lister gave an overview of the document provided entitled Cost Effectiveness of Using Excess Wind Power for Residential Heat. The purpose of the analysis is to provide effective guidance to communities. The amount of REF project applications received using excess wind power for residential heat has increased, but is still pretty new in rural Alaska. AEA has convened two meetings with stakeholders, including AVEC, Intelligent Energy Systems (IES, the Institute of Northern Engineering (INE), ACEP, RCA, and members from the Chaninik Wind Group. Ms. Lister advised this evaluation looks at the project cost effectiveness using three scenarios, including the full cost of the systems, but not including the cost of the turbine or any necessary powerhouse upgrades. There is not widespread agreement regarding the cost of these systems. AEA is using the best information available. This analysis shows the economics of using excess wind for heat in residential units and appears challenging under most circumstances in which utilities or private parties are paying for the capital expenditures. If the project is grant funded, with no community capital cost, the project would absolutely be cost effective because there is no debt service and the rate could be set below the cost of diesel. It is important to have site-specific information for a complete evaluation. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14 January 9, 2015 Chair Rose requested additional review of communities with high excess wind and high costs of heating diesel fuel and what it would look like to spread the institutional costs to get economies of scale. Ms. Lister stated she will review that type of scenario, but does not believe small communities would have an ability to largely reduce the capital expenditures. Chair Rose asked if more information and data points would be helpful to this analysis. Ms. Lister noted the low number of data points relates to the fact not many systems have been built. 9. REF Evaluation Process Mr. Skaling noted the Committee has been provided with the evaluation guidelines and the detailed review process document. This document is also posted on the website. Mr. Skaling requested comments from the Committee and Committee approval of these guidelines. Mr. Skaling explained the stages of review. He informed AEA reviewed 67 applications for REF Round VIII through Stage 1. Thirty-two of the applications did not pass the Stage 2 review for recommendation, and six of those are in the appeal process. Stage 3 is the process of ranking the projects in funding priority. The criteria used in this stage is outlined in statute, regulations and in the RFA. Stage 4 is the process of regional spreading, to determine if a region is underrepresented in the cumulative total since the beginning of the REF. This allows AEA to more evenly distribute funds across the state. Mr. Skaling noted the document describes responsibilities of each step of the process, the actual scoring criteria and weighting. He advised there have been a few title changes in the document and a few changes to the language have been made, making it more clear and understandable. Mr. Reeve commented it is helpful to review and update the evaluation process on a regular basis. Mr. Evans asked if this document outlines proposed changes for the next round or if these proposed changes were used in the current evaluation process. Mr. Skaling noted these guidelines were used for the current year. Mr. Evans asked if the ground rules have changed for the current applicants after they have submitted their application. Mr. Skaling informed the ground rules are established in the RFA, in regulations, and in statute. Mr. Evans asked why the applicants are not being told about the changes. He stated the proposers need to know the rules before they apply. Mr. Skaling said he would like to publish this document at the same time as the RFA. The RFA does have the specific criteria for the proposer, but not in as much detail. Mr. Evans recommended making changes to the evaluation guidelines in advance of the application submittals and then not entertaining any changes to the guidelines during the application process, unless the circumstances are overwhelming. Mr. Skaling agreed and noted that is the plan for next year. He informed this has been the process historically, and believes it makes more sense to change the timing of the process to make any alterations to the guidelines before the application process begins. Representative Edgmon asked if there is interfacing with the Division of Regional Affairs or local government specialists in this process, specifically regarding training and outreach. Ms. Fisher- Goad noted much communication has occurred with the local government specialists and technical assistance outreach has been provided. She believes AEA’s community assistance team has done a very good job, but there is always room to have better communication and more coordination Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14 January 9, 2015 with other agencies. Representative Edgmon asked if these are general fund positions. Ms. Fisher- Goad answered affirmatively. Senator Hoffman advised one of the main provisions of the legislation was to try to lower the cost of energy in those areas that have the highest energy costs in the state. He does not believe the intent of this program is working. The chart on page 22 of the presentation indicates the region with the lowest cost of energy, Southeast at .15 cents per kWh, has received the most funds at $62 million, and the four highest cost regions, Yukon-Koyukuk at .62, Yukon-Kuskokwim at .56, Bristol Bay at .54, and Northwest Arctic at .53 cents per kWh, have received $20 million each. Senator Hoffman commented he has requested recommendations from AEA over the last five years regarding this same issue. He asked for additional recommendations from AEA to get this program on course to address those areas of the state that have the highest energy costs. Mr. Skaling advised AEA analyzed this issue last year and believed it was presented at a Committee meeting. He noted the chart on page 22 regarding the Southeast region is misleading. AEA split Southeast into high cost areas and low cost areas. All, but one, of the current recommendations for Southeast are in the high cost areas. The vast majority of the $62 million has gone to the high cost areas of Southeast. Senator Hoffman suggested the revised numbers be reflected in the charts for clarity. He noted even if the Southeast energy costs were .50 cents per kWh, Southeast is still at a much higher funding level than the four highest energy cost areas of the state. The funding amounts for the four highest energy cost areas of the state need to be increased. Senator Hoffman recommended including both cost of kWh and heating cost in the calculation of total energy costs. Mr. Skaling informed AEA reviewed the alternative of separating electric and heat. He noted the calculations are complex and netted similar results. It was determined the electric rates are a very good indicator of the heat rates. Mr. Evans commented it is possible the areas with the highest cost of energy submitted few or no applications, which would cause a decreased results number. He suggested addressing what it would take to get high quality and volume proposals out of the high energy cost areas so they have a better chance of getting the money that is meant to go to those areas. Senator MacKinnon expressed appreciation to staff for their work on the proposed methodology. She agrees the applicants should know as much of the evaluation criteria as possible, but it is important to have the advisory opinion at this stage of the process. Senator MacKinnon requested staff discuss how they can mitigate the high cost of energy area projects to fall within the criteria. She stated she was elected from an urban population to represent all Alaska. Ms. Fisher-Goad advised AEA also works with communities to address basic energy infrastructure, where it is needed, before a renewable energy source is considered. AEA works with communities holistically through the regional energy planning process and with the new affordable energy process effort. This program is very important and has a tremendous amount of impact, but it is one of several things AEA tries to do to address the energy needs in a community. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14 January 9, 2015 Senator MacKinnon asked if the Committee will receive an update on the regional energy plans. She requested to know the status of completion for each region. Senator MacKinnon commented it is important to her to know how much diesel and carbon a project is displacing, which will contribute to better air quality throughout the state. Representative Edgmon requested AEA elaborate on the impediments and limitations of the smaller communities with regards to the REF application process. He asked if the challenge is because the smaller communities do not have the capacity or the technical wherewithal to submit an application. Ms. Fisher-Goad informed this program is targeted to the high cost areas, with the most weight to the high cost areas. The statute also weights the projects significantly for match and significantly for regional spreading. It is a complicated scoring process. AEA follows the intent of the program while selecting solid technical projects statewide. Ms. Fisher-Goad noted there are some local issues with capacity. Ms. Moller's group performs infrastructure development and project management to ensure AEA is more directly involved in the development of certain projects. AEA has to work at the local capacity to ensure the community is ready to accept the responsibilities, such as operations and maintenance, on a system coming into the area. Ms. Fisher- Goad stated AEA will research and review the impediments to receiving good applications and provide that information to legislators to determine what additional help is needed on the local level. Representative Edgmon appreciated the response. He expressed his concern that some of the current staff infrastructure could be in jeopardy because of budget cuts. Senator Hoffman requested an analysis of the four communities with the highest electrical costs over $1.00 and note if those communities have received any assistance from AEA or any REF grants. He believes a common thread for the high cost communities is remote area and a very small population. Senator MacKinnon suggested Senator Hoffman's original question be placed on the agenda for the next meeting, so it can be discussed and have a higher level of reference. Senator Hoffman noted another factor to review is the amount of the average disposable income in a community being spent on energy. Senator MacKinnon requested more information from Ms. Fisher-Goad regarding what is specifically being done in small communities with state funding. If budget pull- backs occur, Senator MacKinnon wants to ensure those pull-backs do not affect the sole assistance the communities receive. Senator MacKinnon stated her staff will be contacting Ms. Fisher-Goad. She noted AEA and AIDEA are on the agenda early in the session to provide that type of report. Chair Rose requested a report at the May meeting describing the resources in the different regions. He also requested a list of the completed projects that are actually producing energy, heat or electricity, showing the estimated diesel savings and carbon benefits for each project on a per year basis. Chair Rose requested the amount of leveraged funding received from this state program. Senator MacKinnon believes the Senate Finance Committee would like to know where the state investment makes the largest difference for individual people and cost savings for communities. Mr. Evans commented he was not suggesting the rules be changed for scoring, rather that the problem was outside the scoring process and separate from this program. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 January 9, 2015 MOTION: A motion was made by Representative Edgmon to adopt the draft methods of proposed evaluation and grant recommendations dated January 9, 2015, included in the Committee packet. Seconded by Senator MacKinnon. Senator Hoffman commented he is inclined to vote yes, but if he votes no, then maybe some action on this issue will occur. He hopes he will not have these same concerns next year. Senator Hoffman informed the legislation was rewritten and the Senate Finance Committee made a few minor amendments on the floor. This legislation has made drastic change to many people's lives in Alaska and there are many more still struggling. The motion was approved without objection. 10. Lunch Break: 11:56 a.m. to 12:21 p.m. 3m EETF/REF gap discussion Mr. Skaling advised this issue has been included on the agenda for discussion purposes and to inform the Committee of the issues surrounding the two programs. The EETF received diversified applications and filled a gap to develop new energy technologies, including renewables. The EETF is intended to fund technologies that are expected to be commercial within about five years. The REF is a competitive program for known, understood, and producing technologies. Hydrokinetic is one of the technologies that fall within the gap between EETF and REF programs. Mr. Skaling asked if the REF should be reaching back to those technologies within the gap to advance projects that could be viable into the future or if the EETF should try to fill the gap and push forward the promising technologies for Alaska. Chair Rose informed this Committee reviewed this issue a couple of years ago and decided it would make sense for the REF to fund resource assessments for tidal wave and hydrokinetics because the EETF specifically does not fund resource assessments. That was one clear gap that has been resolved. Chair Rose believes the primary issue is determining how to nurture this industry that Alaska has first-mover advantage in, with the competitiveness of these programs and less funding available. Senator MacKinnon stated she does not see where additional funds would come from and does not want to see a decrease of REF project funds. She expressed understanding of the gap, but the current fiscal situation does not seem to allow for new money becoming available, without reducing or diverting monies from other programs. Mr. Evans noted it sounds like the technologies within the gap need an angel source of funding and he would have a hard time displacing a project that could actually produce kilowatt hours and diluting the goals and efforts of the existing program to provide angel funding. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated AEA has seen good companies working on hydrokinetics in the state who are showing significant progress, but AEA does not believe REF is necessarily the right program to continue to advance this technology. Ms. Fisher-Goad noted there is great value in the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 January 9, 2015 hydrokinetic technology and ACEP has done a great job in their work, but it is not fitting very nicely into the REF program. She expressed recognition there is a gap and it is an issue. Senator MacKinnon asked if ORPC is the entity who falls within the gap. Mr. Skaling agreed ORPC is one of a few companies who have made the request to address this issue. Their request is for $2 million. Chair Rose discussed the possibility of getting the Department of Energy or other entities to provide matching funds for the EETF. Alaska has a unique situation to develop this hydrokinetic technology because of the actual need and resource. Representative Edgmon requested a briefing from an EETF committee member to learn more about the program and see if there is a possibility for EETF and REF to work in tandem. Mr. Reeve believes there needs to be more funding for emerging energy technologies. It is important to have separation between EETF and REF. The REF program needs to implement fully mature technologies to provide the best chance of success. 12. Round VIII Recommendations 12A. Heat and Standard List Review 12B. Regional Spreading 12C. Committee Recommendations to AEA Mr. Skaling discussed the REF R8 funding recommendations for the heat and standard applications. The three spreadsheets show heat applications only, standard applications only, and heat and standard applications combined. The top darker colored sections for the heat and standard applications lists are recommended in ranked order and fall within the Governor's $15 million budget. The lightly colored sections in the middle are recommended, but fall outside the budget. The bottom white section of listed projects are not recommended. For each project, the Committee packet contains a two-page project description, including the recommendations and comments of economists, DNR, and AEA, as well as the Stage 3 scoring. The soft goal set for this year was to have 30% of the total funding toward heating projects. That goal has been exceeded and approximately 50% of the total funding recommended is for heating projects. Chair Rose disclosed a staff member of Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP) provided technical assistance on the Hoonah Indian Association's application. This is a recommended project. REAP has no financial interest in the project. Mr. Evans asked if the infrastructure being heated is assessed during the evaluation and does that have any scoring consideration. Mr. Skaling informed the infrastructure being heated is evaluated and higher scores are given for energy efficiency measures completed or promised. The engineering estimates do consider production, heat loads, and demand loads, but does not use a standard benchmark. Ms. Plentovich advised the energy efficiency is weighed into the scoring, but a project will not be eliminated if there is need for energy efficiency work. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 January 9, 2015 Chair Rose asked if staff has considered increasing the scoring weight for energy efficiency measures. Mr. Skaling stated the energy efficiency requirements have increased over the last couple of years, mainly giving more points for having performed efficiency measures. Mr. Skaling believes the requirements could still increase and would like to implement those changes slowly. He requested the Committee provide recommendations at the next meeting for next year's request for applications. Mr. Evans asked if there is an evaluation or ranking of the sustainability of the biomass source. Mr. Skaling advised sustainability of the biomass source is required to be included in the plan. Mr. Skaling explained the project phases are reconnaissance, feasibility (including conceptual design), final design and permitting, and construction. Some possible different ways to measure regional balance include total dollars per region equally, weighting by population, and weighting by cost of energy. The current method is weighting by cost of energy. Senator MacKinnon requested the Committee have a high level conversation about whether the focus should be on completing construction projects already in the queue, rather than investing in design projects that may not be funded over the next 24 months due to budget cost cutting. Chair Rose believes that high level discussion should occur in May and the Committee can determine whether or not to support feasibility studies in the next round. Mr. Evans suggested the total cost of energy, combined heat and electricity, should be part of the scoring criteria for the next round. Senator MacKinnon asked if AEA has pursued a federal energy match for REF or EETF programs based on the historic investment. Ms. Fisher-Goad noted the high cost RUS grants have been very effective on funding coming in for powerhouses. The Denali Commission has federal dollars for funding bulk fuel tank farms for the high cost areas. The federal money coming in is not particularly for the REF or EETF programs, but more on the preparation and development of some of the initial work on the projects. Ms. Fisher-Goad believes the Tribal Energy Office has done a very good job in the state to coordinate with some of these projects. She believes AEA could take advantage of additional federal funding opportunities. Chair Rose asked if average weather temperatures of a region for heating needs are factored as part of the scoring equation. Mr. Skaling noted the cost of fuel is part of the economic evaluation and not the weather temperatures. Chair Rose suggested discussing this issue further in the May meeting. Chair Rose asked if staff can report on the track record of projects that have been funded in the past that started out with a B/C ratio of less than one. Mr. Skaling stated he cannot provide a specific answer at this meeting. Ms. Fisher-Goad requested the Committee provide staff with specific direction and recommendations regarding the objective criteria going forward, for example not recommending projects with a B/C of less than one or not recommending feasibility projects. She noted the B/C Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 January 9, 2015 ratios for feasibility projects have a low range of accuracy and have previously suggested feasibility projects do not include a B/C ratio or at least get explained with an asterisk. Ms. Fisher- Goad believes the best place for state grant funds are the feasibility and design projects, because loan programs do not typically provide funding for that initial risk. Loan programs provide funding for construction projects where a revenue stream is available to pay off debt. Senator Hoffman noted two other recommendations for consideration; 1) do not fund projects above the $1.5 million level, and 2) no region should exceed their equal regional funding percentage. Senator MacKinnon suggested criteria consideration for the amount of match provided and for a cost ratio above one. Mr. Evans requested the criteria incorporate efficiency measures to evaluate the production of energy per dollars spent. Mr. Reeve believes with the reduced funding available, it makes sense to fund the best construction projects and get those functioning to show the Legislature the state's money is being invested wisely. Representative Edgmon suggested the cost of energy be given more weighting in the scoring process. Chair Rose suggested identifying a specific match amount, depending on the size of the community and their ability to pay. Chair Rose agreed with Ms. Fisher-Goad that if the REF budget decreases, for example to $5 million, the best use of the funds would be to provide risk capital to communities, who could then go out for private loans for construction. Chair Rose recommended further discussion on this issue at the May meeting. Senator MacKinnon asked if Ms. Fisher-Goad has spoken with the Governor's Administration to ensure grant funding for this program is still available, given the deficit the state is facing. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated the REF funds are currently in the operating budget and she has not had any recent conversations with OMB regarding operating budget reductions. Senator MacKinnon requested staff take the comments made by the Committee and provide objective ways to balance the project recommendations so the Southeast region is not overrepresented. She suggested a specific percentage of the projects be in the risk capital feasibility stage. Chair Rose suggested the staff create scenarios based on the Committee's recommendations to present to the Legislature that would include, for example, a recommended list with no feasibility projects, a list with no benefit/cost ratios below one, and a list of an increased amount of electric projects. Ms. Fisher-Goad believes that would be a good start to provide the Legislature with additional filters from which to choose, and the easiest scenario to create is the regional spreading. She commented there is a great deal of difference between the costs of electricity and heat in Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 January 9, 2015 Angoon and in Ketchikan. The concern is there are Southeast communities with very high energy costs. Representative Edgmon requested the filters be created by REFAC to provide the best recommendations for this year and maintain the goal of having a more methodic process going forward in light of the budget reduction. 13. Next Meeting Date (May 11-14) Senator MacKinnon discussed the short-term plan could be staff provide the current recommendation to the Legislature per the statutory deadline. She noted the Governor indicated a revised operating budget will not be released until February 18th. The REFAC could meet again in February, while staff is already in Juneau to testify in front of the Senate Finance Committee, to review the staff-prepared regional spreading suggestions for REFAC endorsement. Senator MacKinnon's staff could confirm the date with AEA and staff would inform REFAC. Chair Rose agreed to the next meeting in February outlined by Senator MacKinnon. He informed the meeting will have a single agenda item to review staff recommendations on regional spreading. A subsequent meeting was tentatively scheduled for May 14th, 2015. 14. Committee Member Comments Mr. Evans expressed appreciation to staff for accommodating his questions. Senator MacKinnon expressed appreciation to staff for their work in helping the Legislature make better decisions. Representative expressed appreciation for all of the work during this meeting and difficult process. Mr. Reeve expressed appreciation to staff for their diligent work. He noted concern regarding the grant budget reduction from $50 million to $25 million to $15 million. It is important to discuss how to provide the greatest benefit possible for the decreasing available funds. Mr. Skaling expressed appreciation to the Committee for the tough and important discussion on how to improve the program. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated she looks forward to the continued discussion. Chair Rose echoed the comments to staff regarding their dedication and hard work. 15. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Awarded Renewable Energy Fund Projects Project Grantee Phase Resource Energy Region REF Cost Total Project Cost* Expected Completion Status Little Gerstle Hydro Assessment Golden Valley Electric Association Reconnaissance Hydro Railbelt $60,000 - - Inactive Kisaralik/Chikuminuk Hydro Association of Village Council Presidents Reconnaissance Hydro Bristol Bay $229,952 - - Inactive Carlson Creek Hydroelectric Alaska Power Company Reconnaissance Hydro Copper River/Chugach $8,811 - - Inactive Homer Water System Hydro Assessment City of Homer Reconnaissance Ocean/River _Railbelt $31,200 - Inactive Adak Diesel Hybrid TDX Adak Generating, LLC Reconnaissance Other Aleutians $76,369 - - Inactive Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project City of Kotzebue Feasibility Biofuels Northwest Arctic $66,578 - - Inactive Kaltag Biomass Hydronic Heating Yukon-Koyukuk School District Feasibility Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $12,710 - - Inactive Cordova Community Biomass Native Village of Eyak Feasibility Biomass Copper River/Chugach $63,999 - - Inactive Pilgrim Hot Springs University of Alaska Fairbanks Feasibility Geothermal Bering Straits $1,330,243 - - Inactive Sitka Renewable Energy Study for Water Treatment Plant City and Borough of Sitka Feasibility Geothermal Southeast $16,699 - - Inactive Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Feasibility Geothermal Southeast $568,730 - - Inactive Falls Creek Low-Impact Hydro Homer Electric Association, Inc. Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $50,000 - Inactive Crescent Lk/Crk Low-Impact Hydro Homer Electric Association, Inc. Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $23,273 - - Inactive Ptarmigan Lk/Crk Low-Impact Hydro Homer Electric Association, Inc. Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $4,684 - - Inactive Whittier Creek Hydroelectric City of Whittier Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $39,471 - - Inactive Burro Creek Hydro Burro Creek Holdings, LLC Feasibility Hydro Southeast $48,000 - - Inactive Ruth Lake Hydro City of Petersburg Feasibility Hydro Southeast $155,702 - - Inactive Nushagak Area Hydropower Project Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative Feasibility Hydro Bristol Bay $1,873,223 - - Inactive Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $136,500 - - Inactive Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility Kenai Hydro, LLC Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $1,184,000 - - Inactive Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Eklutna, Inc. Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $84,000 - - Inactive Eska Creek Hydroelectric Project Bering Pacific Engineering Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $14,408 - - Inactive Jack River Hydroelectric Native Village of Cantwell Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $30,000 - - Inactive Schubee Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company Feasibility Hydro Southeast $74,191 - - Inactive Aleutians East Borough Aleutians East Borough Feasibility Other Aleutians $25,000 - - Inactive Wrangell Electric Vehicle Feasibility Study City and Borough of Wrangell Feasibility Other Southeast $25,000 - - Inactive Lime Village Photovoltaic System Retrofit Lime Village Traditional Council Feasibility Solar PV Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $25,000 - - Inactive Bethel Wind Farm Construction (BNC land) Village Wind Power LLC Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $6,960,000 - - Inactive Nunam Iqua Wind Power Study City of Nunam Iqua Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $34,320 - - Inactive Tok Wind Resource Village Wind Power LLC Feasibility Wind Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $130,000 - - Inactive Chignik Lake Area Wind-Hydro Lake and Peninsula Borough Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $74,851 - - Inactive Tatitlek Wind/Hydro Tatitlek Village IRA Council Feasibility Wind Copper River/Chugach $51,974 - - Inactive Delta Junction Wind Alaska Wind Power, LLC Feasibility Wind Railbelt $65,412 - - Inactive Nushagak Community Wind Power Project Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $100,000 - Inactive Marshall Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $111,150 - - Inactive Koyuk Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Bering Straits $16,142 - : Inactive Kake Biomass Organized Village of Kake Feasibility Biomass Southeast $175,000 - - Active Wainwright Heat Recovery North Slope Borough Feasibility Heat Recovery North Slope $300,000 - - Active Organic Rankine Cycle Field Testing University of Alaska Fairbanks Feasibility Heat Recovery Railbelt $472,787 - e Active May 8, 2015 Project Grantee Phase Resource Energy Region REF Cost Total Project Cost* Expected Completion Status Cold Bay Heat Recovery G &K Electric Utility Feasibility Heat Recovery Aleutians $30,000 - - Active Takatz Lake Hydroelectric City and Borough of Sitka Feasibility Hydro Southeast $2,000,000 - Active Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company Feasibility Hydro Southeast $468,000 - - Active Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Haines Borough Feasibility Hydro Southeast $93,593 : - Active Triangle Lake Hydroelectric Project Metlakatla Indian Community Feasibility Hydro Southeast $500,000 - - Active Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Feasibility Hydro Southeast $80,000 - - Active Statewide Hydrokinetic University of Alaska Anchorage Feasibility Ocean/River —_Railbelt $565,439 - - Active Lake Pen Borough Wind Feasibility Study Lake and Peninsula Borough Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $184,000 - Active Teller Wind Analysis Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $117,610 - - Active New Stuyahok Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $142,500 - - Active Cold Bay Wind Energy Project G &K Electric Utility Feasibility Wind Aleutians $99,075 - - Active Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Nelson Lagoon Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Aleutians $99,075 - - Active New Koliganek Wind Heat Recovery Project New Koliganek Village Council Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $105,050 - - Active Bethel Renewable Energy Project TDX Power, Inc. Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $213,690 - - Active Napaskiak Wind Power and Heat Recovery Project City of Napaskiak Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $61,225 - - Active Eek Wind Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $142,500 - - Active Kwethluk Wind Organized Village of Kwethluk Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $145,000 - - Active Scammon Bay Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $142,500 - - Active Kaktovik Wind Diesel North Slope Borough Feasibility Wind North Slope $132,000 - - Active Selawik Hybrid Wind Diesel System Turbine Upgrade Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Northwest Arctic $85,000 - - Active False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass Electric Utility Feasibility Wind Aleutians $69,075 - - Active Elim Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Bering Straits $142,500 - - Active Chefornak Wind City of Chefornak Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $136,750 - - Active Akiachak Wind Akiachak Native Community/Akiachak Ltd. Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $110,000 - - Active Levelock Wind Reconnaissance Study Lake and Peninsula Borough Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $10,000 - - Active Egegik Wind Feasibility Study Lake and Peninsula Borough Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $60,000 - - Active Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project Alaska Power Company Feasibility Wind Southeast $119,000 - - Active Chalkyitsik Biomass Central Heating Chalkyitsik Village Council Design Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $32,500 $41,603 - Inactive Venetie District Heating Venetie Village Council Design Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $32,500 $40,809 - Inactive California Creek Hydroelectric Alaska Green Energy Design Hydro Railbelt $27,300 $30,000 - Inactive Neck Lake Hydro Alaska Power and Telephone Design Hydro Southeast $22,475 $22,475 - Inactive Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Design Hydro Northwest Arctic $1,025,000 $1,075,722 - Inactive Old Harbor Hydroelectric Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Design Hydro Kodiak $237,500 $250,000 - Inactive Hooper Bay Wind Farm City of Hooper Bay Design Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $60,179 $60,179 - Inactive Atmautluak Wind Renewable Energy Atmautluak Traditional Council Design Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $100,000 $100,000 - Inactive McGrath Biomass McGrath Light & Power Company Design Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $322,000 $385,000 - Active Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project Alaska Power and Telephone Design Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $400,000 $460,000 - Active Port Graham Biomass Waste Heat Demo Project Port Graham Village Council Design Biomass Railbelt $75,000 $100,000 - Active Akutan Geothermal Development Project City of Akutan Design Geothermal Aleutians $2,695,000 $3,050,000 - Active St. Mary's Heat Recovery System City of St. Mary's Design Heat Recovery Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $735,200 $735,200 - Active May 8, 2015 Project Grantee Phase Resource Energy Region REF Cost Total Project Cost* | Expected Completion Status Indian Creek Hydro City of Chignik Design Hydro Bristol Bay $207,500 $207,500 - Active AVTEC Hydro Training Facility Alaska Vocational Technical Center Design Hydro Railbelt $67,500 $67,500 - Active Chenega Bay Hydro Chenega IRA Council Design Hydro Copper River/Chugach $252,000 $290,500 - Active Scammon Bay Hydro Design & Engineering City of Scammon Bay Design Hydro Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $80,723 $83,516 - Active Elfin Cove Hydro Community of Elfin Cove Utility Commission Design Hydro Southeast $347,000 $395,000 - Active Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric, Inc. Design Hydro Copper River/Chugach $277,000 $777,000 - Active Battle Creek Diversion Project Alaska Energy Authority Design Hydro Railbelt $500,000 $500,000 - Active Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Capacity Increase lliamna, Newhalen, Nondalton Electrical Coop. Design Hydro Bristol Bay $160,000 $190,000 - Active Knutson Creek Hydroelectric Project Pedro Bay Village Council Design Hydro Bristol Bay $290,000 $292,500 - Active Kake-Petersburg Intertie Kwaan Electric Transmission Intertie Cooperative Design Transmission Southeast $2,990,000 $2,990,000 - Active Atqasuk Transmission Line North Slope Borough Design Transmission _North Slope $210,000 $210,000 - Active Kivalina Wind-Intertie Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Design Wind Northwest Arctic $183,350 $193,000 - Active Stebbins Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Design Wind Bering Straits $342,000 $360,000 - Active Port Heiden Wind Turbine Project Lake and Peninsula Borough Design Wind Bristol Bay $250,000 $250,000 - Active Igiugig Wind Turbine Design Igiugig Village Council Design Wind Bristol Bay $80,000 $250,000 - Active Point Hope Wind Diesel Generation Project North Slope Borough Design Wind North Slope $132,000 $146,667 - Active Wainwright Wind Turbine North Slope Borough Design Wind North Slope $132,000 $146,667 - Active Point Lay Wind Generation North Slope Borough Design Wind North Slope $132,000 $146,667 - Active Mountain Village Wind_City and Tribe Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Design Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $123,500 $130,000 - Active Lake and Peninsula Borough Wood Boilers Lake and Peninsula Borough Construction Biomass Bristol Bay $250,000 $295,000 Jun-13 Active Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump Project Cook Inlet Housing Authority Construction Heat Pumps _Railbelt $318,300 $362,816 Dec-14 Active Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade City of Saint Paul Electric Utility Construction Heat Recovery Aleutians $98,149 $114,834 Dec-14 Active Kotzebue Electric Heat Recovery Kotzebue Electric Association Construction Heat Recovery Northwest Arctic $915,627 $1,215,627 Jan-15 Active Atka Hydro Dispatched Excess Electrical Power City of Atka Construction Heat Recovery Aleutians $115,000 $135,289 Feb-15 Active Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Recovery Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Construction Wind Bering Straits $2,465,633 $2,727,896 Jun-15 Active Chistochina Central Wood Heating Cheesh'na Tribal Council Construction Biomass Copper River/Chugach $500,000 $512,000 Jun-15 Active Akutan Hydroelectric System Repair and Upgrade City of Akutan Construction Hydro Aleutians $1,391,000 $1,491,000 Jun-15 Active Saint George Wind Farm City of St. George Construction Wind Aleutians $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Jun-15 Active St. Paul Wind Diesel Project TDX Corporation Construction Wind Aleutians $1,900,000 $2,100,000 Jun-15 Active Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Chevak Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Construction Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $240,260 $252,905 Jun-15 Active Surplus Wind Energy for Gambell Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Construction Wind Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $240,260 $252,905 Jun-15 Active Kvichak River RISEC Igiugig Village Council Construction Ocean/River Bristol Bay $718,175 $718,175 Sep-15 Active Mentasta Woody Biomass Space Heating Project Mentasta Traditional Council Construction Biomass Copper River/Chugach $460,000 $510,000 Sep-15 Active New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Southwest Regional School District Construction Heat Recovery Bristol Bay $486,000 $548,000 Sep-15 Active Upper Kobuk River Biomass City of Kobuk Construction Biomass Northwest Arctic $356,424 $401,873 Oct-15 Active Wood Heating in Interior Alaska Communities Interior Regional Housing Authority Construction Biomass Railbelt $1,215,224 $1,388,995 Dec-15 Active Tanacross Woody Biomass Space Heating Project Native Village of Tanacross dba Tanacross Village Construction Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $420,000 $590,000 Dec-15 Active Allison Lake Hydro Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. Construction Hydro Copper River/Chugach $5,914,500 $11,829,000 Dec-15 Active Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Construction Hydro Railbelt $3,453,900 $6,907,800 Dec-15 Active Eagle Solar Array Project Alaska Power Company Construction Solar PV Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $118,013 $147,516 Dec-15 Active May 8, 2015 Project Buckland, Deering, Noorvik Wind Farm Huslia Water System & Clinic Wood Boiler Project Russian Mission Heat Recovery System Savoonga Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant Hoonah-IPEC Hydro Project Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric St. Mary's/ Pitka's Point Wind Fort Yukon Central Wood Heating Kenny Lake School Wood Fired Boiler Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass Heating Project Yakutat Biomass Biomass Heat for Minto Community Buildings Nunam Iqua Heat Recovery Project Haines Central Wood Heating Feasibility Study Sleetmute Heat Recovery Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project Shishmaref Heat Recovery Project Togiak Waste Heat Recovery Project Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery Project Stebbins Heat Recovery Project Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Indian River Hydroelectric Project Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Bethel Wind Farm Construction Pilot Point Wind Power & Heat Heat Recovery for Kwinhagak Heat Recovery for Marshall Heat Recovery for the Noorvik Water Treatment Plant Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Project Louden Tribal Council Renewable Energy Sitka Renewable Energy for Centennial Hall & Library Brevig Mission Water System Heat Recovery Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat Recovery Emmonak Heat Recovery System Craig Biomass Fuel Dryer Project Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery Thayer Lake Hydropower Project Cook Inlet TidGen Project Nikolski Wind Integration Grantee Northwest Arctic Borough Huslia Traditional Council City of Russian Mission City of Savoonga Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Chignik Lagoon Village Council Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company Copper River School District Ketchikan Gateway Borough City and Borough of Yakutat Village of Minto City of Nunam Iqua Haines Borough Sleetmute Traditional Council Tatitlek Village IRA Council City of Shishmaref City of Togiak Atmautluak Traditional Council Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Metlakatla Indian Community City of Tenakee Springs Electric Department City of King Cove City of Bethel City of Pilot Point Native Village of Kwinhagak City of Marshall City of Noorvik Haida Energy, Inc. City of Galena City and Borough of Sitka City of Brevig Mission City of Chevak City of Emmonak City of Craig Native Village of Tuntutuliak Kootznoowoo, Inc. Ocean Renewable Power Company Nikolski IRA Council Phase Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction — Resource Wind Biomass Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Hydro Hydro Wind Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Heat Recovery Biomass Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Transmission Hydro Hydro Wind Wind Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Hydro Biomass Geothermal Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Biomass Heat Recovery Hydro Ocean/River Wind Energy Region Northwest Arctic Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bering Straits Southeast Bristol Bay Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Copper River/Chugach Southeast Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Copper River/Chugach Bering Straits Bristol Bay Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bering Straits Southeast Southeast Aleutians Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bristol Bay Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Railbelt Aleutians * Total project cost includes the grant plus required match for the grant. In many cases this represents the true project cost. For some projects it underrepresents the total project cost. May 8, 2015 REF Cost $8,061,815 $50,000 $555,000 $425,701 $6,694,000 $2,352,700 $275,554 $2,318,255 $565,485 $620,000 $103,000 $274,800 $450,000 $1,237,400 $126,682 $265,000 $310,841 $443,030 $350,000 $1,319,088 $1,180,000 $2,988,000 $2,600,000 $2,598,320 $1,421,240 $668,350 $183,200 $985,805 $2,000,000 $3,096,898 $232,600 $731,400 $558,800 $689,300 $350,000 $455,600 $7,000,000 $2,000,000 $409,430 Total Project Cost* $8,224,315 $52,470 $587,000 $437,453 $6,694,000 $2,872,700 $309,998 $2,318,255 $565,485 $1,957,261 $335,456 $274,800 $450,000 $1,374,848 $133,349 $295,800 $327,201 $486,180 $360,500 $1,341,063 $1,180,000 $3,008,000 $3,900,000 $399,777 $1,571,240 $688,400 $189,200 $1,015,385 $2,000,000 $3,144,200 $232,600 $731,400 $558,800 $689,300 $600,000 $455,600 $7,000,000 $8,392,900 $450,930 Expected Completion Dec-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Jan-16 Jan-16 Jan-16 Jan-16 Jan-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Jan-17 Jan-17 Jan-17 Jan-17 Jun-17 Jan-18 Jan-18 Unknown Unknown Status Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Power Project Fund AEA‘s mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska Lf ae - eK leo PPF Basics Eligible applicants: regional electric authority, regional or village corporation, independent oe producer (IPP), borough or municipal government, village council Eligible projec powerhouse and alternative energy facilities and equipment to construction, expansion, acquisition and improvement, transmission or distribution system, heat recovery, supply side efficiency and conservation, bulk fuel storage facility, and reconnaissance or feasibility study Funds available: ~$13 million uncommitted funds Loan amounts: no min or max, current loans range from $90,000 to $20 million Loan terms = Interest rate: average of municipal bond rate for previous 12 months to zero = Term: length of loan depends on life of project, not to exceed 50 yea [= ALASKA» @@l ENERGY AUTHORITY ENS ies Si Oe ee =—l PPF loan application evaluation Project economic, technical and financial feasibility analysis Many applicants/loan recipients are not traditionally “bankable” Assistance is available to help applicants complete the application process when needed Loan approval * Loans up to $2 million approved by AEA loan committee * Loans over $2 and up to $5 million approved by AEA board * Legislative authorization to apply needed for projects over $5 million (loan + other state investment) /= Gl ENERGY AUTHORITY Federal Incentives Business Energy Investment Tax Credit Expiration: systems commissioned by Dec. 2016 * Solar. The credit is equal to 30% of expenditures, with no maximum credit. * Fuel Cells. The credit is equal to 30% of expenditures, with no maximum credit. * Small Wind Turbines (up to 100 KW). The credit is equal to 30% of expenditures, with no maximum credit . * Geothermal Systems. The credit is equal to 10% of expenditures, with no maximum credit limit stated. * Micro-turbines. The credit is equal to 10% of expenditures, with no maximum credit limit stated. * Combined Heat and Power (CHP). The credit is equal to 10% of expenditures, with no maximum limit stated. Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System * Rapid depreciation of renewable systems over five years including solar, fuel cells, micro-turbines, direct use geothermal, heat pumps, wind, combined heat and power. j= ! | aK ! @@l> ENERGY AUTHORITY PPF contact: Cady Lister clister@aidea.org “AIDEN AIDEA Energy Programs a aidea.org Investing in Alaskans Mission ¥1|B) IN To promote, develop, and advance economic growth and diversification in Alaska by providing various means of financing and investment. AIDEA fulfills its mission by providing access to affordable, long-term, asset financing 7 em ee : Investing in Alaskans AIDEA Financing PROJECT FINANCE “CONTINUUM” EQUITY DEBT Riskand HEAVY HEAVY Cost of Capital HIGH * OPERATING EXPERIENCE * CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION SEED * FINAL DESIGN (Plans and Specifications) availa * COMPLETE PERMITS * SIGNED PURCHASE AGREEMENTS * SIGNED SALES AGREEMENTS VENTURE FINANCE CONSTRUCTION mOyNN) — LONG TERM LOW DEBT / BONDS Project Stage CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATION 8 ee Investing in Alaskans Three funds - different risk characteristics and project eligibility criteria Revolving Fund Enterprise Account Economic Development Account Energy Infrastructure Development Arctic Infrastructure Fund Infrastructure Development Kee) Participation eye) Commercial Ted ana Project inate aired Poly eile mtd Diag Rea hah cd Appropriations ff tla ome) i ih elle) a Credit Enhancements RARELY Debt Credit Neyo gey area cela Enhancements Investing in Alaskans Financing Tools In addition to creating pathways to finance, AIDEA provides: EQUITY e Loan e 100% e Loan Participations Ownership Guarantees ¢ Direct Loans e Partner in LLC ¢ Bond * Tax-Exempt or Subsidiary Guarantees Bonds Corporation e Taxable Bonds x patie. 5: 10 eee ed fy Programs TES DA ee ne 11 f na in Alaskans sated fe” BA Mader Mes is. Project & Infrastructure Development ZIDEN. Can provide financing for energy projects and infrastructure 12 re Investing in Alaskans Project & Infrastructure Development ZIDEN. Eligible Energy Projects AS 44.88.900(13) "project" means (D) a plant or facility demonstrating technological advances of new methods and procedures and prototype commercial applications for the * — exploration * development * production * transportation * conversion, and * use of energy resources (F) a plant or facility, other than a plant or facility described in (D) of this paragraph, for the * generation * — transmission * development * — transportation * conversion, or * use of energy resources 13 we iS aS =~ Investing in Alaskans SETS Program Sustainable Energy Transmission and Supply Fund Established and capitalized by the Legislature in 2012. Currently, SETS has limited funds available. Provides AIDEA tools for financing Alaska’s energy infrastructure needs: ¢ Direct Loans ¢ Loan & Bond Guarantees ¢ Bond Issuances Financing limits: ¢ 33% of direct financing, or * $20 million in credit enhancements 14 ae Tee AES Cue Loan Participation Program Long-term commercial financing for energy efficiency & conservation Participation may be up to 90% of a loan originated by an eligible commercial lender up to $20 million. Terms: ¢ Up to 15 years for personal property ¢ Upto 25 years for real property; * 75% loan-to-value; ¢ fixed or variable interest rate Alaska Pacific University * Northrim Bank - $250,000 (10%) * AIDEA - $2,250,000 (90%) ¢ Estimated annual savings for APU - $340,000 15 aig a é Investing in Alaskans Conduit Revenue Bond Program Access to tax-exempt and taxable bonds ¢ Neither the assets nor credit of AIDEA or the State of Alaska are at risk ¢ Essential to the underwriting and placement of bonds are: — the creditworthiness of the project, and — any credit enhancements offered by the applicant ¢ Significant increase in green bond issuances, globally: — Municipal and corporate bonds * Renewable energy * Energy efficiency (i.e. efficient buildings) * Other “green” projects 16 oe Investing in Alaskans Other Tools & Programs Many energy financing tools/programs are not utilized in Alaska Federal Programs * New Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (New CREBs) * Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs) * Exempt Facility Bonds/Revenue Bonds * EB-5 Program (Employment Based Immigration - Sth Preference) ¢ New Markets Tax Credits ¢ USDA - Rural Energy for America Program * BIA—Energy and Mineral Development grants Other Programs * PACE — Property Assessed Clean Energy - 30 states * State New Markets Tax Credits ¢ Private Public-Partnerships (P3) are contractual agreements which deliver public sector services/facilities utilizing the private sector oe A} ae ee Investing in Alaskans Project-Phase Financing Allocate resources appropriately Pre-Development Costs * Feasibility, Design, Engineering, and Permitting * Costs are difficult to borrow against * Best funded using equity by developer, municipal and legislative appropriations, and/or grant funding Development Costs * Real estate acquisition, equipment purchases, and construction * Bankable activities using a variety of commercial and incentive programs described previously, but rely on pre-development items being in place Caveat * Some communities are either too small or do not have the economic base to utilize commercial financing of development items. These communities may be reliant on appropriations and grants. 18 * a a GeNy eae Meal ate Resources Council of Development Finance Agencies (CDFA) - resource for energy finance programs (www.cdfa.org) ¢ Intro Energy Finance Web Course — May 27-28, 2015 The Clean Energy and Bond Finance Initiative (CE+BFl) Yale Clean Energy Finance Forum http://cleanenergyfinanceforum.com a a9) 2 i ecaemea Investing in Alaskans Contact Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 813 West Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (907) 771-3000(888) 300-8534 (Toll Free in Alaska) www.aidea.org HAIDEA wy 20 a Investing in Alaskans AEA Recommendations for Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Request for Applications For Consideration by the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee, May 8, 2015 AEA expects the RFA will be substantially similar to the Round VIII RFA. The major changes or points for discussion are listed below. 1. Per Project Cap In recent years, the per-project funding cap has been set in the RFA at $4 million for low energy cost areas and $8 million for high energy cost areas. The Round 8 RFA contained these limits, but based on limited funding and REFAC member recommendations, AEA recommended maximum funding per- project of $1.5 million. AEA recommends lowering the per-project funding cap to the $2 million and $4 million limits used in the early years of the Renewable Energy Fund, and not altering that level through the recommendation process. AEA is seeking REFAC comments on this issue prior to setting the project caps for next year. Below is the wording from Round VIII RFA: Phase Grant Limits by Location Low Energy Cost Areas* | High Energy Cost Areas** Phase I, Reconnaissance The per-project total of Phase | and II is limited to 20% of Phase Il, anticipated construction cost (Phase IV), not to exceed $2M. Feasibility and Conceptual Design Phase Ill, 20% of anticipated construction cost (Phase IV), and counting Final Design and Permitting | against the total construction grant limit below. Phase IV, S4M per project, including $3M per project, including final Construction and final design and permitting design and permitting (Phase Ill) Commissioning (Phase III) costs, above. costs, above. Exceptions | | Biofuel projects Biofuel projects where the Applicant does not intend to generate electricity or heat for sale to the public are limited to reconnaissance and feasibility phases only at the limits expressed above. Biofuel is a solid, liquid or gaseous fuel | produced from biomass, excluding fossil fuels. The per-project total of Phase | and II for geothermal projects is limited to 20% of anticipated construction costs (Phase IV), not to exceed $4M. Any amount above the usual $2M spent on these two phases combined shall reduce the total Phase III and IV grant limit by the same amount, thereby keeping the same total grant dollar cap as all other projects. This exception recognizes the typically increased cost of the feasibility stage due to test well drilling. Geothermal projects Recommendations REF Round IX RFA al 2. Phase funding target The target allocation by project phase is currently set at 20% for reconnaissance, feasibility/conceptual design phases and 80% for final design/permitting and construction/commissioning phases. AEA recommends this target be retained. This target is announced in the RFA as adjustable, based on available funding, and the type, number, and quality of projects submitted. Target Allocation — Project Phase Percentage of Grant Funds Recommended |. Reconnaissance Study ll. Feasibility/Conceptual Design or 20% Energy Resource Monitoring lll. Final Design and Permitting IV. Construction and Commissioning 80% 3. Scoring Criteria Weighting to Be Listed in RFA The Evaluation Guidelines will be combined into the RFA this year. In past years, the evaluation process and criteria have been defined in the RFA, but the weighting of the categories has been left out until after applications are due. This year, AEA proposes to announce the scoring criteria weighting in the RFA. The weighting to be used is the same as has been used since Round V. The benefits to this approach include: greater transparency and proactive action in response to public testimony. The committee should note that by placing the weighting in the RFA, the scoring cannot be changed once the RFA is issued. Ranking Criteria Cost of Energy (35%) Matching Funds (15%) Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%) Economic and Other Alaska Benefit (15%) Project Readiness (5%) Sustainability (5%) Local Support (5%) Competing projects (Pass/Fail) Compliance with previous grants and progress in previous phases (Pass/Fail) Won onPwen pr 4. Cost of Energy Scoring in Stage 3 AEA proposes to use the “cost of energy burden” metric rather than the electric rate or cost of fuel (for electric and heat projects, respectively) when scoring communities for the cost of energy in Stage 3 ranking. Stage 3, which ranks approved projects, includes the heaviest weighting (35%) for the cost of energy ina community. In recent years, the electric rate (or heating fuel cost for heating projects) has been used to Recommendations REF Round IX RFA 2 determine the cost of energy score. In round VIII, AEA started calculating and using “cost of energy burden” as a factor to determine regional distribution in Stage 4. The cost of energy burden is an index of the average household expenditure for heat and electric divided by average income. This metric recognizes several factors that make it a better metric to score the true cost of energy in a community. Rather than just scoring based on the cost of a unit of energy, this metric includes a measure of how much energy is used as well, thereby recognizing the different climates across Alaska. Additionally by dividing by average income, the metric also factors in the relative financial burden of energy bills on households in a community. 5. Regional Balance AEA proposes to use the cost of energy burden metric to establish which regions are overserved and underserved by REF cumulatively across all prior application processes. This metric was first used in Round VIII. The weighted average cost of energy burden is used to calculate the target funding for the region such that the higher the energy cost burden, the higher the REF funding target. Regions are considered overserved if they have received more than double the target amount. Regions are considered underserved if they have received less than 50% of the target amount. For regions identified as overserved, funding in Round IX shall be limited to an amount such that their percentage of the cumulative REF funding does not grow. In Round VIII, projects for the overserved areas were prioritized solely on the cost of energy burden. In Round IX, the same approach could be taken, or some combination of their technical or ranking score combined with their cost of energy burden could be used (for example, cost of energy burden score, 50%; Stage 3 Score 50%). Recommended projects from underserved regions that fall outside the funding availability will be considered for inclusion above the funding line as part of the Stage 4 review. AEA will seek REFAC guidance on the application of the regional balance at the January 2016 meeting. 6. Heat Project Goal Last year, AEA set a target for heat projects at 30% of the total funding recommendation. AEA recommends retaining this goal. 7. Fuel Price Projection AEA is evaluating a change to the manner by which fuel price projections are calculated for all communities in Alaska. These fuel price projections are used in the AEA economic model to calculate the lifecycle impact of the proposed renewable energy system. AEA hired Alaska Center for Energy and Power’s economists to examine the way the fuel price projections had been conducted in the past and to propose an improved methodology. AEA recently received a presentation on the findings, and will likely opt for the new system, which appears to be a more accurate and precise methodology. Recommendations REF Round IX RFA 3 REPORIAND ND Vill REGOMMENDATIONS I=AASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 813 W Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 (907) 771-3000 ere: ALASKA www.akenergyauthority.org / @@m™m@ ENERGY AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION Renewable Energy Fund appropriations totaling $247.5 million have been issued since 2008. This funding has been matched with more than $152 million from other sources. State funding in the early, lower-cost, higher-risk stages of project development creates opportunity to leverage significant private investment to carry projects through to completion. The Alaska Renewable Energy Fund (REF) provides benefits to Alaskans by assisting communities across the state to both reduce and stabilize the cost of energy. The program also creates jobs, uses local energy resources, and keeps money in local economies. Currently operating REF projects have an overall benefit cost ratio of 2.8 which is calculated using total project cost. Investing in stable priced renewable energy is a wise investment that will save Alaska communities millions of dollars for decades to come. The REF is managed by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and provides public funding for the development of qualifying and competitively selected renewable energy projects in Alaska. The program is designed to produce cost- effective renewable energy for heat and power to benefit Alaskans statewide. As the program matures, the quality of the proposed projects continues to rise as does the knowledge base for designing, constructing, and operating renewable energy in Alaska’s diverse climates and terrain. ™ Wind / Heat = Wind 20 15 will mark ano renewable gen 1/10) FUEL DISPLACED —__ co 2009 2 RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT m@ Transmission 2010 aor ACTUAL This 2015 status report has two parts and a separate appendix: 1. Asummary analysis of projects funded to date, including the performance and savings associated with projects that are currently generating heat and power. (pg. 3-8) An appendix of individual project scopes and statuses for funded projects accompanies this report. It is available in searchable PDF form at htto://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/ le-Energy-F Roun 2. A summary of AEA’s recommendations to the Legislature for funding in 2015 (Round VIII). (pg. 9-19) Additional information on this year’s recommendations and all current and past grants are available on AEA’s website www.akenergyauthority.org and includes: * Appendix of project statuses (RI - RVII) * Economic evaluations * Technical evaluations * Maps of project location *« Application summaries This report only includes performance of REF funded projects and so is not a complete view of renewable energy production in Alaska. ™ Solar Thermal ~ Solar PV m= Hydro ™ Heat Recovery ® Heat Pumps = Biomass @ Landfill Gas 20n 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED RECONNAISSANCE: A preliminary feasibility study designed to ascertain whether a feasibility study is warranted. FEASIBILITY/CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: Detailed evaluation intended to assess technical, economic, financial, and operational viability and to narrow focus of final design and construction. This category also includes resource assessment and monitoring. FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING: Project configuration and specifications that guide construction. Land use and resource permits and leases required for construction. CONSTRUCTION: Completion of project construction, commissioning, and beginning of operations. It also includes follow-up operations and maintenance reporting requirements. DIESEL EQUIVALENT GALLON: Most REF communities are displacing diesel fuel (Diesel #2), however some projects displace natural gas, naphtha, propane or Diesel #1. In those instances the displaced fuel is converted to BTUs and then expressed as diesel equivalent gallons for reporting purposes. B/C: The B/C, or benefit/cost ratio is the total net present value of savings over the life of a project divided by the net present value of a project’s total cost. The assumed project life is 30 years for DEFINITIONS solar PV, 50 years for transmission and hydro and 20 years for all others. The B/C is one component of the overall project score; it is possible for a project to score high enough in other areas (e.g. high-cost- energy community) to be recommended with a B/C of less than 1. B/C ratios are calculated using best available data that is appropriate for the project’s development phase. Early phase projects use assumptions based on prior similar experience, while late phase projects use refined project models and are much more certain. AEA attempts to be as realistic as possible when using assumptions for early phase projects, while also attempting to avoid rejecting potentially good early-phase projects due to overly conservative assumptions. TECHNICAL/ECONOMIC SCORE: This score is based on a project’s technical and economic viability. The technical score considers resource availability, maturity of the proposed technology, the technical viability of the proposed project, and the qualifications and experience of the project team. The economic score is based on the projected costs and benefits associated with the project including consideration of the future price of fuel, current and future local demand for energy and the ability of the applicant to finance the project to completion. This score is the Stage 2 score in the evaluation process. ENERGY COST BURDEN: Household energy cost / household income. - ANSWERS TO COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS WHAT IMPACT DO REF PROJECTS HAVE ON RATES? It depends, some electrical projects will lower rates immediately and some may stabilize rates and keep them from increasing over time due to inflation and changing fuel costs. Heating projects result in immediate and direct fuel savings to the building owners. DO POWER COST EQUALIZATION (PCE) COMMUNITIES BENEFIT FROM THE REF? Yes, in a number of ways: In PCE communities statewide about 30 percent of total kWhs sold are eligible for the PCE subsidy. That means that any savings from REF projects are passed directly to the other 70 percent of kWhs sold. Schools and privately owned businesses benefit greatly from reduced cost of electricity. REF projects provide stability in the face of uncertain and often volatile fuel prices. 100 percent of the value created by heat projects stays in the community. REF projects create local employment opportunities and local energy independence. WHAT IS THE GOAL OF THE REF? To achieve the state of Alaska 50 percent renewable by 2025 goal and to reduce and stabilize the cost of energy to Alaskans. HOW MUCH ARE REF PROJECTS REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS? In 2014, an estimated 147,143 metric tons of CO2. Since 2009, an estimated 347,575 metric tons of CO2. Projected reduction between 2015 and 2017 is 682,360 metric tons of CO2. MAY 2015 19 18 RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) is comprised of nine members, five of which are appointed by the governor to staggered three-year terms, with representation from each of the following groups: * One member from a small Alaska rural electric utility, Brad Reeve * One member from a large Alaska urban electric utility, Bradley Evans * One member from an Alaska Native organization, Jodi Mitchell * One member from businesses or organizations engaged in the renewable energy sector, Chris Rose * One member from the Denali Commission, Kathleen Wasserman * Four remaining members come from the legislature: * Two members of the House of Representatives, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Bryce Edgmon and Rep. Charisse Millett * Two members of the Senate, appointed by the President of the Senate, Sen. Lyman Hoffman and Sen. Anna MacKinnon In establishing the program, the REFAC worked with AEA in defining eligibility criteria for grants from the Renewable Energy Fund, developing methods for determining the order of projects that may receive grants, and adopting regulations identifying criteria to evaluate the benefit and feasibility of projects seeking legislative support. The REFAC continues to consult with AEA, offering valuable guidance and policy direction regarding the application and evaluation process, and final funding recommendations. Following is a summary of REFAC involvement with REF Round VIII. « AEA staff and REFAC members met in May and September, 2014 to discuss issues including the schedule and details of the Round VIII request for applications, progress on funded projects, possible changes to the program evaluation, community assistance efforts and the REF program relationship with regional and community energy planning efforts. * AEA staff and REFAC members met twice in January, 2015 following AEA evaluation of all applications to review the AEA recommendations for Stage 4 (regional distribution). Based on the feedback provided by the REFAC at this meeting, AEA applied regional distribution rules that increased funding to underserved regions in the state and created greater funding equity across all regions. REFAC members (in bold) and others at a tour of Kodiak’s Terror Lake Hydro project during the May 2014 REFAC meeting. Pictured L-R: Rep. Bryce Edgmon, Sean Skaling (AEA), Darren Scott (Kodiak Electric), Sara Fisher-Goad (AEA), Sen. Anna MacKinnon, Sen. Gary Stevens, Brad Reeve (Kotzebue Electric), Kathie Wasserman (AML), Jason Meyer (ACEP), Sen. Lyman Hoffman. Not pictured: Chris Rose (REAP), Jodi Mitchell (IPEC), Rep. Charisse Millett, Bradley Evans (Chugach Electric) RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT Figure 2 below demonstrates the wide geographic distribution of REF projects across all areas of the state. Most funding is provided to high cost-of-energy communities RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PROJECTS ROUNDS I-VII A Biomass or Biofuels A Heat Pump/Geothermal @ Heat Recovery @ Hydro Ocean/River 2 solar © Transmission 4 wind @ Other xe @ de x FUNDED GRANTS BY ENERGY RESOURCE ROUNDS I-VII BIOMASS/ LANDFILL GAS $25.0 HEAT RECOVERY $19.7 HEAT PUMP/GEOTHERMAL $15.0 TRANSMISSION $12.5 OCEAN/ RIVER $3.9 Figure 3 shows funding by energy resource, with wind and hydro grants making up just less than 70 percent of total funding. l= ENERGY AUTHORITY FUNDED GRANTS BY ENERGY REGION ROUNDS I-VII Aleutians guys Bering Straits quae Bristol Bay ques Copper River/Chugach _uageaseesme Kodiak mc Lower Yukon-KUSkOKWiM SSS North Slope mu Northwest Arctic Railbelt swnaswwsenmenneramcemen om Southeast qemearawnWasesceme SATA TT IS EER Statewide | Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $o $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Figure 4 shows cumulative grant funding by AEA energy region totaling to $247.5 million in rounds I-ViI. The three highest recipients to date are Southeast with $54.8 million, Lower Yuko Kuskokwim with $30.8 million, and Railbelt w $30.2 million MAY 2015 3 PERFORMANCE & SAVINGS * Figure 5 shows the net present value (NPV) of those REF projects that have been completed RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND to date. Many of the 44 projects represented ROUND VIII_ | RECOMMENDED HEAT PROJECTS received initial funding in the first three rounds of ~ the REF program. * The net present value of the capital expenditures REF CURRENTLY OPERATING PROJECTS used to build currently generating projects » $900 r is $314.7 million and the net present value of 5 benefits is $889.5M. These projects have an overall - benefit cost ratio of 2.8. = $800 * For every $1 dollar invested, these projects have $700 an estimated return of $2.80. It is important to note that the REF only invested a portion of total $600 project cost. ¢ The largest number of generating projects are $500 wind, at 34 percent. This is a smaller share than last year when 40 percent of projects were wind. $400 Hydro projects increased from 8 percent to 14 percent of total generating projects. Ss00 * Given the length of time needed to develop hydro projects, compared to wind which can be $200 developed in roughly half the time, we should expect to see generation from hydro projects $100 continue to grow as projects that have been in development for a number of years come online. $0 * Though still small as a percentage of total NPV NPV Capitol Cost NPV Benefits of benefits, the number of heat projects has ® Landfill Gas ® Biomass @ Heat Pumps = ™ Heat Recovery increased substantially to 41 percent of total projects. This large number of heat projects are smaller in cost and benefits on an individual basis but their overall impact is growing. Heat projects include heat recovery, heat pumps and biomass. * See pages 6 and 7 for information about where these $889 million of benefits accrue. @ Hydro © Solar @ Transmission ® Wind HEAT PROJECTS HEAT PROJECTS BY RESOURCE BY REGION NOTES: GRANT AND FUNDING SUMMARY 1. Total grant amount requested by all applicants. 2. $26.6 million was appropriated for Round IV, and an additional $10 million was re- appropriated from Wind / Heat zE Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana | Southeast | Railbelt | Heat Recovery Ke Northwest Arctic jim Round i] Round iy CTT] 7 Round 7) Round val elt iar | i Litera] il 108 North Slope _ Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim iit so] 30 17 7| 25 | 74 19| 10 | 36 17| Grants currently in place Amount requested’ ($M) Heat Pumps Kodiak Copper River/Chugach fmt $100.0] $ 368] $ 658] $ 366 | $ 43.2] $ 568]$ 59.1 | $ 3983 —————— eteeat Sey $4538 | $2034| $2235] $1231 $1329 motees Bering Straits | Rounds |, Il and Ill for Appropriated ($M) $ 100.0 | $ 25.0| $ 250] $ 2667] $ 259] $ 25.0|$ 200°} $ 2475 i | | | | | Aleutians bs use in Round IV. Grant match budgeted’ (SM) | $ 236| $45| $s 110] s 616] s 90| s s7|s 367] $ 1521 remus 30) | st aie heal elaies ih smuons $0 $1 $2 $5 $4 $5 $6 «87 88 3. $20 million was Cash disbursed ($M) $ 802 | $ 205] $ 150 | $ 223] $ 155] $ 90/$ 54] $ 1679 STier) “Tier2 "Tier1 “Tier2 appropriated for Round VII, and an additional $2.8 million was re-appropriated from previous rounds for use in Round VII. ; ! f The two bar RVIII recommended funding b erg 4. Represents only amounts recorded in the grant document and does not capture all other funding. orojects. The ker shade (Tier 1) indicates recommend Taek ninimea budget. The lighter shade (Tier 2) indicates recommend Fe) ma ro] | ie] 4 RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT MAY 2015 MAP NOTES: Recommended projects that fit within the Governor's budget are shown with large/bold labels. Projects that are recommended but do not fit within the proposed budget are shown with small/un-bolded labels RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ROUND VIII_ | RECOMMENDED STANDARD PROJECTS STANDARD PROJECTS BY REGION STANDARD PROJECTS BY RESOURCE rronsmission [SO Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanand Si) eee Southeast jt Railbelt mm Northwest Arctic I North Slope =A Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim [iaEEEEEDS==toeeeeeaet Solar PV Kodiak mat Copper River/Chugach -= Bristol Bay wees Aleutians SMILLIONS $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 SMLLONS $O $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 BTierl] “Tier 2 BTier1 “Tier 2 The two bar charts show RVIII recommended funding by energy resource and by region for standard projects, The darker shade (Tier 1) indicates recommended funding within the Governor's $15 million budget. The lighter shade (Tier 2) indicates recommended funding that falls below the target budget. RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND SUCCESS STORY THORNE BAY SCHOOL BIOMASS: growing educational opportunities, food, and sustainable economic opportunity in the Southeast Island School District REF AWARD | $478,179 TOTAL PROJECT COST | $580,179 In Southeast Island School District’s Thorne Bay School greenhouse, students are learning the science of growing food, healthy eating, and how to run a successful business. In 2013, the school self-funded and built a hydroponic greenhouse that captures excess heat generated by the school’s cordwood boiler. The boiler was purchased using a Renewable Energy Fund grant made possible through AEA and the efforts of the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group’s (AWEDTG's) pre-feasibility and feasibility study process. The AWEDTG is a coalition of federal, state, and non-profit organizations working together to increase the utilization of wood for energy and biofuels production in Alaska. The group is funded half by AEA and half by the U.S. Forest Service and in 2014 received a competitive USDA “State Wood Energy Teams” grant. The AWEDTG’s pre-feasibility/ feasibility process helos communities explore the potential of heating with high-efficiency, low- emission, wood-fired systems. The group provides Thorne Bay students grow food for their school and community in a greenhouse heated by the REF funded biomass project. outreach and technical assistance to underserved areas and accepts statements of interest (SOI) for prefeasibility studies. This prefeasibility work can lead to a feasibility assessment, which can then be used in REF grant applications. The group has completed more than 125 prefeasibility studies resulting in over 20 operating wood heating systems, including Thorne Bay School. At the Thorne Bay School, the biomass boiler is doing more than just displacing diesel. The boiler and greenhouse have been incorporated into the curriculum: science, horticulture, math and business are all taught hands-on. The school’s greenhouse grows fresh vegetables for the school cafeteria, improving the quality of school lunch. Excess food is sold to the community as a part of the student-led business and families can deliver wood to the boilers to help fund sports and other extracurricular activities. Thorne Bay parents and students raise money for school activities by splitting and stacking wood for the biomass project. Thorne Bay School is generating cheaper, more sustainable heat while championing a model of hands- on learning and local economic development that can be replicated around the region. This REF success story is an example of the great things that can be accomplished through collaboration and creativity. AWEDTG TASK GROUP: Alaska Energy Authority | Alaska Village Initiatives | Denali Commission | National Renewable Energy Lab | AK DNR Division of Forestry | AK DCCED Division of Economic Development | USDOC Economic Develo nt Administration | USDA FS Region & PNW Research Station | The Nature Conservancy | Tanana iefs Conference | USDA Farm Service Agency, Alaska | USD tural Resources Conservation Se’ USDA Develo ent, Alaska’ | USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska | USDI Bureau of Land Management, 4 Southeast Conference | UAF Cooperative Extension Service MAY 2015 5 6 PERFORMANCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PROJECTS IN OPERATION DURING THE PERIOD 2009- 2014 De ue era ou ec an nee cu Bee) Sn aN CMs ess) Natural Gas Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Te Tic Cordova Electric Cooperative City of Atka Kodiak Electric Assoc. City of Ketchikan City and Borough of Sitka Municipality of Anchorage AK Village Electric Co-op Nome Joint Utility System Alaska Power and Telephone AK Electric Light & Power AK Village Electric Co-op elas frye Cd re Unalaska Heat Recover) Falls Creek Humpback Creek Rehab Chuniixsax Creek Hydroelectric Terror Lake Unit 3 Hydroelectric Project Whitman Lake Blue Lake Expansion Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Kaltag Solar Construction Nome Banner Wind Transmission North Prince of Wales Intertie Snettisham Transmission Toksook Wind Farm Pa es mare eta Be tae Prats e| (MWh) 013 pe ete) Diesel (Gal x 1000) SEIT ($ x 1000) Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Quinhagak Wind Farm Lge ST ces BIC ojo NI] © a iy ela w& 3s 1 Hydrokinetic Diesel Naphtha Diesel Diesel ELECTRIC PROJECTS SUBTOTAL BaHydro zAWwind/Heat_ | Biomass AK Village Electric Co-op Alaska Environmental Power Kodiak Electric Assoc. AK Village Electric Co-op _ AK Village Electric Co-op Kotzebue Electric Association Golden Valley Electric Assoc. Nome Joint Utility System Mekoryuk Wind Farm Delta Area Wind Turbines Pillar Mountain Wind Project Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind Shaktoolik Wind Construction Kotz Wind-Battery-Diesel Eva Creek Banner Peak Wind Farm Expansion Alaska Gateway School District [TokWoodHeating 0/10 J] 3,050] 38] $103 | (CtyofPelican __—_—=——*delican Hydro Upgrade [Unalakleet Valley ElectricCo__[Unalakleet Wind Farm [Puvurnag Power Company [Kong Wind-DieselSmartGid [Aleutian Wind Energy ___—_—*(Sand Point Wind ‘Kwigilingok Power Company | Kwig Wind-Diese BWind/Heat [Diesel = ————_|Tuntutuliak Comm Svcs Assoc Tunt Wind-Diesel Smart Grid ELECTRIC & HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL siomass____[Diesel___———‘oul [Diesel [Native Village of yak | Isiomass [Diesel |Chilkoot indian Association Bsiomass_—|Diesel__|Delta/Greely School District_| ing Biomass Residual Fuel Oil BHeatPumps [Diesel [City and Borough of Juneau__‘|Airport Ground Source City of Tanana City and Borough of Juneau 316 ees 5 & (og as ete ae a es Soa] S230) 721$ 276 26 67 Biel ale|Ni6 has o PEE Se te Pa) [$28 5|$ 14 City-Tribe Biomass Conservation Aquatic Cntr Ground Source Heat Pump at Pump eat Fu EBHeatPumps _ [Diesel __—_|City of Seward Sealife Center Seawater Heatpump 7 7 ea Valle 5 very _[Naphtha 41G Heat Recovery |Diesel —_| McGrath e2 ery [Diesel City and Bibiest recovery [Diesel Inside Passa A Valley Electric Ass Light & Power rear McGrath Heat Recovery 05/10 r Boilers 102/11 | Wrangell Hydro Electi ron 101/13 | eee ie fs is SIRS ist 213) 6 29|$ 94 37|$ 104 EyHeat Recovery [Diesel North Slope Borough Heat Recovery gtieat Recovery |Diesel__——|Cityof Ambler_—_—____—| Ambler Heat Recover fAmbler El sciar thermal [Propane | Golden Valley edie Assoc. | McKinley Vilage HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL PRODUCTION CATEGORIES Electrical Electrical and Heat Heat RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT Hoonah Heat Recovery Project 02/22 | aoe /10 | Thermal_______| PERFORMANCE TABLE NOTES: w S Bo 5 N OPTS 161,256 Ce itd > c w & NI]. a | slulalu » B/Olo 400 $ 1,266 12,976 $ 29,559 1. Due to an exceptional hydro generation year, the Cordova Heat Recovery project did not produce energy in 2014. In remains operational and ready for use. 2. Savings are equal to the value of the displaced fossil fuel minus the cost of the renewable energy fuel, where appropriate (e.g. the cost of wood for a biomass project). For projects with no renewable fuel costs (e.g. wind, hydro), savings are equal to the value of the fossil fuel displaced. These savings estimates do not account for changes in operation and maintenance costs or other costs or benifits. =| =] =| =) =| 2] =| =<] <|<I<]</olS<|]<] Ss) = (6/6) 8) 2/8) 8) 2/2 S|} S]o]o]s]a]o 8 zB Hydrokinetic Biomass HeatRecovery HeatWind HeatRecovery Solar Hydro Other Other Biomass yn Wind, Trans HeatRecovery 40 wR 0.07 0.71 0.50 0.8, 166) Lor [ 0.00) Biomass an <r 2/e/é £18 B B 3S a Z > Project Cost Bicol Construction $2,100,00 $4,526,45) $3,380,001 $4,526,281 $420,765 $50,000,000 $45,320,707 $13,391,869 $7,770,000 $6,870,575 $2,458,622 $705,893 $439,453 $284,56 $200,71 $60,00! if i $309,450 $165,00 $25,000,00 $13,717,47 $1,750,000 $3,100,000 $427,600 SEL eee oO ro] S) Project Cost ON) rae ame) ie Eel) Requested eek ae 80 $1,250,000 $800,000 $100,000 IEC) Requested Recon, Feas Design Design Construction Construction Design Design ON) Did Not Pass Stage 2] Not Pass Stage 2 |Did Not Pass Stage 2] Not Pass Stage 2 Not Recommended $2,797,935 $6,695,934 Construction Not Recommended $7,620,000 $500,000 Design, Constr Not Recommended $62,500 Feasibility Not Recommended $2,016,509 $296,500! Design, Constr Not Recommended $6,989: Design, Constr Not Recommended $74,009) Design, Constr Not Recommended $5,000: $105,773 $4,001 $75,00! $17,001 $50,67. $61,89! $29,65 $198,731 $56,001 $75,001 $85,001 $202,69 $247,56 $295,775 $165,00 $230,00 $ $4,000,001 $10,497,695 $1,750,000. $0 oS os Design, Constr Design, Constr Construction Recon Recon Recon Design, Constr Recon, Feas Design, Constr Feasibility All Design, Constr Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended $3,000,000 $100,000 $342,600 $85,000 $28,918 532 $20,177,593 All Construction Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 1 1125: Construction funding will not be released until the final design and business/operating plan is approved 1136: 65 percent design, including all necessary permits, must be accepted by AEA prior to the release of funds for final design work. 1146: In order to receive design funding, Kenai Hydro will be required to complete the feasibility and concept design report, and meet other provisions listed in AEA’s review com 1158: Prior to the issuance of a R VIII grant or expenditure of any existing project grant funds, applicant must demonstrate site control, become current on financial and progress reports, amend existing grants to reflect proposed milestone and deliverables, and provide detailed project management plan. ments. 1162: Additional funding be used to expand the scope of the feasibility study. 1166: Must receive a detailed design budget and a list of the proposed consultants prior to grant execution Stage 4 Reductions 1103: Reduced recommendation from $627,000 to $0 based upon maximum regional allocation. 1104: Reduced recommendation from $88,742 to $0 based upon maximum regional allocation. 1108: Reduced recommendation from $391,200 to $0 based upon maximum regional a! llocation. N09: Reduced recommendation from $493,100 to $0 based upon maximum regional allocation. 115: Reduced recommendation by $2,848,540 to maximum grant amount of $1,500,000. 1120: Reduced recommendation by $6,500,000 to maximum grant amount of $1,500,000. 1135: Reduced recommendation of $3,445,040 by $1,963,513 based upon maximum regional allocation. Funding recommended outside the Governor's $15 million budget is limited to $18,473 due to maximum grant amount of $1,500,000. 1137: Reduced recommendation by $517,818 to maximum grant amount of $1,500,000 1140: Reduced recommendation from $1,288,018 to $0 based upon maximum regional allocation. 1142: Reduced recommendation from $220,000 to $0 based upon maximum regional allocation. 1158: Reduced recommendation by $300,000 to max grant amount of $1,500,000. MAY 2015 14 APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING REF Round VIII - Applications Not Recommended for Funding rut Cumulative Total (2009-2014) eee acta Pree sete) Mae st Dye le Te] yer eye Thermal (Gal x Werte) (MMBtu) — 1000) ee ly) Energy Region 0) cy ea ELL} ENS eets [areata] TD) [area] Oy) Bi crs ELIT Ee) put] ($ x 1000) 21 Es SG. 5288 [as — 9a mi 2i7[$ 762 a7i[$ 3,187 ee 1 > Bristol Bay 1101 Manokotak Power Company 1139 City of Chefornak/Naterkagq Light Plant Elfin Cove Utility Commission 1160 Tenakee Springs Electric Dept fig? — [Pox Graham Community Bulding Biomass [Pon Graham Vilage Coun Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. (KEA) 106 [Mahoney take Hydropower Projet [City of Saxman Southeast Alaska Power Agency 1123 Chitina Electric Inc. (CEly 137 [rydrokinene Fesbiy Study Fae Fas] of Fate Pas Tugs Vilage Comme Ci of Nikola 7130 iy af Holy Cos i134 Rwig Power Company iy of Seawik Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Adak Community Energy Baseline Study Adak Generating, LLC., (TDX) TDX Power, Inc. Lake and Peninsula Borough Unalakleet Valley Electric Coop City of Noorvik NW Alaska Tribal Energy Org. TDX Power, North Slope Generating ower Yukon-Kuskokwim outheast outheast Kodiak outheast outheast 9 10 11 12 Bristol Bay Yukon-K oyukuk/Upper Tanana 22,665 13 14 15 l€ 17 iS} 200 009 4: 88 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim ; S$ 28,3: 3 n H _ > Zz 7 >loaly]y voc a ° ¢ alo € 3 | fis a. f=9 ° aio 5 3 51° 5 z i 5] a g x aly s } ie >plols 6 AISIEIE| | [6 4 x = c S § é 3 5 s 4 » 5 5 3 5 outheast a} a Aleutians t. Paul Community Energy Baseline Study ake and Peninsula Borough Wood Boilers Unalakleet Wind-Diesel Optimization City of Noorvik Solar-PV NW AK Wind Assessment & Intertie Study Deadhorse Waste Heat to Energy Plant 1151 2. C | Bristol Bay Bering Straits Northwest Artic Northwest Artic North Slope Copper River/Chugach Total, Not Recommended Projects Psat ais of | gogo] 34s 120) ES a Tema sels — seh 1 igaea | ass 22 36] $ 95 10,344 885 252 | 4809] ag{s ze] 10,330] 99S 268] | 2427] 23s ave | aieo2| 108] $653] |_| 30,706] 103s 440 | Pf Mao 4 US age] SAB ASS 59] Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction Native Village of Chenega Akiachak Native Comm Electric Homer Electric Association eee Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Biomass for Akiachak Native Comm. Electric 27M Railbelt Community Solar Project NOTES FOR TABLES PAGES 10-15 + Total recommended funding for all projects before stage 4 regional distribution sums to $28,281,857. +t The applicant match column includes energy efficiency improvements that are offered as part of the applicant's match, but do not contribute to the Project Cost Through Construction column. * Funding for these projects was reduced according to the $1.5 million cap on all individual projects. See Stage 4 reductions. ** Funding for these projects was reduced according to the maximum regional allocation. See Stage 4 Reduction. B/C = AEA calculation of Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project based upon available information. an Some not recommended projects’ B/C ratios may not be listed due to incomplete information provided or other reasons. ptt) 52,789 5 Atte) coe T ee 436,391 BLS ly EL 1S: Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2. Project Cost Through Construction, Applicant Grant Requested, and Applicant Match Offered are based upon the project scopes recommended by AEA. . Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. SP = Special Provisions If REF VIII funding is limited to $15M, #1136, Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design would be partially funded. To fully fund, $15,023,416 must be appropriated Special Provisions 1113: AEA must review and accept the final engineering design and the final business/operational plan. 114: AEA must review and accept the final engineering design and the final business/operational plan. 15: 95 percent design must be accepted by the Authority prior to allocation of construction funds 1120: Design must be finalized and approved by AEA prior to issuing a grant for the construction phase. RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT 3. The energy production data provided for years 2012 and after is net renewable energy produced by Renewable Energy Fund projects. 4. Savings for the Anchorage Landfill project are the cost of the electricity that would have otherwise been purchased. The project grantee, Solid Waste Services (SWS), sells the landfill gas to Doyon Utilities, LLC. 5. Data for wind turbines in Toksook Bay represent only the portion covered by the REF grant in years 2012 and after. The REF program funded only one of the four wind turbines installed. 6. Tok Wood Heating produces energy used for space heating and electricity production. The REF program funded the space heating system. The electrical system was funding separately by the Alaska Legislature. 8 The Juneau Airport ground source heat pump project does not have metering that can provide exact heat displacement. The values reported are estimates based on information provided by the grantee. 9. Actual reported values for Terror Lake Hydro Unit 3 were not available, the figures reported are estimates. 10. Actual reported values for Snettisham Transmission Line Avalanche Mitigation were not available, the figures reported are estimates. Nl. Totals may not equal sum of individual figures as displayed due to independent rounding. 12. Alaska Energy Data Gateway, developed by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences (BES), under EPSCoR Award # DE-SCO004903 (database and web application development), and by Alaska Energy Authority (Renewable Energy Fund data management and reporting). Database and web hosting is provided by Arctic Region Supercomputing Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. MAY 2015 7 8 RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND SUCCESS STORY RINE esa a REF AWARD | $4,000,000 MATCHING FUNDS | $201,492 Ero oN oa meer terol improvements. Savings for the first three quarters of 2014 were $213,000, and typically increase during the fourth quarter’s windier conditions and colder, denser air. Some wind energy is used to heat the school, baler building and water plant at times when wind energy production exceeds the community's demand for electricity. During Round | of the Renewable Energy Fund, Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative (UVEC) requested funding for construction of a wind farm to offset expensive and highly variable diesel costs, which fuel their isolated community power system The project was selected for funding and the system was designed, built and commissioned in November 201], dovetailing with a power plant upgrade The project has hit some technical challenges along the way, but with the cooperation of the community, AEA’s technical experts on wind/ diesel system integration, and the wind turbine manufacturer, the system has been integrated with the diesel system and its performance maximized over the years, including recent integration improvements in 2014. The community has maintained the equipment well and operates the system for maximum performance. Unalakleet’s wind system includes six Northern Power Systems 100 kW wind turbines, the most common wind turbine used in Alaska, placed in a windy spot 3 miles from the community. In 2013 the six wind turbines contributed approximately 40 percent of the total electricity produced and saved the community $276,000 in fuel expenses (72,000 gallons). In 2014, it appears the savings will grow due to continued system operational Asa n drying rach RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT alo CO Ce) ela Py erlild LSet CT) eT AEA Recomnd OT Lars) ali} Ti) Pt Bicol ely Energy Source B/C Score Rank Construction ONT er acres WEL ETC Tue) Requested ei ehas Phase(s) Hydro, Storage| $10,000,000} Fyre Hydro ‘Wind Wind Hydro Hydro ele 38 u 9 290,000 Full SP/Cap* | $1,500,000] $2,913,500 Full SP : : aleletalelelel ilo S EEECEECEEEEG s\¢ ae 3|8 & Hydro Wind A 6 95,000} 00 Taro $5,461,000] $1 800,000] $1,067,000] Consrucron [Ful SPICap™_[ $1,500,000] $8,905,509 Fiydro [$15,922,000] $413,600] — $103,400]Feasiiticy [Partial | _ $40,000] $8,945.50 Soar 13[ #20] 36 | __ $449,176] $984,730] $04.499[Feanbihey _[Parcal | $20,000] $8,963,500 Hydro Hydro. Wing [roo] wea] 0] 24505,200) $470,000] $44,000[Deign —_[rulsP___| $416,584] 19.920.154 $185,292.698 $27,857,073 $18,533 $9,826,484 33,516 Wind [1.02] 48.8] 40 [$4,565,200] $440,000] $44,000[DesinFullSP | $25,416) | $9,849,900 udget as a result of REFAC recommendations regarding Stage 4 regional distribution. Hydro Wind | 7a staf 21 [$170,583] $85,742] $81,842|Recon, Fess [Ful™ | $68,742) $10,309,800 $188.474.756 $28,337,015 $18,713,158 $10,329,842 t Biomass [179] 75.8] 1 | $292,184] $240,592] $266,592[Design/Const|FulsP_ [$240,592] $240,592 Biomass $124,708] Construction |Full $832,635] _$1,073,22 Biomass Ee Bee) $45,000 $30,00 ull $45,000] $1,118,22 HeatRecovery $645,61 $33,98 $325,000] $1,443,22 HeatWind | 2.94[ 75.7] 6 | $383,900] $307,12 $76,78 $307,120] $1,750,347 Biomass | 1.95{ 86.5] 9 | $660,977] $620,97 $40,0 I $620,977] $2,371,32 HeatPump $3,479,490] $3,445,04 $34,451 1I** $1,481,527] $3,852,85 Biomass $2,692,700] — $2,495,18 $250,001 artial $200,000] $4,052,85 Biomass $433,379) $379,58. $13,79 1 SP $379,583] $4,432,43. HeatRecovery | 62.7] 16 [| $763,898 $756,33: $7,56 $60,000] $4,492,43 Biomass | 1.09] 59.0] 19 | $102,275] $102,27 $314,38 $102,275] $4,594,70 Biomass $499,001 $89,991 $58,000] $4,652,70' Biomass $270,80 $54,001 $270,807| $4,923,51 HeatRecovery $729, 60 $92,29 $50,000] _$4,973,51 HeatRecovery $699, 16. $7,53: $50,000] $5,023,51 HeatRecovery[ 0.59] 48.0] 31 | $299,754] $296,78 $107,96! $50,000] $5,073,51 HeatRecove: | 0.75{ 50.0] 32 | $458,716) $454,27 esign $50,000] $5,123.51 Biomass $50,00 $19,338] Feasibility ull $50,000] $5,173,51 $21,755,006 $12,869,992 $1,589,819 $5,173,516 3 gl ¢|8 a213 o & at i = 8] 4-15 7 : S 7 “= S casibility nm casibility ie esign/Const i t ~ e ny nm ec Design/Const vu = fe I LH & artial esign/Const |Full SP 'S1} 8 oo OO) SS 9] 9 Oo a1 e a) asl g e|s e}s|2|2|8 g iH ojls esign/Const Design artial ote aae o aetheeet S 7 S adget as a result of REFAC recommendations regarding Stage 4 regional distribution 2 7 E ? 7 7 7 Ee] Ee) ‘yo om 2 £ g 2) *HeatPump : 12 $3,479,490] $3,445,040 Biomass i 5 $679,950! $493,100 HeatPump $740,000 $627,001 Biomass $2,200,000 $220,00 Biomass | 1.46] 83.2] 24 | $1,408,908] _$1,288,01 $26,783,864 $15,498,110 $1,944,947 $34,450 i $186,850] Design/Const |Full** $168,27 ull** $18,47 $493,10 $627,000! $220,000! $1,288,018 $7,820,107 t $5,191,989 $5,685,089 $6,312,08 $6,532,089) $7,820,107] eA xo Design/Const 7 z 8 9 2 3 bao & 3 i ull** 2 9 eI & 5 5 Bla g 3 3 MAY 2015 13 12 RECOMMENDED hcAT AND STANDARD REF Recommended Projects Round VIII Tracey Project Name ever Sub Total, Recommended Standard Projects within $15 million budget North Slope 1136 |Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design North Slope Borough VOTES RUM Retest ie Re eae Ne oR ee eet ate ne eee RRL 1108 |Neck Lake Hydropower Project Alaska Power Company 104 Southeast SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Weel MeAIB <ceeriioeccemeniecice@ ace) lac) Southeast 111 |Angoon Low-Income Housing Pellet District Heat Southeast Island School District Wood Boilers nah Biomass District Heating Loop Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority Southeast Southeast -wn-= cy EBEE Ny] Br 9 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim ethel Heat Recovery Assessment & Conceptual Design |Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. a & an Aleutians and Point Excess Wind Utilization TDX Power, Sand Point Generating Southeast ydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project Hydaburg City School District Southeast Lepquinum Center Ground Source Heat Pump Northwest Arctic Kotzebue Paper & Wood Waste to Energy Ambler Washeteria & City Office Biomass No oa) Northwest Arctic City of Ambler Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim cammon Bay Community Facilities Heat Recovery City of Scammon Bay =15 a Southeast lawock Low-Income Housing Pellet Ke k/Uj Copper River/Chugach Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority City of Huslia Native Village of Tazlina i) Huslia Water System & Clinic Biomass Boiler Wood Boiler for the Native Village of Tazlina oo) Bering Straits Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery a Wales Water System Heat Recovery City of Wales City of Eek City of Grayling Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Eek Water System Heat Recovery Grayling Water System Heat Recovery IRHA Facility Biomass Feasibility Study en on Railbelt 1145 Sub Total, Recommended Heat Projects within $15 million budget Interior Regional Housing Authority ‘Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanan: 'Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 9 ole ze a 2 2/2 3/5 a iS of} = sie yn z ze =| 8 2 ° o| = Bie > oa gS a) e 8 Palo. BIS 8 e]s Bla > o|5 > —< y Oo gid & sis x g 8.19 » e|9 5 212 § Be 5. a a a > 7 a oe Ss 5 < ORT Be Ser M Mt emer e tet Ne ae Ne eRe eee ee 1135 yn outheast Lepquinum Center Ground Source Heat Pump Metlakatla Indian Community Southeast raig High School Wood Heat Conversion Craig City School District a : 1 Southeast 03 Southeast Gateway Borough Rec & Schools Central Heating Southeast 1140 |Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler BW Me UB Crm ese acl iat Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough Please see notes for all tables on pages 14 & 15. Individual project summaries are available on AEA’s website (see page 2). RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT S) Sy 3 Sy Q ay) 8 i=.) 5 & E R SS 5} me = By a Meg Ps M4 S SS Ay 8 SS itka: Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump |City & Borough of Sitka Public Works Dept. ROUND VIII RECOMMENDED APPLICATIONS AEA recommended 40 out of 67 applications reviewed for Round VIII funding. These 40 projects requested $43.8 million in funding. Following AEA’s technical and economic reviews and scoring, AEA recommends funding of $28.3 million for these 40 projects. To meet the Governor’s budget target of $15 million, and following consultation with the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) on regional distribution, AEA recommends 34 top-tier projects that are listed in the following pages. Some of the projects are capped at $1.5 million and one project in an over- served region is partially funded within the top tier. REVIEW PROCESS The recommendation process involves three stages of review and scoring and a fourth stage where regional distribution is applied. The first three stages evaluate and score eligibility, technical and economic feasibility, and ranking based on criteria established in statute. The technical and economic evaluation is a thorough vetting process conducted by AEA technical reviewers, economists, and by the Department of Natural Resources. Following the third stage of evaluation, AEA presents a ranked list of recommended projects, a list of not recommended projects, and a regional distribution recommendation to REFAC to ensure that there is regional equity in the cumulative rounds | through VIII funding. ADVISORY COMMITTEE/REGIONAL SPREADING During the January 9, 2015 REFAC meeting, the committee advised AEA to consider a new approach to the regional distribution of REF project funding. Below is the three-step approach developed by AEA to respond to the committee’s guidance. 1. Use a regional population weighted “burden of energy cost” metric to establish regional funding bands. The burden of energy cost for a household is calculated based on regionally appropriate household consumption and local costs for residential electric and heating fuel and household income. Burden of energy cost = (HH cost of electric + heat energy) / HH income. Using this methodology, Yukon- Koyukuk/Upper Tanana is identified as “underserved” based on the amount of funding received to date from the REF. 2. Cap all individual projects at $1.5 million (10 percent of Governor’s budget). 3. Regions that exceed the target funding band by more than 2X will be capped so their share of the overall fund cannot grow beyond current levels. This rule affects the Southeast region in this round. Southeast projects in the top funding tier are limited to recommended projects in communities with the highest burden of energy cost. Once the region’s funding equals 22.15 percent (RI through RVIII percentage share of funds) of recommended funding, the remaining projects will be identified as recommended projects, but in a group below the top tier of $15 million of Round VIII projects. AEA’S RECOMMENDATIONS The REFAC re-convened on January 28, 2015 to review the outcome of the recommendations made at the January 9 meeting. The committee recommended the list provided and the new regional distribution methodology. AEA has accepted the committee’s recommendations and presents the legislature with the following tables of recommended projects for a funding determination. Pages 10 and 11 identify all projects that are recommended for funding by AEA in ranked order. The first $15 million of projects that fit within the Governor's budget are colored a darker shade of blue (standard electric projects) and orange (heat projects). The lighter shades represent recommended projects outside the current $15 million Governor’s budget. MAY 2015 9 RECOMMENDED FULL RANK LIST REF Recommended Projects Round Vil ain Lr) Score State- Piet els Lt) ona eed Through Construction $292,184 $872,635 eye lg Match Recommended ere has Preto) $266,592] Design/Const $124,708 $30,000 $33,980] Feasibility $76,780] Design/Const $350,000] Feas, Desi; $40,000] Design/Const $20, i eT Eh Tre] Recommend ri) $240,592 $832,635 $45, $325, Pye ace Lig Sel cel $240,592) $832,635, $45, $645,613 $307,120 $500, $620,977 $1,092,500 Energy Region Project Name Applicant Energy Source BIC AEA Recomnd Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority = 3 47 Angoon Low-Income Housing Pellet District Heat Construction | = oo} 8 S|] als io] & i LS E ” & ~ B Ss outheast utheast Island School District = 2 Feasibility ,118, joutheast Hoonah Biomass District Heating Loop Np Nps 13 Partial Full > & & $9,000,01 3 FreatRecovery HeatWind lydro, = © g s 3 < = & ° hi a & rr ° yr g 8 | EEE % Bethel Heat Recovery Assessment & Conceptual Design |Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. an & ¢ go & = ¢ 8 8 ja & P g $ a 3 g 43] 2] 5 z o clélz|2 = 5 a a 3 a o 2 s ° a a 2. iy 3 'TDX Power, Sand Point Generating |Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc. Hydaburg City School District laska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. TDX Power, Inc. /Metlakatla Indian Community 000, $660,977 $9,200, ,400, 500, $620,977 $400, $390, $2,250,347] Aleutians ul E wo 3 < S (Copper River/Chugach Crater Lake Power and Water Project PreeEe “ a” #] 5/33] 2 NR] @ ~ s]~ uy “EB S| s/s] = +} + ~ ydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project Old Harbor Hydro — Geotechnical Study & Design Adak Hydro Feasibility Phase II Lepquinum Center Ground Source Heat Pump i $3,661,324) . $5,142,851 $200,000] $5,342,851 , $5, , $5, $123, $5,905,934) $102,275] $6,008,2 $1,500, $1,305, $89, $58, i $16,000, tructiorFull SP/Cap* | $1,500, $10,371,209 $54000|DeignCone|rul | _$270807] s10.61204 2e[Desien [Paria | $50.00] $10,092.04 Recon [Panik [90.00] $12,200.04 aval | _ 350.000) s12.22016 $50, $3,445,040 $2,495,189 $379,583 Feasibility $34,450] Design/Const | Full** $ Partial : = > = uy Nn x 113: 133 112: Kuskokwim 1143 ree Peels ; g 8 2 a. & elele bw] oO] = a] sis Ss als ola N] So o 2 g S > $13,796 $7,563 City of Kotzebue City of Ambler $433,379 $763,898) $1,634,500 g Kotzebue Paper & Wood Waste to Energy Ambler Washeteria & City Office Biomass s EERE REE Ee 8 3 3 ui syN e}n NPS Z| Z elo ala Z12 a3 2| > 213 21 8 eS Bl ELE o ~ g a we o gv g $123, 102,275, $4,348,540) $1,305, ° z 3 g < 2 & ° ; zy = = x Goodnews Bay Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority 3 aloe olin o}T~eo oly 3] 32 we i : So © $314,381]Design/Const |Full SP $537,46( Full SP/Cap* $70,0 Southeast “ ue S a to S struction $8,813,209) $4,886, $6,610, $503,990 -Kuskokwim St. Mary’s-Pitka’s Point Wind Jaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. City of Chignik City of Huslia (Upper Tanana Energy, LLC (UTE) AE 3 3 Design FARE & Permitting ‘Huslia Water System & Clinic Biomass Boiler 'Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project Wood Boiler for the Native Village of Tazlina 2 S Ss & a to S So 3|s sis $8,000, $270,807 $729,600 $2,017,818 $305, $699,163 $296,786 syle] se 2 5/8] 4| 214 ne] 2) 12 elle! |e i ie I » 3 5 4 £ 8 8] 8] 3 : 7 & ee v g 3 /Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanan Copper River/Chugach iS) a 110 NX HeatRecove: City of Koyuk North Slope Borough oyuk Water System Heat Recovery $26,272,40 $4,283,056) $706,701 Bering Straits = ac ° a & Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bering Straits $7,538) wt i) nin ST GQ NIT XM Oo] + aia SoI1c sj oO] ~ ” oO nN tbo ABE an o te oS © Si oi & ” Ss x ‘o a ) $458,716 000, $5,461, $15,922, $449,178 2 Ss ie 2 8 = ES Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim /Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana| Northwest Arctic Eek Water System Heat Recovery a > nv x x on a Ss NS ~ Oo nv o = D> $12, $12,527,016 $525, $1,800, $95, Grayling Water System Heat Recovery 3 $27,0. $1,061, ‘easibilit 72) 2 & e z z 9 g 0 5 g n yn AHAB Ol #) 21 9] 8 = 3 g g 2 3 5 2121 9| 2] 3 s/o] *% ° Sisi4 = 5 s S| ols = ° @ 3 oles S = 2 Zale e slalo BI<12 9 2 ° 2 3 o g 3 3 x] 8] = g 3 E RlEla zie JEl2|2|a12 2) |? i 8 a|$|s | | 318) > = g i re = $ 2 a z S 8 S 2 4 2 City of King Cove ‘onstruction |Full SP/Cap* $1 |Aleutians 'Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanan (Northwest Arctic lk 3|8|8 ale STS a8 e]e aLD iter Creek Hydropower Project 00 Kilowatt Solar Array for Kotzebue Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project $20, $2,516,3% $88, $59,067, $4,000, $358, 1067, $14,087,016 Fl Fels = FFI Fale 818i gis alee 5 lele| stele gle] |é 2 |S fe S a FEEEE $64, $8,841 Kotzebue Electric Association Inc. City of Ouzinkie Kenai Hydro LLC = le i § 2) 8] 2/4 3 ut > s z ae Fee 2 4] =] 8] 318 = = s Ba] g g E 2 a 3|e nin |= 3 a > = x 3 velo we w& 8 ; 8 ‘ 3 114: Interior Regional Housing Authority North Slope Borough IRHA Facility Biomass Feasibility Study North Slope Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design Sub Total, Recommended Projects within $15 million budget North Slope Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design North Slope Borough Z| ol ol ol o a > O > =| Q] O] OF 2 Zz ¢ BIs/2/21/2 5 2 8 élolelele 4 ° 2 ele) |] e|elelel als 2 : g gla] * le E 8 z < g ® z & g E 5 oe 3 2 8 a 5 a) 5 > g D fs o g iF 2 E 2 8 3 a 5. ° s North Slope Lower Yokon-Kuskokwisn, 4 g iE Oo Z z 3 i 9 3 8 gz 8 The remainder of the list of recommended projects (below) are those that were not recommended for finding within the $15 million budget as a result of REFAC recommendations regarding Stage 4 regiona’ Lepquinum Center Ground Source Heat Pump Metlakatla Indian Community HeatPump ES ee aes Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion Craig City School District Biomass Southeast | 1108 | Neck Lake Hydropower Project Alaska Power Company $50,000 $50,000 $19,338] Feasibility $50,000] $14,583,416] $207,047,704 $40,727,065 $20,123,335 SI ER UUUR UY li Ree elas) $493,100 $186,850] Design/Const | Fu $493,100] $15,534,989 $97,800]Feas, Design |Fu $391,200} $15,926,189 w& © 103 |Sitka: Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump |City & Borough of Sitka Public Works Dept. |H'atPum, P 7 8) P' P [Biomass Wind Gateway Borough Rec & Schools Central Heating Southeast 1104 |SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Total, All Recommended Projects Southeast [Ketchikan Gateway Borough The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Ketchikan Gateway Borough $168,278|Design/Const |Full | _—_ $627,000] $16,553,189 $2,200,000 $0]Feas, Design |Full” $220,000] $16,773,189 $170,583 $88,742 $81,842}Recon, Feas |Full** $88,742] $16,861,931 $1,408,908 $1,288,018) $0]Construction |Full** $1,288,018] $18,149,949 $215,258,620 $43,835,125 $20,658,105 $18,149,949 t Please see notes for all tables on pages 14 & 15. Individual project summaries are available on AEA’s website (see page 2). 10 RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT MAY 2015 1 y= ALASKA. mm ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Harrigan Centennial Hall Sitka, Alaska Friday, May 8, 2015 2:00 pm — 5:00 pm Teleconference: 1-888-585-9008, code 683-021-989# Webinar to view documents: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/584227781 AGENDA Call to Order Roll Call (committee members, staff, public) Agenda Approval Thank you to Hosts, City of Sitka. Blue Lake Dedication Follow-up Approval of Minutes: January 9, 2015 and January 28, 2015 Public Comments NQOak oN = Overview of Program a. Projects Funded b. REF Annual Timeline and REFAC Responsibilities 8. Financing Options Presentation by AEA and AIDEA 9. Committee Recommendations Regarding Round IX Request for Applications 10. Meeting Dates for Next 12 Months 11. Committee Member Comments 12. Adjournment 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044 Awarded Renewable Energy Fund Projects Project Grantee Phase Resource Energy Region REF Cost Total Project Cost* | Expected Completion Status Little Gerstle Hydro Assessment Golden Valley Electric Association Reconnaissance Hydro Railbelt $60,000 - - Inactive Kisaralik/Chikuminuk Hydro Association of Village Council Presidents Reconnaissance Hydro Bristol Bay $229,952 - - Inactive Carlson Creek Hydroelectric Alaska Power Company Reconnaissance Hydro Copper River/Chugach $8,811 - - Inactive Homer Water System Hydro Assessment City of Homer Reconnaissance Ocean/River _ Railbelt $31,200 - - Inactive Adak Diesel Hybrid TDX Adak Generating, LLC Reconnaissance Other Aleutians $76,369 - - Inactive Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project City of Kotzebue Feasibility Biofuels Northwest Arctic $66,578 - - Inactive Kaltag Biomass Hydronic Heating Yukon-Koyukuk School District Feasibility Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $12,710 - - Inactive Cordova Community Biomass Native Village of Eyak Feasibility Biomass Copper River/Chugach $63,999 - - Inactive Pilgrim Hot Springs University of Alaska Fairbanks Feasibility Geothermal Bering Straits $1,330,243 - - Inactive Sitka Renewable Energy Study for Water Treatment Plant City and Borough of Sitka Feasibility Geothermal Southeast $16,699 - Inactive Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Feasibility Geothermal Southeast $568,730 - - Inactive Falls Creek Low-Impact Hydro ‘Homer Electric Association, Inc. Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $50,000 - - Inactive Crescent Lk/Crk Low-Impact Hydro Homer Electric Association, Inc. Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $23,273 - - Inactive Ptarmigan Lk/Crk Low-Impact Hydro Homer Electric Association, Inc. Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $4,684 - - Inactive Whittier Creek Hydroelectric City of Whittier Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $39,471 - - Inactive Burro Creek Hydro Burro Creek Holdings, LLC Feasibility Hydro Southeast $48,000 - - Inactive Ruth Lake Hydro City of Petersburg Feasibility Hydro Southeast $155,702 - - Inactive Nushagak Area Hydropower Project Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative Feasibility Hydro Bristol Bay $1,873,223 - - Inactive Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $136,500 - - Inactive Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility Kenai Hydro, LLC Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $1,184,000 - - Inactive Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Eklutna, Inc. Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $84,000 - - Inactive Eska Creek Hydroelectric Project Bering Pacific Engineering Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $14,408 - - Inactive Jack River Hydroelectric Native Village of Cantwell Feasibility Hydro Railbelt $30,000 - - Inactive Schubee Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company Feasibility Hydro Southeast $74,191 - - Inactive Aleutians East Borough Aleutians East Borough Feasibility Other Aleutians $25,000 - - Inactive Wrangell Electric Vehicle Feasibility Study City and Borough of Wrangell Feasibility Other Southeast $25,000 - - Inactive Lime Village Photovoltaic System Retrofit Lime Village Traditional Council Feasibility Solar PV Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $25,000 - - Inactive Bethel Wind Farm Construction (BNC land) Village Wind Power LLC Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $6,960,000 - - Inactive Nunam Iqua Wind Power Study City of Nunam Iqua Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $34,320 - - Inactive Tok Wind Resource Village Wind Power LLC Feasibility Wind Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $130,000 - - Inactive Chignik Lake Area Wind-Hydro Lake and Peninsula Borough Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $74,851 - - Inactive Tatitlek Wind/Hydro Tatitlek Village IRA Council Feasibility Wind Copper River/Chugach $51,974 - - Inactive Delta Junction Wind Alaska Wind Power, LLC Feasibility Wind Railbelt $65,412 - - Inactive Nushagak Community Wind Power Project Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $100,000 = - Inactive Marshall Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $111,150 - - Inactive Koyuk Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Bering Straits $16,142 - - Inactive Kake Biomass Organized Village of Kake Feasibility Biomass Southeast $175,000 - - Active Wainwright Heat Recovery North Slope Borough Feasibility Heat Recovery North Slope $300,000 - - Active Organic Rankine Cycle Field Testing University of Alaska Fairbanks Feasibility Heat Recovery Railbelt $472,787 : - Active May 8, 2015 Project Grantee Phase Resource Energy Region REF Cost Total Project Cost* | Expected Completion Status Cold Bay Heat Recovery G &K Electric Utility Feasibility Heat Recovery Aleutians $30,000 - - Active Takatz Lake Hydroelectric City and Borough of Sitka Feasibility Hydro Southeast $2,000,000 - Active Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company Feasibility Hydro Southeast $468,000 - - Active Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Haines Borough Feasibility Hydro Southeast $93,593 - - Active Triangle Lake Hydroelectric Project Metlakatla Indian Community Feasibility Hydro Southeast $500,000 - - Active Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Feasibility Hydro Southeast $80,000 - - Active Statewide Hydrokinetic University of Alaska Anchorage Feasibility Ocean/River _Railbelt $565,439 - - Active Lake Pen Borough Wind Feasibility Study Lake and Peninsula Borough Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $184,000 - - Active Teller Wind Analysis Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $117,610 - - Active New Stuyahok Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $142,500 - - Active Cold Bay Wind Energy Project G &K Electric Utility Feasibility Wind Aleutians $99,075 - - Active Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Nelson Lagoon Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Aleutians $99,075 - - Active New Koliganek Wind Heat Recovery Project New Koliganek Village Council Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $105,050 - - Active Bethel Renewable Energy Project TDX Power, Inc. Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $213,690 - - Active Napaskiak Wind Power and Heat Recovery Project City of Napaskiak Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $61,225 - - Active Eek Wind Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $142,500 - - Active Kwethluk Wind Organized Village of Kwethluk Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $145,000 - - Active Scammon Bay Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $142,500 - Active Kaktovik Wind Diesel North Slope Borough Feasibility Wind North Slope $132,000 - - Active Selawik Hybrid Wind Diesel System Turbine Upgrade Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Northwest Arctic $85,000 - - Active False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass Electric Utility Feasibility Wind Aleutians $69,075 - - Active Elim Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Feasibility Wind Bering Straits $142,500 - - Active Chefornak Wind City of Chefornak Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $136,750 - - Active Akiachak Wind Akiachak Native Community/Akiachak Ltd. Feasibility Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $110,000 - - Active Levelock Wind Reconnaissance Study Lake and Peninsula Borough Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $10,000 - - Active Egegik Wind Feasibility Study Lake and Peninsula Borough Feasibility Wind Bristol Bay $60,000 - - Active Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project Alaska Power Company Feasibility Wind Southeast $119,000 - - Active Chalkyitsik Biomass Central Heating Chalkyitsik Village Council Design Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $32,500 $41,603 7 Inactive Venetie District Heating Venetie Village Council Design Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $32,500 $40,809 - Inactive California Creek Hydroelectric Alaska Green Energy Design Hydro Railbelt $27,300 $30,000 - Inactive Neck Lake Hydro Alaska Power and Telephone Design Hydro Southeast $22,475 $22,475 - Inactive Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Design Hydro Northwest Arctic $1,025,000 $1,075,722 - Inactive Old Harbor Hydroelectric Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Design Hydro Kodiak $237,500 $250,000 - Inactive Hooper Bay Wind Farm City of Hooper Bay Design Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $60,179 $60,179 - Inactive Atmautluak Wind Renewable Energy Atmautluak Traditional Council Design Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $100,000 $100,000 - Inactive McGrath Biomass McGrath Light & Power Company Design Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $322,000 $385,000 - Active Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project Alaska Power and Telephone Design Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $400,000 $460,000 - Active Port Graham Biomass Waste Heat Demo Project Port Graham Village Council Design Biomass Railbelt $75,000 $100,000 - Active Akutan Geothermal Development Project City of Akutan Design Geothermal Aleutians $2,695,000 $3,050,000 - Active St. Mary's Heat Recovery System City of St. Mary's Design Heat Recovery Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $735,200 $735,200 - Active May 8, 2015 Project Grantee Phase Resource Energy Region REF Cost Total Project Cost* © Expected Completion Status Indian Creek Hydro City of Chignik Design Hydro Bristol Bay $207,500 $207,500 - Active AVTEC Hydro Training Facility Alaska Vocational Technical Center Design Hydro Railbelt $67,500 $67,500 - Active Chenega Bay Hydro Chenega IRA Council Design Hydro Copper River/Chugach $252,000 $290,500 - Active Scammon Bay Hydro Design & Engineering City of Scammon Bay Design Hydro Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $80,723 $83,516 - Active Elfin Cove Hydro Community of Elfin Cove Utility Commission Design Hydro Southeast $347,000 $395,000 - Active Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric, Inc. Design Hydro Copper River/Chugach $277,000 $777,000 - Active Battle Creek Diversion Project Alaska Energy Authority Design Hydro Railbelt $500,000 $500,000 - Active Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Capacity Increase lliamna, Newhalen, Nondalton Electrical Coop. Design Hydro Bristol Bay $160,000 $190,000 - Active Knutson Creek Hydroelectric Project Pedro Bay Village Council Design Hydro Bristol Bay $290,000 $292,500 - Active Kake-Petersburg Intertie Kwaan Electric Transmission Intertie Cooperative Design Transmission Southeast $2,990,000 $2,990,000 - Active Atqasuk Transmission Line North Slope Borough Design Transmission North Slope $210,000 $210,000 - Active Kivalina Wind-Intertie Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Design Wind Northwest Arctic $183,350 $193,000 - Active Stebbins Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Design Wind Bering Straits $342,000 $360,000 - Active Port Heiden Wind Turbine Project Lake and Peninsula Borough Design Wind Bristol Bay $250,000 $250,000 - Active Igiugig Wind Turbine Design Igiugig Village Council Design Wind Bristol Bay $80,000 $250,000 - Active Point Hope Wind Diesel Generation Project North Slope Borough Design Wind North Slope $132,000 $146,667 - Active Wainwright Wind Turbine North Slope Borough Design Wind North Slope $132,000 $146,667 - Active Point Lay Wind Generation North Slope Borough Design Wind North Slope $132,000 $146,667 - Active Mountain Village Wind_City and Tribe Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Design Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $123,500 $130,000 - Active Lake and Peninsula Borough Wood Boilers Lake and Peninsula Borough Construction Biomass Bristol Bay $250,000 $295,000 Jun-13 Active Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump Project Cook Inlet Housing Authority Construction Heat Pumps _ Railbelt $318,300 $362,816 Dec-14 Active Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade City of Saint Paul Electric Utility Construction Heat Recovery Aleutians $98,149 $114,834 Dec-14 Active Kotzebue Electric Heat Recovery Kotzebue Electric Association Construction Heat Recovery Northwest Arctic $915,627 $1,215,627 Jan-15 Active Atka Hydro Dispatched Excess Electrical Power City of Atka Construction Heat Recovery Aleutians $115,000 $135,289 Feb-15 Active Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Recovery Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Construction Wind Bering Straits $2,465,633 $2,727,896 Jun-15 Active Chistochina Central Wood Heating Cheesh'na Tribal Council Construction Biomass Copper River/Chugach $500,000 $512,000 Jun-15 Active Akutan Hydroelectric System Repair and Upgrade City of Akutan Construction Hydro Aleutians $1,391,000 $1,491,000 Jun-15 Active Saint George Wind Farm City of St. George Construction Wind Aleutians $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Jun-15 Active St. Paul Wind Diesel Project TDX Corporation Construction Wind Aleutians $1,900,000 $2,100,000 Jun-15 Active Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Chevak Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Construction Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $240,260 $252,905 Jun-15 Active Surplus Wind Energy for Gambell Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Construction Wind Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $240,260 $252,905 Jun-15 Active Kvichak River RISEC Igiugig Village Council Construction Ocean/River —_ Bristol Bay $718,175 $718,175 Sep-15 Active Mentasta Woody Biomass Space Heating Project Mentasta Traditional Council Construction Biomass Copper River/Chugach $460,000 $510,000 Sep-15 Active New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Southwest Regional School District Construction Heat Recovery Bristol Bay $486,000 $548,000 Sep-15 Active Upper Kobuk River Biomass City of Kobuk Construction Biomass Northwest Arctic $356,424 $401,873 Oct-15 Active Wood Heating in Interior Alaska Communities Interior Regional Housing Authority Construction Biomass Railbelt $1,215,224 $1,388,995 Dec-15 Active Tanacross Woody Biomass Space Heating Project Native Village of Tanacross dba Tanacross Village Construction Biomass Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $420,000 $590,000 Dec-15 Active Allison Lake Hydro Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. Construction Hydro Copper River/Chugach $5,914,500 $11,829,000 Dec-15 Active Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Construction Hydro Railbelt $3,453,900 $6,907,800 Dec-15 Active Eagle Solar Array Project Alaska Power Company Construction Solar PV Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $118,013 $147,516 Dec-15 Active May 8, 2015 Project Buckland, Deering, Noorvik Wind Farm Huslia Water System & Clinic Wood Boiler Project Russian Mission Heat Recovery System Savoonga Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant Hoonah-IPEC Hydro Project Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric St. Mary's/ Pitka's Point Wind Fort Yukon Central Wood Heating Kenny Lake School Wood Fired Boiler Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass Heating Project Yakutat Biomass Biomass Heat for Minto Community Buildings Nunam Iqua Heat Recovery Project Haines Central Wood Heating Feasibility Study Sleetmute Heat Recovery Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project Shishmaref Heat Recovery Project Togiak Waste Heat Recovery Project Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery Project Stebbins Heat Recovery Project Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Indian River Hydroelectric Project Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Bethel Wind Farm Construction Pilot Point Wind Power & Heat Heat Recovery for Kwinhagak Heat Recovery for Marshall Heat Recovery for the Noorvik Water Treatment Plant Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Project Louden Tribal Council Renewable Energy Sitka Renewable Energy for Centennial Hall & Library Brevig Mission Water System Heat Recovery Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat Recovery Emmonak Heat Recovery System Craig Biomass Fuel Dryer Project Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery Thayer Lake Hydropower Project Cook Inlet TidGen Project Nikolski Wind Integration eS Grantee Northwest Arctic Borough Huslia Traditional Council City of Russian Mission City of Savoonga Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Chignik Lagoon Village Council Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company Copper River School District Ketchikan Gateway Borough City and Borough of Yakutat Village of Minto City of Nunam Iqua Haines Borough Sleetmute Traditional Council Tatitlek Village IRA Council City of Shishmaref City of Togiak Atmautluak Traditional Council Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Metlakatla Indian Community City of Tenakee Springs Electric Department City of King Cove City of Bethel City of Pilot Point Native Village of Kwinhagak City of Marshall City of Noorvik Haida Energy, Inc. City of Galena City and Borough of Sitka City of Brevig Mission City of Chevak City of Emmonak City of Craig Native Village of Tuntutuliak Kootznoowoo, Inc. Ocean Renewable Power Company Nikolski IRA Council Phase Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Resource Wind Biomass Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Hydro Hydro Wind Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Heat Recovery Biomass Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Transmission Hydro Hydro Wind Wind Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Hydro Biomass Geothermal Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Biomass Heat Recovery Hydro Ocean/River Wind Energy Region Northwest Arctic Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bering Straits Southeast Bristol Bay Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Copper River/Chugach Southeast Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Copper River/Chugach Bering Straits Bristol Bay Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bering Straits Southeast Southeast Aleutians Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bristol Bay Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Railbelt Aleutians * Total project cost includes the grant plus required match for the grant. In many cases this represents the true project cost. For some projects it underrepresents the total project cost. May 8, 2015 REF Cost $8,061,815 $50,000 $555,000 $425,701 $6,694,000 $2,352,700 $275,554 $2,318,255 $565,485 $620,000 $103,000 $274,800 $450,000 $1,237,400 $126,682 $265,000 $310,841 $443,030 $350,000 $1,319,088 $1,180,000 $2,988,000 $2,600,000 $2,598,320 $1,421,240 $668,350 $183,200 $985,805 $2,000,000 $3,096,898 $232,600 $731,400 $558,800 $689,300 $350,000 $455,600 $7,000,000 $2,000,000 $409,430 Total Project Cost* $8,224,315 $52,470 $587,000 $437,453 $6,694,000 $2,872,700 $309,998 $2,318,255 $565,485 $1,957,261 $335,456 $274,800 $450,000 $1,374,848 $133,349 $295,800 $327,201 $486,180 $360,500 $1,341,063 $1,180,000 $3,008,000 $3,900,000 $399,777 $1,571,240 $688,400 $189,200 $1,015,385 $2,000,000 $3,144,200 $232,600 $731,400 $558,800 $689,300 $600,000 $455,600 $7,000,000 $8,392,900 $450,930 Expected Completion Dec-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Jan-16 Jan-16 Jan-16 Jan-16 Jan-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Jun-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Jan-17 Jan-17 Jan-17 Jan-17 Jun-17 Jan-18 Jan-18 Unknown Unknown Status Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active