Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting documents 1-13-2012/= ALASKA @@i™ ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Summary of Methodology for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation January 20, 2008 Overview of Review Process Renewable Energy Fund applications were evaluated in three stages. For more detail please refer to Evaluation Guidelines in the appendices and to documents posted on the Renewable Energy Fund webpage http:/Awww.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund.html. In the first stage each application was evaluated for completeness, eligibility, and responsiveness to the request for applications (RFA). This evaluation was conducted by Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) staff. The second stage evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of the proposed projects. This stage was conducted by AEA staff with the assistance of DNR staff, outside economists, and other consultants. The third stage was a final scoring based on the specific guidelines in the RFA that was conducted by AEA staff. The scoring was done based on a number of matrices and pre-established weighting for each of the criteria. Cost of Energy (30%): Matching Funds (25%) Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%): score from stage 2 Project Readiness (8%) © Economic and Other Alaska Benefit (18%) 6. Sustainability (5%) 7. Local Support (5%) a ON'> Upon completion of the evaluation all applications were ranked by region with the final funding recommendation being made based on the number and rank of applications with each region, the cost of energy, and a balance of statewide funding. Projects may have been recommended for partial funding if they were viable but: e Documentation submitted with the application was not sufficient to justify full funding for more than one phase of a project. e Project construction was scheduled for 2010 or later, the project was expensive or higher risk, or there were competing projects for which planning is desirable e The applicant requested AEA to manage the project and the AEA program manager could confidently estimate a lower cost. e The proposal included operating costs or other costs not recommended for funding. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 1 In addition AEA adopted a maximum funding cap to provide for the ability to award more projects. Where AEA offers less than the requested amount, AEA will work with grantees to assure that the revised scope of the final grant award is consistent with the grantee’s proposal and meets the public purposes of the program. Roles of AEA Staff and the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee AEA staff requested and received input from the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee regarding the process and final funding recommendations. Following is a summary of Committee involvement. AEA staff prepared a draft RFA package including the RFA, application form, worksheet form, and a sample grant agreement in summer 2008. The Advisory Committee met on 8/22 and 8/25 to discuss the RFA package. AEA staff revised the draft and issued the finalized RFA on 9/3 taking into account the Committee’s comments. Midway through the AEA staff review of the Round 1 applications AEA met with the Committee on 11/21 to brief them on the process and how AEA was handling specific issues. Issues addressed included ensuring that grant funding to independent power producers would benefit the public appropriately, protocols for offering partial or multi- phase funding, handling competing and interacting projects, eligibility of biofuel projects, and eligibility of statewide resource assessment projects. On 12/18 during the last stages of AEA Round 1 review, AEA briefed the Committee on how AEA was addressing issues discussed in the November meeting, the draft evaluation guidelines, and schedule. Following AEA evaluation of all Round 1 applications, AEA staff and the Committee met on 1/12 to establish how to address the HB152 requirement for a statewide balance of matching funds. Based on this discussion AEA has finalized its recommendations. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 2 APPENDIX A Evaluation Guidelines and Instructions for Evaluation of RFA for Renewable Energy Fund Grant Projects General: Applications that do not comply with AS 42.45.45 and all of the material and substantial terms, conditions, and requirements of the RFA may be rejected. If an application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its application has been rejected and the basis for rejection. The Authority may waive minor requirements of the RFA that do not result ina material change in the requirements of the RFA and do not give an applicant an unfair advantage in the review process. Upon submission of the final recommendations to the Legislature the Authority will make all applications available for review on the Authority’s web site. All communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through the Grant Manager. The Executive Director is the Executive Director of AEA, Program Managers are staff at AEA who have oversight for AEA programs (e.g. biomass, hydroelectric, wind energy, geothermal, etc.). Program Managers are the subject matter technical experts, and the Grant Manager is the person responsible for overseeing the grant process for the Authority. All applications will be reviewed using the same process and criteria established in the RFA. Decisions made in each stage of the review process will be documented in writing and made a part of the grant file. If reviewers think they may have a potential conflict of interest, (financial or personal interest, such as friend or family members) they should inform their supervisor immediately of the potential nature of the conflict. Reviewers should make notes of any questions they may have about an application. Reviewers should not contact applicants directly. If reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should contact the Grant Manager. If reviewers have technical questions they should contact the Program Managers. If an application is rejected or not recommended the applicants will be sent a letter from the Grant manager explaining why their application has been rejected or not recommended. Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Manager the reasons for why the application is being rejected Notes should be made directly into the database on line. All written notes should be kept with the application file. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 3 All notes are considered public records and subject to Alaska public records act disclosure requirements. Any appeals from rejected applicants in Stage 1 or Stage 2 reviews will be directed to the Grant Manager. The Grant Manager will review the appeal with the Executive Director, Senior Program Manager, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action. Stage 1 Review Process: All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by the Authority staff to assess if the application is complete, meets the minimum submission requirements, and has adequate information to proceed to Stage 2 - Technical Evaluation. Reviewers — Grant Manager and two Senior Program Managers Criteria All criteria are scored pass/fail. Failure to meet any of these criteria results in rejection of the Application. 1. The application is submitted by an Eligible Applicant (sec 1.4). 2. The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.5). 3. A resolution or other formal authorization of the applicant's governing body is included with the application to demonstrate the applicant's commitment to the project (sec 1.4). 4. The application provides a detailed description of the phase(s) of project proposed—i.e. reconnaissance, feasibility analysis/conceptual design, final design/permitting, and/or construction (sec 2.2). 5. The application is complete in that the information provided is sufficiently responsive to the RFP to allow AEA to consider the application in the next stage of evaluation. 6. The applicant provides evidence of having the minimum technical, financial, and management capability to complete the work as proposed in the grant or a reasonable plan to obtain it. Process The Grant Manager will evaluate criteria 1-3 above. The Senior Program Managers or Program Managers will evaluate criteria 4-6 above. If it appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional data the Program Managers may make a recommendation to the Grant Manager for additional information. The Grant manager will request clarifying Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 4 information from the applicant. The applicant will have a specified amount of time to provide the requested information. Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide information that completes their application will result in the application being rejected. Applications that are determined by the Grant Manager and Program Managers and determined to be incomplete or fail to meet the minimum requirements will be reviewed by the Executive Director with the assistance of Legal or procurement staff prior to being rejected at Stage 1. Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed stage 1. Any requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants in Stage 1 will be directed to the Grant Manager. The Grant Manager will review the request with the Executive Director, Senior Program Manager, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action. Stage 2 Review Process: All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for feasibility in accordance with the criteria below. Reviewers — Program Managers - the AEA technical subject matter experts. Staff from Department of Natural Resources - technical experts providing specific review and comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and natural resource development. Economists - Contracted economist who will review cost benefit and other cost and pricing information provided for each application submitted for the purpose of providing the authority and independent assessment of the economics of the proposed project. ISER - University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research - is providing Quality Assurance review of Economic Analysis work. Senior Program Manager - Overseer of the work of the Program Managers Criteria Each of the numbered criteria below will be scored with a numerical score 1-10 and weighted per the percentages below. Criteria Weight 1. Project Management, Development, and Operation 20% a. The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 5 adequate detail. b. Project development, operation, maintenance, fuel, and other cost and savings estimates are realistic. c. The project team’s method of communicating, monitoring, and reporting development progress is described in adequate detail. d. Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable and described in adequate detail. 2. Qualifications and Experience 20% a. The applicant, partners, and contractors have sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully complete, and operate the project b. The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete and operate the project. c. The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation. d. Use of local labor and training of local labor workforce. 3. Technical Feasibility 20% a. The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis and project permits and other authorizations can reasonably be obtained. b. A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system. c. Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable. d. The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as planned. e. If a demonstration project is being proposed: e specific benefits of proposed technology are likely (such as application in other areas of .. = otate); e need for this project is shown; (and e risks of the proposed system are reasonable and warrant demonstration. 4. Economic Feasibility 20% a. The project is shown to be economically feasible b. The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of the grant-funded phase and has considered options for funding subsequent phases of the project. 5. Benefits 20% Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated. Process e Program Managers will carefully review the proposals for their assigned technology group and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria and a funding recommendation. e Aneconomist hired by AEA will review the performance and economic information and provide an independent analysis of cost and benefits of each project. The Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 6 reviewers will consider the independent analysis when scoring the economic feasibility and benefits criteria. e Reviewers will use the formula and criteria in the Scoring Matrix Guide (see below) for designated criteria in Stage 2. e Ifthe Program Manager believes they need additional information they will coordinate their request for follow-up information with the Grant Manager. The purpose of follow-up is for clarification and to help the Project Manager gain sufficient understanding of the project proposed. e Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Manager to the applicant by e-mail, Bcc to Program Manager, with a response time of 7 days or less. e Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide an adequate clarification as requested will result in the application being rejected in Stage 2. e The Senior Program Managers will meet with the Program Managers to review the applications and discuss final stage 2 scoring. Scoring per the stage 2 criteria may be adjusted based on final discussions between the Program Manager, Senior Program Managers, Economists, and Executive Director. e A final weighted “feasibility” score will be given for each application reviewed. e Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may not be recommended for funding or further review. e Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed stage 2. e The Authority will develop a preliminary list of feasible applications based on the Stage 2 review with AEA recommendations on technical and economic feasibility and a recommended funding level to be considered in the Stage 3 review. Stage 3 Review Process: The third stage of evaluation will result in the final score, ranking by region, and recommendation of projects for grant funding. The Feasibility score from Stage 2 will be automatically weighted and scored in Stage three. The average of the Economic and Public Benefit score of stage 2 will be used for initial scoring of Economic and Other Public Benefit Score. This score will be reviewed by the Program Managers. The Grant Manager, with staff assistance, will score the cost of energy, type and amount of matching funds, and local support, using the formulas and methods outlined in the Scoring Matrix Guide (Appendix B). Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 7 Two Senior Program Managers will review the scoring of the Program Managers and Grant Manager and provide a score for readiness and previous success, and sustainability. AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for the Advisory committee to review. The Advisory Committee will review the final Stage 3 scores regional ranking recommendations of the Authority. The Committee may make recommendations to assist in achieving a statewide balance but will not be rescoring based on the criteria. Reviewers — e Grant Manager (Local Support and Match Criteria) e Program Managers (i.e. specialists in hydro, wind, biomass, geothermal, ocean/river, biofuels) e Two Senior Program Managers e Executive Director of AEA. e Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations) Criteria e Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted. Criteria Weight Cost of energy per resident in the affected project area 30 relative to other areas (From Worksheet) The type and amount of matching funds and other 25 resources an applicant will commit to the project. (See formula) Project feasibility (Score from Stage 2 weighted) 20 Project readiness. How quickly the proposed work can 5 begin and be accomplished and/or success in previous | phases of project development. Economic & Other Alaska Public Benefit (such as ability to | 10 use technology in other parts of Alaska). Sustainability - Operations and Maintenance Local Support (See formula) ajo Process e Each application will be given a single weighted score. e Where more than one evaluator is scoring a specific criterion the scores of all evaluators for that criterion will be averaged. e Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Manager by e- mail, Bcc to Program Manager, with a response time of 7 days or less. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 8 e The evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to determine a more complete understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their application. (Refer to RFA Section 4 Stage 3 Review.) However given the time constraints this is not likely for this round of applications. Recommendation Guidelines e The final recommendations will be one of the following: o Recommend - Full funding per application o Recommend - Partial funding with a recommended funding amount o Donotrecommend for grant funding - (basis for not recommending to be explained) e Final AEA recommendations may also suggest specific terms or conditions be imposed on the grantee to assure the project is successful and the public receives proper benefit for the funds to be expended e Multi-phase funding guidelines o Fundall phases: Project can be constructed in 2009, and is well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk. o Fund fewer than all phases: Project construction in 2010+, not well-defined, expensive, higher risk, or there are competing projects for which planning is desirable. e¢ Competing or interactive projects guidelines o If AEA is aware of the potential for substantial interaction among proposed and/or other known projects, then recommend planning with appropriate level of analysis and public input before committing substantial funding to one or more alternatives. o Railbelt: If installed capacity > 10 MW or system transmission constraints are likely, then construction funding not recommended until after Railbelt integrated resource plan (IRP) consideration. e Partial Funding Guidelines o Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are recommended. o Exception 1: If proposal asks AEA to manage the project, and AEA thinks project can be built for less, then lower figure can be recommended. o Exception 2: Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor, fuel) not recommended for funding. o Exception 3 - AEA proposes to limit funding to a maximum dollar limit for specific areas, groups, or types of projects in order to increase the total number of projects that may be awarded and address the statewide balance of funds. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 9 Guidelines for recommendations for biofuel projects for Private vs Governmental entities o Government projects eligible for construction/equipment funding o Non-government : limited to funding recommended preconstruction activities Consideration of Resources Assessment Projects o Resource assessment associated with one or more site-specific projects is eligible for phase 2 funding. General regional or statewide assessment, not tied to particular proposed projects, is not eligible, and more appropriately done through the DNR/AEA Alaska Energy Inventory Data project. Recommendation Guidelines will be documented and a part of the grant file. Ranking of Applications and Funding Recommendations Upon completion of scoring and specific project recommendations by AEA all applications will be grouped within geographical regions, o See Map Delineating regions http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE Fund map.html Each group of applications will be ranked within their geographical region based on the final stage three score. Each application under consideration for funding will have stage three score and regional rank. A draft recommendation of projects for funding (based on available funds) will be presented to the Advisory Committee for Review along with the complete list of all projects. To be able to provide support for a maximum number of projects the maximum recommended funding per grant will be limited to: 1. $2,000,000 for Railbelt and Southeast where the Cost of Energy score is19 or less 2. $4,000,000 for all other regions and Southeast communities with Cost of Energy score 20 or greater The final list of recommended projects for funding will provide a reasonable statewide balance of funds taking into consideration the overall score, the cost of energy, the rank of projects within a region. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 10 Recommendations to the Legislature The final recommendation to the legislature will include: e Alist of recommended grants to applications based on 09 funding e Alist of recommended grants to applications based on 10 funding. e Alist of applications recommended if additional funds may be available. e Alist of applications not recommended for funding. e Alist of applications rejected as ineligible. The Final recommendation to the legislature will also contain specific information for each project as requested by the legislature and a summary of each project. Applicants may be required to provide additional information to the Legislature upon request (RFA Section 1.21). Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 11 APPENDIX B Scoring Matrix Guide General Scoring Criteria e Pass/Fail scoring means either the criteria are met or they are not. e Aweighted score for each of the criteria will calculated and each complete application will be given a total score at the end of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 review process unless the application is determined not to meet the requirements of the RFA. e Reviewers should use the following weighted scoring of criteria as a guide in addition to the specific formula scoring matrices for some criteria defined in Appendix A of these procedures. Score | Guidelines (Intent to provide a range 10 A+ | The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the criteria requirements and completely addresses them thoughtful manner. The application addresses the criteria in a manner clearly superior to other applications received. There is no need for additional follow-up with the applicant to understand how they meet the requirements of the criteria 7 B The application provides information that is generally complete and well-supported. Evaluators may still have a few questions regarding how the applicant meets the criteria but it is clear the applicant understands what is required. 5 C The application addresses the criteria in an adequate way. Meets minimum requirements under each of the criteria. Some issues may still need to be clarified prior to awarding a grant. 3 D The application information is incomplete or fails to fully address what is needed for the project or information has errors. The Authority may need more info to be able to complete the evaluation or need to resolve issues before recommending or awarding a grant. 0 F The application fails to demonstrate understanding of the criteria requirements or project proposed. Required information is poor or absent in the proposal. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 12 Stage 2, Criterion 4 Economic Benefit Review Guideline Compare AEA and Applicant B/C and determine which | Benefit / Cost (B/C) Score of the B/C ranges below are appropriate. If there is Ratio Value wide discrepancy between the two B/C ratios use Less than 0.80 0 judgment to assign a score. Reduce the score to the =>0.80 — =<0.90 3 extent that you judge that the project does not show >0.90 — =<1.00 4 that it has an adequate financing plan for completion of a ; fs >1.00 — =<1.10 5 the grant-funded phase or has not considered options 14g cee 86 6 for funding subsequent phases of the project. Scores ee — >1.50 - =<1.60 7 | >1.60 — =<1.80 8 >1.80- < 2.00 9 =>2.0 10 Stage 3 Criteria - Match Total of 25 points will be calculated as follows Type of Match 5 +| Percentage of 15 +| Total Amount of | 5 Pts Match to total Pts Match (1) Pts Grant Request Support of any kind referenced but a 01% - <5% of 4 > $1 -<$15K 1 not given a specific value IE housing Grant = offered to outside workers, administration of project without compensation Previous investment towards project | 2 =>5% - =<10% of | 6 $15K - <$100K 2 completion Grant = Another grant [State] as Match 3 >10% - =<15% of | 8 $100K <$1 mil 3 Grant = Other (Grant Fed) Or private 4 >15% - =<30% of | 11 $1 mil - <$6 mil 4 Grant Loan or Local Cash or any 5 >30% - =<49% of | 13 > $6 mil oD) documented In-kind Match Grant = > 49% of Grant 15 (1) If there are multiple types of Match that with highest value is scored. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 13 Stage 3 Criteria Local Support Total of 5 Points Available Documented unresolved issues concerning the application no points | 0 points will be given if these exist regardless of demonstrated support Resolution from city or village council 2 points Support demonstrated by local entity other than applicant 3 points Support demonstrated by two local entities other than the applicant _| 4 points Support demonstrated by three or more local entities other than the | 5 points applicant Stage 3 Criteria Cost of Energy Based on Cost of Power by Community Location Raw RCA Utility Last RE Total Reported Usefor Fund Res _ Residential RE Score Posting Description Rate Rate Fund (1-10) Anchorage 0.0893 0.0893 1.12 Juneau 0.1103 0.1103 1.38 Anchorage 0.1171 0.1171 1.46 Matanuska Valley 0.1271 0.1271 1.59 Homer-North Kachemak Bay _(0.1387 0.1387 173) Homer-South Kachemak Bay 0.1423 0.1423 1.78 Fairbanks 0.1729 0.1729 2.16 North Slope 0.1781 0.1781 2:23) Dillingham/Aleknagik PCE 0.2278 0.2278 2.85 Haines/Covenant Life PCE 0.2304 0.2302 0.2302 2.88 Skagway PCE 0.2304 0.2302 0.2302 2.88 King Cove PCE 0.2400 0.2400 3.00 Craig PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Hollis PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Hydaburg PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Klawock/Kassan PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Thorne Bay/Kasaan PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3:23 Nome PCE 0.3169 0.3169 3.96 Cordova PCE 0.3183 0.3183 3.98 Kipnuk PCE 0.5094 0.3200 0.3200 4.00 Akutan PCE 0.3230 0.3230 4.04 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 14 Unalakleet PCE Ouzinkie PCE Naknek/S.Naknek/Kng Slmn PCE Kotzebue PCE Toksook Bay PCE Tununak PCE Galena PCE Larsen Bay PCE Buckland PCE Kasigluk PCE Nunapitchuk PCE Elfin Cove PCE Chenega Bay PCE Kwethluk PCE Koyukuk PCE Manokotak PCE Shishmaref PCE Fort Yukon PCE Minto PCE Old Harbor PCE Lower Kalskag PCE Upper Kalsag PCE Togiak PCE Mt. Village PCE St. Michael PCE Shaktoolik PCE Emmonak PCE Hooper Bay PCE Elim PCE Koyuk PCE Marshall PCE Pitkas Point PCE St. Mary's/Andreafsky PCE Mekoryuk PCE Russian Mission PCE Brevig Mission PCE Chevak PCE Dot Lake/Dot Lake Village PCE 0.4708 Tetlin PCE 0.4708 0.3900 1.0406 0.3368 0.3400 0.3562 0.3605 0.3889 0.3889 0.3980 0.4000 0.4036 0.4165 0.4165 0.4200 0.4350 0.4400 0.4500 0.4500 0.4519 0.4529 0.4553 0.4606 0.4621 0.4621 0.4644 0.4666 0.4672 0.4709 0.4739 0.4761 0.4766 0.4815 0.4818 0.4820 0.4820 0.4821 0.4830 0.4878 0.4888 0.4925 0.4925 0.3368 4.21 4.21 0.3400 4.25 4.25 0.3562 4.45 4.45 0.3605 4.51 4.51 0.3889 4.86 4.86 0.3889 4.86 4.86 0.3980 4.98 4.98 0.4000 5.00 5.00 0.4036 5.05 5.05 0.4165 5:21 5.21 0.4165 5.21 5.21 0.4200 5:25 5.25 0.4350 5.44 5.44 0.4400 5.50 5.50 0.4500 5.63 5.63 0.4500 5.63 5.63 0.4519 5.65 5.65 0.4529 5.66 5.66 0.4553 5.69 5.69 0.4606 5.76 5.76 0.4621 5.78 5.78 0.4621 5.78 5.78 0.4644 5.81 5.81 0.4666 5.83 5.83 0.4672 5.84 5.84 0.4709 5.89 5.89 0.4739 5.92 5.92 0.4761 5.95 5.95 0.4766 5.96 5.96 0.4815 6.02 6.02 0.4818 6.02 6.02 0.4820 6.03 6.03 0.4820 6.03 6.03 0.4821 6.03 6.03 0.4830 6.04 6.04 0.4878 6.10 6.10 0.4888 6.11 6.11 0.4925 6.16 6.16 0.4925 6.16 6.16 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 15 Tok/Tanacross PCE Wales PCE Alakanuk PCE Eek PCE Quinhagak PCE Stebbins PCE Ekwok PCE Kwigillingok PCE Levelock PCE Koliganek PCE Nikolai PCE Platinum PCE Pilot Station PCE Savoonga PCE Nightmute PCE Kaltag PCE Central PCE Goodnews Bay PCE Selawik PCE New Stuyahok PCE Chignik Lagoon PCE Gambell PCE Nelson Lagoon PCE Tuntutuliak PCE Holy Cross PCE Huslia PCE Grayling PCE Nunam Iqua PCE Yakutat PCE Noorvik PCE Kivalina PCE Scammon Bay PCE Golovin PCE Tenakee Springs PCE Kiana PCE Nulato PCE Unalaska PCE Beaver PCE Chefornak PCE Kongiganak PCE Twin Hills PCE 0.4708 0.7399 0.4925 0.4925 0.4963 0.4987 0.4989 0.4995 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5004 0.5010 0.5041 0.5067 0.5089 0.5106 0.5114 0.5145 0.5159 0.5177 0.5200 0.5200 0.5236 0.5260 0.5283 0.5300 0.5318 0.5333 0.5368 0.5392 0.5400 0.5400 0.5413 0.5424 0.5433 0.5500 0.5500 0.5500 0.5500 0.4925 0.4925 0.4963 0.4987 0.4989 0.4995 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5004 0.5010 0.5041 0.5067 0.5089 0.5106 0.5114 0.5145 0.5159 0.5177 0.5200 0.5200 0.5236 0.5260 0.5283 0.5300 0.5318 0.5333 0.5368 0.5392 0.5400 0.5400 0.5413 0.5424 0.5433 0.5500 0.5500 0.5500 0.5500 6.16 6.16 6.20 6.23 6.24 6.24 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.26 6.26 6.30 6.33 6.36 6.38 6.39 6.43 6.45 6.47 6.50 6.50 6.55 6.58 6.60 6.63 6.65 6.67 6.71 6.74 6.75 6.75 6.77 6.78 6.79 6.88 6.88 6.88 6.88 6.16 6.16 6.20 6.23 6.24 6.24 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.26 6.26 6.30 6.33 6.36 6.38 6.39 6.43 6.45 6.47 6.50 6.50 6.55 6.58 6.60 6.63 6.65 6.67 6.71 6.74 6.75 6.75 6.77 6.78 6.79 6.88 6.88 6.88 6.88 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 16 Atka PCE Anvik PCE Teller PCE Tanana PCE Kotlik PCE Takotna PCE Shageluk PCE Chitina PCE Bethel/Oscarville PCE Naukati PCE Akiak PCE Akiachak PCE Karluk PCE Diomede PCE Napaskiak PCE Pedro Bay PCE Tuluksak PCE Nikolski PCE White Mountain PCE Manley Hot Springs PCE lliamna/Newhalen/Nondalton PCE Igiugig PCE Coffman Cove PCE McGrath PCE Sand Point PCE Hughes PCE Angoon PCE Chilkat Valley PCE Hoonah PCE Kake PCE Klukwan PCE Deering PCE Chignik PCE Atmautluak PCE St. Paul PCE Eagle/Eagle Village PCE Whale Pass PCE Napakiak PCE Circle PCE Chistochina PCE 0.5962 0.5251 0.5407 0.9017 0.5471 0.5216 0.6008 0.8354 0.8354 0.8354 0.8354 0.8354 0.5816 0.5891 0.5572 0.6601 0.6552 0.5520 0.5603 0.5614 0.5693 0.5712 0.5810 0.5813 0.5850 0.5972 0.5995 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6010 0.6024 0.6030 0.6045 0.6078 0.6091 0.6100 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6215 0.6270 0.6400 0.6400 0.6453 0.6578 0.6601 0.6700 0.6856 0.5520 0.5603 0.5614 0.5693 0.5712 0.5810 0.5813 0.5850 0.5972 0.5995 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6010 0.6024 0.6030 0.6045 0.6078 0.6091 0.6100 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6215 0.6270 0.6400 0.6400 0.6453 0.6578 0.6601 0.6700 0.6856 6.90 7.00 7.02 ae12: 7.14 7.26 27 eo 7.47 7.49 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 751 7253) 7.54 7.56 7.60 7.61 7.63 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 Tau, 7.84 8.00 8.00 8.07 8.22 8.25 8.38 8.57 6.90 7.00 7.02 gene 7.14 7.26 7.27 7.31 7.47 7.49 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.51 7.53 7.54 7.56 7.60 7.61 7.63 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.77 7.84 8.00 8.00 8.07 8.22 8.25 8.38 8.57 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 17 Kokhanok Bay PCE Northway/Northway Village PCE Bettles/Evansville PCE Port Alsworth PCE Cold Bay PCE Newtok PCE Shungnak PCE Slana PCE Noatak PCE Tatitlek PCE Gustavus PCE Chuathbaluk PCE Crooked Creek PCE Red Devil PCE Sleetmute PCE Stony River PCE Mentasta PCE Allakaket/Alatna PCE Aniak PCE Healy Lake PCE Ambler PCE Ruby PCE Egegik PCE Stevens Village PCE Lime Village PCE 0.6261 0.6213 0.9850 0.6082 1.2277 0.8191 0.8191 0.8191 0.8191 0.8191 0.7178 0.7166 0.6934 0.7541 1.5128 1.5156 0.6900 0.6915 0.6921 0.7022 0.7024 0.7200 0.7364 0.7452 0.7572 0.7600 0.7669 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7750 0.7805 0.8013 0.8090 0.8259 0.9800 0.9841 1.0700 1.1700 0.6900 0.6915 0.6921 0.7022 0.7024 0.7200 0.7364 0.7452 0.7572 0.7600 0.7669 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7750 0.7805 0.8013 0.8090 0.8259 0.9800 0.9841 1.0700 1.1700 8.63 8.63 8.64 8.64 8.65 8.65 8.78 8.78 8.78 8.78 9.00 9.00 9.21 9.21 9.32 9.32 9.47 9.47 9.50 9.50 9.59 9.59 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.76 9.76 10.02 10.00 10.11 10.00 10.32 10.00 12.25 10.00 12.30 10.00 13.38 10.00 14.63 10.00 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20, 2008 Page 18 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13, 2012 — AEA Aspen Room 10:00am to 2:00 pm MINUTES 1. Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 10:03 a.m., with Chairman Vince Beltrami presiding. 2. Roll Call Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants Chairman Vince Beltrami Sara Fisher-Goad Denali Daniels, Denali Commission Jodi Mitchell Sandra Moller Julie Estey, ACEP Chris Rose Peter Crimp Gene Strong, IPEC Board Member Senator Lyman Hoffman Devany Plentovich Richard George, IPEC Board Member Brad Reeve Jim Strandberg Floyd Kookesh, Kootznoowoo, Inc. Wyn Menafee Richard Stromberg Clinton White, STG, Inc. Rep. Bill Thomas (phone) David Lockard Brian Bjorkquist, DOL Kirk Warren Brian Hirsch, NREL Alaska Josh Craft Gwen Holdmann, ACEP (phone) Jim Vail Chris Badger, VEIC PM (phone) Helen Traylor Jim Griffith (phone) Audrey Alstrom Emily Binnian Alaina Hawley (Student Mentor) Shauna Howell May Clark 3. Public Comments Gene Strong, resident of Haines, AK and non-profit IPEC (Inside Passage Electric Cooperative) board member, requested AEA’s reconsideration of $170,000 funding for the Walker Lake Hydro Project feasibility. He said at the time the application was submitted by (IPEC), much information was not revealed to AEA; specifically, the utility lines are now in place within two miles of the hydro project. He said they were unaware of an appeal deadline. He said the project is viable with the potential of producing 1.5 MW and could save up to $12 M in diesel costs. Fish & Game and miners support the project. 4. Agenda Comments The Agenda was approved as amended. a REFAC Minutes 1-13-12 Page 1 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes MOTION: Mr. Rose moved to approve the meeting minutes from the November 22, 2011 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded by Ms. Mitchell. The minutes were unanimously approved. 6. Review AEA Round 5 Recommendations 7. Discussion of Recommendations, Geographic Spreading Mr. Crimp distributed a two-page Summary of Allocations to date from Rounds 1 to Round 4 and 5. They will be sent out to the distribution list. Page one showed a cumulative allocation of funding from rounds one through four totaling $186.9 M and representing $150 M from rounds one through three, plus a round four allocation of $36.9 M. The budget was $26.6 M with the idea that we would reallocate earlier funds to pick up the additional $10 M. We are recommending 41 projects at $43.3 M. Senator Hoffman stated the intent of the legislation was to get energy projects to those areas of the state that have the highest energy costs. When the additional funding is put in to meet the 50%, it’s misleading and does not meet the intent of the legislation. Ms. Mitchell said IPEC received significant funding under the REF, however, categorizing IPEC with an average cost of power at 14 cents ($/kWh) is not fair. They are nowhere near that and it should be shown differently. Mr. Rose referred to Senator Hoffman’s request at the last meeting to show funding by community rather than by region. Mr. Crimp said that has been done. Mr. Rose said part of the issue is that we are not getting quality projects from some of the regions, and technical assistance should be a priority. Mr. Crimp said individual project selection is based on regional allocations and on the average cost of energy. In response to Senator Hoffman’s concerns, he said we have just not seen proposals from that region. Ms. Mitchell said it’s still misleading and makes it look like we (Southeast Alaska) are being overfunded. Mr. Rose said AEA is doing a very good job and huge demands for the program exist and improvements have been made. He said Senator Hoffman’s statements are crucial and agreed the highest cost areas are not submitting projects. Senator Hoffman said if the policy isn’t there, that there should be a legislative request this year for funding so AEA could get it done as nothing has been done to rectify the problem acknowledged three years ago. He said the villages are not going to do it. The (REF) program is a success except for that area. Mr. Reeve said proposers lack assistance and technical support to follow program criteria. He said we need to find a way to address the Senator’s concerns, perhaps with a separate appropriation. Senator Hoffman said residents are paying $9/gallon for fuel in the lowest income areas of the state. It is incumbent on the program administrators to find out how those people can get assistance. The current projects are wonderful and are assisting the State, but the intent again is to help the high cost areas of the state. The program looks good on paper, but the high cost areas aren’t getting help. Mr. Rose said it’s a systemic problem, having to do with education and workplace development too. We need people to run and maintain the projects. It will take a lot of cohesive action by the state and other agencies beyond AEA to make it work. Representative Thomas said he is aware the funding can’t meet all the demands and through the direct appropriation process has been working with the villages to reduce their energy costs. Senator Hoffman said he is not trying to change what is being recommended. Mr. Crimp said aggressive energy planning and project development is needed in rural areas. Senator Hoffman asked where the request was for supporting this work; if it’s needed he doesn’t see it. ra NN me RN ATR a tn SS En A AR Rat Fe Re RRA REFAC Minutes 1-13-12 Page 2 Ms. Fisher-Goad said AEA has requested continuance of energy planning with Sandra Moller, AEA Deputy Director for REG, heading up the effort and has discussed holding regional meetings. We are aware of all of the issues discussed so far, including current programs and others we could combine, such as the bulk fuel and RPSU for communities that want renewable projects and getting them the technical assistance. She said Senator Hoffman’s comments will be shared with the AEA Board of Directors and the Administration. Mr. Stromberg said AEA previously offered assistance to some communities to develop wind programs and the quality of the submissions were good and there are improvements in some of the communities. Senator Hoffman asked about the status of the caps. Mr. Crimp confirmed the caps remain at $4 M for low cost areas and $8 M for high cost areas. AEA received a number of appeals and requests for reconsideration, for example, Kootznoowoo was initially recommended against funding however, based on additional information provided, AEA decided to proceed with recommending the Thayer Lake project. Ms. Mitchell introduced Mr. Floyd Kookesh, Board Chairman, Kootznoowoo, Inc. Mr. Reeve said it seemed some of the matches were lower than were proposed in the past. Mr. Rose said a major concern is that some of the communities don’t have match funds and maybe we could consider a different match system. Senator Hoffman said he disagrees with AEA’s awarding the Railbelt $12 M at 19 cents/kWh. He said he agreed with Ms. Mitchell’s comment that the Southeast number should also be amended since many of their communities have high diesel costs — reiterating, the intent is to get those high cost areas down and not to get the low areas lower. Mr. Crimp said the RFA and Legislature establishes the rules. We have not seen good quality projects come out of the rural areas and all recommended projects warrant funding. There have been many biomass projects this time around. Mr. Rose shared the frustration of not getting the quality projects we want, however, he said we cannot fund projects that are not quality and will fail. We need good projects and if there’s a need for more technical assistance, then we should ask for it. Mr. Hirsch said we will be talking about that in the START (Strategic Technical Assistance Response Team) program, which will provide three to five communities with technical assistance at the outset. AEA and the Denali Commission support the project. Mr. Crimp said we need to focus on all the projects the REF has already successfully supported. There are many construction projects and perhaps at the next meeting we could look at progression of the entire program. Senator Hoffman agreed. He said the Ms. Mitchell concern should also be addressed. In the weatherization program, allocations were done by region, which was a better distribution of funds than the REF. Ms. Fisher-Goad said AEA will be providing a program summary to legislature. Senator Hoffman asked how there can be regional distribution when four projects receive $20 M, and the other 11 regions get only $4 M. ———————————————— REFAC Minutes 1-13-12 Page 3 Ms. Fisher-Goad said we discussed if a project was estimated over $10 M, it could possibly be under a separate RFA (program evaluation issue). She said REFAC needs to advise AEA about future recommendations, especially in the area of regional spreading. Senator Hoffman pointed out that one fourth of the money is going to areas with less than 20 cents/kWh and that’s not following legislative intent. Mr. Rose said we’d like to see the high cost areas get more money, but we have to make sure they are good projects through technical assistance. If we can figure out ways to get people into zero energy homes, a lot of money can be saved. We should focus on housing as well as on generation. Ms. Fisher-Goad said she appreciated the conversation. She pointed out the recommended projects are ranked through the RFA process. If the REFAC is contemplating some type of recommendation on regional spread, they need to clarify what AEA is to do, as there are legitimate concerns associated with the list. Mr. Rose said we should not move it around just to fund bad projects and it would be helpful to see how many feasibility or design projects proceed to construction and how much funding will be needed. Ms. Fisher-Goad said the analysis by region has been done. Mr. Reeve said we’ve developed a good process over time and said a lot of the discussion is about weighting. We should look at the weighting we have and give more credence to those extremely high cost areas. We need good solid projects and a plan to get technical assistance to the communities. Reconnaissance type work could be done by AEA; NREL has done half the job and the state knows what energy plan has been developed to date and what available resources are in an area. Feasibility could be accomplished by state and regional planning. To reevaluate our judging criteria and sticking with the same system makes more sense. We should not start over. Our criterion is understandable and there are ways to balance that to meet the goals within our structure. We should first review where we’re at on the weighting and then maybe look at its redistribution to achieve a criterion that is skewed — allowing us to meet the intent of the legislation. Mr. Crimp reviewed the current weighting criterion: 1) Cost of Energy (25%) 2) Matching Funds (20%) 3) Economic & Technical Feasibility (20%) 4) Project Readiness (10%) 5) Public & Economic Benefit (15%) 6) Sustainability (5%) 7) Local Support (5%) He distributed and reviewed the following documents requested by the REFAC at the last meeting: 1) Number of REF Applications & Recommended Funding by Cost of Energy Score, Rounds 1-5; 2) Percentage of REF Applications & Recommended Funding by Cost of Energy Score, Rounds 1-5; 3) Regional Summary Round 5 Ranking at the $25 M allocation; and 4) Regional Summary Round 5 Ranking at the $43.1 M allocation. Senator Hoffman pointed out that in five rounds the lower cost energy areas received more funding than the high cost areas — he said the intent of the legislation is not working. Mr. Rose pointed out that the legislation is for projects, not technical assistance, but agreed there should be a funding mechanism for that. Ms. Fisher-Goad said per the statute, the legislature directed AEA to develop three primary weighting criteria and projects in high cost areas have significant weight per match. Another significant weight is in regional spreading. AEA has attempted to follow legislative intent. Senator Hoffman said it wasn’t AEA, but legislature that set the split on the weighting. He said the problem is the low cost areas are getting most of the funding and the high cost areas are not and will never have match funds. Mr. Reeve said we have shown the program is successful and we should try and get the resource tools, REFAC Minutes 1-13-12 Page 4 regional trainers, etc. to the areas that need them. Mr. Rose said we can do more energy efficiency right now. Chairman Beltrami said if rescoring wouldn’t take that long and if higher cost areas would rise up a bit as a result, maybe we should rescore now and not wait till Round 5. Mr. Rose said match credit should be given to high cost energy areas and we should not penalize them for not having match funds. Mr. Reeve agreed. Senator Hoffman said adjustments should be submitted to legislature and they can make a fair distribution, as it’s not being done (here). Ms. Mitchell said she supports increasing weighting on cost of energy and that IPEC doesn’t have cash for match funds. The REFAC revised the weighting criterion as follows: 1) Cost of Energy (35%) 2) Matching Funds (15%) 3) Economic & Technical Feasibility (20%) 4) Project Readiness (5%) 5) Public & Economic Benefit (15%) 6) Sustainability (5%) 7) Local Support (5%) Lunch break — 12:10 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. The REFAC will return to this agenda item when the adjusted weighting criterion is completed. 8. REF Program Evaluation: Introduce VEIC team Julie Estey, Business Director, Alaska Center for Energy & Power, University of Alaska Fairbanks, said that although the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) is managing the program evaluation project, the ACEP was sub-awarded to provide the Alaska concept. Chris Badger, project manager, participating via teleconference said VEIC is a Vermont non-profit experienced in both valuating programs and administering energy efficiency programs. He said the process evaluation looks at the REF for questions and issues raised and at the overall process, recommendations for AEA and what’s happened so far and program goals. Stakeholders will be identified, program documentation will be reviewed, as well as cost of energy issues and a qualitative program review with interviews and surveys will be developed. Ms. Estey said they will also look at how the REF is meeting legislative intent by translating the regulations, RFA, how outreach happens and support mechanisms, scoring and recommendations and legislative approval process and AEA’s involvement in grant administration. A letter will be sent out to the mailing lists and list serves introducing the program and an on-line survey will be conducted where an option will be provided for a personal interview. On January 23, 2012 the VEIC team will conduct phone and personal interviews, as well as visit rural Alaska. Mr. Badger said the first draft process evaluation should be done by February 15, 2012 and the final report should be completed in the April first-June 30 timeframe. They will look at comparisons to programs in other states and Canadian provinces. Ms. Mitchell pointed out the Alaska Power Association will be holding a Legislative Fly-In January 25 and 26, 2012 and many managers will be in attendance. Ms. Estey said they were aware of that. 9. NREL/Denali Commission START Program Denali Daniels, Manager of the Energy Program for the Denali Commission said their primary focus has been on rural Alaska in upgrading fuel facilities and rural power system upgrades. They have also been ——————————————————————— REFAC Minutes 1-13-12 Page 5 working on integrating renewable alternative energy in rural areas and have invested seed funding in the REF and EETF. The REFAC has evolved into the START (Strategic Technical Assistance Response Team) Program. The Denali Commission’s Energy Advisory Committee (DCEAC) recommended $300,000 funding to renewable energy technical assistance in the first work plan draft, partnering with the DOE/NREL. Mr. Hirsch said the DOE/NREL is based in Golden, CO and he is the Alaska Project Leader in Anchorage. He said the START Program began as DOE’s newly-created office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (Indian Energy). They asked for program ideas and NREL suggested a rural technical assistance program. Applications for technical assistance from the communities are due January 15, 2012. They expect 20- 30 submissions with five selected by the review committee about January 31 and February 1. On behalf of REFAC, Mr. Rose will assist in the application review. The Denali Commission and the Office of Indian Energy will make the final determination on which communities will receive the assistance. Other agencies involved in the program include AHFC, RURALCAP, EPA, DOI, USDA and ANTHC. The technical assistance process will take place in the next six to eight months and hopefully the selected communities will be prepared to submit REF application(s) in the fall. Return to Agenda Item 6 - Review AEA Round 5 Recommendations Mr. Crimp reviewed the ranking spreadsheet with the adjusted weighted scores. The differences were not significant. In terms of energy sources, the highest heat recovery projects are the highest rated projects mostly due to excellent benefit to cost ratio and technical feasibility. Senator Hoffman agreed the changes were minor, but said maybe the next go around we could reevaluate the caps, with higher caps given to higher cost areas. AEA should make those recommendations. Mr. Reeve said the cap level is based on the amount funded and we should think about it that way. Senator Hoffman said the legislature is reducing the amount of funding and AEA needs to analyze whether we are going to reach the state’s goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025. He said short-funding would cause an unrealistic goal. Mr. Crimp said the potential to set aside funds for construction versus pre-construction activity was raised by Ms. Fisher-Goad, which may be easier to work with, as the caps generally apply to construction. Mr. Rose said if this is about future changes, it may be possible to give each region their share to spend at their own pace over time, based on the proposed regional plan. Mr. Crimp said the REF is a project financing tool, however, identifying a full set of good projects to be financed have eluded us and the regional energy plans are the best way to accomplish that since they address energy efficiency too. Ms. Fisher-Goad said we are keeping track of the grantees’ progress, which could make funding available for reallocation if they are not progressing on a project. 10. Round 6 Funding Discussion Mr. Rose said a Round VI would be possible if the program doesn’t end until June 30, 2013. Program dates, timing and funding were discussed. Ms. Fisher-Goad said this has not yet been discussed with DOL, but it’s assumed we wouldn’t have a program in 2013. Senator Hoffman said he discussed this with Representative Thomas and they each intend to introduce (a bill) in their respective finance committees and see them all the way through the process. Chairman Beltrami referred to the IPEC Walker Lake Hydro issue, stating AEA will continue to assist with the project. Ms. Fisher-Goad said she spoke with IPEC and they discussed other project options. She noted the draft Southeast Integrated Resource Plan is out for comment and it contains ——z——£E{E_——£E_{[_—————————————————————————————— REFAC Minutes 1-13-12 Page 6 recommendations for additional reconnaissance of Southeast projects, including Walker Lake. She said out of 65 projects not recommended for funding, nine appeals were received. Ms. Mitchell said she was out of the office for three weeks in December and did not know how they were notified of the appeal deadline. Ms. Fisher-Goad said the notification was sent by email to 65 applicants for project not recommended for funding as per usual. Staff will check on where the email was sent. Mr. Reeve said it would be helpful to look through the projects and identify at what stage the projects are to get them to feasibility and through the legislative process. 11. Next Meeting Date The next meeting will be held in conjunction with the Emerging Energy Technology Fund Advisory Committee (EETFAC) and the AEA board, possibly the last week of February. The board will be polled for availability and future board meetings will be held off site. Mr. Crimp suggested an update on EETF projects at the next meeting. He said AEA is preparing a project status report for Legislature, which the REFAC will be copied. Chairman Beltrami thanked staff for their support. 12. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 1:44 p.m. en nm a RE A A SESS a haa REFAC Minutes 1-13-12 Page 7 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13, 2012 — AEA Aspen Room 10:00am to 2:00 pm DRAFT MINUTES 1. Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 10:03 a.m., with Chairman Vince Beltrami presiding. 2. Roll Call Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants Chairman Vince Beltrami Sara Fisher-Goad Denali Daniels, Denali Commission Jodi Mitchell Sandra Moller Julie Estey, ACEP Chris Rose Peter Crimp Gene Strong, IPEC Board Member Senator Lyman Hoffman Devany Plentovich Richard George, IPEC Board Member Brad Reeve Jim Strandberg Floyd Kookesh, Kootznoowoo, Inc. Wyn Menafee Richard Stromberg Clinton White, STG, Inc. Rep. Bill Thomas (phone) David Lockard Brian Bjorkquist, DOL Kirk Warren Brian Hirsch, NREL Alaska Josh Craft Gwen Holdmann, ACEP (phone) Jim Vail Chris Badger, VEIC PM (phone) Helen Traylor Jim Griffith (phone) Audrey Alstrom Emily Binnian Alaina Hawley (Student Mentor) Shauna Howell May Clark 3. Public Comments Gene Strong, resident of Haines, AK and non-profit IPEC (Inside Passage Electric Cooperative) board member, requested AEA’s reconsideration of $170,000 funding for the Walker Lake Hydro Project feasibility. He said at the time the application was submitted by (IPEC), much information was not revealed to AEA; specifically, the utility lines are now in place within two miles of the hydro project. He said they were unaware of an appeal deadline. He said the project is viable with the potential of producing 1.5 MW and could save up to $12 M in diesel costs. Fish & Game and miners support the project. 4. Agenda Comments The Agenda was approved as amended. ————————————————————————————— REFAC Draft Minutes 1-13-12 Page 1 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes MOTION: Mr. Rose moved to approve the meeting minutes from the November 22, 2011 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded by Ms. Mitchell. The minutes were unanimously approved. 6. Review AEA Round 5 Recommendations 7. Discussion of Recommendations, Geographic Spreading Mr. Crimp distributed a two-page Summary of Allocations to date from Rounds 1 to Round 4 and 5. They will be sent out to the distribution list. Page one showed a cumulative allocation of funding from rounds one through four totaling $186.9 M and representing $150 M from rounds one through three, plus a round four allocation of $36.9 M. The budget was $26.6 M with the idea that we would reallocate earlier funds to pick up the additional $10 M. We are recommending 41 projects at $43.3 M. Senator Hoffman stated the intent of the legislation was to get energy projects to those areas of the state that have the highest energy costs. When the additional funding is put in to meet the 50%, it’s misleading and does not meet the intent of the legislation. Ms. Mitchell said IPEC received significant funding under the REF, however, categorizing IPEC with an average cost of power at 14 cents ($/kWh) is not fair. They are nowhere near that and it should be shown differently. Mr. Rose referred to Senator Hoffman’s request at the last meeting to show funding by community rather than by region. Mr. Crimp said that has been done. Mr. Rose said part of the issue is that we are not getting quality projects from some of the regions, and technical assistance should be a priority. Mr. Crimp said individual project selection is based on regional allocations and on the average cost of energy. In response to Senator Hoffman’s concerns, he said we have just not seen proposals from that region. Ms. Mitchell said it’s still misleading and makes it look like we (Southeast Alaska) are being overfunded. Mr. Rose said AEA is doing a very good job and huge demands for the program exist and improvements have been made. He said Senator Hoffman’s statements are crucial and agreed the highest cost areas are not submitting projects. Senator Hoffman said if the policy isn’t there, that there should be a legislative request this year for funding so AEA could get it done as nothing has been done to rectify the problem acknowledged three years ago. He said the villages are not going to do it. The (REF) program is a success except for that area. Mr. Reeve said proposers lack assistance and technical support to follow program criteria. He said we need to find a way to address the Senator’s concerns, perhaps with a separate appropriation. Senator Hoffman said residents are paying $9/gallon for fuel in the lowest income areas of the state. It is incumbent on the program administrators to find out how those people can get assistance. The current projects are wonderful and are assisting the State, but the intent again is to help the high cost areas of the state. The program looks good on paper, but the high cost areas aren’t getting help. Mr. Rose said it’s a systemic problem, having to do with education and workplace development too. We need people to run and maintain the projects. It will take a lot of cohesive action by the state and other agencies beyond AEA to make it work. Representative Thomas said he is aware the funding can’t meet all the demands and through the direct appropriation process has been working with the villages to reduce their energy costs. Senator Hoffman said he is not trying to change what is being recommended. Mr. Crimp said aggressive energy planning and project development is needed in rural areas. Senator Hoffman asked where the request was for supporting this work; if it’s needed he doesn’t see it. EE REFAC Draft Minutes 1-13-12 Page 2 Ms. Fisher-Goad said AEA has requested continuance of energy planning with Sandra Moller, AEA Deputy Director for REG, heading up the effort and has discussed holding regional meetings. We are aware of all of the issues discussed so far, including current programs and others we could combine, such as the bulk fuel and RPSU for communities that want renewable projects and getting them the technical assistance. She said Senator Hoffman’s comments will be shared with the AEA Board of Directors and the Administration. Mr. Stromberg said AEA previously offered assistance to some communities to develop wind programs and the quality of the submissions were good and there are improvements in some of the communities. Senator Hoffman asked about the status of the caps. Mr. Crimp confirmed the caps remain at $4 M for low cost areas and $8 M for high cost areas. AEA received a number of appeals and requests for reconsideration, for example, Kootznoowoo was initially recommended against funding however, based on additional information provided, AEA decided to proceed with recommending the Thayer Lake project. Ms. Mitchell introduced Mr. Floyd Kookesh, Board Chairman, Kootznoowoo, Inc. Mr. Reeve said it seemed some of the matches were lower than were proposed in the past. Mr. Rose said a major concern is that some of the communities don’t have match funds and maybe we could consider a different match system. Senator Hoffman said he disagrees with AEA’s awarding the Railbelt $12 M at 19 cents/kWh. He said he agreed with Ms. Mitchell’s comment that the Southeast number should also be amended since many of their communities have high diesel costs — reiterating, the intent is to get those high cost areas down and not to get the low areas lower. Mr. Crimp said the RFA and Legislature establishes the rules. We have not seen good quality projects come out of the rural areas and all recommended projects warrant funding. There have been many biomass projects this time around. Mr. Rose shared the frustration of not getting the quality projects we want, however, he said we cannot fund projects that are not quality and will fail. We need good projects and if there’s a need for more technical assistance, then we should ask for it. Mr. Hirsch said we will be talking about that in the START (Strategic Technical Assistance Response Team) program, which will provide three to five communities with technical assistance at the outset. AEA and the Denali Commission support the project. Mr. Crimp said we need to focus on all the projects the REF has already successfully supported. There are many construction projects and perhaps at the next meeting we could look at progression of the entire program. Senator Hoffman agreed. He said the Ms. Mitchell concern should also be addressed. In the weatherization program, allocations were done by region, which was a better distribution of funds than the REF. Ms. Fisher-Goad said AEA will be providing a program summary to legislature. Senator Hoffman asked how there can be regional distribution when four projects receive $20 M, and the other 11 regions get only $4 M. REFAC Draft Minutes 1-13-12 Page 3 Ms. Fisher-Goad said we discussed if a project was estimated over $10 M, it could possibly be under a separate RFA (program evaluation issue). She said REFAC needs to advise AEA about future recommendations, especially in the area of regional spreading. Senator Hoffman pointed out that one fourth of the money is going to areas with less than 20 cents/kWh and that’s not following legislative intent. Mr. Rose said we’d like to see the high cost areas get more money, but we have to make sure they are good projects through technical assistance. If we can figure out ways to get people into zero energy homes, a lot of money can be saved. We should focus on housing as well as on generation. Ms. Fisher-Goad said she appreciated the conversation. She pointed out the recommended projects are ranked through the RFA process. If the REFAC is contemplating some type of recommendation on regional spread, they need to clarify what AEA is to do, as there are legitimate concerns associated with the list. Mr. Rose said we should not move it around just to fund bad projects and it would be helpful to see how many feasibility or design projects proceed to construction and how much funding will be needed. Ms. Fisher-Goad said the analysis by region has been done. Mr. Reeve said we’ve developed a good process over time and said a lot of the discussion is about weighting. We should look at the weighting we have and give more credence to those extremely high cost areas. We need good solid projects and a plan to get technical assistance to the communities. Reconnaissance type work could be done by AEA; NREL has done half the job and the state knows what energy plan has been developed to date and what available resources are in an area. Feasibility could be accomplished by state and regional planning. To reevaluate our judging criteria and sticking with the same system makes more sense. We should not start over. Our criterion is understandable and there are ways to balance that to meet the goals within our structure. We should first review where we’re at on the weighting and then maybe look at its redistribution to achieve a criterion that is skewed — allowing us to meet the intent of the legislation. Mr. Crimp reviewed the current weighting criterion: 1) Cost of Energy (25%) 2) Matching Funds (20%) 3) Economic & Technical Feasibility (20%) 4) Project Readiness (10%) 5) Public & Economic Benefit (15%) 6) Sustainability (5%) 7) Local Support (5%) He distributed and reviewed the following documents requested by the REFAC at the last meeting: 1) Number of REF Applications & Recommended Funding by Cost of Energy Score, Rounds 1-5; 2) Percentage of REF Applications & Recommended Funding by Cost of Energy Score, Rounds 1-5; 3) Regional Summary Round 5 Ranking at the $25 M allocation; and 4) Regional Summary Round 5 Ranking at the $43.1 M allocation. Senator Hoffman pointed out that in five rounds the lower cost energy areas received more funding than the high cost areas — he said the intent of the legislation is not working. Mr. Rose pointed out that the legislation is for projects, not technical assistance, but agreed there should be a funding mechanism for that. Ms. Fisher-Goad said per the statute, the legislature directed AEA to develop three primary weighting criteria and projects in high cost areas have significant weight per match. Another significant weight is in regional spreading. AEA has attempted to follow legislative intent. Senator Hoffman said it wasn’t AEA, but legislature that set the split on the weighting. He said the problem is the low cost areas are getting most of the funding and the high cost areas are not and will never have match funds. Mr. Reeve said we have shown the program is successful and we should try and get the resource tools, ss ee ——————— REFAC Draft Minutes 1-13-12 Page 4 regional trainers, etc. to the areas that need them. Mr. Rose said we can do more energy efficiency right now. Chairman Beltrami said if rescoring wouldn’t take that long and if higher cost areas would rise up a bit as a result, maybe we should rescore now and not wait till Round 5. Mr. Rose said match credit should be given to high cost energy areas and we should not penalize them for not having match funds. Mr. Reeve agreed. Senator Hoffman said adjustments should be submitted to legislature and they can make a fair distribution, as it’s not being done (here). Ms. Mitchell said she supports increasing weighting on cost of energy and that IPEC doesn’t have cash for match funds. The REFAC revised the weighting criterion as follows: 1) Cost of Energy (35%) 2) Matching Funds (15%) 3) Economic & Technical Feasibility (20%) 4) Project Readiness (5%) 5) Public & Economic Benefit (15%) 6) Sustainability (5%) 7) Local Support (5%) Lunch break — 12:10 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. The REFAC will return to this agenda item when the adjusted weighting criterion is completed. 8. REF Program Evaluation: Introduce VEIC team Julie Estey, Business Director, Alaska Center for Energy & Power, University of Alaska Fairbanks, said that although the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) is managing the program evaluation project, the ACEP was sub-awarded to provide the Alaska concept. Chris Badger, project manager, participating via teleconference said VEIC is a Vermont non-profit experienced in both valuating programs and administering energy efficiency programs. He said the process evaluation looks at the REF for questions and issues raised and at the overall process, recommendations for AEA and what’s happened so far and program goals. Stakeholders will be identified, program documentation will be reviewed, as well as cost of energy issues and a qualitative program review with interviews and surveys will be developed. Ms. Estey said they will also look at how the REF is meeting legislative intent by translating the regulations, RFA, how outreach happens and support mechanisms, scoring and recommendations and legislative approval process and AEA’s involvement in grant administration. A letter will be sent out to the mailing lists and list serves introducing the program and an on-line survey will be conducted where an option will be provided for a personal interview. On January 23, 2012 the VEIC team will conduct phone and personal interviews, as well as visit rural Alaska. Mr. Badger said the first draft process evaluation should be done by February 15, 2012 and the final report should be completed in the April first-June 30 timeframe. They will look at comparisons to programs in other states and Canadian provinces. Ms. Mitchell pointed out the Alaska Power Association will be holding a Legislative Fly-In January 25 and 26, 2012 and many managers will be in attendance. Ms. Estey said they were aware of that. 9. NREL/Denali Commission START Program Denali Daniels, Manager of the Energy Program for the Denali Commission said their primary focus has been on rural Alaska in upgrading fuel facilities and rural power system upgrades. They have also been as REFAC Draft Minutes 1-13-12 Page 5 working on integrating renewable alternative energy in rural areas and have invested seed funding in the REF and EETF. The REFAC has evolved into the START (Strategic Technical Assistance Response Team) Program. The Denali Commission’s Energy Advisory Committee (DCEAC) recommended $300,000 funding to renewable energy technical assistance in the first work plan draft, partnering with the DOE/NREL. Mr. Hirsch said the DOE/NREL is based in Golden, CO and he is the Alaska Project Leader in Anchorage. He said the START Program began as DOE’s newly-created office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (Indian Energy). They asked for program ideas and NREL suggested a rural technical assistance program. Applications for technical assistance from the communities are due January 15, 2012. They expect 20- 30 submissions with five selected by the review committee about January 31 and February 1. On behalf of REFAC, Mr. Rose will assist in the application review. The Denali Commission and the Office of Indian Energy will make the final determination on which communities will receive the assistance. Other agencies involved in the program include AHFC, RURALCAP, EPA, DOI, USDA and ANTHC. The technical assistance process will take place in the next six to eight months and hopefully the selected communities will be prepared to submit REF application(s) in the fall. Return to Agenda Item 6 - Review AEA Round 5 Recommendations Mr. Crimp reviewed the ranking spreadsheet with the adjusted weighted scores. The differences were not significant. In terms of energy sources, the highest heat recovery projects are the highest rated projects mostly due to excellent benefit to cost ratio and technical feasibility. Senator Hoffman agreed the changes were minor, but said maybe the next go around we could reevaluate the caps, with higher caps given to higher cost areas. AEA should make those recommendations. Mr. Reeve said the cap level is based on the amount funded and we should think about it that way. Senator Hoffman said the legislature is reducing the amount of funding and AEA needs to analyze whether we are going to reach the state’s goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025. He said short-funding would cause an unrealistic goal. Mr. Crimp said the potential to set aside funds for construction versus pre-construction activity was raised by Ms. Fisher-Goad, which may be easier to work with, as the caps generally apply to construction. Mr. Rose said if this is about future changes, it may be possible to give each region their share to spend at their own pace over time, based on the proposed regional plan. Mr. Crimp said the REF is a project financing tool, however, identifying a full set of good projects to be financed have eluded us and the regional energy plans are the best way to accomplish that since they address energy efficiency too. Ms. Fisher-Goad said we are keeping track of the grantees’ progress, which could make funding available for reallocation if they are not progressing on a project. 10. Round 6 Funding Discussion Mr. Rose said a Round VI would be possible if the program doesn’t end until June 30, 2013. Program dates, timing and funding were discussed. Ms. Fisher-Goad said this has not yet been discussed with DOL, but it’s assumed we wouldn’t have a program in 2013. Senator Hoffman said he discussed this with Representative Thomas and they each intend to introduce (a bill) in their respective finance committees and see them all the way through the process. Chairman Beltrami referred to the IPEC Walker Lake Hydro issue, stating AEA will continue to assist with the project. Ms. Fisher-Goad said she spoke with IPEC and they discussed other project options. She noted the draft Southeast Integrated Resource Plan is out for comment and it contains —zE——————————————— REFAC Draft Minutes 1-13-12 Page 6 recommendations for additional reconnaissance of Southeast projects, including Walker Lake. She said out of 65 projects not recommended for funding, nine appeals were received. Ms. Mitchell said she was out of the office for three weeks in December and did not know how they were notified of the appeal deadline. Ms. Fisher-Goad said the notification was sent by email to 65 applicants for project not recommended for funding as per usual. Staff will check on where the email was sent. Mr. Reeve said it would be helpful to look through the projects and identify at what stage the projects are to get them to feasibility and through the legislative process. 11. Next Meeting Date The next meeting will be held in conjunction with the Emerging Energy Technology Fund Advisory Committee (EETFAC) and the AEA board, possibly the last week of February. The board will be polled for availability and future board meetings will be held off site. Mr. Crimp suggested an update on EETF projects at the next meeting. He said AEA is preparing a project status report for Legislature, which the REFAC will be copied. Chairman Beltrami thanked staff for their support. 12. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 1:44 p.m. ——————EE——— REFAC Draft Minutes 1-13-12 Page 7 [= ALASKA @@l> ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Friday, January 13, 2012 AEA Aspen Room in Basement (813 W. Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, AK) 10:00 am to 2:00 pm AGENDA 1. Call to Order Beltrami 2. Roll Call (Committee Members, Staff, Public, Phone) 3. Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes) 4. Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions) 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes - November 22, 2011 6. Review AEA Round 5 Recommendations Crimp 7. Discussion of Recommendations, Geographic Spreading Beltrami 8. REF Program evaluation: Introduce VEIC team Estey 9. NREL/Denali Commission START program Hirsch/Daniels 10. Next Meeting Date, coordinate with Emerging Energy Beltrami Technology Fund Advisory Committee 11. Adjournment Beltrami 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting November 22, 2011 — AEA Boardroom 12:30 pm to 3:00 pm DRAFT MINUTES 1. Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 12:30 p.m., with Acting Chairman Chris Rose presiding. 2. Roll Call Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants Acting Chair Chris Rose Sara Fisher-Goad Brian Hirsch, NREL Jim Posey Sandra Moller Gwen Holdmann, ACEP Senator Lyman Hoffman Peter Crimp John Bitney for Bob Evans Brad Reeve Jim Strandberg Jim Clough for Bob Swenson Denali Daniels (for Vince Beltrami) | Doug Ott Dianne Blumer (Gov. Ofc), phone Jodi Mitchell (phone) Devany Plentovich Brian Bjorkquist, DOL Butch White Pat Walker (sen. Hoffman Ofc) phone Audrey Alstrom Wyn Menafee Josh Craft Helen Traylor Shauna Howell May Clark Mr. Crimp introduced new AEA staff members, Helen Traylor and Josh Craft. 3. Public Comments There were no public comments. 4. Agenda Comments The agenda was approved as presented. 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes — June 6, 2011 MOTION: Mr. Posey moved to approve the minutes from the June 6, 2011 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded by Mr. Reeve. The minutes were unanimously approved. 6. RE Fund Status Update Mr. White distributed a current status table which included Round V applications noting that 559 applications have been received; 207 projects are funded; 173 grants are in place. Of $176.6 M appropriated $75.1 has been disbursed. A grant status update was also shown for ‘Legislative REFAC Meeting Draft Minutes 11-22-2011 Page 1 Energy Generation Grants’, ‘ARCTEC Energy Projects (Railbelt)’ grants and two major projects administered by AEA (Nuvista Light & Power — Chikuminuk Hydro and Chugach/CIRI — Fire Island Wind TL). He said that two public records requests were received during the Round V process for Grant Lake by Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE); and for Connelly Lake and Schubee Lake from the Lynn Canal Conservation Alliance (LCCA). Both requests were put on hold by AEA because it’s AEA’s policy to post applications online upon review completion and it would be an unfair advantage if the information was released early. ACE’s reply was they were disappointed, but understood. No reply was received from LCCA. AEA’s written response is available to anyone upon request. Mr. Posey said he was concerned that by listing our REF projects and mixing them with other legislative projects, we are possibly sending the wrong message that REF program will now be driving recommendations for transmission projects. Ms. Fisher-Goad responded that the table is only a status informational update to show there are other grants out with some originating from the REF. Mr. Posey agreed and said it shows there are different ways to get projects funded and would like to discuss taking off the project ‘caps.’ Mr. Menafee asked how many projects were deemed applicable to the EETF. Staff replied there were about five that have yet to be reviewed. In the four stage review process, they would be likely categorized as technology demonstration projects at Stage 1. Mr. Posey asked if we are still going to have a joint EETF/REFAC Advisory Committee meeting. Acting Chair Rose agreed that should be discussed and with no opposition, placed it on the agenda as Item 11, EETF Coordination. 7. Discussion of Round V Proposal Evaluation Issues Mr. Crimp said this time around we haven’t encountered many issues, as many have been taken care of during past application reviews. He asked the Committee’s opinion on the fact that we received an application from Kodiak Electric for three more turbines in addition to the existing project. They are requesting $8 M which is the cap; they already have $4 M in the Round 1 grant for the first three turbines, specifically, should the $8 M cap apply cumulatively as in the past or be counted as a separate project. Mr. Posey voted for separate project; he said he’s an advocate for taking the caps off, as the REF project is working so well. Senator Hoffman said his concern is the intent of the legislation is to target those areas of the state with high energy costs. He said he felt a vast portion of the funds are still going to the areas that have some of the lowest energy costs in the state and therefore not meeting the intent of the legislation. A discussion followed on funding availability and allocation. Mr. Crimp pointed out that emphasis toward funding projects and the high energy cost areas work, but a limiting factor is the quality of projects received from rural areas. Senator Hoffman agreed but pointed out that the villages don’t have the resources to work on the applications. AEA needs to provide them with technical assistance. Mr. Reeve and Acting Chair Rose agreed. Acting Chair Rose pointed out the Denali Commission and NREL have discussed technical assistance for the villages. Senator Hoffman said he and Representative Thomas plan on introducing legislation next year to extend the program for an additional five years and is concerned that the report card for rural Alaska areas with the highest energy costs will not be good when fulfilling legislative obligation. Acting Chair Rose asked if we could get a report showing the amount of REF funds that have gone to projects in different energy cost areas. Mr. Crimp said that could be provided before the meeting in January. REFAC Meeting Draft Minutes 11-22-2011 Page 2 Mr. Menafee said we should also report how many applications we are getting from the high cost energy areas and compare them and report the successes, which would support the need for technical assistance. Mr. Posey asked Ms. Fisher-Goad about other wind diesel projects and their successes in the state outside the REF that are working well. Ms. Fisher-Goad said staff has spent a great deal of time discussing technical assistance versus applicant-driven programs in the REF. The Unalakleet Wind project is an excellent example; we are also working with our diesel technical staff to make sure that they are involved in the application process. Mr. Crimp said we are leaning toward considering (the Kodiak turbine project) one project. He said he felt groups might submit piece-meal proposals in order to circumvent the overall intent of the cap. Devany Plentovich has been working very hard on heat recovery and biomass project development, which is reflected in the number of applications received and under review. Regarding the issue of lifting funding caps, Mr. Crimp proposed the caps remain as Round V is already in progress. We feel the Kodiak project is one project and perhaps we should discuss this at the next meeting. Mr. Posey agreed to look at caps in Round VI. At that point we may as well commit that they are off and take the issue off the table. Senator Hoffman said we could use this information to make other refinements to the program. It was agreed that the caps will stay on for now, but will be discussed by the group before Round VI and the Kodiak project will remain capped at $4M. Acting Chair Rose said he was pleased with the regional planning process that is unfolding. The state is currently spending a large amount on fuel for rural Alaska and the Railbelt, and we should think about costs for the next 40 years. Mr. Crimp said AEA received word that there is concern that AEA staff are unfairly advancing projects toward the REF. We have six or seven project development programs ongoing and part of that work is to find good projects; a number of them being heat recovery and biomass. Another way AEA moves projects forward is through the Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) program, in which we manage projects, such as Pelican Hydro. In Igiugig, the term contractor working for the project manager may have had some involvement in conceptualizing the hydrokinetic application. He requested Committee direction on this issue. In response to a question on AEA proposal review procedure, he said three staff review the proposals — the program manager and two senior reviewers. A discussion followed on AEA review policies and how best to provide technical assistance to villages. Mr. Posey suggested hiring consultants to provide the technical assistance, which Senator Hoffman suggested could be funded out of the state’s Operating Budget. Ms. Daniels said she has been working with NREL; last year in the Federal FY11 budget $300K was set aside for technical assistance, and they have been working with AEA on this. Mr. Reeve said it is a good idea to get other agencies to help hire a pool of contractors to go to the villages and evaluate the projects. Mr. Hirsch said that NREL’s new technical assistance (START) program is just getting started; the Office of Indian Energy is a newly-funded office through the DOE focusing on tribal communities. Alaska has at least half of the entire country’s tribes. They can collaborate with municipalities, regional non-profits or village corporations. The thought is to dovetail with AEA’s regional planning effort and work with AHFC on their village weatherization programs. An application request should go out by December or January. They hope AEA will participate in the community selection process. eae a A REFAC Meeting Draft Minutes 11-22-2011 Page 3 The Office of Indian Energy is contributing $500K and Denali Commission is contributing $200K or $300K. The team will also be talking with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium about contributing. High energy cost communities will be focused on in different regions and technologies. Ms. Mitchell said she was excited to hear about the DOE and the Tribal Energy Program, but was concerned about how the Alaska Native tribes would be treated; the roadless rule is an issue and the Feds don’t consider hydro a renewable energy source. Mr. Hirsch said the START program will mainly focus on energy efficiency and teeing up opportunities and one of the main targets is the REF. The Tribal Energy Program is one of many possible opportunities for communities to access RE project capital. DOE Tribal Energy recognizes village and regional corporations to apply as tribes. Federally recognized tribes are eligible for all DOE services. Ms. Daniels will call Ms. Mitchell to discuss the issue. Mr. Crimp said the economic evaluations have just been completed; application evaluations will be completed by December 9 and the unsuccessful applicants will be contacted by letter to allow them time to appeal. AEA proposes the next REFAC meeting to be held in mid-January. 8. Regional Planning Update Sandra Moller said AEA has been busy on regional energy planning. Regional planning will be done in 1.5 to two years at each region’s pace. An effort will be made to compile the information we already have, finding data gaps and looking at technical feasibility, pre-feasibility of projects and prioritization of projects on a regional basis. Public involvement and transparency is critical; we want to use common assumptions and data sources. Energy planning regions were set up loosely defined as ANCSA boundaries. Southeast and Cook Inlet are handled separately in the energy region. The draft Southeast Integrated Resource Plan (SEIRP) report will be out in mid-December. The ARCTEC Railbelt projects are also underway. Some of the work is being done with various groups, including Ahtna, Bering Straits, Calista, Bristol Bay, Lake & Pen Borough, Doyon and NANA/NWAB. We want to make sure the groups have a regional steering committee leading the plan — not AEA — and we want them to focus on construction projects; coordinate with AEA and other entities for funding with AEA providing technical support; measure their performance and progress towards their plan objectives by focusing on infrastructure they need. AEA is currently working on an End Use Study and an RPSU inventory by region, both of which will be completed in February 2012. We are also informing the regions of all the programs available to them and we are creating an ‘agency team’ to be a one-stop regional planning help source. The Legislature has approved $2 M for regional planning which is not region-specific. 9. Progress on REF Program Evaluation Mr. Crimp said three proposals were received for preparing two products to be used for program evaluation process and impacts, a Notice of Intent to award the work has been issued to Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Burlington, VT. The draft process report should be completed by February 1 and the draft impact report should be done by March 1. 10. Project Performance Monitoring Mr. Crimp said by the end of the year we will have 10 construction projects that will have operated for at least nine months. We requested project managers collect performance information for all energy producing projects and then developed standard templates for reporting the information. REFAC Meeting Draft Minutes 11-22-2011 you —_ Page 4 Wind projects have more complex reporting, such as turbine availability, O&M costs and control logic setup. We are working closely with ACEP’s wind diesel center on detailed data collection. A summary report will be out at the end of this year for all projects. Showing actual dollar savings is more difficult, but we will make an effort to assemble that information. In meeting the 2025 goal of 50% renewable energy, we are now at 24%. Mr. Posey said we need to follow the wind projects through their whole life cycle and assess decreasing efficiency year to year. Acting Chair Rose said wind is the least understood and asked Ms. Holdmann to explain what they are measuring and what the wind-diesel center is. Ms. Holdmann commended AEA staff on their efforts in analyzing project performance and data collection. It’s important to understand potential performance declines over time. The University has developed a focus area, specifically wind diesel applications and hybrid integration of renewables with diesel generation. Funding is available to address these issues. ACEP has been addressing data collection systems utilizing a ‘black box’ and also addressing individual utility concerns. Student involvement is also key. Acting Chair Rose asked if 20 years’ worth of data has ever been requested of the grant recipients. Mr. Crimp said five years’ worth of data is expected from the grantees. If no data is provided, it jeopardizes the future grant. Acting Chair Rose suggested this item be placed on the next meeting agenda to possibly be requested in the next round of grants. Mr. Stromberg said he and Brent Petrie at AVEC has spoken about finding funds to set up a long-term MET tower at one location to assess long-term turbine performance. Mr. White pointed out that our regulations allow certain requirements to survive after the grant is closed. 11. EETF Coordination Acting Chair Rose said the EETF Regulations were approved by the AEA Board. The purpose of the EETF was to have separate funding for demonstration and pilot projects on new technologies. He said he discussed having a joint REF/EETF Advisory Committee meeting with the EETFAC Chair, Brian Hirsch. Mr. Posey and Mr. Reeve agreed. Mr. Hirsch said the newly formed EETFAC will benefit from the REFAC expertise and hoped a meeting could be held in December or January. He said the Denali Commission has one or two rounds of funding that they have experience with. Mr. Menafee suggested permitting is important and should be discussed in future meetings, as well as technical and financial issues. 12. Next Meeting Date: January 13, 2012. 13. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. REFAC Meeting Draft Minutes 11-22-2011 Rage 5 Percentage of RE Fund Applications and Recommended Funding by Cost of Energy Score - Rounds 1-5 a 7 $44M Z $73M $56M $25M $26M $2M $55M_ $50M $3M —- $2M \ 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10 COE Score 1-2 | 2-3 3-4 4-5 | 5-6 | 6-7 t 7-8 | 8-9 Unsuccessful} 39% | 46% | 21% | 28% | 30% | 43% | 30% ae mSuccessful | 61% | 54% | 79% | 72% | 70% | 58% | 70% 64% Number of RE Fund Applications and Gacommendoy Funding by Cost of Energy Score - Rounds 1-5 No. of Applications DRAFT 1- 12-2012 = ALASKA... Alaska Renewable Energy Fund _ Regional Summary Round 5 Ranking $4314 million Allocation Rounds 1-4 Total Rounds Energy Region 1-4 Funding ‘Aleutians $14,556,009 Bering Straits $13,750,665 Bristol Bay $8,156,865 Copper River/Chugach $15,612,955 Kodiak $8,962,500 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $25,527,447 North Slope $2,502,912 Northwest Arctic $22,537,405 Railbelt $28,696,706 $32,664,717 @ $13,326,165 Statewide $565,439 TOTAL $186,859,785 Round 5 Recommendation Cost of Power Population Even Split Average Additional cost Allocation funding Allocation Allocation Grant power cost of needed to % per capita Per region Funding ($/kWh) power basis reach 50% | Total basis basis $845,607 0.42 4,638,227 1,473,506 | 1% 566,848 3,926,833 Bering Straits $5,527,551 0.46 5,075,290 (2,989,906)} 1% 632,659 3,926,833 Bristol Bay $2,436,526 0.50 5,540,109 333,528 | 1% 431,952 3,926,833 Copper River/Chugach $3,939,897 0.27 3,013,992 (2,432,901)} 1% 431,952 3,926,833 Kodiak $8,267,500 0.19 2,099,704 (7,217,648)| 1% 431,952 3,926,833 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $5,706,622 0.53 5,857,069 (2,778,087)| 4% 1,612,635 3,926,833 $0 0.14 1,533,304 766,652 | 1% 513,587 3,926,833 $356,424 0.54 5,957,543 2,622,348 | 1% 454,260 3,926,833 $5,613,363 0.14 1,563,348 (4,831,689)] 75% 32,396,372 3,926,833 $7,911,924 0.14 1,493,320 (7,165,264)| 11% 4,751,468 3,926,833 $2,589,749 0.58 6,423,258 621,880 | 1% 643,604 3,926,833 $0 0 $43,195,163 43,195,163 100% 43,195,163 43,195,163 Cumulative Rounds 1-5 Recommendation Cost of Power Population Even Split Average Additional % of} cost Allocation funding Total Rounds Total] power cost of needed to Energy Region 1-5 Funding Funding} ($/kWh) power basis reach 50% Aleutians $15,401,616 0.42 23,508,071 (3,647,580)| 1% 3,019,002 | 20,914,086 i $19,278,216 0.46 25,723,253 (6,416,590)| 1% 3,369,505 | 20,914,086 $10,593,391 0.50 28,079,109 3,446,164] 1% 2,300,549 | 20,914,086 Copper River/Chugach $19,552,852 0.27 15,275,911 (11,914,897)} 1% 2,300,549 | 20,914,086 Kodiak $17,230,000 0.19 10,641,997 (11,909,001)} 1% 2,300,549 | 20,914,086 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $31,234,069 0.53 29,685,571 (16,391,283)| 4% 8,588,803 | 20,914,086 North Slope $2,502,912 0.14 7,771,295 1,382,736 | 1% 2,735,333 | 20,914,086 Northwest Arctic $22,893,829 0.54 30,194,806 (7,796,426)| 1% 2,419,360 | 20,914,086 Railbelt $34,310,069 0.14 7,923,565 (30,348,287)| 75% 172,541,211] 20,914,086 $40,576,641 0.14 7,568,641 (36,792,320)} 11% 25,306,044 | 20,914,086 $15,915,914 0.58 32,555,202 361,687 | 1% 3,427,798 | 20,914,086 $565,439 0.20 11,127,527 TOTAL $230,054,948 100% 230,054,948 100% 230,054,948 | 230,054,948 Highlighted in blue indicates allocations needed to reach the 50% goal of regional spread. DRAFT 1- 12-2012 = ALASKA... Alaska Renewable Energy Fund ee Regional Summary Round 5 Ranking $25 million Allocation Rounds 1-4 % of Total Rounds Total 1-4 Funding Aleutians $14,556,009 Bering Straits $13,750,665 Bristol Bay $8,156,865 Copper River/Chugach $15,612,955 Kodiak $8,962,500 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $25,527,447 North Slope $2,502,912 Northwest Arctic $22,537,405 Railbelt $28,696,706 Southeast $32,664,717 'Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $13,326,165 $565,439 $186,859,785 100%| Recommendation Cost of Power Population Even Split Average Additional cost Allocation funding Allocation Allocation Grant power cost of needed to % per capita per region Energy Region Funding % Total|($/kWh) power basis reach 50% total basis basis Aleutians $200,000 1%| 0.42 2,684,459 1,142,230 | 1% 328,074 2,272,727 Bering Straits $5,161,801 21%| 0.46 2,937,418 (3,693,092)| 1% 366,163 2,272,727 Bristol Bay $2,436,526 10% 0.50 3,206,440 (833,306)| 1% 250,000 2,272,727 (Copper River/Chugach $265,000 1%} 0.27 1,744,404 607,202 | 1% 250,000 2,272,727 Kodiak $7,800,000 31%} 0.19 1,215,243 (7,192,379)| 1% 250,000 2,272,727 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $1,267,124 5%] 0.53 3,389,887 427,820 | 4% 933,343 2,272,727 North Slope $0 O%} 0.14 887,428 443,714 | 1% 297,248 2,272,727 Northwest Arctic $356,424 1%| 0.54 3,448,038 1,367,595 | 1% 262,911 2,272,727 Railbelt $0 O%| 0.14 904,816 452,408 | 75% 18,750,000 2,272,727 Southeast $7,000,000 28%| 0.14 864,287 (6,567,857)| 11% 2,750,000 2,272,727 'Y ukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $513,125 2%|__0.58 3,717,579 1,345,665 | 1% 372,498 2,272,727 i $0 0% oO $25,000,000 25,000,000 100% 25,000,000 25,000,000 Cumulative Rounds 1-5 Recommendation Cost of Power Population Even Split %of |Average Additional Total |cost Allocation funding Allocation ‘Allocation Total Rounds Fundin|power cost of needed to % per capita per region Energy Region 1-5Funding g ($/kWh) power basis reach 50% total basis basis Aleutians $14,756,009 7% 0.42 21,648,806 (3,931,606)| 1% 2,780,228 19,259,980 Bering Straits $18,912,466 9% 0.46 23,688,787 (7,068,072)| 1% 3,103,009 19,259,980 Bristol Bay $10,593,391 5% 0.50 25,858,318 2,335,768] 1% 2,118,598 | 19,259,980 Copper River/Chugach $15,877,955 7% 0.27 14,067,731 (8,844,089)} 1% 2,118,598 19,259,980 Kodiak $16,762,500 8% 0.19 9,800,316 (11,862,342)} 1% 2,118,598 | 19,259,980 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $26,794,571 13% 0.53 27,337,724 (13,125,709)| 4% 7,909,510 19,259,980 North Slope $2,502,912 1% 0.14 7,156,660 1,075,418} 1% 2,518,994 19,259,980 Northwest Arctic $22,893,829 11% 0.54 27,806,683 (8,990,487)| 1% 2,228,012 19,259,980 Railbelt $28,696,706 14% 0.14 7,296,886 (25,048,263)| 75% 158,894,839] 19,259,980 Southeast $39,664,717 19% 0.14 6,970,033 (36,179,700)} 11% 23,304,576 19,259,980 !Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $13,839,290 7% __ 0.58 29,980,394 1,150,907} 1% 3,156,692 | 19,259,980 Statewide $565,439 0% 0.20 10,247,445 TOTAL $211,859,785 100% 211,859,785 100% 211,859,785 | 211,859,785 * If allocation is limited to $25M, AEA recommends partial funding to #820 Design Construction of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities in the amount of $93,125 - Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Energy Region DRAFT 1- 12-2012 = ALASKA... Alaska Renewable Energy Fund = Regional Summary Round 5 Ranking $25 million Allocation gS () y aa Rounds 1-4 % of Vw Total Rounds Total Stow eo 1-4 Funding it $14,556,009 a ede $13,750,665 Bristol Bay $8,156,865 Copper River/Chugach $15,612,955 Kodiak $8,962,500 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $25,527,447 North Slope $2,502,912 Northwest Arctic $22,537,405 Railbelt $28,696,706 $32,664,717 $13,326,165 $565,439 $186,859,785 100% Recommendation Cost of Power Population Even Split Additional Allocation funding Allocation Allocation Grant cost of needed to % percapita per region Funding total basis basis $200,000 . 2,684,459 1,142,230 | 1% 328,074 2,272,727 Bering Straits $5,161,801 . 2,937,418 (3,693,092)} 1% 366,163 2,272,727 Bristol Bay $2,436,526 f 3,206,440 (833,306)| 1% 250,000 2,272,727 Copper River/Chugach $265,000 . 1,744,404 607,202 | 1% 250,000 2,272,727 Kodiak $7,800,000 2 1,215,243 — (7,192,379)| 1% 250,000 2,272,727 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $1,267,124 H 3,389,887 427,820 | 4% 933,343 2,272,727 North Slope $0 is 887,428 443,714 | 1% 297,248 2,272,727 Northwest Arctic $356,424 : 3,448,038 1,367,595 | 1% 262,911 2,272,727 Railbelt $0 Ng 904,816 452,408 | 75% 18,750,000 2,272,727 Southeast $7,000,000 5 864,287 (6,567,857)| 11% 2,750,000 2,272,727 !Y ukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $513,125 b 3,717,579 1,345,665 | 1% 372,498 2,272,727 i $0 f 0 $25,000,000 25,000,000 100% 25,000,000 25,000,000 Cumulative Rounds 1-5 Recommendation Cost of Power Population Even Split % of Additional Total Allocation funding Allocation Total Rounds Fundin|power cost of needed to % per capita Energy Region 1-5Funding g ($/kWh) power basis reach 50% total basis ‘Aleutians $14,756,009 0.42 21,648,806 (3,931,606)} 1% 2,780,228 19,259,980 Bering Straits $18,912,466 0.46 23,688,787 (7,068,072)| 1% 3,103,009 19,259,980 Bristol Bay $10,593,391 0.50 25,858,318 2,335,768 | 1% 2,118,598 19,259,980 Copper River/Chugach $15,877,955 0.27 14,067,731 (8,844,089)| 1% 2,118,598 19,259,980 Kodiak $16,762,500 0.19 9,800,316 (11,862,342)| 1% 2,118,598 19,259,980 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $26,794,571 0.53 27,337,724 (13,125,709)| 4% 7,909,510 19,259,980 North Slope $2,502,912 0.14 7,156,660 1,075,418] 1% 2,518,994 19,259,980 Northwest Arctic $22,893,829 0.54 27,806,683 (8,990,487)} 1% 2,228,012 19,259,980 Railbelt $28,696,706 0.14 7,296,886 (25,048,263)} 75% 158,894,839 19,259,980 Southeast $39,664,717 0.14 6,970,033 (36,179,700)} 11% 23,304,576 19,259,980 $13,839,290 0.58 29,980,394 1,150,907] 1% 3,156,692 19,259,980 $565,439 0% 0.20 10,247,445 TOTAL |$211,859,785 100% 211,859,785 100% _ 211,859,785 * If allocation is limited to $25M, AEA recommends partial funding to #820 Design Construction of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities in the amount of $93,125 - Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Energy Region DRAFT 1- 12-2012 = ALASKA... Alaska Renewable Energy Fund =e Regional Summary Round 5 Ranking $43.1 million Allocation A gute Rounds 1-4 Mt Qin @ Total Rounds 1-4 Funding $14,556,009 $13,750,665 $8,156,865 Copper River/Chugach $15,612,955 Kodiak $8,962,500 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $25,527,447 $2,502,912 $22,537,405 $28,696,706 $32,664,717 $13,326,165 $565,439 $186,859,785 Recommendation Cost of Power Population Even Split Average Additional cost Allocation funding Allocation Allocation power cost of needed to % per capita per region Energy Region ($/kWh) power basis reach 50% _ | Total basis basis Aleutians $845,607 Bering Straits $5,527,551 13% Bristol Bay $2,436,526 6% Copper River/Chugach $3,939,897 9% 4,638,227 1,473,506 0.46 5,075,290 (2,989,906) 0.50 5,540,109 333,528 0.27 3,013,992 (2,432,901) 566,848 1% 632,659 1% 431,952 1% 431,952 3,926,833 3,926,833 3,926,833 3,926,833 Kodiak $8,267,500 19%] 0.19 2,099,704 (7,217,648)| 1% 431,952 3,926,833 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $5,706,622 13%| 0.53 5,857,069 (2,778,087)| 4% 1,612,635 3,926,833 North Slope $0 0%} 0.14 1,533,304 766,652 | 1% 513,587 3,926,833 Northwest Arctic $356,424 1%| 0.54 5,957,543 2,622,348 | 1% 454,260 3,926,833 0.14 1,563,348 (4,831,689)| 75% 32,396,372 1,493,320 (7,165,264)| 11% 4,751,468 6,423,258 621,880 643,604 0 $5,613,363 13% $7,911,924 18% $2,589,749 $0 3,926,833 3,926,833 3,926,833 43,195,163 100% 43,195,163 43,195,163 Cost of Power Population Average Additional cost Allocation funding Allocation Total Rounds power cost of needed to % per capita 1-5 Funding ($/kWh) power basis reach 50% | Total basis Even Split Energy Region Aleutians $15,401,616 0.42 23,508,071 (3,647,580)| 1% 3,019,002 | 20,914,086 Bering Straits $19,278,216 8% 0.46 25,723,253 (6,416,590)} 1% 3,369,505 | 20,914,086 $10,593,391 5% 0.50 28,079,109 3,446,164] 1% 2,300,549 | 20,914,086 $19,552,852 8% 0.27 15,275,911 (11,914,897)} 1% 2,300,549 | 20,914,086 $17,230,000 7% 0.19 10,641,997 (11,909,001) $31,234,069 14% 0.53 29,685,571 (16,391,283) $2,502,912 1% 0.14 7,771,295 1,382,736 | 1% 2,735,333 $22,893,829 10% 0.54 30,194,806 (7,796,426)| 1% 2,419,360 $34,310,069 15% 0.14 7,923,565 (30,348,287)| 75% 172,541,211 $40,576,641 18% 0.14 7,568,641 (36,792,320)] 11% 25,306,044 915, 7% 0.58 32,555,202 361,687 | 1% 3,427,798 $565,439 0.20 11,127,527 $230,054,948 230,054,948 1% 2,300,549 4% 8,588,803 20,914,086 20,914,086 20,914,086 20,914,086 20,914,086 20,914,086 20,914,086 100% 230,054,948 | 230,054,948 Highlighted in blue indicates allocations needed to reach the 50% goal of regional spread. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § pRarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 800 West Creek Hydroelectric Project ‘ite) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Borough & Municipality of Skagway Feasibility REA, Feoggeana Resriaggee: Ext Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The Municipality of Skagway (Municipality) proposes to construct the West Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located on West Creek, approximately seven miles west of Skagway and adjacent to the small community of Dyea. The primary purpose of the Project would be off-setting diesel generation by cruise ships that dock in Skagway from May through September each year. Up to five cruise ships per day dock in Skagway for 12-15 hours and continuously operate their diesel plants to provide for on-board electricity consumption. The continuous stack emissions spread a blue haze at about the 1,500 foot elevation where egetation has been noticeably affected. The Project will improve air quality and save vegetation in the area (there may be other unknown environmental benefits). To emphasize how serious the air quality of the area is being taken, the National Park Service, Municipality of Skagway, and Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) have a cooperative agreement to place and maintain equipment at AP&T's Dewey Lakes Hydro project site to monitor this pollution. Preliminary results of this monitoring are attached as an appendix. A secondary purpose of the Project is to provide winter energy to the local utility when they have a shortfall of hydro energy from their hydroelectric projects (2011 - Dewey Lakes Hydro, Lutak Hydro, Goat Lake Hydro, Kasidaya Creek Hydro) as well as to sell winter energy to the Yukon Territory, Canada through their generation company Yukon Energy. The Alaska Power Authority had a feasibility study conducted for the Project by R. W Beck and Associates in 1981-82. That study focused on a development that would meet the electricity needs of Skagway and Haines rather than the nascent cruise ship industry. It recommended an installed capacity of 6.0 MW and a 20,000 acre-foot reservoir formed by a 120-feet high concrete-faced rockfill dam. The proposed Project will be significantly different than proposed by Beck in that the installed capacity will be greater and the reservoir storage will also be greater. Nevertheless, the Beck study provides an excellent starting point for the proposed reevaluation of the site, and therefore the Municipality believes that a Phase I reconnaissance study is not necessary. West Creek drains from an ice field into the Taiya River. The Municipality has already requested the Project site land from the State as Municipal Entitlement Land. Since the stream is glacial, flows are very high in the summer, which is also when the cruise ships are active. Preliminary analysis indicates that a Project with a capacity to serve one large cruise ship could be operated on a run-of-river basis. Increasing the capacity so the Project could serve two or three cruise ships is possible and a storage reservoir would be required to make the generation dependable. The costs and benefits of these capacity/storage alternatives will be a primary focus of the proposed Phase II studies. The Borough and Municipality of Skagway proposes feasibility and Reape design of a 6-26 MW hydro project at West Creek to be cone to the Upper Lynn Canal (Haines-Skagway) grid. The estimated cost of this project $140 million. The primary purpose of the project is to offset diesel generation by cruise ships that dock in Skagway from May to September. The secondary purpose is to supply power to the local grid during periods of shortfall and to the Yukon Territory grid in the winter. The BMS applied for a similar project in round 2 (#262). AEA recommended the project for partial funding and stated that an integrated resource energy plan would be needed to assess the project in the context of other potential projects. Due to limited funding, however, the project did not receive funding. The economic analysis performed for this project is based solely on cruise ship load over a period of 50 years. It estimates a B/C ratio of 1.5 to 2.1 assuming an average electrical consumption of 18,900 to 27,000 MWh/yr. The BMS states that a major benefit of the project is the reduced air emissions from diesel generation by the cruise ships. AEA has the following concerns about this project: 1. AEA has already committed funding for Connelly Lk, Schubee Lk, and Burro Cr reconnaissance and feasibility assessment. These projects would compete to meet the same loads as the proposed project. 2. Given that the chief aim of the project is to supply the shore-based cruise ship load, AEA questions the amount of public benefit to be received versus the high capital cost and high technical, business, and regulatory risks of the proposed project. 3. Since the project would affect the waters of the Klondike Gold Rush National Park, there is significant permitting risk. Based on the additional information that BMS provided regarding potential benefits of the project, AEA has reconsidered its original recommendation against funding. The additional information more thoroughly expalined the benefits the projects would accrue from reduced cruise ship emissions and a potential intertie to BC. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $236,000 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $59,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $295,000 Southeast AEA Funding Recommendation: - $236,000 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 4 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA App #800 West Creek Hydroelectric Project = Resource: Hydro Proposer: Borough & Municipality of Skagway AEA Program Manager: Ott Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 6.88 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 13.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 9.90 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 2.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) 8.50 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) te DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments @_> ENERGY AUTHORITY iid incite aia ciabatta Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility Applicant Type: Local Government Economic Analysis 1.88 1.49 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Scoring & Project Rank Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 43.44 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Municiple conveyance survey underway, but Skagway has management authority at this time. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project is ~20 km away from Chilkat river segment of the Denali fault. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 2 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAéFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App:#.801.... Jack. River Hydro Project Phase Mi) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Native Village of Cantwell AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The Native Village of Cantwell wishes to improve the reliability and lower the cost of the community of Cantwell’s power system. Currently, they obtain power from the line between MEA and GVEA (Alaska Intertie System). To accomplish this, they propose to build a hydroelectric project on the Jack River, a short distance from Cantwell. The installed capacity of this plant will be in excess of 1 MW. It will be comprised of a dam and a short tunnel. A feasibility design and scoping are required to provide the parameters of the project. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended The Village of Cantwell proses feasibility and conceptual design of a storage hydro project in excess of 1 MW, with a power tunnel on the Jack River. The Village and AEA have recently executed a grant funded in round 4 (#606 ) for reconnaissance assessment of the project and has installed a stream gauge. Recon work is scheduled to be completed in June 2013. Therefore AEA believes that further funding for feasibility and conceptual design is premature. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $190,000 Cost of Power: $0.20 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $200,000 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: | | 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 3 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRaFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #801 Jack RiverHydroProjectPhaseM J Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Native Village of Cantwell AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 6.25 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 7.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 16.25 7) Sustainability (Max 5) as Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No exact location. May involve state land or state selected land. Authorzations would be required. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Located near Denali fault and associated thrust faults. Dam should be designed with considerations for strong ground motions based on a seismic hazards assessment. A detailed site specific geotechnical investigation should be performed to insure that no previously unrecognized faults extend through the dam site. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 4 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #802 _ Petersburg Public Library Geothermal Heat Pump Construction Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Construction J Proposer: City of Petersburg AEA Program Manager: McMahon Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The City of Petersburg is proposing construction (Phase IV) of a hybrid ground source heat pump system to serve the heating needs at the City of Petersburg's new public library facility. The new Petersburg Public Library is a 9,770 sq. ft. facility to be located in downtown Petersburg. It will serve primarily Petersburg residents, as well as visitors and temporary workers in our community. Construction of the facility is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2012 and be completed in the summer of 2013. The City of Petersburg Administration, Community Development and Public Library Departments are directly involved with the design and construction of the facility. The hybrid system consists of a ground source heat pump system to meet the facility's heating needs and a supplemental electric heat system serving as a back up. The use of a hybrid ground source heat pump system in lieu of conventional oil or electric heat systems at the new Petersburg Public Library facility is supported by the City of Petersburg Administration, Community Development, and Public Library Departments, and the City of Petersburg City Council. The Renewable Energy Fund Grant request herein is for the additional construction cost for the ground source heat pump system. This funding request is only for the costs associated with the ground source heat pump portion of the hybrid system; the costs associated with the supplemental electric boiler and water heaters are excluded from this request. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation . Not Recommended | The City of Petersburg proposes to construct a hybrid ground-source heat pump (GSHP) at the new public library that is being designed and constructed. The closed loop GSHP would consist of six 315’ deep wells and have a 10-ton capacity. The expected coefficient of performance (COP) is 3. The new public library Construction for the GSHP is expected to begin in Fall 2012 and be completed and commissioned in June 2013. Since Petersburg is powered by hydroelectric, the GSHP would be a very efficient use of electricity. The project team stated that it was committed to the project and would likely seek other funding to complete the project if not supported by the RE Fund The application provides a life-cycle economic assessment of a conventional electric boiler, ground source heat pump, and air source heat pump. The assessment does not include a comparison of what AEA regards as the baseline alternative—a conventional fuel oil system. Given only approximately 3,100 gallons of fuel that would be displaced and the high capital costs of the heat pump alternatives, the economics of heat pumps appears poor in this case (benefit/cost is less than 0.6) when compared against a conventional oil-fired system. The RE Fund has provided grants to two larger GSHPs in Southeast (the Juneau Airport and Dimond Aquatic Center). Economics appear more favorable due to the larger amount of fuel displacement. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $186,400 Cost of Power: $0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $46,600 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $233,000 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: | 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 5 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § parr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #802 _ Petersburg Public Library Geothermal Heat Pump Construction Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Petersburg AEA Program Manager: McMahon Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 3.13 0.39 0.31 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 13.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benem/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 20.13 7) Sustainability (Max 5) bad Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No State land or easement interest DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 6 > ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12 J== ALASKA App #803 _ Pillar Mtn High Penetration Wind Project on Wind Project J Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kodiak Electric Association AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The Pillar Mountain High Penetration Wind Project is the integration and installation of three General Electric (GE) 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbines along with an energy storage system that allows the stable integration of high wind penetration rates onto KEA’s isolated grid. This project is the next step in a series of KEA’s renewable energy developments aimed at displacing the use of diesel fuel for electric generation which will allow KEA to achieve its vision to endeavor to produce 95% of energy sales with cost effective renewable power solutions by the year 2020. The energy storage system will regulate system frequency on a short- term basis as the wind resource unpredictably comes and goes. Terror Lake will provide the long-term, macro-energy storage of wind energy on an annual basis. Therefore, the Pillar Mountain High Penetration Wind Project is not simply a wind turbine construction effort, but an innovative demonstration of how high generation rates of wind can be stably integrated onto an isolated electric grid through the installation of a energy storage system that bridges Pillar Mountain’s variable wind energy resource with the Terror Lake hydroelectric Project’s dispatchable hydropower. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Partial Funding | Kodiak Electric Association requests $8 million for 1) installation of three additional GE 1.5 MW SLE turbines and 2) addition of a 1 MWh energy storage system. KEA is requesting funding for construction and commissioning of the proposed project. The project is expected to cost $23,150,000, of which $8,000,000 would come as matching funds provided by KEA. An additional $7,150,000 will be spent by KEA but will be ineligible for match as the money will be spent prior to July 1, 2012. KEA received $4 million from a RE Fund round 1 grant (#103) for the construction and commissioning of three GE 1.5 MW SLE turbines. KEA’s wind turbines have been the highest wind energy producers in the State. The proposed system changes will boost wind and hydro penetration to almost 100% and displace approximately 780,000 gallons of diesel per year. Under the round 5 solicitation KEA is eligible for a total of $8 million in cumulative funding for the wind project. The proposed battery system, estimated to cost $3.8 million, will provide system stability and a bridge between the more variable wind generation and KEA’s Terror Lake Hydro project. The proposed battery system will increase the renewable output of the wind-hydro system. Although the battery system is proposed in the current application, AEA believes that the battery system is not solely a component of the wind system, and is therefore not subject to the $8 million wind system funding cap. AEA notes that KEA has received $4 million in RE Fund grants for upgrades to the hydro system (#401 and 653). In round 5 the total allocation of the wind and hydro system, including the battery system, should not exceed $16 million. Recommend partial funding of $7.8 million ($4 million for the wind system and $3.8 million for the battery system). Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $8,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.18 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $8,000,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $16,000,000 Kodiak _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $7,800,000 4191/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 7 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 == ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY netration Wind Project App #803 _ Pillar Mtn High sities Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kodiak Electric Association AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 5.63 3.46 3.74 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 20.00 4 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 18.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 8.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 73.63 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 ) m Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project itself not on state land, but an extension of the road authorized in ADL 229859 would be required to access the project area. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 8 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 == ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #804 __ Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources (Mount Spurr) Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Chugach Electric Association AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description Chugach is proposing to continue the process of permitting and design for a new transmission line linking a geothermal project being developed on the west side of Cook Inlet to the existing Chugach system. The specific proposal for a Round V renewable energy grant is the design of the substations at each end of the transmission line. One substation would be at Ormat's facility and the other at Beluga Power plant. Ormat Nevada, Inc. (Ormat), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Omlat Technologies, Inc (NYSE "ORA"), secured 15 geothermal leases on Mt. Spurr from the State of Alaska in 2008 and has since embarked on a multi-phased exploration and development plan, with a goal to explore and build a utility scale 50-100 MW geothermal plant to be connected to the Railbelt power grid around 2016. Ormat has built over 1,600 MW of geothennal plants during the last 3 decades all over the western United States and several locations internationally. Ormat's Mt. Spurr project is progressing with the drilling this summer of a 3,500' deep core hole. They recently announced drilling results for this well and the results were not as positive as hoped or expected. While Onnat assesses its future development plan, Chugach is moving forward with this grant application to stay on a parallel path with Ormat. Chugach's proposed project would include one or more high voltage transmission lines which would connect to the existing substation and transmission lines at Beluga. The line would be built for a maximum operating voltage of 230 kV but could initially be operated at a lower voltage to match first stage development of 50 MW of the geothermal project. The line would cover a distance of at least 40 miles, depending on the routing. Chugach received a Round IV renewable energy grant which will soon be used for the route selection phase of this project. The plan is for Round V renewable energy grant funds to be for the design of substations at each end of the line. Subsequent phases of the project would be for final design and permitting of the transmission line and for construction. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | Chugach Electric proposes final design, surveying, geotechnical assessment, and permitting of substations and switchyards associated with the transmission for the potential Mt. Spurr geothermal project. AEA has budgeted funding for RE Fund round 4 feasibility and route selection for the transmission project (#615). That work is underway at the time of this review. Currently Mt. Spurr geothermal developer Ormat remains in the resource assessment phase and AEA expects a report of the results of 2011 field work by the end of 2011. Since the resource at Mt. Spurr is not yet proven and the Rd 4 feasibility and route selection remains to be completed, AEA believes that it is premature to support final design and permitting work for the transmission line. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,150,000 Cost of Power: $0.13 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $110,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,260,000 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: j 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM. Page 9 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § parr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 804 Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources (MountSpurr) Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Chugach Electric Association AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 4.06 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 10.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Scoring & Project Rank 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 17.06 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Additional 38.05 authorizations required for the described project. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1191/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 10 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 805 Black Bear Lake Hydro Project Storage Increase _ Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Power & Telephone Company AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The Applicant proposes to construct a 17-foot-high by 100 feet long rockfill dam and spillway at the outlet of Black Bear Lake (BBL) to raise the lake 12 feet and increase the active storage by 2,420 acre feet (from 2,870 acre-feet to 5,290 acre-feet). The storage increase will provide for additional generation during the winter and spring when diesel generation is often required currently due to low lake inflows during those periods. In addition, the storage increase will allow the Applicant to more easily meet the minimum instream flow requirements of the FERC license for the project, which has become difficult with normal operation. The incremental average annual generation is estimated to be 1,264 MWh/yr. view Comments and Recommendation Not Recommende Alaska Power Company requests funding to complete reconnaissance assessment, feasibility analysis, and permitting and final design to construct a 17' high x 100! long rockfill dam and spillway at the outlet of Black Bear Lake to raise the lake by 12' and increase active storage from 2870 to 5290 acre-ft. APC asserts that the project would add 1.26 GWh per year in annual generation by reducing spillage from BBL from 26 to 24%. The project will require a FERC amendment. The total development and construction cost is estimated at $3,040,000. AEA is concerned that there may not be adequate market for hydropower on Prince of Wales after the 5 MW Reynolds Cr Hydro project is constructed. APC is one of the three partners of Haida Energy that is developing the Reynolds Cr project. In its application, APC stated it would provide a study in fall of 2011 to determine how much additional firm generation will be available from Reynolds Creek and whether the BBL storage increase is justifiable when Reynolds Creek is constructed. AEA requested a copy of the study and was informed it was not available due to other APC staff commitments. Thus there is no confirmation of the need for power from this project. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $318,000 Cost of Power: $0.28 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $79,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $397,500 Southeast 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-17-12 J== ALASKA App #805 Black Bear Lake Hydro Project Storage Increase Resource: Hydro Proposer: Alaska Power & Telephone Company AEA Program Manager: Ott Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 8.75 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 11.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 0.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Increase in water elevation will affect private and possibly USFS land DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments Proposed Project Phase: Design Applicant Type: Utility Economic Analysis Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) Scoring & Project Rank 19.75 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments No known active faults near proposed project. See general DGGS comment. 4111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 12 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § part 1-17-12 J== ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #806 _ Upper Tanana Area Intertie Project a Inte une nin Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Power Company Design AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The Project is to interconnect communities reliant on diesel generation to Tok where a renewable energy project will be constructed in the next 3-4 years. By beginning the interconnection during the summer of 2012, completion of the distribution lines will coincide closely with the startup of the renewable energy project. There would be two stages for this project: Stage 1: Would consist of a 25 mile 34.5 kV distribution line on wood pole structures to Tok from the APC closed grid that currently connects Slana, Chistochina, and Mentasta. These communities are on the Tok Cutoff of the Glenn Hwy, south of Tok. Stage 2: Would consist of a 40 mile 34.5 kV distribution line on wood pole structures to Tok from the APC closed grid that currently connects Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village. These communities are located southeast of Tok along the Alaska Highway. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | AP&T proposes design and construction of transmission to link the hub community of Tok to Slana, Chistochina, Mentasta, Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village. Currently AP&T is funded through RE Fund round 4 to assess feasibility of a 2 MW wood-fired combined heat and power system in Tok (#665). AP&T had partial funding through RE Fund round 3 (#438) to construct the 1.5 MW Yerrick Creek hydro project, but decided not to proceed. AEA recognizes the benefits of tying these communities together in a grid. However AEA has the following concerns with this proposal: 1. The Tok wood-fired CHP is beginning the feasibility phase, while the Yerrick Creek Hydro project is on hold. Thus no renewable energy production is pending. Transmission of renewable energy is required for this project to be considered eligible for funding under the RE Fund. 2. Economics of this project appear marginal given the distances and low loads to be tied in. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $7,636,804 Cost of Power: $0.56 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $1,909,201 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $9,546,005 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:16:59 PM Page 13 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA App #806 Upper Tanana Area Intertie Project eisai Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Power Company Design AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.50 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 15.00 af : Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 0.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Scoring & Project Rank 32.50 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Mostly within DOT R/W. If not may need a DNR r/w authorization. Project description does not provide enough detail to determine if any of the power lines will run on state land. Project as described should only require coordination with DOT easements. However, if any of the powerlines should cross state land outside of existing easements of ROWs, then coordination with DNR may be required for additional permits or easements. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 14 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 == ALASKA > ENERGY AUTHORITY App #807 Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project _ viitiaaabidebiacin satan } Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Power Company AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Project Description Connelly Lake is an 85-acre alpine lake and drains into the Chilkoot River. The Project facilities will include a dam at the lake outlet, a penstock about 6,200 feet long, a 12.0 MW powerhouse with two generating units, a 14-mile-long 34.5 kV transmission line and a 14-mile long access road. Field studies, permitting and final design for this Project will be completed during Phase III. The Project will be developed by the Applicant to provide additional generation to its interconnected Haines and Skagway electrical systems, to possibly provide summer power to cruise ships moored at Haines, and to provide backup renewable power to Haines, should the submarine cable fail. The Project will be on state and private land, including the Haines State Forest and Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation eines Partial Funding _ APC proposes final design and permitting activities for a potential 12 MW storage hydro project at Connelly Lake. AEA and APC entered into a grant agreement for $585,000 to support feasibility and conceptual design for the project under round 4 application (#627). Current funded work includes concept optimization, preliminary FERC notice of intent and preliminary application document, FERC scoping activities (documents and study plans), field studies (stream gauge installation; seismic refraction surveys; fish, wildlife, botanical, wetland, and heritage surveys; water quality testing); and the final feasibility report. This work is currently scheduled for completion in December 2012. AEA believes that this schedule is optimistic and that funding for final design and permitting is premature. AP&T has requested reconsideration of AEA's initial recommendation of no funding. AP&T states that "we agree with AEA that funding of the final design activities (ie., the last three of ... [the proposed] ...tasks) is premature. However, the other five tasks are basically continuation of our current work." AEA agrees with this observation and recommends partial funding to cover the following feasibility phase tasks: additional environmental studies, permit preparation and processing, post-license activities, and additional stream gauging data collection. Recommend partial funding of $448,000. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,452,000 Cost of Power: $0.39 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $363,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,815,000 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $448,000 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 15 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12 J== ALASKA @_™ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #807 _ Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project. Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Power Company AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 12.19 2.20 : 0.55 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 14.00 4 NG 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 8.87 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.25 6) Local Support (Max 5) 1.00 46.30 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.00 : —— Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Application for easements, ADL 107601/107792, portions in Haines State Forest & Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Located in the vicinity of the eastern Denali fault (Chilkoot River section) and the Chatham Strait fault. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 16 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA (@— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #808 Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line J Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Power Company AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The overall 34kV power line route is approximately 12 miles long. Approximately 0.9-mile of the westernmost section is an existing APC 2kV distribution line that will be overbuilt. The line will cross Hetta Inlet via Jumbo Island. The route primarily follows existing logging roads. The power line will begin at a point along Hydaburg Road about 0.45 miles northeast of the town. It will continue northeast along the existing logging road passing north of Deer Bay and intersecting Hetta Inlet opposite Jumbo Island. This section is adjacent to private forested land with a small section of Muskeg and is 7.0 miles long. The logging roads are mostly mild to moderate cut sections with a few rock cuts. The first 0.9 miles of this section is an existing APC corridor adjacent to the road established for a 2kV line. The water crossing over Hetta Inlet will be accomplished with 3 multi-pole structures with one on each side of the inlet and one at the pinnacle of Jumbo Island. Jumbo Island slopes steeply toward the water on both sides and is heavily forested. A new corridor will need to be established. The structure on the island will likely be set by helicopter. This crossing is 0.9 miles across. The power line will continue in a new corridor for 0.3 mile to the east until it intersects an existing logging road. Approximately 1500 feet of temporary or permanent access road spurs will need to be constructed to access 2 line structures along this section. The line route then turns south and follows existing logging roads 3.8 miles southeast to the powerhouse/ switchyard location near Copper Harbor. This section is adjacent to private, recently harvested forest land with very steep and rocky terrain prone to slides. The logging road is primarily full bench construction with several rock cut sections. There are danger trees (and boulders) above the power line route on the eastern side slopes that may need to be removed/secured to protect the power line. commendation Not Re ded Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) proposes funding for the transmission portion of the 5 MW Reynolds Creek hydropower project. Haida Energy, a joint venture of AP&T and Haida Corp, would own the project and sell power on a wholesale basis to APC, the certificated utility on Prince of Wales (PoW) Island. The project is a component of Reynolds Creek Hydro Project, which received $2M (App #104) in grant funding already. In Round 3, an application (#439) was submitted for transmission line construction for Reynolds Creek. Although AEA recommended the project for funding there was insufficient funding appropriated to fund this project. The following grant allocations totaling $6.1 million have been made for the Reynolds Creek project: 1) $100,000 of Denali Comm funds to Haida Corp through the Denali Commission / AEA alternative energy RFP 2) $1 million in RE fund round 1 funds to Haida Corp (#104) 3) $1 million in RE fund round 1 funds to Haida Power, a joint venture between APC and Haida Corp 4) $2 million in legislative appropriation to Southeast Conference 5) $2 million in RE Fund round 4 to APC (#629) The project will be dispatched in conjunction with AP&T"s existing Black Bear Lk and South Fork hydro projects. Previous applications state that Reynolds Creek hydro will only be used after the existing hydro projects are fully dispatched. An extension of PoW transmission to the northern portion of island to serve Coffman Cove and Naukati has been funded by the Denali Commission and RE Fund round 1. AEA has the following concerns about this application: 1. The application provides a cost estimate of $18.6 million for the hydro project, including transmission. However the most recent budget information available to AEA indicates a total project cost of $27.6 million. 2. While AEA agreed to reimburse up to $2 million in order to begin construction and preserve the FERC license, it was with the condition that Haida Energy provide an acceptable power sales agreement and finance plan prior to additional reimbursement. Haida Energy submitted a finance plan with a Power Project Loan Fund (PPLF) application to AEA for $20 million, at the limit authorized by the Legislature. However, AEA has rejected the proposed loan terms and asked Haida Energy to revise and resubmit with terms that conform to the PPLF statutes. Because of these unresolved issues, AEA believes additional funding is not warranted at this time. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,200,000 Cost of Power: $0.28 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $240,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,440,000 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: iceineisal wi 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 17 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 f= ALASKA @— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #808 Reynolds Creek HydroTransmissionLine Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Power Company AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 8.75 1.05 0.59 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 14.00 ees Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 0.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) aaa _— Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank 22.75 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Application for easement, ADL 106437 for portion over State tide & submerged land DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 18 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § orarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @—> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #809 _SEAPA Phase | Wind Site Recon Study | sini Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: Southeast Alaska Power Agency AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) requests funding of $72,630 from Round V of the Renewable Energy lund, with a matching contribution from SEAPA of $8,070 for a total cost of $80,700, for a Phase I (reconnaissance) wind site assessment along transmission line paths owned by Southeast Alaska Power Agency, which extend from the City of Ketchikan, Alaska, located on the western coast of Revillagigedo Island, near the southernmost boundary of Alaska, to the City of Petersburg, located on the north end of Mitkof Island in Southeast Alaska. SEAPA is the grantee and Dave Carlson, CEO, has overall authority for the project. Eric Wolfe, Director of Special Projects, will be the primary contact representing SEAPA and has day-to-day responsibility to ensure that the project is on schedule and within budget. The project seeks funding for analyzing the raw wind data and preparing a wind assessment report. Based on the wind assessment results/report, a subsequent proposal may be submitted for a Phase II feasibility analysis and conceptual design. The study will also analyze the potential impacts to existing and migrating avian species. The study is proposed to determine if it is feasible to use wind power to supplement the energy needs and conserve water used for hydropower for the communities serviced by SEAPA, which include Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell, with the long-term objective and goal of serving the power needs of additional communities, including Kake. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Full Funding | SEAPA proposes reconnaissance of wind development along the Ketchikan-Petersburg transmission corridor (#809). . Wind development may be attractive on this grid since it can be used to displace valuable, dispatchable, storage hydro generation. Wind energy is planned to be part of the Southeast Integrated Resosurce Plan, identified as a resource that needs reconnaissance work. Recommend full funding for reconnaissance assessment along the Ketchikan-Petersburg intertie corridor. Before grant is issued, the proposed scope needs to be revised to better match wind reconnaissance standards. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $72,630 Cost of Power: $0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $8,070 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $80,700 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: ” $72,630 4/11/2012 1:16:59 PM Page 19 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 == ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App#809_SEAPAPhaselWindSiteReconStudy ...) Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: Southeast Alaska Power Agency AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 3.13 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 8.47 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 31.26 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 1.67 aay ae SS Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Potential to use State land within existing SEAPA transmission line corridor, ADL 106442 DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 20 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRA4FT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (= ENERGY AUTHORITY App #810 SEAPA Wind Resources Assessment & Economic Feasibility Study J Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility Proposer: Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) Riso AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) requests funding of $72,630 from Round V of the Renewable Energy lund, with a matching contribution from SEAPA of $8,070 for a total cost of $80,700, for a Phase I (reconnaissance) wind site assessment in Ketchikan and the region surrounding High Mountain on Gravina Island, and funding of $142,500 from Round V of the Renewable Energy Fund, with a cash contribution from SEAPA of $7,500, for a total cost of $150,000 for Phase II (feasibility analysis and conceptual design/ permitting) from Round V of the Renewable Energy Fund. The total project cost for both phases is projected to be $230,700. SEAPA is the grantee and Dave Carlson, CEO, has overall authority for the project. Eric Wolfe, Director of Special Projects, will be the primary contact representing SEAPA and has day-to-day responsibility to ensure that the project is on schedule and within budget. SEAPA, or its retained contractor, will install a wind-measuring meteorological ("met") tower and complete geotechnical work to solidify the options of installing wind turbines at or near Ketchikan. The work will include conducting an initial site assessment, obtaining a letter of non-objection for placement of a wind tower and geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, purchasing, transporting, and installing a met tower, studying the wind resource for one year and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotech nical investigation. This design will address the current hydropower and distribution system to identify any upgrades that are needed to integrate wind power. A variety of wind turbine models and quantity configurations will be considered. The study is proposed to determine if it is feasible to use wind power to supplement the energy needs and conserve water used for hydropower for the communities it services, which include Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell, with the long-term objective and goal of serving the power needs of additional communities, including Kake. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | SEAPA proposes feasibility of wind development in the Ketchikan area, including a meteorological tower on Gravina Island and permitting and environmental analysis. SEAPA is also requesting funding for a more general reconnaissance study of wind development along the Ketchikan-Petersburg transmission corridor (#809). Wind development may be attractive on this grid since it can be used to displace valuable dispatchable storage generation. However AEA is concerned that site selection is not based on a systematic, reconnaissance-level approach. This work is proposed under application #809 and should preceed the work proposed in this application. Recommend no funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $215,130 Costof Power: $0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $15,570 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $230,700 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: os 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 21 =— Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 Je ALASKA App #810 | SEAPA Wind Resources Assessment & Economic Feasibility Stud pitied Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) ey AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 3.13 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Scoring & Project Rank 17.13 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No State land or easement interest DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 41/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 22 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prart 1-17-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 811 Kake-Petersburg Inter-Connection Engineering ; } Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description Power deliveries from SEAPA to Kake across the proposed Kake to Petersburg Intertie would affect the voltage profile across the SEAPA network if new supplementary equipment is not installed in Petersburg and possibly Wrangell, Alaska. Additionally, changes to existing equipment located in either Petersburg or Wrangell may be necessary as a result of the proposed Kake - Petersburg line. Since the May 2009, Kake-Petersburg Intertie Report (D. Hittle & Associates), substantial load growth has occurred in Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan. This project consists of engineering analysis and preliminary design work that will identify the effects on the SEAPA system that result from power deliveries to Kake. The engineering analysis will determine existing equipment changes, and new equipment rating, new equipment location, and estimations for new equipment life cycle costs. Cost estimates will include: final design, site specification, procurement, installation, commissioning, ongoing O&M costs, and future replacement costs. A final report will organize the analysis results by proposed KPI path (route). Previous electrical engineering studies such as the Kake-Petersburg Intertie. Study Update by D. Hittle & Associates for the Southeast Conference, and SEAPA's internal studies (power flow and power transient) will be used as reference works. iew Comments and Not Reco Southeast Alaska Power Authority proposes feasibility and conceptual design to assess impacts of delivering SEAPA power to Kake. Currently there are three sources of funding for the 50-mile Kake-Petersburg Intertie focused on completing final design and permitting: 1) $2.99 million from RE Fund Round 1 (#29), 2) $500,000 grant from a 2008 legislative appropriation, and 3) $2 million grant from an additional legislative appropriation. Currently work under the KWETICO (Kwaan) grant has consisted of conceptual design and environmental field studies for the two primary routes under consideration. An MOU between SEAPA, KWETICO, IPEC and AEA establishes ownership, maintenance, and operation responsibilities for the project. AEA, the grantees, and SEAPA will enter into a project management agreement. AEA believes that the work proposed under this grant will advance the Kake-Petersburg Intertie. However, AEA believes that the current work proposed can be accomplished using current project funding. Existing grants require a project management agreement. AEA will require that SEAPA take the lead on this work under that agreement. AEA will work with its partners to ensure that the proposed scope of work is accomplished as proposed. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $66,300 Cost of Power: $0.28 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $11,700 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $78,000 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 23 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA App #811 _ Kake-Petersburg Inter-Connection Engineering _ Resource: Transmission Proposer: Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) AEA Program Manager: Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 8.75 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 10.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Nota project but an analysis of the feasiblility of what and where DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments > ENERGY AUTHORITY | Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility Applicant Type: Government Entity Economic Analysis Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) Scoring & Project Rank 23.75 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments “See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 24 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prart 1-11-12 J== ALASKA App #812 AVTEC Hydroelectric Training Facility = Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Vocational Technical Center AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description AVTEC will partner with the City of Seward to renovate, refurbish, and upgrade the City's existing Marathon Hydroelectric plant, which is currently unused. The plant will become an educational and training tool that supports AVTEC's Hydro Power Plant Operator training program, sponsored by the Alaska Energy Authority. The intent is to return the plant to productive use and maximize the training benefits it can provide. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | AVTEC proposes to renovate, refurbish and upgrade the City's existing Marathon Hydro plant, currently unused. The application is largely the same as #657 in round 4. For that application AEA recommended partial funding of $67,000 for final design and permitting. AEA and AVTEC entered into a grant agreement in July 2011 for this work, but little work has been completed to date. Since the design and permitting work is not yet completed, the scope of work, cost estimate, and schedule cannot be verified, and there is not sufficient basis to recommend funding at this time. Recommend no funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $639,050 Cost of Power: $0.17 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $639,050 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: sie | 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 25 = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 Js= ALASKA App #812 _ AVTEC Hydroelectric Training Facility i siiiidacieliagd Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Vocational Technical Center AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) §.31 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Scoring & Project Rank 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 1.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 15.31 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Possible permit authorization required (insufficient location information to determine). DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 26 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY 1 Whitman Lake Project: Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of ketchikan dba Ketchikan Public Utilities AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The Whitman Lake Project will install 4.6 MW of hydropower generating capacity at an existing dam, supporting near-term capacity demand increases in the Ketchikan area and displacing diesel generation as the existing Tyee Lake (SEAPA) resource becomes fully utilized. It will also replace the aging water supply system of the SSRAA Whitman Lake hatchery, providing increased water quantity, reliability and redundancy to a facility that is critical to the region’s commercial fishing, seafood processing and sportfishing industries. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | Ketchikan Public Utilities requests funding for contruction of the 4.6 MW Whitman Hydro project. The project would benefit the local fish hatchery owned by the SSRAA by providing a new water supply. Prior grants include a RE Fund round 1 (#37) for final design and permitting of $1.3M and a round 4 grant for construction (#620) of $700,000. The Legislature provided $1 million in 2010, and $8.025 million in 2011. Total state funding available for construction is $8.73 million. KPU has obtained authority to issue a $15 million revenue bond for construction. Recently the cost estimate for the project was adjusted upwards from $16.5 million to $26.5 million due to FERC licensing conditions and escalation of costs over time. AEA has recently learned that KPU must obtain an amendment to its power purchase agreement with SEAPA, without which KPU will be legally unable to use energy from the Whitman Lake project for its ratepayers. At the time of this evaluation, this matter remains unresolved. Ata SEAPA board meeting in November SEAPA staff presented an analysis showing that under the latest load forecast (the SEIRP reference case) a substantial amount of energy from the combined hydro systems would be spilled, thus significantly limiting public benefit. AEA believes that additional funding for this project is unwarranted at this time. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,300,000 Cost of Power: $0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $20,050,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $23,350,000 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: } 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 27 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-17-12 J== ALASKA App #813. Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of ketchikan dba Ketchikan Public Utilities AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 3.13 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 20.00 hi / 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 24.13 7) Sustainability (Max 5) ; = Wee Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments State Land - EEA issued, ADL 107151 DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Strong ground shaking from earthquakes is not considered in the environmental issues identified in the EA and FEA. The project site is ~214 km from the Queen Charlotte fault. Low to moderate ground shaking should be considered in engineering design. The Canoe Passage fault is listed as a Neogene fault on the Neotectonic Map of Alaska, however, little is known about it. Although it may not be a major issue, the applicant should search for any studies done for other projects that may have assessed this structure. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 28 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pR4FT 1-11-12 [= ALASKA = ENERGY AUTHORITY App #814 _ Glennallen School Campus Biomass Heating Project } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Copper River Schoo! District Bevan AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description This Project is for the installation of a biomass boiler system to provide heat and hot water for the Glennallen School Facilities (Glennallen High School/Elementary School Building, Vocational Training Building, District Office/Distance Learning/Rural Cap Building) of the Copper River School District. The system will utilize a Messersmith Boiler System similar to those already employed at the Tok School and Delta High School and will use readily available chips in the Copper Valley. Glennallen Campus Biomass Heating Project will be a similar system to that of the Tok and Delta Schools. This project is a result of regional biomass planning and collaboration between government agencies, local businesses and regional stakeholders. iew Comments an ommendation Full Fundi The Copper River School District in collaboration with the Copper River Development Association proposes conceptual design, final design, and construction of a biomass boiler system that will heat the Glennallen High School, the Elementary School, the Vocational Training Buildings, the District Office, and both Distance Learning and Rural Cap. The system will displace approximately 63,350 gallons of fuel oil each year. The system would use approximately 1000 green tons of chips per year. The project has begun conceptual design, and the application includes a conceptual cost estimate. This project proposes to utilize the same boiler system as the Tok School and Delta Greely School, projects funded through the Renewable Energy Fund. Forest inventories have been completed for the Glennallen area, and the required timber volumes for this project appears within the sustainable harvest limits. The local sawmill operator has signed a letter of commitment for the chip supply for this project. The project team includes engineers with experience developing the Tok and Delta projects with the intent of standardizing the design. The proposal shows excellent community support. However the proposal does not include a match. Given the standardized approach AEA is comfortable with recommending full funding with required approval of development phases. AEA is concerned that long-term fuel supply for this 20-year project needs to be better established. As part of the completion of the feasibility and conceptual design AEA will require preparation of a fuel supply plan. The final design phase should include a long-term fuel supply contract with a contingency plan. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding, with requirement of AEA acceptance of feasibility and final design phases. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,244,897 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $0 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $3,244,897 Copper River/Chugach _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $3,244,897 | 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 29 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App#814___ Gle Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Copper River School District Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Cri (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 6.88 0.90 0.90 / 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 0.00 ae ‘ 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 12.30 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 3.87 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 37.72 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.67 ee NE” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Possible Forestry or DNR authorization for fuel collection, depending on the proposed access and method of harvest. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments "This project is for a proposed wood chip heating system for Glennallen School Facilities. The system would utilize a Messersmith Boiler System similar to the ones constructed in Tok and Delta. The project proposal states that the system would displace 1,266,300 gallons over a 20 year period or about 63,300 gallons per year. It is estimated that 1,007 green tons of biomass would be required annually for the boiler. An important positive aspect to this proposal is a letter of support from the local sawmill that states a commitment to provide wood chips at $80 per ton. The Division of Forestry’s Glennallen forest inventory indicates that within a 30 mile distance from the town center there is an estimated 4,400 tons of biomass annually available on a sustainable basis. An average of 11.37 net tons per acre of volume is present. The 1,007 tons needed annually for the boiler would equate to approximately 89 acres per year. In light of biomass availability, which doesn’t factor in additional supply potentially available from Ahtna and BLM lands, the project appears quite sustainable. DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *“*See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 30 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #815 Wave Energy/ Sequestration Technology (WEST) _ ) Resource: Ocean/River Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Atmocean, Inc. Design AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: IPP Project Description (Hydrokinetic) Atmocean proposes to deploy 600 of our Wave Energy/Sequestration Technology (“WEST”) devices about 1-2 miles off Cannon Beach near Yakutat, Alaska to generate up to 90% of Yakutat’s annual kWh, at projected fuel cost savings of 44%. Payback for this project is estimated at about 4 years. WEST devices convert wave energy into hydraulic pressure which is transmitted by seafloor hose then onshore pipe or hose (as appropriate) to hydraulic motors driving existing electrical generators — avoiding the high cost of seafloor electrical cable, and utilizing existing onshore generation, transmission, and distribution. Using this hybrid system architecture, WEST provides primary generation and the existing diesel system provides backup and peak generation. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1 | Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $4,885,610 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $77,355 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $4,962,965 asieee _AEA Funding Recommendation: 2 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 31 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 /= ALASKA @ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #815 Wave Energy/ Sequestration Technology (WEST) Resource: Ocean/River Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Atmocean, Inc. Design AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: IPP Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 0.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 A . Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Scoring & Project Rank 10.00 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 32 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA (= ENERGY AUTHORITY App#816 _ Allison Creek Project “i ws) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The Allison Creek Project is a run of the river (ROR) alternative involving construction of a diversion structure on Allison Creek at elevation 1,300 feet. Water will be diverted from the creek into a 42 inch surface / buried penstock to a 6.5 megawatt powerhouse near tidewater. Attachment A is the Final Feasibility Study which provides details on this project as presented and approved by the CVEA Board of Directors. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | Copper Valley Electric proposes funding for construction of the 6.5 MW run-of-river hydro project on Allison Creek, estimated to cost $38,804,000. Specifically CVEA requests funds to purchase long lead items. To date CVEA has been awarded $13,288,000 in various state grants. By SB 46 language, CVEA is limited in the amount of state funds to 50% of the project costs. CVEA submitted a license application to FERC in August 2011. Currently the project is in the final design and permitting stage. Final design and permitting is scheduled for completion in early 2013. Based on the work to date, the project appears to offer significant benefits, including iE Substantial displacement of diesel generation--approximately 1.1 million gallons per year in fuel savings. CVEA’s hydro generation would increase from 52 to 68% hydro. 2 Substantial monetary savings in relation to the installed cost (high benefit/cost ratio). Bs Ability to supply hydro generation to seasonal industrial loads, such as the new expansion of the PetroStar refinery. However, since final design and permitting will not be completed until 2013 at the earliest, AEA believes that it is premature to allocate additional construction funds to this project. Currently CVEA has $10 million of fy12 state capital funds that may be made available for long lead time items. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $6,114,000 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $6,114,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $12,228,000 Copper River/Chugach | AEA Funding Recommendation: ; 11112012 1:15:59 PM Page 33 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 {= ALASKA (@—> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #816 _ Allison Creek Project ctu teaiaaiesincannlitaaamarensess) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 6.88 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 19.00 / . Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 30.88 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Pena eases Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank DNRI/DMLW Feasibility Comments Site selected all on DNR lands. Full spectrum of authorizations required. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments There are no known active faults at the project site. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #817 Solomon Gulch unit 2 Efficiency Upgrade ~.. Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Utility Project Description CVEA is currently in the process of purchasing a new runner for Unit 2 at the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric facility. This project will increase CVEA’s renewable energy capacity. The new runner will be manufactured utilizing state of the art flow analysis which will result in efficiency gains of approximately 10%. The installation of the runner along with the overhaul of Unit 2 will occur in late fall 2012. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Failed Stage 1 - ‘ Did Not Pass Stage 1 | Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $687,700 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $687,700 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,375,400 Copper River/Chugach rn eer ntti) 4/4112012 1:15:59 PM Page 35 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § orarr 7-11-12 f= ALASKA App #817 Solomon Gulch unit 2 Efficiency Upgrade Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 6.88 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 18.00 ef Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Scoring & Project Rank 26.88 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Upgrades to existing lease. No additional authorizations needed. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments There are no known active faults at the project site. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 36 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #818 Gulkana Village Biomass Fuels Project _ ) Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Gulkana Village Council Design AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The project will be a small scale "Wood Products for Heat" (Biomass) operation with a heavy emphasis on the development of a viable small scale wood pellet production facility. The project will work to achieve the following three (3) strategic objectives (SO): 1) SO1: Displace 100% of the very expensive fossil fuels used for heat production in our community. 2) SO2: Manage our wood products for heat production operation to ensure sustainability and, 3) SO3: Create local jobs in our rural community supported by our natural resources. Small scale pellet operations do not enjoy the "economies of scale" of their larger cousins and experience higher production costs "per ton of pellets produced". This fact makes it important to identify all the production costs and manage them properly, to remain a self-supporting, on-going concern. Higher production costs in rural Alaska are not a problem unless they exceed the sales income and result in 'Jobs' in rural Alaska". This reality of the lack of "economies of scale", leads to the importance of SO2 "Sustainability": The sale of "wood products for heat", especially wood pellets must return enough financial resources (sales) to maintain, over time, the production and capital replacement costs of the operation. The operation must "breakeven" to be sustainable. A preliminary analysis determined, based on the current market, the production costs must be at or below $120 per ton with attention to all the cost factors to sustain an on-going pellet producing operation. This cost is not set and is dependent on the level of actual sales. We currently have "unsolicited" orders for 60 tons of pellets per year for boilers being installed in the region. 60 tons won't support the operation, however it is an indication wood pellets are in demand and commodity in the region. Based on research there are 1099 housing units in the area and 31% of these units utilize some type of wood products for heat. It is expected as the global economy recovers and the cost of energy increases the use of wood for heat will increase. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation __ Did Not Pass Stage1 | Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $850,000 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $0 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $850,000 Copper River/Chugach _ AEA Funding Recommendation: | 9/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 37 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA App #818 Gulkana Village Biomass Fuels Project _ iii lcci Resource: Biomass Proposer: Gulkana Village Council AEA Program Manager: Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 0.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Applicant Type: Government Entity Economic Analysis Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) Scoring & Project Rank Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 38 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA = ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 819 Stetson Creek Diversion/ Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project i) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Proposer: Chugach Electric Association AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Project Description As a condition of the ederal Energy Regulatory Commission (IERC) relicensing of the Cooper Lake plant in 2007, Chugach agreed to construct a project to divert water from Stetson Creek into the Cooper Lake reservoir and a related structure to release water into Cooper Creek. The project will enhance fish habitat and add water to Cooper Lake which will result in additional hydroelectric energy generation. Most importantly, constructing this project allows the license for the Cooper Lake hydro facility to be renewed for 50 years. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation artial Funding Chugach Electric requests funding to complete final design and construction of a project to divert water from Stetson Creek into the Cooper Lake Reservoir and a related structure to release environmental flows into Cooper Creek as a part of the FERC re-licensing of Cooper Lake hydro project in 2007. CEA agreed to spend up to $12.5 million (2009$) to construct this project in order to enhance fish habitat in Cooper Creek by raising the stream water temperature. CEA received funding from the RE Fund (#674) for feasibility and permitting/final design in Round 4. The cost of final design has increased, and the current proposal requests half of the funding for the increase. In support of the relicensing effort CEA has funded a substantial amount of feasibility-level work. In 2007 the project was estimated to cost about $11 million. However, following a 2009 constructability review, the capital cost estimate increased to $24 million due to requirements for tunneling and control structures for the diverted water and for the environmental flows. The main benefit of the proposed project would be the continued operation of the 19.4 MW Cooper Lake project. In addition the diversion adds water to Cooper Lake, resulting in a net increase in hydropower. For the purposes of the economic analysis prepared for evaluating this application, only the additional costs of the diversion and benefits of the incremental hydropower are considered. By formal notice, CEA has to have design drawings completed and forwarded to FERC by August 2012. A schedule submitted with the application shows final design and permitting to be completed by end of September 2012, with FERC approval by October 2012. Construction is to be bid by December 2012 and the construction contract award by May 2013. An August 2010 CEA board resolution caps the CEA commitment to construciton at $12.5 million. CEA would need to offset the balance with grant funds. Before RE Fund funding is allocated to construction, it is reasonable for CEA to 1) complete feasibility, permitting, and final design and 2) identify remaining project financing. Recommend partial funding of $49,781 to complete final design. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,453,920 Cost of Power: $0.13 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $17,793,920 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $21,247,840 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $49,781. | 1/11/2012 1:18:59 PM Page 39 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 parr 1-11-12 2 f= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY iia) App #819 Stetson Creek Diversion/ Cooper Lake Dam Faciliti Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chugach Electric Association Design AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 4.06 0.48 . 0.62 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 20.00 ay I 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 11.97 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.25 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 51.28 F 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 Fé Ne Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments USES land, but possible water permit needed. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments There are no known active faults at the project site. See general DGGS comment. 4111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 40 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRart 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @™i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 820 Design & Construction of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Proposer: Interior Regional Housing Authority AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The project will design and construct wood heating systems in three Interior Alaska communities. [RHA is currently conducting feasibility assessments including forest inventories and wood harvest assessments in eight Interior Communities. Once the assessments are complete, three out of the eight communities will be selected for design and construction of high efficiency, low-emission biomass boiler systems. Projects will be selected based on the highest likelihood of successful project implementation. Factors considered will include the amount of fuel oil displaced, cost savings to the community, commitment by the community and facility personnel and a reliable and consistent supply of fuel. IRHA will partner with ANTHC and the individual tribes for the project. and Recommendation The | Interior Regional Housing haces (IRHA) requests funding to build three community wood heating systems to serve community facilities. Through funding from Round 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund, IRHA is currently conducting a feasibility assessment of eight villages: Hughes, Ruby, Koyukuk, Nulato, Kaltag, Nikolai, Anvik, and Holy Cross. All of these communities were identified for wood heating in the Alaska Energy Pathway. Following the assessments, three candidates will be selected. For this analysis, a surrogate project, based on the Village of Huslia, was developed to model potential costs, savings, and biomass requirement. Actual capital costs will vary with any of the three final candidate villages. The project has the potential to benefit 3 remote communities with some of the highest cost of energy in the state while utilizing a wood supply from wildfire mitigation activities. IHRA has assembled a team with a strong background in biomass projects. ‘The project may use a modular wood-fired boiler, thus providing demonstration benefits. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with the requirements that 1) A wood resource analysis must be completed and reviewed by AEA and Alaska Division of Forestry to assure the sustainable supply of wood for each chosen community; 2) AEA must accept the recommendations from the feasibility analyses of the three communities that will advance to design and construction, and 3) the economic analysis B/C ratios of the chosen communities should average greater than 1.25 (the ratio that was assumed for the purpose of analysis. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,215,224 Cost of Power: $0.63 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $173,771 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,388,995 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana- | AEA Funding Recommendation: i eeaeaiidiae Diced. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 41 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-17-12 == ALASKA @_> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #820 Design & Construction of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities _ Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Interior Regional Housing Authority Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 19.69 2.37 1.25 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 12.00 Ne 4 W 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 12.20 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 8.37 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 61.10 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 1.83 Ps Eee Sa Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Assume biomass is from corporation lands. Possible Forestry or DNR authorization for fuel collection, depending on the proposed access and method of harvest. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project would design and construct wood heating facilities in three Interior Alaska communities out of a total of eight that are currently conducting feasibility assessments. The ongoing studies include forest inventories and wood harvest assessments. The selection process will also look at village capacity to help ensure a particular project’s success. It is likely that the wood heating systems will be similar to the village of Tanana which utilizes Garn boilers. Many of these villages are within forested areas along the Yukon River. A sustainable supply of wood is generally thought to be available for the scale of these projects. DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *“*See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 42 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (=> ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 821 Huslia Water System & Clinic Wood Boiler Project j } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Proposer: Huslia Traditional Council AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The project will design and construct a manual cordwood wood energy system in the community of Huslia, Alaska. The wood energy system will provide heat for the community water plant, washeteria and health clinic. The project is projected to save approximately $41,516 annually in fuel costs for the three facilities out of a total fuel expenditure of $30,416/year. The water plant and washeteria are co-located and are adjacent to the health clinic. All three facilities will be served by a common wood-fired heating plant consisting of two Gam WHS 2000 boilers and a fuel storage building. The biomass resource will be purchased from residents of the community by the Huslia Traditional Council. iew Comments and Recommendation Partial Funding The Huslia Traditional Council in collaboration with ANTHC and IHRA is proposing the design and construction of a biomass heating system for the water treatment facility and the clinic. The project is estimated to replace 21,736 gallons of fuel oil. The water treatment plant operator will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the wood heating system. The project will use approximately 254 cords per year AEA has the following concerns about the proposal: 1. The application mentions that current residents supply cordwood for $350 per cord, but there is no mention of letters of intent to supply the wood resource. 2. There is no mention of a wood inventory analysis to guarantee a sustainable wood supply. State Forestry notes that land availability for harvest is not established. 3. Although a reconnaissance assessment has been prepared, there is not a comprehensive feasibility assessment of fuel availability and project alternatives. Despite these concerns, economics appear favorable and AEA believes that partial funding is warranted to advance the project through final design. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend partial funding of $50,000 for completion of feasibility and final design, including fuelwood inventory and supply plan with the requirement that AEA accept the feasibility report before funding is made available for final design. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $398,331 Cost of Power: $0.52 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $80,650 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $478,981 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 1/41/2012 1:16:59 PM Page 43 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #821 Huslia Water System & Clinic Wood Boiler Project Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Huslia Traditional Council Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis i t i / . 0.91 | 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 16.25 0.89 e 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 43.00 oar VA 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 8.90 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 2.88 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 52.36 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.33 1 Leek ha wee” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No permits or easements required for the construction of the actual facility. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments The resource supply analysis for Huslia’s two Garn boiler system would identify specific areas to be harvested and utilize Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program’s GIS system along with other existing regional forestry and Native allotment inventories conducted Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program and others. A preliminary feasibility assessment prepared by the Juneau Economic Development Council confirms that driftwood can be a significant source of wood. This project will require approximately 254 cords of fuel wood which equals about 125 cords per year for each Garn unit to displace approximately 21,736 gallons of #1 fuel oil. This resource supply analysis would assist in determining if Huslia has sufficient accessible harvest areas. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *"*See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 44 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 == ALASKA @_— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #822 Wood Heating Feasibility in Public Facilities, Interior Region Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Interior Regional Housing Authority AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The seven communities named in this proposal: Northway, Tanacross, Nenana, Circle, Eagle, Stevens Village, and Minto, have all participated in energy planning meetings with Interior Regional Housing Authority (the applicant), Tanana Chiefs Conference, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Denali Commission, Alaska Energy Authority, and others, and have identified wood heating in public facilities as a key opportunity to displace fuel oil, reduce energy costs, utilize locally available renewable resources, and create local employment. This proposal calls for feasibility assessments that include study of public facilities where wood heating might be applicable, pre-engineering analysis of the size and type of boilers that would be required (including the "Garn-in-a-box" option), estimated fuel displacement and cost savings, capital cost and payback period, and forest inventory and wood harvest plan. The applicant proposes a three-pronged approach: (1) subcontract with a qualified biomass energy specialist (e.g., Thomas Deerfield, who is presently evaluating wood heating feasibility in eight Interior villages with a RE Fund-Round 4 grant) to conduct 1- to 2-day site visits in each community and prepare feasibility assessments for each, (2) subcontract with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium for staff engineer with expertise in water and sewer systems to conduct site inspection and prepare feasibility assessment for those systems, and (3) subcontract with Will Putman, head forester for Tanana Chiefs Conference (ICC) to conduct forest inventory and wood harvest planning. Following the completion of these reports, project staff Kim Carlo of Interior Regional Housing Authority (RHA) will continue to communicate with residents of the communities and facilitate their internal planning processes to determine whether each community wants to move forward with final design and construction phases of the respective wood-heating projects, pending available funding. It bears mentioning this proposal is identical in scope to one submitted by IRHA under Round 4 of the RE Fund for wood heating feasibility work in eight other Interior communities. This represents a deliberate approach whereby the applicant is proceeding in stages with conducting feasibility work prior to conceptual design, final design, and construction. It is anticipated that the phased approach will allow IRHA to conduct full assessments for most communities in the region. The Interior Reveal Housing Rathorty (IRHA) in collaboration with ANTHC requests funding for feasibility assessments and forest inventories in 7 communities to evaluate the potential use of biomass systems for heating. This is the 2nd application for feasibility assessments. A project for 8 communities was funded through Round 4. The proposed communities for this round are: Northway, Tanacross, Nenana, Circle, Eagle, Stevens Village, and Minto. IRHA has assembled a strong team with a biomass energy and resource experience. AEA believes that the proposed approach is well-conceived. AEA requested further information regarding why this project cost significantly more than a similar round 4 project (#637) that cost $154,477. IRHA replied that 1) they are hiring ANTHC to conduct water and sewer energy efficiency and biomass feasibility analyses at a cost of approximately $88,000, and 2) they under- budgeted cost of resource analysis by Tanana Chiefs last time. However end use energy efficiency work is not an eligible activity under the Renewable Energy Fund and has other sources of support. For the purposes of our recommendation AEA will assume that 50% of the ANTHC work can be supported by the RE Fund ($44,172). AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend partial funding of $279,525 (requested amount $323,696 - $44,172) for feasibility and biomass energy resource assessment. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $323,696 Cost of Power: $0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $323,696 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana AEA Funding Recommendation: $279,525 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 45 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 == ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #822 Wood Heating Feasibility in Public Facilities, InteriorRegion = sis Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Interior Regional Housing Authority AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 18.13 0.89 am ; 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 0.00 - \A 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 12.83 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 3.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 45.83 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.50 td Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Assume biomass is not from state lands. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project will provide feasibility studies for additional Interior villages. The project is essentially a continuation of last year’s project # 637 proposal. It will provide for a feasibility study of seven Interior villages and for pre-engineering analysis of the size and type of boilers required. The studies will examine the use of proposed cordwood fueled Garn boiler heating systems similar to the facility in use for the village of Tanana but, the analyses are not limited to these systems. The proposal seeks to acquire forest inventory data from TCC’s existing village forest inventory projects in the region. Two villages, Nenana and Tanacross are also adjacent to State Forest lands. Inventory data for the Tanana Valley State Forest is available that provides data for additional wood source areas. This project will continue work to determine an operable sustainable biomass resource supply for individual communities within the region. DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 46 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #823 _Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project i Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Tatitlek Village IRA Council = AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Utility Project Description This project proposes to add waste heat recovery heat exchangers by connecting the Tatitlek Generator system to the adjacent Tatitlek Community Center thereby providing the majority of the heating and domestic hot water needs. This project was fully engineered and designed as an alternate additive to a renovation project of the building in 2006; the plans will need to be updated and a new fire marshal permit received for the project to be ready for construction. The generator system was originally designed by Alaska Energy Authority to utilize waste heat recovery and the community center mechanical system was designed and replaced so that it will be able to utilize the generator waste heat to heat the entire building with an oil fired boiler as a back-up and/or supplemental system. Oil heat is the current heating system. Program objectives: + Reduce heating costs within the community. * Recover wasted energy * Reduce barging requirements into the community and conflicts between generator requirements and homeowner fuel needs. + Provide more reliable heating systems * Reduce total community energy cost AEA Review Comments and Recommendation _ Full Funding | The Tatitlek Tribal Council proposes updating a 2006 mechanical design plan and construction of a diesel heat recovery system that will supply the Tatitlek Community Center, which houses the Village IRA Council administrative offices, from the power plant, 50 feet away. The generating station and admin building were designed to accommodate this application when the power plant was refurbished in 2006, and the only phase remaining for this project is construction and installation. The original designer would manage design and construction. The cost estimate was developed based on an AEA field visit in July 2011. The project is estimated to displace 6,000 gallons of fuel oil. The technology is proven and the construction complexity will be low. The operation and maintenance of the system will be performed by the current operator. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA accept the final design cost estimate prior to releasing funds for construction. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $265,000 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $30,800 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $295,800 Copper River/Chugach _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $265,000 4111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 47 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #823 _Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Tatitlek Village IRA Council Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 47.19 1.90 1.90 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 11.00 ™ 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 16.73 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.88 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 68.63 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.83 ee Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not DNR land DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 414112012 1:15:59 PM Page 48 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #824 _ Anaktuvuk Pass Geothermal Feasibility Study J Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: North Slope Borough AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Utility Local Government Project Description The North Slope Borough (NSB) envisions a combination of geothermal energy and waste heat recovery to enhance district space heating for residential use. Existing waste heat includes the power plant and warm processed wastewater from the treatment plant. This reconnaissance study is intended to determine if known underground resources are capable of providing geothermal energy in combination with waste heat recovery to support space heating of residential homes, commercial and public buildings. The study will include collection of existing data, identification of additional resources, and analysis to prepare recommendations. Anaktuvuk Pass’s diesel gensets for district heating. The applications basic design for the GSHP is a 4,000 foot long trench, 3-4 feet wide, and 12-15 feet deep. No previous work has been done on the GSHP side of the project. Waste heat recovery is currently being used to heat the Public Works building and fire station. The proposed project would begin in August 2012 and be completed by the end of 2013. AEA has the following concerns with this project: 1. We question the likelihood of achieving the expected coefficient of performance (COP) of 3 due to the very cold ground expected at Anaktuvuk Pass. 2. The electricity to power the GSHP would come from diesel gensets that are generating at around 30% efficiency. This indicates that little if any diesel would be offset by the project. 3. The cost of the feasibility assessment (~$187,000) is very high. AEA believes that a more systematic, statewide approach for GSHP feasibility would be more efficient and less costly. This work was started by AEA, UAF and CCHRC and should be continued. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $169,960 Cost of Power: $0.15 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $16,996 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $186,956 North Slope _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 49 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA = ENERGY AUTHORITY App #824 _ Anaktuvuk Pass Geothermal Feasibility Study Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: North Slope Borough AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Utility Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score / 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 4.69 1.10 on ; 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 9.00 J \4 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 550 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 33.56 7) Sustainability (Max 5) bea Se Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments The project proposes to seek warm (40°F) ground water to be utilized for a geothermal heat pump system. The proposal refers to Anaktuvuk Pass as being near one of four distinct geothermal regions, citing AEA’s 2011 Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska. The nearest identified hot springs is over 150 miles away to the southwest of Anaktuvuk Pass. Because there are no known nearby geothermal springs, specific details that provide their rational behind this aspect of their proposal, and the methodology used to conduct a reconnaissance study on potential geothermal resource opportunities within the vicinity of Anaktuvuk Pass, should be provided. This is essentially a heat pump proposal, although the area is well north of areas of successful heat-pump utilization. Because of the lack of thermal springs in the area, it is likely that 40F water would need to be produced from ~2000-foot wells. The cost of drilling, and the significant risk of not finding a reservoir at depth with sufficient capacity, need to be considered along with heat-pump economics. DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 50 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarrT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #825 _ and 827 Thayer Lake Hydropower Development Transmission/Generation Project | Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kootznoowoo, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: IPP Project Description Thayer Lake Hydropower Development consists of a 1 +MW run of the river hydropower project located in the Tongass Morest within the Admiralty Island National Monument based on a proposal that Kootznoowoo submitted in March 2000 which is described more full in the Angoon Hydrologic Project Feasibility Evaluation Report currently on file with the AEA (Project). The development would be located on Thayer Creek approximately 6 miles north of Angoon. Thayer Creek flows out of Thayer Lake (64 square mile reservoir) at a gentle grade through a broad forested valley then steepens for 6,800 feet through a narrow forested canyon and finally flattens again for 2000 feet before flowing into Chatham Strait. The development will tap the energy potential in the steep section of the stream and will avoid any impact on anadromous fish that use the lower portion of the creek. The average flow of Thayer Creek is approximately 370 cfs and can vary from 25 cfs during the coldest periods of the winter to over 2000 cfs during storms in the fall and winter. The generating facility has a head of 250 feet which is approximate because of the wording of the Forest Service Record of Decision (ROD) requiring maintenance of fish habitat. An additional restriction set forth in the ROD which is not considered in the HDR proposal requires the overland transmission line be buried where feasible along the access road to the community of Angoon. The generating facilities funding will be submitted in a separate companion application for Round V funds. Review Comments and Recommendation Full Fundi Kootznoowoo Inc. proposes construction of a 1+ MW run-of-river hydroelectric project and 6.7 mi transmission project to supply the community of Angoon. Kootznoowoo has supplied separate applications for each of the projects (#825 and 827). AEA is combining the two project proposals together for the purposes of evaluation. AEA has a Round 4 (#670) grant to Kootznoowoo in the amount of $1,060,500 for permitting and final design with equal match from DOE. Although the application indicates that design and permitting will be complete by September 2012, AEA believes this schedule is overly optimistic and that it is premature to allocate construction funds to this project. AEA initially recommendation against funding this project due to concerns that Kootznoowoo would not be able to complete design and permitting by September 2012. Kootznoowoo requested reconsideration of this recommendation on the basis that ten months is sufficient time for them to complete design and permitting. In response AEA is willing to recommend funding for construction, with the requirement that no construction funds will be granted until AEA accepts final design, Kootznoowoo completes curmet grant activities, and the project team demonstrates that all permits have been issued and that project financing and power sales agreements are in place. Full funding recommended with the above special provisions. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $7,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $2,156,402 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $9,156,402 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $7,000,000 | 1/11/2012 1:16:59 PM Page 51 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA @@ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #825 _and 827 Thayer Lake Hydropower Development Transmission/Generation Project _ Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kootznoowoo, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: IPP Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score : 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.19 2.59 K ey 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 17.00 Ts E NW 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 11.37 Benen ost [atic (Appecers) Benet oe Cate) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 69.26 ] 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.33 eis NS Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments State tide & submerged land - submarine cable portion of transmission line & marine access facility DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments There are no known active faults in the project area. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 52 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 [= ALASKA App #826 Wrangell Electrical Capacitor Bank _ ‘ nsec) Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City & Borough of Wrangell/Wrangell Municipal Light & Power Design AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The City & Borough of Wrangell in conjunction with Trident Seafood’s proposes to purchase and install a capacitor bank that will offset fish processing reactive power demands and voltage instability over the Tyee Transmission System. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended Wrangell Light & Power requests funding for design and construction of a capacitor bank to correct voltage delivery issues in Wrangell. The applicant asserts that the project would result in improved power quality and greater system stability, there is no indication in the proposal that renewable energy production is increased. Instead the proposal appears to add system components to address operational issues. No fun ding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $74,985 Cost of Power: $0.11 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $6,988 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $81,973 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: A Nitin) 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 53 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § DRAFT 1-17-12 f= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #826 Wrangell ElectricalCapacitorBank J Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City & Borough of Wrangell/Wrangell Municipal Light & Power Design AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 3.44 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 7.00 arg J Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) [eee aS Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank 2.00 12.44 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No State land or easement interest DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 54 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA = ENERGY AUTHORITY App #828 _ Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Metlakatla Indian Communityi Design AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The proposed Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie is a 34.5-kV transmission line that will interconnect the electric systems of Metlakatla Power & Light (MP&L) and Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). The Intertie will include 14 miles of overhead wood pole transmission line to be constructed on Annette Island between Metlakatla and Walden Point and an approximate three mile submarine cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel between Walden Point and KPU’s Mountain Point Substation. The project will also include control system upgrades to allow for the integrated operation of the interconnected systems’ generating plants. Final design of the Metlakatla — Ketchikan Intertie is underway. Construction of the line began in June 2010 and approximately three miles of the overhead line is complete. The control system upgrades were completed in July 2011. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation —__ Not Recommended | Metlakatl Indian Community proposes construction of an intertie that connects Metlakatla to Ketchikan. AEA is providing $2 million in RE F 4 (#20 and 656). Additionally there is another $2 million in grant funds from the state. ‘und rounds 1 and Currently the RE Fund round 4 grant is not in place. Conditions of the grant will include the following as per the round 4 AEA comments: (1) Before any grant funds can be disbursed, MIC is to submit to AEA for its review and approval, a power sales agreement between MIC and KPU which clarifies the terms, conditions, rates and amount of power for this intertie; (2) MIC must demonstrate completion of all preconstruction activities including final design documents and final construction cost estimate; and (3) MIC must demonstrate project site control, including required easements and Rights-of-way, NEPA requirements and all permits needed to construct have been issued. AEA is assisting MIC in complying with these conditions; however this work remains in process. AEA believes it is premature to allocate additional construction funds. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $8,225,000 Cost of Power: $0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $4,500,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $12,725,000 Southeast AEA Funding Recommendation: _ ee 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM ea_ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12 J== ALASKA #828 Metlakatla-KetchikanIntertie 2 snail Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Metlakatla Indian Communityi Design AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 3.13 é 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 17.00 Ss af 4 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 0.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) siciahiaales Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Scoring & Project Rank 20.13 Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments State tide & submerged land - submarine cable portion of intertie DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *“*See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 56 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarr 1-11-12 /= ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY App #829 Walker Lake Feasibility Study = J Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Project Description IPEC proposes to use Renewable Energy grant funds to perform a feasibility study of a small hydroelectric project at Walker Lake. Walker Lake is located close to existing distribution facilities for the Chilkat Valley, Klukwan Village, and the 10 Mile Haines Highway interconnection point with AP&T’s Haines/Skagway communities. The feasibility study will include an alternative analysis and selection of a preferred alternative. A stream gage will be installed to measure flow. A reconnaissance level geotechnical investigation will also be made. The results of these tasks will be presented in a report which will include a written project description, energy generation estimate, cost estimate, cost of energy calculation, a description of licensing and permitting issues and conceptual design drawings. iew Comments and ommendation Not Recomm: IPEC requests grant funds to assess feasibility study of a 1 MW storage or run-of-river hydro project at Walker Lake. The primary purpose of the project would be to supply IPEC’s Chilkat Valley system with hydropower. IPEC is in the process of purchasing the 600 kW Ten-Mile hydro project. IPEC currently purchases hydropower from AP&T’s Upper Lynn Canal grid. Thus, currently all of Chilkat Valley’s power is from hydro sources. The economic analysis performed for this project assumes that that the project will displace diesel generation of 1,950 to 2,800 MWh per year. Based on this assumption it estimates a B/C ratio of 2.7 to 3.9. However, AEA believes that little to no diesel will be displaced by this project. Alaska Power Authority prepared a reconnaissance assessment for Walker Lake in 1988 and Sealaska Corporation updated the assessment in 2005. Both studies concluded that the project feasibility was marginal to poor. AEA has the following concerns with this project: 1. AEA has already committed funding for Connelly Lk, Schubee Lk, and Burro Cr reconnaissance and feasibility assessment. These projects would compete to meet the same loads as the proposed project. 2. Permitting conditions are adverse. The project would require a 6-8 mile transmission line to interconnect to Upper Lynn Canal grid passing through the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve. The site has geotechnical issues. FERC would likely have jurisdiction due to salmon issues. 3. This project would not displace diesel generation. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $160,000 Cost of Power: $0.38 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $170,000 Southeast ji _ AEA Funding Recommendation: j 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 57 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 {== ALASKA pp #.829.......Walker Lake Feasibility Study i) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 11.88 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Scoring & Project Rank 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 22.88 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Within Haines State Forest - Classified Public Recreation DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The project is close to the Chilkat River segment of the Denali fault. See general DGGS comment. 4111/2012 4:15:59 PM Page 58 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 830 Multi Disciplinary Combined Facility Primary Care Center Biomass Feasibility } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Copper River Native Association (on behalf of native Village of AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description This project is to help ascertain the feasibility of using biomass and/or other wood-based alternative energy source to provide long-term sustainable energy sources for a 30,000 s.f. Multi-Disciplinary Combined Facility (“MDCF”) in the Copper River Valley region. The planned facility located in Tazlina, AK, has already been accepted as a Phase II Site Selection and Evaluation Report (“SSER”) schematic approved eligible Joint-Venture Project by the Indian Health Service. The results of such an analysis will help determine if alternative energy sources can reduce long term operating costs over the life of this planned primary care facility, help to ascertain if an expansion of existing CVEA power facilities utilizing biomass sources nearly Glennallen is warranted, or, if separate, stand-alone biomass-based power units housed within or attached to separate facilities is a more efficient business model. iew Comments and Recommendation Partial Copper River Native Association requests funding for studying feasibility of wood-fired heating or combined heat and power to supply a planned “multi- disciplinary combined facility” (MDCF) to be funded by the BIA. AEA and economics contractors were unclear on a number of issues including: 1. Status of the MDCF 2. Source, cost, and volume of biomass 3. The scale of the envisioned project—facility or grid-connected power system. 4. Clarification of the estimated project cost. 5. How the project fit with the Copper Valley Electric Association’s goals for renewable power generation and the Glennallen school’s proposed heating project. These issues should have been addressed in a reconnaissance-level assessment that has not been done to AEA’s knowledge. The information was requested in two separate email messages, but there was no response from the applicant. In response to AEA's initial recommendation for no funding due to lack of response, CRNA requested reconsideration. Based on CRNA's recent clarification that the proposed project is feasibility of a wood pellet-fired thermal system, AEA has concluded that it is reasonable to recommend the project for funding. From the application, the equipment cost for the pellet boilers is estimated at $200,000. Based on previous projects, a feasibility study of this magnitude should cost approximately $30,000. Recommend partial funding of $30,000, with the requirement that AEA will work with CRNA to developed the revised scope. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $132,523 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,840 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $143,363 Copper River/Chugach _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $30,000 | 111112012 1:15:59 PM Page 59 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #830 _ Multi Disciplinary Combined Facility Primary Care Center Biomass Feasibility ] Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Copper River Native Association (on behalf of native Village of AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 6.88 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 10.80 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.13 ; 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 36.80 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.00 Meee Ne” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments As proposed, project only for a regional feasibility study, and not a specific on the ground project. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for a feasibility study to utilize biomass to provide sustainable energy for a 30,000 square foot public health center in Tazlina. The study would seek to determine if the biomass would be better utilized by existing Copper Valley Electric Association facilities or as stand-alone biomass power units within individual facilities such as the health center itself. The project proposal lists the volume availability from the Division of Forestry’s Glennallen inventory report and then applies the sustained yield ratio to total volume to Ahtna forested lands. This method provides a good starting point on volume availability. The project proposal further states that operability will affect the final volume availability amount. It should be noted that the Division of Forestry is currently conducting volume assessments on Gulkana, Gakona and Tazlina areas of Ahtna lands. The Glennallen inventory will be applied to timber type acres within the three villages. This data will be useful in the final analysis of sustainability and wood sourcing. DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 60 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #831 _ Juneau Super Critical Water Oxidation Sewage Sludge to Energy ad Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Lammergeier CleanTech (A Subsidiary of Juneau BioFuels AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: IPP Project Description We will build a sewage sludge destruction and energy co-generation facility at or near one of Juneau’s sewage treatment plants. The sludge will be destroyed using a thermo-chemical process of supercritical water oxidation (SCWO, rhymes with “grow”). The SCWO technology is quite simple, essentially being a very high pressure, very high temperature pressure cooker. We heat water to 600° Celsius (1,100 Fahrenheit) under 4,000 psi of pressure at which point it is no longer a liquid or a gas. It is then a “supercritical fluid”. It penetrates and diffuses into compounds like a gas, but dissolves like a liquid. The reactions are incredibly rapid at only 60 seconds and very thorough with all organics, carbon, and hydrogen compounds converted to gases. The effluent is cooled and separated. It would be adequate at that point. But we take it a step further by injecting liquid oxygen, which oxidizes all of the compounds produced to their highest state. All carbon is converted into CO2 (carbon dioxide). All hydrogen is converted into H2O (water). We actually produce more water than that with which we started. All minerals are rendered to inert oxides. The oxidation process is exothermic, which makes the process self-sustaining through the production of phenomenal amounts of heat. That heat perpetuates the reaction and can be converted into surplus electricity or district heating. At the end you have only clean industrial gases, really clean water, and a mineral ash high in marketable silica and phosphorus. w Comments and Recommendation jot P: Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $4,000,000 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $15,725,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $19,725,000 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 4111/2012 1:16:69 PM Page 61 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12, f= ALASKA App # 831 Juneau Super Critical Water Oxidation Sewage Sludge to Energy } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Lammergeier CleanTech (A Subsidiary of Juneau BioFuels AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: IPP Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 0.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) ay Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Scoring & Project Rank 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 0.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Se Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 62 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 832 Kake Pellet Boiler System ) Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kake City School District —— AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description This biomass project will replace one of our existing boilers with a pellet boiler system. The project will also entail adding a small addition next to the boiler room for storage and loading of the pellets. ents Recommendation Full Fundi The City of Kake is proposing to replace one of the existing boilers at the Kake School with a pellet boiler system, including an outdoor pellet storage silo. It is estimated that the project will displace 42,495 gallons of fuel oil. The project team is in discussion with Sealaska to supply the pellets for this system. The Kake School completed a reconnaissance assessment with the AEA and USFS-supported Alaska Wood Energy Task Group that showed viability of wood heat. The pellet system has been chosen and it is a simple, low maintenance unit. The project would provide a pellet boiler and infrastructure demonstration in a rural Southeast community. AEA is concerned that the application does not allocate sufficient resources for design and contingency. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that the applicant submit a final design and cost estimate acceptable to AEA before construction funding is disbursed. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $155,294 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $155,294 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: ; $155,294 ..) 419112012 1:18:59 PM Page 63 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12 J== ALASKA @—> ENERGY AUTHORITY # Kake Pellet BoilerSystem ——s—s—“—sCS sessment aiid) Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kake City School District Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.19 6.20 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 0.00 ey 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 14.97 enn ost ato (Appacere) Penetuuoet Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 13.25 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 58.24 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.83 Lemay SS” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No State land or easement interest DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments The project is for the replacement of an oil fired boiler with a pellet boiler to provide heat for Kake City School District buildings. Pellets would be provided by Sealaska Corporation and shipped from Juneau to Kake in bulk quantities. A silo would house the pellets in Kake. This fuel delivery model is similar to what is employed in Juneau to provide pellets to the Sealaska corporate building. Kake estimates $80,000 per year in fuel savings through the conversion to pellets. This Project appears to be well thought out and likely to be successful given the fact that the Sealaska Corporation already is utilizing a significant amount of pellets with a proven fuel delivery system. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *"*See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 64 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12 J== ALASKA (@— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #833 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility } Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kenai Hydro LLC AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: IPP Project Description The Grant Lake Hydroelectric Hacility would consist of 5 MW of installed capacity with an average annual output of 20,600 MWh of energy, installed on the Grant lake watershed near Moose Pass, Alaska. The proposed Project is comprised of a diversion dam at the outlet to Grant Lake (under consideration), an intake structure in Grant Lake, a tunnel, a surge tank, a penstock, a powerhouse, a tailrace detention pond, a switchyard with disconnect switch & step-up transformer, and an overhead or underground transmission line. The intake would be in Grant Lake near its outlet. Water would be conveyed from the intake through a 3200’ penstock to a powerhouse containing two Francis-type turbines. The powerhouse would be located near the bank of Grant Creek and would discharge through a second penstock into Grant Creek. A transmission line would connect the facility to the Railbelt grid near Moose Pass. Please see the attached Project Description that was filed with FERC on August 13th, 2010. Kenai Hydro LLC, whose sole member is the Homer Electric Association (HEA), was created in 2008 to evaluate and possibly develop this site as a low impact hydroelectric facility. Kenai Hydro LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Homer Electric Association, proposes final design and construction of a 4.5 MW mg facility at Grant Lake. Recognizing that this Project would provide a significant amount of renewable energy to the Railbelt grid, AEA has previously granted Kenai Hydro $100,000 for reconnaissance assessment in the alternative energy RFP and $816,000 in RE Fund round 1 (#34) and $1,184,000 in round 4(#635). The balance of the estimated $35,000,000 project would be financed and possibly include some public funds. AEA has the following concerns about this project: 1. Final design funding would not be needed until March 2014 at the point anticipated for FERC licensing. For this reason it appears that final design funding is premature. 2. There is significant public opposition to the project. 3. It will likely cost more to mitigate impacts of features not yet anticipated in the cost estimate, such as i) relocation of the roadway and transmission line due to presence of Iditarod Commemorative trail (currently permitted and under development), and ii) the cost of constructing a new tailrace pond. 4. We expect that in the FERC licensing process, there will be constraints on the operation of the project that will significantly impact the amount of energy that can be produced. For instance, energy output will be reduced in order to maintain environmental stream flows and lake levels necessary to mitigate impact on fisheries. 5. KHL does not demonstrate site control at this time. Recommend no funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $4,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.13 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $4,000,000 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: : i 4191/2012 1:16:69 PM Page 65 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 [=ALASKA App #833 _ Grant Lake Hydroele san us) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kenai Hydro LLC AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: IPP Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 4.06 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 0.00 Gn S Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 0.00 4.06 \ ) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) “ede / Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank DNRI/DMLW Feasibility Comments All facilities on DNR land. Will need full spectum of authorizations. Also: within KRSMA, potentially conflicts with existing DNR easement to the USFS, and may affect a national historic trail. There is substantial public interest on whether this project should be done in this location. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Primary seismic hazard is strong ground motions from subduction zone earthquakes. See general DGGS comment. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 66 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 == ALASKA > ENERGY AUTHORITY App #834 Seward Schools Biomass Heating System sili Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kenai Peninsula Borough School District re AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The proposed project will finalize the feasibility and conceptual design, build, and install a wood-fired hydronic heating system in three Seward schools. Phase I, Reconnaissance Study was completed in July, 2011. (See attached reports) This proposed Seward Schools Biomass Heating System project will implement the following multi-phased process: + Phase II, Finalize Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design. * Phase III, Final Design of a wood-fired hydronic heating system to heat the combined Seward High, Middle and Elementary School campus with woody biomass fuel. * Phase IV, Construction, Commissioning, and Operation of the heating system and follow up reporting on operation and maintenance. The project is designed to proceed without the delay of additional grant year cycles. Reports from a 2011 preliminary feasibility assessment and a 2011 District energy evaluation will serve as the reference documents for this project. me d Recom n Full i The Kenai Peninsula Borough School District is proposing to feasibility, final design and installation of pellet-fired boiler systems to heat three Seward schools — the elementary, middle, and high school. This project is estimated to displace a total of 120,600 gallons per year of fuel oil. The project has completed reconnaissance phase work. Given proximity of the three buildings the feasibility analysis will consider a district heating system to supply all three buildings. The application includes substantial support from the community, USFS, and the local tribal council. This project will develop an anchor tenant for pellet supply in the Southcentral Alaska region and will potentially support the development of pellet manufacturing infrastructure. Given the proven performance of pellet systems and commercial availability of pellet fuel AEA is comfortable with recommending full funding with required approval of development phases. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding, with requirement of AEA acceptance of feasibility and final design phases. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,436,517 Cost of Power: $0.17 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $39,968 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,476,485 Railbelt AEA Funding Recommendation: $1,436,517 1/11/2012 1:16:59 PM Page 67 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #834 Seward Schools Biomass Heating System a Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kenai Peninsula Borough School District eau AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 5.31 1.78 Ni 1.78 / 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 Ney W 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 17.40 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 13.13 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 56.50 ] 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.67 ower ee ~ Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments On KPB land and requires no land authorizations from DNR. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project will provide final feasibility and conceptual designs, build, and install of a wood-fired hydronic heating system for the three Seward schools. It is estimated that 80% of the annual fuel oil consumption could be replaced by wood for an annual savings of approximately $239,000. Pre-feasibility reports have been prepared by USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. A wood pellet system that replaces the oil fired boilers appears to be cost effective with a reasonable simple payback time period. Pellets would be shipped to Seward either from in state or out of state suppliers depending on price and availability. Given that the Interior’s Superior Pellet Fuels is located near the Alaska Railroad a potential to ship pellets to Seward by rail may exist. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments “See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 68 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA @> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #835 Mahoona Hydroelectric Dam Replacement ; ) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility Proposer: City of Ouzinkie AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Local Government Project Description The City of Ouzinkie (“City”) proposes to replace an existing timber buttress dam at Mahoona Lake, located approximately 1.5 miles east of the City on Spruce Island near Kodiak, Alaska. Funds requested in this Renewable Energy Grant application are needed to perform a feasibility analysis and conceptual design for a proposed replacement dam located downstream of the existing wooden dam. The feasibility analysis will include evaluation of the existing 6,000 foot, 18-inch diameter PVC penstock, a 1.5 mile access road, and a (125 kW) hydroelectric powerhouse. The replacement dam will be designed to allow for an increase of holding capacity from a current 400 acre-feet, to a post-construction capacity of 600 acre-feet. This 50% increase in capacity will provide uninterrupted use of the hydroelectric generators, a potential increase in power production capacity, and eliminate the need for supplemental diesel-generated power. The scope of this project will be consistent with the requirements of Phase II Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design, as set forth in Section 2.4 of the Round V grant application instructions dated 1 July 2011. PA iS vv nm Le iT it ‘ Nai) The City of Ouzinkie proposes feasibility study and conceptual design to replace the existing timber buttress dam at Ouzinkie with a new facility that can impound 50% more water, thus enabling the diesel generators to be shut off. The existing dam serves as a source for hydroelectric generation and for the community's water supply. For the proposed project (which does not include repair of the existing project), the City proposes permitting and environmental review, geotechnical investigations and surveying, and engineering evaluations of access road, penstock saddle dike and powerhouse with a final report. In the near term, the City has stated it will spend $410k for repairing the old dam. This includes a DNR Periodic Dam Inspection, permitting and design for dam repairs, performing the dam and access road repairs. As part of the project review, AEA requested information on the status of the repair. The City replied that they are working on improving the road to the project, but to date they have not obtained funding for the repair. AEA is concerned that the proposal does not address the tradeoff between repairing the existing timber buttress dam and building a new, expanded project. It is not clear that a new, expanded project is justified if the existing project is repaired. The economic review indicates marginal economics given limited market for energy from the expanded project. AEA is concerned that the cost of the proposed feasibility work is high. The feasibility work may indicate that it makes more sense to repair the existing project instead of replacing and upgrading the dam. Recommend full funding with requirement that the City prepare a preliminary report acceptable to AEA on the outcome of tasks 1-3 that addresses the issues of repair versus replacement and sizing before proceeding to geotech field investigations and conceptual design. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $467,500 Cost of Power: $0.39 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $60,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $527,500 Kodiak AEA Funding Recommendation: $467,500 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 69 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § orarr 1-17-12 f= ALASKA @i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #835 Mahoona Hydroelectric Dam Replacement J Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Ouzinkie Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 12.19 0.38 0.81 ) 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 11.00 tif WV 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 11.03 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.38 / 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 46.60 \ ] 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.00 [aes SS” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments There are serious deteriorating conditions on the existing dam. It is in a non-failure emergency status and there will most likely be required measures to prevent full failure. This funding is obviously essential for both hydroelectric and water supply issues for Ouzinkie. Appropriate design approval would be required for replacement. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Strong ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone and Narrow Cape faults are the primary seismic hazards at the site. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 70 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 {== ALASKA (@— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #836 _ Packer's Creek Hydroelectric Project ) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chignik Lagoon Village Council AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The proposed project is a high head run-of-river hydroelectric power plant on Packers Creek in Chignik Lagoon with an installed capacity of 177 kW. Project will include a 9-foot tall concrete dam, 3,260 foot long 18- inch and 16-inch diameter penstock and access trail; 400 square foot power house; 1,550 foot long access road with a bridge across Packers Creek to the powerhouse; and a 1,750 foot long overhead power line extension to the existing distribution system and 3,000 foot long control connection to the existing diesel power plant. A omm mmen iinet daacaaii IF Chignik Lagoon Village Council requests funds to construct a 177 kV hydroelectric project on Packers Creek. The project would displace 89% of the community’s electrical energy. An RE Fund round 1 grant was made for permitting and final design (#14) for $150,000. The project would consist of a 9" concrete dam penstock and powerhouse on Packer Creek and a 1,800 feet transmission line to connect to community power system. AEA has reviewed the final design documents and has identified some additional work to be completed, including flood elevations and bridge foundations. Additionally site control has not been obtained as of date of this review, although a letter from the village corporation indicates this will be provided. Water rights from ADNR, the Borough development permit, and the ADF&G fish habitat permit remain to be issued. Integration of hydro with existing diesel power plant is not discussed in application. Discussion of interruptible power to heat the school is mentioned but not designed or budgeted for in the project estimate. The construction manager is not identified. Given all these unresolved issues, AEA believes the cost estimate for this construction project is low. Despite these shortcomings, technical and economic feasibility of this project appear favorable, and the project has high potential for meeting most of community electrical needs. The community’s distribution system was upgraded in 2003, while the power system was upgraded in the mid-1990s. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA must approve final design, permitting, financing plan, and construction manager before construction cost reimbursement. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,993,496 Cost of Power: $0.40 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $523,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $2,516,496 Bristol Bay _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $1,993,496 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 71 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY iditainiaticd Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction App #836 _ Packer’s Creek Hydroelectric Project Proposer: Chignik Lagoon Village Council AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 12.50 4.03 \ 3.60 _ 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 14.00 aa NG 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 15.73 poner coer ea. peucalN) SS MER ci ny 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 69.73 ; 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 i Na’ Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Packers Creek DNR 35.05 authorizations may be required depending on location of this project and whether it affects tidally influenced portion of Packer’s Creek. Additionally, the mouth of the creek occurs within a DOT/PF managed ILMA for the airport. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Tsunami and strong ground motions from Aleutian subduction zone earthquakes are the primary seismic hazards at the site. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 72 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § rat 1-11-12 J== ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #837 _ Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study _ sania) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Eklutna, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: IPP Project Description The Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project is a potential hydroelectric resource in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley with an estimated installed capacity of 6.5 MW and annual energy generation of 34,100 MWh. The preliminary estimated project cost is $25 million, and estimated benefit-cost ratio is 3.29. This proposed feasibility study is contingent upon the favorable outcome of a reconnaissance study that is scheduled to start in August 2011. In the event the reconnaissance study determines that the project is not viable, Eklutna Inc. intends to withdraw this application from consideration. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation _ Withdrawn | 9/21/2011 application withdrawn Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $289,710 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $52,190 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $341,900 Railbelt _AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 73 = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA App # __Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study J Resource: Hydro Proposer: Eklutna, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 0.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 13.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Applicant Type: IPP Economic Analysis % y pe x? Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Scoring & Project Rank Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 13.00 Overall Rank (out of 41) Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 74 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY A pp # 838 Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project 2s } Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chickaloon Village Traditional Council AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The proposed project is to build and install a Combined Wood Pellet Boiler and Solar Thermal System that would provide heat for both a 3,200 sq ft shop/office building and a 1,160 sq ft administrative building. This project includes construction of a building addition to house the boiler system, purchase and installation of the solar thermal and pellet boiler, and focused monitoring and evaluating of the project. This project would be used as a demonstration project for the community to learn about solar thermal and wood pellet boiler systems and to encourage the use of local renewable resources for heating. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Full Funding | The Chickaloon Village Traditional Council proposes construction of a pellet and solar heating system to supply heat to the shop and administrative building. The system would include a solar thermal panel, a 200 MBH wood pellet-fired boiler, and an 8 x 12’ addition to one of the buildings. The applicant is requesting construction; however, a detailed final design has not been completed. Upon AEA request the applicant provided a rough conceptual design. Chickaloon’s submittal did not include a final layout of the system, a detailed heating load assessment, a schematic of the control system, or other site- specific detail. AEA supports the initiative for developing a heating project for Chickaloon Village Traditional Council. However, AEA is concerned about the high cost of the project as currently configured, the relatively low fuel displacement, and marginal project economics. Despite the lack of an acceptable final design, AEA recognizes that the proposed system is relatively simple. Before any state funds are disbursed, AEA believes that it is reasonable to for Chickaloon to assess options to lower the cost of the project, increase amount of fuel displaced by supplying more loads, or do both. Recommend full funding with requirement that Chickaloon provide a final design that is acceptable to AEA before any funds are disbursed. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $127,065 Cost of Power: $0.14 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $34,637.92 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $161,702.92 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #838 Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project, Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chickaloon Village Traditional Council AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 4.38 0.77 _ 0.89 _ 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 0.00 Nie” \4 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 7.20 Benatiost Ratio Spplicars) Beremiost Reto AEN) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.75 A. 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 24.82 ; 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.50 ee Ne” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No obvious DNR land authorization indicated. Development may affect Section Line Interest depending on how improvements are placed. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project will provide final feasibility and conceptual designs, build, and install of a wood-fired hydronic heating system for the three Seward schools. It is estimated that 80% of the annual fuel oil consumption could be replaced by wood for an annual savings of approximately $239,000. Pre-feasibility reports have been prepared by USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. A wood pellet system that replaces the oil fired boilers appears to be cost effective with a reasonable simple payback time period. Pellets would be shipped to Seward either from in state or out of state suppliers depending on price and availability. Given that the Interior’s Superior Pellet Fuels is located near the Alaska Railroad a potential to ship pellets to Seward by rail may exist. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #839 and 898 Nome Renewable Energy Expansion/Optimization Project ‘nated Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Proposer: City of Nome dba Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description This is a combination of applications 839 and 898. The 839 project involves the expansion of NJ US’ awarded REF Round | wind power project (installation of a 900 kW wind turbine) through the installation of a second 900 kW wind turbine at the planned project site. The project aims to take advantage of economies of scope to incorporate the installation of a second wind turbine generator during the construction of NJUS’ Round I awarded project. At this time, conceptual design and feasibility studies have been completed and the project is ready to continue with final design, permitting, and construction activities. The 898 project seeks to optimize existing installations and in-progress wind projects in the community. NJUS is utilizing REF—Round I funding to install a 900 KW wind turbine in summer 2012. Another REF—Round I project allowed NJUS to construct a power transmission line to Banner Wind, an independent power producing facility privately owned by Sitnasuak & Bering Straits Native Corporations, from which NJUS purchases wind power under a contract. Through installation of a new wind integration control system and modification of the diesel generation system at NJUS’ Power Plant, the project focuses on the optimization of existing diesel generation equipment within the community in order to maximize benefits from renewable energy supplies. Under the scope of this project smaller, peaking diesel generator sets will be integrated into Nome’s Power Plant and plant controls will be reconfigured to provide system wide benefits of reduced operating costs, greater stability, and improved efficiency. In the event NJUS or Banner Wind expands wind generation capacity in the future, the community can potentially recognize additional benefit from the project. A \ OI LS ¢ 0} O 7 tak UI Nome Joint Utility System proposes the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a second EWT 900 turbine at the Banner Wind Farm. In a second proposal (#898) NJUS requests funding to integrate existing 1875 kW and 3660 kW units into Nome’s Power Plant and reconfigure plant controls to reduce operating costs, provide greater stability, and improve efficiency. The second proposal scope includes relocating the 1875 kW unit from a different building. AEA believes that this work is not consistent with the intent of the RE Fund, therefore not eligible. Only the integration of a secondary load controller and resistive dump boiler, estimated to cost $325,000, are consistent with the objectives of the RE Fund and eligible for funding. For the purposes of review AEA will consider proposal #839 and the eligible portion of #898 as one application. NJUSs’ original proposal (#52) was for the construction of a3 MW wind farm at a project cost of $13.5 million. The project was partially funded at $4 million and the scope reduced to the installation of a single EWT 900 turbine. Of this cost, $69,000 is for conceptual design and feasibility, while $3,931,000 is for final design and construction. A RE Fund round 1 grant is in place for the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a single EWT 900 turbine. A conceptual design report, which includes analysis of a wind-diesel system with both one and two EWT 900 turbines, has been accepted by AEA. NJUS is requesting funds for the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of the proposed project. The project is expected to cost $4,115,000, of which $411,500 would come as matching funds provided by NJUS. NJUS is requesting $3,703,500 from the RE Fund in proposal #839. The combined proposed project (#52, 839, 898) has a relatively low price per installed kilowatt and can lead to a significant drop in diesel usage for electricity in the community. AEA is concerned that the current diesel configuration is oversized for the community and especially so for the installation of significant wind power. Integrating the smaller generators will help to address this situation. Recommend funding of $4,069,000 ($8,000,000 cap - $3,931,000 from the round 1 grant) with the requirement that 1) AEA accept final design and permitting, and 2) NJUS reconfigures the existing diesel generators, (including the non-RE Fund eligible work) before construction funds are released. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $6,103,500 Cost of Power: $0.36 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $611,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $6,715,000 Bering Straits AEA Funding Recommendation: $4,069,000 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 77 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § parr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 839 _and 898 Nome Renewable Energy Expansion/Optimization Project J Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Nome dba Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) Design AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 11.25 3.66 \ aa 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 12.00 a ef \A 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 16.57 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 8.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.75 fe 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 66.40 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.83 as pa Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 78 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @i__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #840 _ Kobuk Biomass Design & Construction Project , } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Kobuk Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The City of Kobuk seeks to incorporate a biomass boiler system in their water treatment plant facility. This project will provide design and construction for a wood buming boiler system in Kobuk, Alaska. The intent for this project is to increase the use of locally available, biomass energy for thermal heating. This project will include: * Systern Design * Right of way and Survey requirements * Construction Permitting + Installation of a wood burning boiler system (Gam unit proposed) * Constxuction of a covered wood splitting and storage shed * Grave] Pad/Foundation * Perim eter fencing + Hydronic piping and other mechanical components ¢ Electrical Controls + Harve sting and Processing Equipment (Saws, wood splitters, etc.) + Freight and travel costs. Applicant proposes final design and construction of a cordwood —fired heating system to supply the water treatment plant facilities. Assessment for wood heating in Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk was funded under two earlier projects: 1) Feasibility in round 1 (# 59) and 2) final design in round 4 to NW Inupiat Housin g Authority (NWIHA) (#668). Work includes fuel supply plan, business plan, and technology assessment. The presject would consume 35 cords of year harvested from NANA lands. A letter from NANA states its support. The system would operated through the Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative and represents their first wood-fired system. AEA is concerned that the economics appear marginal. They could be improved by identifying ways of reducing capital cost and/or increasing diesel displacement during the design phase. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. AEA is also concerned that the Kobuk Valley Electric is not participating regularly in the PCE program. Recomrnend full funding with requirements that 1) The City must coordinate with NWIHA and their consultant in developing the project, 2) AEA must accept final design before construction funding is disbursed and 3) wood supply contracts for 5 years must be in place before construction funding is disbursed. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $356,424 Costof Power: $0.87 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $45,449 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $401,873 Northwest Arctic _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $356,424 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 79 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #840 Kobuk Biomass Design & Construction Project —_— i ) Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Kobuk Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Wei § 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 25.00 0.90 < > 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 11.00 a A 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 12.63 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 2.37 | G 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 63.67 \ : 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 1.67 [ee See Se Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Assume biomass is from corporation lands. Some state selected lands about 5 miles away. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project is for design and construction of a Garn boiler system to heat Kobuk’s water treatment plant building. It is estimated that 35 cords per year would be required for the facility. The fuel source would be purchased at $259.50 per cord. A total of 4,200 gallons of diesel would be displaced by the wood boiler. A pre-feasibility report examined the available wood resources near the village and stated that more than adequate resources were available to support a larger multi-building biomass system rated at 183 cords per year. At this time due to some uncertainty in resource access and operability which was mentioned in the resource assessment, a 35 cord annual use appears sustainable. This is a good first step for a remote village to utilize woody biomass in its area. DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 80 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #841 _ City of Kake Hydroelectric Resource Analysis Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Kake Pree AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The City of Kake Hydroelectric Resource Analysis study will review the potential hydroelectric energy sources within or near the community of Kake, Alaska. The proposed project will complete a resource (feasibility) analysis of the potential, readily accessible hydroelectric resources available to the community and will provide a conceptual design for the selected hydroelectric alternative. Traditional hydroelectric turbines and infrastructure and low head, hydrokinetic technologies including Archimedes Screws will be considered as a part of this resource analysis. Alternatives that could potentially be retrofitted to the existing Gunnuck Creek Dam will be considered as a part of this resource analysis. Previous hydroelectric studies for the Kake area will be reviewed and incorporated into this analysis, which will include updated estimated capital and annual operation and maintenance costs. The resource analysis will compare the alternative project costs and will determine the most feasible alternative to offset some or all of Kake's diesel-driven electrical supply. A conceptual design of the preferred alternative will be prepared as part of the resource analysis. ? aq Reco e City of Kake is requesting funding for feasibility and conceptual design to evaluate various hydro resource alternatives at Kake dam and Cathedral Falls. The dam in Kake provides for the city's water supply and supplies the fish hatchery. The City would use ANTHC for study lead with assistance from the firm Hatch. AEA has the following concerns: 1. The City has not prepared a reconnaissance assessment that identifies a single alternative for the feasibility and conceptual design funding request. 2. Several previous studies have reviewed hydro resources near Kake and recommended no further pursuit of this type of resource. Kake receives roughly 1/4 of Ketchikan's annual precipitation, so its hydro prospects are not compelling. 3. Funds are being requested by SEAPA for an engineering study of transmission to Kake in Rd V app # 811. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $150,000 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $18,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $168,000 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 81 = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA App #841 _ City of Kake Hydroelectric Resource Analysis Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibil Proposer: City of Kake a AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.19 Nw” 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 11.00 if 4 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Si Se? Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank 33.19 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Resource feasibliltiy analysis - no specific project identified DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The project is located ~17 km northeast of the Chatham Strait segment of the Denali fault, however this structures activity is unknown. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 82 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § brat 1-17-12 J== ALASKA @™i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #842 _ Golovin Wind Feasibility Study | ) Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Golovin Feasibility REAP LOgrl eaTiaANS SOMO Applicant Type: Government Entity Local Government Project Description The City of Golovin in partnership with the Alaska Native Tribal health Consortium (ANTHC) is seeking to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in the community for heating the water treatment facilities. Golovin currently stores approximately 2 million gallons of treated water to provide safe drinking water to community residents. In addition, Golovin's water storage is due to increase to approximately 3 million gallons in two years with the construction of a new water storage tank, which will serve homes that currently do not have running water. This stored water, as well as the community piped water distribution system, is heated using multiple oil-fired boilers. The energy requirement and fuel consumption to keep this water from freezing each year is extremely high, and escalating fuel price have the potential to limit Golovin's ability to provide adequate sanitation services to its residents due to prohibitive heating costs. The City of Golovin now seeks to determine the feasibility of utilizing wind turbines for capturing wind energy to provide heat and electricity for the existing water treatment plant, water storage and water distribution system. The feasibility study project will: * determine the available wind resources around the water treatment plant, * estimate the long-term viability of the proposed project based on expected load growth, * provide a conceptual level system design, * prepare a conceptual level cost estimate for the construction effort and the operations and maintenance of the proposed system, * identify easements and permits required, prepare a comprehensive economical analyses of alternatives, * update the utility business plan, * make a recommendation to move forward with the project design activities, + Evaluate the potential uses of wind turbines to convert wind energy to heat. of Golovin, in partnership with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to assess feasibility of utilizing wind turbines to generate power to provide heat for the existing water treatment plant, water storage and water distribution system. AEA followed up with questions regarding the efficiency of the boilers, fuel consumption, heating season, and amount of water that needed to be heated. AEA has the following concerns about this proposal: 1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost, wind resource from high-resolution map, fuel displacement or revenue streams. Data provided were not sufficient to perform even a very rough economic analysis. The proposal did not address whether or not there was an existing diesel heat recovery system to tie into. 2. Economics appear poor based on AEA modeling for heat only. Assuming a class 4 wind resource, offsetting 4000 gallons/yr of diesel, $5.00/gal fuel cost and the lowest possible cost of a remanufactured 65 kW wind system benefit/cost was 0.5 to 0.6. This reflects that the value of replacing heat is much less than the value of displacing electrical energy. A combined heat and electric system would appear to be a better option for a cost-effective solution. AEA recommends that the City use a comprehensive approach for identifying cost-reduction options through a regional energy plan for the Bering Straits region. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $96,700 Cost of Power: $0.57 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $18,300 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $115,000 Bering Straits AEA Funding Recommendation: } 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 83 a” Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12 J== ALASKA App # 842 _ Golovin Wind Feasibility Study Resource: Wind Proposer: City of Golovin AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.81 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 14.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments in) Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility Applicant Type: Government Entity Local Government Economic Analysis if Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) Scoring & Project Rank 35.81 Overall Rank (out of 41) Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 84 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA @i__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #843 Atmautlauk Washeteria/ Power Plant Waste Heat Recovery Project J Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Proposer: Atmautlauk Traditional Council AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Government Entity Project Description The Atrnautluak washeteria, the only sanitation facility community owned by Atmautluak Traditional Council, has high energy costs for heating water for use in washers, showers, and building heat. This facility includes the water treatment plant. Safe drinking water is made here and used by local residents. This project will provide recovered heat for the washeteria. This project will be combined with an Indian Health Service (IHS) project rehabilitating the washeteria to meet the community's water needs and reduce the associated costs. This project will construct an enclosure (utilidor) for the sewage force main and recovered heat lines and move heat from the power plant to the sewage lift station and washeteria. The IHS project will repair the washeteria foundation and make internal improvements to effectively use the recovered heat. mments an omm ion Full Funding | The Atsmautluak Traditional Council in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the community power plant to the refurbished washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 4395 gallons of fuel oil. The AE:A-managed power plant replacement for the community is in the conceptual design phase with funding targeted for 2012. The power plant replacement is not required for this project to be successful, but it could enhance the availability of recovered heat. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2011. AEA notes that the application narrative states that final design funding is requested for 2011, although funding would not be available until July 2012. The budget form gives a later timeframe. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $298,078 Cost of Power: $0.70 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $40,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $338,578 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim AEA Funding Recommendation: $298,078 111/201 2 1:15:59 PM Page 85 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #843 Atmautlauk Washeteria/ Power Plant Waste Heat Recovery Project _ ud) Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Atmautlauk Traditional Council Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score . 1.25 { 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 21.88 1.25 ‘ ; 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 0.00 ef WY 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 15.50 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6.63 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 57.17 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.17 Perec Ny Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No apparent DNR land authorization is required based on information provided DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 86 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA > ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 844 Russian Mission Heat Recovery System , } Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Russian Mission Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Local Government Project Description This project will provide the design and construction of a heat recovery system that will utilize waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant for use at the WTP and three L YSD teacher housing units in Russian Mission, Alaska. The design will be developed based on recommendations from the Russian Mission, Alaska Heat Recovery Study (see attached) that was completed by Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E). The construction scope will include retrofitting the AVEC generators and installing a waste heat transmission line, circulation pumps, heat exchangers, and other system appurtenances. The proposed project will involve coordination with the AVEC, the City, L YSD, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHQ), as well as the Alaska Rural Utility Collaborate (ARUC). AEA Review Comments and Recommendation: ull Funding | City of Russian Mission, in cooperation with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes final design and construction of a heat recovery system that will supply the school and teacher housing. The project will include a marine jacket retrofit on the prime genset, thus doubling available recoverable heat.. The project will displace approximately 12,000 gallons of diesel per year. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $555,000 Cost of Power: $0.50 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $32,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $587,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $555,000 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 87 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #844 Russian Mission Heat Recovery System seid Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Russian Mission Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 15.63 1.79 \ ie 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 9.00 = Sf WW 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 15.83 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 8.63 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 63.42 ’ 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.33 Lit aa a” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No apparent DNR land authorization is required based on information provided DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *"*See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 88 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 845 Noorvik Heat Recovery System Feasibility Study : } Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Noorvik Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Local Government Project Description The City of Noorvik in partnership with the Alaska Native Tribal health Consortium (ANTHC) is seeking to determine the feasibility if installing a heat recovery system in the community for heating the community water treatment, water storage and water distribution systems. The City of Noorvik seeks to determine the feasibility of capturing excess heat energy from the existing AVEC generator plant and utilizing it to provide heat for the existing water treatment plant and water distribution system and other community buildings. The feasibility study project will: + determine the amount of excess heat energy available for reuse, The City of Noorvik, in cooperation, with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of recovering heat from the community power system to supply the water treatment, storage and distribution system. While AEA believes that heat recovery projects have much merit, we are concerned that i The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information, including estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and other heat users, such as the school or other community buildings for AEA to review the application. 2. Based on AEA’s experience the grant request is high in relation to the amount of work that is required. AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential heat recovery projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective and less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program and regional energy plans. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $96,700 Cost of Power: $0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $18,300 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $115,000 Northwest Arctic _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 41/91/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #845 _Noorvik Heat Recovery System Feasibility Study =—=_ - | Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Noorvik Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Wei Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 18.13 ‘ % 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 13.00 % ef VY 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 : 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 36.13 \ ; 7) Sustainability (Max 5) iri 3 SE” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. As the project is proposed to take place on municipality lands, no land permits are required from DMLW. Also since this is only a feasibility study, no permits are required if no part of the project is on state land. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 90 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-72 [= ALASKA @™i__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #846 _ Kotlik Wind Generator Study : } Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of Kotlik AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Local Government Project Description This project will determine the feasibility of a small wind farm to provide electricity and heat for the City-owned water treatment plant and sewer vacuum station. Kotlik is classified as a Class 4 to 5 Wind Power site in the Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) considers Class 5 sites to be "excellent" for harnessing wind power. The estimated annual electricity cost to operate the Kotlik water treatment plant and vacuum station is about $35,000. The City of Kotlik proposes feasibility assessment of wind-powered heat and power for the city water and wastewater facility. AEA has the following concerns about this proposal: 1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost, fuel displacement or revenue streams. The proposal did not address whether or not there was an existing diesel heat recovery system to tie into. 2. The class 4-5 wind resource is not indicated on the latest high-resolution wind map. 3. Economics of the project appear marginal even though the economist report assumes no boiler cost. Estimated cost of the feasibility work is half of the estimated construction cost. A combined heat and electric system would appear to be a better option for a cost-effective solution. AEA recommends that the City use a comprehensive approach for identifying cost-reduction options through the regional energy plan for the Yukon-Kuskokwim region, currently underway. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $45,000 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $50,000 aha _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 91 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12 J== ALASKA App #846 _ Kotlik Wind Generator Study _ Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of Kotlik AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Local Government Economic Analysis Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 15.94 % ig 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 10.00 ey” WZ Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Lees Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank 28.94 \ er Sew DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient info to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been evaluated. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 92 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 [= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 847 Scammon Bay Hydro Design & Engineering nie) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Scammon Bay AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description AVEC records from 2007 show that approximately 127,463 gallons of diesel fuel were consumed for power generation in Scammon Bay to generate 1,651,855 kW of electricity. This project will displace 1,031,865 kWh per year (Scammon Bay Feasibility Study 2003) equating to a net 82,549 gallons of displaced fuel or $569,829.27 per year at a current retail price of$7.23/gal. This project will be able to produce power at a rate significantly lower than the cost of present electrical generation, resulting in reduced cost of power for residents. Paying for basic power generation has become much more of a challenge, and reduction of the power costs to the consumer will provide an economic boost to individuals trying to make ends meet for their families. Reducing the cost of power will also be a boon to economic development in the community. Any project providing stimulation to the economy cannot be cost effective without going hand-in-hand with a reduction in utility rates to help generate revenue. Other benefits to the Alaskan Public: The anticipated benefits of installation of the wind turbines include reducing the negative impact of the cost of energy by providing a renewable energy alternative. This project could help stabilize energy costs and provide long- term socioeconomic benefits to village households. Locally produced, affordable energy will empower community residents and could help avert rural to urban migration. This project would have many environmental benefits resulting from a reduction of hydrocarbon use. These benefits include: * Reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus protecting vital water and subsistence food sources) * Improved air quality * Decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use * Decreased coastal erosion due to climate change. nts and FR The City of Scammon Bay requests funding for feasibility, permitting and final design of a hydroelectric project at Scammon Bay. AVEC participated in two reconnaissance and two feasibility studies were completed in the 1980s for a river in Scammon Bay that also serves as the domestic water supply for the village. That site was found to be infeasible. This application is based upon a 2003 feasibility study by Polarconsult of a 331 kW run-of-river hydro plant on Ekashluak Creek. ‘This creek originates in the Askinuk Mountains and is located 11 miles west of Scammon Bay and is inaccessible except by boat or snowmachine. AVEC commissioned that study and concluded the long distance to the village made the site unattractive. The City proposes partner with ANTHC for project management; Hatch will be retained for the design of the hydro plant. The power system at Scammon Bay is owned and run by AVEC. AVEC would eventually own the plant and AVEC has submitted a letter of support for the project. There is limited discussion of the issues associated with integration of a new hydro plant in the existing diesel system. The application mentions new wind in several places; a Rd IV grant will study wind generation at SB. There is mention of significant undersea cable required to connect an alternate hydro source on Ekashluak Creek, and the project appears be located in a wildlife refuge. There is no mention of associated fish issues in this creek in the application or in the attached 2003 feasibility study, but there appears to be the potential for fish habitat impact. The licensing jurisdiction is not identified, whether federal (FERC) or state. Given the uncertainty associated with these issues, AEA believes it is premature to allocate funds for final design and permitting. Recommend partial funding of $80,723 for feasibility and conceptual design (tasks 1-3) with requirement that grantee and AEA will revise scope and budget before grant is issued. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $399,786 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $13,833 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $413,619 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim AEA Funding Recommendation: $80,723 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 93 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 847 __ Scammon Bay Hydro Design & Engineering isin mia J Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Scammon Bay AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.19 1.32 212 / 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 7.00 \ v4 = y, Fe 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 43.77 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.50 A 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 63.95 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.50 ae Ne” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient info to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been evaluated. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments There are no known active faults in the project vicinity. See general DGGS comment. 41/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 94 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #848 _ Sleetmute Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Sleetmute Traditional Council AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description Currently, Middle Kuskokwim Electric is not utilizing the jacket heat from its diesel engines. This project will recover heat from the engines at the Middle Kuskoquim Electric plant and send it to the water treatment plant to heat the building, the circulated water loops, and the water storage tank. The Middle Kuskoquim Electric power plant and the Sleetmute water treatment plant are located in Sleetmute. A feasibility study has been done for this project as part of an energy audit of the water treatment plant, and the design will be completed soon with other funds. Funds are being requested for construction only. Sleetmute Traditional Council, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from the Middle Kuskokwim Electric generating station to the water treatment plant. The project will displace approximately 1,779 gallons of diesel per year according to a 2010 Heat Recovery Analysis. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $126,682 Cost of Power: $0.92 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $6,667 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $133,349 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim _ AEA Funding Recommendation: si $126,682 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 95 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (@__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #848 _ Sleetmute Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant _ Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Sleetmute Traditional Council AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 25.00 1.42 1.42 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 oe 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 15.97 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 8.63 @ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 69.76 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.17 Brite Sen NSS” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 96 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #849 Selawik Wind Feasibility Study __ teint) Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility Proposer: City of Selawik AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description This project will provide a site specific wind study to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines at the vacuum sewer plant in Selawik, Alaska. Specifically, the feasibility study will include the following scope items: Equipment purchase; Initial site visits and equipment setup; Monitoring and Data collection; Report Development; Equipment Demobilization; Presentation to Community. The report development will focus on site assessment; conceptual electrical and civil engineering recommendations; financial evaluations; and review of required permits. Applicant proposes wind study to assess feasibility of wind-powered heating for the community sanitation facility. AEA has the following concerns about this proposal: 1. AVEC is funded in round 4 (#647) to assess feasibility of replacing the existing four AOC 65 kW turbines. Heat production from new turbines can be considered through this work. 2. Performance of the existing system indicates a class 2 wind resource. 3. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost, fuel displacement or revenue streams. The proposal did not address whether or not there was an existing diesel heat recovery system to tie into. 4. With class 2 winds in the region, economics of a wind-for-heat project will be poor. The proposal mentions that the dampers on the oil-fired system are missing or not operating correctly. These problems should be fixed before adding wind to the system. AEA recommends that the City use a comprehensive approach for identifying cost-reduction options through a regional energy plan for the Northwest region. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $40,000 Cost of Power: $0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $8,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $48,500 Northwest Arctic AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:16:59 PM Page 97 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRA4FT 1-11-12 {= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY sisi ih la ita) App #849 _ Selawik Wind Feasibility Study Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Selawik Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 18.44 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 12.00 ef Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 35.44 7) Sustainability (Max 5) ~ Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments As the project is proposed to take place on municipality lands, no land permits are required from DMLW. Also since this is only a feasibility study, no permits are required if no part of the project is on state land. Note that if the project location gets moved, permits or easements may be required for MET towers, access roads, etc. Also, if material is required for the project and none is available within the city, then the city will need to apply for a material sale contract. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 98 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-17-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of Lower Kalskag AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The proposed project will complete a feasibility study to review the potential for a biomass heating system for the City of Lower Kalskag (City) water treatment plant (WTP). Specifically, the feasibility study will include the following scope items: 1. Site Visit to assess facilities to be served 2. Land use assessment 3. Forest inventory and harvest assessment (Subcontract) 4. Report Development 5. Presentation to Community. The report development will focus on site assessment; conceptual mechanical and civilAEA 12-001 Application 7/1/2011 engineering recommendations; financial evaluation; and review of required permits. A new WTP for the City is currently being designed by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) through a cooperative project agreement (CPA) with the City. Currently, the design for the WTP is 65% complete and is projected to be completed in mid-2012. Following the completion of design activities, the City and the ANTHC will apply for construction funding for the WIP improvements and it is anticipated that construction activities will commence in 2013. If the feasibility study shows that the biomass boiler is a viable renewable energy resource, then the City will also apply for funding for design and construction of a new biomass boiler system for the WIP. This will be during the same time frame that the application for the rest of the improvements associated with the new WIP are. The new biomass system would be used to heat the WTP in addition to supplying heat to any fixtures that require it which may include heat add systems, etc. This project will involve coordination with the City and the ANTHC via a CPA. The City of Lower Kalskag, in cooperation, with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of using biomass to heat the water treatment plant. While AEA believes that biomass projects have potential merit, we are concerned that the proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information, including biomass resource availability and cost, estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and presence of other heat users, such as the school or other community buildings for AEA to review the application. AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential biomass projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective and less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program and regional energy plans. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $50,000 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $14,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $64,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim AEA Funding Recommendation: , 414112012 1:15:59 PM Page 99 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 850 Water Plant Biomass System Feasibility Study J Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of Lower Kalskag AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 15.94 VY 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 12.00 N 4 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0.00 BenenCost Ratio (Applicant) BenefiCost Rao, (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 6) Local Support (Max 5 32.94 \ } ) upport ( ) 5.00 ERY 7) Sustainability (Max 5) i aaa Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient info to determine if a DNR authorization is required. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project is for a feasibility study to review the potential for a biomass heating system for the City of Lower Kalskag water treatment plant. The project proposal doesn’t state what system it is in favor of or the potential fuel oil offset. If a Garn boiler system similar to Kobuk were installed, then a likely scenario would be a wood demand of about 35 cords per year. The feasibility study will include a forest data and harvest assessment to determine the extent to which biomass could be potentially utilized. An assessment of forest resources in this area would ensure that the proposed project is sustainable. In 2004 the Tanana Chiefs Conference conducted a Native allotment forest inventory for the Bureau of Indian Affairs along the lower Kuskokwim River including the Lower Kalskag area. This data could provide some valuable on the ground per acre timber volume estimates to assist in the forest data assessment. DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments “See general DGGS comment on hazards. 111112012 1:15:59 PM Page 100 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § DRAFT 1-17-12 /[=ALASKA @™i ENERGY AUTHORITY Toksook Bay Heat Recovery Feasibility Stud Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Toksook Bay Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description This project will determine the feasibility of capturing excess heat energy from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power generation plant in Toksook Bay and utilizing it to provide heat for community buildings. The project will: * Determine the amount of excess heat energy available for reuse, * Estimate the long-term viability of the proposed project based on expected load growth, * Provide a conceptual-level system design, * Prepare a conceptual-level cost estimate for the construction effort and the operations and maintenance of the proposed system, * Identify easements and permits required * Prepare a comprehensive economical analyses of alternatives, * Update the utility business plan, * Make a recommendation to move forward with the project design activities, and * Evaluate the potential uses of waste heat. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | The City of Toksook Bay, in cooperation with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of recovering heat from the community power system to supply the water treatment, storage and distribution system. While AEA believes that heat recovery projects have much merit, we are concerned that 15 The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information, including estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and other heat users, such as the school or other community buildings for AEA to review the application. 2s Based on AEA’s experience the grant request is high in relation to the amount of work that is required. AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential heat recovery projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective and less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program and regional energy plans. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $30,800 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $6,200 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $37,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim AEA Funding Recommendation: J 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 101 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 41-14-12 [= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #851 _ Toksook Bay Heat Recovery Feasibility Study i is sai ad Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design a Proposer: City of Toksook Bay Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 15.94 : ; 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 12.00 ay Ww 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 32.94 7) Sustainability (Max 5) pus 4 pets Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been fully evaluated. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 102 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (@— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #852 New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Study Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of New Stuyahok AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description This project will determine the feasibility of constructing a heat recovery system and/or an excess wind energy electric boiler to supplement the heat used to serve the City of New Stuyahok owned water utility. A new Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant is being built in an area approximately I mile from town, adjacent to the newly constructed school and a new water storage tank that is under construction. The school currently has an agreement with AVEC to purchase recovered heat from the new power plant. AVEC plans to construct an electrical intertie with Ekwok in the near future, providing electricity from the New Stuyahok electric plant. When this occurs, it is possible that recovered heat will be in excess of the school's needs, leaving some available to heat the adjacent water storage tank. AVEC also anticipates installing some wind turbines in this location, making the availability of excess wind energy to operate an electric boiler at the large tank likely, which is another potential source of water tank heating this study will investigate. The City of New Stuyahok, in cooperation with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of recovering heat from the community power system to supply the water treatment, storage and distribution system. While AEA believes that heat recovery projects have much merit, we are concerned that a The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information, including estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and other heat users, such as the school or other community buildings for AEA to review the application. 2. Based on AEA’s experience the grant request is high in relation to the amount of work that is required. AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential heat recovery projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective and less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program and regional energy plans. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $45,000 Cost of Power: $0.57 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $50,000 Bristol Bay AEA Funding Recommendation: , 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 103 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA App #852. New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Study Resource: Heat Recovery Proposer: City of New Stuyahok AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.81 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 10.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0.00 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY i mini Gcihineiaci) Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Applicant Type: Local Government Economic Analysis 0.88 ay 4 Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) aS Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Scoring & Project Rank 32.81 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been fully evaluated. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 104 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #853 White Mountain Heat Recovery Feasibility Study ” } Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility Proposer: City of White Mountain AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description This project will study the feasibility of a heat recovery system to displace fuel oil heat used by the city water utility. This study will look at the heat available from the electric power plant and the heat demand of the water distribution and storage system. An estimate of the energy savings and cost savings to the utility will be developed. This project will provide a recommendation based upon energy savings, benefits/cost, and other criteria. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | The City of White Mountain, in cooperation with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of recovering heat from the community power system to supply the water treatment, storage and distribution system. While AEA believes that heat recovery projects have much merit, we are concerned that i The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information, including estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and other heat users, such as the school or other community buildings for AEA to review the application. 2 Based on AEA’s experience the grant request is high in relation to the amount of work that is required. AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential heat recovery projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective and less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program and regional energy plans. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $27,000 Costof Power: $0.72 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $3,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $30,000 Bering Straits _ AEA Funding Recommendation: } 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 105 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @— ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 853 White Mountain Heat Recovery Feasibility Study ssi‘i‘i:ts Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of White Mountain eaakae AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 22.50 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 10.00 Si 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) et eda) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 37.50 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Pennies ee Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 106 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 == ALASKA = ENERGY AUTHORITY App #854 | Klawock Biomass Boiler System Feasibility Study Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility Proposer: City of Klawock AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description This project will complete a study to determine the feasibility of a biomass fuel system for the existing water treatment plant (WTP) and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Klawock, Alaska. It is proposed that a biomass heating system will be used to heat the WWTP buildings and supply heat to other ancillary building components that require a heat source. Resources for the City to supply the proposed biomass system are readily available in and around the community of Klawock and throughout Prince of Wales Island, on which Klawock is located. This study will demonstrate the cost savings that will be associated with the implementation of a biomass fuel system at the City's WIP and WWTP. The project will complete the following tasks: * Determine the amount of energy required for both facilities; + Estimate the long-term viability of the proposed project based on expected load growth; + Provide a conceptual-level system design; + Prepare a conceptual-level cost estimate for the construction effort and the operations and maintenance of the proposed system; + Identify easements and permits required; * Prepare a comprehensive economical analyses of alternatives for selection by the City; * Update the utility business plan; and * Make a recommendation to move forward with the project design activities. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation ais Not Recommended | The City of Klawock, in cooperation, with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to assess feasibility of using biomass to heat the water and wastewater treatment plants. While AEA believes that biomass projects have potential merit, we are concerned that the proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance level information, including biomass resource availability and cost, estimated fuel displacement, a rough capital cost, and presence of other heat users, such as the school or other community buildings for AEA to review the application. AEA believes that a systematic, uniform approach for identifying and assessing potential biomass projects for water and sewer systems will be more effective and less expensive. AEA will work with ANTHC and other stakeholders to develop a process to support this work through the statewide heat recovery program and regional energy plans. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $100,000 Costof Power: $0.21 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $12,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $112,000 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 107 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12, J== ALASKA (@__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #854 —_ Klawock Biomass Boiler System Feasibility Study } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Klawock Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 6.56 \ s/ 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 10.00 £3 7 vw 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 ' 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 20.56 \ } 7) Sustainability (Max 5) oe ee — Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No State land or easement interest DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project will complete a study to determine the feasibility of a biomass fuel system for the existing water treatment and wastewater treatment plants. It is unknown in the project proposal what system is favored or information about the known raw material resource. The project proposal states that Klawock is surrounded by forests and that biomass supply sources are readily available in and around the community and throughout Prince of Wales Island. The proposal does mention the benefits of Craig’s wood biomass system. This chip based system sourced from sawmill waste could include wood chip deliveries to Klawock. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 108 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 855 Old Kasigluk Wind Feasibility Study } Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Native Village of Kasigluk Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description This project will provide a feasibility study to determine the benefits of installing a wind turbine system in Old Kasigluk. The wind turbines will be used to convert wind en ergy to heating and electrical energy that will be used to heat and power the water treatment and washeteria facility located in Old Kasigluk. The project will: * Deterrnine the feasibility of installing a wind turbine system for heating and electricity needs + Estimate the long-term viability of the proposed project based on expected load growth, * Provide a conceptual level system design, + Prepare a conceptual level cost estimate for the construction effort and the operations and maintenance of the proposed system, * Identify easements and permits required, * Prepare a comprehensive economical analyses of alternatives, * Update the utility business plan, and + Make a recommendation to move forward with the project design activities. AEA has the following concerns about this proposal: 1: The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost or installed wind capacity. 2: There is a diesel and wind waste heat recovery system in use with lines stubbed out at the new water treatment facility. This was not addressed in the application. S: AVEC operates a 300 kW wind system in Kasigluk. The application make no reference to the AVEC system or the possibility of increasing the size of that system to produce both heat and power. 4. Economics appear poor based on AEA modeling for heat only. Assuming a class 6 wind resource, offsetting 4800 gallons/yr of diesel, $4.30/gal fuel cost and the lowest possible cost of a remanufactured 65 kW, a wind system benefit/cost was 0.4. This reflects that the value of replacing heat is much less than the value of displacing electrical energy. A combined heat and power wind-diesel system would appear to be a better option for a cost-effective solution. AEA recommends that the City use a compre hensive approach for identifying cost-reduction options through the regional energy plan for the Yukon-Kuskokwim region, currently underway. No fun ding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $46,000 Costof Power: $0.53 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $4,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $50,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim _ AEA Funding Recommendation: | 11112012 1:15:59 PM Page 109 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 f= ALASKA App #855 Old Kasigluk Wind Feasibility Study ees Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Native Village of Kasigluk Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) 8 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 16.56 Nae 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 ey Ww Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 29.56 \ 7) Sustainability (Max 5) fiscal Ne Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank Z DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been fully evaluated. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natura] hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalan ches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments “See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4111/2012 1:18:59 PM Page 110 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prart 1-17-12 J== ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #856 _ Shishmaref Heat Recovery Project — } Resource: | ent Revovary Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Shishmaref Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The City of Shishmaref proposes to design construct a heat recovery system in the community in accordance with the findings and recommendations of a heat recovery study conducted by Alaska Energy and Engineering Inc. The project will recover available jacket water heat from diesel generators that produce electricity at the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant and convey the heat to core city facilities. The heat currently produced by the generators is released to the atmosphere via radiators. This project is estimated to reduce the annual diesel heating fuel consumption of nearby community buildings by about 7,900 gallons/year. The construction scope will include the installation of the waste heat transmission line, pumps, heat exchanger, and other system appurtenances. This project will involve coordination with the City of Shishmaref (City), AVEC, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Review Comments and Recomm tion Full Fundi The City of Shishmaref, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from the AVEC generating station to the clinic, city office, and the water treatment plant. The project will displace approximately 7,900 gallons of diesel per year. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency are addressed in conjunction with this project. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $310,841 Cost of Power: $0.60 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $16,360 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $327,201 Bering Straits _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $310,841 111112012 1:15:69 PM. Page 111 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #856 —_ Shishmaref Ret ya Pre nxn ditganital iiatabinass) Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Shishmaref Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 18.75 2.23 \ ae 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 9.00 . ei io A 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 16.50 BenedCost Tato Appear Benet ost Rauol EA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 70.08 j 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.83 Sree Se Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 111112012 1:15:59 PM Page 112 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 [= ALASKA @i ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 857 Savoonga Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant } Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Savoonga AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description Currently, AVEC is not utilizing either the jacket heat from its diesel engines or the heat generated by the electric boiler installed to dispose excess wind energy. This project would recover heat from both sources at the AVEC plant and send that heat to the water treatment plant to heat the building, the circulated water loops, and the water storage tank. The AVEC power plant and the Savoonga water treatment plant are located next to each other in Savoonga. A feasibility study has been done for this project and the design will be completed in the near future with other funds. Funds are being requested for construction only. view Comments and Recom lation Full Funding City of Savoonga in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes construction of a diesel heat recovery system that would supply the water storage, treatment and distribution systems. The system would displace approximately 8,800 gallons of diesel per year. The application includes a conceptual design and feasibility assessment for the project. A design is in progress. AEA has the following concerns about this proposal. 1. The study was done only considering the 499 kW Cummins unit instead of the Detroit Diesel, which is more efficient and the generator of choice with the wind system. 2. According to PCE figures, the existing wind farm has a capacity factor of 21%--less than the assumed 30% capacity factor from the wind report. The final design should address these issues. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA accept final design before construction funds are disbursed. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $301,440 Cost of Power: $0.44 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $15,865 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $317,305 Bering Straits _AEA Funding Recommendation: $301,440 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 113 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #857 Savoonga Heat Recovery - Power PlanttoWaterPlant: Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Savoonga AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 13.75 1.95 . area } 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 9.00 oe \4 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 18.87 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 467 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 42.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 62.62 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.33 a Sc Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *™See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 114 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (@— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #858 Togiak Waste Heat Recovery Project J Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Togiak Com AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description This project will provide a heat recovery system to support the heating requirements of five City operated and owned buildings in Togiak. The objective of this project is to reduce the consumption of expensive heating fuel by utilizing available recovered heat. There are several community buildings within a 500 foot radius of the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant, offering an excellent opportunity to capture a maximum amount of waste heat from the plant for hydronic heating. A detailed Heat Recovery Analysis was completed for the City of Togiak and Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) in June 2010 by Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (Report Attached). The findings and preferred alternatives developed by this analysis will be used as the basis for the project proposed in this application. The proposed project will design and construct a heat recovery system between the AVEC power plant and the following end-user community buildings: 1) Water treatment Plant, 2) Clinic, 3) Police Station, 4) City Office, and 5) "Old School" Community Activity Building. The new system will capture jacket water heat ‘generated by the AVEC plant that is currently wasted to the atmosphere by power plant radiators. The recovered heat will be transferred by insulated glycol piping to the end-users. The new system will tie into the end-users' heating systems using heat exchangers, control mechanisms and any required upgrades to the existing building hydronic systems. City of Togiak, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from AVEC’s generating station to the water treatment plant, clinic, police station, City Office, and the “Old School” Community Activity Building. The project will displace approximately 13,700 gallons of diesel per year according to a 2010 Heat Recovery Analysis. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $443,030 Cost of Power: $0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $43,150 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $486,180 Bristol Bay AEA Funding Recommendation: $443,030 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 115 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #858 _ Togiak Waste Heat Recovery Project 8 Togiak V t ! ik ii iilaticaitasi) Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction . . Design Proposer: City of Togiak 9 AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 18.13 2.60 : aan 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 9.00 Nee” VW 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 16.80 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.00 ; 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 70.59 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.67 Feb canted a Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been fully evaluated. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natura] hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalan ches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4141/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 116 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 859 Goodnews Bay Wind Generator Study J Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Native Village of Goodnews Bay AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description This project will determine the feasibility of a small wind farm to provide electricity and heat for the Native Village of Goodnews Bay water treatment plant. Goodnews Bay is classified as a Class 5 Wind Power site in Appendix B of the Alaska Rural Energy Plan. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) considers Class 5 sites to be "excellent" for harnessing wind power. Between electricity and fuel, the annual energy cost to operate the water treatment plant is approximately $21,000. Conservatively, it is estimated that electrical usage can be reduced by 75% and fuel consumption by 30% through the use of renewable energy. f nts a! ecomme ion AEA has the following concerns about this proposal: 1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost. 2 The proposal assumes a class 5 resource, while the proposed location is a class 3. Be AVEC is proposing a feasibility study (#874) for a larger-scale project that could also assess viability of providing heat to the water treatment plant. 4. Economics appear poor based on AEA modeling for heat only. A larger combined heat and power wind-diesel system would appear to be a better option for a cost-effective solution. AEA has recommended funding for AVEC’s feasibility study with the requirement that AVEC work with the City and ANTHC to assess feasibility of providing heat to the water treatment plant. It is recommended that the City use a comprehensive approach for identifying cost-reduction options through the regional energy plan for the Yukon-Kuskokwim region, currently underway. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $45,000 Cost of Power: $0.47 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $50,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 4/14/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 117 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #859 _ Goodnews Bay Wind Generator Study Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Native Village of Goodnews Bay AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weia! s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 14.69 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 10.00 Ney J Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 . 7) Sustainability (Max 5) [ee ee Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank A DNRI/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. Application indicates land ownership has not been fully evaluated. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 411112012 1:15:59 PM Page 118 ' Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (@— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #860 _ City of Angoon Wind to Energy Feasibility Study ins) Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Angoon Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The City, in partnership with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTH(C), is seeking funding to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines at the community water treatment plant (WTP) to offset electrical costs with a renewable energy source. The City seeks to analyze the feasibility of utilizing wind turbines for capturing wind energy to provide electricity for the existing WTP. The feasibility study will, at minimum, complete the following activities: « Determine the available wind resources around the WTP site; * Estimate the long-term viability of the proposed project based on expected load growth; * Provide a conceptual-level system design; * Prepare a conceptual-level cost estimate for the construction effort and the operations and maintenance of the proposed system; * Identify easements and permits required; Prepare a comprehensive economical analyses of alternatives; * Provide recommendations to move forward with the project design activities; and * Evaluate the potential uses of wind turbines to convert wind energy to electricity. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | The City of Angoon, in partnership with ANTHC, proposes feasibility assessment of windpower supplying the water treatment plant. AEA has the following concerns about this proposal: 1. The proposal does not include sufficient reconnaissance-level information, such as rough capital cost, installed capacity, wind resource, or fuel savings. 2. The high-resolution map indicates a class 1 (poor) wind resource. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $40,000 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $8,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $48,500 Southeast _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 119 ' Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 (= ALASKA App #860 __ City of Angoon Wind to Energy Feasibility Study Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design 7 Feasibili Proposer: City of Angoon = AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.19 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 12.00 ey Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) ‘5 Se Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank 5.00 34.19 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No State land or easement interest DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 120 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA App # 861 Saint Michael Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Study Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: City of Saint Michael AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description This project will conduct a reconnaissance study of potential renewable energy sources for use by the community of St. Michael to support our water and sewer utility and major community structures. Our water and sewer utility has very high per capita energy use, and we need a more cost-effective energy source to help sustain this utility. This study will identify potential renewable energy sources and examine their associated utilization methods, technical and economic feasibility, and other potential benefits, such as energy cost savings and reduced operation and maintenance expenses. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1 | Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $40,500 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $4,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $45,000 Bering Straits _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 121 a_ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA App # 861 Saint Michael Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Study Resource: Transmission Proposer: City of Saint Michael AEA Program Manager: Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 0.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 10.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments Proposed Project Phase: Recon Applicant Type: Local Government Economic Analysis \ iy A F \4 ey Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Scoring & Project Rank Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 15.00 NES a Overall Rank (out of 41) Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 122 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (= ENERGY AUTHORITY App #862 _ False Pass Tidal Energy Study ) Resource: Ocean/River Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Recon Proposer: City of False Pass Electric Utility AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description False Pass is currently dependent on diesel fuel for all of its electrical generation and heat production. This project will perform a reconnaissance and feasibility study to determine if tidal energy can be economically harnessed to provide electrical and perhaps heating loads to the community. The reconnaissance phase of the project will include gathering existing energy usage data, including leveraging existing AEA funded efforts to assess the viability of tidal energy power at False Pass, preliminary geophysical data on ocean current velocities, and conducting modeling efforts to determine if a feasibility study is warranted. The feasibility phase of the project will involve geophysical data collection including more rigorous current velocity and bathymetric data collection to locate a viable deployment area. This data will be utilized to initiate consultations with permitting agencies and to perform an economic analysis of a conceptually designed project utilizing one or more of Ocean Renewable Power Company’s (ORPC’s) TidGen Power Systems to determine if a tidal energy project is economically, environmentally and technologically feasible at False Pass. The City of False Pass Electrical Utility proposes to perform a reconnaissance and feasibility Tidal Energy Study to determine the viability of installing and operating a 150 kW ORPC TidGen hydrokinetic device. The Aleutians East Borough will manage the project for the city utility. No previous work has been done on this project. The project would perform a resource assessment of the strait off Unimak Island by creating a circulation model and deploying acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP). Using the resource data and acquired economic information about the system and the local community, a decision would be made to determine if the project was economically viable. The project is expected to begin in September 2012 and be completed by the end of March 2014. AEA recognizes that a number of strong entities with experience in Alaska have agreed to partner on the reconnaissance and feasibility project. AEA’s concern is that tidal power technology is still in a very early stage of development. The most recent cost estimates through 2030 for tidal energy by the UK’s Carbon Trust range from $0.24-0.80/kWh in UK waters. Projects in remote parts of Alaska would be expected to have significantly higher costs. Results of ORPC’s demonstration in Cook Inlet should be examined before further project development work is pursued in more remote areas. AEA will consider further extensive resource assessment similar to work being supported with NOAA in Cook Inlet through the hydrokinetic program. Not recommended for funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $218,900 Cost of Power: $0.53 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $78,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $296,900 Aleutians _ AEA Funding Recommendation: siaeanaimeae 411112012 1: Page 123 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-17-12 J== ALASKA App #862 False Pass TidalEnergy Study J Resource: Ocean/River Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of False Pass Electric Utility ae AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 16.56 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 15.00 ccf Or Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Scoring & Project Rank 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability(Max5) 0 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) eee DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Authorizations from DNR are expected, but insufficient information to identify how many and what type. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 124 i ENERGY AUTHORITY A pp # 863 Community of Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment ) Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of Elim Recon AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The City of Elim and its partners, the Native Village of Elim, Elim Native Corporation, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks are proposing a Resource Assessment (Reconnaissance) / Feasibility Analysis of potential geothermal sites near the community. A number of known moderate temperature hot springs as well as other identified thermal anomalies, based on local knowledge, are located in the area surrounding Elim offering potential energy sources for the community. Known sources include Kwiniuk/Elim Hot Springs (41°C at 22 gpm), and Clear Creek Hot Springs (65°C at 230 gpm). No significant geothermal exploration has occurred at Elim to date, although the Alaska Energy Authority identified geothermal energy, along with wind, and wood, as potential energy options for Elim in the 2010 Energy Pathway. This project will combine low cost airborne and ground-based reconnaissance and mapping techniques to develop a conceptual model of the system, and complete a preliminary design and cost analysis to refine the numbers included in the Pathway. AEA Review Comments and Recom ation a Not The City of Elim proposes a reconnaissance and feasibility study of the geothermal resources near the city. The UAF’s Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) would be contracted to perform the reconnaissance and feasibility work. The nearest hot springs to Elim are Kwiniuk Hot Springs (41°C, 22gpm) and Clear Hot Springs (65°C, 230gpm). Kwiniuk can be accessed by a 16-mile road (estimated to take 1.5 hours), but is 8 miles straight distance from Elim. Clear Hot Springs is not currently road accessible and is located 16 miles via a straight path. No previous work has been performed on this project by ACEP or the City of Elim. The project is expected to begin in August 2012 and be completed by July 2013. Funded by AEA’s geothermal program in 2009, HDL assessed the cost of a potential project installed in Elim at $38 to 52 million. However, the current proposal makes the case that the resource is more similar to that at Manley Hot Springs and estimates an installed cost of $15 to 37 million. DNR notes that the reconnaissance study approach is reasonable: Thermal imaging (utilizing techniques being used by ACEP at the Pilgrim Hot Springs project site), ground-based reconnaissance (geological mapping, soil & water sampling), the creation of a conceptual reservoir model, and development of a preliminary design and cost. AEA is concerned that, even if a geothermal resource were located, economics appear poor. Assuming a mid-point cost of the system at $26 million and O&M costs of $312,000/yr the benefit/cost ratio is 0.14. Assuming a cost of $15 million and no O&M, the benefit/cost ratio is only 0.54. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $415,871 Cost of Power: $0.54 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $112,037 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $527,908 Bering Straits ; _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 125 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #863. Community of Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of Elim Recon AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 16.88 0.31 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 14.00 < iy . 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 : : 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 35.88 \ } ‘\ 4 7) Sustainability (Max 5) [.. Mere ee NES” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments The proposal seeks to explore near the village of Elim for low to moderate temperature geothermal resources to determine their potential for binary (Organic Rankine Cycle - similar to Chena Hot Springs) electrical power generation for the community. The 4 stage approach appears to be reasonable (1. Thermal Infrared Mapping and Analysis; 2) Ground Based Reconnaissance-water chemistry and geologic mapping. 3) Develop a Conceptual Model of the System; and 4) Preliminary Design Analysis and Cost. The proposal recognizes the need to locate both a nearby source and of sufficient temperature to be economically viable to generate electricity using a binary system. DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4/11/2012 1:16:69 PM Page 126 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12, f= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY Net-Zero Training and Administration Center (TAC Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: Alaska Gateway School District AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: IPP Government Entity Project Description The project will include extending a new hot water heating / return loop from the recently completed Biomass Heating Plant to a new 10,000 square foot net-zero Training and Administration Center (TAC). The TAC would benefit from heat from the biomass boiler, surplus heat created as a byproduct of the electrical generation process of the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system, and would also benefit from the electrical generation of the CHP. The heating loop will connect to the Tok School Biomass Plant that was completed in the Fall of 2010. (The Tok School Biomass Plant was developed using AEA Round I Grant Funding. The project consisted of a Biomass heating facility that contained an automated biomass heating system that now provides heat to the existing K-12 School.) Since the completion of the Tok School Biomass Plant, a steam turbine and electrical generation system will be added to create a combined heat and power (CHP) system. The original biomass boiler was sized to allow for the CHP expansion and the additional load of the multipurpose building and Zamboni garage. The CHP project will be completed the fall of 2011. The TAC will be a net-zero facility. The facility will reduce utility demands through low energy building practices, such as super insulation, location on site, natural ventilation, and day lighting. The TAC will also incorporate incorporating energy efficient building technologies such as high efficiency lighting, communication, and back up HVAC systems. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,007,750 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $106,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $3,113,750 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana- |» AEA Funding Recommendation: | ee neeeeneneamenennenemsenesnees? 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 127 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 864 Net-Zero Training and Administration Center (TAC) } Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Gateway School District Construction AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: IPP Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 0.00 be oy 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) A V4 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) ] 7) Sustainability (Max 5) ee — Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 128 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 == ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY Greenhouse and Processing Fac' ing surplus heat Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Gateway School District coat AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description The project will include extending a new hot water heating / return loop from the recently completed Biomass Heating Plant to a new 24’-0” x 100’-0” greenhouse and 20’-0” x 30’-0” processing facility on the Tok School Campus. The greenhouse and processing facility would only use surplus heat from the Biomass Plant and would benefit from the electrical generation of the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system. Prodcue would initially be used to supplement the schools Food Service Program, providing fresh vegetables to student who otherwise would not have access. The Biomass Plant has capacity to support additional greenhouses in the future if the demand for local produce in the region exceeds the anticipated yield capacity of the first greenhouse. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation : Did Not Pass Stage 1 | Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $135,825 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $4,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $139,825 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 4111/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 129 <_ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA App #865 Greenhouse and Processing Facility utilizing surplusheat = o Resource: Transmission Proposer: Alaska Gateway School District AEA Program Manager: Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 0.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments Proposed Project Phase: Construction Feasibility Applicant Type: Government Entity Economic Analysis Noy 4 \ Vi / Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) Scoring & Project Rank Ne Overall Rank (out of 41) Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 9/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 130 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 /= ALASKA @— ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 866 Extension of HeatingLoop | } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Gateway School District — AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: IPP Government Entity Project Description The project will include extending a new hot water heating / return loop from the recently completed Biomass Heating Plant to two (2) additional buildings on the Tok School Campus and will include the required integration work within the two buildings. The first building is the multipurpose building which houses an ice hockey rink and shooting range. The intent is to use the biomass plant to heat the shooting range and toilet group portion of the multipurpose building, approximately 10,000 square feet. The second building is the Zamboni garage which would approximately 1,400 square feet. The heating loop will connect to the Tok School Biomass Plant that was completed in the fall of 2010. (The Tok School Biomass Plant was developed using AEA Round I Grant Funding. The project consisted of a Biomass heating facility that contained an automated biomass heating system that now provides heat to the existing K-12 School.) Since the completion of the Tok School Biomass Plant a steam turbine and electrical generation system have been added to create a combined heat and power (CHP) system. The original biomass boiler was sized to allow for the CHP expansion and the additional load of the multipurpose building and Zamboni garage. The CHP project -will be completed the fall of 2011. When the CHP system is operational it will generate a substantial amount heat as a byproduct. The heat created will surpass the required heat demand of the existing K-12 School. The intent is to recover the surplus heat and supply it to meet the heating demand of additional buildings mentioned above. The cost for maintenance and operation as well as for biomass fuel will be negated for this project due to the planned operation of the CHP sy stem. AEA lew GO ents ana ommende n ‘ecidadi Full F' 7” Alaska Gateway School District proposes adding on a heat loop off the newly-completed wood-fired heating system at the Tok School to provide heat to the detached multipurpose buildings that house a hockey rink, shooting range and Zamboni garage. The project team would revise the existing design and constriction documents prior to construction. The application is largely the same as a round 4 submittal (#617) that was not recommended due to poor economics. Since last year the project team has reduced the capital cost from $754,651 to $629,000 by decreasing mobilization and construction costs. At the same time the projected cost of fuel over the life of the project has increased. These changes have improved the projected benefit/cost ratio from 0.47 to 0.85. Recomsnend full funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $625,000 Cost of Power: $0.39 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $4,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $629,000 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana | AEA Funding Recommendation: $625,000 411112012 1:15:59 PM Page 131 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 7-17-12 J== ALASKA @— ENERGY AUTHORITY App#866 _ExtensionofHeatingLoop ts J Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Gateway School District Design AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: IPP Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 12.19 1.92 eS 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 3.00 \ 7 VW 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 13.13 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 8.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.75 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 45.07 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 i NS’ Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project as described does not involve state land. Therefore, no land permits or easements from the state are required. Please note however, that if any of the recovery lines cross state land or follow existing Rows, then a permit may be required, or discussion with DOT may be required. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project will extend a new hot water heating and return loop from the recently completed Tok biomass heating plant to two additional buildings. A combined heat and power system will be added to the biomass heating plant and completed in the fall of 2011. When this CHP system is operational it will generate waste heat as a byproduct. The intent is to recover the surplus heat and supply it to the additional two buildings. This project was reviewed last year in the Round 4 applications and it has been revised slightly this year. Estimated biomass fuel use for the entire facility including electrical generation and heating the additional buildings is stated between 25 and 35 acres per year. There would also be hazard fuel reduction material and sawmill waste material available as a biomass fuel source. The acreage required for the facility is well within the sustained yield estimates for the Tok Management Area. The 2010 Tanana Valley Inventory Update indicates the Tok Management Area can sustain an annual harvest of 984 acres within existing poletimber and sawtimber types. This does not account for additional acreage available through in-growth of reproduction types and burned timber salvage which would increase this amount. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 132 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @i ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 867 Reconnaissance Study of the Geothermal Potential for the lvanoff Bay Region } Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: Ivanoff Bay Tribal Council AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The purpose of this project is to investigate the geothermal potential of the Ivanof Bay area. The region is located at the base of the Kupreanof Volcano and there are reports of hot springs in the general area of Stepovak Bay. Active volcanic systems such as Kupreanof volcano, and deep fracture and fault systems create favorable settings for development of geothermal systems. Previous studies on geothermal resources of the Aleutian Arc have not identified a known hot springs or geothermal source however three areas of fumaroles have been reported in the Stepovak Bay consisting of a chain of five volcanoes that includes Kupreanof (Wilson, 1990). The first area is at the head of Big River and is located near the center of the Kupreanof volcanic edifice (Yount and others, 1985). The second, 5.5 miles southwest, was observed by Eakins (1970) on the southeast side of volcano 4, at the head of an unnamed stream that flows into Ramsey Bay. At the time of the study, steaming fumaroles were visible at the west end of a sulfur deposit at about 2,950 foot elevation. The third, an unverified fumaroles field, is inferred from 1940 air photos of unnamed volcano 1, north of Clark Bay (Wilson, 1990). These sites are about 28 miles east of Port Moller and 14 miles northwest of the Kupreanof Peninsula. Kupreanof's latest activity was an ash/steam eruption in 1987 (Wilson, 1990). In addition to the surface manifestations, a wildcat well drilled by Philips Petroleum in 1976-1977, Big River A-Ol encountered high temperatures at depth. The well was advanced approximately 7 miles west, northwest of Ivanof Bay, in the general area of the observed sulfur deposits. The well chips/core is available for study. We request funding for a reconnaissance study of the region with a planned timeline of approximately 16 months. The study will include the necessary fieldwork, the permitting and environmental analysis, preliminary design analysis, market analysis, simple economic analysis, and a final report. The fieldwork will include mapping, remote sensing, aerial and ground based geophysics, and geochemical sampling of soils and waters. In addition, we will obtain samples from the Big River A-Ol Well in order to conduct additional petrographic analysis of the core. This is the complete scope of work we are requesting funding for with this grant, but if this work is successful and promising, future work would include the drilling necessary to confirm and develop the resource, necessary permitting, and power plant and infrastructure construction. The Ivanof Bay Tribal Council proposes to perform a reconnaissance study to explore the geothermal potential of the Ivanof Bay region. The plan proposes a stepwise approach: geological field work (geological mapping, geochemical sampling, Geophysical surveys, sampling of the Big River) to determine if there are any developable geothermal resources in the Ivanof Bay region. The known geothermal resources referenced in the application—Port Moller, Kupreanof, and Aniakchak—are all at great distances from the communities of Perryville, Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, and Chignik Lake (between 28 and >70 miles). HDL provided cost estimates geothermal development at a number of known geothermal sites in Alaska. HDL’s Port Moller estimate ranged between $47 and $92 million for a 1 MW plant. Total electricity generation of the communities of Perryville, Chignik, Chignik Lake, and Chignik Lagoon equals approximately 1.6 million kWh per year. Using this as the yearly energy consumption, the levelized cost of energy would be $2 to $3.50/kWh assuming no operation and maintenance cost, a 25-year life, and a 3% real discount rate. The project is expected to begin in August 2012 and be completed by December 2013. DGGS comments are as follows: “The proposal seeks to investigate the geothermal potential of the Ivanof Bay area and is based on fumaroles fields related to Kupreanof Volcano and a deep oil and gas exploration well drilled in 1976-1977, the Big River A-01. The proposal will gather literature and thermal satellite images, and proposes to test geothermal prospecting and exploration techniques including geochemical sampling, shallow temperature surveys using thermal probes, gravity and/or magnetotelluric surveys in select locations and evaluate the Big River A-01 core. The proposal could be improved by providing a map showing the locations of the communities, fumarole fields, oil and gas well and be more specific in delineating the areas where geothermal exploration will be conducted. The resource proposed for study is distant from the Chignik communities (~90 km, with at least some FW Refuge land in between). Although the Big River well encountered geothermally interesting temperatures (~190F) the depth was great (~12,000’) and the drilling log mentions significant hydrothermal mineralization which would presumably have a large negative impact on reservoir characteristics. Significant spring systems suggestive of a shallower, more accessible, hydrothermal system do not exist.” AEA’s is concerned that 1. Due to the great distances to the known geothermal resources and the low likelihood of finding an unknown geothermal resource, the proposal carries significant risks for finding a suitable resource. 2. Were a resource identified, the cost of developing it would be prohibitively high. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $911,400 Cost of Power: $0.80 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $50,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $961,400 Bristol Bay AEA Funding Recommendatio 1/11/2012 1:18:69 PM Page 133 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 867 Reconnaissance Study of the Geothermal Potential for the lvanoff Bay Region } Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: !vanoff Bay Tribal Council AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 25.00 \ 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 9.00 Ye a \V 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) fe 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 38.00 \ } 7) Sustainability (Max 5) oye NS Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient information to determine if a DNR authorization is required. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments The proposal seeks to investigate the geothermal potential of the Ivanof Bay area and is based on fumaroles fields related to Kupreanof Volcano and a deep oil and gas exploration well drilled in 1976-77, the Big River A-01. The proposal will gather literature and thermal satellite images, and proposes to test geothermal prospecting and exploration techniques including geochemical sampling, shallow temperature surveys using thermal probes, gravity and/or magnetotelluric surveys in select locations and evaluate the Big River A-01 core. The proposal could be improved by providing a map showing the locations of the communities, fumarole fields, oil and gas well and be more specific in delineating the areas where geothermal exploration will be conducted. The resource proposed for study is distant from the Chignik communities (~90 km, with at least some FWS Refuge land in between). Although the Big River well encountered geothermally interesting temperatures (~190F) the depth was great (~12,000’) and the drilling log mentions significant hydrothermal mineralization which would would presumably have a large negative impact on reservoir characteristics. Significant spring systems suggestive of a shallower, more accessible, hydrothermal system A reenere ceete DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 134 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA > ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 868 TidGen™ Array Project } Resource: Ocean/River Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: ORPC Alaska, LLC AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: IPP Project Description ORPC Alaska, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC (collectively, ORPC), develops technology and projects generating emission-free electricity from water currents. Its technology includes the proprietary TidGen™ Power System, which includes one or more TidGen™ devices connected to an on-shore station with power and data cables. In ORPC’s Cook Inlet TidGen™ Project, ORPC will install a four-device TidGen™ Power System with a rated generating capacity of 600 kW in a 6-knot current. AEA Round 4 funding to ORPC will help fund a single-device TidGen™ Power System. This Round 5 project, called the TidGen™ Array Project, will expand the system to a four-device TidGen™ Power System, by adding an array of three TidGen™ devices. A NE VOMmn © aNG NECOMN ‘ en _NO ORPC Alaska 2, LLC, proposes the installation of three additional 150-kW TidGen power systems for the TidGen Array project at East Foreland, near Nikiski in June 2014. The proposal is to fund the second stage of the tidal energy project that was funded under Round 4 of the RE Fund. ORPC received $2 million for the deployment of the first 150 kW TidGen power system at the site. The four devices are expected to have a peak capacity of 600 kW. ORPC has been active in Alaska for several years working on reconnaissance and feasibility projects at several sites around the state, including Cook Inlet. ORPC has received several Department of Energy grants to perform research vital for their Alaska projects, including on Beluga whales and bearings that will survive the inlet’s high sediment load. The Round 4 project is expected to begin in January 2013, with installation of the first tidal turbine in June 2013. The technology is still under development. The first full-scale deployment of the 150 kW unit is expected in summer 2012 in Maine with support of a USDOE grant. The East Foreland site is estimated to have very fast tidal currents (12 knots, or 6 m/s maximum velocities), making it highly energetic and technically challenging. If the initial deployment is successful in 2013, the next stage, proposed in this application, is expected to begin in January 2014, with the installation of the next three turbines expected in June 2014. ORPC’s proposal includes letters of support from the university, Homer Electric Association, contractors, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Homer Electric Association and others. The application makes a strong case that development of the project in Alaska will have significant employment, economic, and technology impacts in the state. HEA has signed a letter of intent with ORPC to participate in the project. However, given the State’s previous investment of $2 million through the Round 4 RE Fund and the pre-commercial nature of the technology, AEA believes that it is too early for the State to invest further funds until more information is gained from the installation in Maine and the first turbine funded under Round 4 grant. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $2,000,000 Costof Power: $0.17 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $6,696,494 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $8,696,494 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 135 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 == ALASKA App #868 TidGen™ ArrayProject: i wd Resource: Ocean/River Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: ORPC Alaska, LLC AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: IPP Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 5.31 \ a 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 19.00 sae J Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Scoring & Project Rank 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) leoneeedaiamsioetes Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) 29.31 \ 4 Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Authorizations from DNR are expected, but insufficient information to identify how many and what type. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natura] hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalan ches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *"*See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 136 @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA 8 St. Mary's/Pitka's Point Wind Construction and Commi Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description AVEC proposes to complete construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of three Wind turbines and Secondary Load Controls (SLC) to supplement the existing power generation system for currently intertied communities of St. Mary's and Pitka's Point. As a part of this project, AVEC would upgrade the electrical distribu tion line between St. Mary's and Pitka's Point to a three phase line. A n w Con nts ak er O waitais n AVEC proposes construction of a 300 kW wind farm to supply the St. Marys-Pitkas Point grid. The work would also upgrade the existing power line to the wind farm site from single to three-phase. The wind resource appears to be class 6. AVEC received $275,554 in round 4 of the REF for completing feasibility and final design and permitting (#645). Currently AEA is working with AVEC to put the grant in place. The current application only includes the foundation design and electrical drawings for the turbine interconnect and transmission line. There is no geotech final report (only preliminary). A special provision of the round 4 grant is that “before final design funds are disbursed AEA accepts the feasibility and conceptual design report”. In round 3 AVEC proposed final design, permitting, and construction of a 900 kW wind project and intertie to serve the communities of St. Marys, Mountain Village, Pitkas Point, and Pilot Station (#516). In round 2 AVEC requested funding for feasibility assessment for this project (#298). AEA recommended both proposals for funding; however there was not sufficient funding for either. AVEC noted presence of icing during the met tower studies resulting in tower collapse in two locations. Based on the work to date it appears that a wind farm to serve the St. Marys grid is viable. AEA believes that it is reasonable for AVEC to consider its original concept of tying in Mountain Village and Pilot Station and upsizing the wind generation capacity. Recommiend full funding with requirement that round 4 work needs to be completed and accepted by AEA. Round 4 work should address the potential for tying the communities together. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,998,920 Costof Power: $0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $444,324 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $4,443,244 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim _ AEA Funding Recommendation: _ $3,998,920 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 137 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #869 _ St. Mary's/Pitka's Point Wind Construction and Commissioning Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 18.13 1.22 Si 0.90 | 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 12.00 Sv W 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 40.80 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 2.50 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 55.42 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.00 ees VSS” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:16:69 PM Page 138 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § part 7-17-12 J== ALASKA @i_— ENERGY AUTHORITY Sur Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System H Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. pom AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description A detailed feasibility study has been completed. This analysis has clearly shown that the project is both feasible and cost effective. These next two phases of the project(design and construction) will build on the work that has been done to date. AVEC has already implemented electric boilers within its facilities in several villages. These efforts have clearly demonstrated the ability to integrate the electric boilers into the existing systems. The challenge of this project will be to demonstrate that the electric boiler technology and controls can be successfully used to provide heat to the various use points at the water treatment plant on an interruptible basis. The availability of the water tank for thermal storage greatly reduces any risks. Currently, AVEC’s two wind turbines Northern Power Systems 100A models) in Mekoryuk generate in excess of community requirements when there is moderate to heavy wind and when the community load is light. Much of this excess is not captured,since there is no economic way to store the energy. AVEC,together with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Alaska Village Electric Cooperative,Inc. Mekoryuk Water System Surplus Wind Energy Recovery Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA 12-001 Grant Application Page 3 of 138/26/2011 (ANTHC) with input from the City of Mekoryuk, are planning to design and construct a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy to power space heating at the water treatment plant, drinking water storage tank heating, and washeteria hot water heating and clothes drying. Design of the proposed equipment would be based on AVEC’s other secondary load projects adapted to installation into the water treatment plant. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a erent toad installation to capture the excess energy created by Mekoryuk’s existing 200 kW wind system funded in RE Fund round12 (#72). The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $278,378, of which $123,919 (5%) would come as a match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $264,459, is requested from the RE Fund. The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and ANTHC. The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current system configuration, only 49% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 51% of the output is excess power and available for offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA’s modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $264,459 Cost of Power: $0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $13,919 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $278,378 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim AEA Funding Recommendation: $264,459 | 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 139 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12, f= ALASKA @@__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App#870 Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heat j Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Design AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Wei s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 18.44 2.68 \ 1.54 | 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 Ff 3 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 14.97 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 9.12 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 62.03 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.50 Le» users po Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4141/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 140 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY 4 Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Shaktoolik Water System Heat Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative ist AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description AVEC’s two wind turbines (Northern Power Systems 100B models) in Shaktoolik when started up later this year will generate in excess of community requirernents when there is moderate to heavy wind and when the community load is light. Much of this excess will not be used, since there is no economic way to store the energy. AVEC, together with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, with input from the City of Shaktoolik, are planning to design and construct a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy to power water treatment plant space heating, drinking water storage tank heating, and circulation loop heating. Design of the proposed equipment would be based on AVEC’s other secondary load installations and adapted to installation into the water treatment plant. view Comments and Recommendation Full Funding Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy created by Shaktoolik’s existing 200 kW wind system funded in RE Fund round 2 (#303). The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. The round 2 grant included a 260 kW electric boiler as a secondary load to be installed in the power plant. AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $252,905, of which $12,645 (5%) would come as an in-kind match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $240,260, is requested from the RE Fund. The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and ANTHC. The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current system configuration, only 44% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 56% of the output is excess power and available for offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA’s modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $240,260 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $12,645 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $252,905 Bering Straits _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $240,260 1111/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 141 @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA App #871 Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Shaktoolik Water System Heat Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Design AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.19 3.58 ae 4 \ f 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 Ne \4 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 15.97 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.37 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 63.03 ; 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.50 [ee eed Ce Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 142 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #872 _ Mountain Village Wind Energy Construction J Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description AVEC proposes to complete erection,startup,and commissioning of wo NW100 wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation system for Mountain Village. AVEC would also upgrade the switchgear and add remote control to the system. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation . Not Recommended | AVEC proposes final design and construction of a 200 kW wind farm to serve the community of Mt. Village. The project would include 5-7 miles of transmission between the turbine site and the Mountain Village system. The completion of this project would benefit the community through stabilized energy costs. AVEC would also improve the switch gear and add remote control to the system. The wind resource appears to be very good, a class 5. AVEC’s proposal included a HOMER model that assumed 100% turbine availability and 100% utilization of turbine generation at 35% capacity factor. Excess wind energy is not addressed. AEA has the following concerns about this project: 1. AVEC’s assumptions on wind generation and utilization appear overly optimistic. 2. Given a high project cost of $4.2 million ($21,000/kW), which includes the transmission, economics are poor (B/C = 0.6 to 0.9). Benefit/cost may improve if the system is tied to the St. Mary’s grid.) 3. AVEC does not provide a feasibility analysis and conceptual design with the proposal. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,795,575 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $421,731 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $4,217,306 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 4/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 143 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA App #872 Mountain Village Wind Energy Construction sss Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 15.94 0.90 \ 0.60 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 12.00 ces A Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) ae Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Scoring & Project Rank Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments "See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 144 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (@— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #873 Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description AVEC proposes to install a wind meteorological (met)tower and complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Shishmaref. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the land owner for the placement of the met tower, geotechnical field work, permitting, transporting and installing a met tower at this location, studying the wind resource for one year,and conducting a reconnaissance - level geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical investigation. This project will also consider other turbines that can be relocated, if the village decides to move to another location. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation __ Full Funding | AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Shishmaref. Wind resource is estimated as a class 5 based on the high-resolution wind map. This application is one of two wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 5. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2-4 for feasibility assessment in 10 other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks—including project development/scoping and contractor solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and management of these projects. Due to severe coastal erosion the community of Shishmaref is considering moving. Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, AVEC will prepare budgets for both round 5 wind feasibility projects with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce costs. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $142,500 Cost of Power: $0.60 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $7,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $150,000 Bering Straits _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $142,500 411112012 1:15:59 PM Page 145 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA (> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #873 Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility: Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 18.75 1.30 ‘ 1.18 / 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 ey A wy 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 12.47 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 2.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 5.25 ‘ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 54.13 ; 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.67 a. tie wT Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments “See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 146 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pR4FT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA > ENERGY AUTHORITY App #874 _ Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility ‘ J Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The prisnary financial benefit from this project would be to determine whether the wind resources are suitable to provide power to the community and to prepare a conceptual design of a wind facility. Assuming installation of one NW100 turbine, it could produce 230,000 kWh annually. The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for village power generation in Goodnews Bay could be 13,000 gal/yr (HOMER simulation, assuming 80% turbine availability, Tab G). This project could save about $72,400 during the first year of operation (2014). See the detailed project benefits in Section 5.0. iew Comments and Rec endatio Full Fundi AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Goodnews Bay. Wind resource is estimate as a class 4 based on the high-resolution wind map. AEA notes an area of class 5 resource near Goodnews. The City of Goodnews Bay, in cooperation with ANTHC, has proposed generating wind power to heat the water treatment plant and the washeteria (#859). Although AEA is recommending against funding the City's project, the current proposal provides a way of addressing the City's proposed assessment. This application is one of two wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 5. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2-4 for feasibility assessment in 10 other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks—including project development/scoping and contractor solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and management of these projects. Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, 1) AVEC will prepare budgets for both round 5 wind feasibility projects with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce costs, and 2) work with the City and ANTHC to include scope of work that addresses feasibility of heating the water treatment plant and washeteria. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $142,500 Costof Power: $0.47 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $7,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $150,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $142,500 4191/2012. 4:18:69 PM Page 147 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #874 _ Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility _ vii Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 14.69 1.31 Q ae 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 A VW 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 11.40 BenefiiCost Ratio (Applicant) Benet os Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 2.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.75 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 — 46.34 : 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 ee —” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on DMLW land - no DMLW land permit required for installation. Cross-country travel permit may be required for access. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natura] hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalan ches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 148 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA @™ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 875 Chevak Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Chevak Water System Heat } Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description Currently, AVEC’s four wind turbines (Northern Power Systems 100B models) in Chevak generate in excess of community requirements when there is moderate to heavy wind and when the community load is light. Much of this excess energy is not captured, since there is no economic way to store the energy. AVEC, together with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium with input from the City of Chevak, are planning to design and construct a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy to power space heating at the water treatment plant and drinking water storage tank heating. Design of the proposed equipment would be based on AVEC’s other secondary load installations adapted to installation into the water treatment plant. A Re mn i me ‘ eer creel Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy created by Chevak’s existing 400kW wind system. The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $252,905, of which $12,645 (5%) would come as an in-kind match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $240,260, is requested from the RE Fund. The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and ANTHC. The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current system configuration, only 61% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 39% of the output is excess power and available for offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA’s modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration. Full funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $240,260 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $12,645 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $252,905 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim _ AEA Funding Recommendation: | $240,260 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 149 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #875 _ Chevak Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Chevak Water System Heat __ J Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Design AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 2.50 | 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.19 2.50 e iy 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 be WT 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 15.97 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.37 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 65.03 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.50 oe # Ey Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on DMLW land - no DMLW land permit required for installation. Cross-country travel permit may be required for access. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments “See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 150 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #876 Gambell Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat J Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description Currently, AVEC’s three wind turbines (Northern Power Systems 100A models) in Gambell generate in excess of community requirements when there is moderate to heavy wind and when the community load is light. Much of this excess is not captured,since there is no economic way to store the energy. AVEC, together with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium with input from the City of Gambell, are planning to design and construct a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy to power water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. Design of the proposed equipment would be based on the secondary load installations and adapted to installation into the water treatment plant. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Full Funding | Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy created by Gambell’s existing 300 kW wind system. The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $252,905, of which $12,645 (5%) would come as an in-kind match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $240,260, is requested from the RE Fund. The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and ANTHC. The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current system configuration, only 55% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 45% of the output is excess power and available for offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA’s modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $240,260 Cost of Power: $0.53 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $12,645 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $252,905 Bering Straits _ AEA Funding Recommendation: . $240,260 4111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 151 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #876 _ Gambell Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Design AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 16.56 2.88 See / 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 “E cf “ 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 15.97 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.37 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 63.40 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.50 [seeereey Nino” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 152 @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 877__ Upper Kalskag Solar Construction — } Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description AVEC proposes to install a 10 kWh solar array in Upper Kalskag. The array would be installed on the side of the existing power plant facility that is owned and operated by AVEC. Work would involve shipping materials to the community, installing, integrating, testing, and commissioning the array. A small solar array in Upper Kalskag would help AVEC evaluate the benefits of solar arrays installed at power generating facilities. Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended AVEC proposes to install a 10 kW solar array on the side of the existing power plant in Upper Kalskag. AVEC estimates an annual savings of 9,096kWh and 673 gallons of diesel fuel per year to offset operating costs and station service. This equates to a capacity factor of 12.5%. The proposed project is similar to the Kaltag Solar project that is funded from REF 4 (#877). That project scope mounts the PV array on a CONEX container instead of the AVEC building. The CONEX model allows for lower costs through construction in Fairbanks with only minor assembly in Upper Kalskag. The Conex can be optimally oriented to capture the most solar gain as opposed to the powerhouse orientation. Economics appear marginal. AEA believes that the Kaltag project, which was funded as a demonstration project, should be on line long enough to assess performance and economics before further funds are allocated to similar projects. Recommend no funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $90,000 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $100,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 153 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA App #877 Upper Kalskag Solar Construction sl ‘ Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 15.94 0.86 0.78 } 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 10.00 ’ i VW Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) be silat edn Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on DMLW land - no DMLW land permit required for installation. Cross-country travel permit may be required for access. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *“*See general DGGS comment on hazards. 41112012 1:15:59 PM Page 154 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § rat 1-11-12 J== ALASKA (= ENERGY AUTHORITY App #878 — Emmonak/Alakanuk Phase 2 Wind Energy Construction } Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description This project would add two additional NW100B turbines to the existing wind farm (consisting off our NW100B turbines) in Emmonak to complete the originally planned wind farm serving the communities of Emmonak and Alakanuk. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation , Not Recommended | AVEC proposes to add two NW100 turbines to their 400 kW Emmonak wind farm, boosting capacity to 600 kW. Although the first project was awarded in Round 1, a wind resource analysis report was not published until August 2010. This wind resource report estimates a capacity factor of only 18.7% for a NW100B at 80% turbine availability. This is substantially less than AVEC’s estimate (23.8% capacity factor corresponding to a total of 1,250,000kWh). Neither AEA nor AVEC were aware at the time of the Round 1 proposal and award that the wind resource would result in the low capacity factors and wind power densities actually seen at this site. Depending on energy production assumptions, the benefit/cost ranges from 0.61 to 0.69, thus appearing to be marginal at this point. A more accurate assessment of production will be available after a year or so of operation of the existing 400kW wind system. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $2,408,646 Cost of Power: $0.52 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $267,627 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $2,676,273 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 155 = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12, f= ALASKA App #878 | Emmonak/Alakanuk Phase 2 Wind Energy Construction Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 16.25 0.69 0.47 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 12.00 of : Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) SO Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Scoring & Project Rank 33.25 Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on DMLW land - no DMLW land permit required for installation. Cross-country travel permit likely required for access, as such permits were acquired for previous installations at this site. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 156 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § parr 1-17-12 == ALASKA (@_> ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 879 St. Michael / Stebbins Wind Energy Design , J Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description AVEC is proposing to complete final design and permitting for four wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation systems in St. Michael and Stebbins. Work under this grant will also be used to design controls for the power generation system at a power plant in Stebbins. AVEC has completed the design and obtained permits for the intertie between St. Michael and Stebbins. Once work done under this grant is completed, AVEC will seek funding to construct turbines and an intertie to serve both communities. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation _ ' Full Funding | AVEC proposes final design and permitting for four wind turbines that would supplement existing power systems in St. Michael and Stebbins. The grant also includes designing controls for the power system in Stebbins. Additionally, AVEC has completed design and permitting for an intertie between St. Michael and Stebbins. If this grant is approved, AVEC will seek funding for construction of the turbines and the intertie. Currently AVEC is working on feasibility and conceptual design of the St. Michael/Stebbins wind system with an expected completion of December 2012. The wind resource completed in Aug. 2011 shows class 5 winds. Turbulence is low at this site. Average system penetration would be 29%. Given the very good wind resource, AEA believes that it is reasonable to allocate funding for the next phase of project development. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA accept feasibility and conceptual design before finalizing the round 5 grant agreement. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $223,250 Cost of Power: $0.54 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $11,750 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $235,000 Bering Straits _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $223,250 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 157 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #879 _ St. Michael / Stebbins Wind Energy Design ) Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 16.88 0.98 ‘ 0.65 9 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 8.00 af 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 11.60 BenefliCost Ratio (Applicant) ponemcost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 50.85 j 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.00 fens SS” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *“*See general DGGS comment on hazards. 41/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 158 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12 J== ALASKA @™i__ ENERGY AUTHORITY Tanana Solar Thermal Public Faci ies Heating Project Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Tanana AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The Tanana Solar Thermal Public Macilities Spacing Heating Project seeks to demonstrate and implement the market transformative benefits of combining biomass space heating technologies currently being installed at Tanana’s public facilities with solar thermal collectors. During the winter months the heat energy generated by the biomass boilers offsets a substantial amount of the fuel oil normally required. The cordwood fuel source also allows many of the operating costs to remain in the community since the supply of the cordwood and manpower required to feed and boilers is local. During the summer the biomass boilers are a less desirable alternative. The focus and energies of the community are diverted to essential traditional cultural activities. The solar thermal, which is a passive heat energy source that can operate largely unattended, allows those activities to continue uninterrupted. Thus it is an excellent companion to the biomass and can contribute substantially to the heat energy requirement for at least nine months of the year. The combination of the two heat energy sources virtually eliminates the dependency on fuel oil as the heat energy source. The City believes that the integration of solar thermal is essential to the continued development and expansion of the biomass program in Alaska. The resulting combination system is more compatible with the life styles and cultural activities of people in rural Alaska, further reduces the ongoing operational costs of the heat energy system, and reduces the long term impact on the area biomass resource due to the system operation. For this project, the City of Tanana has selected four buildings in Tanana that have biomass systems — the washeteria, the tribal complex, the teacher housing duplex, and a single residence teacher housing unit. This mix represents a good cross section of both commercially and residentially oriented systems. Due to the highly variable temperatures found in the biomass systems, the City has selected indirect, glycol based evacuated tube collectors with variable speed circulation pumps and supplemental heat storage tanks for the solar thermal systems. In the washeteria, the integral storage of the GARN boilers will be utilized. In the other facilities that are utilizing Econoburn gasification boilers with limited internal storage capacity, supplemental storage tanks will be installed in conjunction with the solar thermal. AE, >omments and Reco! on t Not Recomm City of Tanana proposes funding for adding solar thermal to the existing wood-fired systems that supply the washeteria, tribal complex, and teacher housing buildings. The combined solar and wood projects will meet most of the heating requirements of four public facilities. The project includes $79,000 for system performance monitoring for demonstration purposes. Although the project appears technically feasible, economics are poor to marginal with AEA’s standard assumption of a 20-year project life, even if the $79,000 cost is removed. Recommend no funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $359,000 Cost of Power: $0.67 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $100,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $459,000 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana _ AEA Funding Recommendation: “iss 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 159 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-17-12, J== ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #880 _Tanana Solar Thermal Public Facilities Heating Project | Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Tanana AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 20.94 0.79 oo Py 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 0.00 eae 4 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 22.94 é 7) Sustainability (Max 5) b NS Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project as described does not involve state land. Therefore, no land permits or easements from the state are required. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 160 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12, == ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY A pp # 881 Tanacross Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project J Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Tanacross Village Council AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description Tanacross’ predicament, as is the case for most of rural Alaska, is its dependence on imported expensive petroleum heating oil for space heating of essential community facilities and infrastructure which support the provision of valuable social, health and safety services to residents of Tanacross. This Project will construct one centrally located woody biomass space heating plant to substitute for expensive, imported heating oil use and wil heat 80% of Tanacross’ public facilities with high efficiency bio-mass (wood-fired) heating. Tanacross’ community facilities are centrally located and can be serviced by one woody biomass heating plant strategically located adjacent to Tanacross’ clustered public facilities (see Map Attachment). Tanacross Village Council is requesting AEA Round 5 in the amount of $420,000. Tanacross Village Council will contribute $170,000 of in-kind building materials to this exciting Project. Combined, Tanacross Village Council will construct a single woody biomass plant to heat four (4) community facility which is estimated to displace 26,500 gallons of imported heating oil and create local wood-harvesting employment/small business opportunities. Tanacross Village Council proposes final design and construction of a three-Garn wood boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of the multi-use facility, water/sewer heating loop, fire station, and the community hall. The system would consume approximately 260 cords per year and displace 25,300 gallons of fuel oil per year—90% of the facility loads. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. TVC is supplying match including materials for a boiler building and arctic pipe system. AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuelwood market in the Tok area. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that Tanacross provide a fuel supply plan and final design acceptable to AEA before construction funds are disbursed. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $420,000 Cost of Power: $0.37 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $170,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $590,000 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana_ | AEA Funding Recommendation: $420,000 | 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 161 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § parr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 881 Tanacross Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Tanacross Village Council AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 11.56 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 16.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 14.40 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.00 4 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 61.46 y 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 250 [et ape | NES” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved. Assume biomass is from corporation lands. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for construction of three centrally located Garn boilers to heat four clustered community buildings. It is expected that about 26,000 gallons of heating oil will be displaced by the project. At a price of $5.00 per gallon, $126,500 is spent annually on fuel oil purchases. Based on the village of Tanana’s experience in operating the Garn boilers, one cord of seasoned fuel wood is roughly equivalent to 100 gallons of fuel oil. Thus this conversion equates to an annual wood requirement for Tanacross of about 260 cords or 87 cords per boiler. This amount of wood stoking may be somewhat optimistic given that the village of Tanana is burning between 35 and 50 cords per Garn unit. However, this depends on the number of times per day each Garn boiler is fired. Cordwood can be purchased for $200 per cord for a total price of $52,000. A large fire burned in the Tanacross area in 2010 which contains significant dead material suitable for firewood. In addition Tanacross has identified hazard fuel reduction areas of 1,800 acres that would also be a supply of firewood. The 2010 Tanana Valley Inventory Update indicates the Tok Management Area averages about 14 cords per acre. Tanacross would then need to harvest approximately 19 acres per year to supply the Garn boilers. This amount appears to be sustainable based on the number of forested acres within the State Forest and Tanacross Inc. lands and with the additional burned over lands. An appropriate harvest schedule would need to be developed to plan access to these areas. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 162 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 {= ALASKA @ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #882 _ Mentasta Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Mentasta Traditional Council AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description Mentasta’s predicament, as is the case for most of rural Alaska, is its dependence on imported expensive petroleum heating oil for space heating of essential community facilities and infrastructure which support the provision of valuable social, health and safety services to residents of Mentasta. This Project will construct one centrally located woody biomass space heating plant to substitute for expensive, imported heating oil use and will heat 80% of Mentasta’s public facilities with high efficiency bio-mass (wood-fired) heating. Mentasta’s community facilities are centrally located and can be serviced by one woody biomass heating plant strategically located adjacent to Mentasta’s clustered public facilities (see Map Attachment). Mentasta Traditional Council is requesting AEA Round 5 in the amount of $400,000 and will construct a single woody biomass plant to heat five (5) community facility which is estimated to displace 10,800 gallons of imported heating oil and create local wood-harvesting employment/small business opportunities. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation ’ __ Full Funding | Mentasta Village Council proposes final design and construction of a three-Garn wood boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of the multi-use facility, council building and post office, fire station, clinic and the community hall. The system would consume approximately 110 cords per year and displace 10,800 gallons of fuel oil per year-—90% of the facility loads. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. MVC is not supplying a match. AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuelwood market in the Tok area. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that Mentasta provide a fuel supply plan and final design acceptable to AEA before construction funds are disbursed. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $400,000 Cost of Power: $0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $400,000 Copper River/Chugach AEA Funding Recommendation: $400,000 1/41/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 163 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12 J== ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 882 Mentasta Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Mentasta Traditional Council AEA Program Manager: Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 19.38 1.31 iat / \ 4 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 0.00 Need V4 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 12.47 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 4.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6.63 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 47.47 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.00 |. ees VS” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land ownership. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is similar in scope to the above Tanacross project # 881. It is for the construction of three centrally located Garn boilers to heat five clustered community buildings. It is expected that about 10,800 gallons of heating oil will be displaced by the project. The annual wood requirement is 110 cords of seasoned fuel wood at $220 per cord. The Mentasta Community Wildfire Protection Plan calls for 1,200 acres of forest managed for hazard fuel reduction. Based on the Tok Management Area’s average of 14 cords per acre, a significant amount of volume could be available from the hazard fuel reduction clearings. Fuel wood is also available for purchase from Tok at the delivered price of $220.00 per cord. The Tanana Chiefs Conference forestry program conducted a forest inventory for Mentasta Village Lands in 1989. In the report a spruce allowable harvest of 106 acres per year was calculated yielding over 2,000 cords. Thus, the annual wood requirement for this project appears sustainable even if the wood resource was mostly sourced from village lands. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments “See general DGGS comment on hazards. 111112012 1:15:59 PM Page 164 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @i_— ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 883 Transmission Line from Fire Island Wind Project } Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIR]), created a special purpose entity called lire Island Wind, LLC (IW) to develop a wind farm on Fire Island. The Hire Island Wind Farm ("the Wind Farm") is a utility-scale wind generation facility under development, ultimately planned to have a nameplate capacity of 52.8 MW and to be comprised of 33 wind turbine generators. Pursuant to a recently completed Power Purchase Agreement (PP A), Chugach, as Buyer, has agreed to purchase the electrical output from Phase I of the Wind Farm, which will be comprised of 11 General Electric ("GE") 1.6MW type XLE turbines for a total Phase] of 17.6 MW. The Project that is the subject of this grant application includes the construction of the transmission line, which will interconnect the Fire Island Wind Farm (as well as a few retail electric customers on Fire Island), with Chugach's 34.5kV system at the International Substation. The Wind Farm will initially consist of 11 -1.6MW OE wind turbines that will be consolidated into a single 34.5kV feeder. The feeder will be routed to a collector yard. The collector yard will connect to a double-circuit 34.5kV overhead transmission line running approximately 2.8 miles to the northeast coast of Fire Island. At that point, it will be connected to two 34.5kV 3 phase submarine cables. The submarine cables will run approximately 3.2 miles under the Cook Inlet to the mainland coast near Point Campbell and Anchorage International Airport. At Point Campbell, the conductors will be separated into single conductors and buried in a trench. The transmission lines will then continue approximately 6.2 miles to the International Substation and connect to the 34.5kV bus at the International Substation. Portions of underground mainland section will be installed in conduit. Splice cabinets will be required at various points on the underground section of the project. A map and drawing outlining the wind farm site and transmission Project is attached as Appendix 1. Review Co! nts and Recommendation © Full Fundi Chugach Electric proposes funding for construction of dual 34.5 kV transmission from the International Substation in Anchorage to Fire Island to transmit the power generated by the 17.6 MW Fire Island Wind Farm to the Chugach Electric system. A special-purpose entity, Fire Island Wind LLC, a subsidiary of CIRI, will design and build the transmission line. Following completion and commissioning line ownership of the line will be transferred to Chugach. In processing the $25 million legislative grant for the project, AEA has reviewed the power sales agreement and approved the construction work plan for the project. The project appears to be technically and economically viable. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $4,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.13 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $25,000,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $29,000,000 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $4,000,000 111112012 1:16:59 PM Page 165 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 [= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #883 _ Transmission Line from Fire Island Wind Project Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Strandberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 4.06 0.86 \ 4.00 7 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 18.00 er \4 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 13.90 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 10.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.88 2 ; 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 57.84 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 fi eed — Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Requires authorizations from DMLW for submerged ROW and potentially for construction. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments "See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 166 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12, J== ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 884 Nenana’s Solar-Powered Student Living Center wisi i ) Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Proposer: City of Nenana/Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The Nenana Student Living Center (NSLC) is a 27,000 sq ft student dormitory in Alaska’s Interior village of Nenana that houses and feeds 88 students and 10 staff members during the school year. The building is owned by the City of Nenana, but operating costs are paid by the Nenana School District. This building has in-floor radiant heating across approximately 20,000 square feet. Due to the architecture of the building (1-story, view from above looks like a U) there is more than 11,000 square feet of exterior wall. Over a typical year, the building burns 27,000-30,000 gallons of heating fuel, consuming 150-200 gallons each day during the coldest parts of the Interior Alaskan winter. Operating costs are passed directly onto the already burdened school district. Integrating a large solar hot water array with heliodyne flat-plate solar collectors, a large solar hot water storage tank, dual coil DHW tank, forced air heating preheat loops and already planned insulation upgrades we can offset up to 30% of the building’s heating costs. With heating fuel at $3.50 gal coming into this winter that will save $30,000 in the first year alone. to help offset about 20% of the current heating costs for the student dormitory. The applicant is requesting $300,000 from Round V funding. The total cost of the project is estimated at $340,000, $300,000 of which is capital costs. In-kind resources total $40,000. Following initial review of this application AEA requested additional information regarding 1) solar energy availability and heating load that supports the estimate that the project would displace 5,841 gallons of fuel oil per year, 2) performance data from the existing solar thermal panels, and 3) timing of design work to justify eligible match amount. In response YRITWC submitted information indicating that 1) they assume that 100% of the heat available from the panels could be used to heat the building since the project would include thermal storage and 2) data from the existing project is unreliable and contractor ABS was not able to get access to other data. Since feasibility and conceptual design are not yet complete AEA believes that there is insufficient information available to conclude that the system is economically feasible. YRITWC is not able to provide information on the operation of the existing solar thermal panels. AEA notes that a separate solar thermal project in McKinley Village funded in round 1 (#108) that was substantially complete in 2009 has not provided data that confirms expected savings. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $300,000 Cost of Power: $0.20 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $40,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $340,000 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 167 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 884 _Nenana’s Solar-Powered Student Living Center _ Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Nenana/Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council Design AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 6.25 \ J 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 11.00 a f \ 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 22.25 7) Sustainability (Max 5) we” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project as described does not involve state land. Therefore, no land permits or easements from the state are required. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 168 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA @™i__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #885 _ High Penetration Wind Diesel Power and Heat } Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kipnuk Light Plant Design AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The proposed project is a high penetration wind diesel system for the community of Kipnuk. Kipnuk is located at the western mouth of the Kuskokwim River, and has a population of 690 permanent residents. The project will be owned and operated by the Kipnuk Light Plant and the community of Kipnuk and will consist of three Northwind 100 wind turbines. These turbines are to be integrated into the current power system through the use of a control module and two heat recovery boilers. The control module will house new switchgear, metering, and controls. The module will be designed to interface with the existing and proposed new diesel power plants, as well as provide space and electrical connections for future energy storage system options such as a battery or a flywheel system. The control module will be located nearby the existing and proposed future diesel plant. The wind turbines will connect to the existing power grid through a5 pole, 12470 volt 3 phase power line extension. Wind diesel power will be regulated using two controlled 200 kW electric boilers - one located in the community center and one located in the newly commissioned washeteria/water plant. The wind turbines are well proven in Alaska and the control and integration method is well understood. Geotechnical investigations have already been conducted and the wind turbines, power poles and power/control module will be placed on driven piles. Property has been provided by the community for the installation of up to 5 wind turbines. Kipnuk’s electrical load has grown by nearly 30% since the commissioning of the new water system in December of 2010. A new school is being constructed in Kipnuk during the winter of 2012/2013. This new school will increase the average electrical load from 50 to 75 kW with a commensurate increase in heating fuel usage estimated at over 20,000 gallons. Construction of the school in Kipnuk is scheduled to begin the Fall 2012 and continue through 2013. Coordination with the school construction could result in cost savings sufficient to install a 4th wind turbine. Significant savings would result from the day rental of heavy equipment such as cranes, loaders and pile drivers, and specialized personnel that will be mobilized for the school construction. The control and integration capacity in the proposed design can accommodate up to 5 wind turbines. Power produced from a possible fourth wind turbine would result in additional fuel savings of up to 18,000 gallons. Cost savings would result from unburdening the wind project from carrying the full cost of heavy equipment mobilization, rental, and over-wintering from the Fall of 2012 to the Spring of 2013. This wind diesel system architecture is scalable through the addition of wind turbines, new diesel gensets, and energy storage. Kipnuk is a productive wind site in which each Northwind 100 turbine has the potential to annually produce 300,000 kWhrs of electricity. This equates to a per turbine potential fuel displacements of 18,000 to 20,000 gallon of diesel fuel and a total displacement for 3 turbines of upwards of 55,000 gallons. AEA >omme e , Not Recommended Kipnuk Light Plant proposes the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a high penetration wind-diesel system in Kipnuk. The project would include three Northern 100 turbines, a five pole transmission line, secondary loads and a control module containing switchgear, metering and controls. The secondary loads would supply heat to the community center and the new washeteria/water plant. The proposed project is located in a possible class 5-6 wind regime and follows a community wide approach at addressing rising energy demands. AEA notes that the power system will not support integration of wind turbines in its current state. Recently, in order to address reliability issues, AEA has provided two diesel gensets and repaired the foundation of the powerhouse. Generation efficiency appears poor—11 kWh/gal in FY09 and 6 kWh/gal in FY10. AEA plans a statewide condition assessment of rural power systems in early 2012 and expects that Kipnuk will rank high in priority for upgrade. Kipnuk has received a $1.2 million in a legislative grant that is available for the proposed work, including conceptual design. AEA has the following concerns: 1) A meteorological tower study and wind resource assessment has not been completed at the proposed turbine location. 2) An acceptable conceptual design report that covers the diesel and wind generation and distribution systems has not been prepared prior to the proposed final design and permitting. 3) While some upgrades to the existing power plant are progressing, a new power plant is needed and has been proposed by the community. This new power plant and any other required system upgrades should be included in the system design through the conceptual design report process. AEA will offer the community a met tower in 2012 through the state anemometer loan program. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $2,686,450 Cost of Power: $0.50 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $1,000,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $3,686,450 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 411112012 1:15:69 PM Page 169 = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-17-12 J== ALASKA App # 885 High Penetration Wind Diesel Power and Heat } Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kipnuk Light Plant Design AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 15.63 \ wy 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 15.00 ‘ oy 4 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Scoring & Project Rank 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 \ / 7) Sustainability(Max5) 0 NES Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNRI/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on DMLW land - no DMLW land permit required for installation. Cross-country travel permit may be required for access. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 170 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #886 _ Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project J Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chitina Electric, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The proposed Hivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project consists of four major components, including: -A creeks diversion structure- The diversion structure would create a small impoundment that would divert a portion of flow from Fivemile Creek into a pipeline (penstock) -A penstock. The penstock is a pipeline that will transport water from the intake structure to the turbine powerhouse. The penstock for this project will be around 12-inches in diameter and 10,000 linear feet long. Its primary purpose is to pressurize and deliver the water from the creek to the turbine power plant. -A hydroelectric turbine power plant — The power plant will house the turbine and electrical generating equipment and controls. Water from the penstock will spin the turbine and generators and produce electricity. The power plant will include a tailrace that will return water from the penstock to the creek bed. - Electrical tie-in - An overhead high voltage line will connect the turbine power plant to the existing electrical distribution system near the airport. -Diesel integration — The proposed hydro will be linked to the community’s existing, AEA type, diesel powerhouse module. Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recomi Chitina Electric Inc. requests construction funding to build a high head, 300 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Fivemile Creek near Chitina. Two prior REF graats have been awarded to CEI to date including $303,000 for feasibility study in Round II (#236) and $277,000 for permitting and final design in Round IV (#682). The site appears to be promising as a source of hydroelectric power which can displace much of the current diesel generation of electricity. AEA constructed a new diesel powerhouse in 2008 near the proposed hydro power house site near the airport about 5 miles from Chitina. This proximity will allow hydro/ diesel integration issues to be minimal. AEA's Rural Energy Group is managing the preconstruction phase of this project and is expected to manage the future hydro project construction phase as well. However, progress on the preconstruction phases of the project has been limited to a feasibility study. Although permitting, site control, final design and construction cost estimate were funded in round 2 and 4, they are not yet complete. Construction challenges for this project include a deeply incised stream at the proposed intake site, a highly erratic stream flow, and shallow bedrock along the proposed penstock route. Because of these challenges AEA believes that the project Construction risk is high and the project cost may be underestimated. Further final design and permitting work will help identify current construction unknowns and reduce potential project risks. Recomrnend no construction funding at this time. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,325,000 Costof Power: $0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $500,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $3,825,000 Copper River/Chugach - _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 4111/2012 1:18:69 PM Page 171 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12, == ALASKA App #886 _ Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project J Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chitina Electric, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 18.13 \ 4 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 14.00 Nai VW Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) a etern Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank ATO 33.13 — DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on DMLW land. Requires permit for water rights DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1111/2012 1:15:69 PM Page 172 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 J== ALASKA (@— ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 887 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project J Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Proposer: City of King Cove AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description This project will be a modest, run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility using Waterfall Creek and consisting of a concrete diversion/intake structure, 4,500’ HDPE penstock pipeline, 16’x40’ metal powerhouse on concrete slab, Pelton Impulse Turbine and induction generator, remote-automatic control system, and 5,000’ access road. This facility will be a working partner to the city’s existing and highly successful Delta Creek hydroelectric project, which has been operating for the last fifteen years. view Comments an O dation Partial Fu The City applied for funding in a pre-RE Fund solicitation (“Round zero”) in 2008. AEA recommended against funding this proposal due to lack of demonstrated ability to sell the excess hydro power. In the current application the City includes a MOU from Peter Pan Seafoods stating the company’s interest in purchasing a minimum of 800,000 kWh per year which will generate extra revenue for the City over the life of the project. The Waterfall Creek project can reduce construction costs by expanding the existing powerhouse at Delta Creek and making use of existing transmission lines from that project. The City completed a preminary design for the Waterfall Creek project in 2007-9 as part of a rural power system upgrade. The City is in negotiations with ADF&G over instream flows required to maintain Dolly Varden habitat. Flow issues may affect project economics. However the project economics are very favorable and can offset some project cost increases. Preconstruction activities, including permitting, site control, final design plans and specs, and final construction cost estimate, are expected to be complete in February 2013. Given the significant preconstruction activities that remain, AEA is believes that it premature to allocate funds for construction at this time. Recommend partial funding of $200,000 for final design and permitting. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,900,000 Cost of Power: $0.26 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $1,900,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $3,800,000 Aleutians AEA Funding Recommendation: $200,000 | 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 173 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12, J== ALASKA > ENERGY AUTHORITY #887 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of King Cove Design AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 8.13 2.22 . 3.46 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 19.00 ees : 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 18.40 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) BenenCost Ravo (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 13.25 z 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 74.77 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 Lee xe] SS Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on DMLW land. Requires permit for water rights. Cross-country travel permit may be required for site access DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Tsunami and strong ground motions from Aleutian subduction zone earthquakes are the primary seismic hazards at the site. See general DGGS comment. 4/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 174 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarr 1-11-12 {= ALASKA (= ENERGY AUTHORITY App #888 Kodiak High School Ground Source Heat Pump Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kodiak Island Borough peers AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The project would provide design and construction of a ground source heat pump system consisting of a water-to-water heat pump and loopfield as the primary source of heat for the new Kodiak High School. It is estimated that the heat pump will supply 85% of the heating load and the fuel oil boilers will supplement the remaining load. view Comments and Recommendation Not Rei The Kodiak Island Borough proposes to construct a hybrid fuel oil-fired and ground-source heat pump system for the new Kodiak High School currently under construction. The hybrid system would consist of 198 wells 316’ deep and a 3,000 MBH (250-ton) heat pump. The application provides a preliminary feasibility report including a detailed breakdown of project costs. Since Kodiak is powered by hydroelectric and wind power, the GSHP would displace a significant amount of fuel oil (77,000 gal/yr). However the proposed GSHP uses a substantial amount of electrical energy to run the system (1.9 million kWh/yr). Since savings are low compared to the high capital cost ($6.5 million) AEA is concerned that economics are poor. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,900,000 Cost of Power: $0.18 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $2,600,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $6,500,000 Kodiak | AEA Funding Recommendation: a) 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 175 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA (> ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 888 Kodiak High School Ground Source Heat Pump ) Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kodiak Island Borough Design AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 5.63 0.35 0.27 | ; 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) af 4 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 10.63 7) Sustainability (Max 5) bs rs NSE” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on DMLW land. Use of subsurface may require DMLW authorization DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments *“*See general DGGS comment on hazards. 111112012 1:15:59 PM Page 176 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 DRAFT 1-11-12 [= ALASKA @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY Nikolski Renewable Energy Wind Project Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Native Village of Nikolski AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description We propose to complete the integration of the existing 65 kW Vestas V-15 Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) with our existing diesel generation plant by adding a synchronous condenser, an additional thermal load to the Waste Heat Recovery System, and revisiting the effort to modify the supervisory controls. We intend for the WTG to be fully operational with the diesel plant and for the excess energy to maximize reduction of diesel used to provide heat to large community building. iew Comments and Recomme ion Full Funding» The Native Village of Nikolski requests funding to complete construction and commissioning of a 65-kW wind-diesel system. In May 2006 AEA constructed a power plant with a total capacity of 180 kW. The community purchased a refurbished Vestas V15 wind turbine generator with a grant from USDA RUS and cost share from APICDA in July 2007 ($474,475). In 2009, Nikolski received an RE Fund round 1 grant (#89) for $409,430 to integrate the wind turbine generator with a heat-recovery system by installing boilers and thermal nodes. Most of the work was done by the community’s contractor TDX Power. Currently the wind system remains inoperable. Given our experience with the project, AEA has the following concerns: 1, Proposed budget seems too high. 2s The wind turbine generator may need repair due to extended non-operation in a marine environment. 3 The power output from the wind turbine generator is too high for the village load and diesel power system. 4. The proposed solution has not been demonstrated to be functional in other Alaska wind systems and is thus not guaranteed to provide a working system. Recommend full funding of $331,240 with a special provision that AEA will be directly involved in the management of this project. AEA staff will work directly with the community and its contractors to establish a scope, design and budget for a functioning power system. The design portion of this project will not exceed $50,000. Construction funds will be unallocated until the design, budget and schedule has been accepted by AEA. AEA notes that the round 1 grant recommendation requires a 5-year O&M agreement with an entity acceptable to AEA. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $331,240 Costof Power: $0.60 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $50,080 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $381,320 Aleutians AEA Funding Recommendation: $331,240 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 177 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #889 _Nikolski Renewable Energy Wind Project Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Native Village of Nikolski AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 18.75 0.76 < 1.03 J 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 11.00 Naa NZ 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 8.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.67 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 413 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 55.71 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 217 t~“‘t*~‘:‘C*«C*si ry NS Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on DMLW land. No land permits required DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 178 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #890 _Igiugig Wind, Solar, Hydrokinetic and Thermal Feasibility Study } Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Igiugig Village Council Design AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description An anemometer tower to collect wind data will be installed the Fall of 2011 by the Lake and Peninsula Borough. The met tower will also be equipped with a pyranometer for monitoring the solar resource. We have an MOU in place to work with Marsh Creek, LLC to analyze the data and produce resource reports. A hydrokinetic assessment study is in progress by Alaska Energy and Engineering. Marsh Creek, LLC will report on the technical and economic feasibility of integrating renewable solar, wind, and the potential hydrokinetic resources with our diesel plant and to incorporate battery storage with the system to maximize the offset of diesel for both heat and electricity in the community. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1 | Failed Stage 1 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $120,000 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $125,000 Bristol Bay _ AEA Funding Recommendation: ) 1111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 179 @i_ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 890 _Igiugig Wind, Solar, Hydrokinetic and Thermal Feasibility Study Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Igiugig Village Council Design AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weia! s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 0.00 \ 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 7.00 tay / a 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 9.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) pee 7 Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 180 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA (@— ENERGY AUTHORITY App #891 Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study as ) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility Proposer: TDX Power, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The project builds on existing reconnaissance level engineering work recently completed for a hydroelectric power plant in Adak, and makes use of Adak’s existing infrastructure such as dams, access roads, and possibly an existing penstock. The reconnaissance studies show that a series of alpine lakes in the immediate vicinity of the city have the potential to displace the diesel power plant as the primary energy source for Adak. Resource availability, engineering considerations, land ownership and permitting issues were all considered. The diesel power plant would still be required for backup, and would be available to parallel with the hydroelectric facility during high load conditions. TDX’s engineering feasibility studies will focus on two areas; -Quantifying the hydroelectric potential. Work will include a detailed mapping and hydrology studies, a permitting evaluation including onsite studies and agency consultations, assessment of alternatives, a detailed cost analysis for the selected project and development timeline; and, - Interconnection requirements for integration with the utility, including analysis and selection of optimum generator and hydro-turbine size, type, and configuration; identification of requirements for paralleling switchgear and controls, and all other major power system components. iew | en Recomme i Full Fundi TDX Power requests funds to perform a feasibility study and conceptual design for hydroelectric development on Adak. This request builds on the reconnaissance study funded in Round II (#315) which found several recommended hydro options. The most favorable scheme is a storage project on Lake Bonnie Rose with a penstock discharging to a powerhouse on Mitt Lake. This option would offset much of the diesel generation for this community. A substantial consideration in this request is to review options on how to potentially integrate any new renewable energy source with the existing diesel generation equipment which was designed for 30x the present population when the Navy ran the base. AEA is moving forward with a statewide inventory of rural power systems expected to be completed February 2012. Adak appears to be a strong candidate for upgrade under the AEA-funded Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) program. The work scope proposed will need further adjustment to reflect need for stream gauging, analysis of existing dam, final report, etc. No REF funds can be spent on conventional diesel system and electrical distribution issues. Recommend full funding with the requirements that 1) TDX will work with AEA staff to revise the scope and budget before the grant award, and 2) work needs to be coordinated with RPSU program-supported work. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $314,367 Cost of Power: $0.82 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $314,367 Aleutians AEA Funding Recommendation: $314,367 111112012 1:15:59 PM Page 181 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY #891 Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study + Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: TDX Power, Inc. Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 25.00 | \ y 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 0.00 Y 4 VW 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 13.33 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 6.00 Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) O87. 6) Local Support (Max 5) 1.00 52.21 \ 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 ey NE Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project involves meanderable water body. DNR permits are likely required. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Tsunami and strong ground motions from Aleutian subduction zone earthquakes are the primary seismic hazards at the site. See general DGGS comment. 4/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 182 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA App # 892 _Kvichak River RISEC Project ' wi) Resource: Ocean/River Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Igiugig Village Council dba Igiugig Electric Company Design AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Utility Project Description The continued objective of this project is to install a RISEC (River In-Stream Energy Conversion) device on the Kvichak River near the village of Igiugig. This lake outlet location provides an ideal site for the study, testing and implementation of river in-stream energy conversion (RISEC) that will also benefit other Alaska communities considering this renewable energy. A RISEC plant will convert available river kinetic energy into electric power, and feed into the existing Igiugig electric grid to reduce diesel fuel consumption at the Igiugig power plant. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | The Iguigig Village Electric Company proposes a reconnaissance final design and construction to install hydrokinetic turbines on the Kvichak River. The application would follow up feasibility and conceptual design work supported by RE Fund Round 2 (#265) funding of $707,250. A reconnaissance report by EPRI in 2008, indicated that the Kvichak River near Iguigig was promising for hydrokinetic power due to suitable sites near the village and that the Kvichak River is generally ice- and debris-free. The application proposes to test multiple hydrokinetic devices (including ORPC and Whitestone device) in mid-2012 and 2013. The project proposes to continue development through FERC’s pilot project stage, leaving commercial licensing until 2018. A field study performed by Terrasond in 2011 under the Round 2 grant, located an area of interest that had depths of 2-3-meter depth, peak velocities near 2.5 m/s, and a highest average velocity across one transect at 2.3 m/s. Terrasond also performed geotechnical studies on the areas of interest. These characteristics make it likely that the area would have a suitable resource for hydrokinetic development. The application includes in-kind contributions from ORPC, which will test a 150 kW unit near Nikiski with support of a RE Fund grant (#660). The application also proposes to fund the completion, construction, and testing of the Whitestone Poncelet device, an undershot waterwheel under development by the Whitestone Community through assistance of a DOE grant. AEA has the following concerns about this proposal: 1. Assuming a $9.4 million project cost and $100,000/yr in fuel savings, economics are poor. 2. Given that the chief goal of this project is technology development and demonstration, the site is remote from logistical and technical support. Since the application aims to fund completion of an experimental device with no working prototype and test several other devices, it appears the Emerging Energy Technology Fund would be a more appropriate funding mechanism. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $7,274,277 Cost of Power: $0.80 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $1,414,756 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $8,689,033 Bristol Bay _ AEA Funding Recommendation: } 1/11/2012 1:16:59 PM Page 183 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-17-12 == ALASKA App #892 Kvichak RiverRISEC Project : ii J Resource: Ocean/River Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Igiugig Village Council dba Igiugig Electric Company Design AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 25.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 15.00 ft Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Scoring & Project Rank 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Bee Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) 44.00 Nai DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project involves state-owned land and navigable waters. DNR permits required. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments ***See general DGGS comment on hazards. 4111/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 184 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prart 1-11-12 [= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 893 Reconnaissance Study of Thomas Bay Public Projects } Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: City of Angoon AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description Reconnaissance Study of Thomas Bay Hydrological Resources. The City of IRepocel requests funds for reconnaissance aaa of two atentall hydro sites located near Petersburg in Thomas Baye Seana Lake and Ruth Lake. The application indicates that the projects would provide energy to Kake, Angoon, and Hoonah but does not address specifics of how the energy would be delivered to the communities. The City submitted separate applications for reconnaissance assessment for these projects in RE Fund round 3 (#430,485). AEA has the following concerns about this project: 1. The City of Petersburg has already prepared a reconnaissance assessment for a hydro project at Ruth Lake (#38) with funding from RE Fund round 1. 2. The RE Fund has already funded projects that would supply hydro energy to Kake, Angoon, and Hoonah that have higher likelihood of development and appear snore economic. 3. At$24 million the project budget requested is excessive in relation to the likelihood of the project advancing. In response to AEA's initial recommendation for no funding, the City of Angoon submitted a letter requesting reconsideration. Angoon asks that if AEA finds the City of Petersburg reconnaissance study of Ruth Lake sufficient, then AEA should reduce the current request to a level that AEA believes is appropriate to support a reconnaisance study of Scenery Lake. AEA has reviewed the round 1 funding allocated for the completed study of Ruth Lake, and on this basis believes that partial funding of $205,000 to support basic reconnaissance assessment of a hydro project at Scenery Lake is reasonable. As directed by the AEA executive director, staff continued Stage 2 technical review on the proposed project. The following describes rationale for the staff Stage 2 scores: 1. Project Management, Development and Operation a. The proposed schedule is unrealistic in that it purports to accomplish $2.4M worth of field work and other activities in twelve months. b. The cost savings estimated include 100% electric heating conversions for all in Wrangell, Petersburg and Ketchikan when the project is brought online. Staff believes this assumption is unrealistic. c. The application is silent on the team’s method of communication, monitoring and reporting development progress. 2. Qualifications and Experience a. The applicant and partner have little or no experience and training in hydro development, utility business, and utility operations. The contractor to perform the studies is unnamed. b. The project team does not appear to have staffing, time and other resources adequate to successfully complete the scope. c. The project team has little technical or environmental expertise and the project has significant technical, economic and environmental barriers to contend with. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $2,400,000 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $2,400,000 ——- _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 111112012 1:15:59 PM Page 185 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #893 _ Reconnaissance Study of Thomas Bay Public Projects J Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: City of Angoon AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 17.19 9.09 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 0.00 Pa 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 5.67 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.00 q 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 26.85 7) Sustainability (Max 5) ee ar” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments High probability use of State land needed for access facilities and transmission line(s). Navagibility determination needed for lakes. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments There are no known active faults in the project vicinity. See general DGGS comment. 111112012 1:15:59 PM Page 186 i ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA l Alakanuk Waste Water Treatment Facility Wind Generation Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction I Desi Proposer: City of Alakanuk Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Local Government Project Description The wastewater treatment facility is the single largest electrical consumer in the city of Alakanuk, averaging 16,000 kWh per month or $5009.51 $1 kWh based on current PCE rates. The city is provided power by AVEC, some of which is wind that is or will be generated in Emmonak. This proposal is to evaluate, design, permit and install a stand-alone wind generator to service the wastewater treatment facility sized to provide a base loading of electrical equipment as decrease the utility spend for this facility.yy The City of Alakanuk proposes the reconnaissance, feasibility study, conceptual design, design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a stand-alone wind turbine to provide electricity to the waste water treatment facility. The City of Alakanuk is requesting funds for reconnaissance, feasibility study, conceptual design, design, permitting. The City of Alakanuk is requesting $14,650 for reconnaissance and feasibility and $16,700 for design and permitting for a total of $31,350 from the RE fund. A non-monetary in-kind contribution of lodging and personnel assistance as required has been offered. The total project cost is not provided. Alakanuk is intertied with Emmonak and AVEC provides power to both communities via an existing wind-diesel system. The proposed Alakanuk wind turbine would be offsetting electricity from AVEC’s wind diesel system at a cost of $.31/kWh to the City of Alakanuk. AEA has the following concerns: 1) Alakanuk is situated between Nunam Iqua and Emmonak which have established wind regimes of low class 3 and class 2 respectively. There is no evidence that Alakanuk would have a more productive wind resource. 2) The project is not coordinated with AVEC’s wind farm in Emmonak, or more generally the community power system. 3) The applicant’s budget is insufficient for the proposed scope of work. AEA recommends that the City use a comprehensive approach for identifying cost-reduction options through the regional energy plan for the Yukon-Kuskokwim region, currently underway. Recommend no funding. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $31,350 Cost of Power: $0.52 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $31,350 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 187 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA = ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 894 _ Alakanuk Waste Water Treatment Facility Wind Generation J Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction 5 Design Proposer: City of Alakanuk Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Stromberg Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 16.25 Nez 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 5.00 oy WZ Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 0.00 . ] ey 7) Sustainability (Max 5) acme —_ Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) Scoring & Project Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments It is unclear from the application if this project impacts state-owned lands or waters. DNR permits may be required. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments “See general DGGS comment on hazards 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 188 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § DRAFT 1-11-12 f= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App #895 _ Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting J Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Independence Power, LLC AEA Program Manager: Ott Applicant Type: IPP Project Description The Hourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project is a low-impact run-of-river renewable energy project proposed near Seward, Alaska. The project would be located east of the Spring Creek Correctional Facility and Fourth of July Creek Industrial Park, across Resurrection Bay from the City of Seward. The project is anticipated to have an installed capacity of 5.4 MW and provide an estimated 21,700 MWh of energy annually. The project would supply approximately 1/3rd of Seward Electric System's annual energy requirements. This proposed project phase (design and permitting) is contingent upon the favorable outcome of a feasibility study that is scheduled to start in September 2011. In the event the feasibility study determines that the project is not viable, Independence Power, LLC (IP) intends to withdraw this application from consideration. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended | Independence Power LLC proposes for permitting and final design for a 5.4 MW run-of-river hydro facility on Fourth of July Creek near Seward. This request builds on previously funded grants in Round II (#86) for reconnaissance and in Round IV (#693) for feasibility. The grant award document indicates work began on the funded feasibility study in September 2011 and is expected to be completed in September 2012. This round 5 request is contingent upon findings of a favorable outcome from this feasibility study with AEA review and approval of those results. However, those results will not be available until late 2012. There is also a significant issue regarding how the project, estimated at $16.7-27M will be financed. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,521,000 Cost of Power: $0.17 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $269,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,790,000 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 4/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 189 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 J== ALASKA App # 895 Resource: Hydro Proposer: Independence Power, LLC AEA Program Manager: Ott Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 5.31 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 14.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project involves state-owned land and navigable waters. DNR permits required. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting J Proposed Project Phase: Design Applicant Type: IPP Economic Analysis \ \ iy v Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) Scoring & Project Rank 22.31 Ne” Overall Rank (out of 41) Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Engineering considerations for strong ground shaking from subduction zone earthquakes is appropriate. There is high potential for un-mapped fold and thrust faults nearby, warranting focused seismic hazard studies in the area. See general DGGS comment. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 190 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 pRarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA @__ ENERGY AUTHORITY App #896 MEA Power Plant Waste Heat Utilization Reconnaissance Study } Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: Eklutna, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: IPP Project Description Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) is building a new electric generating facility in Eklutna, Alaska that will have a generating capacity of 103 to 171 MW and an operational date of late 2014. The estimated recoverable waste heat resource associated with this power plant is 154,000 MMbtu annually. Eklutna, Inc. (EI) holds rights to the waste heat that will be generated by this plant, and owns land adjacent to the plant where waste heat uses would be sited. EI proposes to perform a reconnaissance study of potential uses of this waste heat resource. The reconnaissance study will define the potential uses of this waste heat resource, evaluate the technical and economic viability of these uses, and make recommendations for further study. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Withdrawn | 9/21/2011 application withdrawn Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $100,980 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $19,220 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $120,200 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: si siaiaas) 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 191 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 7-11-12 J== ALASKA App #896 _ MEA Power Plant Waste Heat Utilization Reconnaissance Study Resource: Heat Recovery Proposer: Eklutna, Inc. AEA Program Manager: Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weiat s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 0.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 0.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments Proposed Project Phase: Recon Applicant Type: IPP Economic Analysis 4 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) Scoring & Project Rank Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 192 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round § prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA i ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 897 Port Graham Village Biomass Waste Heat Demonstration Project Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Port Graham Village Council AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Government Entity Project Description Native Village of Port Graham is proposing the construction of GARN Boiler hot water distribution system to provide heat to five community buildings, homes throughout the Port Graham community, and eventually be connected to a central CHP biomass fired facility. A conceptual design and feasibility review for a central combined heat and power (CHP) biomass-fired plant was completed in 2009. Detailed engineering and economic evaluations were included. The existing diesel-fired hot water heating equipment will be retained and used for backup. The proposed biomass system will displaces 80-85% of the diesel to heat these community buildings. view Comments and Recommendation The Port Graham Village Council proposes construction of a wood-fired boiler to supply heat to the health and dental clinics. Currently the RE Fund is supporting final design and permitting for the project with a grant of $75,000 matched by $25,000 in local. AEA supports the initiative for developing a wood boiler project in Port Graham. However, given the high cost of the project as currently configured and the relatively low fuel displacement, project economics are poor. Under the current grant-funded work, AEA believes that it is reasonable to assess options to lower the costs of the project, increase amount of fuel displaced by supplying more loads, or do both. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $426,833 Cost of Power: $0.17 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $58,995 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $485,828 Railbelt _ AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 193 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 5 prarr 1-11-12 f= ALASKA = ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 897 Port Graham Village Biomass Waste Heat Demonstration Project Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Port Graham Village Council AEA Program Manager: Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 25) 5.31 0.99 0.78 Sf 2) Matching Resources (Max 20) 11.00 Na NY 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 10) Scoring & Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 S 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 19.31 7) Sustainability (Max 5) oA Sa” Stage 3 Total Score (out of 100) Overall Rank (out of 41) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on DMLW land. May require permits from DNF-DOF for biomass source. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project is for the construction of two centrally located Garn boilers to heat 5 community buildings within the village. This project was reviewed last year in the Round 4 applications and it has been revised somewhat this year. Total wood use is estimated at 101 bone-dry tons per year. Chugachmiut’s GIS and forest inventory data identifies 4,025 acres of Sitka spruce on accessible Native allotments near Port Graham that contain an average 98 bone-dry tons per acre. In addition 10,640 acres of Sitka spruce covered Village Corporation lands are also present. There is a developed logging road system to these lands. Using the 98 BDT per acre volume, approximately one acre of timber would be enough to supply the annual requirements of the Garn boilers. The project appears quite sustainable based on the stated quantities of the raw wood resource. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments **See general DGGS comment on hazards. 1/11/2012 1:15:59 PM Page 194 DRAFT Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Statwide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 5 ALASKA __ (@@ll> ENERGY AUTHORITY 1/11/2012 s2 83 83 83 83 $3 $3 83 $3 | State Criteria| Criteria] Criteria] Criteria] Criteria] Criteria] Criteria| Criteria| Criteria] wide Total] AEA | App | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Total | Rank Energy_Dev_Region ID Project_Name Applicant_Name Applicant_Type Energy Source] Weight| BCE | BCE | Weight] Score | Weight] Weight| Weight] Weight] Weight| Weight] (41) | Project CostProject Reques| Project Match| [Recommend for Funding (Top Ranked $25 million) 887] Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project [Local Government Hydro 92.00 | 3.46 | 2.22 [813 [ 19.00] 18.40 [ 6.00 | 13.25] 5.00 | 5.00 | 7478[ 1 $3,800,000] 803) Pillar Mtn High Penetration Wind Project sili’ Wind 90.00 [3.74 | 3.46 | 5.63 [ 20.00 | 18.00 [ 8.00 [ 1200] 5.00 | 5.00 | 73.63] 2 $23,150,000) riak Waste Heat E |Local Government Heat Recovery | 84.00 | 2.60 | 2.60 | 18.13 | 9.00 | 16.80 | 6.00 | 12.00] 5.00 | 3.67 | 7059] 3 $486,180) Straits) 856) Shishmaref Heat Recovery Project [City of Shishmaref [Local Government [Heat Reco 82.50 | 2.23 | 223 | 1875 [9.00 [| 16.50 | 6.00 [ 1200] 5.00 | 283 | 7008] 4 $327,201 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim ] 848] Slectmute Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant [Sleetmute Traditional Council] [Local Government Heat Recovery | 79.83 | 1.42 [1.42 [ 25.00 [8.00 | 15.97 | 6.00 [ 803 | 3.00 | 3.17 | 09.76[ 5 $133,350] $126,682] 836) Packer's Creck Hydroelectric Project [Chignik Lagoon Village Council [Government Entity Hydro 78.67 | 3.60 | 403 | 1250 | 14.00] 15.73 | 600 | 1200] 5.00 | 450 | 073] 6 $2,516,496] $10,874,049 825]and 827 Thayer Lake Hydropower Development Transmission/ Generation Project [Kootznoowoo, Inc. [Hydro 56.83 | 1.88 [259 [ 17.19 | 17.00 [ 11.37 [ 6.00 [ 1238] 3.00 | 233 | 69.26 [ 7 $30,402,216] $17,874,049 River/ Chugach) 823] Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project Tatitlek Village IRA Council [Heat Recovery | 83.67 | 1.90 | 1.90 [| 17.19 | 11.00 [ 16.73 [ 600 | 11.88 [ 3.00 | 283 | 0803] 8 $295,800] ‘Straits '839[and 898 Nome Renewable Expansion/ Optimization Project (City of Nome dba Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) + 82.83 [2.06 [3.66 | 11.25 | 1200 | 1657 | 800 | 11.75 [ 3.00 | 3.83 | 6640 | 9 $36,736,891 875|Chevak Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Chevak Water System Heat [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind. 79.83 | 250 [ 250 | 17.19 | 8.00 | 15.97 [ 4.00 [ 11.38] 5.00 [ 3.50 [ 65.03 [ 10 $252,905 847|Scammon Bay Hydro Design & Engincering (City of Scammon Bay Hydro 68.83 | 212 [1.32 [17.19 [7.00 [ 13.77 [600 | 1250 [ 500 [ 250 | 63.95] 11 $5,936,570} 2 840| Kobuk Biomass Design & Construction Project, City of Kobuk Biomass 63.17 | 089 | 0.90 | 25.00 | 11.00 | 12.63 [600 [ 238 | 5.00 [ 1.67 [ 03.08 | 12 $401,873) [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim() 844[ Russian Mission Heat Recovery System [Russian Mission [Government EntityDocal Government [Heat Recovery | 79.17 [ 1.78 [ 1.79 | 15.63 | 9.00 | 15.83 | 600 | 863 | 5.00 | 333 | 342] 13 $582,000] Bering Straits. 876|Gambell Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat Urility [Wind 79.83 | 207 | 288 [ 16.56 [ 800 [ 15.97 | 400 [1138] 400 | 350 | @340[ 14 $252,905] Bering Straits) 871|Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Shaktoolik Water System Heat Utility [Wind 79.83 | 3.58 | 3.58 | 17.19 | 800 | 15.97] 400 [ 1138] 3.00 | 3.50 | 63.03 | 15 $252,905) 857 | Savoonga Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant [Local Government Heat Recovery [ 79.33 [1.95 | 1.95 | 13.75 | 9.00 | 15.87 | 407 | 1200] 4.00 62.62 | 16 $317,305 $15,865] Lower Yukon-Kuskokwimi) 870| Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heat [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Incl) Utility Wind 74.83 | 154 | 268 | 1844 [ 800 | 14.97] 4.00 | 913 | 4.00 62.03 [17 $278,378) $264,459] $13,919] ‘ukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tananal_ | 881[ Tanacross Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project, FTanacross Village Council [Government Entity Biomass 72.00 | 154 [ 1.86 | 11.56 | 16.00 | 14.40 | 4.00 [| 11.00 [ 2.00 61.46 [ 18 $590,000] $420,000] $170,000] Recommend for Funding (Second Rank up to $43.1 million) fYukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tananal) aie ‘& Construction of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities * Interior Regional Housing Authority [Government Entity Biomass 1.00 [| 1.25 [ 237 | 19.69 | 1200 | 1220[ 400 | 838 | 3.00 1.10 [19 $1,215,224] $1,215,224 $173,771| Full SP $1,215,224] [Southeast 832|Kake Pellet Boiler System [Kake City School District [Local Government Biomass 74.83 | 620 [ 620 [ 17.19 | 0.00 [ 1497 [ 4.00 | 13.25 | 5.00 58.24 [20 $255,294 $155,294 Full SP $155,294) Railbelé.) 883] Transmission Line from Fire Island Wind Project [Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Unity Transmission | 69.50 | 1.00 | 0.86 | 4.06 | 18.00] 13.90] 10.00] 1.88 | 5.00 57.84 [21 | $36,795,000] $4,000,000] _$25,000,000[ Full $4,000,000] [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim] 843] Atmautlauk Washeteria/ Power Plant Waste Heat Recovery Project ‘Atmautluk Traditional Council Local GovernmentGovernment Entity [Heat Recovery | 77.50 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 21.88 | 0.00 | 15.50 4.00 22 $338,578 $298,078 $40,500] ‘Full $298,078) $30,575,471 Railbelt.) 834] Seward Schools Biomass Heating System [Kenai Peninsula Borough School District [Local Government Biomass 87.00 | 178 | 1.78 | 531 [ 800 | 17.40 5.00 23 $1,476,485| $1,436,517] $39,968] Full SP $1,436,517 $32,011,988] [Aleutians 889] Nikolski Renewable Energy Wind Project Native Village of Nikolski [Government Entity Wind | 40.00 [ 1.03 | 076 | 18.75 | 11.00 | 8.00 5.00 24 $1,348,032| $331,240) $50,080] Full SP $331,240) $32,343,228] [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim.) 869] St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction and Commissioning Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Incl Utility Wind 54.00 | 0.90 | 1.22 | 18.13 [ 12.00 [ 10.80 4.00 25 $4,443,244] $3,998,920] $444,324] Full SP $3,998,920] $36,342,148} Bering Straits) 873 | Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Wind 6233 | 1.18 [130 | 18.75 12.47 5.00 26 $2,500,000} $142,500] $7,500[_ Full sP $142,500 $36,484,648] Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tananal) | 821] Husla Water System & Clinic Wood Boiler Project | Huslia Traditional Council [Government Entity [Biomass 4450 [ 091 | 0.89 | 1625 8.90 4.00 27 $478,892] $398,331 $80,650] Partial SP $50,000] $36,534,648] Aleutians) 891 Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study [TDX Power, Inc. Utility Hydro 66.67 25.00 13.33 1.00) 28 $7,400,000} $314,367 Full SP $314,367) $36,849,015] Railbele) 819] Stetson Creek Diversion/ Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project [Chugach Electric Association Utility Hydro 59.83 | 062 | 048 | 4.06 11.97 3.00 | 5. 29 [$23,900,000] $3,453,920| _ $17,793,920] _ Partial $49,781) $36,898,796] Bering Strait) 879|St. Michael / Stebbins Wind Energy Design Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Wind 58.00 | 0.65 | 0.98 | 16.88 11.60 5.00 | 4.00 | 50.85 | 30 $8,000,000] $223,250] $11,750] Full SP $223,250] $37,122,046 [Copper River/Chugach) I 882| Mentasta Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project (Mentasta Traditional Council [Government Entity Biomass 6233 | 114 [ 131 | 1938 12.47 200 [3.00 | 4747 [31 $400,000] $400,000] Full SP $400,000] $37,522,046] Kodiak 835] Mahoona Hydroclectric Dam Replacement [City of Ouzinkie UtilityDocal Government Hydro 55.17 | 081 | 038 | 12.19 11.03 3.00 | 4.00 [46.60 [32 $5,882,000] $467,500] $60,000[ Full SP $467,500) $37,989,546] Lower Yukon-Kuskokwimi) 874| Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Wind 37.00 | 076 | 131 | 14.09 11.40 5.00 | 4.50 | 46.34 [ 33 $1,200,000] $142,500) $7,500] Full SP $142,500) $38,132,046] [Southeast 807|Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project [Alaska Power Company [Urility Hydro 4433 [055 | 220 [12.119 8.87 1.00 [3.00 [46.30 [34 | $46,100,000] $1,452,000] $363,000| Partial $448,000] $38,580,046 [Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tananal] | 822[Wood Heating Feasibility in Public Facilities, Interior Region Taterior Regional Housing Authority [Government Entity Biomass 64.17 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 1813 12.83 5.00 [ 250 | 45.83 | 35 $323,696] Partial $279,525 $38,859,571 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanna] | 866] Extension of Heating Loop [Alaska Gateway School District) TPPGovernment Entity Biomass 65.67 | 0.85 | 1.92 | 1219 13.13 2.00 | 5.00 | 45.07 | 36 $625,000 $625,000) $4,000] Full ‘$625,000 $39,484,571 Southeast) 800] West Creek Hydroelectric Project Borough & Municipality of Skagway _ [Local Government Hydro) 49.50] 149 | 1.88 | 688 9.90 2.00 [1.17 [43.44 | 37 | $140,000,000 $236,000] $59,000[ Full $236,000 $39,720,571 River/Chugach) 814] Glennallen School Campus Biomass Heating Project [Copper River School District [Government Entity Biomass 61.50 [ 0.90 [ 0.90 | 688 12.30 5.00 | 3.67 | 37.72] 38 $3,244,897] $3,244,897) $0[_ FullsP $3,244,897| $42,965,468} jer River/ Chugach) 830] Multi Disciplinary Combined Facility Primary Care Center Biomass Feasibility Project___| Copper River Native Association (on behalf of native Village of Tazlina)| Government Entity Biomass 34.00 6.88 10.80 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 36.80 | 39 $2,012,000} $132,523] $10,840] Partial SP $30,000) $42,995,468] '809|SEAPA Phase I Wind Site Recon Study ‘Southeast Alaska Power Agency _ [Government Entity Wind 42.33 3.13, 8.47 5.00 | 1.67 | 31.26 | 40 $80,700] $72,630] $8,070] Full SP $72,630] $43,068,098} 838|Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project Chickaloon Village Traditional Council [Government Entity Solar 36.00 [ 0.89 | 0.77 | 438 7.20 5.00 [3.50 [24.83 [41 $161,703 $127,065 $34,638] Full SP $127,065] $43,195,163] [Southeast 893] Reconnaissance Study of Thomas Bay Public Projects ** City of Angoon Local Government Hydro. 28.33 9.09) $2,400,000[ $2,400,000] Not Pass S2| ** If allocation is limited to $25M, AEA recommends partial funding to #820 Design Construction of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities ** Project S2 score was less than 35 Page1 DRAFT Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Statwide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round S = ALASKA._ (@@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY 1/11/2012 s2 State Criteria] Criteria] Criteria| Criteria] Criteria| Criteria| Criteria] wide Total | AEA | App Total | Rank AEA | Recommended Energy_Dev_Region ID Project_Name Applicant_Name Applicant_Type Energy Source| Weight] BCE | BCE Weight] (41) |_ Project CostProject Reques| Project Match| Recom Funding Cumulative Railbelt 801 [Jack River Hydro Project Phase II Native Village of Cantwell [Government Entity Hydro $200,000) $190,000] $10,000] Not Recom Southeast 802[ Petersburg Public Library Geothermal Heat Pump Construction City of Petersburg Local Government (Geothermal $264,400) $186,400 $46,600| Not Recom Railbelt 804] Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources (Mount Spurs) | J Utility Transmission $61,780,000[ __ $1,150,000] $110,000] Not Recom Southeast 805] Black Bear Lake Hydro Project Storage Increase ‘Alaska Power & Telephone Company Utility Hydro $3,040,000} $318,000 $79,500] Not Recom| Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana) | 806]Upper Tanana Area Intertie Project ‘Alaska Power Company Utility [Transmission $9,546,005] $7,636,804[ __$1,909,201| Not Recom LC Southeast 808]Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line [Alaska Power Company Utility Transmission $3,840,000[ __ $1,200,000] $240,000] Not Recom Southeast 810[SEAPA Wind Resources Assessment & Economic Feasibility Study [Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) [Government Entity Wind $215,130) $15,570] Not Recom Southeast nection Engineering [Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) vernment Entity Transmission - $30,000,000] $66,300] $11,700] Not Recom Railbelt 3C Hydroelectric Training Facility ‘Alaska Vocational Technical Center [Government Entity Hydro $723,138) $639,050] Not Recom: Southeast 813|Whitman Lake Project [City of ketchikan dba Ketchikan Public Utilities Utility Hydro 3 ,000[ __ $3,300,000] Not Recom| Copper River/ Chugach, 816) Allison Creck Project [Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) Utility Hydro $38,804,000[ _$6,114,000[ __ $6,114,000] Not Recom rc North Slope ‘Anaktuvuk Pass Geothermal Feasibility Study North Slope Borough. Utiltyliocal Goverament (Geothermal $2,100,000] $169,960 $16,996] Not Recom: Southeast Wrangell Electrical Capacitor Bank [City & Borough of Weangell/ Wrangell Municipal Light & Power Local Government Transmission [ ‘f $81,973] $74,985) $6,988] Not Recom Southeast Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Community: [Government Entity Transmission $12,725,000| _$8,225,000[ _$4,500,000| Not Recom Southeast [Walker Lake Feasibility Study Tnside Passage Electric Cooperative Unity Hydro $160,000] $10,000] Not Recom’ Railbelt [Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility Kenai Hydro LL. IPP Hydro $35,392,921| __ $4,000,000] Not Recom [Southeast [City of Kake Hydroelectric Resource Analysis [City of Kake [Government Entity Hydro $168,000 $150,000] $18,000] Not Recom Bering Straits. |Golovin Wind Feasibility Study [City of Golovin [Government EnntyLocal Government Wind $96,700] $18,300] Not Recom Northwest Arctic 5 | Noorvik Heat Recovery System Feasibility Study ‘of Noorvik [Government Entitylocal Government __ | Heat Recovery $96,700) $18,300| Not Recom Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim! Kotlik Wind Generator Study y of Kothik [Government Entiyfiocal Government [Wind $45,000} $5,000] Not Recom Northwest Arctic Selawik Wind Feasibility Study (City of Sclawik [Local Government Wind i $40,000 $8,500] Not Recom Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim [Water Plant Biomass System Feasibility Study (City of Lower Kalskag! [Local Government Biomass $50,000) $14,000] Not Recom [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim [Toksook Bay Heat Recovery Feasibility Study ty of Toksook Bay [Local Government Heat Recovery $30,800] 36,200 Bristol Bayi New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Study y of New Stuyahok [Local Government Heat Recovery $45,000] $5,000 Bering Straits [White Mountain Heat Recovery Feasibility Study [City of White Mountain [Local Government Heat Recovery $27,000] $3,000 Southeast [Klawock Biomass Boiler System Feasibility Study City of Klawock [Local Government Biomass $100,000 $12,000] Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim: (Old Kasighuk Wind Feasibility Study Native Village of Kasigluk [Government Entity Wind $46,000 $4,000] Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim.] (Goodnews Bay Wind Generator Study Native Village of Goodnews Bay (Government Entity Wind $45,000) $5,000[ N [Southeast (City of Angoon Wind to Energy Feasibility Study City of Angoon Local Government Wind $40,000 38,500] Aleutians False Pass Tidal Energy Study (City of False Pass Electric Utility [Local Government (Ocean/River $218,900] $78,000] Bering Straits [Community of Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment (City of Elim Local Government (Geothermal $415,871 3112,037|N Bristol Bay. [Reconnaissance Study of the Geothermal Potential for the Ivanoft Bay Region Ivanoft Bay Tribal Council [Local Government (Geothermal [ | $45,000,000] $911,400] $50,000] Ni Railbelt 868] TidGen™ Array Project [ORPC Alaska, LLC IPP (Ocean/River [$8,096,494] $2,000,000] $6,096,494] N Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 872| Mountain Village Wind Energy Construction Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Wind $3,795,575] $3,795,575] $421,731 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 877 [Upper Kalskag Solar Construction Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Solar $100,000) ‘$90,000 $10,000] Ni Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 878] Emmonak/Alakanuk Phase 2 Wind Energy Construction Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Wind $2,676,273] $2,408,646] $267,627] Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana) | 880] Tanana Solar Thermal Public Facilities Heating Project City of Tanana Local Government Solar $459,000] $359,000 '$100,000| Not Recom Railbelt 884]Nenana’s Solar-Powered Student Living Center [City of Nenana/Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council Local Government Solr $340,000] $300,000] $40,000] Not Recom Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 885] High Penetration Wind Diesel Power and Heat [Kipnuk Light Plant Utility Wind $3,886,450] $2,686,450] $1,000,000] Not Recom Copper River/ Chugach. 886] Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric, Inc. Ctility Hydro $4,405,000] $3,325,000] $500,000] Not Recom Kodiak 888] Kodiak High School Ground Source Heat Pump Kodiak Island Borough Local Government [Geothermal $6,903,000] $3,900,000] $2,600,000] Not Recom Bristol Bay. Project Tgiugig Village Council dba Igiugig Electric Company. Utility [Ocean/River $9,395,283] $7,274,277| _ $1,414,756] Not Recom Lower Yukon-Kuskokwimi Alakanuk Waste Water Treatment Facility Wind Generation (City of Alakanuk Local Government Wind $31,350 $31,350 Not Recom: Railbelt 895] Fourth of July Creck Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting Independence Power, LLC IPP Hydro $16,700,000] 1,000] $269,000] Not Recom Railbelt 897[Port Graham Village Biomass Waste Heat Demonstration Project Port Graham Village Council [Government Entity [Biomass $485,829] $426,833} $58,995] Not Recom| Southeast 815]Wave Energy/ Sequestration Technology (WEST) ‘Atmocean, Inc IPP (Ocean/River $4,962,965] $4,885,610] $77,355] Not Pass SI Copper River/Chugach. 817[Solomon Gulch unit 2 Efficiency Upgrade [Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) Utility Hydro al $2,440,000] $687,700] $687,700| Not Pass SI [Copper River/ Chugach. 818] Gulkana Village Biomass Fuels Project [Gulkana Village Council [Government Entity Biomass $1,075,000] $850,000] $0] Not Pass SI [Southeast 831 Juncau Super Critical Water Oxidation Sewage Sludge to Energy [Lammergeier CleanTech (A Subsidiary of Juncau BioFuels Research Coq IPP. Biomass $19,725,000] $4,000,000] __$15,725,000[ Not Pass SI Bering Straits 861 Saint Michael Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Study [City of Saint Michael Local Government Transmission $40,500 $4,500| Not Pass S1 Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana] _| 864|Net-Zero Training and Administration Center (TAC) [Alaska Gateway School District. TPPGovernment Entity [Heat Recovery $3,113,750[ $3,007,750] $106,000] Not Pass SI Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana] _| 865]Greenhouse and Processing Facility utilizing surplus heat [Alaska Gateway School District [Government Entity ‘Transmission $139,825] $135,825] $4,000] Not Pass St Bristol Bay. 890| Igiugig Wind, Solar, Hydrokinetic and Thermal Feasibility Study Tgiugig Village Council [Government Entity Wind $120,000] $5,000] Not Pass S1 Railbele 837|Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study IPP Hydro $25,000,000] $289,710] $52,190] Withdrawn Railbelt 896| MEA Power Plant Waste Heat Utilization Reconnaissance Study IPP Heat Recovery + $8,000,000} $100,980] $19,220] Withdrawn '$760,016,255] _$132,992,096| _ $121,352,351 $43,195,163 * if allocation is limited to $25M, AEA recommends partial funding to #820 Design Construction of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities Page2 ** Project S2 score was less than 35 DRAFT Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Regional Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 5 1/11/2012 a = @@m ENERGY AUTHORITY Recommended Energy_Dev_Region Project_Name Applicant_Name Project CostProject Reques| Project Match| eutans [a7 Water Creek Hydroclecwie Projet Ging of King Cove rae ae oe | on te | ae | ts $3,800,000 iol Eaceey Wank Pacect Native Village of Nikola 103 Ws Par fear oer Pa Pon air Paar far] $1,348,032] __$331,240| $50,080] Full sP_|| $351,240 i y 'TDX Power, Inc. . | Full SP. City of False Pass Electric Utility $78,000) Not Recom| $2,028,080) i Gambel Surplus Wind Faas Recovess foe Cambell Wace Sper it ccovery for Shaktoolik Water System Heat Feet RecN Power Plant to Water Plant = 4.50 | 52.21 Saas Pals za $252,905) 0,260 $12,645] Full SP 260 12.00 | 62.62 [16 | [__ $301,440] $15,865] Fullsp_[ $301,440} 873 Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility a Village Ine. 62.33 | 1.18 5.25 | 5.00 | 267 | 5413 | 26 879|St. Michael / Stebbins Wind Energy Design [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 138 | 5.00 | 400 | 5085 $223,250) [Bering Straits 842|Golovin Wind Feasibility Study City of Golovin [Government EntityLocal Government Wind $96,700} $18,300] Not Recom| Bering Straits $53| White Mountain Heat Recovery Feasibility Study City of White Mountain Local Government Heat Recovery $27,000] $3,000] Not Recom Bering Straits 863]Community of Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment City of Elim Tocal Government (Geothermal $415,871 $112,037] Not Recom| Bering Straits 861] Saint Michael Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Study (City of Saint Michael Local Government Transmission [ Not Pass SI Bering Straits Total Bristol Bay ‘Waste Heat Recovery Project ‘of Togiak [Heat Recovery 18.13 | 9.00 | 16.80] 600 [ 1200] 5.00 | 3.67 Bristol Bay 836|Packer’s Creck Hydroelectric Project [Chignik Lagoon Village Council Hydro 1250 | 14.00 | 15.73 450 Bristol Bay 852] New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Study City of New Stuyahok Local Government Heat Recovery Not Recom| Bristol Bay 867 | Reconnaissance Study of the Geothermal Potential for the Ivanoff Bay Region Ivanoff Bay Tabal Council Local Government [Geothermal $45,000,000) $911,400 $50,000] Not Recom Bristol Bay 892] Kvichak River RISEC Project Tgiugig, Village Council dba Igmugig Flectic Company) Unity (Ocean/ River $9,395,283] $7,274,277] _ $1,414,756] Not Recom Bristol Bay 890| Igiugig Wind, Solar, Hydrokinetic and Thermal Feasibility Study Igiugig Vilage Council (Government Entity Wind $120,000 5 Bristol Bay Total $57,397,959| _ $10,787,203 River/ Chugach FTatitick Village IRA Council [Government EntityD tity Heat 17.19 | 11.00 600 283 $295,800 River/Cl /Mentasta Traditional Council [Government Entity Biomass 19.38 6.63 | 200 | 3.00 | 47.47] 31 $400,000] $400,000] River/Chugach River School District [Government Entity Biomass 688 1230 | 600 | 388 | 500 | 307 | 3772] 38 $3,244,807| $3,244,897] River/Chugach River Native Association (on behalf of native Village of Tazlinal Government Entity Biomass 688 | 800 | 1080] 400 | 1.13 | 300 | 3.00 | 3680] 39 $2,012,000 $132,523] Copper River/Chugach 816) Allison Creck Project [Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) Utility Hydro $38,804,000] $6,114,000] Copper River/Chugach 886|Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project (Chitina Electsic, Inc. Unity Hydro $4,405,000] $3,325,000 Copper River/Chugach 817[Solomon Gulch unit 2 Efficiency Upgrade Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) Unility Hydro $2,440,000} $687,700} Copper River/Chugach 818| Gulkana Village Biomass Fuels Project Gulkana Village Council (Government Entity Biomass Hl fim a $1,075,000] $850,000} [Copper River/ Chugach $52,676,697| __ $15,019,120 [Kodiak 803) Pillar Men High Penetration Wind Project fs Electric Association Ue Wind — 90.00 | 3.74 | 346 | 5.63 | 20.00 | 1800] 800 Bat 3.00 ets 2 $23,150,000] $8,000,000] Kodiak 835|Mahoona Hydroelectric Dam Replacement City of Ouzinkie (UtilityDocal Government Hy 35.17 | 081 | 038 | 12.19 | 11.00 | 11.03 [ 400 | 138 [ 3.00 [ 4.00 [| 46.00 | 32 $5,882,000] $467,500 [Kodiak 888] Kodiak High School Ground Source Heat Pump Kodiak Island Borough Local Government (Geothermal $6,903,000] $3,900,000 [Kodiak Total $35,935,000] $12,367,500 [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 848|Slectmute Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant Sleetmute Traditional Council 79.83 | 142 | 142 863 | 300 | 347 | 76] 5 $133,350 $126,682 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 875| Chevak Surplus Wind aera for Chevak Water System Heat [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 79.83 | 250 | 250_| 11.38 | 5.00 | 350 [ 65.03 [10 $252,905 $240,260) [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim B47] Scammon Bay Hydro Design & Engineer (City of Scammon B [68.83 [212 [1.32 | 12.50 | 500 | 250 | 0395] 11 $5,936,570 Sas) ee ae Russian Mission Heat Recovery System Russian Mission 79.17 | 1.78 9.00 5.00 ee $32,000] |e 3.33 13 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim [ 870] Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heat [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc) 74.83 | 1.54 | 268 | 1844 4.00 | 3.50 17 $264,459] Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $43] Atmautlauk Washeteria/ Power Plant Waste Heat Recovery Project [Atmautlauk Traditional Council 77.50 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 21.88 | 0.00 4.00 [3.17 | 57.17 $40,500] $298,078 [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 869 St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction and Commissioning [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Incl 34.00 | 090 | 122 | 1813 | 12.00 35.43 $3,998,920} $444,324 = SP $3,998,920 [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 874|Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 37.00 | 076 | 131 | 1469 | 800 $142,500 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 846] Kotlik Wind Generator Study City of Kotlik Government Entitylocal Government _ [Wind [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 850|Water Plant Biomass System Feasibility Study y of Lower Kalskag Local Government Biomass [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 851] Toksook Bay Heat Recovery Feasibility Study (City of Toksook Bay Local Government Heat Recovery Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 855]Old Kasigluk Wind Feasibility Study Native Village of Kasighik [Government Entity Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 859| Goodnews Bay Wind Generator Study Native Village of Goodnews Bay [Government Entity Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 872[Mountain Village Wind Energy Construction Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc Unley Wind $3,795,575 $3,195,575 $421,731| N Lower Yukon -Kuskokwim 877 [Upper Kalskag Solar Construction [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc Usility Solar $100,000 $90,000] Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 8] Emmonak/Alakanuk Phase 2 Wind Energy Construction [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc Unity Wind $2,676,273 $2,408,046 $267,621] Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim High Penetration Wind Diesel Power and Heat Kipnuk Light Plant Unity Wind $3,886,450] $2,686,450] $1,000,000] Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 894] Alakanuk Waste Water Treatment Facility Wind Generation City of Alakanuk Local Government Wind $31,350] $31,350 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Total $5,706,622} * If allocation is limited to $25M, AEA recommends partial funding to #820 Design Construction of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities ** Project S2 score was less than 35 Pagel Project_Name ‘Anaktuvuk Pass Geothermal Feasibility Study North Slope Borough Applicant_Name DRAFT Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Regional Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 5 1/11/2012 Applicant_Type UtilityDocal Government Energy So Geothermal a Project CostProject Reques| Project Match] _Recom $2,100,000) $169,960) $16,996] Not Recom Recommended Funding $2,100,000) $169,960} $0} City of Noorvik Government Entity tion —t GAT [Government Entityocal Government Heat Recovery $401,873) $356,424] $96,700 $18,300] Not Recom] $356,424] (City of Selawik Local Government $40,000} $401,873) $493,124) $8,500] Not Recom| $356,424) 883] Transmission Line from Fire Island Wind Project Urility 21 $36,795,000} $4,000,000] $25,000,000} $4,000,000 834|Seward Schools Biomass Heating System Local Government 17.40 | 4.00 23 $1,476,485} $1,436,517] $39,968] Full SP $1,436,517] 819]Stetson Creek Diversion/ Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project Unili 29 $23,900,000} $3,453,920] _ $17,793,920] _ Partial $49,781) 838] Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project |Chickaloon Village Traditional Council Government Entity 41 $161,703 $127,065] $127,065] 801 [Jack River Hydro Project Phase II Native Village of Cantwell Government Entity $200,000] $190,000] $10,000] Not Recom 804]Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources (Mount Spurr) Chugach Electric Association Unihity Transmission $61,780,000 $1,150,000} $110,000] Not Recom 812] AVTEC Hydroelectric Training Facility Alaska Vocational Technical Center [Government Entity $723,138) $639,050] Not Recom 833] Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility Kenai Hydro LLC IPP $4,000,000] Not Recom| 868] TidGen™ Array Project [ORPC Alaska, LLG IPP (Ocean/River $8,696.494[ $2,000,000] _ $6,696,494] Not Recom| 884] Nenana’s Solar-Powered Student Living Center (City of Nenana/Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council Local Government $340,000) $300,000] $40,000] Not Recom| 895] Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting Independence Power, LLC TPP $16,700,000] __ $1,521,000] $269,000] Not Recom 897] Port Graham Village Biomass Waste Heat Demonstration Project Port Graham Village Council [Government Entity $485,829] $426,833 $58,995] Not Recom| 837| Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Eklutna, Inc. IPP $25,000,000) $289,710] $52,190] Withdrawn Eklutna, Inc. TPP Heat Recovery $8,000,000] $100,980] $19,220] Withdrawn $19,635,075) $5,613,363] Southeast 893] Reconnaissance Study of Thomas Bay Public Projects ** [Kootmoowoo, Inc. PP, 3683 | 1.88 | $7,000,000 [Southeast | 832] Kake Pellet Boiler System [Kake City School District Local Government $135,204 [Southeast 807 | Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company Cali [4433 | 055 $448,000 [Southeast 800] West Creek Hydroelectric Project Borough & Municipality of Skag [Local Government Sinn [Southeast '809|SEAPA Phase I Wind Site Recon Study [Southeast Alaska Power Agency [Government Entity $72,630 (City of Angoon Local Government $2,400,000] $2,400,000) Not Pass $2} Southeast 802]Petersburg Public Library Geothermal Heat Pump Construction City of Petersburg Local Government |Geothermal $186,400) $46,600] Not Recom| Southeast 805|Black Bear Lake Hydro Project Storage Increase | Alaska Power & Telephone Company Unity $3,040,000} $318,000} $79,500] Not Recom| Southeast 808] Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line Alaska Power Company Utihty Transmission $3,840,000) $1,200,000] $240,000] Not Recom| Southeast 810|SEAPA Wind Resources Assessment & Economic Feasibility Study Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) Government Entity $215,130] $15,570] Not Recom| Southeast 811] Kake-Petersburg Inter-Connection Engineering Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) Government Entity Transmission $30,000,000) $66,300) $11,700] Not Recom| Southeast 813] Whitman Lake Project City of ketchikan dba Ketchikan Public Utilities Utihty $27,050,000) $3,300,000] — $20,050,000] Not Recom| Southeast 826) Wrangell Electrical Capacitor Bank City & Borough of Wrangell/Wrangell Municipal Light & Power Local Government | Transmission $74,985] [Southeast 828] Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Community: |Government Entity | Transmission $12,725,000) $8,225,000} Southeast 829|Walker Lake Feasibility Study Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Unity $160,000] $10,000] Not Recom| Southeast 841]City of Kake Hydroelectnc Resource Analysis City of Kake |Government Entity $150,000] $18,000] Not Recom| Southeas 854] Klawock Biomass Boiler System Feasibility Study City of Klawock Local Government $100,000} $12,000] Not Recom| Southeast 860] City of Angoon Wind to Energy Feasibility Study City of Angoon ‘Local Government $40,000) Southeast 815]Wave Energy/ Sequestration Technology (W ) [Atmocean, Inc. IPP. |Ocean/ River $4,962,965] $4,885,610] $77,355] Not Pas Southeast 831] Juncau Super Critical Water Oxidation Sewage Sludge to Energy Lammergeier CleanTech (A Subsidiary of Juneau BioFuels Research Co}IPP_ $19,725,000} $4,000,000] _ $15,725,000] Not Pas: Southeast Total $321,095,548| $34,237,349] $43,387,685) $7,911,924] $420,000] $170,000] Full SP $420,000} $1,215,224) $1,215,224] $1,215,22. 13.00 | 890 | 400 52.36 | 27 | $398,331) $80,650] Partial SP giona Y $323,696) i | Alaska Gateway School District) 45.07 | 36 $625,000] City of Tanana Local Government $359,000] Not Recom| Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Alaska Gateway School District IPPGovernment Enuty Heat Recovery $3,113,750} $3,007,750] Not Pass S1 Wukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Alaska Gateway School District [Government Entity Transmission $135,825] Not Pass ST Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana [Alaska Power Company Unility Transmission $9,546,005] $7,636,804] $1,909,201] Not Recom lYukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $16,167,696] $14,121,630| $2,547,622 Total * If allocation is limited to $25M, AEA recommends partial funding to #820 Design Construction of Wood Heating Projects in interior Alaska Communities ** Project S2 score was less than 35 Page 2 | $760,016,255| _$132,992,096 $121,352,351) Revised DRAFT Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Statwide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 5 @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY State wide / Rank| New AEA Recommended Energy_Dev_Region ID} Project_Name Applicant_Name Energy Source] Weight BCE |NEW 1| New 2| Weight] New 4 | Weight Weight| Weight] Total | (41) |Rank| Project CostProject Reques| Project Match| _Recom Funding Cumulative} REVISED Recommend for Funding (Top Ranked $25 million) Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 848]Sleetmute Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant ‘Sleetmute Traditional Council] Heat Recovery | 79.93 1.42 | 3500 | 690 | 45971 3.00 3.00 | 347 ap 5 14 $133,350 $126,682 $6,667) Full SP $126,682 $126,682 Bristol Bay 858] Togiak Waste Heat Recovery Project City of Togiak Heat Recovery | 94.99 260 | 2538) ©75 | 1680 | 3.00 5.00 | 367 | 7259] 3 { 2 $486,180) $443,030 $43,150] Full $443,030 $569,71 Bering Straits 856|Shishmaref Heat Recovery Project City of Shishmaref Heat Recovery 223 | 2625) 675 | 1650 500 | 283 | 7233] 4 | 3 $327,201 $310,841 $16,360] _ Full SP $310,841 $880,553} ‘Aleutians 887| Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project City of King Cove Hydro 5 222 [113 | 425 | i840 5.00 | 509 | 7028] 4 Z $3,800,000] $1,900,000 $1,900,000] Partial $200,000] $200,000 Copper River/Chugach 823} Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project |Tatitlek Village IRA Council [Heat Recovery 1.90 1.90 | 94.06 8.25 16.73 11.88 | 3.00 2.83 | 69.75 8 5 $295,800) $265,000) $30,800} Full SP $265,000} $465,000 Southeast 825|and 827 Thayer Lake Hydropower Transmission/Generation _ | Kootznoowoo, Inc. Hydro 1.88 | 259 [5406 | 12.75 | 1137 1238 | 3.00 | 233 | 6889 | 7 6 $50,402,216] $7,000,000] $2,156,402 Full $7,000,000 $7,465,000 Bristol Bay 836] Packer’s Creek Hydroelectric Project Chignik Lagoon Village Council Hydro 3.60 4.03 17.50 | 10.50 | 15.73 12.00 | 5.00 4.50 | 68.23 6 7 $2,516,496) $1,993,496 $523,000} Full sp $1,993,496] $9,458,496) Northwest Arctic 840|Kobuk Biomass Design & Construction Project City of Kobuk Biomass 089 | 0.90 | 35.00] 825 | 12.63 238 | 500 | 167 | 6793] 42] ¢ $401,873) $356,424 $45,449] Full SP $356,424] $9,814,920 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 875| Chevak Wind Energy Recovery -Chevak Water System Heat __ | Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 250 | 250 | 24.06 | 600 | 45.97 1138 | 500 | 350 | 6790] 49 | 9 $252,905] $240,260 $12,645 Full SP $240,260] $10,055,180 Kodiak 803} Pillar Mtn High Penetration Wind Project Kodiak Electric Association Wind 3.74 3.46 7.88 15.00 | 18.00 12.00 | 5.00 5.00 | 66.88 2 10 $23,150,000) $8,000,000) $8,000,000} Partial e $17,855,180 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 847|Scammon Bay Hydro Design & Engineering (City of Scammon Bay Hydro 212 | 132 | 2406) 525 | 43.77 1250] 500 | 950 | 66081 a, | 44 $5,936,570 $399,786} $13,833] Partial SP $80,723) $17,935,903] Bering Straits 876|Gambell Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 207 | 288 | 2319 | 00 | 45.97 1138 | 400 [ 350 | 6603 | 44 | 42 $252,905 $240,260} et Full SP $240,260] $18,176,163 Bering Straits 871|Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Shaktoolik Water os Village Electric Cooperative Wind 358 | 358 | 2406 | ©00 | 45.97 1138 | 200 | 350 | 6590] a5 | a5 $252,905 $240,260 $12,645 Full SP $240,260] $18,416,423] Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 870|Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heaf Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Incl) Wind 154 | 268 | 25.81) 600 | 4497 913 | 400 1 350 | 65401 a7 1 44 $278,378 $264,459 $13,919 Full SP $264,459] $18,680,882 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 844] Russian Mission Heat Recovery System Russian Mission Heat Recovery | 79.17 1.78 1.79 | 94.98 | 6.75 15.83 8.63 5.00 3.33 | 64.42 B 15 $582,000) $555,000) $32,000} Full $555,000} $19,235,882} !Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 820] Design & Construction of Wood Heating in Interior Alaska Com Interior Regional Housing Authority Biomass 61.00 1:25 2.37 27.56 | 9-00 12.20 8.38 3.00 1.83 | 63.97 19 16 $1,215,224) $1,215,224 $173,771) Full sP $1,215,224] $19,896,106] Bering Straits 839/and 898 Nome Renewable Energy Expansion/Optimization __ | City of Nome dba Nome Joint Utility System Wind 82.83 | 2.06 | 3.66 | 4575 | 9.00 | 1657 11.75 | 3.00 | 3.83 | 6390| 9 | a7 $6,736,891 $6,103,500 $611,500] Parial SP] $4,069,000] $23,965,106] Bering Straits 857|Savoonga Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant City of Savoonga Heat Recovery | 79.33 | 1.95 | 1.95 | 1925 | ©75 | 15.871 233 | 1200] 40 | 333 | 053] a6 | 18 $317,305 $301 oh $15,865] Full SP $301,440 $24,266,546 Southeast 832|Kake Pellet Boiler System Kake City School District Biomass 74.83 | 6.20 | 6.20 [5406 | 0.00 | 1497 [ 99 | 13.25] 5.00 | 383 | 6311] 99 | 49 $255,294 $155,294 Full SP $155,294 $24,421,840 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 843] Atmautlauk Washeteria/Power Plant Waste Heat Recovery Proje] Atmautlauk Traditional Council Heat Recovery | 77.59 | 1.25 | 125 | 3063 | 9 | 1550 | 3.00 | 663 | 49 | 317 | 6292] 29 | 29 $338,578 $298,078 $40,500[ Full $298,078 $24,719,918} lYukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 881]Tanacross Woody Biomass Community Space Heating Project |'Tanacross Village Council Biomass 72.00 1.54 1.86 16.19 | 12.00 | 14.40 | 2.00 | 11.00 | 2.00 2.50 | 60.09 18 21 $590,000) $420,000) $170,000] Full SP $420,000) $25,139,918} REVISED Recommend for Funding (Second Rank) Aleutians 891| Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study ‘TDX Power, Inc. Hydro 66.67 35,00 | 00 | 1333} 3.00 | 238 | 1:00 | 450 | 5921] 28 | 22 $7,400,000) $314,367 Full SP $314,367] $25,454,285 Bering Straits 873|Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 6233 | 118 | 130 | 2625] © | 1247] 1.00 | 525 | 200 | 267 | 58631 26 | 25 $2,500,000] $142,500 $7,500| Full SP $142,500] $25,596,785 [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 869]St. Mary's/Pitka's Point Wind Construction and Commissioning [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Incl] Wind 54.00 | 0.90 | 1.22 | 953g | 9.00 | 10.80 | 500 | 250 | 400 | 409 | 57-681 95 | 24 $4,443,244] 55 998,920) $444,324[ Full SP $3,998,920[~ $29,595,705 Aleutians 889|Nikolski Renewable Energy Wind Project Native Village of Nikolski Wind 40.00 | 1.03 | 0.76 | 5625 | 825 | 800 [ 333 | 413 | 5.00 | 947 | 57131 954 | 05 $1,348,032 $331,240] $50,080 Full | $331,240 $29,926,945 Railbelt 834|Seward Schools Biomass Heating System Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Biomass 87.00 1.78 1.78 1.44 6.00 17.40 | 200 13.13 5.00 3.67 | 54.63 23 26 $1,476,485) $1,436,517 $39,968] Full SP $1,436,517, $31,363,462] !Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 821} Huslia Water System & Clinic Wood Boiler Project Huslia Traditional Council Biomass 44.50 | 0.91 0.89 | 9975 | 9-75 3.90 | 2.00 2.88 4.00 3.33 | 53.61 27 27 Sond $398,331 $80,650} Partial SP $50,000 $31,413,462 Bering Straits 879]St. Michael / Stebbins Wind Energy Design Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 58.00 | 965 | 0.98 | 9563 | 600 | 4160] 200 | 138 | 20 | 400 | 53601 39 | 28 $8,000,000 $223,250] $11,750] Full SP $223,250} $31,636,712 Copper River/Chugach 882|Mentasta Woody Biomass Community Space Heating Project |Mentasta Traditional Council Biomass 6233 | 144 | 131 | 2713 | 9 | 4247] 200 | 663 | 200 | 300 | 53.22 [ 31 2 $400,000] $400,000] Full SP $400,000 $32,036,712] lYukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 822|Wood Heating Feasibility in Public Facilities, Interior Region Interior Regional Housing Authority Biomass 64.17 | 0.91 0.89 | 95.38 | 0.00 12.83 | 2.09 3.38 5.00 2.50 | 51.08 | 35 30 $323,696) Partial $279,525) $32,316,237, Railbelt 883] Transmission Line from Fire Island Wind Project Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Transmission | 6959 | 1.00 | 0.86 | 5.69 | 1359] 1390] 500 | 188 | 59 | 5.00 | 49967 21 | 31 $36,795,000 54,000,000] $25,000,000, Full | $4,000,000] $36,316,237 [Dower Yukon-Kuskokwim 874] Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 57.00 | 0.76 | 1.31 | 5956 | 600 | 11-40] 409 | 075 [ 5.00 | 4s | 49211 35 | 32 $1,200,000] $142,500 $7,500] Full SP $142,500) $36,458,737 Kodiak 835] Mahoona Hydroelectric Dam Replacement City of Ouzinkie Hydro 55.17 | 0.81 [038 | 47.06 | 825 | 1103 | 500 | 138 | 3.00 | 400 | 46721 35 | 33 $5,882,000] $467,500 $60,000] Full SP $467,500] $36,926,237 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana | 866/Extension of Heating Loop ‘Alaska Gateway School District] Biomass 65.67 | 0.85 [ 1.92 | 4706 | 225 | 13431 400 | 175 | 200 | 5.00 | 4520] 36 | 34 $625,000 $625,000 $4,000 Full veeb $37,551,237 Railbelt 819]Stetson Creek Diversion/ Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project _|Chugach Electric Association Hydro 59.83 bee 0.48 5.69 15.00 | 11.97 | 309 1.25 3.00 5.00 | 44.90 | 99 35 $23,900,000} $3,453,920] $17,793,920] — Partial $49,781 $37,601,018} Southeast 807] Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project ‘Alaska Power Company Hydro 44.33 | 0.55 | 2.20 | 47.06 | 10.501 887 | 300 | 125 [ 1.00 | 3.00 | 4468 34 | 36 $46,100,000] $1,452,000] $363,000] Partial $448,000] $38,049,018] Southeast 800] West Creek Hydroelectric Project Borough & Municipality of Skagway Hydro 49.50 | 1.49 1.88 9.63 9.75 9.90 1.00 8.50 2.00 1.17 | 41.94 | 37 37 $140,000,000) $236,000) $59,000} Full iE $236,000] $38,285,018} Copper River/Chugach 814]Glennallen School Campus Biomass Heating Project Copper River School District Biomass 61.50 | 0.90 0.90 9.63 0.00 12.30 | 3009 3.88 5.00 3.67 | 37.47 38 38 $3,244,897 $3,244,897, $0) Full SP $3,244,897 $41,529,915] Copper River/Chugach 830] Multi Disciplinary Combined Facility Biomass Feasibility Project | Copper River Native Association ‘Biomass 54.00 9.63 6.00 10.80 | 200 1.13 3.00 eO0eT 3555: 39 39 $2,012,000 132525] $10,840] Partial SP $30,000 $41,559,915} Southeast 809]SEAPA Phase I Wind Site Recon Study Southeast Alaska Power Agency Wind 42.33 438 6.00 8.47 2.00 1.00 5.00 1.67 | 28.51 40 40 $80,700} $72,630] $8,070] Full SP $72,630] $41,632,545} Railbelt 838] Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project Chickaloon Village Traditional Council Solar | 36.00 | 0.89 | 0.77 | g13 | 0.00 | 7.20 [ 509 | 0.75 | 500 | 350 | 24587 a, 1 a | $161,703 $127,065] oad Full SP $127,065] $41,759,610] Southeast 893] Reconnaissance Study of Thomas Bay Public Projects ** City of Angoon Hydro 28.33 9.09 T_ $2,400,000) $2,400,000 Not Pass $2] * If allocation is limited to $25M, of Wood Heating Projects in Interior Alaska Communities in the amount of $93,125 - Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Energy Region. ** Project S2 score was less than 35 Page 1