HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting minutes 1-13 and 14-2010Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
January 13 & 14, 2010 — AEA Boardroom
10:00am to 12:00pm
1.) Call to Order
Minutes
January 13, 2010
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee convened at 10:04 a.m. Chairman Vince Beltrami
presided over the meeting.
2.) Roll Call:
Committee Members
Vince Beltrami, Chair
Chris Rose
Brad Reeve (phone)
Representative Bill Thomas (phone)
Jay Livey — Senator Hoffman's
Office (Phone)
3.) Public Comments
There were no public comments.
4.) Agenda Comments
There were no changes to the meeting agenda.
disseminating information.
AEA Staff
Steve Haagenson
Mike Harper
Sara Fisher-Goad
Peter Crimp
Butch White
James Strandberg
Devany Plentovich
David Lockard
James Jensen
Doug Ott
Rich Stromberg
Lenny Landis
Emily Binnian
Audrey Alstrom
Shauna Howell
May Clark
Other Participants
Mike Nave, Dept of Law
Mike Mitchell, Dept of Law
Wyn Menafee, DNR
Kate Sangster, Chaninik Wind Group
Clint White, STG, Inc.
Denali Daniels, Denali Commission
Mr. Rose said he hoped the meetings could be
completed in one day instead of the two scheduled and would also like to discuss how AEA is going to be
presenting information to the opening Legislature, i.e., any requests for reports and what the plan is for
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
Page 1 of 13
January 13-14, 2010
Chair Beltrami stated he realized it was difficult for some people to attend today and that there are
difficulties for tomorrow as well, and hoped all of the business could be completed in one day.
5.) Approval of Meeting Minutes — December 14, 2009
Chair Beltrami thanked staff for timely distribution of the meeting minutes and stated they were
comprehensive as well.
MOTION: Rep. Thomas moved to approve the meeting minutes from the December 14, 2009
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Reeve. A voice vote was taken and the minutes were passed as presented and Mr.
Rose abstained.
6.) Round Ill Ranking
Peter Crimp distributed and reviewed the “Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 Ranking All” spreadsheets
and had the following remarks.
The green shaded area is the top 22 projects AEA is recommending for funding for the top $25 million.
The yellow shaded area shows a total of 46 projects AEA is recommending for funding for the second $25
million.
The orange shaded area is the 22 projects that total $11.5 million over the $50 million.
The white section are the final 23 projects not recommended by AEA not due to funding, but due to basic
issues with the projects, under two recommendation categories: 1) did not pass Stage 1, and 2) Not
recommended — didn’t pass Stage 2, the technical and economic review. Evaluation guidelines were
tightened up.
Under the “Stage 3 Review Scores Section”:
1. Cost of energy category is the cost of power in that community. It was weighted at 30% and is
now at 25% and is still the highest weighted item.
2. The amount of match provided also went down by 5%.
Cost of energy and match are 45 out of 100 points, which follows basic legislation and AEA
regulations. We responded to the idea that inherent economics of a project should drive the
selection, and increased that.
Technical & Economic Feasibility remained the same.
Readiness is up to 10 from 5. Projects that are ready to construct get more weight. Four points
were assigned if a project had completed feasibility or earlier stages of project development. An
additional two points were assigned if permits were ready. The full 10 if it's in the construction
phase and just needs money to proceed. Two points to order a long lead time item, feasibility is
completed and they're ready to proceed and need to put money down on a wind or hydro turbine
or other equipment, for example.
5. Benefits at 10 points last time is now 15. That benefit/cost (B/C) score is part of that one and it’s
around 18% of the total score in those two categories. The non-B/C benefits category was
tightened up to actually list other benefits not generic to renewable energy, i.e., flat price of power
or decreased greenhouse gases. Things like development were counted that would be useful for
other purposes, such as a water supply in conjunction with a project, or logging from a biomass
project that would create more jobs in a community up and above what they already had.
6. Local Support and Sustainability remained the same. Pw Mr. Rose asked if any projects that have a B/C ratio of less than one are being granted money. Mr.
Crimp stated that for many projects, the benefits can’t be analyzed. For example, West Cook Inlet Energy
Cumulative Impacts — Studies the impacts of developing transmission and projects in general on the West
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 2 of 13
Cook Inlet side and doesn't lend itself to quantification, so ISER concluded that that wasn’t appropriate.
The project scored very well on public benefits in general. In 15 years if a transmission project was
developed there, AEA felt it would be a sustainable operable project.
Mr. Rose stated he’d been hearing from people generally that program money is being spread out too
thinly, and there’s not enough projects that are actually happening right away because we're trying to
fund a lot of projects. Perhaps it would make more sense to give more money to fewer projects that have
higher scores, rather than dealing with projects with lower scores that may not have the B/C ratios we
want to see. It's something we have to consider. Mr. Haagenson stated the criticism was probably on the
caps we put on after the fact.
Some of the green shaded fully funded projects were briefly reviewed.
Mr. Rose wanted to know if there was a way to find out what percentages of the projects are
reconnaissance and/or feasibility studies as opposed to construction. The balance of that is another
concern he’s heard from people. Mr. Crimp stated there is, but he had just run out of time before the
meeting and that will be done for the next meeting. He’d guessed it was about 70-80% construction.
The projects not selected (white area) were reviewed and a brief explanation follows. Mr. Crimp stated
AEA will be sending out courtesy letters to applicants not selected and they are allowed to appeal the
decision.
e Project #403, Delta Junction Wood Pellet Boiler. High project cost of $932,000 and relatively
small amount of fuel oil displays of economics are poor.
e Project #482. Turnagain Arm Tidal Electric Generation Project. Little Susitna Construction
Company’s technology is pre-commercial. At $2.5 billion the project has an extremely high capital
cost. Applicant requests $4 million on a low cost energy area that is capped at a maximum of $2
million.
Mr. Rose would like to see a narrative on each project beyond the information provided on the
spreadsheets.
Project #438, The Yerrick Creek Hydro project was discussed. (Green shaded area). In Round 1 AEA
recommended against funding this project because local land owner, Tanacross, Inc., indicated
unwillingness to provide legal access to perform field investigations. Over the past year AT&T reached a
temporary agreement with Tanacross to allow field work. However, there remains no permanent
agreement with Tanacross to use their land for the project. AEA recommends funding for construction,
with the provision that no funds are dispersed until AT&T provides evidence of Rights-of-Way and other
development rights with Tanacross, Doyon (owns subsurface rights), DNR and other resource owners.
AP&T has completed feasibility stages, a big deal when this project is compared to any others. We have
been trying to emphasize orderly progression of projects. We hope they'll ask for one year of funding
instead of four so they can get moving on a project. It's good to fund a lot of non-construction projects
because that moves project forward, otherwise construction projects would dry up in future rounds.
Mr. Rose asked how long we would give projects to secure Right-of-Way (ROW) agreements. There has
to be a set policy with iron clad deadlines.
Mr. Crimp said that was a project management issue and we probably discounted the technical feasibility
somewhat and score due to the uncertainty of when the ROW agreements would be in place. A year
would be a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Haagenson stated that after a year it would be up for reappropriation. If nothing’s done for a year that
would be an issue, even if they had met milestones.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 3 of 13
Mr. Menafee compared this (ROW) situation to FERC in the preliminary permit phase showing progress. Certain companies try to advance their ranking by applying to FERC for a preliminary project permit in an area like Turnagain Arm. They can lock up the area for three years meaning no other project can get a FERC permit in that area. This is something we should be aware of.
Ms. Daniels inquired as to how many of the projects were Denali commission funded. She and Mr. Doug Ott of AEA will confer after the meeting to verify Denali Commission funding/matches.
The Kwigillingok Flywheel project was discussed. There were three or four flywheel projects proposed
using the same technology. The Homer optimization model was checked on them and the economics
didn’t appear overwhelmingly good. It made sense, since there are no flywheel projects in the state
associated with wind projects, to at least recommend one to be tested. Mr. Rose asked if this project
could be considered more of a demo project even though it’s commercial technology; and how many
other projects recommended might fall under the category where one could argue a demo project. Mr.
Crimp stated it would be maybe 10%. Mr. Haagenson stated flywheel technology is not ‘emerging
technology,’ but the integration is definitely new ground. Mr. Rose would like it made clearer as to why
the projects were funded and which are in that demo category.
A discussion on emerging technology followed. Ms. Daniels stated that one of the big dilemmas is
articulating to the Legislature the distinction between emerging technologies and the renewable energy
program; it’s important for us to know how that was contemplated, and to make sure that we don’t have a
few emerging technologies slip by so that creates confusion as we try to move forward with the emerging
technologies initiative. Mr. Haagenson said when the Legislature asked what our acceptable limit of
failure was, the answer was zero. When you give that kind of answer you're not going to be looking at a
lot of emerging technology. Mr. Beltrami stated that one of the things in our renewable energy program
we decided to emphasize was emerging technology projects.
The following funded projects were identified as somewhat and emerging technology projects:
Somewhat:
Atka Hydro Dispatched Excess Electrical Power
Kotzebue Electric Association High Penetration Wind-Battery-Diesel Hybrid.
District Wood Heating in Fort Yukon.
Alaska Sealife Center Phase Il Seawater Heat Pump Project
Chefornak Wind Turbine Installation
Emerging Techology:
Kongiganak Flywheel Energy Storage
Cook Inlet Tidal Generation Project
Solar-Thermal Collection & Storage
Kachemak Bay Tidal Power
Port Frederick Tidal
Yakutat Wave Energy Pilot Demo
Mr. Reeve asked Mr. Crimp how some of the smaller villages came up with reasonable matches and what
their sources were. He said we should look at some of the projects on a more specific basis to see where
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 4 of 13
the funding is coming from in order to bolster the efforts of the small villages. Mr. Crimp stated we would
definitely look into that.
7.) Geographic (Regional) Spreading
Mr. Crimp stated there were a number of regions that do not have projects recommended for funding
within the (first) $25 million constraint: notably, Bristol Bay, Lower Yukon & Kuskokwim and the North
Slope. The regional summary is based on $25 million and we haven't assessed the impacts of going up
to $50 million. Mr. Rose suggested it should be spread as if we were getting $50 million. Mr. Haagenson
stated that last year when there was $50 million in the Governor's budget and the Legislature requested
we look at $25 million, we gave them a dual recommendation. He agreed we make two levels of
recommendation; that statutorily we were told to make a recommendation for $50 million but that we were
directed by the Governor under the budget to look at $25 million. We'll then present two numbers.
The Regional summary sheet was discussed. The percentage is a percentage of the total of $24.38
million. The protocol established in Rounds | and II were that a project would need to get at least 50% of
amount of the total prorated by cost of energy. For Bristol Bay, half of the $2.25 million is $1.262 million,
and there was no allocation this year so this is the additional amount we would need to recommend for
funding in Bristol Bay in order to achieve that allocation. Kodiak is short. The negative numbers mean
they are in good shape along that criterion. We are also short in Lower Kuskokwim and the North Slope —
only considering Round Ill. Cumulatively, there’s a lot of funding allocated in the Lower Kuskowkim
already. If you total the allocation among Rounds | through III, then you get different impacts. The only
regions that are short in this case then are Bristol Bay and the North Slope. All the rest have positive
numbers. We will need the Committee's direction on this. There were no applications for the North Slope
in Round I, which impacts that somewhat. Mr. Rose stated he would rather proceed on the assumption
that (the Legislature) is going to come up with the $50 million they committed; they are going to make the
decision on which projects get funded in the final analysis anyway, and would prefer to not tell them to
take the lowest ranked of the 19 projects. It should be recognized that if only $25 million is allocated,
then there’s no way we can accomplish regional spreading and meet the protocol unless we have another
$3.6 million. Mr. Crimp stated we would not recommend projects if we thought they had fatal flaws.
[Rep. Thomas signed off the phone at 1:15 p.m.]
Mr. Crimp noted AEA staff tasks recommended to support further deliberation of the REFAC: 1) Allocate
between construction and pre-construction projects, and 2) go through and make another regional
allocation summary that includes the full $50 million (yellow shaded area). He will also obtain the
information that Mr. Rose requested. Mr. Rose asked what the procedure would be to get the Round III
information to the Legislature, and felt that they would expect updates on Rounds | and II. Mr. Crimp
stated they had been busy on Round II! work but certainly could get those updates.
8.) RE Fund Report Rounds | and Il
Mr. White stated the Rounds | and II status spreadsheets included in the meeting handouts was prepared
at the request of Senator Hoffman’s office and was also shared with other members of LB&A. 109
projects were funded for $125 million. We have obligated $67.3 million and actually dispersed $18
million. Of the 109 projects, 75 are in place, 21 are in-house (Project Managers negotiations, controller
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 5 of 13
review, etc.) and we're waiting for information from the grantees on 13 projects. There were a couple of
projects hung up because we capped them. Also included in the meeting packet is a summary of capped
projects which was requested by the Committee at the last meeting. Mr. Rose asked what kinds of issues
are being negotiated. Mr. White stated it was mostly funding issues, working within the scope of the
original approved grant. It's been a long process begun in 2008 and we haven't got to some of the
projects yet. Mr. Haagenson stated some of the issues concern IPP’s and are complex. While working
with the RCA, most conversations were about IPP’s as opposed to the utility equal, which is a different
role for them. The project issues include making sure they hit the milestone and have the right reporting
and right purpose. We are doing things above and beyond to make sure there’s no failures. We know
there’s people out there that want to find something wrong with the program for various reasons. We have
to withstand a very high level of scrutiny.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated it’s an evolving process and we've addressed some issues that arose in Rounds |
and II in the difficulty in getting the grants out. For the Round Ill application format, a lot of the information
is being obtained upfront. From February until the effective date of the appropriation, we'll be working on
all of this. Once the money is available the grants go out. All that work will be done up front.
Mr. Rose reiterated that a short narrative beyond the spreadsheets would be good so Legislators can see
how the program has progressed and developed and they can read about it in a two or three page
document. If they understand that progress is being made, that will go a long way to allay their concerns.
He also stated that Legislature is considering changes to this program in the Omnibus Energy Bill. People
in REAP and the Board Policy Committee have suggested there might be tweaks, so they decided at the
Policy Committee level to discuss what they might suggest as changes, then come to this Committee
before any suggestions are made to Legislature. There’s an active group of people within REAP who
would like to be a part of the process. He invited the Committee to have this discussion at the REAP
Policy Committee meeting at APA at 10:00 a.m. on January 29, 2010.
Mr. Haagenson reiterated we are trying to learn from past experiences. We would like to send out a letter
to all the people involved in the process and ask them how it worked for them, sooner than later, but not
before the process is done.
Mr. Rose stated that more capacity building needs to be done in the smaller communities to get them to
the point where they can write grant proposals. If certain areas don’t turn in more applications it’s not
because they have less of a need.
Mr. Crimp stated AEA has had programs in place for years and now we're seeing a lot of this type of
need. An important function of those programs is to help develop projects. AEA has 10 on staff now in
alternative energy and energy efficiency that can work with the entities. Mr. Haagenson stated that's
determined in the evaluation process. We don’t want to see a good grant writer with no back up. We're
not looking for perfectly written grants, but we are looking for people there to make it real. Ms. Fisher-
Goad pointed out that this program was designed on a cost-reimbursable grant management process
where the grantee receives the funds and builds the project. Another project management model that
AEA runs through the Denali Commission is where AEA manages a project for a community though we
still go through sustainability requirements. The bulk fuel tank farms and any RPSU built through AEA
have been AEA managed projects. If necessary we can step in and provide that level of support to the
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 6 of 13
communities; that’s an option they have. Mr. Rose stated that was important information that could also
be communicated to Legislature.
Mr. Jay Livey, from Senator Hoffman's Office asked if the allocation was meant to apply to rounds
cumulatively and would they remain in place even though the monies haven't been spent yet. Mr. Crimp
confirmed that the allocation remains and that our assumption is that over the next year or two the money
will be spent, that all projects budgeted will move forward.
Mr. White cited examples of successful grant writing in a community that at first could not move forward,
then came back and were successful a second time after receiving help. Another grantee argued
successfully to run their own project. Mr. Rose stated it would be helpful for others, not just for the
Legislature, to understand where the help and building capacity can be found, so they know it exists and
can ask for the help when they need it. The Denali Commission's sustainability standards are part of the
criteria we've been using when looking at project readiness and community support. Mr. Crimp stated
when we look at the sustainability score, our rule of thumb is that in 15 years if the project is developed
what is the likelihood it’s going to be up and running, which integrates other factors, i.e., will there be
substantial fish & wildlife habitat impacts or operational complexity, will there be a load or market for the
energy to be made, and most important will the community still be there. Sustainability is not documented
in any certain way, and is that something the Committee would like to see. Chair Beltrami asked if there’s
an ability to align with the Denali Commission on this. In trying to prioritize what communities we'll work
with, we've always said communities under 100 won't be considered that had problems, but there are
some special small communities out there. Mr. Crimp stated we can expand our evaluation guide to
emphasize sustainability, and assign point scores for different facets to include that other than point
scoring.
9.) Review AEA Proposed Reallocation of Round | & Il Funding
Round | projects:
Mr. Haagenson clarified that per the LB&A, any monies left over (for example, if a Round | project was
cancelled), the monies would be returned to the Round | RE Fund. We are done recommending projects
of the Round | list, the last one being Takatz Lake Hydro that can now be fully funded. AEA does not have
the authority to move funds around. He did not think there were any cancellations yet for Round Il. Mr.
Crimp stated there was a $400,000 error (too much) made for the Akutan project and will have to be
revised. Ms. Fisher-Goad said she and Mr. Haagenson are traveling to Juneau the week of 1/18/2010 to
meet with Legislature on this matter. There’s a few issues to work out on how the money would cycle
back into the RE Fund. Mr. Rose asked if they are going to recommend that any leftover Round II money
that may need to be reappropriated go to future rounds rather than a past round, and is Ms. Fisher-Goad
asking the Committee’s advice to agree or disagree. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated it made sense to ask the
committee’s advice at this point; hence Chair Beltrami and Mr. Rose agreed, and hoped that Mr. Posey
would be in attendance at the Jan. 14"" meeting so enough members will be present to vote on this, as
Senator Hoffman and Representative Thomas would be in Legislative meetings.
The
Mr. Rose suggested that one group of projects we may want to consider giving the money to are those
capped in Round II that are having trouble getting the rest of their funding. Ms. Fisher-Goad said it would
be a problem if we made a decision to cap at $2 million and there’s a recommendation in the same
application to add above those caps; especially in Round Ill where it’s in the RFA. It’s not fair to other
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 7 of 13
potential applicants and it wouldn't be fair to others who mange it some other way. We have to be careful
going above $482,000. Mr. Haagenson said LB&A instructed us to ‘fill up the bucket’ on Round | and
we're assuming everything left over will be allocated to Round III. Mr. Rose asked if there is any way that
we could change the program so we're not evaluating millions of dollars worth of projects before we know
how much money we will have. Ms. Fisher-Goad clarified it's a grant recommendation program. We're
supposed to do the work up front in order for Legislature to decide on what projects they will appropriate
for.
The spreadsheet showing “Round | projects not able to get underway because grant amount was capped”
was reviewed and discussed. Of the 14, the only ones really stalled and ‘dead in the water’ are Nome
Joint Utility's Newton Peak Wind Farm and MOA’s Anchorage Landfill Gas to Electric projects. The
Takatz Lake Hydro Project in Sitka applied in Round Ill. They have their permit now and are going
through the study phase and it will take a year plus to layout and implement the expensive studies.
Round III monies will allow them to move ahead smoothly.
Round II Projects:
Round II Projects were discussed.
Mr. Rose felt we should emphasize there’s $50 million worth of good projects. It’s important Legislators
perceive the entire program favorably, and the program is moving forward in a good way, especially
bringing notice to potential projects in their districts. This should be in the narrative.
Public comment:
Mr. Clint White, STG, Inc. reported on the Wind for Schools Program at Unalakleet High School, where
they, in conjunction with Northern Power, are preparing to launch a public view monitoring system. It will
make production data publicly accessible by anyone. The Program is national and NREL has also
participated. The curriculum is not completely developed, but is basically one time sessions that may be
integrated into specific math and science lesson plans. Mr. Rose stated that REAP is also part of the
Winds for Schools Program and is working with the Alaska Center for Energy & Power (ACEP). He
stated he had not taken a position on the matter of ACEP request for RE funding.
Mr. Rose commented that it would be helpful for the Committee to start to condense all of their protocols
into one policy document that they could reference in future meetings.
Mr. Haagenson reminded Mr. Rose he wanted to discuss reporting to the Legislature. He said that had
not been discussed too much in house yet. Mr. Rose reiterated that more information should be included
in the narratives to send to the Legislators i.e., how regulations affected each round, work completed so
far to show the program is really working, other than the spreadsheets with the list of recommended
projects.
Representative Thomas stated we need to have a plan as to how we are going to reappropriate the
money for projects not going forward. One or two years may be too long and we may end up losing the
funds. Eighteen months may be the timeline to show significant progress on a project. A timeline should
be in place. Ms. Fisher-Goad thought 18 months may be short for Alaska, but could be determined on a
case by case basis.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 8 of 13
Mr. Crimp introduced Audrey Alstrom, who has joined AEA as an Assistant Hydro Project Manager.
Mr. Rose thanked staff for all the work accomplished over the holidays.
The meeting recessed at 1:30 p.m. until noon on January 14, 2010.
Attachment: ‘Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 Ranking All’ handout from Mr. Crimp)
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 9 of 13
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
January 13 & 14, 2010 — AEA Boardroom
10:00am to 12:00pm
Draft Minutes
January 14, 2010
1.) Call to Order
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee reconvened at 12:12 p.m. Chairman Vince Beltrami
presided over the meeting.
2.) Roll Call:
Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants
Vince Beltrami, Chair Steve Haagenson Mike Nave, Dept. of Law
Chris Rose Mike Harper Mike Mitchell, Dept. of Law
Jim Posey Sara Fisher-Goad Denali Daniels, Denali Commission
Brad Reeve (phone) Peter Crimp
Jodi Mitchell (phone) Butch White
Representative Bill Thomas James Strandberg
& Kaci Hotch (phone) Devany Plentovich
Jay Livey — Senator Hoffman’s David Lockard
Office (Phone) James Jensen
Linda Hay — Senator Stedman’s Doug Ott
Office (Phone) Audrey Alstrom
Shauna Howell
May Clark
9). Round Ill Ranking - Continued
Chair Beltrami acknowledged receipt of the printout showing a short narrative of all of the AEA
recommended projects. Mr. Rose asked Mr. Crimp what the rough project percentages of studies relative
to construction would be. Mr. Crimp stated the projects are shown in the Development Phase column
and were broken down into three phases; 1) reconnaissance/feasibility, 2) final design/permitting and 3)
construction. That information sheet was e-mailed to members along with a revised Regional Summary,
a scenario that shows what the impacts of geographic spreading would be, assuming a $50 million
allocation.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 10 of 13
Development Phase breakdown:
The sheet showing Round Ill ranking with Development Phase breakdown was reviewed. In the top $25
million (green shaded) projects there are 76% construction, 8% final design/permitting and 16% for
reconnaissance and feasibility. About 4% of the recon/feasibility total are geothermal exploration or
drilling (Mt. Spurr and Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal). Geothermal resource assessment is a physical
activity that doesn’t get stale with time.
In the yellow shaded projects, 46% is construction, 18% final design/permitting and 36% reconnaissance
and feasibility. Cumulatively, a combination of the green and yellow shaded areas, the results are: 61%
construction, 23% final design/permitting, and 26% for reconnaissance/feasibility. 13% of the total would
be geothermal on site exploration. The further down (in the orange area) the less construction projects
there are. 8% construction, 42% final design/permitting and 51% reconnaissance/feasibility. IPEC has
proposed a $2.6 million geothermal exploration project in the Tenakee area.
There were no further comments or questions on the Development Phase breakdown.
Cost of Power Protocol:
The regional summary Round Ii] Ranking, Cost of Power allocation was discussed. In Rounds | and II the
Committee first established a protocol that they would look at the average cost of power and allocate the
amount of funding by the relative magnitude of the cost of power number and that the region should get at
least 50% of that number. In Round II it was decided to go further down on the list to retrieve projects
and bring them up in an attempt to meet additional funding needed to reach the 50% constraint, but only
using the projects recommended. That is why we don’t go in and add funding for projects not
recommended. In Round II that’s reflected in the ranking submitted and approved by the Legislature. The
blue highlighted areas in the Cost of Power column under “Additional Funding Needed to Reach 50%,”
are the areas that are short in Round Ill (Bering Straits, Bristol Bay, Kodiak, Lower Yukon-Kuskowkim,
and the North Slope. The bottom table shows cumulative Rounds | through III for $50 million (Bristol Bay
and the North Slope are short). As expected smoothing in the allocations was achieved by bringing in
more proposals. In Round | there were no North Slope submittals. Mr. Livey asked if there were any
other recommended projects that could have been brought forward for Bristol Bay in Round III, of which
he was told there was only one, Port Alsworth ($150,000). As for Rounds | and II the only project not
included was the Bristol Bay Fish Waste Assessment project, which was recommended in the yellow in
Round Il.
Mr. Posey commented that the projects were very well balanced. The ratio of urban to rural is
maintained, some regions are over represented, but that’s where the high costs are. More smoothing may
damage the concepts we are trying to stay with. Considering what's happening in the Lower 48 states,
with no federal money involved, we’re doing better than most states. He asked Representative Thomas
how he felt about the process so far. Representative Thomas stated he was happy with where we were
at. We need to let the people know this is important to them. We have come a long way. Mr. Rose
wanted to know from the Committee’s standpoint what message we should be sending to the Legislature.
We should give them the whole project list and explain how it was broken out so they can clearly take the
first $25 million, but we should start out by requesting $50 million. Representative Thomas agreed with
this. He said this is the year we have money and it’s an election year. The higher the better. We can
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 11 of 13
recommend $50 million in keeping in tune with the legislation and say we want to match it, and offered to
make the motion stating that. Chair Beltrami stated he would entertain any motion.
MOTION: Representative Thomas moved that the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee
submit up to $50 million in projects. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rose.
Following a voice vote, the motion carried.
Mr. Rose stated the motion is reflecting the Committee’s statement that they are comfortable with AEA’s
scores and ranking and agree as such for the projects to be submitted. Representative Thomas stated he
was confident with AEA through previous years’ experience and you have to have confidence in the
people around you. Mr. Crimp asked if the Committee wanted to add on the North Slope and Bristol Bay
projects which may cause us to slightly go over the $50 million. Mr. Rose stated we should ask for all the
wind projects, if it’s over the $50 million, that’s what we submit. Chair Beltrami asked if he was amending
the motion to go over the $50 million.
MOTION: Mr. Rose amended the original motion to include the two wind projects. The motion
was seconded by Chair Beltrami.
With no opposition from Representative Thomas, the maker of the original motion, and following a voice
vote, the motion carried.
Mr. Rose wanted to finalize the subject brought up yesterday in that the narrative will be written
describing the program and other information, he asked who would be transmitting the information to
Legislature and in what form would it be, i.e., official letter, spreadsheets. Mr. Crimp stated we had
already agreed to write the narratives and they have been started. Mr. Haagenson stated there were
different levels of information we would share and we would be working on that. He asked if the
Committee members would want to travel to Juneau to support the effort. Chair Beltrami said he would
be there next week. Mr. Haagenson reminded the Committee that last year all we did was send a cover
letter with the list and there were no hearings held, but then met with the LB&A a couple of times after
that. Mr. Crimp stated he would need to have a fair amount time to get a good presentation together that
would be the coordination of two messages, what we're proposing and what we have done. Ms. Fisher-
Goad stated there’s already a draft in the works. The Narrative can be written to have committee support,
whether Mr. Haagenson signs it as Executive Director or not. A lot of people need to know more about
the program details and we need to tell that story. Perhaps two messages can be sent, an overview and
financial. Having a couple of Committee members present to testify would be helpful. Mr. Posey stated
that relaying two messages would not be good, that a good technical report will keep it on track. Mr.
Haagenson asked if the finance committee held hearings, would we want to have recipients testify about
their projects. Mr. Rose stated it would be a good idea, although we shouldn't just pick the best projects,
but should have a variety presented.
The AHFC Report on Energy & Weatherization Programs was included in the meeting packed and briefly
discussed, including the subject of contractor payments that may be encountered in RE Fund program
and other comparative issues.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 12 of 13
Public Comment:
A member of the public, Kim Bromeny, introduced herself with questions for the Committee. She said she
was a volunteer with some organizations in town. She commended the Committee for all their work, and
stated she heard rumors that AEA is slow in allocating funds and actually getting the money where they
need to be so certain projects can’t get started. She asked if AEA had a way of monitoring Rounds | and
|l per administrative process, are things moving or are the rumors of micromanaging and money not going
out true. Chair Beltrami stated they are rumors and turned the floor over to Mr. Haagenson.
Mr. Haagenson reported that they may not be rumors. He is on the record as saying zero failures. If you
just want to get the money out the door, we can get it out fast, that’s not the problem, but we're trying to
do it responsibly and AEA is held accountable for the results. It's a grant reimbursement program, not
just a grant program. We are making sure we're putting money into good projects in our second year. The
first bottleneck was the grant writing itself and understanding the milestones, though that’s moving along
well now. It then turns into monitoring. We've also heard a rumor that we’re being too aggressive in
reviewing receipts. As a public agency we have to scrutinize every receipt and we're being restrictive on
where the money’s spent to make sure it’s for the proper purpose. That was set up by Legislature. You
don’t want us to rush through things. Ms. Fisher-Goad pointed out that we have to pay invoices in 30
days, typically they are paid within two weeks upon receipt. Grantees have the responsibility to report on
their project, usually when they submit an invoice. A delay is rare. Contractors are not paid directly in this
program, Grantees are. Mr. Crimp stated when milestones are set for a construction project, before funds
are released they have to show permitting is done. We use our judgment on this and are faced with
those decisions all the time.
Ms. Bromeny asked what happened if a small village doesn’t have the funds to pay, do they just go into
the red. Mr. Crimp stated we have the ability to make advanced payments. Once a grant is signed, they
can invoice to get moving on a project. Ms. Fisher-Goad said another example for advance payment is
for material delivery, to make a barge schedule, etc. but then if a milestone is not met after that, the
payment is repaid to AEA, all the while following the state procedures. Mr. Posey also pointed out that
Legislative auditors also audit the program. Chair Beltrami explained the composition of the Committee
and that they have expressed the same type of concerns and have been satisfied by AEA staff
resolutions on every issue raised. The Committee stands behind the process developed over the last
year. Mr. Rose pointed out that in the past similar questions have been posed to him and he has always
transmitted them to Mr. Haagenson with results. Mr. Haagenson suggested Ms. Bromeny call him directly
if there were any other complaints. Ms. Bromeny thanked the Committee for their time.
10.) Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date will be at the call of the Chair.
11.) Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m. on January 14, 2010.
Attachment: ‘Narrative of all AEA Recommended Projects’ handout from Mr. Crimp)
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 13-14, 2010
Page 13 of 13
= 3 =-OOANDOARWN = [= ALASKA
@@i_) ENERGY AUTHORITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 and
Thursday, January 14, 2010
AEA Boardroom
10:00 am to 2:00 pm (both days)
AGENDA
Call to Order
Roll Call
Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes)
Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions)
Approval of Meeting Minutes - December 14, 2009
Round III Ranking (Possible Executive Session(s))
Geographic Spreading
Renewable Energy Fund Report Rounds | & II
Review AEA Proposed Reallocation of Round | & Il Funding
Next Meeting Date
Adjournment
Beltrami
Crimp
B. White
Crimp
Beltrami
Beltrami
\laska Renewable Energy Fund
jional Summary Round 3 Ranking
Top $50M "Green" and "Yellow"
DRAFT 1/14/2010
Round 3
Recommendation Cost of Power Population Even Split Average Additional
cost Allocation funding Allocation Allocation
Grant power cost of power needed to per capita per region
Energy Region ($/kWh) __ basis reach 50% % total basis basis Aleutians 0.53 6,440,632 (3,348,333) 1% 654,301 4,532,661 Bering Straits 0.50 6,160,471 949,092 1% 730,265 4,532,661 Bristol Bay 0.42 5,164,501 1,018,510 3% 1,460,208 4,532,661 Copper River/Chugach 0.26 3,132,025 (4,265,340) 2% 785,226 4,532,661 Kodiak 0.18 2,190,929 809,204 2% 798,423 4,532,661 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 0.61 7,486,996 1,364,041 4% 1,861,431 4,532,661 North Slope 0.14 1,700,384 586,192 1% 592,822 4,532,661 Northwest Arctic 0.58 7,083,767 (776,466) 1% 524,342 4,532,661
Railbelt 0.16 1,972,478 (9,051,458)] 72% 35,967,502 4,532,661 Southeast 0.14 1,696,418 (7,306,579)| 12% 5,741,854 4,532,661
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 0.56 6,830,676 (3,778,374) 1% 742,899 4,532,661
Statewide Bee OG| :
TOTAL 49,859,275 100% 0.20 49,859,275 100% 49,859,275 49,859,275
Cumulative Rounds 1-3
Recommendation Cost of Power Population Even Split Average Additional
% of cost Allocation funding Allocation _|Allocation
Total Rounds Total power cost of power needed to per capita per region Energy Region 1-3 Funding Funding |($/kWh) basis reach 50% % total basis basis
Aleutians 14,919,492 9% 0.53 22,589,338 (3,624,823) 1% 2,294,842 | 15,897,481
Bering Straits 13,515,417 8% 0.50 21,606,724 (2,712,055) 1% 2,561,271 15,897,481 Bristol Bay 7,281,915 4% 0.42 18,113,541 1,774,856 3% 5,121,413 | 15,897,481 Copper River/Chugach 15,648,282 9% 0.26 10,985,004 (10,155,780)| 2% 2,754,037 | 15,897,481 Kodiak 5,011,260 3% 0.18 7,684,282 (1,169,119)} 2% 2,800,323 | 15,897,481
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 26,443,535 15% 0.61 26,259,269 (13,313,900)} 4% 6,528,630 | 15,897,481 North Slope 1,134,912 1% 0.14 5,963,784 1,846,980 1% 2,079,216 | 15,897,481
Northwest Arctic 22,252,405 13% 0.58 24,845,019 (9,829,896) 1% 1,839,035 | 15,897,481 Railbelt 28,566,606 16% 0.16 6,918,106 (25,107,553)| 72% 126,149,437 | 15,897,481 Southeast 25,428,404 15% 0.14 5,949,875 (22,453,466)| 12% 20,138,504 | 15,897,481
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 12,974,495 7% 0.56 23,957,346 (995,822) 1% 2,605,582 | 15,897,481
Statewide 1,695,566 1% -
[TOTAL 174,872,289 100% 0.20 174,872,289 100% _ 174,872,289 | 174,872,289
s
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund > @ Alaska Energy Authority Round 3 Ranking with Development Phase Breakdown
DRAFT 1114/2010
Stage 3 Review Scores Benefit / Cost (max) Cost and Request Recommendation Development Phase
3 as Tech& 4. e Costof 2 Econ Readi- 5, Local 7. Sustain- Total Energy Match Feas ability Reconn/ —Permitting/ (25) 4 g Final Design Construct 38\5 Atka Hydro Dispatched Excess Electrical Px City of Atka
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company
High Penetration Wind-Battery-Diesel Hybri Kotzebue Electric Association ‘St. Paul Wind Diesel Project ‘TDX Corporation
Terror Lake Unit 3 Hydroelectric Project Kodiak Electric Association, INC Nushagak Area Hydropower Project (NAHP Nushagak Electric & Telephone Hoonah-IPEC Hydro Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc.
‘Chenega Bay Hydro Design and Permitting Chenega Corporation/Chenega IRA Council District Wood Heating in Fort Yukon Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company
Alaska SeaLife center Phase II Seawater H City of Seward
Mount Spurr Geothermal Project. Ormat Nevada, inc. City Tribe Biomass Energy Conservation City of Tanana
Kivalina Wind-Intertie Feasibility Analysis & AVEC
Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Resource / UAF, institute of Northern Engineering, ACEP
‘Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade City of Saint Paul Electric Utility Akutan Hydroelectric System Repair and U; City of Akutan
Biomass Fuel Dryer Project City of Craig
Neck Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power & Telephone Company 38 3 18,116,740
20,109,898 20,522,540
20,705,890
22,454,233 SERSIISERRAES > 3 2@OWVELZOLOORO@@OO g “Akutan Geothermal Development Project _ City of Akutan Galena Renewable Energy Project Louden Tribal Council
Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line Alaska Power Company
Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC Indian River Hydroelectric Project City of Tenakee Springs
Tok Forestry Renewable Biomass Energy | State of AK DNR Division of Forestry Tok Area Offic Renewable Support Mode for BESS Golden Valley Electric Association Kongiganak Flywheel Energy Storage Puvurnag Power Company
‘St. Mary's Wind-Final Design, Permitting & AVEC
Cook Inlet TidGen Project ORPC Alaska, LLC Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company
Teller Wind-Final Design, Permitting & Con: AVEC
Kenai Winds Expansion Kenai Winds LLC
Adak Renewable/Diese! Project TDX Adak Generating, LLC
lonia Renewable Energy Training Center The State of Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Chefornak Wind Turbine Installation City of Chefomak
‘Solar-thermal collection & storage with grou Golden Valley Electric Association New Stuyahok Wind-Feasibility Analysis AVEC
Carlson Creek Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company ‘Scammon Bay Wind Project AVEC
Thayer Lake Hydropower Development (TL Kootznoowoo Inc.
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Elfin Cove Utility
NWAB School Alternate Eneray Solar Awar Northwest Arctic Borough
‘Stebbins Wind-Feasibility Analysis AVEC ‘Spur Road Distribution Line Extension _iity and Borough of Wrangell Gastineau Elementary School Geothermal | City & Borough of Juneau
Heat Recovery/Power Generation in Rural / University of Alaska Fairbanks
Kachemak Bay Tidal Power-Feasibility & C« City of Homer City of Napaskiak Wind Study City of Napaskiak-Napaskiak Electric Utility
Pilot Point Wind Power & Heat City of Pilot Point
Cordova Community Biomass Feasibility St Native Village of Eyak
Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project Glacier Fork Hydro, LLC
Hybrid Biomass and Solar Combined Heat : Chena Power, LLC
Silver Lake Pre-Feasibility Study Copper Valley Electric Association, inc. (CVEA)
Greenhouse Feasibility and Application in F University of Alaska Fairbanks Port Frederick Tidal Power Project Alaska Power & Telephone Company Kodiak High School Renewable Eneray Ani Kodiak Island Borough Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Eklutna Inc Schubee Lake Hydroelectic Project Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Waste Energy Powered Absorption Refrige Valdez Fisheries Development Association
‘Cook Inlet Tidal Hydrokinetic Power Genere Baker Hughes, Inc.
Hoonah City Schools Biomass Heating Sys' Hoonah City School District Triangle Lake Hydroelectric Project Metiakatia Indian Community (MIC)
Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Re Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Analy: City & Borough of Sitka Electric Department
MSB Solar and Wind Potential Matanuske-Susitna Borough Point Hope Wind Diesel Generation Project North Slope Borough
Cultivating Rural Alaska for Biomass Energ University of Alaska Fairbanks Hope Regional Hydroelectric Study Bering Pacific Engineering
Wood Chip Boiler Heating System Delta/Greely Schoo! District Wainwright Wind Diesel Generation Project North Slope Borough
870," 250,000
11,187,738 ,000, 7,187,738
3,000,000 000, 400,000
16,700,000 ! 61,500 2,711,000 203,000 26,000 77,000 67,000 10,000
300,000 255,000 45,000
1,661,368 1,495,231 166,137 1,495,231 31,510,113 16,616,252 14,954,626 1,661,625 H 446,400 31,956,513 6,501,066 1,954,000 4,547,066 z 1,954,000 33,910,513 33,235,000 988,000 247,000 428,888 34,339,401 3,890,042 3,501,038 389,004 240,300 34,579,701 10,200,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 hi 1 2,000,000 36,579,701 229,500 229,500 36,809,201 268,523 235,523 33,000 y 235,523 37,044,724 4,598,905 4,000,000 95,000 ie 1H 151,025 37,195,749 101,500 80,000 21,500 80,000 37,275,749 4,436,800 142,500 7,500 142,500 37,418,249 6,300,000 480,000 120,000 240,000 37,658,249 4,436,800 142,500 7,500 I 142,500 37,800,749 15,201,108 8,000,000 1,679,500 ir 1,060,500 38,861,249 2,274,746 347,200 48,000 347,200 39,208,449 561,887 549,387 12,500 bi 135,000 39,343,449 5,690,800 142,500 7,500 142,500 39,485,949 161,386 119,263 42,123 119,263 39,605,212 1,250,000 1,000,000 250,000 1,000,000 40,605,212 551,408 551,408 551,408 41,156,620 2,617,585 547,611 711,324 547,611 41,704,231 547,611 144,301 144,301 144,301 41,848,532 144,301 1,571,240 1,421,240 150,000 1,421,240 43,269,772 1,800,000 (245,065 3,000 oO 193,065 43,462,837 193,065 330,000,000 420,000 80,000 x 420,000 43,882,837 420,000 1,861,500 930,750 930,750 2 67,325 43,950,162 67,325 86,951,000 125,000 46,500 125,000 44,075,162 125,000 313,280 313,280 i 34,070 44,109,232 22,000,000 400,000 100,000 i 64,000 44,173,232 64,000 187,750 129,440 38,100 44,211,332 38,100 25,000,000 84,000 16,000 Tt 84,000 44,295,332 84,000 4,020,000 160,000 40,000 I 80,000 44,375,332 80,000 36,016,000 1,021,287 350,000 i 1,021,287 45,396,619 1,021,287 3,600,000 400,000 1,960,000 400,000 45,796,619 400,000 3,652,680 140,000 140,000 45,936,619 140,000 17,772,000 500,000 500,000 46,436,619 500,000 61,780,000 1,700,000 80,000 bi 600,000 47,036,619 600,000 226,000,000 2,000,000 231,768 bi 921,937 47,958,556 921,937 322,283 300,000 22,283 75,000 48,033,556 75,000 3,857,047 3,506,406 350,641 132,000 48,165,556 132,000 578,719 578,719 i 578,719 (48,744,275 578,719 22,670,000 115,000 25,000 115,000 48,859,275 115,000 2,868,000 868,000 2,000,000 868,000 49,727,275 868,000 3,857,047 3,506,406 350,641 132,000 49,859,275 132,000 1,056,166,011 72,058,991 30,892,540 (25,475,893 9,127,583 4,560,818 11,787,492
3% 18% 46%!
26% 13% 61%) Ho] EQQELHQIQG STL T505 3S 5 z 3 5525 3 BERL EERLELLLLL ELE SERTL IEEE aaenegaoran AUAARAZTAADANDNARAMOANAUDNAANITVA@DROAZTARARVAOVGSRADOOON NACANNNONABOKHOTOAYONNGOUTFABNOANOVOCUNAUWTOMMONNONWOWN AANORADATGALOONGAANGORALONAMADLAUOAAATOUTRARRAADAUY LY COBONATFOPNNAAZN2ONGOKOANN@ONNASNSOOLOVSESINNOZO Bogoxgoowoog SSSLSRLSRLSSSISaesses aan
Paget of 2
Delta Junction Wood Pellet Boiler. Biofuel F State of Alaska, DNR Division of Forestry Anchorage geothermal district heating proie Iceland America Energy, INC Wrangell Downtown Revitalization City and Borough of Wrangell Wrangell Street Light Conversion City and Borough of Wrangell Alaska British Columbia (AK-BC) Intertie Pr City and Borough of Wrangell Recapture & Utilize Waste Heat from the Hi Golden Valley Electric Association
Keep it Sustainable, Keep it Local (KISKIL) Delta Mine Training Center Tyonek Native Village Wind Project Native Village of Tyonek ‘Skyline Mini Wind Farm April Park/IPP ‘Seldovia small wind generation facility Cty of Seldovia SEAPA Integrated Resource Planning Proje The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Metiakatla-Ketchikan Interie Metiakatia Indian Community (MIC) Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal En Naknek Electric Association, Inc. (NEA) 2MW Refinery Waste Energy Recovery Chena Power, LLC Thermal Engine Generator System (TEGS) Ugashik Traditional Village AVCP Housing Wind Turbines Project AVCP Regional Housing Authority Melozi-Horner Hot Springs Geothermal Res Ruby Tribal Council Virgin Creek Hydroelectric Project Bering Pacific Engineering Eska Creek Hydroelectric Project Bering Pacific Engineering Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Project _Chignik Lagoon Power Utility (CLPU) Alaska Biomass Combined Heat & Power C Alaska Power Company Tumagain Arm Tidal Electric Generation Pr Little Susitna Construction Co., Inc. High Penetration Wind Diesel Power and H Kipnuk Light Plant Kwigillingok Flywheel Energy Storage Kwig Power Co. Port Graham Village Council Biomass Elect Port Graham Village Council Statewide run-of-river hydropower assessm UAA State Controlled Institute of Higher Learning Tribal & Regional Energy Planning Cheesh’na Tribal Council Archangel Creek Hydroelectric Project Bering Pacific Engineering Tuntutuliak Flywheel Energy Storage Tuntutuliak Community Services Assoc Elec Serv Biomass for Eneray: Supply Side Knowledg UAF Tatitiek High Penetration Wind-Diesel Proje Tatitiek IRA Council/Tatitlek Electric Company Jarvis Creek Natural Gas Project Alaska Wind Power, LLC Fuel Cell Feasibility City of Houston City of Ouzinkie Wind Generator Project ity of Ouzinkie Utility Operations
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Round 3 Ranking with Development Phase Breakdown
DRAFT 1114/2010
Page2 of 2
932,250 932,250
1,070,000,000 392,520
1,506,857 1,231,113
416,392 313,790
31,000,000 5,033,414
167,390 95,190
19,150,000 2,000,000
1,497,500 997,500
240,000 200,000
340,000 260,000
658,000 508,000
312,000 252,000
7,652,000 6,332,000
35,506,477 15,000,000
7,815,000 3,907,500
232,170 217,170
4,494,546 3,744,546
219,071 219,071
125,000
70,000
2,350,000
4,525,605
4,000,000
3,947,236
1,495,231
3,313,920
675,185
267,024
70,000
1,495,231
212,942
903,970
300,000
45,000
650,000
66,082,408
261,680 255,744
102,602
72,000
14,500,000
(278,000
40,000
80,000
150,000
60,000
1,320,000
20,506,477
3,907,500
15,000
750,000
25,000
15,000
150,000
15,474,395
1,400,000
166,137
5,449,307
15,000
166,137
8,030
100,000
200,000
65,468,009
172,127,104
Alaska Energy Authority
Development Phase
18,984,756 11,311,525 31,240,638
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Round 3 Ranking
D RAFT. 1/13/2010
Benefit / Cost
Alaska Energy Authority
Stage 3 Review Scores
Bristol Bay
Bristol Bay
Bristol Bay
Bristol Bay Bristol Bay
|Copper River/Chugach (Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach
|Copper River/Chugach
Copper River/Chugach
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Project Name
Atka Hydro Dispatched Excess Electrical Power
‘St. Paul Wind Diesel Project
Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade
Akutan Hydroelectric System Repair and Upgrade
Akutan Geothermal Development Project
Adak Renewable/Diese! Project
Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Resource Assessment
Teller Wind-Final Design, Permitting & Construction
Stebbins Wind-Feasibility Analysis
Nushagak Area Hydropower Project (NAHP)
New Stuyahok Wind-Feasibility Analysis
Pilot Point Wind Power & Heat
Port Alsworth Hydroelectric Construction Project
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Eneray Project
Thermal Engine Generator System (TEGS) for Ugashik, AK
Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Project
Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project Rehabilitation Chenega Bay Hydro Design and Permitting
Carlson Creek Hydroelectric Project
Cordova Community Biomass Feasibility Study
Silver Lake Pre-Feasibility Study
Waste Energy Powered Absorption Refrigeration Unit
Kenny Lake School biomass-Fired Heating System
‘Slana Wind Farm-Wind Energy Resource Assessment
Tribal & Regional Energy Planning
Tatitlek High Penetration Wind-Diese! Project
Terror Lake Unit 3 Hydroelectric Project
Kodiak High School Renewable Energy Analysis
City of Ouzinkie Wind Generator Project
Kongiganak Flywheel Energy Storage
St. Mary's Wind-Final Design, Permitting & Construction
Chefornak Wind Turbine Installation
Scammon Bay Wind Project
City of Napaskiak Wind Study
AVCP Housing Wind Turbines Project
High Penetration Wind Diesel Power and Heat
Kwigillingok Flywheel Energy Storage
Tuntutuliak Flywheel Energy Storage
Point Hope Wind Diese! Generation Project
Wainwright Wind Diesel Generation Project
Point Lay Wind Diesel Generation Project
High Penetration Wind-Battery-Diesel Hybrid
Kivalina Wind-Intertie Feasibility Analysis & Conceptual Design
NWAB School Alternate Energy Solar Awareness Project
City of Kotzebue Biomass Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery
City of Saint Paul Electric Utility
City of Akutan
City of Akutan
TDX Adak Generating, LLC
Nushagak Electric & Telephone
AVEC
City of Pilot Point
Alaska Green Eneray
Naknek Electric Association, Inc. (NEA) Ugashik Traditional Village
Chignik Lagoon Power Utility (CLPU)
Cordova Electric Cooperative Chenega Corporation/Chenega IRA Council
Alaska Power Company
Native Village of Eyak
Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA)
Valdez Fisheries Development Association
Copper River School District
Village Wind Power, LLC
Cheesh'na Tribal Council Tatitlek IRA Council/Tatitlek Electric Company
Kodiak Electric Association, INC
Kodiak Island Borough
City of Ouzinkie Utility Operations
Puvurnag Power Company
AVEC
City of Chefornak
AVEC
City of Napaskiak-Napaskiak Electric Utility
AVCP Regional Housing Authority
Kipnuk Light Plant
Kwig Power Co.
Tuntutuliak Community Services Assoc Elec Serv
Kotzebue Electric Association
AVEC
Northwest Arctic Borough
City of Kotzebue-Maniilaq Services LLC
Applicant
Utility
Utility
Utility
Utility
Utility
IPP
Utility Govt Utility
Utility Utility
Utility
Govt Utility IPP
Govt
IPP
Govt
Govt
Govt
Utility
Utility
Utility
Govt
Utility
Govt
Govt
Utility Utility
Utility
Wind
Hydro
Geothermal
Heat Recovery
Hydro
4
Cost of
Energy Match
2.
3.
Tech & 4.
Econ Readi- 5.
Feas
(max)
6.
Local ness Benefits Support 7. Sustain- ability Total
Cost and Request
Statewide Rank Regional
1,571,240
6,008,040
4,300,000 4,300,000
35,506,477
807,972
4,000,000
4,807,972
267,024
1,812,000
16,616,252
4,598,905
4,436,800
144,301
27,457,626
4,494,546
5,347,236
1,661,368
1,421,240
1,563,740
150,000
150,000
15,000,000
217,170
1,021,287
1,871,352
648,284
4,000,000
4,648,284
267,024
1,495,231
14,954,626
4,000,000
142,500
144,301
20,736,658
3,744,546
3,947,236
1,495,231
1,495,231
29,500,000
7,500
150,000
157,500
20,506,477
15,000
Recommendation
AEA
Recommendation
Partial Funding® Special F
Full Fundinga Special Pro:
Partial Fundingo
Full Fundinga Special Pro:
Full Fundinga
Full Fundinga
Full Fundinga Special Pro:
Partial Funding® Special F Full Funding
Partial Funding. Special F
Full Funding
Full Funding
Full Funding
Not Recommended!
Not Recommended:
Not Recommended:
Full Fundinga Special Prov
Full Funding
Partial Fundingo'Special F Partial Funding Full Funding Full Fundinga Special Pro:
Full Funding Partial Funding
Did Not Pass Stage 1a
Not Recommended!
Partial Funding
Partial Funding
Not Recommended
Full Funding
Partial Funding Special F Partial Fundingo Special F
Full Funding
Full Funding
Not Recommended:
Not Recommended!
Not Recommended:
Not Recommended:
Partial Funding! Partial Funding
Partial Funding
Full Fundinga Special Pro: Full Funding
Partial Funding
Partial Fundingo
AEA Recomm
Funding
1,421,240
1,563,740
150,000
150,000
4,000,000
252,000
4,252,000
240,000
193,065
125,000
1,021,287
1,579,352
648,284
60,000
708,284
248,160
248,160
38,100
38,100
1,495,231
446,400
151,025
142,500
144,301
2,379,457
Alaska SeaLife center Phase Il Seawater Heat Pump Project City of Seward Geothermal : p 4 5 4 5 Railbelt 477 Mount Spurr Geothermal Project Ormat Nevada, Inc. IPP Geothermal 7450 1.07 08 65 Do smecARi eda Ze 5 4 641312 ae 10368 2.180647 ra Gitte Gosia rida aaie
Railbelt 494 Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC IPP Hydro 84.00 225 243 4 15 ieee 6. 58 3 3 5929 23 46700000 Mase Ceca Fund mea Railbelt 421 Renewable Support Mode for BESS Golden Valley Electric Association Utility Other 8567 2793 2798 5 13 Hr 4g 48 2 4 56.58 26 “300,000 255,000 705.0008 FUN Findon Special Bl eon Railbelt 502 Cook Inlet TidGen Project ORPC Alaska, LLC IPP: Ocear/River 62.67 023 O87 55 19 13, 7 2 5 4 54.73 29 6.501.068 1.984.000 ‘ach Ges ria Fock coals. 255,000 Railbelt 458 Kenai Winds Expansion Kenai Winds LLC IPP Wind 5433 (0.83 105 «6 20 ea, 1 5 5 54.15 32 10,200,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 Partial Funding ic Railbelt 480 _lonia Renewable Eneray Training Center The State of Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Govt Biomass 77.00 1:39 147 «6 11 AA ad 8 5 5 5296 34 268,523 "235,523 "33.000 Full Funding Sp 2,000,000 Railbelt 500 _Kachemak Bay Tidal Power-Feasibility & Conceptual Design City of Homer Govt OceanRiver 55.67 0.12 015 «6 17 1 4 2 5 3 4867 47 2,617,585 547,611 ished carat Railbelt 493 Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project Glacier Fork Hydro, LLC Utility Hydro 62.17 1.40 444.8 43 4 2 9 2 3 45.50 51 330,000,000 420,000 60,000. Full Fundinaaspecs mae Railbelt 457 Hybrid Biomass and Solar Combined Heat and Power System Chena Power, LLC Utility Solar 49.67 0.00 000 «5 18 10 5 3 2 3 45.35 52 1,861,500 930,750 930,750 Partial Funci eee 420,000 Railbelt 475 Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Eklutna Inc IPP Hydro 65.67 1.99 18 26 3 1 1 12 0 2 44.57 57 25,000,000 84,000 ARGON Ee 67,325 Railbelt 508 Cook Inlet Tidal Hydrokinetic Power Generation Baker Hughes, Inc. IPP. Ocean/River 39.33 0.05 ost 5 19 8 2 2 3 3 41.68 60 3,600,000 400,000 4.980.000 Ful Pee moe
Page 3 of 5
Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources
MSB Solar and Wind Potential
Hope Regional Hydroelectric Study
Wood Chip Boiler Heating System
Waste to Eneray Feasibility Assessment for UAF and other
Jack River Hydro Project
West Cook Inlet Energy Cumulative Impacts
AVTEC Hydro Training Facility Project
Clearwater Wind Farm
Delta Junction Wood Pellet Boiler: Biofuel Pilot Program Anchorage geothermal district heating project
Recapture & Utilize Waste Heat from the Healy Clean Coal Project Keep it Sustainable, Keep it Local (KISKIL) Renewable Eneray
Tyonek Native Village Wind Project
Skyline Mini Wind Farm Seldovia small wind generation facility
2MW Refinery Waste Energy Recovery Virgin Creek Hydroelectric Project
Eska Creek Hydroelectric Project
Turnagain Arm Tidal Electric Generation Project
Port Graham Village Council Biomass Electric Generation Project Archangel Creek Hydroelectric Project
Jarvis Creek Natural Gas Project Fuel Cell Feasibility
Hoonah-IPEC Hydro Project Biomass Fuel Dryer Project
Neck Lake Hydroelectric Project
Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line
Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project
Thayer Lake Hydropower Development (TLHD) Generation/Trans
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project
‘Spur Road Distribution Line Extension
Gastineau Elementary Schoo! Geothermal Loopfield
Port Frederick Tidal Power Project
Schubee Lake Hydroelectic Project
Hoonah City Schools Biomass Heating System
Triangle Lake Hydroelectric Project
Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Analysis
Yakutat Wave Eneray Pilot Demonstration Reconnaissance Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Scenery Lake Hydroelectric Project
The Angoon Commercial Demonstration Tidal Power Project
Sunrise Lake Project
Wrangell Downtown Revitalization
Wrangell Street Light Conversion
Alaska British Columbia (AK-BC) Intertie Project
Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project
SEAPA Integrated Resource Planning Project (IRP)
Metlakatla-Ketchikan Interie
Heat Recovery/Power Generation in Rural Alaska
Cultivating Rural Alaska for Biomass Eneray
Wave Power Project Evaluation Study
Alaska Wind for Schools Program
Statewide run-of-river hydropower assessment
Biomass for Eneray: Supply Side Knowledge Base
Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project
District Wood Heating in Fort Yukon
City Tribe Biomass Energy Conservation
Galena Renewable Eneray Project
Tok Forestry Renewable Biomass Energy Demonstration Project
Solar-thermal collection & storage with ground-source heat-pumps. Greenhouse Feasibility and Application in Rural Alaska
Melozi-Horner Hot Springs Geothermal Resource Estimate
Alaska Biomass Combined Heat & Power Demonstration Project
Project
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Matanuske-Susitna Borough
Bering Pacific Engineering
Delta/Greely Schoo! District
UAF, Institute of Northern Engineering, ACEP
Native Village of Cantwell
‘TDX Power, Inc.
AVTEC-Alaska Institute of Technology
C&L Ranch LLC
State of Alaska, DNR Division of Forestry
Iceland America Energy, INC
Golden Valley Electric Association
Delta Mine Training Center
Native Village of Tyonek
April Park/IPP
City of Seldovia
Chena Power, LLC
Bering Pacific Engineering
Bering Pacific Engineering
Little Susitna Construction Co., Inc.
Port Graham Village Council
Bering Pacific Engineering
Alaska Wind Power, LLC
City of Houston
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. City of Craig
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Alaska Power Company
City of Tenakee Springs
Alaska Power Company
Kootznoowoo Inc.
Elfin Cove Utility
City and Borough of Wrangell
City & Borough of Juneau
Alaska Power & Telephone Company Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Hoonah City School District
Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC)
City & Borough of Sitka Electric Department
City and Borough of Yakutat
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
City of Angoon
City of Angoon Blue Energy Canada, Inc
City and Borough of Wrangell
City and Borough of Wrangell
City and Borough of Wrangell
City and Borough of Wrangell
Ketchikan Public Utilities Electric Division
The Southeast Alaska Power Agency
Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC)
University of Alaska Fairbanks
University of Alaska Fairbanks
TDX Power, Inc.
UAF ACEPWind Diesel Application Center
UAA State Controlled Institute of Higher Learning
UAF
Alaska Power Company Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company City of Tanana
Louden Tribal Council
State of AK DNR Division of Forestry Tok Area Offic
Golden Valley Electric Association
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Ruby Tribal Council
Alaska Power Company
IPPO
Govt IPP
Govt
IPP
Utility
IPP
Govt
IPP
Govt
Utility
IPP
IPP
Utility
Govt IPP IPP:
Utility
Utility
Utility.
IPP!
Utility
Govt
Govt
Utility
Utility Govt Govt
Utility
Govt
Utility Govt
Govt
IPPO Govt
Govt
Govt
Govt Utility
Govt Govt
Transmission
Solar
Hydro
Biomass
Biomass Hydro
Other Hydro
Wind
Biomass
Geothermal
Heat Recovery
Biomass
Wind
Wind
Wind
Heat Recovery
Hydro
Hydro
Ocean/River Biomass
Hydro
Gas
Other
Transmission
Hydro Hydro
Hydro Hydro
Hydro Geothermal
Ocean/River
Hydro:
Biomass
Hydro
Hydro
Ocean/River
Geothermal
Hydro Hydro
Ocean/River Hydro
Transmission
Other
Transmission
Hydro
Hydro
Transmission
Biomass
Ocean/River
Wind
Hydro
Biomass
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Round 3 Ranking
D RAFT. 1/13/2010
Benefit / Cost
Page 4 of 5 aoa ROMDNANNDOHAD AN RAD Stage 3 Review Scores
(max)
6.
Local onal NNAWOWNNOUNO NOaaan 7. Sustain- aaa AQROAUAWRADH OONNWYW Total
Cost and Request
Statewide
Rank
2,868,000
484,688,957
275,142 200,000
5,000,000 260,000 4,500,000
10,235,142
932,250
1,070,000,000
167,390
1,497,500
240,000
340,000
658,000
7,815,000
4,200,000
5,800,000
2,500,000,000
8,763,228
15,201,108
2,274,746
161,386
1,250,000
22,000,000
4,020,000
3,652,680
17,772,000
226,000,000
331,277,920
10,644,000
27,000,000
100,015,360
98,626,186
6,000,000
4,637,616
246,923,162
1,506,857
416,392
31,000,000
19,150,000
312,000
578,719
1,130,127
293,238
293,238
675,185
212,942
888,127 14,500,000
3,606,255 492,652 18,598,907
11,187,738
77,000
101,500
313,280
11,679,518
219,071
20,000,000
20,219,071
5,389,403,823
392,520
95,190
997,500
200,000
260,000
508,000
3,907,500
125,000
70,000
4,000,000
3,313,920
1,231,113
313,790
5,033,414
2,000,000
252,000
6,332,000
15,162,317
551,408
578,719
1,130,127
291,360
293,238
584,598
675,185
212,942
888,127
4,000,000 2,500,000
492,642 6,992,642
4,000,000
67,000
80,000
313,280
4,460,280
219,071
4,525,605
4,744,676
223,723,763
16,511,923
5,460
2,500,000
2,505,460
261,680
72,000
278,000
40,000
80,000
150,000
3,907,500
25,000
15,000
5,449,307
15,000
100,000
10,393,487
8,725,000 990,000
95,723 9,810,723 7,187,738
10,000
21,500
7,219,238
15,474,395
15,474,395
172,127,104
Alaska Energy Authority
Recommendation
Partial Funding Special F
Partial Funding! Full Funding
Full Funding
600,000
75,000
115,000
868,000
7,757,959
275,142
194,540
2,000,000
260,000
30,000 2,759,682
Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding”)Special F Full Funding Partial Funding Special F
Not Recommended:
Not Recommended:
Did Not Pass Stage 1s
Not Recommended:
Not Recommended
Not Recommended:
Not Recommended:
Not Recommended!
Not Recommended:
Not Recommended!
Not Recommended:
Not Recommended
Not Recommended
Did Not Pass Stage 1L
Did Not Pass Stage ty
Partial Funding) Full Fundinga Special Pro:
Partial Fundingo Special F
850,000 350,000 90,000 1,290,000
2,000,000
203,000
428,888
1,060,500
347,200
119,263
1,000,000
64,000
80,000
140,000
500,000
921,937
6,864,788
1,200,000
2,589,200
1,610,440
1,624,240
193,200
90,000
7,307,080
Full Fundinga Special Pro:
Full Funding
Partial Funding® Special F
Partial Funding® Special F
Full Fundingy Special Prov Full Funding
Full Funding Partial Funding:
Partial Funding0 Special F
Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding
Full Funding
Full Funding
Full Fundinga Special Prov
Full Fundinga Special Pro:
Partial Funding Full Funding
Not Recommended!
Did Not Pass Stage 1y Not Recommended
Not Recommended: Did Not Pass Stage 1y
Not Recommended:
Full Funding
Full Funding
551,408
578,719
1,130,127
247,360 293,238 540,598
Full Funding
Full Funding
Did Not Pass Stage ty
Did Not Pass Stage 1y
Full Fundinga Special Pro
Full Funding
Partial Funding)
“4,000,000 2,500,000 412,642
6,912,642
100,000 67,000 80,000 34,070 281,070
Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding
Not Recommended:
Not Recommended! 61,536,919
AHFC Report
Energy & Weatherization Programs
January 6, 2010
Weatherization Program:
ALLOCATED: $200 million
ENCUMBERED: $73.2 million
Projected homes to be weatherized:
FY 2010= 4000
FY 2011= 7500
Home Energy Rebate Program:
ALLOCATED: $160 million
ENCUMBERED: $134 million
EXPENDED: $27.7 million
Rebate rating activity: 19,590
Rebates paid: 2,857
Average rebate: $6,142
Statewide waitlist: 512
Anchorage waitlist: 315
Total ratings dispatched: 27,286
5 Star Plus rebates paid: 482
123 energy raters
Average homeowner spent $10,400 and received a $6100 rebate resulting in a $4300 investment
with a projected energy savings of $1335/year. Average annual energy saved 31%.
ok ay? or” ae
W mes Round | / Renewable Energy Fun Ersjects not able to get underway juse grant amount was capped
1 Project Cost per
"RE Fund Grant REFundGrant |
el tee : | eae | eee
Grantee
AVEC
Kenai Winds, LLC
| Project Cost per
Round It / Renewable Energy Fund Projects not able to get underway because grant amount was capped. i
Project ‘Application
|Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind [$ 10,733,179
| Kenai Wind project at Nikiski | $ 21, 000, 000 |
j | RE Fund Grant
Grantee | Project Application Request Amount | Shortfall | Comments Nome Joint Utility System Newton! Peak Wind Farm Construction $15,534,309 $ 13,951,326|$ 4,000,000 | $ 9,951,326 [On hold, PM discussing options with grantee nn
Unalakleet Valley Electric Coop |Unalakleet Wind Farm Construction [ $ 8,996, 832 | $ 8,774,080 ls 4,000,000 | $ 4,774,080 |Substantially completed ni
Cordova Electric Cooperative [Humpback Creek Hydro HS) 11,600,000 $ 5,500,000 | $ 4,000,000 | $ — 1,500,000 |Underway, requesting round 3 funds 7
Kodiak Electric Assn. | Pillar Mountain Wind Farm Tis 23,319,539 $ 9,650,000 $ 4,000,000 $ __ 5,650,000 [Completed |
Kotzebue Electric Assn. Kotzebue Wind Farm Expansion I Ul I | S) 14,807,535 | $ 12,075,535 | $ 000, | $ 8,075, 535° Requesting additional round 3 funds to supplement round lan
Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage indfill Gas to Electric lS) 7,400,000 | $ i 3,700,000 [ S | $ | enter into grant agreement for likely 2011 const ctio
GVEA We | Eva Creek Wind Farm Tie 93,341,555 |$ 79,340,322) $ 2,000,000 $ 77,340,322 |Grant not in place but underway, feasibility/ concept design —
Chena Power Utility, uc [North Pole Biomass to Electricity ms 4,007,900 | S| 2,000,000 [s$ 2,000,000 l$ Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC __| Fishhook Hydro Construction [s 4,555,922 $ 2,142,961 $ —_ 2,000,000 | $
Ak Environmental Power, LLC |Delta Junction Wind Farm Construction [$ 8,363,886 $ 6,269,750 | [$ 2,000,000 | $ I}
C ° ‘3reely School District ‘Delta School Wood Chip Heating System, { $ 2,868,000 [$ 2,868,000 | [s 2,000,000 | $ 868, 000 [Underway i in final design phase, funding still issue. Requesting
t 2ower, Inc i i! | Reynolds Creek Hydro Hl i $ 17,145,000 | [$s iM ~ 10,500,000 [$ i 2,000,000 | $ — 8,500,000 [Onh hold, Requesting round 3 funds ] A
City & Borough of Wrangell _ [Electric Boiler Conversions $ 3,260,000 | $ 3,260,000 is __2,000,000 | $1,260,000 Underway, fi final design/construction
City & Borough of Sitka (Takatz Lake Hydro Feasibility $s 2,000,000 | |$ 2,000,000 | | $_ 514,684 $ 1,485, 316 |Underway all
+ +
‘Request
Hist ___ 9,670,361 | $ $5,850,000 | $
RE FundGrant |
|Amount
|
| aa 1 +— ' =
t oe Ee
1,670, 361 ‘Grant not in place, PM working with AVEC
3,850,000 Underway, requesting additional round 3 funds for expansion
8,000,000 | $
2,000,000 | $
federal.
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS Status Key ! Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT |Waiting for information from grantee - =| — IDRAFT-INT_|Grant draft distributed for internal review “| = OPEN,
\CTIVE,
MD # Project in progress, grant in place
Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved er RE Fund
Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved Funding Status Code. Grant RE Fund Project Name Applicant Type Project Cost} RE Grant Grant Match Sources Region Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals Fivemile Creek Grant agreement executed. Putting
sibility/Concept |Chitna COPPER- together RFP for solicitation of design Design Electric Inc. |HYDRO 303,000, 303,000 CHU 12/18/09| ACTIVE team. RE Round 2 0 | Cordova Wood - Processing Plant- |Native
Purchase and Village of COPPER- Processor purchased / grantee needs setup Eyak BIOMASS 147,720) 147,720; CHU 06/01/09) ACTIVE to request funds RE Round 1 O
Falls Creek Gustavus Hydroelectric Electric Construction __|Company _|HYDRO__| _750,000| 750,000, ____|SouTHEAsT | _12/14/09|CLOSED__| Complete and operating _ RE Round 1| 750,000 |
Statewide
Hydrokinetic ‘University of Some sites completed in 2009, some
Feasibility Study —_|Alaska-Anch |OCEAN/RV 565,439) 565,439) STATEWIDE 09/09/09| ACTIVE left to do in 2010 RE Round 1 171,119
Haines Central Chilkoot Ground was found to be unstable, Wood Heating Indian grantee having to reengineer certain
Construction Association |BIOMASS 316,689) 288,222 28,467 SOUTHEAST 12/23/09| ACTIVE aspects of project. RE Round 1 5,677
GalenaWood interior | Sg SSS tf — f [Grantee decided they couldn't : — | Heating Regional complete the project with the budget
Construction Housing BIOMASS 765,558 382,779) 382,779 YUK 06/01/09) DRAFT-EXT | approved. RE Round 1 0
‘Southeast
me Bay Wood Island Grantee needs to provide additional
er School Dist_|BIOMASS 220,179 178,179 42,000) SOUTHEAST 12/01/09| DRAFT-EXT |information. RE Round 2 0
Falls Creek Low- |Homer Final Reconnaissance Report issued Impact Hydro Electric on 4-2-09. Biological field studies Round 0 &
Assess PreConstr |Assn,Inc. [HYDRO 125,000; 50,000) 50,000 25,000 RAILBELT 12/03/09| ACTIVE conducted in Summer 2009. RE Round 1 50,000
Grant Lk/Crk Low. |Homer Final Reconnaissance Report issued
impact Hydro Electric ‘on 4-2-09. Biological field studies Round 0 &
[Assess Pre-Const |Association |HYDRO 125,000; 50,000) 50,000 25,000 RAILBELT 12/08/09| ACTIVE conducted in Summer 2009. RE Round 1 50,000
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority a 1/6/2010
[ RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS Status Key |
Rounds 1 and 2 Waiting for information from grantee Aiea (Seen Gea Grant draft distributed for internal review
Project in progress, grant in place
Grant combined with earlier grant [ Grant project complete & grant closed ‘Approved er RE Fund
Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved Funding ‘Status Code: Grant RE Fund Project Name Applicant Type Project Cost} RE Grant Grant Match Sources Region Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals
} Grant scope is complete. Final
| | Reconnaissance Report issued on 4-2- scent Lk/Crk — [Homer | | 09. Grant scope is complete. HEA is
|Low-Impact Hydro |Electric | not pursuing further scoping for this Round 0 & Assess Pre-Constr |Association |HYDRO 100,000) 50,000 30,000 20,000 RAILBELT 12/03/09| ACTIVE site. RE Round 1 23,273 | | | | Grant scope is complete. Final | | Reconnaissance Report issued on 4-2- Ptarmigan Lk/Crk |Homer | | 09. Grant scope is complete. HEA is Low-Impact Hydro |Electric | not pursuing further scoping for this |Round 0 & Assess Pre-Const |Association [HYDRO 125,000) 50,000 50,000) 25,000) RAILBELT | 12/02/09| ACTIVE site. RE Round 1 4,684
Grantee has hired CM firm anticipating Chuniisax Creek | construction commencement in Spring Hydroelectric City of | | 2010. Final dam design under review Construction Atka/Utility [HYDRO 2,914,891) 996,000) 1,344,000) 574,891/ALEUTIANS | 11/20/09|DRAFT-INT _|at State dam safety office. RE Round 1 O
PTT ili iii 1 rs : Grantee has hired engineering firm. | Tee
Chignik Lagoon Chignik | Topo field work has been conducted.
Hydroelectric Final |Lagoon | | Grantee anticipates final design and
Design Power Utility |HYDRO 150,000) 150,000) BRISTOL | 07/29/09) ACTIVE permits by late summer 2010. RE Round 1 0 |
| | Grantee has hired engineering firm. | Have had initial meeting with city and
| ‘seafood co. to discuss future hydro an Creek Hydro |City of | ownership and operation issues. Field
Feasibility Study —_|Chignik HYDRO 207,500) 207,500 BRISTOL | 08/22/09| ACTIVE data collection planned for 2010. RE Round 1 oO 1 1
| Grantee has awarded construction
Humpback Creek | Cordova | | contract. Contractor has mobilized to
Hydroelectric Electric | COPPER- | ‘site and has begun construction.
Construction Cooperative [HYDRO 7,400,238) 4,000,000 430,238) 2,970,000) CHU 12/21/09| ACTIVE ‘Anticipated completion by 10/2010. RE Round 1 1,054,305
] T ‘Consultant has prepared draft Copper | | application for license for discussion of
Valley | future license conditions with resource Allison Lake Hydro |Electric | COPPER. | agencies and FERC and study plan
Feasibility Study [Assoc HYDRO. 2,860,000, 2,288,000) 572,000 CHU 10/01/09| ACTIVE definition. RE Round 1 236,622
i I
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 2 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS Status Key ]
Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT | Waiting for information from grantee | | +i. | |_| J DRAFT-INT_|Grant draft distributed for internal review
\CTIVE,
ID # Project in progress, grant in place
Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved RE Fund
Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved Funding ‘Status Code: Grant RE Fund Project Name _| Applicant Type _|Project Cost|_RE Grant Grant Match Sources ion _| Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals
Have clarified tasks and milestones for
| grant with City and Corps of
ttier Creek | Engineers. Preparation of initial recon
Hydroelectric City of ‘study of Whittier Creek hydro expected
Reconnaissance _|Whittier HYDRO 200,000 85,000) 15,000, RAILBELT 10/21/09|DRAFT-INT_|to begin in Spring 2010. RE Round 1 O
| ] Grantee provided milestones and
Burro Creek dates have been incorporated into the
Burro Creek Hydro | Holdings, | | draft document which is undergoing
Feasibility Study [LLC HYDRO. 60,000) 48,000 12,000) SOUTHEAST _ 12/18/09| DRAFT-INT_|internal AEA review. RE Round 1 oO
Alaska rll Cosmos Hills Village | | Hydroelectric Electric | Grant recently awarded. Planning for Feasibility Study |Coop __|___ 50,625] |NWARCTIC | _11/24/09|ACTIVE _|summer 2010 field work is underway. |RERound1| |
| Grant funds provided engineering to | ‘support City's application to FERC for | Preliminary Permit (PP). Competing
| applications for PP were received by
City of | FERC. Final FERC decision was to Ruth Lake Hydro | Petersburg | award PP to City of Angoon. Grant is [Reconnaissance _|d.b.a HYDRO | _205,000, __ 160,000 ll 45,000 ‘| SOUTHEAST complete. __|RERound1 | 157,972
] aia | Completed agreement with USGS for nn | stream gauging and installed gauge. | Prepared for upcoming scoping
atz Lake City and | | meetings with resource agencies.
Hyaroelectric Borough of | ‘Completed Preliminary Application
Feasibility Sitka HYDRO 514,684) 514,684 SOUTHEAST 12/08/09| ACTIVE Document. RE Round 1 47,318 ; T
Lake Elva | | Grantee recently signed grant
Hydropower | | agreement. Preparing for spring 2010
Feasibility, Nushagak | field work - scope detailing and
Permitting & Fin |Electric and |HYDRO_ _ 4,006,500, 4,006,500) | ___|BRISTOL _ Hl ___12/03/09|ACTIVE _|seeking site control. RE Round 1 |
| | Grantee submitted reconnaissance
Fourth of July Independenc | study and initial feasibility assessment
Creek Hydroelectric|e Power, | in November 2009. Document is
[Recess LLC HYDRO 40,000) 20,000) 20,000) RAILBELT | 10/14/09| ACTIVE under review at AEA. RE Round 1 0
l
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 3 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS Status Key |_ I Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT |Waiting for information from grant Sha LASSRcSancial) BBR gengRUS OURAN ARUBA ig [Ranma __]DRAFT-INT |Grant draft distributed for internal review PEN,
TIVE,
ID # Project in progress, grant in place Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved RE Fund Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved Status Code! Grant RE Fund ‘tName | Applicant Ty Project Cost|_RE Grant Grant Match ion __| Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals “="fomia Creek [Alaska ] Grant award document has been roelectric Green | | prepared and is under final internal sibility Energy, LLC |HYDRO 52,450 47,625 4,825 RAILBELT | __12/01/09|DRAFT-INT [review at AEA. RE Round 1 o
Alaska | Grantee has conducted initial meeting Old Harbor Village | at Old Harbor. AVEC has hired Hydroelectric Final |Electric | | engineering consultant. Feasibility Design Coop HYDRO 250,000 225,000 25,000) KODIAK ____ 10/07/09/ACTIVE _|study is under preparation. RE Round 1 0
| Grant award document has been
| | prepared. Grantee has concerns with
| ‘some of the grant provisions. A |South Fork | meeting has been scheduled in the Hydroelectric South Fork | | near future to discuss these Construction Hydro, LLC |HYDRO 3,087,000! _ 1,000,000 2,087,000) RAILBELT 12/14/09|DRAFT-INT_|differences. RE Round 1 o +
| | ‘AEA awaiting grantee to establish a
| | cost based power purchase agreement | | and RCA certification. Grantee has | | requested a 1 year extension. | ‘Construction grant is on hold pending Fishhook Fishhook | completion of preconstruction Hydroelectric Renewable | activities, including permitting and final |RE Round 0 Construction Energy, LLC |HYDRO 4,412,961) _ 2,000,000 2,412,961 RAILBELT 08/27/09| DRAFT-EXT |design. and Round 1 o ! |
| tman Lake Ketchikan | Hydro Construction |Public Uti | | Grantee is finalizing final design at this (reconnaissance) _|Elec HYDRO 1,620,000, _ 1,300,000) 320,000 SOUTHEAST 11/05/09|ACTIVE _|time. RE Round 1 o
| Assoc of | Kiseralik/Chikuminu | Village Cnet ‘Awaiting revised budget, timeline and Ik Hydro Presidents _|HYDRO 400,000, _250,000 150,000} LYUK-KUSK | __12/07/09|DRAFT-EXT |scope. RE Round 2
Barrow Atqasuk | | Transmission North Slope | | Grant agreement needs to be Feasibility Study [Borough _| TRANS 275,000| _175,000 100,000 BARROW | _12/01/09|DRAFT-INT |completed. RE Round 2
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 4 1/6/2010
HE RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS ‘Status Key
Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT |Waiting for information from grantee a = He ~______ JDRAFT-INT _|Grant draft distributed for internal review
ACTIVE, D# Project in progress, grant in place
Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved RE Fund
Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved Funding Status Code. Grant RE Fund
Project Name Applicant Type Project Cost} RE Grant Grant Match Sources Region Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals
| Grantee has begun work late this fall
| after receipt of grant award. Additional Alaska | | ‘work will be accomplished next Neck Lake Power & | | ‘summer to complete conceptual
Feasibility Study & | Telephone | | design, environmental surveys anda |REF Round Conceptual Design |Co HYDRO 108,000) 108,000) SOUTHEAST | 11/05/09| ACTIVE feasibility report 2 0
| Grantee's consultant has completed
| | ithe first task of grant, which is a pre- | feasibility analysis engineering and | | regulatory assessment for Terror Lake.
Terror Lake | Additional grant-funded tasks will be Capacity - Kodiak | conducted over the next 2 years
\Feasibility/Concept | Electric culminating in a FERC license
ual Design Association |HYDRO 1,000,000) 500,000) 500,000 KODIAK 12/08/09| OPEN amendment application. RE Round 2 oO
Grantee is awaiting grant award document. It has proceeded with a
| ‘site reconnaissance in Sept. 2009. Alaska Stream gauges will be installed in
Carlson Creek Power | COPPER- 2010 and a recon study completed in Hydroelectric [Company HYDRO | __ 50,000, 40,000) 10,000] cH | _ 10/05/09] jaov gcd _|RERound2 |_|
Loud Creek Hydro | Grant award document has been
Feasibility | mailed to grantee for signature in 1/10.
‘Analysis/Conce City of | Grantee began field data collection in
ign Akutan HYDRO 237,772) 237,772 ALEUTIANS 11/23/09| DRAFT-INT |10/09. RE Round 2 0
| | Grant award document has been Town Creek Hydro | mailed to grantee for signature in 1/10.
‘System - Design for} City of | Grantee began field data collection in
Repairs/Upgrade _|Akutan HYDRO 162,000 162,000; ALEUTIANS 11/20/09|DRAFT-INT | 10/09. RE Round 2 0
Delta Area Wind = |Alaska Turbines are installed and
Turbines- Environment | commissioned. Interconnection with |RE Round 0
Construction jal Power WIND 2,801,500 2,000,000 801,500 RAILBELT 12/08/09| ACTIVE GVEA grid is nearly complete. and Round 1} 1,802,458
Pillar Mountain Kodiak Wind Project - Electric | RE Round 0
Construction Association |WIND 5,000,000) 4,000,000 1,000,000! KODIAK 12/08/09| ACTIVE Project is complete. and Round 1| 4,000,000
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 5 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS Status Key l
Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT | Waiting for information from grantee
IDRAFT-INT_|Grant draft distributed for internal review
ID # Project in progress, grant in place
COMBINED |Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
‘Approved er RE Fund Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved | Funding Status Code! Project Name Applicant Type Project Cost|_RE Grant Grant Match Sources Region Status Date| Header Comment iNiiealski Wind ‘Umnak } (Grant is nearly in place. Current yration Power/Nikols | | schedule shows project completion in ‘struction ki IRA WIND 450,930) 409,430; 41,500) ALEUTIANS | 12/15/09|DRAFT-INT_|spring of 2010.
Grant agreement is in intemal review. Buckland, Deering, |Northwest Grantee has completed the required
|Noorvik Wind Farm | Arctic tasks of getting MOUs signed between
Construction Borough ‘WIND 10,921,428) 10,758,928) 162,500; NW ARCTIC | 09/16/09| DRAFT-INT |the three utilities and the NWAB. t 1
Lake Pen Borough |Lake and | Grant signed in December, no Wind Feasibility | Peninsula | progress report yet. Schedule has
Study Borough ‘WIND 224,000 184,000) 40,000) BRISTOL | 12/14/09) ACTIVE load assessment being completed.
‘Alaska |
Village | | Grant is in place. Grantee is preparing
\Quinhagak Wind [Electric | | a budget adjustment request for
Farm Construction |Coop WIND | ae 3,882,24: =| 956,360) _ LYUK-KUSK | _ 08/31/09/ACTIVE _|Geotechnical work,
| Alaska |
Village | | Grant has been extended to October
Toksook Wind Electric | | 2010. Turbine procurement and site
Farm Construction |Coop WIND 1,253,056, 1,037,750 215,306) LYUK-KUSK | 05/27/09| ACTIVE control have been completed. RE Round 1 271,823
[Alaska a | : I | — ala
Village | Completed pad and civil work and
oryuk Wind Electric | | erected both towers. Beginning work
n Construction |Coop ‘WIND 4,031,406, 3,155,765) 875,641 LYUK-KUSK 12/15/09| ACTIVE on control module. RE Round 1 1,541,689 |
| Grantee is working to obtain matching St. George Wind | City of St. | funds and finalize land use
Farm Construction |George - WIND 3,000,000 1,500,000) 500,000} _ 1,000,000) ALEUTIANS 08/27/09| DRAFT-EXT |agreements. RE Round 1 oO
| | Turbines are up and operating with
| approximately 162,000kWh produced
| as of late December. Work to
| complete integration is ongoing and | | will not be completed until the Unalakleet | separately funded Power House Unalakleet Wind Valley | upgrade has been completed. Farm Construction |ElectricCo_|WIND 4,164,340, __ 4,000,000) 164,340 BERING ___12/15/09|ACTIVE__|(Scheduled for fall 2010) RE Round 1 | 3,788,533
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 6 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS ‘Status Key ie Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT |Waiting for information from grantee =| a | JORAFT-INT |Grant draft distributed for internal review
\CTIVE, D # Project in progress, grant in place
Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed Approved RE Fund Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved | Funding Status Code! Grant RE Fund Project Name Applicant Ty Project Cost] RE Grant Grant Match Sources Region Status Date} Header Comment aE Actuals
} 1 tnik Lake Area |Lake and | | ‘Contractors have completed the initial d-Hydro Final Peninsula | | site visit and have installed the Met. [Design Borough WIND 471,000) 375,000) 96,000) BRISTOL 12/08/09| ACTIVE Tower. RE Round 1 oO
Kwigillingok | Grant agreement being Kwigillingok Wind | Utility | | negotiated/prepared. Farm Construction [Company _|WIND 3,200,000 1,600,000) 1,600,000) LYUK-KUSK | 07/10/09) DRAFT-EXT RE Round 1 O |
| ‘Adding additional met towers. Avian | | study underway. Meeting on 9/21 with Golden | | ‘Greg Wyman. Follow-up email on Oct. Valley 5 asking for updates. Another follow- Eva Creek Wind Electric up sent Nov. 5. Another follow-up sent Farm Feasibility Assoc WIND 2,300,000; _ 2,000,000) 300,000 RAILBELT 09/02/09 DRAFT-EXT |Dec. 30 RE Round 1 oO
| Meeting with CIRI rep for WEA | scheduled for Wed 12/16. Grantee is Nikolaevsk Wind [Alaska Wind | CANCELLE |placing project on hold - may release Farm Final Design |Energy WIND 903,000, 180,600: 722,400 RAILBELT | __—‘'12/21/09/D RE funds. RE Round 1 oO
Kotzebue Wind [Kotzebue - - —— = es | eee es | = KEA has proposed a revised scope of | Farm Expansion —_| Electric | | work, budget and timeline. These are Construction Association |WIND 4,427,495, 4,000,000. 427,495 NWARCTIC | 08/27/09| DRAFT-EXT |under review by PM. RE Round 1 0 t t
Conference calll is scheduled with rel Wind Power | City of | | grantee for January Sth, 2010 to ect Times Four | Bethel WIND 3,197,986) 2,598,320) 599,666) LYUK-KUSK | 08/27/09| DRAFT-EXT |discuss PPA and IPP status. RE Round 1 oO
| December meetings with grantee have
| nearly finalized scope, budget, and
Coal Mine Road | | milestones. Met. Tower, integration
Wind Farm Final | Alaska Wind | | ‘study and avian studies have been or
Design Power, LLC |WIND 131,250) 105,000| 26,250) RAILBELT 08/27/09|DRAFT-INT |are nearly complete. RE Round 1 } T | 1 ‘Waiting to resolve Banner Wind
iNome/Newton | Intertie due to limited resources at
Peak Wind Farm | NJUS. Meeting will be held week of
Construction City of Nome | WIND 4,400,000) 4,000,000 400,000) BERING | 08/27/09| DRAFT-EXT | Jan. 4. RE Round 1 oO 7 T
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority
7 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS Status Key |
Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT |Waiting for information from grantee = || |_| JDRAFT-INT_|[Grant draft distributed for internal review
OPEN,
\CTIVE,
MD # Project in progress, grant in place
Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved er RE Fund Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved | Funding Status Code Grant RE Fund
Project Name Applicant Type Project Cost] RE Grant Grant Match Sources Region Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals ] (Grant agreement will be completed
Aleutian after other grant agreements with
1 Point Wind _|Wind Energy|WIND 1,077,706 639,806 437,900) ALEUTIANS 12/01/09|DRAFT-INT_|same grantee are completed. RE Round 2 0
Metlakatla-
Ketchikan Intertie | Metlakatla |
Design and Indian Grant is in place. No requests for
Permitting Community |TRANS 980,833 820,000) 160,833 SOUTHEAST | 10/29/09| ACTIVE reimbursement have been filed. RE Round 1 0
| Inside ] Passage |
|Angoon Heat Electric | | COMPLETE
Recovery ‘Company — |HEAT 617,934) 545,934, 72,000) SOUTHEAST | 12/07/09|D Project completed using other funds. |RE Round 2 oO |
Kake-Petersburg |Kwaan | |
Intertie Final Electric | | Grantee needs to provide additional
Design Transmiss [TRANS 5,490,000) _ 2,990,000 2,500,000) SOUTHEAST | 08/28/09) DRAFT-EXT | information for grant agreement. RE Round 1 O | [
| Master agreement between Alaska
| | Power & Telephone, Haida | | Corporation, the entity being
Reynolds Creek | | established to operate the facility and
. |Hydroelectric Haida | the various grants for this project RE Round 0
[Construction _ Power, Inc. |HYDRO 8,645,000, _ 2,000,000 6,645,000) SOUTHEAST 08/27/09|DRAFT-EXT |needs to be completed. and Round 1 0
| December meetings with grantee have
| | nearly finalized scope, budget, and
Wind Village Wind | milestones. Met. Tower study is
Construction Power, LLC_|WIND 130,000} 130,000; YUK | 12/01/09|DRAFT-EXT |ongoing. RE Round 2 O
Northwest | As of November 30, 2009: Aerial
Kobuk River Valley |Inupiat | | survey performed, report pending.
Woody Biomass [Housing | |
Feasibility ‘Auth BIOMASS 498,480: 249,500 248,980) NW ARCTIC 12/23/09| ACTIVE RE Round 1 O
l |
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS ‘Status Key | |
Rounds 1 and 2 Waiting for information from grantee Tn a am roe (Grant draft distributed for internal review
Project in progress, grant in place
Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved er RE Fund
Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved Funding Status Code; Grant RE Fund Project Name licant Type Project Cost) _RE Grant Grant Match Sources Region Status Date} Header Comment Round Actuals
| As of December 14, 2009: Received | 4th Quarter Report. On October 13, | | Paul Weisner, CE2, presented an
| ‘overview of the wood source report to
| the public in an evening's meeting
Haines Central | called especially for this purpose.
|Wood Heating Haines | Received annotated Draft Engineering
Feasibility Study —_|Borough BIOMASS 140,500. 120,500! 20,000) SOUTHEAST 12/22/09| ACTIVE Wood Heating Report RE Round 1 o
| As of December 15, 2009: | Construction substantially complete. Golden | | Glycol lines and heaters in place. North Pole Heat Valley | ‘System in operation. Installation of
Recovery Electric Variable Speed Pumps scheduled for
Construction Assoc HEAT 1,050,000) 840,000) 210,000) RAILBELT 12/22/09) ACTIVE early 2010. RE Round 1 734,254
| North Pole | |
Biomass Chena | |
Electricity/Heat ‘Power Utility, RE Round 0
Construction LLC BIOFUEL__| 1] [Esehepaneenea eam __| __|NORTH POLE| _ [COMBINED |In progress__ jand Round 1 0 |
| | As of December 10, 2009: ML&P is McGrath | | finalizing the Scope of Services and McGrath Central |Light & | | contract with Alaska Energy and Wood Heating Proj |Power | | Engineering (Steve Stassel) as well as
Dev Ph til Company _|BIOMASS 505,000) 322,000) 183,000; YUK | 07/09/09) ACTIVE Efour engineering (Greg Koontz). RE Round 1 oO
{As of December 10, 2009: 35% Design | Report submitted, Site visit and
coordination meetings with community Fort Yukon Central |Gwitchyaa | | entities and design engineers
Wood Heating Zhee | | accomplished. Site Control and Design Corporation |BIOMASS | 360656, 240,000, | 140.656] YUK _—_|_—12/18/09) ACTIVE _|Permiting issues being investigated. RE Round |
| | ‘As of November 5, 2009: Lake and
Lake Peninsula | | Peninsula Borough issued and RFP on
Borough Wood Lake and | this project and did not receive an Heating Final Peninsula | acceptable response. They will re-
Design Borough BIOMASS 95,000) 77,000) 18,000 BRISTOL 07/22/09) ACTIVE issue the RFP. RE Round 1 oO
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 9 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS. Status Key
Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT | Waiting for information from grantee See oe ues IDRAFT-INT_|Grant draft distributed for internal review
CTIVE,
ID # Project in progress, grant in place | Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved er RE Fund Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved | Funding Status Code. Grant RE Fund Project Name | Applicant Type Project Cost| RE Grant Grant Match Sources Region Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals
| ‘As of November 30, 2009: Heat | | recovery equipment and piping | | ‘completed to new generator. The
| conceptual design, project budget and
| | schedule, necessary permits, design
| documents for the Organic Rankin Cordova Heat Cordova | Cycle Generator completed or Recovery Electric | COPPER- | executed. RFP for ORC Generator Construction Cooperative |HEAT 5,260,000. 1,780,000) 3,480,000) CHU | 12/15/09| ACTIVE being prepared. RE Round 1 oO
Alaska | | Village | | Ambler Solar PV {Electric | | Grant agreement needs to be Construction |Coop _—_— SOLAR. 605,000, 550,000, == |_—_—85,000 ___|NWARCTIC | 12/23/09/DRAFT-INT |completed. = RE Round |
| Wrangell Hydro ] | As of December 15, 2009: 65% Based Electric ‘City and | | Engineering Design package Boilers Borough of | ‘submitted. Wrangell Heat Pump
Construction Wrangell OTHER 2,082,000 _2,000,000 82,000 SOUTHEAST 12/22/03| ACTIVE Feasibility Report submitted. RE Round 1 43,674
| | ‘As of November 20, 2009: Contract in | | place for Feasibility Study Report.
| | Local multi-species biomass data
| | collection completed, correlation with | USFS data underway and Resource
| | Report pending. RFP for engineering utat Biomass | Yakutat | | ‘evaluation of biomass energy system
sibility Power BIOMASS 267,252 249,600 17,652) SOUTHEAST 12/14/09| ACTIVE for Yakutat being prepared. RE Round 1 8,431
Hooper Bay Wind | City of 1 1 Grant agreement needs to be
Farm Feasibility Hooper Bay |WIND 80,000 80,000) LYUK-KUSK | 11/23/09| DRAFT-INT_|completed. RE Round 1 0
Unalaska Heat |
Recovery City of | First Progress Report not due until Construction Unalaska [HEAT 1,919,807, 1,300,000) 619,807} |ALEUTIANS | 12/14/09/ACTIVE _|January5,2010. _|RERound2| |
TDX Adak |
Generating, | | Grant agreement needs to be
Adak Diesel Hybrid |LLC OTHER 92,305, 85,835 6,470, ALEUTIANS | 12/09/09| DRAFT-INT_|completed. RE Round 2 oO
| |
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 10 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS Status Key Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT | Waiting for information from grantee
IDRAFT-INT |Grant draft distributed for internal review
ID # Project in progress, grant in place
COMBINED |Grant combined with earlier grant
CLOSED Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved er RE Fund Project Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved Funding Status Code: Grant RE Fund Project Name Applicant Type Project Cost) RE Grant Grant Match Sources Region Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals ‘Crotkyitsik | | nass Central |Chalkyitsik | ting Conceptual | Village | | First Progress Report not due until Des Council BIOMASS 42,500 32,500) 10,000) YUK | 12raso|active _|February 5, 2010. RE Round 2 0 1
| |
|Venetie District Venetie |
Heating Conceptual | Village
Design Council BIOMASS 42,500) 32,500 10,000) YUK 10/22/09 OPEN In progress RE Round 2 0 |
| ‘As of December 22, 2009: the City of | ‘Ambler is in negotiations with AVEC Ambler Heat | for a heat sales agreement. Design of Recovery City of | ithe heat recovery system to the new Construction Ambler HEAT 500,000) 435,000 65,000, NWARCTIC 11/04/09| ACTIVE water plant is underway. RE Round 2 oO
Kotzebue Electric [Kotzebue ree s ze pees: | eae i | ~~ |First Monthly Report due January5, | Heat Recovery Electric 2010. Construction __|Association |HEAT 1,215,627) 915,627| _300,000 ————|NWARCTIC | 11/4g|actiVeE | | F ____|RE Round 2 0
McGrath
McGrath Biomass | Traditional First Monthly Report due February 5, Feasibility Council BIOMASS 43,940 34,740 9,200} YUK 11/04/09| ACTIVE 2010. RE Round 2 0
Point Lay Heat } | Recovery North Slope | | Grant agreement needs to be
Construction ‘Borough HEAT 4,257,116, 395,912 3,861,204 BARROW | 12/15/09|DRAFT-INT_|completed. RE Round 2 oO | |
nwright Heat [North Slope | | First Monthly Report due February 5,
yruvovery Borough HEAT 350,000) 300,000, 50,000 BARROW | 12/08/09| ACTIVE 2010. RE Round 2 oO 1 |
Yukon- |
Koyukuk
Biomass Hydronic | School First Monthly Report due January 5,
Heating District BIOMASS 19,050) 16,550) 2,500 YUK 11/05/09| ACTIVE 2010. RE Round 2 oO
Juneau Airport City and |
|Ground Source Borough of
[Heat Pump Juneau GEOTHERM 1,026,000) 513,000) 513,000) SOUTHEAST 12/08/09| ACTIVE Construction nearing completion RE Round 0 389,778
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 11 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS Status Key iz |
Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT | Waiting for information from grantee ORCSUCETUCEOCETAUL jt ~__JDRAFT-INT [Grant draft distributed for internal review in
CTIVE
ID # Project in progress, grant in place
COMBINED |Grant combined with earlier grant
‘Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved r RE Fund
Total Approved | Other AEA | Approved | Funding ‘Status Code- Grant RE Fund Project Cost) RE Grant Grant Match Sources Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals
| ‘ce Heat Pump | Borough of | |
str Juneau GEOTHERM| 1,950,000 _ 1,450,000 500,000 SOUTHEAST | 07/30/09) ACTIVE Construction started RE Round 1 139,911
‘Yukon River
[Ruby Hydrokinetic [Inter-Tribal |OCEAN/RV 461,950) 446,950) 15,000 YUK 07/30/09| ACTIVE In progress RE Round 1 56,498 | T
| | Manley Hot Springs |TDX Power, | |
Geothermal Plant _|Inc. GEOTHERM 1,645,000, 215,000) 725,000 705,000) YUK | 09/09/09) ACTIVE In progress RE Round 0 oO | | Nenana | | Hydrokinetic. University of | |
Construction Alaska-Fbks |OCEAN/RV 450,000 450,000 RAILBELT | 12/21/09) ACTIVE In progress RE Round 1 53,168
———<h pEERLLLLEL EBL LEU a se peepee rat evas eserves SerecerereeTeney peebnsieeaeaet | EE
Village f Kvichak River __|Councl__OCEAWRV | __812,375,718,175|_— | 94.200, pisTOL 12/01/09|DRAFT-INT_|Grant agreement needs to be prepared|RERound2| ___0
Hot Springs Bay
Valley Geothermal | City of |
Reconnaissance _|Akutan GEOTHERM| 2,595,000) __2,595,000 ALEUTIANS | 12/22/09| ACTIVE In progress RE Round 2 oO
Biomass-fired
JOrganic Rankine =| Chena | RE Round 0
Cycle System Power, LLC_|BIOFUEL 4,612,900) _ 2,000,000) 2,612,900! RAILBELT —|—_—(08/22/09, ACTIVE In progress and Round 1 600,000
yorage Landfill | Municipality | | vas Electricity of | Grantee needs to provide additional
Construction ‘Anchorage |BIOFUEL 5,700,000! _ 2,000,000; 3,700,000) RAILBELT | 08/27/09| DRAFT-EXT |information for grant agreement. RE Round 1 oO
| North Prince of |Ak Power & ] | Wales Island Telephone |
Intertie Project ‘Co TRANS 6,155,019) 3,752,181 2,402,838| SOUTHEAST | 12/08/09) ACTIVE In progress RE Round 1 791,262 a 1 T
Golden | |
McKinley Village Valley | |
Solar Thermal Electric |
Construction Assoc SOLAR 193,600) 190,000; 3,600} RAILBELT 06/23/09) ACTIVE Substantially complete RE Round 1 oO
I
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 12 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS ‘Status Key I AU ean Rounds 1 and 2 IDRAFT-EXT | Waiting for information from grantee
UCT ener Aa Sa IDRAFT-INT_|Grant draft distributed for internal review
\CTIVE,,
ID # Project in progress, grant in place Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved RE Fund Project Total Approved | Other AEA Status Code: Grant RE Fund Project Name icant 1 Project Cost|_RE Grant Grant Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals ate-tians East Aleutians | vugh Feasibility |East | y Borough _|OTHER 40,000) 25,000) 15,000) ALEUTIANS 08/22/09|ACTIVE _|In progress RE Round 1 0
Kongiganak High |Puvurnaq | |
Penetration Wind- |Power | | Grant agreement being Diesel Smart Grid_|Company _|WIND 2,892,850, _ 1,700,000 1,192,850 LYUK-KUSK | _ 12/23/09|OPEN negotiated/prepared, RE Round 1 0
| RE ROUND INikiski Wind Farm |Kenai | Grant agreement being 1and Construction Winds, LLC_|WIND 21,000,000) _ 2,080,000 18,920,000) RAILBELT | _12/14/09|COMBINED |negotiated/prepared. ROUND 2 0 | Nome Banner Peak Hit nanan 1 i MT TN LT ARR AAT TIT Wind Farm Nome Joint |
Transmission Utility | | This project has been completed, grant) Construction Systems _ [TRANS 890,000} __ 801,000 89,000) BERING |___12/18/09|DRAFT-INT_|agreement being negotiated/prepared. |RE Round 1 0
Tuntutuliak High | Tuntutuliak | | Penetration Wind |Comm. Svcs | Grant agreement being Diesel [Assoc WIND 3,360,000) _ 1,760,000 1,600,000) LYUK-KUSK | _ 12/01/09|DRAFT-INT |negotiated/prepared. RE Round 2 0
Tatitlek High S| Tatttlek IRA | iii NA TT an Th | nr | COPPER: i Grant agreement being im naa Penetration Wind _|Council WIND 146,240 138,210) CHU DRAFT-INT_|negotiated/prepared. RE Round 2 0
; [Alaska ART ain Tatil Tn Minor changes to draft willbe needed |
Village | after Teller grant is submitted for AEA. Electric review. toolik Wind _|Coop WIND 2,727,960) _ 2,465,664) 262,296 BERING 12/01/09| DRAFT-INT RE Round 2 0 t
Alaska |
Village | Teller Wind Electric | | Grant agreement being Analysis Coop WIND 123,800 117,610) 6,190) BERING |___12/18/09|DRAFT-INT_|negotiated/prepared. RE Round 2 0
| Grantee requests that this be a lower Alaska | priority behind Teller and Shaktoolik
Emmonak/Alakanu | Electric alternate turbine manufacturers to k Wind & Trans _|Coop WIND 9,062,818} 8,000,000) 1,062,818 LYUK-KUSK | __ 12/01/09|DRAFT-INT |reduce costs. RE Round 2 0
T T ee
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 13 1/6/2010
[ RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS
‘Status Key T
Rounds 1 and 2
Waiting for information from grantee
Grant draft distributed for internal review
Project in progress, grant in place
‘Grant combined with earlier grant
Project Name
ai Winds
Kenai
Winds, LLC
Total Project Cost Approved
RE Grant
Approved Other AEA
Grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
r
Funding
Sources Status Date Region
Status Code:
Header
RAILBELT 09/03/09 COMBINED
Comment
RE Fund
Grant
Round
RE Fund
Actuals
Grant agreement being
negotiated/prepared. RE Round 2
Delta Junction
|Wood Chip Heating
‘School
District BIOMASS 2,000,000) RAILBELT 12/16/09) ACTIVE
The Design Engineer has been
selected and a kick-off meeting was
‘held in Delta on 12/16/09 to look at the
‘site and the school building. The
project is about $900k underfunded
due to the project being capped at
'$2mil because Delta is connected to
ithe GVEA grid. DGSD is in the process of identifying potential funding
‘sources for the shortfall, but will
proceed with the site plan
development. The wood boiler
manufacturer needs to be selected
‘early in the design process in order to do the building layout for the fuel
‘storage, delivery system and boiler
layout. DGSD will not proceed with
that procurement until the funding has
been obtained, so the project may be
delayed and miss the 2010
construction season. RE Round 1
Chistochina Central d Heating str
Cheesh’na
Tribal
Council BIOMASS 500,000) 12,000)
COPPER. | CHU | 12/01/09) ACTIVE
The design has started and it is anticipated that the project will be
constructed in 2010. RE Round 1
|Gulkana Central
Wood Heating
Construction
Gulkana
Council BIOMASS 500,000) 500,000)
COPPER-
CHU 12/11/09) ACTIVE
The project is under construction and
should be completed in the Spring of
2010. The building is erected, the
underground heat lines are installed,
the wood boilers are on site, and work is progressing on the interior of the
new building. RE Round 1
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 14 1/6/2010
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND - GRANT and PROJECT STATUS ‘Status Key = | |
Rounds 1 and 2 Waiting for information from grantee _ [ |. _ Grant draft distributed for internal review
Project in progress, grant in place
Grant combined with earlier grant
Grant project complete & grant closed
Approved r RE Fund
Project Total Approved | OtherAEA | Approved | Funding Status Code. Grant RE Fund
Project Name icant Ty Project Cost} RE Grant Grant Match Sources Region Status Date| Header Comment Round Actuals
The project is 100% designed and
Alaska currently being reviewed by the AGSD
Gateway land AEA. The wood chip boiler has
[Tok Wood Heating |School been ordered, and construction is set
Construction District BIOMASS 3,260,349) 3,245,349 15,000 YUK 08/08/09) ACTIVE ito start in May of 2010. RE Round 1 99,320
| The design has started and the
| funding for construction has been
| applied for with the REF round III
Copper River’ | applications. Construction will be
Kenny Lake Wood | School COPPER- | scheduled contingent upon funding RE Round 0
Boiler Assessment | District BIOMASS 170,000: 120,000: 40,000 10,000 CHU | 10/21/09) ACTIVE availability. & Round 1 oO
= a = = a TT Grant award document in draft. UL
| Grantee has conducted some field
| ‘studies in summer 2009 and has held
Grant Lk/Falls Ck | | an initial public scoping meeting in
[Hydro Feasibility | Kenai Hydro, | ‘Seward in 11/09. Further work
Study LLC HYDRO 26,924,120 816,000) 204,000, RAILBELT 12/28/09|DRAFT-INT_|continues. RE Round 1 O | | | McGrath | ]
McGrath Heat Light & | Grant award document in draft.
Recovery Power | Grantee got some of piping completed
|Construction ‘Company HEAT 991,815 712,415 167,000) YUK 12/28/09 DRAFT-INT |before ground froze. RE Round 1 o |
124,613,014 17,722,269
Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority 15 1/6/2010
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
December 14, 2009 — AEA Boardroom
10:00am to 12:00pm
Draft Minutes
1.) Call to Order
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee convened at 10:08 a.m. Chairman Vince Beltrami
presided over the meeting.
2.) Roll Call:
Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants
Vince Beltrami, Chair Steve Haagenson Brian Bjorkquist, Dept of Law
Jim Posey Mike Harper Kate Sangster, Chaninik Wind Group
Representative Bill Thomas (phone) Sara Fisher-Goad Clint White, STG, Inc.
Linda Hay — Senator Bert Stedman's = Peter Crimp
Office (Phone) Butch White
Sandy Burd — Senator Hoffman's James Strandberg
Office (Phone) Chris Rutz
Devany Plentovich
James Jensen
Doug Ott
Rich Stromberg
May Clark
3.) Public Comments
Clint White of STG, Inc. provided an update on a Renewable Energy Fund 600 kW wind installation
project for the Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative (UVEC) (letter on file from Mr. James St. George,
President of STG). STG has installed approximately 85% of the utility wind projects currently operating in
the state. The project has been delivering wind generated electricity since November. In addition to the
wind farm's primary benefit of reducing diesel fuel consumption and electricity costs for the community,
two other major benefits were noted: 1) State of Alaska’s financial commitment to the installation provided
leverage for UVEC to access supplemental project funding. UVEC received additional funding from area
entities to further expand the project with additional wind turbines; and 2) UVEC’s award and the resulting
project implementation efforts have further developed numerous Alaskan based firms’ understanding of
wind systems appropriate for the market. More than 50 Alaskan based firms, including STG, maintain
workforces composed primarily of Alaska residents.
Clint White further stated areas where improvements can be made to improve the efficiency of the REF
program to include: 1) Short funding will stall development, particularly for rural Alaska projects, due to
insufficient capital. Limit the number of projects recommended for funding but add assurances that viable
ones are actually implemented; and 2) the execution of grant agreements and disbursement of grant
funding needs to be managed more efficiently. It's unreasonable and in many cases impossible for small,
Page 1 of 7
rural utilities to implement projects on a reimbursement basis without the support of other partners willing
to offer bridge financing for project expenses; and 3) Legislative scrutiny of the REF program has resulted
in excess and inefficient oversight of REF project activities. Greater clarity needs to be established for AEA’s role with the REF in order to reduce administrative inefficiencies associated with the program.
He commended AEA staff for their support in project activities, counsel, and reimbursement requests and
presented Mr. Haagenson with a framed photograph of the completed project. Mr. Haagenson thanked
Mr. White for the constructive criticism and advice.
[Chairman Beltrami noted Mr. Posey’s arrival at the meeting] [10:16 am]
Representative Thomas stated that we fought to get to where we are right now and wanted to thank
everybody in the room that had been working on the REF.
Introductions were made of the meeting attendees.
4.) Agenda Comments
There were no changes to the meeting agenda.
5.) Approval of Meeting Minutes - August 21, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Posey moved to approve the meeting minutes from the August 21, 2009 Renewable
Energy Fund Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Representative
Thomas. A voice vote was taken and the minutes were unanimously passed as
presented.
6.) Round | and II Update on Status
Mr. Butch White distributed a pie chart on “RE Fund Grant Status”
On Rounds | and II there are a total of 109 projects for $125 million. Seventy projects are currently under
agreement, have already been amended for various reasons, or the grant agreement has been mailed
out to the grantee. Another 24 (10 in draft — 14 draft internal) are being worked on and this past weekend
two large wind projects got done. The last 15 are still waiting for items from the grantees. Of the $125
million, $68 million is obligated, with grants that are in place, this includes $17 million actually dispersed.
The projects that have been capped and unable to move forward for various reasons will be discussed
later in the meeting. Some are tied up with lack of financing to complete their project.
Generally, they are rural projects that just do not have enough financing to move forward. For example,
Kotzebue Wind is requesting new funding to go forward up and above the cap of $4 million provided last
time. They haven't been able to come up with the balance, neither has Nome Joint Utility. Some of the
others have found funding, i.e., Nikiski Wind project, was capped but able to find additional financing.
Some projects funded in Round | are coming back to the RE Fund for additional funding. A couple of
applicants have come back and asked for Power Project Fund (PPF) loans. Even if they secure 80%
financing, this hurdle could still delay the project as planned. The 100% funded projects are moving right
along.
Over the cap funding is a major issue to be discussed at this meeting.
Page 2 of 7
Representative Thomas stated that his concern was the rural Alaska projects and whether they would be
able to secure matching funds. There are projects in the rural areas that can’t move forward because of
the $4 million cap. The metro areas have a $2 million cap and can’t move forward either.
Fifteen projects are stalled and don't have all of their funding. Kotzebue was capped at $4 million and
they still have a shortfall, including what they offered as match. Chair Beltrami would like an estimate of
the total the 15 projects are short.
Another funding opportunity is the PPF, funded directly from the Legislature; however, it's almost out of
money, with less than $5 million and has requests already in for $9+ million.
Representative Thomas emphasized “regionalization” of projects.
Capping assures enough projects fit in all the regions and meet the requirements of most rural areas. It
appears the $4 million cap hurts the largest but still rural communities, but if the PPF is an option for
them, than perhaps getting some expedited funding from there would be an option.
7. Round Ill Update on Status
POWERPOINT (Peter Crimp)
Mr. Crimp stated the PowerPoint slide didn’t show the amount short funded, but showed the amounts
funded and capped, but which have not progressed. Kodiak Electric progressed, although capped. Six
projects were awarded $16 million. Nome Wind and Kotzebue Wind have not moved forward and by the
end of the year action will be taken on those projects. We are considering Kotzebue’s request for
additional grant funds in Round Ill and some direction is needed on that. It's recommended allowing
those projects move forward; the allocated funding up and above the Round | or Il cap, then next time
around consider whether we want to do that.
It's not known if the potential geographic spread and/or percentage rural vs. urban will change until the
end of Round III proposal evaluation.
We need to consider the PPF and Round Ill and evaluate which is the best way to proceed. Each
financing alternative has its advantages. Legislative input and appropriations will be required to provide
direction.
Representative Thomas agreed and expressed concern about regional balance. Successes need to be
shown, and we should lift the cap, but need to be careful to ensure for allocation between rural
communities vs. smaller villages. It's a good year to request more monies. We need to meet with the
Governor and request $50 million for the fund this year.
Mr. Strandberg stated one consideration to the committee is how the split between debt vs. grants for
projects will influence the project's energy rate, and further how this rate will play in the economics of the
community. A further consideration is how this rate will compare with the long-term cost of power with
diesel. Also remember that the focus of the program is to not only get off diesel but also to lower power
rates in the community
Page 3 of 7
Mr. Posey stated that balancing of the PPF loans and RE Fund grants is important. We need to make
sure the balance is maintained. Representative Thomas agreed. The PPF fund should fund some of the
projects. We need to look at the regions and determine ones we need to do right away and proceed. We
need to show two or three successes in each of the regions so the rural representatives can claim
reduction of energy costs in their community(s). Nobody is going to be giving up their share of the
regional money.
Mr. Crimp stated the cost based rate is what was agreed on for IPPs. He suggested that AEA continue
with Stage II review and not remove the projects such as Kotzebue, Humpback, Kenai, etc. and look at
them again in geographic spreading. Not on that list is the Anchorage Landfill Gas project that was
capped and hasn't moved ahead. The Anchorage Landfill Gas Project has an extension until January
and qualifies for PFF funding. We need to discuss projects like that in our January 13-14 meetings.
In the PPF, if a project is under $5 million AEA can internally approve it if there’s funding available. If a
state-funded project is over $5 million it must have legislative approval regardless of whether the loan
amount is under $5 million.
In Rounds | and Il the capping mechanism happened but wasn't addressed in the RFA, so the
communities and applicants applied without knowing there was a cap. Capping was addressed in the
RFA for Round Ill. Potential applicants didn’t apply because the caps were so low on some projects.
Now we're seeing applicants who were in Rounds | and Il and knew about the caps and applied. We
knew this issue would come up and we need to address it.
Mr. Posey stated we want to show real progress and we should not destabilize the system set up in order
to provide regionalization and urban vs. rural. The Legislature should deal with the PPF.
Mr. Haagenson pointed out the statute talked about matching and it was never their intention for AEA to
be a 100% grant program.
Mr. Crimp noted AEA has brought on additional staff:
e Devany Plentovich - Biomass and Heat Recovery Program
e Neil McMahon and Audrey Alstrom, newly degreed engineers — Geothermal & Hydro Program
e Rich Stromberg — Assisting with Wind Program
e Katie Conway — Energy Efficiency Program
e Emily Binnian — Energy Inventory Program
We will be working through the Christmas holidays on the Stage II and Ill ranking and are planning to
finish in time for the January 13 and 14 REFAC meetings, and we are planning to deliver our
recommendations to the Legislature on January 29".
8.) Current Evaluation Issues:
Mr. Crimp described AEA’s technical and economic evaluation methods. There are five different
economist firms and 10 different private economists performing economic analyses on the projects (for
example, Mike Hubbard is working on hydro from Information Insights. Linda Snow in Juneau and Bob
Page 4 of 7
Logan in Fairbanks are also involved). ISER is doing quality control, making sure price assumptions are
the same, providing a template, etc. ISER employees Ginnie Fay and Nick Szymoniak are doing the
majority of this work. We are a lot better organized on the economic review this time around. DNR is
also assessing permit-ability and resource availability of projects. Wyn Menefee is not present today and
Bob Swenson's staff is working also.
AEA has increased the weight for the benefits cost ratio. Regarding scoring methodology, a project
proposal that has a less than .9 benefit to cost ratio was assigned a score of zero. One point was given
to projects with a BC ratio of .9 to one, with the assumption that it's close and given the fairly rough nature
of the economic analysis it makes sense to give some score. The higher the BC ratio, the higher the
score.
The difference between that BC ratio value and the 25 points possible maximum means that in Stage Il,
25% of the score is coming from the BC ratio.
Financing Plan was added. Projects have applied in the past that had fairly unrealistic ideas of how they
were going to finance. Five out of 100 points was added for the financing plan.
Public Benefit review is the idea of addressing public benefits other than inherent economics of the
project. Including things like “will the project result in developing infrastructure that can be used for
something else,” and “to what extent it provides increased jobs, solve other problems, generate useful
information, etc.” Worth 10 points.
Project Readiness
Stage 3 is overall ranking of projects, top to bottom. Stage 4 was added and addresses geographic
spreading. Stage 4 will be done by the advisory committee and staff at the January 13 and 14 meetings.
(Within Stage 3 are criteria added to Stage 3 for readiness, for instance if a project is under construction
and just needs a little bit of funding to move forward, it should be scored and ranked higher.)
Public Benefit score is part of Stage 3, the benefit to cost ratio does affect two scores within Stage 3.
Sixteen percent of the total includes what is carried forward from Stage 3. Twenty-three percent is
benefits and then 16% is BC and economics. Benefits are pretty heavily weighted this time around. The
cost of energy and the amount of match remain very high.
Evaluation Guidelines are the staff's and contractor's reference sheet for evaluation. They will be posted
on the web after we get the cost of energy data input.
We're about 1/3 the way through the Stage I! and Stage Ill review, but we have a lot of work to do. We'll
probably have over 25 people working on it over the next three or four weeks. 124 new projects were
received requesting for $224 million
Mr. Posey reiterated we're keeping the balance, but said if we start taking the caps off we will destabilize
it for a lot of different reasons. The PPF is the way to go as long as the Legislature understands that this
program is not unlike AHFC weatherization program - wherever they are on that $250 million, don't think
Page 5 of 7
they're any further along than we are. He asked that someone find out the project status prior to the
January 13 and 14 meeting, as he’s traveling to Juneau in February.
Kootznoowoo, Inc. sent in two applications for Thayer Lake Hydro and Transmission. A transmission
component of the hydro and for the hydro itself, each for $4 million. If there's no objection from the
Committee, it will be considered as one project.
Humpback Creek, the engineering cost estimate was much lower than what the project that came in at.
They're requesting $4 million again.
Kenai Winds is requesting another $2 million to go up to 15 MWs. That project was recommended in the
Railbelt IRP.
Reynolds Creek, on Prince of Wales Island, is also asking for another $2 million and trying to figure out
how to finance the rest. It's a complex project and the key will be the Power Sales Agreement and how
the hydro power will be dispatched, because it will be going to an interconnected network. AEA is
working with the parties on that aspect.
9.) Preparation for Legislative Session
Mr. Haagenson and Ms. Fisher-Goad spoke at the House Energy Committee on December 11, 2009, and
Mr. Haagenson testified on (the work draft ) energy policy legislation, which are committee bills that won't
be pre-filed.
Several energy bills have been consolidated into a work draft called the Omnibus Energy Bill. Nothing in
this bill should prevent us from moving forward. In the Renewable Energy Fund section there are some
parts that address the REF process. In Round Ill we addressed many of the same issues responding to
the audit and some of the economists’ concerns. Before and at start of session we will work with the
Energy Committee legislators, especially Representatives Millett and Edgmon to further address concerns
and what effect the legislation would have on the process and to seek clarification as to what they want
from the economists’ report. Other economists in various areas of expertise are assisting us with the
evaluation process. We may have to tweak some regulations, especially if the legislation states that
significant weight would include the economic analysis or benefit cost. The legislation is addressing
many points that we've already addressed, so the Omnibus Energy Bill is looking good.
We need to address reallocation of funds for projects not moving forward. The Galena project will be
turned back for further appropriation, with a few others and that's subject to the Legislative Budget &
Audit (LB&A) process. In Round II there's $400,000 available for re-appropriation due to a typographical
error. Representative Thomas stated the LB&A was meeting this week and would rather they move the
funds with the assistance of Josh Applebee.
Linda Hay stated the LB&A meets for a regular meeting on December 16 and also meets through the
regular legislative session and just Round | monies remain under the purview of the LB&A.
The Committee needs to determine what needs to be done with any remaining Round II money,
allocation of Round II money and any interaction with the LB&A on Round |.
Page 6 of 7
Representative Thomas said he spoke with Representative Millett about the changes to HB152 and she’s
trying to address comments that Representative Hawker made at the LB&A meeting when he tried to not
allocate the monies. Those changes were already made and she may have to take it out of the bill.
The Committee will request $50 million and will give the Legislature a list recommended projects similar to
last year.
Mr. Beltrami would like to have the meeting minutes earlier for the next meeting.
10.) Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date(s) will be January 13 and 14, 2010.
11.) Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Page 7 of 7
Round | / Renewable Energy Fund Projects not able to get underway because grant amount was capped
| Project Cost per RE FundGrant RE Fund Grant
|Grantee Project Application Request Amount Shortfall Comments
Nome Joint Utility System Newton Peak Wind Farm Construction $ 15,534,309 | $ 13,951,326 | $ 4,000,000 $ 9,951,326 On hold, PM discussing options with grantee
Unalakleet Valley Electric Coop Unalakleet Wind Farm Construction $ 8,996,832 $ 8,774,080 $ 4,000,000 '$ 4,774,080 ‘Substantially completed
Cordova Electric Cooperative Humpback Creek Hydro $ 11,600,000 | $ 5,500,000 $ 4,000,000 $ — 1,500,000 Underway, requesting round 3 funds
Kodiak Electric Assn. Pillar Mountain Wind Farm $ 23,319,539 | $ 9,650,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 5,650,000 Completed
Kotzebue Electric Assn. ‘Kotzebue Wind Farm Expansion $ 14,807,535, | $ 12,075,535 $ 4,000,000 | $ 8,075,535 ‘Requesting additional round 3 funds to supplement round 1 and federal
Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage Landfill Gas to Electric $ 7,400,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,700,000 ‘AEA will enter into grant agreement for likely 2011 construction
GVEA Eva Creek Wind Farm $ 93,341,555 $ 79,340,322 $ 2,000,000 | $ 77,340,322 Grant not in place but underway, feasibility/ concept design
Chena Power Utility, LLC "North Pole Biomass to Electricity $ 4,007,900 | $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - | Underway
Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC Fishhook Hydro Construction $ 4,555,922 | $ 2,142,961 $ 2,000,000 $ 142,961 Project on hold/including issues besides lack of funding
Ak Environmental Power, LLC Delta Junction Wind Farm Construction $ 8,363,886 $ 6,269,750 $ 2,000,000 | $ 4,269,750 ‘Substantially completed
Delta/Greely School District ‘Delta School Wood Chip Heating System $ 2,868,000 $ 2,868,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 868,000 Underway in final design phase, funding still issue. Requesting round 3 funds Haida Power, Inc “Reynolds Creek Hydro $ 17,145,000 $ 10,500,000 $ 2,000,000 | $ _ 8,500,000 On hold, Requesting round 3 funds
City & Borough of Wrangell ‘Electric Boiler Conversions $ 3,260,000 $ 3,260,000 | $ 2,000,000 $ 1,260,000 ‘Underway, final design/construction
City & Borough of Sitka Takatz Lake Hydro Feasibility $ 2,000,000 | $ 2,000,000 I$ 514,684 $ 1,485,316 Underway
Round Il / Renewable Energy Fund Projects not able to get underway because grant amount was capped
Project Cost per "RE Fund Grant RE Fund Grant
Grantee Project Application Request Amount
AVEC Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind IE 10,733,179 $ 9,670,361 $ 8,000,000 $ 1,670,361 Grant not in place, PM working with AVEC
Kenai Winds, LLC Kenai Wind project at Nikiski $ 21,000,000 $ 5,850,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 3,850,000 ‘Underway, requesting additional round 3 funds for expansion
December 14", 2009
State of Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee
Vince Beltrami, Chairman
3333 Denali Street, Suite 125
Anchorage, AK 99503
CC: Steve Haagenson, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority
Dear Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee:
On behalf of STG, I would like to commend your leadership and your service to this committee. The
Renewable Energy Fund (REF) represents a major commitment by our legislators to address what we
believe is one of the biggest threats facing our state, access to affordable and reliable energy. Over the
past year, STG has been leading efforts to implement one of the first awarded projects completed
through REF financial support. I have written to provide an update with this particular project, a wind
installation led by STG in Unalakleet, and to offer feedback regarding our experiences working with
the REF program.
To those of you who may be unfamiliar with our work, STG is a heavy industry contractor servicing
communities across rural Alaska. We are an Alaskan company, have been in operation since 1991,
and focus primarily on foundation and energy infrastructure construction. Among other
accomplishments, STG is also the leading constructor of utility scale wind farms in Alaska, having
installed approximately 85% of the utility wind projects currently operating in the state.
In Unalakleet, STG assumed project management and lead contractor responsibilities for the 600-
kilowatt wind installation. We also managed all communications with the Alaska Energy Authority
(AEA) throughout the implementation process and prepared the original grant application for our
client, Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative (UVEC). According to our notes, the completed project
was the first in the program to establish an executed grant agreement and now stands as one of the few
that has been taken from conception to completion through the REF program. The project has been
delivering wind generated electricity to Unalakleet since last month and continues to deliver fuel
savings tv the community as we speak. We view the project as a success not just for Unalakleet, but
also for all of the companies, agencies, and individuals that have worked to support its
implementation. Based on the short operating history we have to review, it also appears that we are
11820 South Gambell Street » Anchorage, Alaska 99515 * Phone: (907) 644-4664 + Fax: (907) 644-4666
E-mail: info@stgincorporated.com + Website: www.stgincorporated.com
on target to deliver estimated fuel savings through the completed project, which would not have been
possible without the financial support of the REF and collaboration with AEA staff.
Both STG and AEA have learned a great deal together through our work to implement Unalakleet’s
new wind farm. In addition to the primary benefit of reducing diesel fuel consumption and electricity
costs for the community, there are two other major benefits that should be noted:
1. The State of Alaska’s financial commitment to this installation provided leverage for
UVEC to access supplemental project funding. In addition to UVEC’s $4 million grant
from the REF, the utility also received an additional $1.35 Million in grant funding from
Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC) and Unalakleet Native
Corporation to further expand the project with additional wind turbines. NSEDC, the CDQ
group for the Bering Strait Region, has also pledged to make an additional $14 million
available in grant funding to support community scale renewable energy projects in their other
villages. Unalakleet led the charge in getting this NSEDC program established and without
the base funding from the REF, it is possible that the NSEDC commitment might not have
materialized.
2. UVEC’s award, and the resulting project implementation efforts, have further developed
numerous Alaskan based firms’ understanding of wind systems appropriate for our
market. More than 50 unique Alaska-based contractors, engineering firms, suppliers, public
agencies, financiers, and logistics partners were involved in the execution of the Unalakleet
project. The experience gained through this project is further supporting the understanding of
relevant and successful wind energy systems for the Alaska market. These firms, including
STG, maintain workforces composed primarily of Alaska residents. The project in Unalakleet
put Alaskans to work (including local hires from the community), utilized Alaskan-owned
businesses, and further supported the State’s interests in developing local expertise. As a
result of our collective efforts, all project partners are better prepared to replicate similar
successes with future wind installations.
Our experiences have also led us to some conclusions about areas where improvements can be made to
improve the efficiency of the REF program. As one of the first projects to obtain an executed grant
agreement and receive any financial disbursements through the program, the Unalakleet installation
was subjected to a learning curve that all involved parties were forced to work through. We have
noticed improvements in the management of the REF over the past year, but there are areas we believe
should be addressed. These include:
1. Short funding will stall development, particularly for rural Alaska projects. We implore
: the committee to make the tough decisions that may ultimately limit the number of projects
recommended for funding, but add assurances that viable ones, led by experienced teams
utilizing proven technology, are actually implemented. Currently, the majority of Round I
and II projects are stalled due to a variety of reasons. We believe that one of the primarily
causes for this delay is insufficient capital. While other public funding opportunities outside
of the REF do exist, it is unreasonable to assume that rural utilities will have access to debt
financing or other private means in the current credit market. The large number of projects
running through AEA project managers also presses their limitations of time and resources in
the midst of other responsibilities such as statewide energy plans, resource plans, and other
energy related studies.
11820 South Gambell Street + Anchorage, Alaska 99515 * Phone: (907) 644-4664 + Fax: (907) 644-4666
E-mail: info@stgincorporated.com + Website: www.stgincorporated.com
2. The execution of grant agreements and disbursement of grant funding need to be
managed more efficiently. It is unreasonable, and in many cases impossible, for small, rural
utilities to implement projects on a reimbursement basis without the support of other
committed partners willing to offer bridge financing for project expenses. Reimbursement
performance has improved significantly over the past few months, but for most of the project,
STG was forced into a role to provide project financing in order to meet timelines and
complete construction activities during the summer season. While financial support from
other partners helped ensure adequate project cash flows for the Unalakleet project, we believe
that our business was inappropriately stressed due to delayed REF reimbursements and denied
advanced disbursements to cover key project supplies, freight costs, and payroll
responsibilities. We understand the importance of distributing public funds in a transparent
and equitable manner, but greater consideration needs to be given to rural Alaskan projects
and the teams that have demonstrated high levels of performance in delivering successful
projects.
3. Legislative scrutiny of the REF program has resulted in excess and inefficient oversight
of REF project activities. While this committee has made determinations on projects suitable
for funding (which have also been subsequently approved by Alaska’s legislators), there have
been occasions when AEA has overstepped their bounds as grant administrators while
attempting to take on project management responsibilities during the course of our work in
Unalakleet. Greater clarity needs to be established for AEA’s role with the REF in order to
reduce administrative inefficiencies associated with the program. If additional research or
study is needed prior to the execution of any renewable energy project proposed through this
program, it should be completed prior to the issuance of an award. If projects are deemed
ready for implementation and construction by this committee, AEA needs to be given better
support and direction to allow awarded projects to be implemented as proposed without
requirements of additional studies, unnecessary reporting, and bureaucratic hurdles. AEA
seems to be caught in a ‘Catch-22’, at times being pressed by the legislature on one hand to
rapidly implement awarded projects in the midst of so many other responsibilities, while
simultaneously being scrutinized for their actions on the other. Ultimately, it is Alaska’s rural
communities and residents that suffer through the inefficiencies created through this situation.
I ask that this committee continue to voice support of this program and AEA to our legislators
so that we can more efficiently execute projects, not studies, that reduce the cost of energy for
Alaskans.
The implementation of the Unalakleet project has truly been a learning process and while we see areas
in need of further refinement, we have also received very positive support from public officials at AEA
during our experience working with the REF program. To give you an example of this, we have
repeatedly connected with AEA’s Wind Project Manager James Jenson and individuals in AEA’s
finance department such as Amy McCollum working late into the evening and over weekends to
support project activities and reimbursement requests. We have also received repeated council from
Director Haagenson who, despite a busy schedule and diverse responsibilities across AEA, has never
failed to make himself available to our team or take the initiative to address any project related road
block that has been brought to his attention. It is our impression through our experience working with
AEA over the past two decades and particularly working through the REF program, that overall, AEA
is in very capable hands under Director Haagenson’s leadership. At STG, we have also learned
through our work in Unalakleet and certainly realize that our operations are not perfect either.
Certainly, there is always room for improvement.
11820 South Gambell Street * Anchorage, Alaska 99515 + Phone: (907) 644-4664 + Fax: (907) 644-4666
E-mail: info@stgincorporated.com + Website: www.stgincorporated.com
On numerous occasions, we have heard Director Haagenson’s call for passionate individuals to step up
and be a part of the solutions that address the State’s energy challenges head on. With all confidence, I
can tell you that we are among this group. As a company, STG takes great pride in our abilities to
consistently deliver in environmentally harsh and logistically complex rural Alaskan communities.
Over time, we have also seen many struggle to effectively implement even the most well thought out
plans in bush Alaska. Executing heavy construction in these locales, indeed any type of construction
in the bush, is no straightforward task. Thus, as a company we frequently wear our passion for the
work that we do on our sleeves, view our clients as partners, and treat the community members where
we operate as neighbors. These realities result in rather blunt communications at times and I hope my
message to you today is received as constructive feedback and also relays our support for your work
with Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund.
We share a common goal in that we all want to see successful and sustainable projects implemented
through the program that effectively reduce the cost of energy for Alaskans. In working towards this
goal, we also feel that it is important to share our experiences of how the decisions, policies, and
procedures determined by this committee impact the men and women with ‘boots on the ground’ who
are working to construct, integrate, and manage these new systems across Alaska.
Again, thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to share our thoughts regarding our work
with the REF. We look forward to keeping an open dialog with this group and to celebrating
additional collective successes with well-implemented projects in the future. In Unalakleet, we believe
that we have delivered an early accomplishment for the REF program that will substantially reduce the
cost of energy for the community over the long term. Moreover, we believe that the completed project
is a success that we share with your committee and the Alaska Energy Authority.
Respectfully yours, ae i
James St. George
President
11820 South Gambell Street * Anchorage, Alaska 99515 * Phone: (907) 644-4664 + Fax: (907) 644-4666
E-mail: info@stgincorporated.com + Website: www.stgincorporated.com