Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting minutes and docs 1-7-2014ue , 2 j — @@E ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Alaska Energy Authority 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska January 7, 2014 10:00 am - 1:00 pm AGENDA Call to Order Roll Call (committee members, staff, public, phone) Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes) Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions) Approval of ” sting Minutes — November 12, 2013 Approval of Evaluation Guidelines eo oS Se Review of Round 7 Recommendations a. Tables of Recommendations b. Standard Application List, Summaries and Map c. Heat Application List, Summaries and Map 8. Lunch Break 9. Data Collection Progress Update, ACEP 10. Analysis of Not Recommended Applications & Techinacal Assistance Update 11. Committee Member Comments 12. Next Meeting Date, Tentative: May 13, 2014, Kodiak 13. Adjournment Links: 8. https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/#/meetings/detail?uuid=M16]RLFDEHQI1XH7JVFTYDG6RX-402 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.85: Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 15 November 12, 2013 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting November 12, 2013 Alaska Energy Authority Board Room Anchorage, Alaska 9:06 a.m. to 11:32 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES 1. Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 9:06 a.m., with Chairman Rose presiding. Chair Rose noted there was not a quorum at the beginning of the meeting. 2. Roll Call Committee Members Chairman Chris Rose AEA Staff Other Participants Jodi Mitchell (phone) Representative Bryce Sean Skaling Maggie McKay, Marsh Edgmon (phone) Shawn Calfa Creek, LEC Brad Reeve (phone) David Lockard John Lyons, Marsh Creek, Senator Anna Fairclough Alan Baldivieso ELE Representative Charisse Jed Drolet Jeff Turner, Representative Millett (phone) Josh Craft Millett's Office Cady Lister Adam Berg, Yolanda Inga Representative Edgmon's Sara Fisher-Goad Office Rich Stromberg Steve Gilbert, Alaska Emily Binnian Village Electric Helen Traylor Cooperative Wyn Menefee, Department of Natural Resources Sunny Morrison, Accu- Type Depositions Miranda Studsill, Accu- Type Depositions 3. Public Comments Ms. McKay, from Marsh Creek, LLC, advised she works on some of the grant projects for the Renewable Energy Fund. She stated she has a specific project that would benefit from expending funds prior to the July Ist grant funding availability date, creating substantial cost benefits and savings. Ms. McKay would like to work with AEA to allow for the funds to be Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 15 November 12, 2013 spent at the grantee's contractor's risk and allow for submittal of reimbursement after the July Ist date. Chair Rose inquired if Ms. McKay would like to speak regarding the specifics of the project, so the Committee has a better idea of the kinds of issues she is addressing. Ms. McKay advised the specific project is the Village of Koliganek, which currently has a Renewable Energy Fund grant for a conceptual design and has applied for a design in Round 7. She reported that Rural Power Systems Upgrades is concurrently providing a new power plant and they will begin conceptual design and design in January 2014. Ms. McKay explained the Village of Koliganek project's funds will not become available until July 1st, 2014, which means they would miss a critical period of coordination of the conceptual design and design with Rural Power Systems Upgrades. Ms. Mitchell echoed Ms. McKay's sentiment because by the time July 1st comes around, they are missing half of the season. She commented she does not know how to fulfill Ms. McKay's request, but understands the problem and believes it would be beneficial if the Committee could act on this issue. Mr. Reeve commented trying to not lose a season through this process has been difficult and requested spending extra time to discuss ways to solve the issue. Mr. Reeve asked if everybody, to some degree, has the ability to pay in advance and then be reimbursed. Mr. Skaling responded he believes Mr. Reeve's comment is incorrect, unless the payment is at the project's own risk and its own match, but reimbursement cannot officially begin until the July 1 date. Mr. Reeve explained he meant that the payments would be at the project's own risk, but if the project wanted to, they could spend their own money early. Chair Rose stated he understands Marsh Creek is requesting AEA to consider allowing them to apply for reimbursement for funds that were expended before a grant is in place on July Ist, as long as Marsh Creek understands that if something went wrong with the grant and the money was not provided, the risk would be borne by Marsh Creek and would not be reimbursed. Chair Rose asked Ms. McKay if his understanding is correct. Ms. McKay agreed. Chair Rose commented this request is different than what has been previously allowed because a grant typically has to be in place before any reimbursement requests can occur. Chair Rose commented because the Committee does not have a quorum, it is difficult to advise AEA. He noted AEA is clearly taking this issue under advisement and a couple of the Committee members understand the predicament Marsh Creek is in. Chair Rose asked Ms. McKay if the Marsh Creek project is a wind project. Ms. McKay agreed. Chair Rose stated this is probably a question for AEA's lawyers to draft appropriate language addressing Marsh Creek's request. Mr. Skaling commented AEA is really interested in expanding the work performance time. He noted AEA it is within their purview to push back the application date, as long as the reviews are completed by the legislative session. Mr. Skaling stated AEA is aware of the challenging issues of construction seasons being lost and the timing of other project pieces. He stated AEA is working on the limitations they face. Mr. Skaling expressed his appreciation to Ms. McKay for Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 15 November 12, 2013 addressing this issue and requested the Committee place this issue on the agenda for the January 2nd meeting. Chair Rose believes that is a reasonable request. Chair Rose asked for a point of clarification regarding when Ms. McKay is requesting to expend the funds, whether in January or in April. Ms. McKay stated the request for expending the funds would be closer to the month of April. She advised Marsh Creek still has some funding available in their current grant, which they are holding until this decision is made. Chair Rose commented it would be difficult for this Committee to advise that Marsh Creek act before the Legislature approves the grant list, which typically does not happen until the end of the legislative season when the budget is in place stating which projects are going to be funded. 4. Agenda Comments There were no agenda comments. 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes - June 17, 2013 Chair Rose noted the approval of the meeting minutes cannot happen without a quorum. This item was tabled. 6. Round 7 Review Update Mr. Skaling advised that included in the Committee's packets are the summary tables beginning on page nine and the actual preliminary application summaries beginning on page 13. Mr. Skaling noted 86 applications were received this year. Four of the applications did not pass Stage One. Mr. Skaling expressed his appreciation to Department of Natural Resources for returning their responses promptly and providing support to the program. Stage Two scoring began last week and 20 of the applications have been scored. Chair Rose inquired if he is reading page 10 correctly where half of the heat applications were biomass and about a third of the applications were heat recovery and 38 of the 86 applications were for heat. Mr. Skaling agreed and noted the dollar amounts were less because they are typically smaller projects. Chair Rose asked Mr. Skaling if he is correct is summarizing this process as follows: AEA will provide the Committee with two lists, one for the standard projects and one for the heating projects, which are scored without regard to the amount of funds within the Governor's budget. The Committee will then have to weigh heat projects against electric projects, which is different from what has occurred in the past, and then determine the recommendations of projects. Mr. Skaling agreed with Chair Rose's description of the process. Chair Rose commented the top $25 million is going to be an important threshold for a lot of projects to reach. He requested staff consider whether there are any other deciding factors or criteria the Committee can use to help determine which projects are within the top $25 million threshold, since the heating and electric projects are now competing. 7. Analysis of Funding in High and Low Cost Energy Areas Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 15 November 12, 2013 Chair Rose advised this analysis was requested by Senator Hoffman. Chair Rose was sorry that nobody from Senator Hoffman's Office was on the phone and requested the information be provided to them. Mr. Skaling described the analysis of funding in high cost energy areas and low cost energy areas over the course of the program, which begins on page 104. Chair Rose noted for the record Senator Fairclough has joined the meeting and a quorum has been reached. Senator Fairclough stated she did not have the call-in number or the code. Chair Rose expressed his appreciation for her attendance. Chair Rose if the three columns, below 20, 20 to 40, and above 40, in the graph on page 104 represent the number of applications that were funded. Mr. Skaling agreed and noted the right- hand side lists the categories. Category One is funded. Category Two is recommended, but not funded. Category Three is not recommended and not funded. Chair Rose asked if the higher match in the below 20 category is typical because they are railbelt projects. Mr. Skaling noted they were railbelt projects and more commonly, Southeast projects. Mr. Reeve referred to the last column on page 105, the not recommended and not funded column, and requested staff provide analysis at the January 2 meeting explaining the reasons for these projects being placed under the not recommended and not funded column. Mr. Reeve asked if one of the reasons is that the communities do not have the technical expertise required for these projects. Mr. Reeve asked if any of these had shortcomings on the applications, but are good projects that aren't being funded because of technical expertise. Mr. Stromberg advised the two wind projects that did not pass Stage One were because they had not completed the necessary earlier stage design and analysis to be considered. Senator Fairclough commented the first column indicates a significant investment in wind projects and perhaps looking at a ratio comparing funded projects and not funded projects would be useful. Chair Rose stated he believes Mr. Reeve ' point is important because it goes to the heart of what Senator Hoffman was concerned about, which is the quest of why projects are not being funded. Chair Rose requested staff conduct further research on Mr. Reeve's question for the January 2 meeting and bring more information to the Committee. Mr. Skaling commented for this year's and last year's not recommended and not funded category, the number one issue that disqualifies projects is poor benefit/cost ratios, meaning the proposal is too expensive and does not beat the cost of what is currently available. Mr. Skaling noted sometimes that may occur because of a design flaw. He will provide more information to the Committee on this question for the next meeting. 8. Data Collection Progress Update Mr. Skaling commented data collection on the Rural Energy Fund projects is really important to understand what is being generated and how they are performing in order to report the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 15 November 12, 2013 information back to the Committee, to the Legislature and to the public. Mr. Skaling advised a trial is occurring with the expertise and support of Alaska Center for Energy and Power that provides a streamlined approach for the data collection system and the data management system. The information collected currently is monthly data, including total energy production, net energy production, operating and maintenance costs compared to expected performance. The intent is for this system to ultimately expand to include every applicant's data. Chair Rose commented he is very happy the system is being developed and is interested in the results of how the different technologies are being monitored. He noted the information collected is used to inform decisions made regarding loan activity, as well as how to optimize the systems technically. Chair Rose asked what the timeline is for this pilot system to be implemented for all projects. Mr. Skaling stated AEA is presenting at the Rural Energy Conference next fall on the projects utilizing the current data collection system. Mr. Skaling said his big question is in regards to how expensive the system is going to be, including the equipment cost and the data process and filtering aspect. Mr. Skaling commented he is hoping that by next fall at the presentation, he will have a good sense of how costs can be kept low, while maintaining accurate data collection. Chair Rose stated Mr. Skaling alluded to his secondary question of the cost of this system going and who is going to pay for it. Chair Rose believes it is worth having the system in place in order to know how the projects are working. Chair Rose recommended this item of Data Collection Progress Update be included in the agenda for the next meeting. 9. PCE and REF Presentation Mr. Drolet gave a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the overview of the Power Cost Equalization Program and its interaction with other programs, especially the Renewable Energy Fund. He noted the mission of AEA is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. This is accomplished through energy planning policy, infrastructure investments, diversification of the energy portfolio, technical training and assistance for rural communities, energy efficiency/conservation programs, and power cost equalization for rural communities. Mr. Drolet explained the Power Cost Equalization Program is a subsidy program for rural electric utilities with the purpose of lowering the rates to about the same level as in urban Alaska. He noted there are some exceptions, but generally the program pays for 95% of utility costs above the average rates in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. Ms. Mitchell asked if this presentation was included in the packet because she does not have it. Mr. Skaling noted he is preparing to send the presentation now to Committee members who are on the phone. Chair Rose asked if the left axis is the price per kilowatt hour up to two dollars. Mr. Drolet agreed and explained the left axis is in dollars price per kilowatt hour. Chair Rose asked if the effective rate for Lime Village is about 95 cents per kilowatt hour, which means they are getting Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 15 November 12, 2013 about half. Mr. Drolet agreed and explained that is due to the structure of the funding formula. Chair Rose asked if the half is being applied only to the first dollar, which would mean they would get even more if the half were applied to the entire actual rate. Mr. Drolet agreed and explained the calculation is based on the actual numbers, so it would not necessarily be half, but some other percentage. Mr. Lockard inquired if it is important to distinguish that these are residential rates under 500 kilowatt hours per month. Mr. Drolet agreed and explained this data is based on residential rates under 500 kilowatt hours per month. Chair Rose asked what the monthly average use is in Anchorage because he believes it is well over 500 kilowatt hours per month. Chair Rose noted there is a difference between the effective rate and what people are actually paying, what it costs an average participant. Chair Rose asked what percentage above the 500 kilowatt hours per month does an average participant incur. Mr. Drolet responded there is a lot of variation, but in general, the average participant is staying well under the 500 kilowatt hours per month. He noted the average is about 300 kilowatt hours per month is most communities. Mr. Drolet advised that is a potential issue with the structure of the Power Cost Equalization Program, but it is generally swamped by income effects, which means people are poor enough that even with the subsidized rates, they are staying under the cap. Mr. Reeve commented the average residential usage in his area is between 540 and 560 kilowatt hours per month on an annual basis. He noted the participants who are most effected are those with larger families and children. Usage is also increased during the Christmas season with people being inside more. Cost is a major consideration due to the increased usage during the colder months of the year. Senator Fairclough asked if the orange bar has been audited to see if that is the same ratio as what the urban area has for management of the utility that is being considered. She asked for those costs to be explained. Mr. Drolet noted he does not know offhand when auditing has occurred. He noted there are a lot of fixed costs in maintenance, but the costs vary a lot depending on the community. Senator Fairclough commented if that number has not been reviewed and is equally impacting those communities, it might behoove us to know what those cost drivers are to see if there is a way that one-time upgrades could reduce those costs, rather than continually paying it on a power cost equalization basis. Chair Rose commented part of the issue is economies of scale. He requested Mr. Gilbert speak about the economies of scale Alaska Village Electric Cooperative enjoys. Senator Fairclough noted she understands cost per capita. Mr. Gilbert advised non-fuel costs include scheduled maintenance, emergency response maintenance, filters, parts, replacement parts, and travel costs. Chair Rose noted that outside of the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative communities, there is a wide range of the computed costs. Chair Rose asked Ms. Fisher-Goad to answer Senator Fairclough's question about previous audits or if there is a way to find out what those costs are. Ms. Fisher-Goad advised that as part of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska's evaluation, an audit is performed of the utilities every three years that includes non-fuel cost of the utility. Debt service is part of the non-fuel cost. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska makes the determination whether the non-fuel costs are allowable or non-allowable. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 15 November 12, 2013 Senator Fairclough requested the expenses get looked at through the lens of asking if there is a potential for energy cost savings. Senator Fairclough asked if there were cost drivers that are going unnoticed that could be brought to someone's attention to try to manage in a different way. She noted on page 105 that transmission is the second highest of the denied projects and inquired if this should be brought to someone's attention for further review. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated the two issues AEA is most concerned with and where the most impact can be made is the line loss issue and the system efficiency issue. Those are the two areas AEA has been working with our Rural Power Systems Upgrade representatives to make sure those issues are being addressed with the utilities. Training for utility operators has also increased. AEA is analyzing the program to determine how to manage the utility more efficiently to maximize the Power Cost Equalization program and to ensure the utilities are reducing the overall cost. Chair Rose asked if the graph showing the analysis of the rate base of the utility and who would be expected to see a benefit from a decrease in net cost is a prediction of expected benefits, rather than actual received benefits. Mr. Drolet noted the graph is a prediction. No analysis has been computed on actual projects. Mr. Drolet commented now that there are projects online, actual analysis should be possible. Chair Rose suggested using this graph's information to compare the communities’ expected range of benefits with the communities’ actual range of benefits. Chair Rose asked if the Power Cost Equalization Program is getting the benefit of lower payments, how does that state benefit circle back and benefit a community member. Mr. Drolet noted that is a question to think about going forward. He stated in communities with a large commercial rate base, the benefits to the community flow through by reducing the cost of living. Mr. Drolet noted in smaller, more residential communities, it is a trickier question to look at. Chair Rose inquired if there has been analysis to show that stabilizing commercial rates helps residents. Mr. Drolet stated lower commercial rates is one of the ways that lowering energy costs gets passed onto the customer of the rural business in lower prices, as well other environmental benefits. Ms. Fisher-Goad commented that in a dream world, everybody's rates would be at parity so that nobody would need to utilize the Power Cost Equalization Program. She does not know if that will happen in her lifetime. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated reducing residents! dependency on the Power Cost Equalization Program is beneficial for the program and for the state, with respect to limited resources. Mr. Drolet said AEA sometimes receives questions about whether adding renewable projects will make a community ineligible for the Power Cost Equalization Program. He clarified adding renewable projects will not make a community ineligible for the Power Cost Equalization Program. The eligibility for the Power Cost Equalization Program is based on what the utilities! usage was back when the program was established. Ms. Mitchell commented it cannot be overstated how difficult it is to have a business in the small communities and to make ends meet. She said her heart breaks every time she hears about Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 15 November 12, 2013 another business closing. Ms. Mitchell noted she always keeps in mind the effect the Renewable Energy Fund projects will have on the business communities. Ms. Mitchell expressed her appreciation for the Power Cost Equalization Program, but stated it does not help the businesses at all. Chair Rose stated he has two questions. He asked how are the reduced costs through the Power Cost Equalization Program and the Renewable Energy Fund projects going to be spread around. Chair Rose asked how do we analyze the impacts of the Renewable Energy Fund projects on commercial rates. He believes this is important information for legislators to know regarding who is benefitting in their district from these Renewable Energy Fund projects. Chair Rose commented making the case for why the Renewable Energy program is important based on those savings is something to focus on. Senator Fairclough asked Chair Rose if his comment means that we have appropriately set outcomes and measured those goals. Chair Rose stated he does not know if the expectation has been created that the Power Cost Equalization Program benefits residents and the Renewable Energy Fund projects benefit commercial rates. He believes the expectation has been created that the Renewable Energy Fund projects are going to help residential consumers. Chair Rose believes there is a benefit to residential consumers, but it is not a huge benefit, at least in the Power Cost Equalization areas. Ms. Mitchell recommended a possible benchmark that could be used is the average rate or cost of power for each community from before a project and after a project. She noted Form Seven could be used to determine the cost of energy production in the comparison. Ms. Fisher-Goad appreciated Ms. Mitchell's comments and advised Mr. Darren Scott from Kodiak provided information on the stabilization of rates. He conducted analysis that showed what Kodiak's rates would have been if they did not have that additional renewable infrastructure. Ms. Fisher-Goad explained the analysis goes beyond what were the rates before a project and what are the rates after a project. She noted they are reviewing the rates after the project, but also what the rates would have been if there had not have the project. The fundamental measurement has been the diesel equivalent displacement. Ms. Fisher-Goad advised that communities have been able to stabilize the rate and use the fuel savings to provide additional operating and maintenance services. AEA has been gathering information from the grantees and specifically asking them how the projects have benefited their rate payers and their communities. Chair Rose stated it is harder to calculate what that benefit is when determining how high the rate would have been in five, 10, 15 or 20 years if the community had remained so dependent on diesel. Chair Rose believes that is exactly what this program is doing by displacing diesel and displacing future costs. Chair Rose requested information regarding what the displacements of costs are actually doing for a community. He asked if it is allowing the community to perform more operating and maintenance tasks or something else that do not impact rates, but still provides a benefit to the community. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 15 November 12, 2013 Senator Fairclough asked, regarding the scoring criteria on evaluating projects for the grants, if there is a Power Cost Equalization overlap with the money currently invested, does AEA have criteria that measures the commercial benefit versus the residential benefit bar chart that is shown in the presentation. Mr. Skaling stated AEA does not consider that measurement in the evaluation. The expected impact to rates and expected overall economic impacts are considered. Senator Fairclough commented there is no expected impact to rates for lowering residential rates. These projects are providing stabilization to rates. Senator Fairclough believes the Legislature has the expectation this will lower energy costs for the individual and if, in fact, it is providing stabilization and insulation from volatility on changes, should there be a different measurement up front if we are trying to benefit communities that have larger commercial rates or are we still going to go to the smaller communities and try to put big projects in that they are not going to see any benefit from, as far as reduction. Senator Fairclough asked if appropriate expectations have been set for those communities if they do not see a lower cost at the end of the project. Chair Rose stated he does not want to describe Renewable Energy Fund projects as lowering rates. It is about stabilizing rates. He believes part of the problem has been the statements about lowering costs that were not achievable as saying the rates are going to be stabilized. Chair Rose recommends that the message should be that we are stabilizing costs. Senator Fairclough asked if any measurements have been taken to know if the upfront investment or the maintenance costs on renewable projects exceed the benefit to the local person who is paying their utility bill. Senator Fairclough asked if $10 million is going to be invested in a project that is benefitting a small base, does it make more sense to build the project or to give the money directly to the consumers to pay for diesel. Senator Fairclough stated she understand the carbon issue and is not suggesting this is a better way to go, but is interested in the financial consequence of the dollars being funded. Chair Rose noted from a renewable advocate point of view, a certain percentage of the diesel requirement for that village would be eliminated forever. Chair Rose commented on Senator Fairclough's example and said we might be able to afford to give money to consumers for diesel today, but will we be able to afford to give the consumer money for diesel in five years, 10 years or 15 years, as the price for diesel continues to rise. He advised the price of diesel has tripled in the last decade. Chair Rose stated the question is how to translate the stabilization benefit into something measurable which can be pointed to as something important. He believes this can be done easier over time. An unidentified speaker commented in 2012, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative spent $258,000 on wind operations and maintenance, which saved $1.3 million. It is a single point of data, but it does underscore the benefit of displacing fuel burning from those communities. Senator Fairclough stated her bottom line question is if this is benefitting the utilities or benefitting the consumer. An unidentified speaker asked what is the difference in the case of the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. Senator Fairclough stated the administrative cost in the orange bar provides the difference. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 15 November 12, 2013 Mr. Stromberg stated the benefits of some of the projects is on the heat side, which is either from a biomass project, heat recovery or excess power from hydro or wind that has been diverted to the heat load. On the heat side of the project, the residents and the community do see the benefits. None of those benefits go to reducing the state's Power Cost Equalization payments. Chair Rose believes data acquisition is key in being able to answer questions and explain the benefits of the Renewable Energy Fund program, because it is not easily measured or explained. Ms. Fisher-Goad agreed with Senator Fairclough with respect to asking the question of is the Renewable Energy Fund targeting the areas the Legislature wants it to target. AEA is following the broad statutory direction to give the most weight to the high cost areas and a significant weight to the match and statewide spreading. AEA has always looked at the cost before the Power Cost Equalization Program independently and perhaps the policy question would address if there should be a closer link to Power Cost Equalization communities to see what benefit that program provides versus a benefit of the Renewable Energy Fund. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated the issue becomes more complicated because of how significant the Power Cost Equalization Program is at a $42 million appropriation every year. She believes there is work to be done and there would be much more of an impact on residential rate payers if the Power Cost Equalization Program was not as strong. Senator Fairclough noted the purpose of this Committee is to understand the challenges and the benefits of these programs and then to make policy recommendations to the Legislature. Senator Fairclough stated her constituents are going to say to her in five years, "I haven't seen it go down, so what's up? You've spent tens of millions of the state money and it's a waste of government money." Senator Fairclough requested a way to balance the issue in an effort to preclude that conversation. She commented she is in favor of displacing diesel. Senator Fairclough believes the state is going to face some really challenging financial times within the next 10 years. She asked for solutions to how we are going to stand up these communities so that they can sustain the costs and the pay for the maintenance on their renewable projects. Ms. Mitchell stated she is disturbed by the way the conversation is going as to whether or not the Renewable Energy Fund Program is valuable and worthwhile. Ms. Mitchell noted were it not for the Renewable Energy Fund Program, the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative would not be building the hydro project in Hoonah right now because it would not be economically feasible without grant funding. Ms. Mitchell commented she strongly believes in the Renewable Energy Program and the alternative is not building any infrastructure and not being able to stabilize rates. Ms. Mitchell responded to the question of whether the utilities are benefitting or the customers are benefitting from the Renewable Energy Fund Program and noted regulated utilities are allowed very thin margins for the sale of electricity. She commented regulated utilities, especially cooperatives, are not here to make money. Ms. Mitchell advised that the utilities are required to submit to regulation for any project, which provides great protection. Ms. Mitchell state she is very grateful for the Renewable Energy Fund Program. Chair Rose explained he is not hearing anybody say that the Renewable Energy Fund Program does not have benefits. He believes the issue is how do we translate and explain those benefits, particularly in relation to the Power Cost Equalization Program. Chair Rose commented it Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 15 November 12, 2013 makes sense to look at the Power Cost Equalization Program and the Renewable Energy Fund Program together and review how the programs are interacting to determine what to spend on each program to meet the final purpose of stabilizing communities. Ms. Mitchell suggested looking at the average revenue per kilowatt hour, which is a measure that can be reviewed and calculated every year, along with the cost of power. Chair Rose commented he does not disagree with Ms. Mitchell at all and he believes there are more benefits than just the revenue per kilowatt hour. The issue is how to articulate the other benefits. Ms. Fisher-Goad explained that Round 7 is the first year that applications between electricity and heat have been divided. Electricity has a Power Cost Equalization Program correlation. Heat does not have a Power Cost Equalization Program correlation. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated the purpose of the Renewable Fund Advisory Committee is provide feedback on the submitted projects, their scores, how we can do better, what should we be looking at differently, and ultimate recommendations to the Legislature. She noted this is a recommendation process and not just funding projects. 10. Presentation on 3 Completed Projects Chair Rose noted there are not going to be three presentations, but Mr. Craft is going to give one presentation on the Banner Peak Wind Farm in Nome. Mr. Skaling stated he included this presentation on the agenda to get a better understanding of a completed project that is underway and how it is doing, see some pictures, discuss the financial impacts and impacts to people. He believes this is a nice segue to the last conversation in delving deeper into a particular project showing the tremendous economic evaluation which occurs on the front end. Mr. Skaling requested keeping this item on the agenda for the next few meetings in order to describe to the Committee how different projects are doing. Mr. Skaling stated he saw some of the Committee members' heads nodding in agreement to keeping this on the agenda and asked the members on the phone to respond if they would like to see this item remain on the agenda. Mr. Reeve and Ms. Mitchell were both on the phone, but neither commented whether they were interested or not interested in keeping this as an agenda item. Mr. Craft began his detailed PowerPoint presentation on the Banner Peak Wind Farm in Nome, which was first developed by the Bering Straits Native Corporation and then the Nome Joint Utilities is expanding the project. It has come in three different phases and has displaced about 200,000 gallons of diesel since installation, which has a value of about $600,000. Chair Rose asked for an update on how the new EWT wind turbines are working. Mr. Craft stated he does not have any data on them yet, because they were still being commissioned up through late August. Mr. Skaling noted this is one of the trial wind locations for the data collection process. Mr. Craft advised the radio communications have been upgraded to a fiber optic cable from the power plant to the wind farm. Senator Fairclough asked what is going to happen to the other turbines that have broken tips. Mr. Craft stated there are a few turbines that have broken down and are being used for spare parts. There is a performance and maintenance contract in place with the company Ethos and Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 15 November 12, 2013 they have brought the availability and the performance of those turbines up quite a bit. They are maintaining those turbines and trying to make them work as well as possible. Mr. Craft noted they have not seen the desired level of performance from the turbines, so they will not be used in the future. Senator Fairclough asked when was Tier One. An unidentified speaker responded Tier One was in 2008. Senator Fairclough commented we are not even getting a decade of use out of these turbines. Mr. Stromberg stated AEA and the state did not pay for those turbines. They were purchased by Bering Straits Native Corporation. He noted 10 years earlier, they were the only option and that is what they used, but there are better options now. Senator Fairclough inquired if there are reclamation plans for the equipment in these projects to be taken down, so communities are not left with pieces of equipment that are not working. Chair Rose stated Mr. Craft or Mr. Stromberg could answer that question because decommissioning is part of the application process. Mr. Craft gave an example of the project in St. George that is under construction. Part of the project is purchasing a crane that will stay on the island to perform large maintenance issues or take down any turbines if necessary. Senator Fairclough asked if the crane will be secured or if it will be out in the elements. Mr. Craft stated the crane will be owned by the community and it will hopefully be used for other construction projects. Mr. Stromberg advised one of the goals in the mission and value statement addresses how to treat the turbines at the end of life. He noted the turbine is expected to only have a 20-year lifespan. The transmission, the road, the foundation and the tower is expected to have a 40-year lifespan. So that when the generators and the rotor sets are no longer useable, a new project can fund replacement of those because everything down tower is still useable and the economics on that project is much better. Mr. Stromberg said it remains to be seen what the market is going to be for the availability of turbines that size, but that is the current approach. Mr. Reeve commented they experienced a wind event that put things over 25 meters per second, which is the shut down speed on the EWT's. He noted the little turbines were the ones that survived the storm just fine. They were designed in the 1980's and they still seem to be working. One has been operating for 16 years now. They are not perpetual motion machines that last forever. They all need maintenance. Chair Rose asked for the Committee to answer Mr. Skaling's question regarding is this agenda item helpful in having a closer look into a particular project. Senator Fairclough believes it is great to see the hands-on presentation. She requested schematics that would be the same for each project, including how large the community is and what the total energy need is, so that projects can be compared using the same metrics. Chair Rose requested the presentation include total project costs, including what the state's investment was through the Renewable Energy Fund grant, what the matching investment was and what other ancillary costs were that might have been paid for by the state. Mr. Skaling stated he will develop a standard form including those recommendations. Senator Fairclough asked if a smaller community actually can compete if larger communities are drawing the money away. She asked if Nome got Round One money and Round Three money, do they have great grant writers or are they further ahead or were there other communities that Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 15 November 12, 2013 were waiting. Senator Fairclough asked if we are going to go back to communities multiple times even if smaller communities have not been granted any funding. Chair Rose commented that is a really good question and after five years now of the program, the Committee could help AEA set limits on the amount of each grant and limits on the cumulative amount given to each community. Senator Fairclough inquired how does the Advisory Committee provide policy makers feedback on the policy issue of deciding how much should be invested in individual communities in order to reach the state's goal of 50% renewables by 2025. Mr. Skaling advised projects that already have renewables and they add another renewable, they are not displacing diesel anymore. So the cost effectiveness is going to decrease the closer they get to 100% renewable. So they will tend not to rank as well or maybe not even past the Stage Two if there technical evaluations and economics are not tight enough. Chair Rose commented there are some communities who are not writing effective proposals. If they have a need and they have a renewable energy resource, the question becomes; how do we get them to write an effective proposal and then execute an effective project? 11. Future Topics: Incentivizing Project Performance Chair Rose commented this is an issue that has been brought up over time that still needs to be addressed and it is related to a lot of things discussed today. Chair Rose inquired how do we set up this program so that we are incentivizing innovation and really good projects, rather than just saying send us any kind of proposal and we will evaluate it. Chair Rose stated moving into heat has been a great incentive to innovation. Chair Rose inquired if there are ways the Committee could assist AEA draft a request for proposal for Round 8 that adds an element of incentivization for some innovation so we get these projects moving to the next level of optimization. MOTION: Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the meeting minutes from June 17, 2013, Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded by Senator Fairclough. The minutes were approved unanimously. 12. Committee Member Comments Representative Edgmon stated he hopes to be in person at the next meeting because he was pulled away a couple of times by phone calls. He commented he was able to track most of the meeting. Representative Edgmon asked for clarification regarding the generation numbers in column two on page 108 and if those numbers factor in the fish processing facilities that are not tied to a local generation system. Mr. Skaling stated those numbers do not factor in the fish processing facilities. The numbers would include independent power producers and utilities. It does not include independent commercial loads. Ms. Mitchell expressed her appreciation for the update and all the hard work staff is providing. Mr. Reeve thanked everybody for all of their work. He requested more discussion at the next meeting about the ability of some of the smaller communities to be able to focus on grants. Mr. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 15 November 12, 2013 Reeve recommended addressing why some of the projects that hit the non-funded column are there and to discuss what can be done to increase the odds on good projects that did not have the technical support to reach the next level. Senator Fairclough stated she is thankful for being included in the discussion. She commented we all want great projects for Alaska and she will continue to ask questions to ensure her constituents, as well as others, can have those questions answered. Senator Fairclough commented she believes Representative Edgmon raises a good question about Naknek not being included on the energy source. She understands why that is not happening, but if there is potential for other power generation that is not being captured, then we may not have a clear picture of how much diesel could displaced. Mr. Craft stated the wind program encourages the commercial production to install metering on the equipment to provide an idea of what the commercial load in the community is and then the wind program tries to bring the commercial load into the community to increase the benefit. Senator Fairclough stated one of the concerns she has heard in rural Alaska is the issue of losing the competitive edge when information is provided that talks about how much oil, specifically, is being used and the cost of that oil. The issue becomes one of competition. Senator Fairclough gave the example if Bethel or a hub community is trying to access diesel, there is a cost advantage and if that is reported to government agencies, then it becomes known to everyone, at least on the transportation side. Senator Fairclough commented this may be a policy conversation that we need to have to protect the competitive edge, while still being able to collect the data, but not providing the data to the general population. Chair Rose commented this issue has been discussed in the context of energy efficiency because if we do not know how much heating oil a community is using, it is very difficult to measure how well efficiency programs are working. Chair Rose believes what Senator Fairclough suggested is a great idea to require reporting to AEA of the amount of heating oil and diesel sold, while still protecting the businesses! trade advantage. This would be a really helpful piece of baseline information. Ms. Traylor advised biomass does that and AEA requests suppliers to provide the cost of cords and the cost of pellets. The information is kept confidential and AEA does not provide the name of the entity providing the information. Chair Rose expressed his appreciation for all of the work staff has done and is really happy to see the data collection pilot is moving ahead. Chair Rose requested another update at the next meeting. He stated he is happy about the Power Cost Equalization and Renewable Energy Fund coordination presentation. He believes it raised some good questions that need to be answered, maybe not by the next meeting, but perhaps by the spring meeting and continue the discussion about other ways that we can be measuring the benefits of the Renewable Energy Fund Program. Chair Rose noted it would be good to continue having quick presentations on completed projects like the one Mr. Craft presented. He requested keeping the agenda item Incentivizing Project Performance on the table for the spring meeting. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 15 November 12, 2013 13. Next Meeting Date 13.a. Confirm January Meeting Date/Time The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. Senator Fairclough noted she will be attending by teleconference. 13.b. Spring Meeting: Considering Kodiak The spring meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 13, 2014. Staff and committee are considering meeting in Kodiak. 14. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:32 p.m. = ALASKA... <= ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation January 7, 2014 Overview of Review Process The purpose of this document is to provide a thorough description of how the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 7 applications were evaluated. This document, including the attached Appendix A, will be posted on the Alaska Energy Authority’s Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 7 webpage http://www.akenergyauthority.org/refund7.html following approval of the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee in January 2014. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) received a total of 87* applications for Round 7 of the REF. One application was an improved duplicate application, so the earlier submittal was removed from the review process. (*Due to the duplication, AEA generally states that 86 applications were received in this round). These applications were evaluated in four stages. Conducted by AEA staff, the first stage of review evaluated each application for completeness, eligibility, and responsiveness to the request for applications (RFA). AEA rejected three proposals that did not meet these threshold criteria. The second stage evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of the 83 remaining proposed projects. In addition to numerical scores, the second stage resulted in project-specific recommendations for full, partial, or no funding, as well as recommendations for special provisions for grantable awards should the Legislature approve funding. The second stage was conducted by AEA staff with the assistance of Alaska Department of Natural Resources staff, and private economists under contract to AEA. Projects may have been recommended for partial funding if they were viable but: e Documentation submitted with the application was not sufficient to justify full funding for more than one phase of a project. e Funding for proposed project development phases would not be used until late FY 2015 or afterwards. That is, funds would be tied up unreasonably. e AEA believed that proposed costs were excessive for the work proposed for completion. e The applicant requested AEA to manage the project and the AEA Project Manager could confidently estimate a lower cost. e The proposal included operating costs, ineligible costs, unreasonably high costs, or other costs not recommended for funding. Following AEA staff recommendations of no funding for 20 projects, the AEA Executive Director received requests for reconsideration from six applicants. In response to the reconsideration requests, the Executive Director directed staff to score or rescore three of the six proposals. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044 After scoring, one project passed Stage 2 minimum scores and was ranked in Stage 3. Asa result AEA recommended 64 projects for partial or full funding. The third stage was a final scoring based on the specific guidelines in the RFA that was conducted by AEA staff. The scoring was based on a number of matrices and pre-established weighting for each of the criteria: Cost of Energy (35%) Matching Funds (15%) Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%): score from stage 2 Project Readiness (5%) Economic and Other Alaska Benefit (15%) Sustainability (5%) Local Support (5%) NOWP WNP In the fourth stage all applications were ranked by region with the final funding recommendation being made based on the number and rank of applications with each region, the cost of energy, and a balance of statewide funding. Where AEA recommended less than the requested amount and the Legislature funds the project, AEA will work with grantees to assure that the revised scope of the final grant award is consistent with the grantee’s proposal and meets the public purposes of the program. Roles of AEA Staff and the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee AEA staff requested and received input from the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee regarding the process and final funding recommendations. Following is a summary of Committee involvement. AEA staff and the Committee met on April 2, 2013 and on June 17, 2013 to discuss issues including the schedule and details of the Round 7 RFA, progress on funded projects, possible changes to the program in the future, ways to expedite funding for priority heat projects and/or other projects requiring a faster turnaround to expedite project development. Midway through review of the applications AEA staff and the Committee met on November 12, 2013 to discuss progress on the review. Following AEA evaluation of all applications, AEA staff and the Committee met on January 7, 2014 to review the proposed recommendations. Based on this discussion AEA finalized its recommendations. On January 30, 2014, AEA recommendations for funding Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 projects will be submitted to the legislature for review and approval. RE-Fund Round 7 Evaluation Guidelines Page 2 of 2 01/07/2014 = ALASKA... @@mml ENERGY AUTHORITY Appendix A Guidelines for Renewable Energy Fund Application Evaluation Table of Contents Stage 1 Review Process: . Reviewers. Criteria .. Process ...... Stage 2 Review Proce: ...ssssssssssesssssssessssssesscenssnsssesssssnseseneenensesseeneeoeeneenenseaseneenssesesaeenseneaneneanensaneesens Reviewers... Criteria .. Process... Stage 3 Review Process: . Reviewers..... Criteria... Process .. Funding Limitations on Recommendations Sec 1.14 Recommendation Guidelines Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations ........sssssssseseseeeeneees 9 Reviewers Process Scoring Criteria General Scoring Criteria.. Stage 2 Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio. Stage 2 Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan Stage 2 Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines... Stage 3 Criterion Match Stage 3 Criterion Local Support.. Stage 3 Criterion Project Readiness... Stage 3 Criterion Public Benefit Stage 3 Criterion Sustainability. Stage 3 Criterion Statewide Regional Balance. Stage 3 Criterion Compliance with Other Awards.. Stage 4 Regional Spread These are the Evaluation Guidelines and instructions for evaluation of the Round 7 RFA for Renewable Energy Fund Grant Projects e Applications that do not comply with AS 42.45.45 and all of the material and substantial terms, conditions, and requirements of the RFA may be rejected. e If an application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its application has been rejected and the basis for rejection. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044 The Authority may waive minor requirements of the RFA that do not result ina material change in the requirements of the RFA and do not give an applicant an unfair advantage in the review process. Upon submission of the final recommendations to the Legislature the Authority will make all applications available for review on the Authority's web site. General: Communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through the Grant Administrator. Once initiated, the Grant Administrator may direct applicants to communicate directly with the appropriate AEA staff member. The Executive Director is the Executive Director of AEA; Deputy Directors are those management personnel in AEA who have program oversight for AEA programs; Project Managers are the subject matter technical experts; and the Grant Administrator is the person responsible for overseeing the grant process for the Authority. All applications will be reviewed using the same process and criteria established in the RFA. Decisions made in each stage of the review process will be documented in writing and made a part of the grant file. If reviewers think they may have a potential conflict of interest, (financial or personal interest, such as friend or family members) they should inform their supervisor immediately of the potential nature of the conflict. Reviewers should make notes of any questions they may have about an application. Reviewers should not contact applicants directly, instead communicate through the Grant Administrator, unless the Grant Administrator recommends direct communication with the applicant. If Reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should contact the Grant Administrator. If Reviewers have technical questions they should contact the Project Managers. Communications relating to the economic evaluations should go through or copy the AEA staff economist. If an application is rejected or not recommended the applicants will be sent a letter from the Grant Administrator explaining why their application has been rejected or not recommended. Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Administrator the reasons for why the application is being rejected. All written notes should be kept with the application file or in the active server files established for this purpose. All notes are considered public records and subject to Alaska public records act disclosure requirements. Any appeals from rejected applicants in Stage 1 or Stage 2 reviews will be directed to the Grant Administrator. The Grant Administrator will review the appeal with the Executive Director, Deputy Director, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 2 01/07/2014 Stage 1 Review Process: All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by the Authority staff to assess if the application is complete, meets the minimum submission requirements, and has adequate information to proceed to Stage 2 — Technical and Economic Evaluation. Reviewers Grant Administrator and at least one Deputy Director Criteria e Allcriteria are scored pass/fail. Failure to meet any of these criteria results in rejection of the Application. 1. The application is submitted by an Eligible Applicant (sec 1.4 of RFA). 2. The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.5). 3. A resolution or other formal authorization of the Applicant's governing body is included with the application to demonstrate the Applicant's commitment to the project and any proposed use of matching resources (sec 1.4). 4. The application provides a detailed description of the phase(s) of project proposed, i.e. reconnaissance study, conceptual design/feasibility study, final design/permitting, and/or construction (sec 2.2 - 2.6). 5. The application is complete in that the information provided is sufficiently responsive to the RFA to allow AEA to consider the application in the next stage of evaluation. 6. The Applicant demonstrates that they will take ownership of the project; own, lease, or otherwise control the site upon which the project is located; and upon completion of the project operate and maintain it for its economic life for the benefit of the public. (sec 1.4) Process e The Grant Administrator will evaluate criteria 1-3 & 6 above. e The Deputy Director will evaluate criteria 4-5 above. e Ifit appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional data the Deputy Director or Project Managers (PM) may make a recommendation to the Grant Administrator for additional information. The Grant Administrator will request clarifying information from the applicant. The applicant will have a specified amount of time to provide the requested information. Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide information that completes their application will result in the application being rejected. e Applications that are determined by the Grant Administrator and Deputy Director to be incomplete or fail to meet the minimum requirements will be reviewed by the Executive Director with the assistance of Legal or procurement staff as needed prior to being rejected at Stage 1. e Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed stage 1. e Any requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants in Stage 1 will be directed to the Grant Administrator. The Grant Administrator will review the request with the RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 3 01/07/2014 Executive Director, Deputy Director, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action. Stage 2 Review Process: All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for technical and economic feasibility in accordance with the criteria below. Reviewers e Project Managers — the AEA technical subject matter experts. e Staff from Department of Natural Resources — technical experts providing specific review and comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and natural resource development. e Economists - Contracted economist who will review cost benefit and other cost and pricing information provided for each application submitted for the purpose of providing the authority and independent assessment of the economics of the proposed project using a standardized economic evaluation across all projects. e AEA staff economist — Manages, oversees and ensures equal evaluations between economists and ultimately performs a quality assurance review of economic analysis work for selected projects. e Deputy Directors — Overseers of the work of the Project Managers Criteria e Each of the numbered criteria below will be scored with a numerical score 1-10 and weighted per the percentages below. Criteria Weight 20% 1. Project Management, Development, and Operation a. The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in adequate detail. b. The cost savings estimates for project development, operation, maintenance, fuel, and other project items are realistic. c. The project team’s method of communicating, monitoring, and reporting development progress is described in adequate detail. d. Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable and described in adequate detail. 2. Qualifications and Experience 20% a. The Applicant, partners, and contractors have sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully complete and operate the project. b. The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete and operate the project. c. The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and environmental barriers to successful project RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 4 01/07/2014 completion and operation. d. The project uses local labor and trains a local labor workforce. 3. Technical Feasibility 20% a. The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis, and project permits and other authorizations can reasonably be obtained. b. Asite is available and suitable for the proposed energy system. Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable. The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as planned. e. If ademonstration project is being proposed: e Application in other areas of the state, or another specific benefit of the proposed project, is likely: e need for this project is shown (vs. the ability to use existing technology); and e the risks of the proposed system are reasonable and warrant demonstration. a9 4. Economic Feasibility 25% a. The project is shown to be economically feasible (net savings in fuel, operation and maintenance, and capital costs over the life of the proposed project). In determining economic feasibility and benefits, applications will be evaluated anticipating the grantee will use cost-based rates. b. The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of | 5% the grant-funded phase and has considered options for financing subsequent phases of the project. c. Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated. 10% Avoided cost rates alone will not be presumed to be in the best interest of the public. Process Project Managers will carefully review the proposals for their assigned technology group and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria, a funding recommendation, and draft statement regarding AEA’s funding recommendation. An economist hired by AEA will review the economic information and provide an independent analysis of cost and benefits of each project. The reviewers will consider the independent analysis when scoring the economic feasibility and benefits criteria. Reviewers will use the formula and criteria in the attached Scoring Matrix Guide - for designated criteria in Stage 2. If the Project Manager believes they need additional information they will coordinate their request for follow-up information with the Grant Administrator. The purpose of follow-up is for clarification and to help the Project Manager gain a sufficient understanding of the project proposed. Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Administrator to the applicant by e-mail, Bcc to project manager, requesting a response in 7 days or fewer. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 5 01/07/2014 e Applicants that fail to respond to requests for information or to adequately address the criteria in the technical review will be rejected in Stage 2. e The Deputy Directors or their designee will meet with the Project Managers to review the applications and discuss final Stage 2 scoring. Scoring per the Stage 2 criteria may be adjusted based on final discussions between the Deputy Directors, Project Managers, Economists, and Executive Director. e Applications may be not recommended prior to generating scores for Stage 2. e A final weighted Stage 2 technical and economic feasibility score will be given for each application reviewed and will be used to calculate the Stage 3 feasibility score. e Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may not be recommended for funding or further review. e Aminimum score of 40 is required for Stage 2 in order to pass to Stage 3. This minimum score was raised by 5 points from previous rounds. e Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed Stage 2. e The Authority will develop a preliminary list of feasible applications based on the Stage 2 review with AEA recommendations on technical and economic feasibility and a recommended funding level to be considered in the Stage 3 review. Stage 3 Review Process: All applications that pass the technical review will be evaluated for the purpose of ranking applications and making recommendations to the Legislature based on the following criteria which include criteria required by 3 AAC 107.655 and AS 42.45.045. The technical and economic feasibility score from Stage 2 will be automatically weighted and scored in Stage 3. The average of the Economic and Public Benefit score of Stage 2 will be used for initial scoring of Economic and Other Public Benefit Score. This score will be reviewed by the Deputy Directors. The Grant Administrator, with staff assistance, will score the cost of energy, type and amount of matching funds, and local support, using the formulas and methods outlined in Appendix A. Two Deputy Directors or their designee and the Project Managers will provide scores for readiness and previous success, and sustainability. AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for the Advisory committee to review. The Advisory Committee will review the final Stage 3 scores regional ranking recommendations of the Authority. The Committee may make recommendations to assist in achieving a statewide balance but will not be rescoring based on the criteria. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 6 01/07/2014 Reviewers e Grant Administrator (Local Support and Match Criteria) e Two Deputy Directors e Project Managers e Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations) Criteria e Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted. Criteria Round 7 Weight Cost of energy in the affected project area relative to | 35 other areas (From Worksheet) The type and amount of matching funds and other 15 resources an applicant will commit to the project. (See formula) Project feasibility (Score from Stage 2 weighted) 20 Project readiness. How quickly the proposed work 5 can begin and be accomplished and/or success in previous phases of project development. Public benefits including economic benefit to the 15 Alaska Public. Sustainability — the ability of the application to finance, | 5 operate and maintain the project for the life of the | project Local Support (See formula) 5 Statewide Balance of Funds (Evaluated as a pass fail if there are similar projects in the same community. Statewide Balance is done in Stage 4.) Compliance with Previous Grant Awards and progress in previous phases of project development. (Evaluated as a pass fail) Process e Reviewers will use the Scoring Matrix Guides for designated criteria in Stage 3. e Each application will be given a single weighted score. e Where more than one evaluator is scoring a given criteria the scores of all evaluators for that criteria will be averaged. e Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Administrator by e- mail, Bcc to project manager, with a response time of 7 days or less. e The evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to determine a more complete understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their application. Funding Limitations on Recommendations (Sec 1.15 of RFA) Evaluators should take these limits into account when making recommendations as the applicants were instructed that they would be responsible for any project costs beyond the grant funds available to complete the project. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 7 01/07/2014 Project Type/Phase Grant Limits Construction projects on the Railbelt $4 Million per project and SE Alaskan communities that have a low cost of power. Construction in all other areas of the $8 Million per project State not mentioned above. Recommendation Guidelines e The final recommendations will be one of the following: o Recommend — Full funding per application o Recommend - Partial funding with a recommended funding amount o Not recommend for grant funding — (basis for not recommending to be explained) e Final AEA recommendations may also suggest specific terms or conditions be imposed on the grantee to assure the project is successful and the public receives value for the funds to be expended e Multi-phase funding guidelines o Fund multiple phases: Multiple phases can be completed in 2013/14, and project is well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk. o Fund limited phases: Project construction would be 2014+, not well-defined, expensive, higher risk, or there are competing projects for which planning is desirable. e Competing or interactive projects guidelines o If AEA is aware of the potential for substantial interaction among proposed and/or other known projects, then recommend planning with appropriate level of analysis and public input before committing substantial funding to one or more alternatives. e Partial Funding Guidelines o Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are recommended. o Exception 1: If AEA believes project can be built for less, then lower figure can be recommended. AEA will provide justification for lower figure in its recommendations. o Exception 2: Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor, fuel) or non-renewable energy components (e.g. a diesel generator) not recommended for funding. o Exception 3 — If limiting funding to a maximum dollar limit for specific areas groups, or types of projects would provide the best statewide balance of funds AEA may do that. e Guidelines for recommendations for bio-fuels Projects (RFA 1.14) o Bio-fuel projects where the Applicant does not intend to generate electricity or heat for sale to the public will be limited to reconnaissance and feasibility phases only. e Consideration of Resource Assessment Projects o Resource assessment associated with one or more site-specific projects is eligible for phase 2 funding. General regional or statewide assessment, not tied RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 8 01/07/2014 to particular proposed projects, is not eligible, and more appropriately done through the DNR/AEA Alaska Energy Inventory Data project. e Recommendation Guidelines will be documented and a part of the grant file. Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations All applications recommended for grants as a result the Stage 3 evaluation will be ranked in accordance with 3 AAC 107.660. To establish a statewide balance of recommended projects, the Authority will provide to the advisory committee a statewide and regional ranking of all applications recommended for grants in Stage 3. In consultation with the advisory committee the Authority will make a final prioritized list of all recommended projects giving significant weight to providing a statewide balance for grant money, and taking into consideration the amount of money that may be available, the number and types of project within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank of each application. In its final decision on an application the Authority may recommend a grant in an amount for the project phases different from what the Applicant requested. In recommending a grant for phases different from what the Applicant requested, the authority may limit its recommendation to a grant for one or more preliminary project phases before recommending a grant for project construction. Reviewers e Grant Administrator e Deputy Director e Executive Director of AEA. e Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations) Process e Upon completion of scoring and specific project recommendations by AEA all applications will be grouped within geographical regions. e Each group of applications will be ranked within their geographical region based on the final Stage 3 score. e Each application will have Stage 3 score and regional rank. e Adraft recommendation of projects for funding, (based on available funds) will be presented to the Advisory Committee for Review along with the complete list of all projects. e Consistent with the process established in rounds 1-6, AEA will prepare a summary of the draft recommendations by energy region that will compare potential allocations of funding by 1) population, 2) an even split for each region, and 3) the average cost of power in each region that takes into account populations of each community in each region. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 9 01/07/2014 Stage 4 revised allocations in each region should be at least 50% of the allocation based on 3) cost of power. In order to attain this goal AEA will refer to the Stage 3 statewide ranking list, identify the next highest-ranked project in regions that do not meet the 50% goal, and add that recommendation to the Stage 4 list. In order to meet total funding limits AEA will refer to the stage 3 statewide ranking list and remove the lowest-ranked recommendation. The Advisory committee may provide additional recommendations as to the funding level of individual projects, the final ranking of projects, and the total amount of funding and number of projects AEA forwards to the legislature. The final list of recommended projects for funding will provide a reasonable statewide balance of funds taking into consideration the overall score, the cost of energy, the rank of projects within a region. Recommendations to the Legislature The final recommendation to the legislature will include: A list of recommended Applications for FY 2015 funding. A list of applications recommended if additional funds may be available. A list of applications not recommended for funding. A list of applications rejected as ineligible. The final recommendation to the legislature will also contain specific information for each project as requested by the legislature and a summary of each project. Applicants may be required to provide additional information to the Legislature upon request. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 10 01/07/2014 Scoring Criteria General Scoring Criteria e Pass/Fail scoring means either the criteria are met or they are not. e Aweighted score for each of the criteria will calculated and each complete application will be given a total score at the end of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 review process unless the application is determined not to meet the requirements of the RFA. e Reviewers should use the following weighted scoring of criteria as a guide in addition to the specific formula scoring matrices for some criteria defined in sections below. Score | Guidelines (Intent is to provide a range) 10 At | The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the criteria requirements and completely addresses them thoughtful manner. The application addresses the criteria in a manner clearly superior to other applications received. There is no need for additional follow-up with the applicant to understand how they meet the requirements of the criteria i B The application provides information that is generally complete and well-supported. Evaluators may still have a few questions regarding how the applicant meets the criterion but it is clear the applicant understands what is required. 5 Cc The application addresses the criteria in an adequate way. Meets minimum requirements under each of the criteria. Some issues may still need to be clarified prior to awarding a grant. 3 D The application information is incomplete or fails to fully address what is needed for the project or information has errors. The Authority may need more info to be able to complete the evaluation or need to resolve issues before recommending or awarding a grant. 0 F The application fails to demonstrate understanding of the criteria requirements or project proposed. Required information is poor or absent in the proposal. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 11 01/07/2014 Stage 2 Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio (Maximum Stage Two Points: 25) AEA staff will consider the economist evaluation when scoring this criterion. They will compare the economists and any Applicant proposed B/C and determine which of the B/C ranges may be most appropriate. If there is wide discrepancy between the two B/C ratios they will use their best judgment based on their understanding of the technical aspects of the proposal to assign a score. A project will be scored at 0 if the Benefit Cost ratio value is < 0.90 or if no or insufficient information is provided by the applicant to do an economic analysis. Benefit / Cost (B/C) Ratio Value Score Less than 0.90 0 (This indicates that there is relatively low economic benefit or economic analysis cannot be conducted.) >0.90 — =<1.00 1 >1.00 — =<1.10 3 >1.10 - =<1.20 4 >1.20 — =<1.30 5 >1.30 — =<1.40 6 >1.40- < 1.50 7 >1.50- < 1.60 8 >1.60- < 1.70 9 =>1.7 | Stage 2 Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan (Maximum Stage Two Points: 10) The Financing plan score will be subjectively scored based on the applicant’s intent and level of detail described in the application on how the applicant proposes to fund the project. Questions to be considered under these criteria: e If recommended, are funds needed to complete the work identified in the application available and adequate to complete all the work in the Grant? e If additional funds are needed does the applicant specifically identify where they will come from? e Are these additional funds secured, or are they pending future approvals? e Is there a reasonable plan for covering potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding? e What impact, if any, would the timing of availability of additional funds have on the ability to proceed with the grant? If the above questions are addressed in the application and there is an adequate plan this will be given a point score of 10. If the plan is not adequate it will be scored lower based on the likelihood of funding being available to complete the project or additional commitments that may need to be made by the applicant prior to award of a grant. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 12 01/07/2014 For example, an applicant may request construction funding above the RFA cap but does not indicate how the additional funding will be obtained. They may receive a lower score than an applicant who can demonstrate they have all the financial resources in place to complete the grant work proposed in the application. If future stages of work will be needed beyond the scope of the application, consideration should be given as to the likelihood of future funding for the future stages. Stage 2 Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines (Maximum Stage 2 points: 10) The score for this criterion will be provided by AEA reviewers during the Stage 2 evaluation. For the purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would be considered unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. i.e. decreased greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won’t be considered under this category. Project review economists will provide a qualitative assessment of potential public benefits in their project review summary for each project they review. Economists will not provide scores for the criteria. Each category may be scored 0-2 with the maximum total public benefit weight being no more than 10 points. 0 No documented benefit 1 Some benefit / not well documented 2 Good benefit / well documented Score Will the project result in developing infrastructure such as 0-2 roads that can be used for other purposes? Will the project result in a direct long-term increase in jobs 0-2 such as for operating or supplying fuel to the facility? Will the project solve other problems for the community, 0-2 such as waste disposal? Will the project generate useful information that could be 0-2 used by the public in other parts of the State? Will this project either promote or sustain long-term 0-2 commercial economic development for the community? Are there other public benefits identified by the applicant? 0-2 RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 13 01/07/2014 Stage 3 Criterion Match Total of 15 points will be calculated as follows: The scoring matrix for the total amount of match may be adjusted by the Grant Administrator after the initial review of applications based on a reasonable threshold for each level based on the applicants match in all applications. Type of Match 5 +| Percentage of | 10 + Pts Match to total | Pts Grant Request Support of any kind referenced 1 .01% - <5% of | 1 but not given a specific value IE Grant = housing offered to outside workers, administration of | project without compensation Previous investment towards 2 =>5% - =<10% | 2 project completion including of Grant = investments in building envelope efficiency completed in the last 5 years if applying for a heat energy project Another grant [State] as Match 3 >10% - =<15% | 4 of Grant = Other (Grant Fed) Or private 4 >15% - =<30% | 6 of Grant Loan or Local Cash or any 5 >30% - =<49% | 8 documented In-kind Match of Grant = (including energy efficiency > 49% of Grant | 10 improvements directly related to the project) (1) If there are multiple types of Match that with highest value is scored. Stage 3 Criterion Local Support Total of 5 Points Available Documented unresolved issues concerning the application: no points 0 points will be given if these exist regardless of demonstrated support Resolution from city, village council, or listed in Regional Energy Plan 2 points each Support demonstrated by local entity other than applicant 1 point each up to 6 Opposition demonstrated by local entity. -1 point each Letters of support from legislators do not count toward this criterion. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 14 01/07/2014 Stage 3 Criterion Project Readiness Up to ten points are available and may be assigned as follows. If evaluators believe there are other readiness criteria that should be considered they may adjust the score when awarding points for this criteria. Criteria Up to 10 points Points may be awarded in only one of the first two criteria, plus any available additional points from the other criteria. Proposed work is reconnaissance level and is consistent with specific 4 points recommendations under the Alaska Energy Pathway or Regional Energy Plan Project is currently underway with feasibility or reconnaissance work, 4 points design work related to the project, or actual construction of the project and the applicant is using their own funds or funds from another eligible source to finance the activity. Applicant has completed previous phase(s) of proposed project and desires | 2 points additional funding to complete the next phase of project. Applicant has completed required feasibility and/or design work for project | 2 points and is prepared to place an order for necessary equipment for the project; such as an item with a ‘long lead time’ to procure. Applicant has obtained all necessary permits, met all permit requirements, | 2 points and addressed all regulatory agency stipulations. Applicants for heat projects have provided evidence of investment in and 2 points commitment to thermal energy efficiency in the building(s) to be served by the heat project. Stage 3 Criterion Public Benefit This criteria will be scored using a weighted calculation from the Phase 2 Economic (4.a) and Public Benefit score (4.c). Stage 3 Criterion Sustainability This criteria will be scored from 0 to 10 with a total weighting of 5% based on the evaluators’ assessment of the 1) capability of the grantee to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and financially, to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project, 2) likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project, 3) likelihood of market for energy produced over the life of the project. For heat projects the criteria will be scored from 0 to 10 based on the variables 1 through 3 listed above plus 4) the condition of the building(s) to be served by the heat project, in particular how well the applicant has demonstrated an investment in and commitment to thermal energy efficiency. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 15 01/07/2014 Stage 3 Criterion Statewide Regional Balance Rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable (NA) Criteria If there is more than one project from the same community or area, which project has received an overall higher score during the review and/or has demonstrated that local residents are in favor of the project. Project funding will provide balance to the number and/or amount to a specific area of the State. Stage 3 Criterion Compliance with Other Awards Rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable (NA Criteria Legislative | Alternative Energy Round I-IV Grant Solicitation (Round 0) Has grantee provided all necessary information for grant preparation for grants awarded from previous solicitations? Is grantee making verifiable and adequate progress using previous grant funds; for this or another project? Has grantee provided all required financial and progress reports, per the terms of any previous grants? Stage 3 Criterion Cost of Energy New to Round 7, is a separation of heat applications from the rest of the renewable energy grant fund applications and a different methodology for scoring the cost of energy. For standard applications, the same methodology used in previous rounds is applied. This score is based on the residential cost of power for each community using available data, primarily the annual averages of residential rates reported in the Alaska Energy Statistics, 1960-2011 and the workbook tables prepared by ISER for the Alaska Energy Authority November, 2013. Scores are assigned for each community using the following formula: Score = (cost of power) / 0.80 x 10, Score cannot be greater than 10. Communities with a residential cost of power above $0.80/kWh are assigned a score of 10. For heat applications, the score is based on the cost of heating fuel for each community using available data, primarily the heating fuel #1 retail price per gallon as reported in the Alaska Fuel Price Report: Current Community Conditions, July 2013 prepared by DCRA. For communities not included in the report, a recent invoice, provided by the applicant is used. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 16 01/07/2014 Scores are assigned for each community using the following formula: Score = (cost of heat) / $8.00 x 10, Score cannot be greater than 10. Communities with a residential cost of power above $8.00/gallon are assigned a score of 10. In some instances, a standard application is displacing heating fuel and/or a heat application is displaying electricity. Under such circumstances, the cost of the displaced energy is used. For all applications, the maximum cost of energy score is 35. Communities with the highest cost of electrical energy are getting the most points for this criterion. All other applications will be scored as a percentage of the highest costs against an established matrix. In some instances, an application may address multiple communities. In such cases, the average residential rate or price of heating fuel is used. The specific cost of energy score for Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 applications follows: Bristol Bay NEA Stack Heat to Power Project $3.50 Southeast 1007 | Mendenhall Valley Library Geothermal $4.12 5.15 18.03 HVAC System Lower Yukon- 1008 | Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recovery $6.82 Kuskokwim Railbelt 1009 | Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating $4.06 5.08 17.76 System Project Southeast 1010 | Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion $3.80 4.75 16.63 Southeast 1011 | Sitka Centennial Hall Air Source Heat Pump | $3.59 4.49 15.71 Southeast 1012 | Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent $3.59 4.49 15.71 Heat Pump Southeast 1013 | Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat $3.59 4.49 15.71 Pump Copper 1014 | Wood Chip Boiler for The Native Village of | $4.17 5:21 18.24 River/Chugach Tazlina Southeast 1016 | Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler $4.20 5.25: 18.38 Project Southeast 1017 | Southeast Island School District Wood $3.80 4.75 16.63 Boilers Southeast 1021 | Haines Borough Municipal Buildings $4.09 5.11 17.89 Biomass Project Aleutians 1026 | Atka Dispatchable Heat $7.65 9.56 33.47 Railbelt 1031 | Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump | $5.19 6.49 22.71 Project Yukon-Koyukok/ 1032 | Biomass Heat for Minto Community $5.00 6.25 21.88 Upper Tanana Buildings RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 17 01/07/2014 Southeast 1033 | Sitka Sea Water Source Heat Pump Project $3.59 4.49 15.71 Southeast 1037 | Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass $3.59 4.49 15.71 Heating Project Northwest Arctic 1038 | Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy | $6.07 7.59 26.56 Project Bering Straits 1040 | Brevig Mission Water System Heat $5.29 6.61 23.14 Recovery Lower Yukon- 1041 | Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat $4.30 5.38 18.81 Kuskokwim Recovery Lower Yukon- 1042 | Eek Water System Heat Recovery $3.89 4.86 17.02 Kuskokwim Lower Yukon- 1043 | St Marys Heat Recovery System $4.60 5.75 20.13 Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukok/ 1044 | Venetie Clinic Heat Recovery $8.50 10.00 35.00 Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukok/ 1045 | Grayling Heat Recovery System $5.00 6.25 21.88 Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukok/ 1047 | Galena Community Wood Heat Project $6.02 7:53 26.34 Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukok/ 1051 | AGSD Extension of Heating Loop $3.79 4.74 16.58 Upper Tanana Lower Yukon- 1052 | Nunam Iqua Heat Recovery Project $4.38 5.48 19.16 Kuskokwim Southeast 1053 | Yakutat Biomass District Heating Loop $5.05 6.31 22.09 Railbelt 1055 | Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Recovery $0.1 1/kwh 1.31 4.59 Project Yukon-Koyukok/ 1060 | Holy Cross Water System Heat Recovery $7.15 8.94 31.28 Upper Tanana Lower Yukon- 1061 | Emmonak Heat Recovery System $5.77 TLL 25.24 Kuskokwim Lower Yukon- 1071 | Kwigillingok Wind Heat Electrical Thermal | $5.95 7A4 26.03 Kuskokwim Storage Lower Yukon- 1073 | Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal | $6.21 7.76 2TAT Kuskokwim Storage Lower Yukon- 1074 | Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal $6.80 8.50 29.75 Kuskokwim Storage Northwest Arctic 1076 | NWAB School District Solar Thermal $0.63/kwh Systems Railbelt 1078 | Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass $3.71 4.64 16.23 Project Lower Yukon- 1085 | Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery $6.80 8.50 29.75 Kuskokwim Southeast 1087 | Kake Community Energy $5.85 731 25.59 RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 18 01/07/2014 Northwest Arctic 1001 Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project | $0.42 5.22 18.27 Railbelt 1002 Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype $0.22 Demonstration Southeast 1003 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase II] and | $0.10 IV Kodiak 1004 Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System | $0.60 Copper River/ 1015 Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.28 3:56 12.44 Chugach Construction Bristol Bay 1018 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and $0.48 5.94 20.81 Permitting Southeast 1019 Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project N/A Southeast 1020 Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility N/A and Conceptual Design Southeast 1022 SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase I | $0.10 1.28 4.47 and II Southeast 1023 Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project $0.10 1.28 447 Southeast 1024 Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibility $0.62 Southeast 1025 Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility $0.62 7.16 27.14 Study Yukon-Koyukok/ 1027 Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project | $0.49 6.13 21.46 Upper Tanana Railbelt 1028 Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.22 2.80 9.81 Reconnaissance Study Railbelt 1029 Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility | $0.22 Study Kodiak 1030 Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric $0.19 2.38 8.32 Crane Southeast 1034 Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie $0.10 Southeast 1035 Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet $0.65 Geothermal Resource Bristol Bay 1036 Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase | $0.69 8.65 30.26 Il Lower Yukon- 1039 Four Villages Intertie Design Kuskokwim Bristol Bay 1046 Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction | $0.68 Phase North Slope 1048 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design & Permitting | $0.15 1.88 6.56 North Slope 1049 Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and $0.15 1.88 6.56 Permitting Project Bristol Bay 1050 Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar} $0.50 PV Project Lower Yukon- 1054 Multiple Alternative Energy Sources for Kuskokwim Napakiak Aleutians 1056 Adak Wind Data Collection Analysis and $0.81 Preliminary Design RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 19 01/07/2014 Lower Yukon- 1057 Mertarvik Renewable Energy Feasibility $0.80 10.00 35.00 Kuskokwim and Conceptual Design Northwest Arctic 1058 Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array $0.74 Construction Project Northwest Arctic 1059 Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and $0.74 Permitting Aleutians 1062 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study $0.51 6.41 22.45 Bristol Bay 1063 Iliamna Solar Ground Mounted Energy $0.59 System Copper River/ 1064 Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction $0.44 Chugach Kodiak 1065 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Final $0.58 7.20 2521 Design and Permitting Lower Yukon- 1066 Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and $0.50 6.30 22.05 Kuskokwim Permitting Project Lower Yukon- 1067 Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and $0.54 6.80 23.80 Kuskokwim Conceptual Design Bering Straits 1068 Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final $0.56 6.98 24.42 Design and Permitting Lower Yukon- 1069 St Marys Pitkas Point Wind Energy $0.49 6.17 21.60 Kuskokwim Construction Project Aleutians 1070 Sand Point Energy Storage Project $0.58 7.30 25.55 Bristol Bay 1072 Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and $0.80 10.00 35.00 Conceptual Design Copper River/ 1075 Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.28 3.56 12.44 Chugach Feasibility Study Yukon-Koyukok/ 1077 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.49 6.13 21.46 Upper Tanana Bristol Bay 1079 Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery | $0.50 6.31 22.09 Aleutians 1080 False Pass Wind Energy Project $0.51 6.41 22.45 Railbelt 1081 Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Study $0.15 1.94 6.78 Railbelt 1082 Stetson Creek Diversion Cooper Lake Dam | $0.15 1.94 6.78 Facilities Project Aleutians 1083 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.28 3.50 12.26 Railbelt 1084 Juniper Creek Hydroelectric $0.15 1.89 6.61 Reconnaissance Study Stage 4 Regional Spread This score is based on local population census and the residential cost of power for each community using available data, primarily the annual averages of residential rates reported in the preliminary Alaska Energy Statistics, 1960-2011 and the workbook tables prepared by ISER for the Alaska Energy Authority November, 2012 and the Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section, http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/estimates/data/T otalPopulationPlace.xls RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 20 01/07/2014 DRAFT Alaska Renewable Energy Fund - Round 7 Regional Summary Ranking for $20 million Allocation DRAFT - January 5, 2014 Rounds 1-6 tal R ds ° otal EnerayRegion| 1-8 Funding | Funding _| Peuians | _17a7e2s1 es] ox | being stats | —20,366,615.00) 0% Bristolbay | _11.216.341 60) om | ower Yukon-| 27,511,331.25] 2,185,341.6) 52,382,472.27 11,329,179.1 3 [3 s a eT > Fl Ed 218 8 Nis sls 2 wie IN 2 8/8 |= [8/218 lalala $22: . Round 7 ; Recommendation Cost of Power idditio Energy Avg cost cation cost} needed to [Region Grant Funding power ($/kWh)| of power basis eutians | sti4.ges{ 1% | oe [$2,183,504] $076, [Bering Strats | st,o73.372]_ 5% | oa? $2,260,032] $56,644] $292,930 feristolBay | _$2,352,653] 12% «| 0.53 | $2,556,308] -$1,074.454] $200,000] $1,618,162 ICopperRiverto] _$5,914401| 30% | os4 | st.e1e.44a] -$5,105.267]| 1% _— $200,000] $1,818,182 Kodiak | SO] om ot | s000,607] sagssoaf 1% | $200,000] $1,818,182 lLower Yukon-K] $1,718,393] 9% | ase | $2,676,865] -sa7agei| 4% | $746,674] $1,818,182 Noth Sipe | So] 0% | ote | s7ea.76| s3ea038] 1% | $237,798] $1,818,182 Northwest Arcti] SO] 0% =~] sa | $2,582,525] $1,201,263] 1% «| $210,320] $1,818,182 Raber] $3,772,200] 19% | ote $775,277 -$3,384570] 75% | __-$15,000,000] _ $1,818,182 ISoutheast== | $1,564.55] 8% | 0.5 —|—_$:703,914] _-$1,212,588] $2,200,000] $1,818,182 HYukon-Koyuku $3,489,372] 17% | o.6o__ | $2,864,263] -$2,057,240} $297,998 $1,818,182 statewide [| sof om Tomo Allocation per Allocation per i i region basis $1,818,182 $1,818,182 tte mn $20,000,000 $20,000,000 Even Split Energy Allocation per Region Aleutians | __—st7ao1io7| 7% ~—sd|_ sods | $25,499,922] -$4,741.236] 1% ~ ~—s|——$3.211,550] $22,247,955 Bering Strats | $21,420,167] 9% | 047 | $26,392,561] -$8,232,907] 1% | $3,584,407] $22,247,955 | $13,566,905[ 6% | 053 [$29,853,520 Pp 1% | $2,447,275] $22,247,955 pp 0.34 , Copper Rivero] $21,630,122 9% $16,486,919 Lower Yukon-K] $29,220,724 North Slope | _ $2,185,342 Rai 5 83,545,629 ISoutheast__| __$53,947,017 | t $26,920,026] __ $22,247,955 fYukon-Koyuku] $14,818,551 6% 905.8 $3,646,418] $22,247,955 0% $244,727,505 | _ $24,727,505 ** In the Southeast Energy Region, # 1021 Haines Borough Municipal Buildings Heat Application recommended funding would be partially funded at $465,925 to meet the governor's budget of $20million for REF 7 funding Highlighted in blue indicates that the region does not meet the goal of 50% allocation based on relative cost of power. Kb-rund Kouna-/ Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 21 01/07/2014 DRAFT Alaska Renewable Energy Fund - Round 7 Regional Summary Ranking All Recommended Applications - January 5, 2014 Rounds 1-6 enesy Reson] is rundng _| Fencing fAeutians | 17,376,231.85| 8% [Bering Straits | 20.355.815.00] 0% | feristol Bay | 11,214,347.60] 5% apa et jis. 73 xe aad asa fesewce | 5.0001 — om] frotay | __$224,727,505] 100% | Round 7 Recommendation Energy Region Grant Funding ‘% Total pisces | name] ex [ew | eceel sent rx [ee] ia es esebar asa aT Tam ge Kodiak | si,erosas] 4% [oz s2,060,151] -sea0.47a] 1% | sats.oa7] $3,781,246 Lower Yukon-K]___$8,e60,170] 21% [ase | $5,567,036] -so.o7eeci] 4% $1,552,847] $3,781,246 North Sipe | s2asveis| 6% [ote | st.cse.o40] -siezasea] 1% | s404s4s] $3,781,246] Northwest Arci] _$345,000| 1% [asa | $5,370,830] $2,340,420] 1% | saa7.41a] $3,781,246 fRaibe | _sa,sazomt 11% [ote $1,612,293] -s3,776,758] 75% [$31,195,276] $3,781,246] fSoutheast_ | $6,155,257] 15% __ | ois] $1,403,010] -$5,423,207] 11% [$4,575,307] $3,781,246 HYukon-Koyuku $5,209,708] 13% | ao | $5,056,760] 82,231,415] 1% | seta.742| $3,781,246] istatoedde! LULL | igo) rose Pega TEU Eee eee roman | s4t.s03,701] 100% 4, 503,700[ 100% $41,593,701] $41,503,704 | Cumulative Rounds 1-7 |__| _Recommendatin _| _Costof Power____|__Poputation _] Even Spit_| Allocation per Allocation per Avg cost Total Rounds % of Total aa 41-7 Fundi Fundii reach 50% % Total pil pede | sesmas| re [ae | ered eae | eu eat [Bering Straits | __ $21,420,187] a% | oa7_ $28,721,326] -s7,068,524] 1% [$3,900,680] $24,211,010 fpristolBay | si4.asz,005] 5% [oss $32,487,606] is seen esata SS A fon —_f_sivsense | es fa sneer sein ef seensangl sea to Lower Yukon $26,971,510] 14% [056 [$34,018,601] -sto.se2,210f 4% | so,942.757| $24,211,019 peter [sso] ax | an [wand : : {as sar Nertrwest ara $23,548,362 | 0% | 054 | _ saz.ev0.e00) -s7,128,514| 1% | _s.g007sa] __s24.211.010 pee pea eae LeU aaa Tae Teena ISoutheast__| $58,537,720] 22% [| o1s_ | $8,045,601 -$54,064,920] 11% [| _ $29,205,333] $24,211,019 HYukor-Koyutail sre.sae.o77[ 6% | aeo [$36,400,129 | 1% | _ $3,968,162] $24,211,019) = $1 2 a HUE é 3 els ei 18 |: Rls : up : Allocation cost needed to needed to Highlighted in blue indicates the region does not meet the goal of 50% allocation based on relative cost of power. RE-Fund Round-7 Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 22 01/07/2014 DRAFT Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Standard Applications Page 1 Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread Aer Stage 3 Review Scores (max) yaa eas reer) K aoc) i iT i 7. Stage Cost of Costof 2. tt 5. eer eco 2 AEA Appl Energy Energy Match Feas ness Benefit Supt ability Total wide . Cena emer ENC) Project Name pene Perak CCT RSC LC) CR 1) CC CT Cokes ea Coo Gee NaN eo) TT feoa fe ff tf is_JRaibett_ | 1082 | sZ3]__ $3453 900 3 g 3 Ems ep fa feta abe coet oeSolat t —teoe —cet eee — TT 5.914491] | $12,380,564] Seca) Se ee REG See eae Spee g | 25 [$110,000] $80,000] $30,000[Feasibiity _fFutsP_ | |__— $80,000] $12,540,564) Sone Vator Rasoman [15 Meron Renee Ee Fe Feasibilty and Concept zal native Ge OPSReafer June st] $0.80] 35.00 | 7.00 [10.60] 200] 4.50] 2.00 | [30 [$8,000,000] $375,000[ $25,000|ReconFeasibiity [PARTIAL || ___$75,000] $12,615,564) os wonton [St Marys Pitkas Point Wind Energy Construction Project__ [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, inc. [utility [Wind 65.00] 1.19 [21.601 9.00] 1300] 500] 450) 500] [31 [$4,782,528] $4,274,575] $507,953] Construction _[rulsp | | $4,274,575] $16,890,139} aR CS oR ET rye 23] 283 | [ 5.00] soofer95] 34 | $5,500,000] $800,000] $1,900,000|Construction _[FULLSP___| k | = Old Harbor Hydroelectric Proj Fi Final Design and Permitting [Alaska Vilage Electric Cooperative, Inc. _[Utity He — $8,155,000 $1,092,500] __$57,500[Design __—_[PARTIAL | | __ $400,000] $18,090,139} : Southeast — ‘Swan Lake Reservoir Expansi The Southeast Alaska Power Age Government Entit 37 $13,391,869} $4,000,000! $8,813,869 PARTIAL SP $18,650,627 ete —_LSs faneet Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Ram Valley, LLC Eom te fr a $35,750|Recon FULL tiers False Pass H a Stud) - of False Pass Local Goverment _[Hydrokinetic 42.83] 0.22 $428, WAS Aleutians | 1070 |Sand Point Energy Storage Project_ | TDXSand Point Generating LLC [tity | Storage of Renew | 45 | $1,397,403] $1,256,403] $147,000] DesignConstructi{PARTIAL SP__ | [oes : 2 33] 1.84] | $0.10} [47 [si7ose3f_ $158,771] $11,812|ReconFeasibilty [FuLL_—| | $158,771 $19,473,794) epakP A Pa a es —____ fas i __fs _Fre . 5.00| 400[5244] 48 | $3,800000[ $7,900,000| $1,900,000 |Construction [PARTIAL SP__| 1S _ [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1066_|Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Proje fi ig ee Cope [ty ied : [49 [$3,214,875] $353,400] -$18,600)Design —FuuLsp_—— | | $353,400] $21,297,742] y Noth Sope 1049] [Atgasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project _|North aaa REET accent Teil want en] eoseh Saat S00 $17,342,837 $2,017,818} 2|Design __‘|FULL SP | | $2,017,818] $23,315,560 Yas |Railbelt 1028 Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study __ [Native Village of Cantwell eon Enti et eee 90 | 1.88 peepee peter $8,340,000 $54,000] $23,350,560 340, Recon lz [S_|BrstolBay | 1079 |Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recover New Koliganek Village Council —— Entity [Wind | [1.05-| 1.60] $051] 2209] 6.00] [3.83 | L_2.00 | 151.68] 54 | $2,566,000) $10,000|Design__[FULL SP. $23,656,560] is [Aleutians f4c26] 55 [$52,050] _—=—«$47,050] == $5,000]Feasibilty —[FULLSP__—s[ |__—$47,050] _ $23,703,610} | Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Study Chugach Electric Association, Inc. pen (Copper River/Chugach Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project Feastbl Stud) — Hole Properties, LLC (BHP pp Hydro $2,250,000 $170,000] $30,000|Feasibilty —__t—_____ IS_|Northwest Arctic | Pontes a Hough GF ge —_—_ foresee Sot __fo ee fea [tron tan) toes — RL — ignil ign and Permitting iS_[North Sipe | 1048 [Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design and Permitting INorth Slope Borough [Local Govemment [Wind | 65.83], 1.03 | Ce ee east SubTotal - All Recommended Projects $195,454,867 $37,971,477 $48,098,599 $24,938,610 SubTotal Not Recommended Projects: Southeast ic ject Edna Bay Community Local Government {Hydro 39.33} 1.48 k N/A\ $3,562,772 $62,272) $3,500]Recon Did Not Pass Stage 2 Railbelt i Whitestone Power and Communications _|IPP Hydrokinetic 39.17] 0.16 . $1,940,558} $1,560,558) $120,000} Construction Did Not Pass Stage 2 ‘Southeast i Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority | Utility Hydro 39.00 | 1.05 $825,000) $700,000} $125,000|ReconFeasibility {Did Not Pass Stage 2 5 Railbelt Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Native Village Of Cantwell Government Entity _|Hydro 35.33] 0.79 I $213,750} $11,250} Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 2 - ‘Aleutians Adak Wind Data Collection Analysis and Preliminary Design |City of Adak, Alaska Local Government _|Wind 35.33 | 0.47 $72, 400; 000} $160,000} $0) Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 2 Northwest Arctic Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and Permitting ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Utilit Hydro 27.50} 0.71 , $2,922,000] $150,000} Design Did Not Pass Stage 2 1S _|Kodiak 1004 |Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System Karluk Tribal Council Government Entity {Wind 21.17] 0.76 $1,300,000 $81,000) $300|FeasibilityDesign |Did Not Pass Stage 2 : Southeast 1003 |Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase Ill and IV City of Saxman Local Government _}Hydro 1.79 $51,000,000 $4,000,000 a S_|Southeast 1020 {Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual Des|Haines Borough Local Government__|Hydro 0.09 $14,500,000} $213,536 $10,000) Feasibility Not Recommended S 1034 |Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Community Government Entity _ {Transmission 1.77 | 1 2B ei "i $14,510,599) $9,281,615) $0]DesignConstructiqNot Recommended 1035 | Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Utility Geothermal 0.44 | 1.24 | $0.65 $49,000,000 C—O i 1046 |Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase Port Alsworth Improvement Corporation _|Government Entity _|Hydro 1.52 $0.68) $7,224 213 $169, 000} $10,000}ReconFeasibility |Not Recommended YigS {Bristol Bay 1050 {Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar PV Project Bristol Bay Borough School District Government Entity _|Solar PV 0.96 | 1.28 | $0.50 $235,000 $230,000} $5,000} DesignConstructiqNot Recommended 1058 |Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array Construction Project__|Northwest Arctic Borough Local Goverment _} Solar PV 1.24 | 1.22 ¢ e $447,800 $447,800} $0} Construction a — Bristol Ba — lliamna Solar Ground Mounted Energy System lliamna Village Council Government Entity |Solar PV 0.01 | 0.40 $0: 59) $2,000,000 $800,000 $120,000]ReconFeasibility [Not Recommended Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim a Four Villages Intertie Design Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative Government Entity _|Transmission $0|Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 1 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 4 Multiple Alternative Energy Sources for Napakiak Napakiak Ircinraq Power Compan’ — Wind $20,000] DesignConstructiqDid Not Pass Stage 1 — Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Cheforak High Penetration Wind Diesel System Natergak Light Plant, City ofChefomak —_|LocalGovemment [Wind [|] TT | | ee ee ee $4,358,784 $4,308,784) 000|DesignConstructiqDid Not Pass Stage 1 [ Sub Total - Not Recommended a AAT ALP) $31,309,815 Lye 625, 050 TCM CCE Eye ey $494,103,593 $69,281,292 $52,723,649 $24,938,610 GrandTotal DRAFT 1/6/2014 for REFAC Review DRAFT Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Heat Applications Page 2 Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread =} ) R ato) R datio Pre Aat) D Pro [Vets Applica pe a] B 5} CE) i) 00 0 Seta Ohi ae te) ar re) te oa Pinte] H_ {Aleutians 1026 jAtka Dispatchable Heat City of Atka Local Government __[Hydro to Heat 82.83] 3.18 | 6.90 | $0.70] $7.65} 33.47 | 11.00 | 16.57] 5.00] 12.00] 3.00] 4.00] 85.04] 1 $135,254 $114,965 $20,289} Construction FULL $114,965} $114,965} H_|Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar] 1044 |Venetie Clinic Heat Recovery Village of Venetie [Government Entity |Heat Recovery | 85.17] 1.68 | 2.45 | $0.90] $8.50] 35.00] 6.00] 17.03} 4.00] 11.25] 4.00] 3.33] 8062] 3 $204,428 $198,474 $11,908] DesignConstructiq FULL $198,474] $313,439} IH__}Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar] 1047 _|Galena Community Wood Heat Project City of Galena Local Government _|Biomass 88.00} 4.31 | 3.96 | $0.56} $6.02] 26.34] 6.00} 17.60] 3.83] 14.13] 5.00] 4.50] 77.40] 4 $3,144,200] $3,096,898} $47,302} Construction FULL SP. $3,096,898] $3,410,337] H__ {Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1052 |Nunam Iqua Heat Recovery Project City of Nunam Iqua Local Government _}Heat Recover 87.67} 2.20 | 2.33 | $0.53] $4.38] 19.16 | 13.00 | 17.53} 3.00} 12.50} 5.00| 3.50] 73.69] 5 $603,000 $450,000} $153,000} Construction FULL $450,000] $3,860,337] IH_ | Southeast 1011 |Sitka Centennial Hall Air Source Heat Pump \City and Borough of Sitka Local Government _|Heat Pumps 80.50} 1.69 | 3.58 | $0.09} $3.59] 15.71 | 15.00 | 16.10} 5.00} 10.75} 5.00] 4.83] 7239] 6 $232,620 $232,620} $1,021,393]DesignConstructig FULL $232,620 $4,092,957] IH__|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1085 |Tuntutuliak Heat Recover Native Village of Tuntutuliak Government Entit Heat Recover 81.33} 1.54 | 2.32 | $0.65} $6.80] 29.75] 6.00} 16.27} 3.83} 10.13} 3.00] 3.00] 71.98] 8 $469,311 $455,642 $13,669] DesignConstructiqFULL $455,642] $4,548,599] IH__|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1061 _|Emmonak Heat Recovery System City of Emmonak [Government Entity [Heat Recovery | 87.67| 2.56 | 4.02 | $0.55] $5.77] 25.24] 6.00] 17.53] 4.00] 1250] 3.00] 2.67] 70.94] 9 $689,251 $689,251 $20,677|DesignConstructiqFULL SP $689,251 $5,237,850 H_{Southeast 1087_|Kake Community Energy Organized Village of Kake |Government Ent Biomass 73.83| 1.62 | 1.18 | $0.62] $5.85} 25.59] 7.00] 14.77} 2.00] 12.00] 4.00] 4.00] 69.36] 13 $1,423,292 $208,073 $20,000} Design PARTIAL hd $175,000} $5,412,850) IH__|Southeast 1037 |Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass Heating Project Ketchikan Gateway Borough Local Government _|Biomass 84.33] 2.15 | 0.24 | $0.10] $3.59] 15.71 | 11.00 | 16.87] 3.67] 13.00] 5.00} 3.50] 6874] 14 $1,957,261 $1,412,889} $353,222} Construction PARTIAL SP $620,000 $6,032,850} H_|Bering Straits 1040 _|Brevig Mission Water System Heat Recovery City of Brevig Mission Government Entity [Heat Recovery | 83.00] 1.51 | 2.01 | $0.54] $5.29] 23.14 | 6.00] 16.60 | 5.00] 10.25] 4.00] 3.17] 68.16] 18 $753,313} $731,372| $21,941]DesignConstructiq FULL $731,372] _ $6,764,222] H_{Railbelt 1031_|Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump Project Cook Inlet Housing Authority Government Entity _|Heat Pumps 58.17| 1.12 | 0.94 | $0.20] $5.19} 22.71 | 15.00] 11.63] 4.50] 5.25] 5.00] 3.83] 67.93] 19 $362,805} $318,289} $411,835]DesignConstructiq FULL $318,289 $7,082,511 IH__ {Southeast 1021**|Haines Borough Municipal Buildings Biomass Project Haines Borough Local Government__ [Biomass 88.50] 1.72 | 1.79 | $0.22} $4.09} 17.89 | 9.00] 17.70} 3.83} 12.63] 2.00] 4.50} 67.55] 20 $1,374,892] $1,237,403] $137,448]DesignConstructiqF ULL SP $1,237,403] $8,319,914 CER eu ys! UN aOR er Ce ac CIES Clute OOK $9 31 ey 8,319,914 SubTota IH__|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1043 |St Marys Heat Recovery System City of St. Mary's Government Entit Heat Recover 85.17] 1.61 | 2.21 | $0.49] $4.60] 20.13} 6.00] 17.03] 3.83] 11.25] 5.00} 4.17] 67.41] 21 $757,299) $735,242| $22,057|DesignConstructiq FULL $735,242 $9,055,156} H__|Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar] 1032_|Biomass Heat for Minto Community Buildings Village of Minto Government Entity [Biomass 69.33] 1.02 | 1.37 | $0.59] $5.00} 21.88 | 15.00] 13.87] 3.00] 5.38] 5.00] 3.17] 67.29] 22 $403,550 $274,750} $278,800} DesignConstructiq FULL SP $274,750] _ $9,329,906] H__ {Southeast 1053_|Yakutat Biomass District Heating Looy City and Borough of Yakutat Local Government__|Biomass 67.67] 1.45 | 2.31 | $0.50} $5.05} 22.09 | 11.00 | 13.53] 2.00] 888} 5.00] 4.17} 66.67] 23 $335,456} $286,166} $49,290] DesignConstructiqPARTIAL SP. Ne $103,000 $9,432,906 H_|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1073 |Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Puvurag Power Company Utility Wind to Heat 74.17] 1.70 | 2.55 | $0.56] $6.21] 27.17] 6.00 | 14.83] 2.83] 12.38] 0.00] 3.00] 66.21] 24 $320,456} $311,456} $9,000]Construction FULL SP $311,456] $9,744,362] IH__ {Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1041 |Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat Recovery City of Chevak Government Entity |Heat Recovery | 85.33} 1.83 | 2.44 | $0.48] $4.30] 18.81] 6.00} 17.07} 3.00] 1250] 5.00] 283] 65.21] 26 $558,814} $558,814 $16,765] DesignConstructiqFULL SP $558,814] _ $10,303,176 IH__|Southeast 1017 Southeast Island School District Wood Boilers Southeast Island School District Government Entit Biomass 76.67 | 1.47 | 2.32 | $0.41} $3.80] 16.63 | 11.00 | 15.33} 3.00] 9.75] 5.00] 4.00] 6471] 27 $1,058,775 $940,950 $177,825} Construction FULL SP $940,950] $11,244 126} H_[Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar] 1045 _|Grayling Heat Recovery System City of Grayling Government Entity |Heat Recovery | 80.17] 1.47 | 2.02 | $0.56] $5.00] 21.88] 6.00] 16.03] 3.83] 9.00] 4.00] 3.50] 64.25] 28 $332,590) $322,903 $19,374|DesignConstructiq FULL $322,903] $11,567,029) IH__| Southeast 1016_|Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project Hydaburg City School District Government Entity {Biomass 77.83| 1.91 | 2.45 | $0.24] $4.20] 18.38} 7.00] 15.57] 3.00] 13.50] 3.00] 350] 63.95} 29 $627,900 $583,900} $44,000} DesignConstructigPARTIAL SP. Ye $125,000] $11,692,029] H__|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1071 |Kwigillingok Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Kwig Power Compan Utility Wind to Heat 64.17} 1.53 | 1.73 | $0.60] $5.95] 26.03 | 6.00 | 12.83} 2.83} 10.00} 2.00] 2.50} 62.20] 32 $302,737| $293,737 $9,000} Construction FULL SP $293,737] _ $11,985,766] H__[Northwest Arctic 1038 {Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project City of Kotzebue Local Government _|Biomass 62.83] 1.12 | 1.16 | $0.42] $6.07] 26.56 | 7.00] 12.57] 2.00] 6.00] 5.00] 3.00]6213] 33 $2,692,700 $2,495,189) $95,000} DesignConstructig PARTIAL SP Y $270,000] _ $12,255,766} H_]Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar} 1060_|Holy Cross Water System Heat Recovery City of Holy Cross (Government Entity _|Heat Recovery | 57.67] 0.55 | 0.74 | $0.53] $7.15] 31.28] 6.00] 11.53} 4.00] 1.25] 5.00] 283] 6190] 35 $497,773} $497,773 $14,933] DesignConstructiq FULL $497,773] _ $12,753,539 H_|Southeast 1013 |Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat Pum City and Borough of Sitka Local Government__|Heat Pumps 61.17] 0.91 | 1.87 | $0.09] $3.59} 15.71 | 15.00 | 12.23] 5.00] 1.75] 5.00] 4.83} 59.53] 38 $230,200) $230,200} $192,891|DesignConstructig FULL $230,200} _ $12,983,739 H__|Southeast 1010 |Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion Craig City School District Government Entity {Biomass 66.33} 1.12 | 1.54 | $0.29] $3.80] 16.63 | 11.00 | 13.27] 3.00] 6.38] 2.00} 3.50] 55.77] 40 $585,450) $492,850} $82,550] DesignConstructiq PARTIAL SP iY $125,000] $13,108,739] H__|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1042 [Eek Water System Heat Recovery City of Eek Government Entity |HeatRecovery | 70.17] 1.01 | 1.35 | $0.60} $3.89] 17.02] 6.00] 14.03] 5.00] 4.50] 5.00] 3.83] 55.39] 41 $297,408) $288,745) $8,663] DesignConstructiqFULL $288,745] $13,397,484 H_ {Southeast 1033 [Sitka Sea Water Source Heat Pump Project City and Borough of Sitka Heat Pumps 54.83] 0.50 | 0.52 | $0.09} $3.59] 15.71 | 15.00 | 10.97] 4.00] 0.50} 5.00} 4.17] 55.34] 42 $388,838) $373,838} $825,000} DesignConstructig PARTIAL SP. Y $56,841} $13,454,325) H__ {Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1074 |Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage TCSA Electrical Services Utility Wind to Heat 46.67} 1.00 | 0.96 | $0.65} $6.80] 29.75] 6.00} 9.33] 283] 213] 2.00] 250] 54.54] 44 $259,817; $250,817 $9,000} Construction FULL SP $250,817] _ $13,705,142} H__ {Copper River/Chugach 1014 |Wood Chip Boiler for The Native Village of Tazlina Native Village of Tazlina Government Entity {Biomass 64.50} 1.19 | 1.84 | $0.28] $4.17] 18.24] 6.00] 12.90] 3.00] 6.25] 4.00} 3.00] 53.39] 46 $278,150} $267,150] $11,000] DesignConstructiqPARTIAL SP. Y $125,000] $13,830,142] H_|Southeast 1007_|Mendenhall Valley Library Geothermal HVAC System City & Borough of Juneau Local Government_|Heat Pumps 49.33] 0.86 | 0.74 | $0.12] $4.12] 18.03 | 11.00] 9.87] 4.00] 0.63] 4.00} 4.50] 52.02] 52 $825,000} $660,000 $165,000|DesignConstructig FULL $660,000} $14,490,142 H_ {Southeast 1012 |Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Local Government _|Heat Pumps 57.67 | 0.73 | 1.06 | $0.09] $3.59] 15.71} 9.00] 11.53] 5.00] 0.75] 5.00] 4.83] 5183] 53 $962,984) $849,984 $113,000|DesignConstructig FULL $849,984] $15,340,126] H__}Railbelt 1009 {Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating System Project Nenana School District Government Entity _|Biomass 54.67} 0.66 | 1.11 | $0.22] $4.06] 17.76] 7.00} 10.93} 3.00} 1.00] 5.00] 4.00] 4869} 56 $3,244,225) $367,965 $25,800} Design FULL Nj $367,965} $15,708,091 IH__}Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar) 1051 }AGSD Extension of Heating Looy Alaska Gateway School District Government Entit Heat Recover 59.83} 0.97 | 1.45 | $0.49} $3.79] 16.58} 6.00] 11.97] 4.00} 3.38} 2.00} 4.00] 47.92] 59 $629,000} $625,000 $4,000] DesignConstructiq FULL $625,000} _ $16,333,091 IH |Railbelt 1078 |Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project IChickaloon Native Village Government Entity _|Biomass 43.67} 0.74 | 0.79 | $0.15} $3.71] 16.23} 11.00] 8.73] 3.00] 0.75] 2.00] 4.17] 4588] 60 $152,867 $127,065} $25,802|DesignConstructig PARTIAL SP $97,000] $16,430,091 H__}Railbelt 1055 |Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Recovery Project (City of Seward Local Government __|Heat Recover 57.67 | 1.13 | 4.41 | $0.11 4.59} 9.00] 11.53] 4.50] 4.88] 5.00} 5.00} 44.50] 62 $250,000 $225,000} $25,000} Construction FULL $225,000] _ $16,655,091 MOC CCH mar roe 05,370 PL KY SRSA Mle H_|Bristol Bay 1006_|NEA Stack Heat to Power Project Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Utility Heat Recovery 1.39 | 6.44 | $0.50) $1,940,379 $1,843,379 $97,000] FeasDesignConst| Not Recommended H_|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1008 |Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recovery City of Chuathbaluk Government Entity _|Heat Recovery 0.97 | 0.98 | $0.85) $232,430} $225,660} $6,770|DesignConstructiqNot Recommended H_|Northwest Arctic 1076_|NWAB School District Solar Thermal Systems Northwest Arctic Borough School District__|Government Entity _|Solar Thermal 1.48 | 3.14 | $0.63} $467,252} $456,252] $11,000} Construction Not Recommended eK) ot Reco ded Pro BU ) wea Cae All App o CRSA TR Y 6,655,09 dTo Notes This document represents AEA's draft recommendations for consideration by the REFAC committee. This is a draft document only and is subject to change prior to AEA's final recommendations. This view combines the heat and "standard application ‘projects, for perspective. Please see the sepate heat and standard lists. If REF 7 funding is limited to $20M exactly, #1021, Haines Borough Municipal Building Biomass would be partially funded H = Heat application, applications that deliver heat only, not electricity S = Standard spplication, applications that deliver electricity, energy storage, transmission or a combination of electricity and heat. BIC = Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project AEA BIC ratio uses AEA's best assumptions in the standard REF economic model SP = Special Provisions The Applicant B/C ratio uses the applicants assumptions in the standard REF economic model Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2. Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. Some not recommended projects’ B/C ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons. DRAFT Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Heat and Standard Combined Statewide Ranking Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread TROL! Stage 3 Review Scores (max) aes’ eu) 3. ior 1 co a) G U rT Costof Fuel Costof 2 Econ Readi- 5. Local Sustan rte ec ae Recommend Cumulative ar ID Ld rer et CU CO a) 2) CC Cc ce el cee Ete Re ice) fre a) Funding | iH_[Aleutians | 1026 [Atka Dispatchable Heat | 3.18 | 6.90 | $0.70} 111.00 | | 5.00] 12.00] 3.00] 4.00]85.04] 1 | $135,254] $114,965 $20,289]Construction |FULL | $114,965] $114,965) J Efecto noc apnea ——-femareay fuse [ual ta [se{oel {aatie|ra{ sano sa] tales] 7 | easel goa —Sosteloneer Fu [| toes as [H_|Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Ta] 1044 [Venetie Ciinic Heat Recovery Vilage of Venetie Goverment Entity [Heat Recovery _| | 1.68 | 2.45 | 0.90] $8.50] 36.00] 6.00] 17.03 | 400 [11.25] 4.00] 3.33] | 3 f$204426[ $198,474] $11,908 |DesignConstructiqF ULL [H_[Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Taf 1047 [Galena Community Wood Heat Project [CityofGalena__ Local Government _[Biomass____| | 4.31 | 3.96 | $0.56} $6.02] 26.34 | 6.00] assis] soo] aso [rat [satan — Semel —terseiooecee = tS —] | etter pf qua Heat Recovery Project [ 2.20 | 2.33 | $0.53] $4.38] 19.16 | 13.00 | | 3.00 [1250] 5.00] 350[ 7360] 5 | $603,000] $450,000{ _$153,000]Construction [ruLL =< | _—_—$450,000[ $6,212,990] om SESE p City and B i Local Govemment_[Heat P | 1.69 | 3.58 [ $0.09] $3.59] pect reef son ors scot ses Waa of _sensiol_szeail $101 elbesgrconsrgrit I seszezal seaseid Se Nave Vilage of Tunak sme bere bret es [ae Lod [29.75 | 600] 16.27] 383] 10.13] 200] 200] Pe er seat eateememaenntt es L— ses5502 57 208.25 c Sapa i Emmonak Heat City of Emmonak Paton Heat Rec [$0.55] $5.77] 25.24 | 6.00 | [4.00] 1250] 3.00] 2 | 9 | $689,251 $689,251 $20,677 |[DesignConstructiqFULL SP | $689,251] $7,932,503] 1255] | soso} | 21.46 [11.00] 17.00] 2.50 [12.50] 200] 4.17] | to | _$148,800]_$119.000]____$29,800|Feasibiity [rut [$119,000] _ $8,051,503] [4.23 | 9.84 | $0.49] [21.46 | [11.67] 3.00]%1.25[ 500] 317] 7054] 11 | $19.000000[ $6,000,000] "_$11,500,000|Construction [PARTIAL | | __ $75,000] $8,126,509] a _—__het_——ert int atoed —fa 115.83 2. a BH [Southeast | 1087 ity Ene Oye esti | 2.00] 12.00 4.00] 4.00]69.36] 13 | $1,423,202] $208,073] $20,000fDesign PARTIAL [H_[Southeast 4 jing Proje seal Sara fentuoleotselanl smbseten | —sieel —sizesl —tsumlsenaa para sao $9,045,009 a 1082 P Uti [asa pea eee ee a a A ETE 68 ie | 12.44 | 45.00 | paolao[ el sole] | — tema) — tana —eaterfeeer fan [saa nasi oe Tet aon Authority $0.20] $5.19] i 0 543; Haines Borough $0.22} 4.09] 17.89 [ 9.00 [17.70] 3.83] 1263] 200 450 [67.55] 20 | si374.se2] $1,237,403] $137,448) DesignConstruct{FULL SP | $20,780,478} ee Top Ranking $20 million prior to stage 4 regional spreading $115,739,149 $27,726,440 $36,354,197 RYU EEYE) Se Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1043 |St Marys Heat Recovery System City of St. Mary's Government Entity |HeatRecovery | 85.17 11.25 | 5.00} 4.17 | 67.41 a $757,299) $735,242 $22,057 |DesignConstructiq FULL $735,242] $21,515,720} 'Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar] 1032 _| Biomass Heat for Minto Community Buildings Village of Minto |Government Entity 69.33 DesignConst $21 Southeast 1053 _|Yakutat Biomass District Heating Loop City and Borough of Yakutat — Government_ [Biomass 67.67 8. 88 s 00 4 17 66, 67 $335,456} $286, — $49, .290}D ConstructiqPARTIAL SP. Y $103,000] $21 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Puvumiag Power Company I (Construction $22, Bristol Bay Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and Conceptual Design _|Igiugig Village Council an Entity [Wind 35.00 | 13. . 100 $30,000} Pa FULL SP_ $80,000] $22, Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim |Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat Recover City of Chevak (Government Entity _|Heat Recove i . . $558,814) $558,814 $16,765} ignConstructiqFULL SP $558,814] $22,843,740} Southeast ‘Southeast Island School District Wood Boilers Southeast Island School District Government Entity [Biomass 76.67] 1.47 | 2.32 | $0.41] $3: $1,058,775] $940,950 $177,825) (Construction FULL SP $940,950] $23,784,690} | Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tat |Grayling Heat Recovery System City of Grayling Government Entity 1.47 | 2.02 | $0.56] $5. . $332,590 FULL $322,903] $24,107,593} ‘Southeast Schools Wood Fired Boiler Proje daburg City School District Government Entity _|Biomass 77.83} 1.91 | 2.45 | $0.24] $4. $627,900) $583; 900} $44. 000 DesignConstructiqPARTIAL SP $125,000] __ $24,232,593} Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1071 i 2g Kwig Power Compa 64.17] 1.53 | 1.73 | $0.60] $293,737 $9,000]Construction _[FULLSP__| $293,737] _ $28,875,905] Northwest Arctic 1038 [Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project City of Kotzebue Local Goverment _ [Biomass 62.83] 1.12 | 1.16 | $0.42 | ous 692,700 $2,495,189 $95,000) Aleutians 1083 [Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project iyo Cove Local Government _ [Hydro 7iA7| 1.37 | 187 | $0.28 12.26 | 15.00 [14.23] 28 5.00 [ 5.00 [61.95 500,000] $800,000] $1,900,000|Construction |FULL SP. $800,000 $29,945,905] H_|Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Ta 1060 [Holy Cross Water System Heat Recover ‘of Holy Cross Goverment Entity [Heat Recove as i 0.55 | 0.74 | $0.53] $7.15] 31.28 | 6.00] 11.53| 4 5.00 | 2.83 [61.90 $497,773} eT SERBS DesignConstructiq ft $497,773] $30,443, a ic Proj y iting fase Vig a OS Inc. juli Se dro 711 | 179 | $0. i | |____ $400,000] _ $30,843,678} eee aetartirt ae ca taetaatt Southeast 1013 | Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka — Government — Pump ot. 17} 0.91 | 1.87 $3. = Railbelt Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Ram Valley, LLC Hydro 3.49 | $0.15} 6.61 | 15.00 | 14.63] 2.00 J — $35,750] _ $31,670,116 i fe (Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion (Craig City School District 1.54 | $0.29] $3.80] 16.63 | 11.00 : : , g $125,000| $31,795,116 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1042 [Eek Water System Heat Recover i Government Entity [Heat Recover 1 2 $0.60] $389] 17,02] 6.00] 1403] 500 ; 44 CI $288,745 $32,083,861 Y Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1057 | i bil ifUngusraq Power Company (UPC)/NewtoKIPP_ [Wind 53.00] 1.14 $0. |___ $8,000,000} $375,000 $25,000|ReconFeasibilty [PARTIAL | $75,000] _ $24,307,593] Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1069 int Wit ji [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 65.00] 1.19 | 1.47 | $0.49) a 43 $4,782,528 $4,274,575 $507,953 cesses FULL SP $4,274,575] $28,582,168] Uti Wind to Heat $302,737, a Y MH [Southeast 1033 [Sitka Sea Water Source Heat Pump Project City and Borough of Sitka $3.5 5.00] 4. 42 $825,000|DesignCo PARTIAL SP $56,841] $32,140,702 K aa 1062 [False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study i —: 51 sat 2 a 43 Feesbliy FULL CI $428,646] $32,569,348] EAH [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1074 |Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storag i E [ $0.65] $6. 17| $250,817| $9,000]Constructon [FULL SP $250,817] $32, [S__[Aleutians 7070 [Sand Point Energy Storage Project TDX Sand Point Generating, LLC i $1,397,403] $1,256,403 '$141,000]DesignConstructiqPARTIAL SP. $200,000] $33 Copper River/Chugach _| 1014 |Wood Chip Boiler for The Native Village of Tazlina Native Village of Tazlina J $278,150) $267,150) $11,000] DesignConstructiq PARTIAL SP. $125,000] $33,145,165 Y SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase | and Il Ag . 5 $170,583 $158,774 ReconFeasibility [FULL a $158,771] $33,303,936 [S_ |Kodiak 1030 [Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. Utility E 3.25 $3,800,000] ___ $1,900,000] _$1,900,000[Construction _[PARTIALSP__| | 470,548] _ $34,774,484 o fo a Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permiting Projet Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. [Utility Wind : 1.50 $3,214,875 $353,400] FULL SP North Slope 1049 [Atgasuk Transmission Line Desi Local Government : z 5 $17,342,837] __$2,017,818 $201,782[Design FULL SP 017,818] __ $37,145,702 EIS |Railbelt 1028 [Carlo Creek Hycroelectric Project Reconnaissance Sudy Native Village of Cantwell Government Entity [Hydro oo] 1.90 | 1.88 9.81 9.00 [12 x ria 11.63] 5.00 3.00 = 14 $8,340,000 $54,000} '$6,000[Recon’ PARTIAL $35,000] $37,180,702] — SSee em ee ee a H_|Southeast 1012 |Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Local Government nea Pump : 4.06 | $0.09 $3.59] 15.74] 9.00 . : . 075] 500] 4.83 [51.83 $962,984 $849,984 $113,000|DesignConstructiqFULL $849,984] _ $38,690,686 Fy Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery New Koliganek Village Council Government Enti [1.05 | Pas| fret al aa 0 4.13] 2.00 | $2,566,000} FULL SP. $306,000 i 1080_ [False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass Electric Utility Local Government a 72.45 | 9.00] 927] 250 $52,050] $47,050 $5,000 Feasibility |FULL SP 7 i 1009 _|Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating System Proje Nenana School District — Enti — $0. $4.06] 17.76 | 7.00 | 10.93 — 4.00 $3,244,225 $367,965) $25,800|Design FULL $367,965] $39,411,701 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 34 . 00 | 12.30 57 TBD} $150,000) $100,000]Recon PARTIAL ev a Sera apa = Sum] — oon reba r ti ‘Alaska Gateway School District Government Entit a Recover 59.83] 0.97 | 1.45 . 6.00 | 11.97 59 $629,000) $625,000 $4,000|DesignConstructiqFULL i |Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project [Chickaloon Native Village Government E: Biomass 43.67 | 0.74 . i 60 $152,867 $127,065) $25,802|DesignConstructiq PARTIAL SP Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project Northwest Arctic Borough Local Government _|Solar PV 0: 83 . 61 $77,000 $76,000} $1,000] Construction Railbelt Alaska SeaLife Contet Heat Recovery Projet Local Government _|Heat Recove 57 67} 4 13 62 $225,000 $25,000} Construction ies Gomme fed Tse rr islea ee | —aasam| swoon] —— amoeba Local Government 65.83] 1.03 . 4.00 | 2.00 42.23 $4,565,200 $440,000) $44,000|Design FULL $440,000} _ $41,593,701 SubTotal - All Recommended Projects $222,796,483 $59,176,847 » $52,555,033 BT wd SubTotal DRAFT 1/6/2014 for REFAC Review Page 3 DRAFT Ty Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Heat and Standard Combined Statewide Ranking Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread er Deny Pes ae | Applicant Type Paice ek cies Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project Edna Bay Community Local Government. Boece un) iC 7 Tech& 4. G3 Se Costof Fuel Costof 2. Econ Readi- 5. Local Sustan. Src ee Cee SC er eS: Oa OT CC) DC) CO) Hydro. eee $3,562,772 Breer ue ce) $62,272} DTTC Ul ey erry Pere] Nee ror Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Demonstration Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibili Hydrokinetic 39.337 1.48 | 1.37 | NA 39.17 | 0.16 | 0.16 | $0.22 39.00] 1.05 [ $0.62] $1,940,558} $825,000) $1,560,558} $700,000, $213,750 1004 [Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System Karluk Tribal Council iro Native Village Of Cantwell Government Entity |Hydro 35.33] 0.79 | 1 St City of Adak, Alaska Local Government_|Wind 35.33] 0.47 | 0.2; ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Util Hydro 27.50] 0.71] 1 $1,300,000] $160,000) $11,250|Feasi $0] Feasibility 000) $150,000|Desi 000) 1003 [Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase III and IV City of Saxman 1006_|NEA Stack Heat to Power Proje i City of Chuathbaluk 0. 1.83 1.79 | 6.91 1 6.44 0.97 $51,000,000} $1,940,379] $232,430] $1,843,379 $225,660) $14,500,000} $213,536) 4 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim [Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recovery it 1020 Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual Des|Haines Borough Southeast 1034 |Metiakatla to Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Communit 8 Northwest Arctic 1076 84 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1039 Lower Yul ‘uskokwim | 1054 Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource $14,510,599] $49,000,000} $9,281,615 Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase $7,224,213} Local Government Government Entity Southeast : Bristol Ba Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array Construction Project lliamna Village Council $235,000 $447,800) $2,000,000 IS_ Northwest Arctic 1058. a Bristol Bay 1063 [liana Solar Ground Mounted Energy System River/Chugach | 1064 [Chenega B Native Village of Chenega Government Enti INWAB School District Solar Thermal Systems Northwest Arctic Borough School District [Solar PV. 1.22 Solar PV. 0.40 Hydro 1.02 $1,650,000 Hydroelectric Construction Four Villages Intertie Design Multiple Alternative Energy Sources for Napakiak Sub Total - Not Recommended Projects Cele UT Moc ee ety) Notes IGovernment Entity _|Solar Thermal $467,25: Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative Government Entity [Transmission $1,250,000) akiak Ircinrag Power Compa sit Wind ae) $2,284,000) 1S _JLower Yukon-Kuskokwim ] 1086_|Chefornak High Penetration Wind Diesel Syste Nateraak Light Plant, City of Chefomak —[LocalGovemment [Wind oT oT of of of oj | jf | | of fff] saicgzeal $4,308,784] $50,000) This document represents AEA's draft recommendations for consideration by the REFAC committee. This is a draft document only and is subject to change prior to AEA's final recommendations. This view combines the heat and "standard application ‘projects, for perspective. Please see the sepate heat and standard lists. If REF 7 funding is limited to $20M exactly, #1021, Haines Borough Municipal Building Biomass would be partially funded. H = Heat application, applications that deliver heat only, not electricity S = Standard spplication, applications that deliver electricity, energy storage, transmission or a combination of electricity and heat. BIC = Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project. AEA BIC ratio uses AEA's best assumptions in the standard REF economic model ‘SP = Special Provisions The Applicant B/C ratio uses the applicants assumptions in the standard REF economic model. Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2. Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. ‘Some not recommended projects’ B/C ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons. DRAFT 1/6/2014 for REFAC Review $301,288,787 SLY ZAI Si) $141,000) $33,835,106 $93,011,953 et nr) $3,500/Recon [Did Not Pass Stage 2 $120,000} Construction Did Not Pass Stage 2 $125,000]ReconFeasibility |Did Not Pass Stage 2 Did Not Pass Stage 2 Did Not Pass Stage 2 iq Not Recommended INot Recommended ligNot Recommended Not Recommended INot Recommended lot Recommended Did NotPass Stage 1 |__| Te ieee Did Not Pass Stage 2 Par Did Not Pass Stage 2 INot Recommended nConstNot Recommended UT Le $4,739,820 ESTATE LX] STK Pagé 4 ARAFT ~ Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Heat and Standard Combined by Energy Region Page 5 Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread Tee a SET CRUE CoR EDS} ae) ee erg TUE) 3. arr ort J oy ar G 7. Ser Energy Fuel Costof 2 Econ Readi- 5. Local Sustan- Sr re = Recommend ory Crea Project Name ein COT ea NS |: cn) nC ter cr te Rel cs ad a eT) Pur) ff : Ee SS $914,96 : : : mo 927 $5,000,000 $426646] ___$197,820)Feasbity [FUL | | __$478646] 91,3611 City of False Pass Sac rg a Government = Local Government leutians 49.26 $52,050] $47,050 $5,000] Feasibility FULL SP. $4 $1,590,661 is [Aleutians | 1056 JAdak Wind Dat Collection Analysis and Preliminary Design [City of Adak, Alaska $72,400,000} $160,000 $0] Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 2 J —— Bs BSC Lg $2,807,064 $2,204,109 BRR JS_[Bering Straits______| 1068 [Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy : ca Vilage Electric Cooperative, Inc. [utility [Wind 83.33 1.80] 2.74 | $0.56] | 24.42] 7.00 ff ff Oo | 1 151 | 201] sosa] $5.20) 23.14] 6.00 [1660] 5.00 [1025] 400] 3.17] 6816] 18] $753,313] $731,372] $21,944] DesignConstructiqFULL | Pa Re mc RSA $1,073,372 oe — Is |BristolBay | 1036 [Packers Creek I [s_[BristolBay | 1072 [igiugig Wi i : i it E I = mts {sean — sou] —soamfeerny una | sou) waues [s_[Bristol Bay | 1079 TKoliganek Wind Di ig i [Government Entity . 6.00 | 10.47 4.13 200 3.17] 51.68] 54 Design ___[FULL SP EE i ign ic Project Desi iti ity of Chigni Local Government 17] 4.02 | 1.60 | $0. 81 | 0.00] 10431 350] 488] 0.00| 4.00] 4362 PARTIAL SP NEA Stack Heat to Power Project Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Utility Not Recommended Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase Port Alsworth Improvement Corporation _|Government Entity Not Recommended Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar PV Project Bristol Bay Borough School District Government Entity igNot Recommended Bristol Bay lliamna Village Council i i Not Recommended Cnr aeoc SERCO RCE $7,146,032 BX) $3,238,653 Cl 7% c a is ppp ed opper River/Chugach | 4 Nalve Vilage of Tazina Goverment Ey pores . 53.39] 46 _| (Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study [Blue Hole Properties, LLC (BHP) IPP E 7 pale aon 4832[ 58 $3000) Feastity Jru____| | 170000) $6,200,404 S__|Copper River/Chugach | 1064 |Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction Native Village of Chenega Government Entit a dro iia $1,650, $1,400,000 $0) DesinConsiniqNotRecommeniad | Cy me uc SR CAEL) $7,751,641 PSE APF pf Harbor H i ive, Inc. mS 2 pe | BS | 5.38] 5.00] 450] 6035] 36 | $8,155,000] $1,092,500] $57,500[Design PARTIAL | || ___$400,000] $400,000 | Kodiak Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System Karluk Tribal Council Government Entit — 21. 17 0. 76 $1,300, $81,000) 100} FeasibilityDesign {Did Not Pass Stag 3 Kodiak Total $13,255,000 SAUER) ELTA SE Rad a - ners a i Fr less Yaontesaan [106 [etna tea Rasen aun Tout of St ne s [Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage __[Puvumaq Power Compan} Wn Heat [one tater [00 [ea ese retPstaomy [outcast Fe [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | nga Pover Corgan PO ewen| PP [Wind] Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Kwig Power Compan Util Eek Water System Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage TCSA Electrical Services Util Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recovery it ,! $6,770) DesignConstructiq Four Villages Intertie Design Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative Government Entity issi , : $0]Feasibility [Did Not Pass Stage 1 Multiple Altemative Energy Sources for Napakiak Napakiak Ircinrag Power Company _ Utility i Chefornak High Penetration Wind Diese! System Naterqak Light Plant, City of Chefornak AF Le [64 [$4,565,200] $440,000} $44,000[Design FULL | | $440,000) $2,457,818 Poe Bae $2,457,818 STE OTA + Werte che _ 3 Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energ ji J 12] 1.16 | $0.42] $6.07] 26.56 J $2,495,189) $95,000] PARTIAL SP $270,000] $270,000} 1001 ]Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV = aaa Arctic Borough 18.27| 6.00] 9.20 . ; $76,000] __$1,000|Construction _| FULL SP [| $75,000] __ $345,000} jorthwest Arctic 1059 {Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and Permitting ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative . 1.05 | $0.74) $2,922,000 $150,000]Design Did Not Pass Stage 2 a Northwest Arctic 1058 |Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array Construction Project__|Northwest Arctic Borough Local Government 1.22 | $0.74 $447,800} $0]Construction Not Recommended Northwest Arctic 1076 JNWAB School District Solar Thermal Systems Northwest Arctic Borough School District |Government Entity [Solar Thermal $0.63, | $456,252 $11,000} Construction Not Recommended ER eae aco bey ERA L $257,000 $345,000 DRAFT 1/6/2014 for REFAC Review DRAFT Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Heat and Standard Combined by Energy Region Page 6 Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread Nal Drei Cs Applicant Eas Ram Valley, LLC Native Village of Cantwell Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating System Proje Nenana School District S Rabel [nase oe gy Reconnaissance Stud [Chugach Electric Association, Inc. cree Chickaloon Sour Thermal and Biomass Proje Chickaloon Native Villag eed SET Rete EDO) KS att Tad i ary Stage Energy Fuel Costof 2 Econ Readi- eco ae | 5.00] 12.88] 5.00 | PC ba Rcd ste 11199 = [04 ) Race (35) it] r)) eS ae (100) Rank LC nde pa Match Offered Ly nag Tso) 6 CT oT a) = s iri] J | $35 760 750) satan 807, |___ $35,000] __ $3,842,959] $4,210,924 “pana —| | sso] — sta City of Seward Whitestone Power and Communications Native Village Of Cantwell 10 Hal ie] Fe pean so AU ea alone coven ae ee cee 80. fen cme cot_fones_—fors| is [oat] a Hydrokinetic aT 0.16 if na Hydro 35.33] 0.79 | 1.21 a | 3.58 | $0.09} $3.59] 15.71 | 15.00] 16.10] 5.00] 10.75] 5.00] 4.83 a Sie sppesencorsmucn#FOL_} | _szazsaol _s2s2e2] | 1.62 | 1.18 | $0.62} $5.85] 25.59] 7.00] 14.7 | 2.00] 12.00] 4.00] 4.00 oo] 1687] 367] 13.00] 5.00] 350] 68.74] 14 | $1,957,261 i ee GL 5275 = 27.44 7.00 14.60] 200] 11.63] 200 383] 68.20] 17 | $300,000] $275, )0|Reco |___ $80,000] $1,107,6 footed 1053 om Biomass District Heating Loop PS Southeast 1017 |Southeast Island School District Wood Boilers Hydaburg City Schoo! District, Government Entity The Southeast Alaska Power Age Government Entity IH [Southeast Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project ey Southeast [Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion P alt Southeast 1013 |Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Local Government ; Southeast 1010 _|Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion Craig City School District Government Entity Sitka Sea Water Source Heat Pump Project City and Borough of Sitka iS [Southeast SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase | and II The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Government Entity & Borough of Juneau ee si $25,000} Construction FULL $2 $4,582,924 oo ———_—— 500, $11,250|Feasibilit Did Not Pass Stage 2 $69,912,978 BSR ag $14,352,663 boa $1,423,202] _$208.073[____$20,000[Design_ PARTIAL |___ $175,000] $407,620] pb 7 Pa | ened) eel wearers] sonal ten $040,950] __$177,825|Constructon _[FULLSP | $627,900 op pt $585,450 sins] —— ser stlpespioosraad puna >} —Frosmnl —Se a $388,838 “ - SR SP $56,841] $4,486,502] $170,583} $11,812|ReconFeasibil S71 $4, Ss 3 [—sasonl —sesodesptnecri Taal 1H [Southeast ___| 1007 [Mendenhall Valley Library Geothermal HVAC System IH_{Southeast \Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effiuent Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Local Government S__ [Southeast 1019 ic e [Edna Bay Community Local Government [Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority Utility $849; a $5, 7 a Did Not Pass sat $700, 000] $125, 000}ReconFeasibility |Did Not Pass Stage 2 $4,000,000[ _$4,000,000|DesignConstructi Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase III and IV 1. of Saxman Local Government Haines Borough Local Government [Metlakatla Indian Community Government Entity Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual Desi Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource Fest Taf 1 Katona EET, case |e Coenen [5 abr S| Nutone ca Power iNet wind [85 ae ae eee eee eee eet ee Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar] 1045 _|Grayling Heat Recovery System City of Grayling Government Entity : 'Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar] 1060 |Holy Cross Water System Heat Recovery City of Holy Cross Government Entit [H_|Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar 1051 [AGSD Extension of Heating Loop Alaska Gateway School District Government Ent PRC LCLie ELLE mel RCC UT Mra) Notes 02 — 74 | $0.53|_$7. This document represents AEA's draft recommendations for consideration by the REFAC committee. This is a draft document only and is subject to change prior to AEA's final recommendations. This view combines the heat and "standard application ‘projects, for perspective. Please see the sepate heat and standard lists. If REF 7 funding is limited to $20M exactly, #1021, Haines Borough Municipal Building Biomass would be partially funded H = Heat application, applications that deliver heat only, not electricity S = Standard spplication, applications that deliver electricity, energy storage, transmission or a combination of electricity and heat. BIC = Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project AEA BIC ratio uses AEA's best assumptions in the standard REF economic model SP = Special Provisions The Applicant B/C ratio uses the applicants assumptions in the standard REF economic model. Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2. Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. Some not recommended projects’ B/C ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons. DRAFT 1/6/2014 for REFAC Review $213,536] $10,000 Feasibilty ASR. f | 9,000] $3.4 — y $274,750] $3,764,120 $322,903 $4 087, a $497,773] $4,584, — ReaiResoey [sass] tor [tes sae] eels] coo Ta] 00} 3.38] 2.00] 4.00] 47.92] 59 | Sy $625,000] $5,209,798] CORLL, TPS aN SUE DLA) KAA Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Heat Applications Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread Scie atl Ty! ae AN) fl tae) (rea LT Veen yy era Energy Source Rank Lat) se alo Grant Requested Match Offered IL ENS] D H_ Aleutians 1026 |Atka Dispatchable Heat Hydro to Heat $114,965: $20,28 i Village of Venetie Government Entity _|Heat Recove' $204,428 $198,474 $11,908 j Biomass $3,144,200] $3,096,898 $47,302 898 Heat Recove $450,000 $153,000 City and Borough of Sitka Local Goverment _ [Heat Pumps $232,620 $1,021,393 } H_|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1085 |Tuntutuliak Heat Recove Native Village of Tuntutuliak Government Entity _ [Heat Recove $455,64 $13,66 ULL $4,548,509 ]H_|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1061 [EmmonakHeatRecovery System (| Cityof Emmonak _——SSSC«|Government Entity |Heat Recovery $689,25 $20,677] 5 sais ULL SP $5,237,851 H Government Entity _|Biomass $1,423,292 $208,073 $20,000|Design PARTIAL $175,000] $5,412,850) Ketchikan Gateway Borough Local Govemment _ [Biomass $1,412,889 $353,222|Construction _|PARTIAL SP ys $6,032,850 Bering Straits 1040 |Brevig Mission Water System Heat Recovery Mission i $731,372 $21,94 ULL 3 $731,372] $6,764,222} 1031 ]Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump Project $362,805: $318,289 $411,835] Desi id FULL $318,289] $7,082,511 $137,44 Dien eees [RULESP $1,237,403] $8,319,914 Haines Borough Municipal Buildings Biomass Project i $1,374,892 $1,237,403 ubTotal - Top Ranking $20 million prior to stage 4 regional spreading $11,349,627 $9,145,876 $2,232,684 $8,319,914 SubTotal Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $735,242 $22,057 |DesignConstructiq FULL Biomass Heat for Minto Community Buildings Village of Minto Government Entity [Biomass | $274,750 $278,800|DesignConstructiq FULL SP | |___$274,750| $9,329,906] |_ $286,166] __$49,290]DesignConstructiqPARTIAL SP__[Y| $103,000] $9,432,906] | __ $320,456] $311,456] _—$9,000]Construction [FuLLSP_ | [$311,456] $9,744,362] Southeast Island School District Government Entity _ {Biomass 27 $1,058,775 $940,950 $177,825|Construction __ |FULL SP Kwig Power Compan Utili Wind to Heat 32 $302,737 $293,737 $9,000}Construction FULL SP $293,737] $11,985,766 NorthwestArctic | 1038 [Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project City of Kotzebue Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Ta City of Holy Cross $497,773 $497,773 $14,933 $497,773] _ $12,753,539] Southeast 1013 |Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Local Goverment $230,20 $230,200 $192,891 | DesignConstructiqFULL $230,200] $12,983,739 Y | 0 Craig City School District Biomass 0 $82,550|DesignConstructiq PARTIAL SP City of Eek Government Enti Heat Recover $ 8 $8,663] DesignConstructiq PAH [Southeast i [City and Borough ofSitka | SH Pumps _| $825,000|DesignConstructidPARTIAL SP i eH ra ak i eat ea etna rege _T 3s Recial Sonees_uty__Wa et $9,000|Construction__|FULL SP. $250,817] _$13,705,14 2 [Wood Chip Boiler for The Native Village of Tazlina __| Native Village of Tazlina Government Entity [Biomass $11,000|DesignConstructiqPARTIAL SP $125,000] $13,830.14 $165,000|DesignConstructiqFULL $660,000 $14,490,142 City and Borough of Sitka Local Government $962,984 $849,984 Sep peers $849,984] $15,340,126 totale) eT EL) areal) rela) ULL $114,965 $114,96 ULL $198,474 $313,439 FULL SP $3,096,89 $3,410,33 FULL $450,000} _$3,860,33 FULL $232,620] _$4,092,95 Early Construction DesignConstructi Construction Construction DesignConstructiq DesignConstructi a] an fe Oo o 2 =| OQ o ef a BSS 2 3 o oS 2 = = 9 go cE 7 Pee oe) : i = H H H H | H H H H H H tl H Nenana School District Government Entity [Bi $3,244,225 $367,965 $25,800|Design Y Alaska Gateway School District Government Enti $4,000 FULL | | $625,000] $16,333,091} jovernmentEntty [Biomass | 60_| $152,867] ____—$ 127,065] $25,802 PARTIALSP_ | | ____ $97,000] _ $16,430,091] ocal Government $25,000 ULL SubTotal - All Recommended Projects $27,341,616 $21,205,370 RY Le KY | $16,655,091 SubTotal Not Recommended Projects: H_ {Bristol Bay 1006 |NEA Stack Heat to Power Project Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Utility Heat Recovery -— $1,940,379 $1,843,379 $97,000]. .... _|Not Recommended MH {Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1008 |Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recovery |City of Chuathbaluk Government Enti Heat Recover! $232,430 $225,660) $6,770]DesignConstructiq Not Recommended Northwest Arctic 1076 |NWAB School District Solar Thermal Systems Northwest Arctic Borough School District _|GovernmentEntity [SolarThermal | | $467,252] $456,252 $11,000|Construction _|Not Recommended Sub Total - Not Recommended Projects $2,640,061 LYRA} $114,770 Grand Total - All Applications $29,981,677 $23,730,661 $4,571,204 $16,655,091 GrandTotal et 1 of 76 Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Heat Applications Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread State- wide Bred TLS) oO ae Aa ey ra lL Yield EN ea ae etl CLS acy eae Grant Requested Match Offered et Nels) Tele) Tele) Notes This document represents AEA's draft recommendations for consideration by the REFAC committee. This is a draft document only and is subject to change prior to AEA's final recommendations. This view combines the heat and "standard application projects, for perspective. Please see the sepate heat and standard lists. If REF 7 funding is limited to $20M exactly, #1021, Haines Borough Municipal Building Biomass would be partially funded. H = Heat application, applications that deliver heat only, not electricity S = Standard spplication, applications that deliver electricity, energy storage, transmission or a combination of electricity and heat. BIC = Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project. AEA BIC ratio uses AEA's best assumptions in the standard REF economic model SP = Special Provisions The Applicant B/C ratio uses the applicants assumptions in the standard REF economic model. Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2. Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. Some not recommended projects’ B/C ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons. DRAFT 1/5/2014 for REFAC Review 2 of 76 > ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. Heat Applicat on. P 5 # 1006 NEA Stack Heat to Power Project Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Design Proposer: Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Devany Plentovich j ipti Energy Region: Bristol Bay Project Description nergy Regi The Cooperative faces an urgent need to stabilize and lower the cost of electricity to consumers. Improving fuel efficiency in its diesel generation facility NEA will install two highly efficient waste heat to power (WH2P) systems onto existing diesel-fueled reciprocating engines to increase efficiency and reduce costs. The selected WH2P systems utilize supercritical carbon dioxide (SCO2) as the working fluid for converting stack heat to electrical power without additional fuel consumption or emissions. The stack heat to power project is scheduled for completion fifteen (15) months from the authorization to proceed date, and the proposed budget supports all design, fabrication, installation, commissioning, training, management, and reporting tasks for a $1.94 million investment. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation _ Not Recommended The Naknek Electrical Association is proposing the feasibility, design, and construction of two Echogen stack heat recovery to power systems on the utility’s diesel generators. The estimated power generation is 2.3MM kWh annually. Echogen is proposing a modified Organic Rankine Cycle engine with supercritical carbon dioxide as the working fluid. The stated thermal efficiency is approximately 20%. While AEA is interested in this concept, the modified Organic Rankine Cycle is still an emerging technology. This application would be better suited for the Emerging Energy Technology Program. AEA recommends the Naknek Electrical Association power systems be evaluated and included in AEA’s priority ranking list for Rural Power Systems Upgrade program assistance. Additionally, AEA encourages NEA to work directly with AEA staff to address the community energy needs. Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for direct assistance. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $1,940,379 Cost of Power: $0.50 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $1,843,379 Price of Fuel: $3.50/gal i aL A Matched Funds Provided: $97,000 Election District: 7 J R-36 Dillingham/IIliamna _ AEA Funding Recommendation: " es a) 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 3 of 76 Resource: Heat Pumps Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City & Borough of Juneau Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Project Description Energy Region: Southeast The City & Borough of Juneau is proposing the design and construction of a geothermal HVAC system to serve the heating and cooling needs at the new Mendenhall Valley Library (formerly called the Dimond Park Library in prior AEA grant request). The community of Juneau recently received a $7 million grant from Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development to construct the new library in Juneau’s Mendenhall Valley. The City & Borough of Juneau Assembly is interested in reducing the carbon footprint of Juneau and reducing the operating costs of their facilities. The use of a geothermal HV/ system rather than traditional oil-fired boilers and chillers provides an opportunity to achieve both goals of the City & Borough of Juneau and to expand the use of renewable energy in city facilities. EA Review Comments and Recommendation _ The City and Borough of Juneau propos Full Funding | s to install a ground source heat pump system to heat the new Mendenhall Library. While Juneau offers a favorable climate for ground source heat pump sy stems, the significant cost of vertical well loop field construction has a high impact on project economics. As proposed, the Mendenhall Library heat pump system would incur high construction costs but use well below 20% of the system’s total capacity on an annual basis. Because of this, the proposed system for the Mendenhall Library does not compare favorably on an economic basis to the fuel oil system used as a base case. A similar system was proposed in REF Round 6; after consultation with the applicant, AEA recommended funding for a smaller GSHP system that relied on a supplemental oil fuel boiler for peak demand. The project did not ultimately receive funding. This suggested design was not pursued in the current application; although the proposed design is less economically attractive than it might have been, it remains technically feasible. Full funding recommended. Funding & Cost Conee om Project Cost: $825,000 ‘ost of Power: -12 /kWh : 660,000 Price of Fuel: $4.12 /zal Requested Grant Funds: $660, . ae Matched Funds Provided: $165,000 Election District: : ; : P-31 Mendenhall Valley AEA Funding Recommendation: $660,000 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 4 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = . ALASK Aan. @mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1007 _ Mendenhall Valley Library Geothermal HVAC System Heat Application | Resource: Heat Pumps Proposer: City & Borough of Juneau Applicant Type: Local Government Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 18.03 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 11.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 9.87 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 4.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.63 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No known issues DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Energy Region: Southeast aos ) fo 2 J Economic Analysis Le, 49.33 - | 0.74 | « a | Sy Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) Lill Project Rank i | f \ f >» (52:%) 52.02 | ( ) ie Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank Stage 3 Total Weight (out of 100) eee DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 5 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA. # 1008 _Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recove ry ‘Heat App ication Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design : Construction Proposer: City of Chuathbaluk Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich | wolige E Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description nergy Region This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water system. The fuel oil savings to the community water plant is projected to be 1 ,900 gallons of heating oil per year. Kor more detailed information, see the attached Chuathbaluk, Alaska 2013 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. Not Recommended — The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Chuathbaluk are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant for heating the water system. Existing unused heat trace piping will be used to transfer the heat from the power plant to the water treatment plant. Although the Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project, it did not address the energy required to pump the water through relatively small diameter pipe and long distances. We are concerned that the energy required to pump the heated water from the power plant to the water treatment plant through the unused heat trace piping will consume more energy that the estimated savings of the project, creating an additional financial burden on the community. Additional information was requested on pumping costs but was never received. Not recommended for funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $225,660 Cost of Power: $0.85 /kWh . 225,660 Price of Fuel: $6.82 /zal Requested Grant Funds: $225, ided: 6,770 Election District: ov arts iat —— a ? - R-36_Dillingham/Illiamna AEA Funding Recommendation: © " io ; - 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 6 of 76 . Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round7-DRAFT /== AbASKA. @mmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Nenana School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor . ae Region: Railbelt Project Description Energy Region The “Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report” dated July 24, 2012 states that, “Connecting the school with several nearby buildings with a wood fired district heating system appears to be an economically viable project.” (p. 2 of 13) The buildings for the City of Nenana include the Water Plant and the Fire Department. The building included for the Nenana Native Council is the Youth Educational Resource Center (YERC), which houses the Early Learning, Head Start, and Youth Center programs. The school district buildings included in the project are the Nenana City Public School, the Administration Building, the Warehouse/Vocational Education Building, and the Nenana Student Living Center. Though the Nenana Student Living Center is located approximately six blocks from the Nenana City Public School, the “Pre-Feasibility / ment” states, “The additional energy saved by connecting several buildings together offsets the significant additional cost of underground piping and pumping cos 3ven with the significant piping costs, the extra pumping energy, and the extra wood fuel needed to offset the heat loss of the long pipe runs, this option remains the strongest relative to other options.” (p. 2 & 3 of 13) .EA Review Comments and Recommendation The Nenana City School District in Nenana, AK (Interior Alaska) requests funding for engineering design to build a district wide heating system for the following buildings: Nenana City School; Administration Building; Warehouse; Nenana Student Living Center; Nenana Native Council Day Care; City Water Plant; City Fire Department. The project is estimated to displace 87,800 gallons of fuel/year and has the potential to save the Nenana City School District in excess of $3,516,725 over the life of the project. This project is an example of good collaboration efforts among community organizations in an effort to provide low cost heating to the entire community of Nenana. Also the local community appears to be supportive of a district biomass heating project. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding for design and permitting with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design; business / operational plan with heat sales agreement; biomass storage: harvest plan; inventory plan. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $3,244,225 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $367,965 Price of Fuel: $4.06 /gal . ee Matched Funds Provided $25,800 Election District: a $367,965} S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley AEA Funding Recommendation: 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 7 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... (@mml> ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 1009 Nenana Collaborative Biomass Hea g System Pr ct Heat Application | Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Nenana School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Railbelt Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis a Score (Tae bh \ A \ { | < 0.66 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 17.76 54.67 — | 111) KZ 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 7.00 | ‘Ne ji ibili i Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 10.93 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.00 eee LE (GR | f: \ 4 » 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 48.69 {56.4 554 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.00 : ey ! oo Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Koutiotit00) Application references State lands within the future Nenana Tochacket Agriculture Project as a potential source of wood, noting that purchasers of state land must clear timber to prepare for cultivation - while this is true, it must be clearly understood that Ag land sold by the state of Alaska is subject to covenants, and development of the parcel (including the extent and nature of clearing) must take place consistent with a state-approved farm conservation plan. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project was reviewed for the Round 6 application period. No changes for wood requirement have been made in the current application (approximately 1,037 green tons 30% moisture content). The approximately 20-75 acres of timber per year required for this project, depending on timber harvest equipment configuration, would be quite sustainable for this area of the Tanana Valley. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 8 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA. (@mmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY p# 1010 Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion Heat Application — Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design aa : Construction Proposer: Craig City School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor + BT E Region: Southeast Project Description fee ini This project will consist of engineering and layout, acquiring the machinery and installation of fuel delivery systems and biomass boilers to be integrated into the existing heat system of the Craig High School and thus eliminate the use of oil for fuel. The system will use dried wood fuel from the AEA funded dryer at Viking Lumber and benefit Viking by expanding the market base for dry wood fuel. The installed boilers would heat the 52,219 square foot high school using wood chips generated by operations at a local lumber mill. Feedstock for the mill and the resulting wood chips comes from timber logged from the nearby Tongass Forest, Southeast Alaska State Forest, Alaska Native Corporation lands and other private lands. The project is similar in scope for the Craig Wood Fired Boiler and will share an existing contract to provide wood chips for the boiler. A Preliminary Feasibility / ment for Conversion from Fossil Fuel Oil to Wood Heating for the Craig High School, Craig, Alaska was prepared for the Craig city School District by Robert Deering, Biomass Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. A Copy of the study is attached to this application. An Energy Audit has been completed for the facility and is attached to this application. EA Review Comments and Recommendation The Craig High School District in Craig, AK requests funding for engineering design and construction to build a low emission,high efficiency, and 3rd party tested biomass heating system for the Craig High School. The project is estimated to displace 19,459 gallons of fuel/year and has the potential to save the Craig School District in excess fuel cost savings of $2.1 million - $2.6 million over 20 years. This project is an example of good collaboration efforts among community organizations in an effort to provide low cost heating to the entire community of Craig and surrounding communities. Also the local community appears to be supportive of a district biomass heating project. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow the Craig High School to make an informed decision about pursing biomass as a heating option. Recommend partial funding for design and permitting with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design; biomass storage; business/operational plan with heat sales agreement; harvest plan; inventory plan, $125,000 . eee & rile u Project Cost: $585,450 ‘ost of Power: .29 /kWh , 4 Price of Fuel: $3.80 /gal a pai oa ion, Election District: UNL Ereee ere cee error MULES eo LULL Q-34 Southeast Islands _AEA Funding Recommendation: $125,000 | y 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 9 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... (@m ENERGY AUTHORITY # 4010 Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion Heat Application Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design miei saps Construction Proposer: Craig City School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic nan sts Criterion (Weight) Score | | é y \ 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 16.63 | 66.33 1. 54 y” 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 11.00 j ibili 13.27 stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) ear cn} ‘Applicant (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6.38 = Vice A j / \ ; \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 | 55.77 { 40 (44 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.50 Vey Xe? Stage 3 Total Weight (out of 100) Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No known issues DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project is for design and construction of a new biomass boiler to heat the Craig High School. The boiler will be in addition to one that is currently operational and is heating the elementary and middle schools. The system will use dried wood fuel from the AEA funded drier at Viking Lumber. Wood supply for this project appears sustainable because Viking’s raw wood supply originates from a variety of land owners including the Tongass National Forest, Southeast State Forest and village corporation lands. The overall annual demand of the new and old boiler installations will only consume about 2% of the annual production of biomass at the mill. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 10 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. (@mml> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1011 Sitka Centennial Hall Air Source Heat Pump sii Heat Application Resource: Heat Pumps Proposed Project Phase: Design . ; Construction Proposer: City and Borough of Sitka Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso . — E Region: Southeast Project Description i ial Design and construction of an air source heat pump system to displace approximately 95% of the heating oil usage of the expansion and renovation of the 19,000 sq ft Harrigan Centennial Hall at a seasonal efficiency of 220%. The expansion and renovation, which will increase floor space approximately 5,000 sq. ft, will require the replacement of the current ventilatio: m. While the HVAC must be replaced, the base case assumptions include the retaining of the current fuel oil boilers, the use of natural cooling supplemented with air-cooled compressor unit, separate conventional variable air volume ventilation systems for the museum, auditorium, and office units, and thermal upgrades that would decrease energy consumption by 20% relative to the current structure. The six air-to-water heat pump units would be situated outdoors and a variable refrigerant flow (VRF) system would pipe refrigerant to the 16 indoor fan coils to provide heating or cooling to the building. Ventilation air would be supplied by energy recovery ventilators that transfer heat from the exhaust or relief air to the fresh air being supplied to each fan coil unit. The outdoor heat pump assembly would be housed within a louvered enclosure to protect the equipment and lessen noise issues. Backup heat would be supplied by electric heating coils with a total capacity of 930 MBH. This proposal is a direct result of the attached Renewable Energy Feasibility Analysis, which was completed July 2012 under a RE Fund Round 3 grant. See Attachment 1. Full Funding — The City and Borough of Sitka proposes to install an air source heat pump system as a part of an extensive renovation of Centennial Hall. Although air source heat pump performance in southeast Alaska is not well documented, the economics of the project appear favorable under a range of different conservative assumptions. The planned renovation offers a good opportunity to replace the existing fuel oil boilers with an air source heat pump system and could provide valuable data of the performance of newer air source heat pump models in southeast Alaska. Full funding recommended. Funding & aie 09 Project Cost: $232,620 ‘ost of Power: :09 /kKWh : 232,620 Price of Fuel: $3.59/gal a oe, nen a fi Election District: — ae ners Q-34 Southeast Island AEA Funding Recommendation: —_|T ’ $232,621 " 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 11 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... (@mmmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #41011 Sitka Centennial Hall Air Source Heat Pump _ : Heat Application | Resource: Heat Pumps Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City and Borough of Sitka Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score fea Le > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 15.71 80.50 | 3.58 | Q 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 | Ne” j ibili i Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) ee aaeiaald from Stage 2 (Max 20) 16.10 (out of 100) ‘Appilcand) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 10.75 Te fa = oo 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 | 72.39 {-°6 } ( 1 | 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.83 ey K } shel Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No known issues DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 12 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA. a Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump _ Heat Application — Resource: Heat Pumps Proposed Project Phase: Design ; ; Construction Proposer: City and Borough of Sitka Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso “ a i E Region: Southeast Project Description ql Design and construction of an effluent heat pump system to displace approximately 95% of the heating oil usage at the Wastewater Treatment Plant on Japonski Island in the City and Borough of Sitka at a seasonal efficiency of 400%. The existing oil fired boilers have reached the end of their useful life and need to be replaced. The effluent, with an average temperature nearing 50°F, passes by the boiler room, easing the integration of the heat resource. The effluent from the wastewater treatment plant would pass through an in-line screen prior to going through a stainless steel plate-and-frame heat exchanger; an antifreeze solution would be heated by the effluent on the other side of the heat exchanger. The refrigerant from the 868 MBH water-to-water heat pump unit would be heated by the antifreeze solution in the evaporator. Using the vapor compression cycle, the heat pump would then "lift" this heat to 115°F during the compression cycle, and then transfer that heat to the condenser loop to supply heating appliances. 220 gallons per minute of effluent will be required to provide sufficient heat to the evaporator under design load conditions. A variable frequency drive on the existing recycled effluent pump will provide the correct flow of effluent to the heat exchanger under varied heat load conditions. As the Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently designed for 180°F in its heating system, the air handlers, unit heaters, cabinet unit heaters, and baseboard heaters would need to be replaced to increase the amount of surface area of heating coils to compensate for the 115F temperature hydronic water supplied by the heat pump system. Backup heat would be supplied by a new 955 MBH fuel oil boiler in conjunction with a storage tank. This proposal is a direct result of the attached Renewable Energy Feasibility Analysis completed by Alaska Energy Engineering, LLC in July 2012 under a RE Fund Round 3 grant. See Attachment 1. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Full Funding _ The City and Borough of Sitka proposes to install an effluent source heat pump system in the waste water treatment facility to decrease reliance on the fuel oil boiler. The proposal to use waste water effluent as a source for a heat pump system is a compelling use of an otherwise unused heat source, and could serve as a model for similar systems in other parts of the state. The high temperature and availability of effluent would result in a higher heat pump COP than seen in ground or sea water source installations. Unfortunately, a combination of high anticipated capital costs and low overall annual heat demand make the economics of the project less beneficial than in a location with year round heating needs. If possible, AEA suggests incorporating other heating loads into the system in order to take full advantage of the proposed system’s capacity which would improve the project economics. Full funding recommended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $962,984 Cost of Power: $0.09 /kWh 849 984 Price of Fuel: $3.59 /gal Requested Grant Funds: $849,98 ae Matched Funds Provided: $113,000 Election District: Oe Q-34 Southeast Island $849,984 AEA Funding Recommendation: 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 13 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1012 Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump Heat Application | Resource: Heat Pumps Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City and Borough of Sitka Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary _ Economic Analysis Criterion tsi Score ee | fa» 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 15.71 57.67 | | 1.06 | \ 0.73 > 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 9.00 | NG Vw —— : j ibili i Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) ae erie from Stage 2 (Max 20) 11.53 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.75 Eos LL. an | / \ / \ L M | / \ f ) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 51.83 | ( 53 } ( 15 7) Sustainability (Max 5 | F \ ) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.83 | Ne \ : Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Route 100) No known issues DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 14 0f76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Heat Applicati n Resource: Heat Pumps Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City and Borough of Sitka Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso j ivti E Region; Southeast Project Description nergy Region Design and construction of an air source heat pump system to displace approximately 95% of the heating oil usage of the expansion and renovation of the 7,752 sq ft Kettleson Memorial Library at a seasonal efficiency of 220%. The expansion and renovation, which will increase the building to 12,400 sq. ft., will require the replacement of the current constant volume ventilation system. While the HVAC must be replaced, the base case assumptions include the retaining of the current fuel oil boilers, the use of natural cooling, a conventional variable air volume ventilation system, and thermal upgrades that would decrease energy consumption by 20% relative to the current structure. The two air-to-water heat pump units would be situated outdoors and a variable refrigerant flow (VRF) system would pipe refrigerant to the ten indoor fan coils to provide heating or cooling to the building. Ventilation air would be supplied by energy recovery ventilators that transfer heat from the exhaust or relief air to the fresh air being supplied to each fan coil unit. The outdoor heat pump assembly would be housed within a louvered enclosure to protect the equipment and lessen noise issues. Backup heat will be supplied by 360 MBH electric heating coils. This proposal is a direct result of the attached Renewable Energy Feasibility Analysis, which was completed in July 2012 under a RE Fund Round 3 grant. See Attachment 1. Review Comments and Recommendation _ Full Funding } The City and Borough of Sitka proposes ‘0 install an air source heat pump system as a part of a renovation of the Kettleson Library. Although air source heat pump performance in southeast Alaska is not well documented, the planned renovation offers a good opportunity to replace the existing fuel oil boilers with an air source heat pump system and could provide valuable data of the performance of newer air source heat pump models in southeast Alaska. While there is little doubt regarding the technical feasibility of the proposed system, full project payback appears highly dependent on fuel oil prices. Full funding recommended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $230,200 Cost of Power: $0.09 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $230,200 Price of Fuel: . $3.59/gal : ee Matched Funds Provided: $192,891 Election District: IIe if Q-34 Southeast Island { AEAFunding Recommendation: —_— eee 30 DDD u..) 116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 15 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT TS Abbie (@™mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1013 __ Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat Pump Heat Application } Resource: Heat Pumps Proposed Project Phase: Design ; Construction Proposer: City and Borough of Sitka Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score Las La Lan» 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 15.71 61.17 | | 1.87 QS” 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 45.00 een aan tn eee - abet, i lage otal /eig! 3) net rel from Stage 2 (Max 20) 12.23 tout 4007 (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 4.75 c= ] LE a 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 59.53 [38 ) 10 | 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.83 Vy ( ECE Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Kout off100) No known issues DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 16 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... @mmmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY Heat Applicat ion #1014 Wood Chip Boiler for The Native Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design , . Construction Proposer: Native Village of Tazlina Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor ; A et E Region: Copper River/Chugach Project Description eee The wood chip boiler will be centrally located between the four buildings with underground insulated pex pipe running to all four buildings. The pipes will connect to existing boiler and furnaces through heat exchangers to supply required heat. ial Funding - Special Provision — Native Village of Tazlina proposes final design and construction of a biomass boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of four buildings: Community Hall; Clinic; Office and Shop. The system would consume approximately 116 cords per year and displace 8,078 gallons of fuel oil per year. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. NVT has select the best biomass system for the existing structures: chips or cordwood. AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan and formal land usage agreement for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuel wood market in the Tazlina and Cooper Valley area. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow the Community of Tazlina to make an informed decision about pursing biomass as a heating option. Recommend partial funding for final design and permitting with requirements that AEA must review and approve the final design; fuel supply plan; business/operation plan; biomass storage; harvest/inventory plan, $125,000. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $278,150 Cost of Power: $0.28 /kWh : 267,150 Price of Fuel $4.17/gal Requested Grant Funds: $267, Matched Funds Provided: $11,000 sii i $125,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages _ AEA Funding Recommendation: | . 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 17 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. pp #1014 Wood Chip Boiler for The Native Village of Tazlina_ Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Heat Application _} Proposer: Native Village of Tazlina Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis j | { é \ 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 18.24 | 64.50 | | 1.84 5 Q 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 | | NE j ibili i Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) PAT eine from Stage 2 (Max 20) 12.90 aaron “Applicant oe 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6.25 See Pa | / 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 53.39 { 46 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.00 i Lemnos Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) Project appears to be entirely off of DNR/DMLW lands. No permits required. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project is for design and construction of a wood chip fired boiler at Tazlina. The system would be used to heat four collocated community public buildings. The supply of chips is expected to come from NRCS funded moose habitat clearings occurring on Ahtna lands and on BIA funded hazard fuel breaks. Roughly 116 green tons will be required annually. Based on state lands inventory data collected in the Glennallen area, roughly 30 green tons per acre of above ground biomass is present on the forest lands. The amount of raw material required for Tazlina would be quite sustainable if harvested in the Copper River Basin area. In the event these publicly funded projects are unable to provide biomass, Tazlina is willing to procure the raw material at an estimated cost of $90.00/green ton. They would also be willing to purchase fuel wood locally at $250-300 per cord and then chip prior to burning. At a fuel price of $90.00/ green ton, the annual fuel purchase price would be $10,400. This amount is significantly lower than the annual cost ($39,582) of 8,078 gallons of fuel oil. One good aspect of this proposal is that although ease of stoking is achieved by a chip system, Tazlina expects to use information from the Mentasta village use of a similar system for trial. If it does not perform adequately for Mentasta then Tazlina may default to a more standard Garn solid wool boiler. A commitment from Ahtna to provide the moose clearing residue at no cost other than chipping was stated in the application with attachment. The attached letter was not available for this review. DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 18 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT (@gmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY [= ALASKA Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project Heat Application # 1016 Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: Hydaburg City School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor . «gs Region: Southeast Project Description Energy Region This project involves placing cord wood fired boilers in the schools. The supplemental heating system would be located at the Hydaburg City Schools in Hydaburg, AK on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska. We intend to use wood biomass to heat the school buildings replacing diesel as the energy source. The project involves placing four Garn wood fired boilers adjacent to the school site and running underground pipes from the wood fired boiler to plumb into the school's heating system, four teacher hosing units and a greenhouse. EA Review Comments and Recommendation Partial Funding - Special Prov The Hydaburg City Schools in Hydaburg, AK on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska requests funding for engineering design to build a low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested cord wood heating system for the school buildings: gym; elementary school; high school. The project has the potential to save the Hydaburg School District in excess of $500,000 over the life of the project. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow the Hydaburg City Schools to make an informed decision about pursing biomass as a heating option. Recommend partial funding for final design and permitting with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design and business/operational plan; biomass storage; harvest/inventory plan, $125,000 . Fuading, & va 0 Project Cost: $627,900 ‘ost of Power: -24 /kWh : Price of Fuel: $4.20 /gal pets tent Fant ena o0b Election District: ___Matehed Funds Provided Q-34 Southeast Island AEA Funding Recommendation: : $125,000 | y Page 19 of 76 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... mi ENERGY AUTHORITY ‘App #1016 Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project ===—=——sHeat Application | Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: Hydaburg City School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis pee | fo \. . A > / | ( ¢ 1.91 > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 18.38 | 77.83 | | 245 Sy 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 7.00 XY i ibili i Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) i vault from Stage 2 (Max 20) 15.57 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 13.50 / q A m 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 63.95 \ 29 |} 8 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.50 | \ , 1 Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments out ot 10 No State land - installs at existing facilities. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project is for design and construction for 4 Garn wood fired boilers adjacent to the Hydaburg school site. The units would plumb into the school’s heating system, four teacher housing units and a greenhouse. It is estimated that 200 cords of wood per year would be required to fire the Garn units. This is well within the realm of sustainability as the Tongass National Forest is stated to have an annual resource availability of 60-70 million board feet. It is not clear what firewood vendors are in place to supply this volume but the project proposal states that the Howard Valentine School in Coffman Cove purchased 200 cords from a commercial vendor. If vendors are available to supply the raw material, and the Forest Service offers up volume, then there should be sufficient biomass available for the project. DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 20 of 76 ‘Heat Application Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Southeast Island School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor j ipti E Region: Southeast Project Description nergy Region Our project will serve four school communities and we intend to use wood biomass and replacing diesel as the energy source by installing wood fired boilers. We anticipate the result of greatly reduced heating costs for the schools and associated buildings. Thorne Bay School received a grant in 2009 to install two Garn wood fired boiler units, and while the system has been operating, it has proven too small for the job. The units currently in use, (proto-types), can easily be moved with a forklift, so part of the proposal is to install them at two other school sites, Whale Pass and Hollis Schools. In order to heat the facility in Thorne Bay which includes a teacher housing unit and a hydroponic greenhouse, the current system would be replaced with 2 Garn 3200's, and a structure built to house the boilers. Very little reconstruction would be necessary in Thorne Bay due to the portability of the current Garn Pacs. In Whale Pass and Hollis, structures would be built to house the boilers. Wood storage buildings will also be constructed. At Naukati School we would install a wood fired boiler and build the housing for it as well as for wood storage. The Naukati School is the same size as Howard Valentine School, Coffman Cove, in our district, where we have an operating Garn system. Naukati will be modeled after the Coffman Cove set-up. Money saved on the fuel costs will be re-invested in the school, resulting in more direct service to our students. Southeast Island School District on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska requests funding for engineering design to build a low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested cordwood heating systems for the school buildings: gym; elementary school; high school; four teachers housing units; a greenhouse. Plus harvest/ forest inventory plan; business and operation plan; monitoring and reporting plan. ds Thorne Bay School — Full Funding for Final Design and construction 23 Naukati School — Full Funding for Final Design and construction 3: Whales Pass School — Full Funding for Final Design and construction 4. Hollis School — Full Funding for Final Design and construction. Recommend full funding for final design, permitting, and construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design, business/operational plant, harvest plan, biomass storage, and inventory plan prior to the release of construction funds. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $1,058,775 Cost of Power: $0.41 /kWh : Price of Fuel: $3.80 /gal Requested Grant Funds: $940,950 Matched Funds Provided: $177,825 Election District: nae Q-33 Ketchikan/Wrangell AEA Funding Recommendation: 116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 21 of 76 . Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY ‘App #1017 _ Southeast Island School District Wood Boilers Heat Application | Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Southeast Island School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Cri i Score ( \ bao 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 16.63 ( 2.32 | QT 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 11.00 | eg j ibili i Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 15.33 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 9.75 Pore fo > JE i f \ L », 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 64.71 27 ) 7 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4,00 i \ } \/ Hie Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No known issues DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for upgrade of two Garn boilers at the Thorne Bay School to larger capacity units. The original units would be moved and installed in the Whale Pass and Hollis Schools. The project would also fund a Garn installation at the Naukati School. All of the schools are located within the Tongass National Forest on Prince of Wales Island. The proposal states that approximately 20-40 million board feet is available sustainably per Forest Service estimates. A vendor has been delivering wood to the Thorne Bay School and it appears other vendors are available. A sustainable wood supply for the approximately 265 annual cord consumption does not seem to be a problem. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 22 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY a pp # 1021 _ Haines Borough Municipal Buildings Biomass Project Sala Heat Application 2 Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design Proposer: Haines Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Helen Traylor 5 alae ion; Southeast Project Description et This project will install biomass pellet boilers in ten borough buildings; The Haines School and Pool, The Chilkat Center, The Sewer Treatment Plant, The Water Treatment Plant, The Vocational Education Building, The Library, The old City Shop, The new City Shop, The Public Safety Building and The Sheldon Museum. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation The Haines Borough is proposing final design and installation of low emissions; high efficiency; 3rd party tested pellet-fired boiler systems to heat Borough- owned buildings; Haines School and Pool, Chilkat Center, Sewer Treatment Plant, Water Treatment Plant, Vocational Education Building, The Library, old City Shop, new City Shop, The Public Safety Building and The Sheldon Museum. This project is estimated to displace a total of 80,000 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 695 tons of pellets per year. The project has completed feasibility /conceptual design phase work. The application includes substantial support from the community and Borough. Haines Borough has already purchased and installed a pellet system at the Borough Senior Center. This project will develop an anchor tenant for pellet supply in the Southeast Alaska region and will potentially support the development of pellet manufacturing infrastructure. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding for design, permitting, and construction with requirements of AEA acceptance of final design, fuel supply plan, biomass storage, and business/operational plan before construction funds are released. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $1,374,892 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $1,237,403 Price of Fuel: $4.09/gal BL Matched Funds Provided: $137,448 Election District: Q-34 Southeast Island AEA Funding Recommendation: aL DSA 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 23 of 76 (@m@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA App #1021 Haines Borough Municipal Buildings Biomass Project Heat Application Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction ‘ Design Proposer: Haines Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score a Le, & | j 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 17.89 | 88.50 | | 1.79 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 9.00 | | Ye j ibili i Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) at er from Stage 2 (Max 20) 17.70 ian ion (essicani) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.83 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.63 poco - = : i 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 | i { \ £ 67.55 , 20 | 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 NY \ Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No known issues DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by the Haines Borough seeks funding to conduct construction of ten wood pellet boilers and storage silos in several Borough-owned buildings. It is expected that the pellet boilers will displace 80,000 gallons of fuel oil annually for a savings of $59,000. This is based on a pellet delivered price of between $300 and $360 per ton and consuming about 695 tons of pellets. The borough is working with Sealaska and other potential pellet suppliers to provide a secure, long-term supply of pellets. Pellets are sourced from Washington and delivered by Sealaska of Juneau. This project appears to be well thought out and likely to be successful given the fact that the Sealaska Corporation already is utilizing a significant amount of pellets with a proven fuel delivery system. The proposal also mentions that Chilkoot Indian Association in Haines is considering the construction of a pellet plant in Haines. If this materializes, it could provide another source of pellets to the borough. Timber resources in the Haines State Forest are adequate to provide a significant local source of raw material for pellet production. The State Division of lorestry is currently updating the Haines State Forest inventory to be able to more accurately describe the volume estimates of its lands. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 24 of 76 . Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... (@mml> ENERGY AUTHORITY 1p #1026 Atka Dispatchable Heat Resource: Hydro to Heat Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Atka Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom - rr E Region: Aleutians Project Description nergy Region This project consists of the installation of a dispatchable electric energy system to supply electric space heat to designated buildings regularly used by the general public of Atka. The energy to power the system will come from excess electricity available from the recently completed Chuniixsax Creek hydroelectric plant. The existing hydro-electric controls will be reprogrammed to support the dispatchable system. Each installation will include replacement of the existing electric meter with a duplex meter base to meter dispatched energy separate from building power; a new dispatchable energy panel and controller; an electric boiler; unit heaters or baseboards; wiring; and hydronic heating connections. ull Funding _| xcess hydroelectric generation from City of Atka requests $114,965 in grant funds to install dispatchable electrical heating systems in public buildings to u the Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectric Project. The project is expected to displace 8,300 gallons of diesel fuel annually. The City completed permitting and design under a Round 3 REF grant (#7030001) for $80,000. AEA has the following concerns: The environmental report did not investigate the potential for encountering lead based paint and asbestos containing materials in the installation of the new heating equipment in the older buildings to be served. This oversight may add risk to the project, since, if found, these would require specialty subcontractors to remediate. Also, it appears the powerhouse load bank will still be in use for frequency regulation, which will continue to “waste” electricity. AEA recommends making energy efficiency improvements to the buildings that will receive hydro heat, further enhancing the benefit of the hydro energy. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $135,254 Cost of Power: $0.70 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $114,965 Price of Fuel: $7.65 /gal 7 ages Matched Funds Provided: $20,289 Election District: — — $114,965 S-37 Bethel/Aleutian 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 25 of 76 ' Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ‘= ALASKA. App #1026 _Atka Dispatchable Heat_ Resource: Hydro to Heat Proposed Project Phase: Construction ee __Heat Application} vest Proposer: City of Atka Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Aleutians Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 33.47 82.83 _ | 6.90 | NY 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 11.00 | NY ‘ j ibili 16.57 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) ee — ity from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.00 (ee a E> SE. | } f 4 fi » 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 | 85.04 ( aa { a 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4,00 | rd | rr Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) A DMLW Water Permit was issued for this project in 2005 under file LAS 23103. According to the information presented, currently proposed work will be limited to modification of existing facilities (no new construction). No DMLW-managed lands or permit requirements apparent. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 26 of 76 ~ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1031 Resource: Heat Pumps Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump Project Heat App! ation Proposer: Cook Inlet Housing Authority Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso . a ion: Railbelt Project Description nati Funding is being requested to help support the costs of final design, permitting and construction of a ground source heat pump system to displace approximately 75% of the heating oil usage of the 17,191 sq. ft. Seldovia House Senior Housing Complex. Seldovia House is an 18-unit housing complex serving low income senior citizens living in Seldovia. The total annual cost for heating oil for 2012 heating season (Jan 2012-Dec 2012) was $56,461. A field of ten vertical wells, 6” diameter x 300 ft. depth, will be located under the existing parking area and will serve as the heat source. A manifold loop of buried HDPE piping with methanol/water mixture will connect the wells to two high efficiency water to water heat pumps installed in the existing mechanical room. One of the existing heating oil boilers will be replaced by the two new heat pumps. On the load (hot) side of the heat pumps, buffer tanks will be heated from 130F to 145F, these will in turn supply heat to both hydronic space heating and domestic hot water. A heat pump/boiler controller will integrate the heating oil boiler such that supplemental heat will be provided when the heat pump capacity is exceeded on cold winter days. The goal of the ground source heat pump project is to displace approximately 75% of the heating oil currently used annually in the building for space heating and domestic hot water heating. \EA Review Comments and Recommendation — Full Funding — The Cook Inlet Housing Authority proposes to install a ground source heat pump system in the Seldovia House housing complex in order to reduce the building’s heating oil consumption. Despite some unknowns regarding ground source heat pump performance on the Kenai Peninsula, the economics of the proposed installation appear to hold up to a range of conservative assumptions. The project could provide useful GSHP performance data for the Kenai Peninsula in addition to demonstrating the effectiveness of a hybrid heat pump/fuel oil system. The high cost of fuel oil in Seldovia makes the potential savings of a ground source heat pump attractive despite higher local electricity costs. Full funding recommended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $362,805 Cost of Power: $0.20 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $318,289 Price of Fuel: $5.19/gal pees Matched Funds Provided: $411,835 Election District: l $318,289 0-30 Homer/South Kenai 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 27 of 76 , Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA. (@@ml> ENERGY AUTHORITY # 1031 _ Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump Project Heat Application Resource: Heat Pumps Proposed Project Phase: Design 7 . Construction Proposer: Cook Inlet Housing Authority Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Energy Region: Railbelt Stage 3 Scoring Summary _Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score (hones Le» 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 22.71 58.17 — | 0.94 | QS 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 } Vr j ibili fl Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project —_ from Stage 2 (Max 20) 11.63 (out PD} ‘Applicant (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 4.50 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 5.25 ren ae AE Le. 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 67.93 | ( 19 ) CE Ney ) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.83 ey | a Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No DNR/DMLW lands affected. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 28 of 76 ‘ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY 2 Heat Application Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design | Construction Proposer: Village of Minto Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor ; “nti E Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Project Description nergy Region The project is the installation of a single biomass heating system serving the Minto Multi-Purpose Building/ Lodge and the Health Clinic. The project will reduce the cost of heat by offseting 11,400 gallons of fuel oil with 99 cords of firewood per year. The biomass heat system will be located in a stand-alone building (new construction) located adjacent to the project buildings. The project site and all project buildings are controlled by the Village of Minto. The wood fuel will be sourced from nearby forests owned by Seth-De-Ya-Ah Corporation, which has provided a letter of commitment for the project. Fuel harvests will be completed by Minto’s trained wildfire crew, and the crew boss has provided a letter of support for the project. A harvest plan will be completed by Tanana Chiefs Conference, and is included as part of the project budget. The project emerges from significant community energy planning efforts and project prioritization, including the US DOE Strategic Technical Assistance Response Team (START) program and wood energy assessment supported by the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group. Village of Minto proposes final design and construction of a biomass boiler system that is low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested to supply heat to the Minto Multi-Purpose Building/Lodge and the Health Clinic. The system would consume approximately 99 cords per year and displace 11,400 gallons of fuel oil per year. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. Village of Minto is supplying a building to house the boiler (s) as a match. AEA is concerned by the lack of a harvest /operations plan for the project, but it is a deliverable. However, we recognize the existing fuel wood market in the interior Region. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding for final design, permitting, and construction with requirement that Minto provide a harvest plan; business/operations plan; biomass storage; final design that must be reviewed and approved by AEA before construction funds are disbursed. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $403,550 Cost of Power: $0.59 /kWh : 274,750 Price of Fuel $5,00/gal Requested Grant Funds: $274, Election District: S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley Matched Funds Provided: $278,800 F mn ss s ee $274,750... 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 29 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT yom AbASK Avec (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY app # 1032 Biomass Heat for Minto Community Buildings Heat Application | Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: Village of Minto Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiaht Saunt ZS he hae 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 21.88 69.33 | | Qe 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 oe a. ' ee, Tree i ibili Hl lage 2 Total ig 3) TA Tne from Stage 2 (Max 20) 13.87 fathead ‘Applicant (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 5.37 CTE Vues i f \ | / f \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 67.29 ( 22 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.17 | | ay Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) The facility and supporting biomass harvest are proposed to take place on Village or Native Corporation lands, therefore no state lands are directly affected. Roads to facilitate timber harvest are described; any direct road connection to the Elliott Highway may require driveway permitting through DOT/PF. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by the Minto Village Council seeks final design and construction funding to install a hydronic wood boiler serving the multi-purpose building and the health clinic. The actual boiler type will be determined in consultation with the Council and AEA. The proposal states that the wood will be sourced from local forests owned by the village corporation, Seth-do-ya-ah. A forest inventory conducted by the Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program concludes that a project using about 100 cords per year could easily source all its fuel within one mile of the Elliot Highway. Wood species would primarily be fire killed spruce with some green timber as well. TCC will also assist the village in developing a harvest and operations plan to ensure sustainability of the project. It is expected that 11,400 gallons of fuel oil will be offset by the use of wood. Oil prices average about $5 per gallon and the delivered wood price is estimated at $200 per cord however this amount seems low for Interior Alaska and may be closer to $250 per cord. An important aspect of the project is a statement from the executive director of the village corporation supporting the project and committing to resource supply. The letter states that the corporation supports harvest in the burn area that is located approximately 40 miles north of the village. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 30 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Heat Applicatio Resource: Heat Pumps Proposed Project Phase: Design : Construction Proposer: City and Borough of Sitka Applicant Type: Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso . oer E Region: Southeast Project Description AT The City and Borough of Sitka is applying for design and construction of a sea water source heat pump system to displace 100% of the heating oil usage of the existing 11,000 sq ft historic Sage Memorial Building that has been home to the Sitka Sound Science Center (SSSC) since 2010. The Science Center has already conducted significant feasibility and reconnaissance work on this project. With the help of the Rasmuson Foundation and Foraker Group, they have conducted an energy audit, a heat pump evaluation, and a master plan for the facility. A significant amount of funds have been raised to improve the energy efficiency of the structure through renovations of roof, windows and exterior. These renovations will compliment the project proposed here. Raw sea water flow of up to 85 gallons per minute will serve as the heat source. The sea water is drawn from a depth of 65 ft via an existing 8” intake line and shoreside pump station. A buried manifold pipe delivers sea water in to the basement of the building where the heat pump system will be located. The sea water will transfer heat thru a titanium plate heat exchanger to a glycol loop that in turn will serve as the source side of the new heat pumps. Three 84,000 BTU/hour high efficiency water to water heat pumps will be installed in the existing mechanical room. The existing heating oil boiler and electric boiler will be replaced by the three new heat pumps. On the load (hot) side of the heat pumps, two buffer tanks will be heated from 115F to 145F, these will in turn supply hydronic heat to new low temperature baseboards also included in the project. A heat pump controller will modulate the temperature of the hydronic heat based on outdoor air temperature. This project will be the first sea water source heat pump system in Sitka, and the first water source heat pump system in Sitka to displace 100% of its existing annual heating oil and electric resistance heat. The proposed heat pump system is anticipated to perform with a seasonal COP of 3 or greater, due in great part to the reliably warm sea water from Sitka Sound. Project Location: 834 Lincoln Street, Sitka AK 99835 Because the Science Center is already equipped with a sea water intake to supply its aquarium and hatchery, the proposed project represents a lower cost opportunity to install a sea water source heat pump system relative to other buildings. According to AEA’s review, given the anticipated capital costs of the proposed system, the size of the building and existing heat loads would not result in the displacement of a sufficient quantity of diesel for system payback. However, the possibility of expansion of the system to provide heat to additional nearby buildings could make the project more economically compelling. AEA recommends funding for the design portion of the project with the requirement that incorporation of additional loads be considered in order to improve overall project economics. Partial funding recommended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $388,838 Cost of Power: $0.09 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $373,838 Price of Fuel: $3.59/gal Matched Funds Provided: $825,000 Election District: Q-34 Southeast Island _ AEA Funding Recommendation: $56,841 1162014 8:09:57 AM Page 31 of 76 (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. ‘pp #4 033 Sitka Sea Water Source Heat Pump Project — Resource: Heat Pumps Proposer: City and Borough of Sitka Applicant Type: Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 15.71 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 10.97 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 4.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.50 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.17 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No known issues DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments Proposed Project Phase: Program Manager: Energy Region: 54.83 eeeemmmemenn Design Construction Alan Baldivieso Southeast Economic Analysis Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) __ Project Rank 42 2 55.34 | j Stage 3 Total Weight (out of 100) Koy Pe Statewide (out of 86) | | Region Rank DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 32 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Heat Appl ation Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Ketchikan Gateway Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Helen Traylor : Ig E Region: Southeast Project Description nergy Region Ketchikan Gateway Borough seeks to secure its future energy independence through the construction of two biomass-fired building heating systems. The woody biomass fired boilers will replace outdated heating oil boilers, which are costly to maintain and run on heating oil number 2, which is more expensive than locally sourced woody biomass. These systems will, in turn help to stabilize and secure the forest products industry of Southeast Alaska through the sourcing of locally- produced wood pellets. EA Review Comments and Recommendation é The Ketchikan Gateway Borough requests funding for construction to build two biomass heating system for the Ketchikan Airport and Ketchikan High School. The project is estimated to displace 111,033 gallons of fuel/year and has the potential to save the Ketchikan Gateway Borough fuel costs in excess of $ 8.0 million over 20 years. Due to the differing economics of the two proposed projects, AEA recommends partial funding for the Ketchikan Airport pellet system installation only. Before any funding is released to the grantee, AEA must review and accept the final design for the pellet system, the business/operations plan, and a biomass fuel supply plan. The system must meet AEA’s biomass program requirements of low emissions, high efficiency, third party tested, and UL listed (the product meets public safety requirements as designated by the Underwriters Laboratories). Ketchikan Gateway Borough should reevaluate the potential for a biomass system at the high school after the final design has been completed. AEA encourages Ketchikan to work directly with AEA staff in the coming year to continue to examine the implementation of biomass at the school. AEA recommends partial funding of $620,000. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $1,957,261 a of Power: = $0.10 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $1,412,889 Price of Fuel: $3.59/gal Matched Funds Provided: $353,222 Election District: JT Q-34 Southeast Island { AEA Funding Recommendation: i eO20:D00 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 33 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ‘= ALASKA. @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY App # 1037 Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass Heating Project aie tat Application } Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Ketchikan Gateway Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary _ Economic Analysi Criterion (Weight) Score ay Cy » 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 15.71 84.33 ( 0.24 | Sy 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 11.00 | ed 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 16.87 aa ar ea A Ratio 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.67 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 13.00 (ies LG, i f \ \ fast = fem GP & ustainabil j } one 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) S. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No State Land - replaces existing boilers DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough requests construction funding to install two pellet fired boilers. One boiler would be installed in the Ketchikan Airport and the other in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough High School. The boilers would be designed to use standard grade pellets which allow for higher ash content. The total combined demand is approximately 1,230 tons per year at an average price of $275 per ton. Discussions for a long term pellet supply contract have been made with Tongass Forest Enterprises that is offering contracts up to 5 years in length for volumes exceeding 500 tons per year. A silo would house the bulk delivery of pellets in Ketchikan. This successful fuel delivery model is similar to what is employed in Juneau to provide pellets to the Sealaska corporate building. DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 34 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ,= ALASKA. (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY pp #1038 __ Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste toEnergy Project Heat Application | Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design . Construction Proposer: City of Kotzebue Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Helen Traylor 7 ar E Region: Northwest Arctic Project Description nergy legion The objective of the Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project is to replace fuel oil fired boilers with refuse derived fuel (RDF) and wood fired boilers in two city owned buildings. Feedstock for this system will consist of sorted and separated cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper, and wood materials from the city of Kotzebue waste stream. The city's waste management equipment will be used to collect materials, either as source-separated material from the producers or mixed with the city's MSW waste stream. RDF fuel will be separated from the waste stream in the Bailer building, in conjunction with an aluminum and tin recycling program. Project Location: 258 Third Avenue Kotzebue, Alaska The City of Kotzebue is proposing installation and commissioning of a refuse derived fuel (RDF) and low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested biomass fired boilers in two city owned buildings. This project is estimated to displace a total 98,000 of gallons per year of fuel oil, using 2,300 tons of chips per year. The technical feasibility phase of this project is complete, but the final design and harvest/fuel inventory work is still in process. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency and air quality is addressed in conjunction with this project. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow the City of Kotzebue to make an informed decision about pursing biomass as a heating option. Recommend partial funding with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design; business/ operational plan; biomass storage: biomass inventory assessment, $270,000. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $2,692,700 Cost of Power: $0.42 /kWh . 2 495,189 Price of Fuel: $6.07 /zal Requested Grant Funds: $2,495, Matched Funds Provided: $95,000 Election District: ae T-40 Arctic ( AEA Funding Recommendation: a OO y 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 35 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA. (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY A pp #1038 Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste toEnergy Project Heat Application} Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City of Kotzebue Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Northwest Arctic Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s or — a : Loom» | | € 112 > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 26.56 | 62.83 | 1.16 of «oan tess tan Sen, ve Stage 2 Tot Te nt sense BenefitCost Ratio ; ibility ft Max 2 12.57 age 2 Total Welg 3) Project Feasioi ity from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6.00 ‘i ae LE Z | A: 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 | 62.13 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.00 | | { a Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No state lands are affected, as the project is proposed for City property. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by the City of Kotzebue requests final design and construction funding for a refuse derived wood fired boiler that would also be capable of burning wood pellets. The project will utilize 300 tons of refuse derived fuel. If wood pellets are used as a supplemental feed stock, the price is anticipated to be around $300 per delivered ton. This project appears to be sustainable in that the roughly 22 million BTUs of paper waste are generated per day in Kotzebue. This project requires about 3,442 million BTUs per year or about 40% of the total yearly generated paper waste. DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 36 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT /= ALASKA. @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Heat Appl ation #1040 Brevig Mission Water System Heat Recovery _ Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design : oe Construction Proposer: City of Brevig Mission Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich j ipti E Region: Bering Straits Project Description ee This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water treatment plant and washeteria. The project will install marine manifolds on the existing diesel generators and provide the recovered heat to the water system. The current estimate of fuel savings is 14,726. However, an intertie of the power system is planned with the neighboring village of Teller. If that project proceeds, available heat may be increased to up to 33,000 gallons of equivalent heat. For more detailed information, see the attached, updated Brevig Mission, Alaska 2013 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. EA Review Comments and Recommendation Full Funding The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Brevig Mission are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant to the Water Treatment Plant and the Washeteria/City Office. The Heat Recovery System will require the installation of a marine manifold on one of the existing generators. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The intertie to Teller was damaged and AVE working with FEMA on repairs. Significant more recoverable heat will be available when the intertie is repaired, and the heat recovery system should be designed to handle this heat load. The uninsulated AVEC power plant modules should be insulated to maximize available heat. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $753,313 Cost of Power: $0.54 /kWh ; 731,37; Price of Fuel: $5.29 /gal Requested Grant Funds: $731,372 Matched Funds Provided: $21,941 Election District: - T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages { AEA Funding Recommendation: _ Sa aa OT SIS) aca 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 37 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Heat Application _| App #1040 Brevig Mission Water System Heat Recovery Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design A elle Construction Proposer: City of Brevig Mission Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Bering Straits Stage 3 Scoring Summary _Economic Analysis f } 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 23.14 83.00 | 2.01 | 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 | cd j ibili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 16.60 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) 10.25 | . \ i ‘ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 68.16 2.) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.17 | | Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) There are no apparent conflicts with rights-of-ways for the arctic piping between the power plant and the end-user buildings, as the route is entirely within existing road rights-of-way and on city, school, and AVEC property. Rhino-Flex pipe will be buried between the washeteria and the AVEC power plant. This route includes one creek crossing at Sherman Creek. COE and ADF&G permits being requested. It is not navigable; therefore not state managed land. The application mentions the possibility increasing the potential fuel savings with the heat recovery system if a planned intertie of the power system with the neighboring village of Teller is constructed. It appears that the intertie is a separate proposal. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 38 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA. App #1041 _Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat Recovery Heat Application Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City of Chevak Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich : tae E Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description an This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the Water Treatment Plant and Vacuum Sewer Plant. The estimated fuel oil savings to the water treatment plant and vacuum sewer plant is projected to be 12,500 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached updated Chevak, Alaska 2013 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. commendation | The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Chevak are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant to the Water Treatment Plant and Vacuum Sewer System. - Full Funding — The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. ANTHC has funding for an electric heater for excess wind. The design should take into account the integration of wind-to-heat. The design should also consider the opportunity for marine jacketed engines supplying heat to additional community buildings. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $558,814 Cost of Power: $0.48 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $558,814 Price of Fuel: $4.30/gal . oa Matched Funds Provided: $16,765 Election District: LLL ceens S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley { AEA Funding Recommendation i $558,814 } 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 39 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1041 _Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat Recovery Heat Application | Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City of Chevak Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary _ Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score ea LEE. Lom» | | < 1.83 > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 18.81 85.33 _ | 2.44 | 4 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 j Key j ibili i Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 17.07 fat oi 400} ‘Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.50 r = LO, ao | f \ A \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 | 65.21. i 2675) ( 7 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.83 | ‘Ve 7 Ki j a Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 40 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT )= ALASKA # 1042 Eek Water System Heat Recovery ‘Heat App ation Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City of Eek Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich i inti E Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description nergy Region This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water system via a heating connection into the circulating water distribution loop. The fuel oil savings to the community water system is projected to be 4,000 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached updated Eek, Alaska 2013 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. EA Review Comments and Recommendati Full Funding The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Eek are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing AVEC power plant to the circulating water distribution loop and the water storage tank. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. AVEC is investigating the feasibility of wind power in the City of Eek. The design should take into account the integration of wind-to-heat. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $297,408 Cost of Power: $0.60 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $288,745 Price of Fuel: $3.89/gal 7 oe Matched Funds Provided: $8,663 Election District: _— - S-37 Bethel/Aleutians { AEA Funding Recommendation: —__ sca — $288,745} 16/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 41 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. App#1042 Eek Water SystemHeatRecovery Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction a eat Boal tir) Proposer: City of Eek Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score fe] A » L fo» 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 17.02 70.17 | 1.35 | Vy 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 | | \ A j ibili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) At Ty from Stage 2 (Max 20) 14.03 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 4.50 SS Loo Ga. | / \ A. . i M | { | f \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 55.39 ( 41 ) 11 7) Sustainability (Max 5 \ 5 ) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.83 | i Yo The Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) The listed location of this project is incorrect (lat/long given in application are the same as project 1005). Based on project description this is on lands owned by the city of Eek and is not located on DMLW-managed land. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 16/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 42 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. #1043 StMarys Heat Recovery System — Heat Application Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City of St. Mary's Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description This project will provide waste heat from the AVEC electrical power plant to the city shop, water circulation loops, cold storage/hotel, and city office buildings. The expected annual fuel savings is 15,726 gallons, which is approximately equivalent to the total heat demand of three buildings plus the water system. For more detailed information, see the attached St. Mary's, Alaska 2013 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. EA Review Comments and Recommendation The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Saint Mary’s are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing AVEC power plant to City Shop, Water Circulation Loop, Cold Storage/Hotel, and City Office Building. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $757,299 Cost of Power: $0.49 /kWh . 735,242 Price of Fuel $4.60 /zal Requested Grant Funds: es Matched Funds Provided: Election District: Lu HT BE TVRICREEE PEELE a S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley AEA Funding Recommendation: $739,242...) 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 43 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA. (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY ‘App #1043 _ St Marys Heat Recovery System Heat Application} Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City of St. Mary's Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary _ Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score (Soe A \ 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 20.13 | 85.17 | | 2.21 | i 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 NE j ibili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Bowe baci from Stage 2 (Max 20) 17.03 Piast Socom (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.83 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 41.25 r ann LE, _ | { \ a > 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 | 67.41 | ( 21 5 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 417 ey ae - Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed land. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 44 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT )= ALASKA _ #1044 Venetie Clinic Heat Recovery Heat Application _ Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: Village of Venetie Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Project Description This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the newly constructed clinic. The fuel oil savings to the clinic is projected to be 2,300 gallons of heating oil per year. Kor more detailed information, see the attached updated Venetie, Alaska 2013 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. EA Review Comments and The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the Village of Venetie are proposing to extend the use of recovered heat from the existing Venetie power plant for heating the newly constructed clinic. Recovered heat is already being used to heat the Washeteria and Water Treatment Plant. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $204,428 Cost of Power: $0.90 /kWh i 198,474 Price of Fuel $8.50 /zal Requested Grant Funds: ae Matched Funds Provided: Election District: i SE ri CEILI i Pee L T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages { AEA Funding Recommendatio $198,474 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 45 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY ‘App #1044 Venetie Clinic Heat Recovery ee Heat Application _} Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design . Construction Proposer: Village of Venetie Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Economic Analysis a Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score fea Lire, hae i i 4 > 4) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 35.00 | 85.17 | 2.45 | yy 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 . sae 47. Stage 2 To! tal Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 03 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 4.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.25 o> @8=—ee = am f \ > 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 | 80.62 | foestena (4 } 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.33 Qy Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments eo Co Initial land status research indicates the project will not impact state land. The applicant indicates that pipes carrying heat between the power plant and the clinic will be installed along existing Rights Of Ways (ROW) on City property. A brief search for Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) involvement in roads in Venetie resulted in identifying a 2011 DOT document that listed two roads in Venetie as “rural major collector” and “rural minor collector” It is not clear if these DOT designations as “rural collectors” means these roads include DOT ROWs. The applicant should verify who holds the right-of-way and coordinate with that entity. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 46 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ‘= ALASKA. app #1045 GraylingHeatRecoverySystem seat Application _ Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City of Grayling Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Applicant Type: Government Entity Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Project Description This project will provide waste heat from the AVEC electrical power plant to water treatment plant (WTP). The expected annual savings is 5,261 gallons, or approximately half of the total heat demand. For more detailed information, see the attached Grayling, Alaska 2013 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. Full Funding © \EA Review Comments and Recommendation The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Grayling are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant to the Water Treatment Plant. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The uninsulated AVEC power plant modules should be insulated to maximize available heat. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $332,590 Cost of Power: = $0.56 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $322,903 Price of Fuel: $5.00 /gal Matched Funds Provided: $19,374 Election District: CECE MC LE TOL EETL TL SELIM TEE LLL] S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley | AEA Funding Recommendation: $322,903 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 47 of 76 mm ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA App #1045 Grayling Heat Recovery System Resource: Heat Recovery Proposer: City of Grayling Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments 21.88 6.00 16.03 3.83 9.00 4.00 3.50 itt Aa oication. ) Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Economic Analysis =o fo ~ y | | | 7 » 4 \ | | ( | < 1.47 > | 80.17 | | 2.02 — wy Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) Project Rank f ~ . SE > aati i | ( 28 \ & 6 | 64.25 © \ Co | | | \ } Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank (out of 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed land. (This is not the project that was previously reviewed as #932 during round 6.) DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 48 of 76 #1047. GalenaCommunity Wood Heat Project —_— i Heat Application Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Galena Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Helen Traylor ' es E Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Project Description a ae a The City of Galena is requesting AEA Round VII funding to provide a sustainable and predictable energy resource for its school district. The Galena Community Wood Heat Project will substantially reduce high costs for heat for the Galena Interior Learning Academy School (GILA) by utilizing woody biomass harvested and processed from local forests. The project will implement Phase IV Construction over an eighteen (18) month period to construct and install a biomass boiler system for the GILA campus. Local coordination among the stakeholders group is strong, infrastructure and administrative resources are in place to support the project, and the Galena City School District has committed to purchasing the resulting heat. Existing Feasibility Studies and strategic community planning documents align with the project. EA Review Comments and Recommendation in - Full Funding The City of Galena is proposing installation and commissioning of a low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested chip-fired boiler system to heat its school district and the Galena Interior Learning Academy School (GILA). This project is estimated to displace a total 203,850 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 2,300 tons of chips per year. The technical feasibility phase of this project is complete, but the final design and harvest/fuel inventory work is still in process. The application includes substantial support from the community, the Louden Tribal Council, Galena City School District, and Gana’A-Yoo Limited. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Also, AEA must review and approve Phase III] — Final Design. Recommend full funding with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design funded in Round 6, including the decreased load resulting from end-use efficiency measures; business/ operational plan with heat sales agreement; harvest plan; biomass storage; inventory plan prior to the release of construction funds. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $3,144,200 Cost of Power: $0.56 /kWh : 3,096,898 Price of Fuel: $6.02 /zal Requested Grant Funds: $3,096, Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages Matched Funds Provided: $47,302 ling Ri ’ $3,096,898 | ; 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 49 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1047. Galena Community WoodHeatProject Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Heat Application | Proposer: City of Galena Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion Weight) Score eee Le, , 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 26.34 | 88.00 _ | 3.96 | tap , | | ‘ ; \7 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 | \ ‘ \ncamseneenmed ; j ibili i Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) sibel Crt from Stage 2 (Max 20) 17.60 {out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.83 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 14.13 << | P yo | / \ M f \ / 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 | (77.40 | ( 4 } 2 7 inability (Max 5 ‘ \ ) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 | ‘Ve 7 \ Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of, 100) Application states that biomass resources would be obtained from adjacent Native Corporation lands, therefore, no state forest resources are expected to be impacted. The application states that this project is on land owned by the City of Galena, however Alaska Mapper shows that this is within OSL 328. OSL 328 was granted to DOT&PF on 2/7/1966 under the Omnibus Act and DNR records do not show that this parcel has been transferred. Regardles case on DMLW-managed lands. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by the City of Galena requests construction funding for a biomass boiler for the Galena Interior Learning Academy campus. The projected amount of biomass needed per year is 2,500 tons with a delivery cost of $200 per ton. An updated forest inventory completed by Tanana Chiefs Conference in 2012 reported biomass dried tons within various radii of Galena. A sustainable annual harvest level of over 3,600 tons is available within a 4 mile radius indicating ample resource availability for the project. The village corporation has signed a letter of support and is willing to enter into a contract for the sale of timber which will support procurement of the biomass. This commitment combined with nearby state lands that would also be available as a raw wood supply should provide a means for a sustainable timber harvest operation in this area of Alaska. DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 50 of 76 (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA __ #1051 AGSD Exten: Heat Application Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design i Construction Proposer: Alaska Gateway School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich yl PIPE E Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Project Description nei The project will include extending a new hot water heating I return loop from the recently completed Biomass Heating Plant to two (2) additional buildings on the Tok School Campus and will include the required integration work within the two buildings. The first building is the multipurpose building which houses an ice hockey rink and shooting range. The intent is to use the biomass plant to heat the shooting range and toilet group portion of the multipurpose building, approximately 10,000 square feet. The second building is the Zamboni garage which would approximately 1 ,400 square feet. The heating loop will connect to the Tok School Biomass Plant that was completed in the fall of 2010. (Ihe Tok School Biomass Plant was developed using AEA Round I Grant Funding. The project consisted of a Biomass heating facility that contained an automated biomass heating system that now provides heat to the existing K-12 School.) Since the completion of the Tok School Biomass Plant a steam turbine and electrical generation system have been added to create a combined heat and power (CHP) system. The original biomass boiler was sized to allow for the CHP expansion and the additional load of the multipurpose building and Zamboni garage. The CHP project was completed the fall of 2012. When the CHP system is in operation it generates a substantial amount of heat as a byproduct. The heat created currently surpasses the required heat demand of the existing K-12 School. The intent is to recover the surplus heat and supply it to meet the heating demand of the additional buildings mentioned above. The cost for maintenance and operation as well as for biomass fuel will be negated for this project due to the current operation of the CHP system. Project Location: 249 Jon Summar Road \ Review Comments and Recommendation Alaska Gateway School District proposes adding on a heat loop off the newly-completed wood-fired heating system at the Tok School to provide heat to two school buildings — the multipurpose building housing the ice rink and shooting range and the Zamboni building . The project team would complete a final design phase and construction documents prior to construction. This application is similar to the Round 6 submittal #926 that was recommended for funding, but below the $25MM allotment. This Round 7 application significantly decreases the number of buildings and the size of the proposed in the heat loop. Recommend full funding with the provision that AEA approve the final design before construction funds are released. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $629,000 Cost of Power: $0.49 /kWh : 625,000 Price of Fuel $3.79 gal Requested Grant Funds: $625, Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages Matched Funds Provided: $4,000 F om ss , eee tO > O00 a. ding Recom 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 51 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT App # 4051 : AGSD Extension of Heating Loop ss Resource: Heat Recovery Proposer: Alaska Gateway School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary eau ; Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 16.58 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 11.97 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 4.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) 3.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.00 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Stage 3 Total Weight Proposed Project Phase: Program Manager: Energy Region: 59.83 | Stage 2 Total Weight (out of 100) Se j | 47.92 | | (out of 100) A } © 0.97 > ay wy Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) = (@mmE ENERGY AUTHORITY Heat Application | enna tmetectnntntiittienntenananette Design Construction Devany Plentovich Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Economic Analysis —" 4 Benefit/Cost Ratio (AEA) __ Project Rank 59 | (23 » . ey Xa Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank Proposal for waste heat recovery system for AGSD's existing woody biomass energy facility. Possible AS 38.05.850 permits/easements needed for transmission lines on state land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 52 of 76 = ALASKA. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT g= ALASKA app #1052 NunamliquaHeatRecovery Project = ___Heat Application _ | Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Nunam Iqua Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description This project will provide recovered heat from the new Nunam Iqua power plant to the washeteria/water treatment plant for building heat; the water treatment plant for process heat; and to the Clinic, Community Hall and Corporation Store for building heat. The delivery system will include supply and return lines; BTU meters, heat exchangers and unit heaters. The estimated combined fuel reduction is 18,000 gallons per year with an expected annual savings of roughly $79,000. Review Comments and Recommendation stem from the new power plant to the washeteria/water The Community of Nunam Iqua is proposing the design and construction of a recovered heat sy treatment plant for building heat; the water treatment plant for process heat; and to the Clinic, Community Hall and Corporation Store for building heat. This project is proposed to be managed by AEA in conjunction with the design and construction of the new power plant. The preliminary heat recovery assessment performed in September 2013 showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $603,000 Cost of Power: $0.53 /kWh i 450,000 Prica of Fuel: $4.38 /zal Requested Grant Funds: $450, Matched Funds Provided: $153,000 Election District: Ul EO S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley AEA Funding Recommendation: $450,000 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 53 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... x (@mEE> ENERGY AUTHORITY A pp# 1052 _ Nunam Iqua Heat Recovery Project " aot iat Application ] Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Nunam Iqua Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score fed he N yy \ | | } ¢ : 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 19.16 | 87.67 | | 2.33 | \ y | { } A 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 13.00 | Ya 7 ji ibili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 417. 3) aa Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 53 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.50 cS i et L 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 73.69 | { Ss | 1 | 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.50 ed \ J Et Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed Land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 54 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT # 1053 s Yakutat Biomass District Heating Loop Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design . Construction Proposer: City and Borough of Yakutat Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Helen Traylor L Soe E Region: Southeast Project Description Niel Primary heat sources in three municipal publicly accessible buildings will be replaced with two Garn WHS2000 boilers, which will use locally sourced cordwood biomass to provide heat through a supply loop linking all buildings. Existing antiquated hydronic heating systems in each building will be replaced and upgraded to improve efficiency an estimated 25%. Concurrent to this project, VEEP projects (Yakutat is a 2013 VEEP recipient) will be conducted to increase envelope efficiency per AEA statewide goal of 15%. AEA-required performance metering is addressed through ACEP subcontract. With significant local match and good project partners, we are seeking the funding for Phases II] and IV: final design, purchase and installation of 2 Garn WHS2000 boilers, pipe installation and associated link up plumbing to all three buildings in the district heating loop. The project also includes construction of a separate boiler building and a cordwood storage/drying building. Per standard practice, existing oil furnaces will remain as supplemental and emergency back-up heat systems. The City and Borough of Yakutat, along with Yak-tat-Kwaan, want to ensure that we install the most effective technologically and economically appropriate equipment for our biomass district heating loop. We are pleased to have the interest of Garn Boiler Company in participating in this application based on the estimate for the equipment they suggested as most appropriate for the buildings involved. Garn has a proven track record of installing and operating their equipment in several locations in Alaska, including at least two that we know of in the coastal SE Alaska environment. It is our plan to also closely monitor developments in the biomass energy world, and we recognize that this technology sector is evolving. During the 9th month period of AEA review, legislative approval and appropriation, CBY and Yak-tat-Kwaan will continue to monitor technological development. One of our goals for the project is to link Yak-tat Kwaan’s forest management program and the biomass products produced with the installed boiler technology and have the best opportunity for expansion and integration of future biomass projects. CBY is prepared to operate and maintain this project, and has demonstrated ability to operate energy infrastructure through the electric utility, Yakutat Power. Project Locations in Yakutat, AK: City Hall Building: 309 Max Italio Drive, Court House Building: 120 Max Italio Drive,, Yakutat Community Center: 100 Ridge Road. The City and Borough of Yakutat is proposing final design and installation of low emissions; high efficiency; 3rd party tested cordwood boiler systems to heat three City/Borough-owned buildings: City Hall Building; Court House Building; Yakutat Community Center . This project is estimated to displace a total of 7,238 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 38 cords of wood per year. The project has completed a feasibility study. This project is an example of good collaboration efforts among community organizations in an effort to provide low cost heating to the entire community of Yakutat. Also the local community appears to be supportive of a district biomass heating project. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow the City and Borough of Yakutat to make an informed decision about pursing biomass as a heating option. Recommend partial funding with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design; biomass storage; business/ operational plan; harvest plan; inventory plan, $103,000. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $335,456 Cost of Power: $0.50 /kWh ; 286,166 Price of Fue: $5.05 /eal Requested Grant Funds: $286, Matched Funds Provided: $49,290 Election District: PSNSSANSHADY PTT OT. LET R-35 Kodiak/Cordova AEA Funding Recomme we sishisiesissas 103,000.) Y 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 55 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA._ (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1053 Yakutat Biomass District Heating Loop _ Heat Application Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design ; Construction Proposer: City and Borough of Yakutat Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary _ Economic Analysi Criterion (Weiat s Ce L N VN | | e1.45'> 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 22.09 | 67.67 — 2.31) Qa” 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 11.00 | a j bili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 13.53 9 eeneaun (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 8.88 Le LEED. aia ] / A \ | / \ . 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 66.66 | ( 23} 6) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 417 Yee? (nn peer tee . — Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No State Land - replaces existing boilers in Community Buildings DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by the City and Borough of Yakutat requests design and construction funds for two Garn 2000 boilers. The boilers will displace about 7,000 gallons of diesel and consume 38 cords of wood. Forest Service and village corporation lands are nearby with an extensive road network built from previous harvest operations. From recent inventory analysis as stated in the proposal, a sustainable annual supply of 800 cords is available. Stands are generally second growth on previous cut over lands. Many of the forest stands are in need of pre-commercial thinning. The Village Corporation and Forest Service have committed to making the timber available. The current rate of fuelwood in Yakutat is $200 per cord. It is not clear in the proposal of who would provide this material or what firewood vendors are currently doing business in the area. DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 56 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1055. Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Re overy Proje Heat Application } Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of Seward Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso . ge E Region: Railbelt Project Description Mi The City of Seward is the owner of the Alaska SeaLife Center (ASLC), which is leased and operated by the Seward Association of Marine Science (SMMS), doing business as the Alaska SeaLife Center. In conjunction with SMMS, the City proposes installation of an innovative heat recovery system that captures waste heat from exhaust fans EF-4 & EF-5, minus 80 tissue freezers, IT .server room, electrical and mechanical room, fan coils and animal and necropsy refrigeration. Heat recovered will be directed to the front end of the seawater heat pump system and this will increase the coefficient of performance (COP) of this system. . Review Comments and Recommendation | Full Fund The City of Seward proposes to install a run around heat recovery loop in the Alaska SeaLife Center to recover wasted heat from exhaust fans, appliances, and overheated rooms and deliver it into the building’s sea water source heat pump system, resulting in improved heat pump performance. The calculated benefit derived from improved heat pump performance expected with the addition of the recovered heat into the system appears to be marginal, even assuming a dramatically increased heat pump output than is currently used. However, the additional benefit of avoiding the costs of a dedicated split cooling system for the overheated rooms is substantial. Even using more conservative assumptions regarding performance increase, the project appears to be economic. Full funding recommended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $250,000 Cost of Power: $0.11 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $225,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $25,000 Election District: DET io i TT EEL ee ee eS ae N-28 North Kenai | AEA Funding Recommendation: ia = $225,000...) 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 57 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mml> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1055 Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Recovery Project Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction _.. Heat Application _| ai Proposer: City of Seward Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Energy Region: Railbelt Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis creo i Sate — UDC 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 4.59 | 57.67 ( 4.41 yy i ea i ss 2 Tot i ht Be nA panel Ratio i ‘bili 11.53 tage 2 Total Weig ‘enefit/Cost Ratio 3) i iat from Stage 2 (Max 20) vcs ae Cee 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 4.50 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 488 1 Ma. = \ fo 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 ( 62. | "4 3) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 \ | apa Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No apparent DMLW-managed lands or permit requirements apparent from review of the project materials provided. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards. 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 58 of 76 i ; H oS , Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA. = #1060 Holy Cross Water System Heat Recover Heat Application _} Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City of Holy Cross Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich j iti E Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Project Description nergy Region This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water treatment plant/washeteria. The estimated fuel oil savings to the community water plant and washeteria is projected to be 3794 gallons of heating oil per year. Kor more detailed information, see the attached updated Holy Cross, Alaska 2013 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. Recommendation The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Holy Cross are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant to the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The uninsulated AVEC power plant modules should be insulated to maximize available heat. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $497,773 Cost of Power: — $0.53 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $497,773 Price of Fuel: $7.15/gal ‘ ee Matched Funds Provided: $14,933 Election District: UME 0 iT ] CL PIE AEA Funding Recommendatio! $497,773 R-36_ Dillingham/Illiamna 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 59 of 76 @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA...” pp #1060 Holy Cross Water System Heat Recovery ‘Heat Application _| Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: City of Holy Cross Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score (fas La y a 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 31.28 57.67 | : 0.74 | Vy 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 | ag i ibili: ; Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) fT a from Stage 2 (Max 20) 11.53 ator 00) ‘Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 4.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.25 oom / >>, yo 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 | 61.90 | { 35 7 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.83 | | Sg | | ‘navel Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed Land. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 60 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... App #1061 EmmonakHeatRecovery System ___ Heat Application _} Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction . Design Proposer: City of Emmonak Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich js 8 E Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description nergy egion This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water treatment plant, the City Office, and the Boys and Girls Club. The estimated fuel oil savings to these facilities is projected to be 18,879 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached updated Emmonak, Alaska 2013 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. (Note that the potential savings noted above are contingent on the completion of proposed renovations to the power plant.) rovision Full Funding - The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Emmonak are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the AVEC power plant planned for 2015 to the Water Treatment Plant, Boys and Girls Club, and the City Office/Hotel. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The design should consider the opportunity for marine jacketed engines supplying heat to additional community buildings. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $689,251 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh : 89,251 Price of Fuel: $5.77 /gal Pana oan ive * 0. na Election District: PI esicisdelsoiasioins S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley AEA Funding Recommendation: ' i $689,251. } 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 61 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... (@m ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1061 _Emmonak Heat Recovery System __ ‘ ___ Heat Application _} Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction . Design Proposer: City of Emmonak Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis | | { } 4 \, 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 25.24 | 87.67 | | 4.02 — Qe 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 i | Nay j ibili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 17.53 (out of 100) opecart) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 4.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.50 Sora LEZ, Tome 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 70.94 | ( 9 f 3 | 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.67 | | \ } Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Coutict 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed Land. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 62 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ‘= ALASKA. gok W d Heat Electrical Thermal Storage _ Heat App! cation > #1071 Resource: Wind to Heat Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kwig Power Company Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description This project expands existing Kwigillingok Wind Heat Smart Grid System by expanding electric thermal storage (ETS) devices from 20 to 50 units. The ETS units proposed for installation in this project are in use in 27 homes in Kwigillingok (Kwig). Kwig has an operational, utility scale wind turbine project that produces excess wind capacity. Additional ETS units will maximize the use of wind power to displace diesel fuel for both power generation and heating. A Review Comments and Recommendation _ ull Funding - Special Pro\ Kwigillingok received REF Round 1 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity by diverting surplus kilowatts to residential heat loads. Applicant and contractor have prior experience installing ETS units. Average benefits seen for existing 27 installations will be somewhat lower when aggregated among 50 homes. Residents see full benefits of heat savings. Final determination and survey of homes for install (community designation) must be accepted by AEA prior to release of additional funds. Project needs to integrate with a separate project to upgrade the village distribution system as a condition of funding. Applicant has not been timely in submitting required quarterly operations and maintenance reports on the existing wind energy project. Applicant needs to meet reporting requirements on existing project from this point forward to receive funding. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $302,737 Cost of Power: $0.60 /kWh . 293,737 Price of Fuel $5.95 /eal Requested Grant Funds: $ pen Election District: R-36 Dillingham/Illiamna $293,737 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 63 of 76 2 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mmil> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1071 _ Kwigillingok Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Heat Application} Resource: Wind to Heat Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kwig Power Company Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Economic Analysis Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score Bee eee 4 i / \ | ( ) < 153) 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 26.03 | 64.17 | 1.73 | \ 7 | | \ } 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 | | NED \ j ibili . Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) rt faa from Stage 2 (Max 20) 12.83 (auEFIOO} ‘Applicant) a 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.83 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 10.00 marr 7 SE, oo | f; \ J \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 ao 32 ( 10 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.50 | Noy ue, Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed Land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 64 of 76 ¢ © Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA Resource: Wind to Heat Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Puvurnaq Power Company Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description This project expands existing Kongiganak Wind Heat Smart Grid System by adding additional electric thermal storage (ETS) devices. The units themselves have been in production since the mid-1980’s as electric heat sources, but have only recently been advanced to include Grid Interactive Controls for renewable energy sources. Currently, the units and their controls are considered “off the shelf’ technology and are readily available. The ETS units proposed for installation in this project are already in use in 20 homes in Kongiganak (Kong) and have realized those homes 30-50% fuel decr (in home heating fuel) in the 10 months they have been in use. Kong has operational, utility scale, wind turbine project that produces excess wind capacity. This capacity needs to be used or the turbine production must be governed in a way that energy is wasted. Additional ETS units will provide an outlet to maximize the use of wind power to displace diesel fuel for both power generation and heating. mendation —_ Full Fund Kongiganak received REF Round 1 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity by diverting surplus kilowatts to residential heat loads. Applicant and contractor have prior experience installing ETS units. Average benefits seen for existing 20 installations will be somewhat lower when aggregated among 50 homes. Residents see full benefits of heat savings. Final determination and survey of homes for install (community designation) must be accepted by AEA prior to release of additional funds. Project needs to integrate with a separate project to upgrade the village distribution system as a condition of funding. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $320,456 Cost of Power: $0.56 /kWh : 11,4 Price of Fuel: $6.21 /gal Requested Grant Funds: $311,456 Matched Funds Provided: $9,000 Election District: R-36_Dillingham/Illiamna $311,456 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 65 of 76 « Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... @mmml> ENERGY AUTHORITY __Heat Application _} app # 1073. Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Resource: Wind to Heat Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Puvurnaq Power Company Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score ts A >, La», 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 27.17 74.17 | 2.55 | YY 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 | | Xe 7 j bili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 14.83 (cuveriony (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.83 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.38 poe A>» pee | { \ 6 >» 6) Local Support (Max 5) 0.00 66.21 ( 24 | 6 | 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.00 | | \ I Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed Land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 66 of 76 ‘ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1074 Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Heat Application : Resource: Wind to Heat Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: TCSA Electrical Services Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Rich Stromberg . so-38 E Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description i This project expands the Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Smart Grid System by from 30 to 50 electric thermal storage devices (ETS). ETS units are used to capture and store surplus wind energy and use it to displace home heating fuel. The increase in the number of residential units is needed to absorb wind generated energy during modest to high wind periods, which occur in throughout the fall and winter, when heating requirements are the greatest. The addition of 20 ETS units increases the productivity and efficiency of the existing wind system. EA Review Comments and Recommendation ‘ Tuntutuliak received REF Round 2 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity by diverting surplus kilowatts to residential heat loads. Unlike the other two project proposed for Kongiganak and Kwigillingok, the economics of this project suffer from the lower residual energy available having already installed 30 stoves instead of just 20 stoves in Kong and Kwig, plus Tuntutuliak's ~10% lower wind regime, plus their lower cost of diesel fuel. Applicant and contractor have prior experience installing ETS units. Average benefits seen for existing 30 installations will be somewhat lower when aggregated among 50 homes. Residents see full benefits of heat savings. Final determination and survey of homes for install (community designation) must be accepted by AEA prior to release of additional funds. Project needs to integrate with a separate project to upgrade the village distribution system as a condition of funding. Applicant has not been timely in submitting required quarterly operations and maintenance reports on the existing wind energy project. Applicant needs to meet reporting requirements on existing project from this point forward to receive funding. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $259,817 Cost of Power: $0.65 /kWh 7 250,817 Price of Fuel: $6.80 /gal Requested Grant Funds: $250, ided: 9,000 Election District: 7 ee Funes Ptowided $ R-36_Dillingham/Illiamna AEA Funding Recommendation: = = —s_————s«$290,817 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 67 of 76 2 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... @m> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1074 _Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Resource: Wind to Heat Proposed Project Phase: Construction : Heat Application } Proposer: TCSA Electrical Services Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s Gon LE, Lam | | { ) < 1.00 > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 29.75 | 46.67 | | 0.96 | QT 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 i | YS 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 9.33 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio . . (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.83 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 2.13 om oo LE pag | f \ », | { \ 6 \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 54.54 ( 44 ) 12 ) 7) Sustainability (Max 5. | f { ) ty ( ) 2.50 Way cena Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed Land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 16/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 68 of 76 ‘ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASK Ann (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1076 NWAB School District Solar Thermal Systems isles "Heat Application Resource: Solar Thermal Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Northwest Arctic Borough School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: David Lockard 7 ale E Region: Northwest Arctic Project Description nce ed This project focuses on installing a solar hot water thermal system in each of the eleven Northwest Arctic Borough schools to provide a year around economical source of hot water. Currently, each school’s hot water heater is part of the heating plant, which is separate from each building. For example, the Kotzebue school’s hot water is heated indirectly with hot glycol from a boiler module, which also provides space heating. The boiler water heats the school’s two huge plate and frame heat exchangers where the schools glycol/water-heating medium is heated. Hot glycol is then circulated through a plate type heat exchanger (for 115 degree water) and an Amtrol hot water maker for 140-degree hot water. During the warmest months of the school year, the school must run a boiler to make hot water. One boiler contains 385 gallons of water, the piping that connects it with the plate and frame heat exchangers contain approximately 200 gallons. Thus there are times when the school does not need space heating, but does have need for hot water; just as all the other school’s do. \EA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended The Northwest Arctic Borough School District (NWABSD) applied for a grant to fund the construction of solar thermal water heating systems at eleven schools. Grant funds of $456,252 were requested with a match of $11,000 for a total project cost of $467,252. The project is intended to allow the boilers at the eleven schools to be turned off during summer months. It would also offset water heating fuel use during other periods of the year. AEA does not recommend this project for funding. The applicant made an error in reading solar panel output on p.39 of the application. 3.1 kWh/m*2/day is the solar insolation on the panel. The panel thermal output is 3.2 kWh/panel/day. A confusion between the energy output expressed in units of ‘per panel’ and the insolation expressed in terms of energy per square meter resulted in an over-estimation of energy that would be generated. Also, the application did not include enough detail regarding school occupancy during school days, summer months and on weekends, and associated water heating requirements, to calculate the related fuel use and potential savings. AEA recommends that NWABSD investigate advanced controls, alternative sources of water heating, and energy efficiency measures to reduce water heating fuel use at these facilities. This project is not recommended for funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $467,252 Cost of Power: $0.63 /kWh , 456,252 Price of Fuel: $6.35 /gal eit i , ea Te a Election District: LEE ee . : ue SA oh S ; a a Z i T-40 Arctic | AEA Funding Recommendation ‘ : } 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 69 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT )#1078 Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design ON Construction Proposer: Chickaloon Native Village Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor P| Pee E Region: Railbelt Project Description nergy Region The proposed project is to build and install a Combined Solar Thermal and Wood Pellet Boiler System that would provide heat for both a 3,200 sq ft shop/office and a 1,160 sq ft : administrative building. Included in the project is construction of a building addition to house the boiler system, purchase and installation of solar thermal panels and pellet boiler, and focused monitoring and evaluation. The project will also be used as a demonstration projectfor the community to learn about solar thermal and wood pellet boiler systems and to encourage the use of renewable resources for heating. Project location: 21117 Myers Avenue Sutton, Alaska 99674 Comments and Recommendation Partial Funding - Special Provision | The Chickaloon Native Village proposes construction of a pellet and solar heating system to supply heat for both a 3,200 sq. ft. shop/office and a 1,160 sq. ft. administrative building. Included in the project is construction of a building addition to house the boiler system, purchase and installation of solar thermal panels and pellet boiler, and focused monitoring and evaluation. AEA recommends partial funding for Chickaloon Native Village pellet system installation only because the thermal only capital cost is less than the solar/thermal capital cost; the benefits and savings are the same when comparing solar/thermal and thermal technology. Before any funding is released to the grantee, AEA must review and accept the final design for the pellet system, the business/operations plan, and a biomass fuel supply plan. The system must meet AEA’s biomass program requirements of low emissions, high efficiency, third party tested, and UL listed. AEA recommends partial funding of $97,000. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $152,867 Cost of Power: $0.15 /kWh : 127,065 Price of Fuet $3.71 zal Requested Grant Funds: $127, Election District: C-06 Richardson Highway Matched Funds Provided: $25,802 ° $97,000 { AEA Funding Recommendation: | 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 70 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT oe AbASK Avec (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1078 Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project Heat Application _| Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design . ; Construction Proposer: Chickaloon Native Village Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Railbelt Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 16.23 | 43.67 ( 0.79 | QV 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 11.00 | j bili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Mai At from Stage 2 (Max 20) 8.73 lope ‘Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.75 [ "3 LE Gi. | ( \ ( \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 | 45.88 eo 7 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 417 } MAGI Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No DNR/DMLW lands affected. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project is a resubmittal of a Round 5 proposal for construction of a combined wood pellet boiler and solar thermal system that would provide heat for both a 3,200 square foot shop/office building and a 1,160 square foot administration building. This is a similar system that is installed in the Ionia community located in Kasilof. It is expected that this combined system will displace 1,818 gallons of diesel fuel per year and 1,022 gallons of propane for a combined savings of $11,560. Wood pellets would come from either in-state suppliers such as Superior Pellets in North Pole or from Gulkana Village’s small pellet plant. Pellets may also be purchased from local building supply stores. Given the relatively small annual pellet requirement, sourcing a reliable supply should not present a problem. The project proposal lists a purchase price of pellets at approximately $250.00/ton and a 15 ton requirement which totals $3,750 per year in pellet costs. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 71 of 76 2 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = aeons App #1085 TuntutuliakHeatRecovery i ode Heat Application.) Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: Native Village of Tuntutuliak Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water treatment plant/washeteria. The e: community water plant and washeteria is projected to be 6,600 gallons of heating oil per year. Kor more detailed information, see the attached updated Tuntutuliak, Alaska 2013 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. imated fuel oil savings to the Full Funding | The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the Native Village of Tuntutliak are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant planned to the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The utility has funding for an electric heater for excess wind. The design should take into account the integration of wind-to-heat. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $469,311 Cost of Power: $0.65 /kWh : 455,642 Price of Fuel: $6.80 /gal nan et alla specie Election District: MILLE Miter ie a oa MEUM et III Le Lire | R-36.Dillingham/Illiamna | AEAFundingRecommendation: — ee S455 642.) Page 72 of 76 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM s . Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT #1085 Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery = @mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Heat Recovery Proposer: Native Village of Tuntutuliak Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 29.75 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 16.27 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.83 5) Benefits (Max 15) 10.13 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.00 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments This project is not located on DMLW-managed land. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments Proposed Project Phase: Program Manager: Energy Region: - Heat Application Design Construction Devany Plentovich Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Economic ites | AA », | 1.54 | 81.33 | 232 <> | Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) —Project Rank Stage 3 Total Weight (out of 100) J A . oO © Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11612014 8:09:57 AM Page 73 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ‘= ALASKA. App # 1087__ Kake Community Energy Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Organized Village of Kake Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor u eas Energy Region: Southeast Project Description gy Reg Kake Community Energy (KCE), a project of the Organized Village of Kake (OVK), is a community-scale thermal energy services company providing affordable biomass heat to critical public institutions and (later) businesses in Kake, AK while creating local employment and enhancing forest restoration on Tribal and National Forest lands. It is designed to achieve the economies of scale, customer convenience and price stability of traditional district energy systems, while allowing the adaptability and flexibility needed to serve a community with a spatially extensive development pattern, typical of Southeast Alaska. The Organized Village of Kake is proposing final design and permitting for a low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested district wood-fired heating loop City of Kake’s Bingo Hall, and a lodge owned by the for a tribal government office building, Kake City School District, Tlingit and Haida Senior Center, the City Organized Village of Kake (OVK), a federally recognized tribe. This project is estimated to displace approximately 35,000 gallons per year of fuel oil. The application includes substantial support from the community and endorsement from the Kake Community Energy Committee. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow the Organized Village of Kake to make an informed decision about pursing biomass as a heating option. AEA recommends partial funding for the final design and permitting includes business/operations plan; biomass storage; biomass resource inventory assessment; harvest plan, $175,000. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $1,423,292 Cost of Power: $0.62 /kWh f 208,073 Price of Fuel: $5.85 /gal Requested Grant Funds: $208, $20,000 Election District: Q-34 Southeast Island $175,000 1/6/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 74 of 76 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... Heat Application , ) # 1087 Kake ommunity nergy Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Organized Village of Kake Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 25.59 73.83 | 1.18 | Qy” 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 7.00 | ‘\ 4 j ibili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) ‘ne canis from Stage 2 (Max 20) 14.77 (an oriOD) (Applicant (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.00 ME i yeueaeany 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 (a3 ) (Ezy 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.00 Voy eg Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No State Land DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for final design of a wood chip fired boiler to heat several buildings within the Organized Village of Kake tribal government campus. The boiler is expected to displace 60,000 gallons of fuel with 1,000 tons of biomass fuel sourced from forest stewardship thinning activities on adjacent Kake Tribal, Sealaska and Forest Service lands on an annual basis. Although the availability of the raw resource appears to be sustainable, there is no mention in the proposal of a pool of vendors to supply the chips or if there are any issues in supply if potentially publically funded pre-commercial activities do not materialize. DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:09:57 AM Page 75 of 76 Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 Heat Applications Recommended Projects Biomass or Biofuels Heat Pumps Heat Recovery A @ 6 Hydro to Heat @ ¥ Solar Thermal Wind to Heat Major Roads (<3 Energy Regions The State of Alaska makes no expressed or implied warranties (including warranties of merchantability and fitness) with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of data portrayed by this product or its appropriateness for any user's purposes. Map prepared by AEA EnergyData/GIS. For additional information on AEA Energy Programs visit www.akenergyauthority.org PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1-05-14 oO 1026 ; ep f/f NO f CUTS ° eee ee) 0 90 180 360 ; j= CO) SS res |\i]es mm ENERGY AUTHORITY __ ze athe Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Standard Applications Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread Sc wide Count a aN) ID ae ea Pye elite Ulan Energy Source Rank ac anaes Grant Requested Match Offered art ENT) TyS |BristolBay =| 1036 [Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase! | g lage S_|Bering Straits __—_‘| 1068_|Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final De iti age Electric Cooperative, Inc. es Is _[Yukon-KoyukokUpper Tar] 1027 |Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project_ __—=———[AlaskaPowerCompany [Utility Feasibility | | | __ $119,000] $2,813,653 [S_[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1067_| i Electric ative, Inc. [utility [Wind sd] 12 ‘YT $4,833,000] _—=— $123,500] === $6,500|Feasibilty —[FuLL__—Ss| «| ~—$123,500] $3,012,153] IS_JRailbet | 1082 [Stetson Creek e ject [Chugach Electric Association, Inc. _|utility —=——sMydro~—s| 15 «| $24,772,523] $3,453,920] $13,591,226 |Construction _[FULL__—Ss—s| | $3,453,920] $6,466,073} IS_|Copper RiveriChugach _| 1015 [Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project Construction _‘|Copper Valle i i [utility Hydro 16 «| $49,000,000] $5,914,491] ——$5.914,491|Construction [FULL |__—$5,914,491] $12,380,564] Is [Southeast | 1025 [Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility Study ins e Electri erative utility Hydro Tt? | $300,001 $275,000] $25,000[ReconFeasibilty [PARTIALSP__ | | _$80,000] _ $12,460,564] SubTotal - Top Ranking $20 million prior to stage 4 regional spreading $104,389,522 $18,580,564 $34,121,513 $12,460,564 SubTotal EMIS |BristolBay __—_—_| 1072 |Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and Conceptual Design _giugig Village Council __—————Ss(Government Entity [Wind | 25 | ~——$110,000]__—>=— $80,000] __———$:30,000)Feasibilty |FULLSP__—|_|_—_—$80,000] $12,540,564] 10 ngusraq Power Company (UPC) / Newtok $25,000|ReconFeasibility |PARTIAL $75,000] $12,615, TEINS |Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1069 [St Marys Pitkas Point Wind Energy Construction Project laska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $507,953|Construction |FULL SP $4,274,575] _ $16,890,13 (yas [Aleutians —s——_| 1083 | droelectric Project ity of King Cove $1,900,000]Construction [FULL SP $800,000] _ $17,690,13 TMS [Kodiak ———_| 1065 [Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Final Design and Permitting | Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $57.51 g PARTIAL ; $18,090,13 7 Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project The Southeast Alaska Power Agenc $8,813,869] DesignConstructiq PARTIAL SP $560,488] _ $18,650,62 15 Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Stud am Valley, LLC $35,751 $35,750] _$18,686,37 16 alse Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Stud City of False Pass ocal Government $137,821 $428 64 115, Vi Sand Point Energy Storage Project TDX Sand Point Generating, LLC $141,0 ; $19,315,02 mS [Southeast _—_| 1022 |SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase | and Il The Southeast Alaska Power Agenc’ $11,81 $158,771 y HS |Kodiak _—_| 1030 [Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane odiak Electric Association, Inc. $1,900,001 $1,470, $20,944,34 PS |Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1066 {Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Project__|Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $18,60 $353,4 $21,297,74 MARIS [North Slope _| 1049 |Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project __|North Slope Borough $201,78 $2,017,818] $23,315,561 MOS |Railbelt —_| 1028 |Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Stud ative Village of Cantwell $35,000] _ $23,350,56 23 1079 |Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recove lew Koliganek Village Council f $23,656,561 24 False Pass Wind Energy Project ity of False Pass Electric Utili $47,050] _$23,703,61 ams |Railbelt __—_| 1081 Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Stud hugach Electric Association, Inc. $50,000] _$23,753,61 rr 1075 |Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Stud ue Hole Properties, LLC (BHP i $23,923,61 Ma Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project lorthwest Arctic Borough Local Government $75,000] _$23,998,61 28 1018 |Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting ity of Chignik Local Government BLAN $1,375,00 A $24,498,61 29 8 [Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design and Permitting North Slope Borough ocal Government $4,565,20 $44 i $24,938,61 SubTotal - All Recommended Projects $195,454,867 $37,971,477 $48,098, $24,938,610 SubTotal Ler) Cumulative TTL} areal) elela i Early oe = =} a an oo So Ss Ss So s $4,782,52 $5,500,001 $8,155,001 $13,391 ,86 $2,350,001 $5,000,001 $428,64 $1,397.40, $1,256 ,40. $170,58 $158,77 $3,800,00! $1,900, $3,214 87; $353,4 $17,342,83 $2,017,841 $8,340,001 $54,0 $2,566,001 $306,0 $52,051 $47,05 TB $150,000 $2,250,001 Z $77,001 $76,001 ti ocal Government ti overnment Enti $4,274,575 $1,092,501 $4,000,001 = @ z 2 $ xy ad dro > a LL ARTIAL SP ULL PARTIAL SP FULL SP FULL SP ; ‘econ PARTIAL $10,001 g FULL SP $5,000] Feasibili LL SP , RTIAL $30,001 LL $1,00 LL SP ARTIAL SP Feasibilit signConstructi ‘econFeasibilit onstruction drokinetic torage of Rene’ on an wn oo x ~ So So 8Bl5|Slslslslals vlal alo le cS ie be oS a iy a Oo 8 g 16 | SIT [Oo | OO me = QO a BD 7 > N o ~ £ overnment Enti Baty rr) i torage of Rene til Local Government : AE S| SISo[o|sS aIS Us Us Government Entit Government Entit IPP es sti 2 Rolo ransmission ig $ eSoHk eae i s a 2 Wind Wi iomass s 3 Local Government a So ui i easibili ‘onstruction Solar PV ia ceecbet oS 31818 /8 S18 /8 e188 ' uv | 30_| Hydro 34 Hydro 37 Hydro 39 [Storage of Renew _45_| [Storage of Renew 48 _| Te [Transmission | _50_| Hydro 8 ae Biomass | 57_| ae iSolarPV_ | 61 Hydro 63 Wind | 64 2 3 s Ss So Ss Ssisisisis So 3 Fs ® = (es | Q - <A elo o sisisis So 7 iS ¢ & roa] iro] iv] DRAFT 1/5/2014 for REFAC Review 1 of 89 Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 - Standard Applications Recommended Applications and Funding Prior to Stage 4 Regional Spread State- Piel lertnind eT Ne ID ae ea Clu Pe icetg PV yeah 3 Energy Source Rank at) aa ere Grant Requested Match Offered NIT) etl Le) TE ey areal) La Le [LiTe) Early De are Tule eee) [Ce IS [Southeast —_| 1019 [Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project is [Railbelt ——_| 1002 |Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Demonstration hitestone Power and Communications IS [Southeast —_| 1024 [Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibili lingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority [Util mS [Railbelt 1029 j i Native Village Of Cantwell jovernment Ent 1056 i i i iminary Design |City of Adak, Alaska ocal Government Northwest Arctic | 1059 |Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and Permitting laska Village Electric Cooperative 6 Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System arluk Tribal Council 3_|Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase Ill and IV ity of Saxman Local Government Rr Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual Des{Haines Borough Local Govemment Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie tlakatla Indian Communi Government Enti ransmission rt Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource _| Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Util eothermal Bristol Bay ——_| 1046 |Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase ‘ort Alsworth Improvement Corporation [Government Enti “YS |BristolBay ___—_—_| 1050 |Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar PV Project Bristol Bay Borough School District Government Entity [Solar PV $235,000 $230,000: FEMS [Northwest Arctic | 1058 [Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array Construction Project __|Northwest Arctic Borough ocal Goverment [Solar PV $447,800 $447,800] ____—_—~$0|Construction _|NotRecommended] | «iY PS [BristolBay __—_—| 1063 |lliamna Solar Ground Mounted Energy System iamna Village Council [Government Entity [SolarPV__| |___ $2,000,000] $800,000]____$120,000|ReconFeasibility [Not Recommended | | FEMS [Copper RiveriChugach | 1064 [Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction (Native Village of Chenega |GovernmentEntity [Hydro |_| $1,650,000] $1,400,000] S0|DesignConstructiqNot Recommended | | 46 Lover Yuko Kustom [038 Four Vilas nerieDesgr-_____[}wsta ight and Seve Cooperate _{Soverment Ent FTenenissen_{_| $1,250,000] $1,250,000 Did Not Pass Stage 1 | YAS [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1054 [Multiple Altemative Energy Sources forNapakiak | Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company [Utility | Wind $2,284,000 $141,000 $20,000|DesignConstructiq Did Not Pass Stage 1 ae FEMS [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 1086 [Cheforak High Penetration Wind Diesel System ___| Natergak Light Plant, City of Chefomak [Local Goverment [Wind | | $4,358,784] $4,308,784] $50,000|DesignConstructiqDid Not Pass Stage1 | Sub Total - Not Recommended Projects $298,648,726 $31,309,815 RT RPA Grand Total - All Applications $494,103,593 $69,281,292 $52,723,649 $24,938,610 GrandTotal Did Not Pass Stage 2 Did Not Pass Stage 2 Did Not Pass Stage 2 age 2 id Not Pass Stage 2 Qa dro drokinetic Ina Bay Communi Local Government $3,562,772 $62,272 Recon $1,940,558 $1,560,558 $120,000} Construction $825,000 $700,000 ReconFeasibili $31,500,000 $213,750 Feasibili $72,400,000 , Feasibil $38,660,000[ $2,922,000 g id Not Pass Stage 2 $1,300,000 $81,000 FeasibilityDesign [Did Not Pass Stage 2 $51,000,000 $4,000,000 jot Recommended $14,500,000 $213,536 Not Recommended $14,510,599) $9,281,615] __—_$0|DesignConstructiqNot Recommended $49,000,000 $3,378,500[ —*$0|Feasibility [Not Recommended $7,224,213 $159,000 Not Recommended og Qa z 2. 0 2 8 a Go an = D2 Ss 3 : = @\= rizr a 3 jovernment Enti a QO 2 — Notes This document represents AEA's draft recommendations for consideration by the REFAC committee. This is a draft document only and is subject to change prior to AEA's final recommendations. This view combines the heat and "standard application ‘projects, for perspective. Please see the sepate heat and standard lists. If REF 7 funding is limited to $20M exactly, #1021, Haines Borough Municipal Building Biomass would be partially funded. H = Heat application, applications that deliver heat only, not electricity S = Standard spplication, applications that deliver electricity, energy storage, transmission or a combination of electricity and heat. BIC = Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project. AEA BIC ratio uses AEA's best assumptions in the standard REF economic model SP = Special Provisions The Applicant B/C ratio uses the applicants assumptions in the standard REF economic model. Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2. Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. Some not recommended projects' B/C ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons. DRAFT 1/5/2014 for REFAC Review 2 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Solar PV Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Northwest Arctic Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: David Lockard - a E Region: Northwest Arctic Project Description nergy Region This project expands on a previous Feasibility study that has been ongoing for 3 years. In 2010 a Single 175W Solar Array was installed at the proposed location to see if Solar PV would be feasible for the Northwest Arctic. The panel has been facing south-east and is connected to a single En phase inverter that is Cogenerating with the Kotzebue Electric Association (KEA) grid. It was found that it produced 165 Kwh during 1 year average @ $ 0.54/Kwh this equals a savings of $ 89.10/year. A build-out of the array to 10 Kw would save the Northwest Arctic Borough approximately $5,091.66/year in electric bills. This would also be a good match as the Borough operate mainly day time, when the sun is available. The project aims to match the load of the building and offset just enough energy to try to get to stop the electric meter, this is important as we do not want to be paid for any generated electricity by the KEA Coop. The project would consist of 42 pc. 240 watt panel, for a total of 10 KWatts configured on the roof of the building in a configuration to match the load of the building. It would be a "fixed" array, non tracking. It would also be configured in 2 directions, southeast and south, to match the electric needs of the building, so not to overproduce with one large peak power during the day. Each individual panel will have it's own Aurora micro-inverter. The entire array will be displayed and monitored on a website that can be accessed for educational purposes. The Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) is requesting funds for project construction and commissioning of a 10kW array of photovoltaic (PV) modules in Kotzebue, Alaska. The array, located on the roof of the NWAB building, would provide electricity for the building. Kotzebue Electric Association, the local electric utility, does not have a net metering policy but wrote a 10/22/12 letter of support for the project that does not specify project capacity, integration details, or how KEA will view excess solar power on its grid (i.e. whether NWAB would be compensated for it or whether it would be curtailed). The applicant did not address how it would deal with excess solar power that occurs during periods that the office is closed, for example on weekends. The application did not provide enough information to adequately analyze this project, and in response to AEA’s request for one year of utility bills the applicant provided one month’s utility bill) AEA recommends this project for full funding with special provisions that the applicant provide detail regarding how the solar power will be used on weekends, holidays, and other periods of low demand. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $77,000 Cost of Power: $0.42 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $76,000 Price of Ful: /sal Matched Funds Provided: $1,000 Election District: SRSHSS PUNGS r.LOVIGEd: a T-40 Arctic 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 3 of 89 . Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (@mmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1001 Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project -_ Standard Application Resource: Solar PV Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Northwest Arctic Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: David Lockard Energy Region: Northwest Arctic Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score Pino | | ‘0. 68 > 4) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 18.27 | 46.00 © 0.83 oe CY 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 | i ibility fr 9.20 Stage 2 Total Weight ee, Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 4.50 ae Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.38 a 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 S ©) Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) The Rural Energy grant should have no impacts to state land. It is for solar photovoltaic panels to be placed on the Northwest Arctic Borough building in Kotzebue which they own. There may be a minimal benefit to state resources as they will be a slight decrease in their use of diesel fuel. If the grant is carried out as described in the application, the Northwest Arctic Borough would not need any DNR authorizations. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 4 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT p= ALASKA (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1002 Poncelet Standard Ap) lication Resource: Hydrokinetic Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Whitestone Power and Communications Applicant Type: IPP Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso pF sige E Region: Railbelt Project Description Tt The proposed project would demonstrate a prototype hydrokinetic turbine through installation of a 100 kW Poncelet Kinetics™ turbine. The project will prove the design concepts employed for debris management, environmental impact, shallow water power generation, and electrical efficiency of the proposed design. The technology proposed to be used was developed by Whitestone Power and Communications under the trademark Poncelet Kinetics. The project is shovel-ready with all permits and design documents in hand. Not Pass Stage 2 — Whitestone Power and Communications propose prototype construction and demonstration of a surface-mounted River In-Stream Energy Conversion (RISEC) device in the Tanana River. The proposed technology is a compelling alternative to other competing RISEC designs and the project team has taken a deliberate approach to the design of the project. Significantly, the project has also garnered the support of permitting agencies and holds key permits required for deployment. As can be expected with a demonstration project, the economics of initial deployment do not appear to be favorable, but may improve with subsequent deployments in areas with a higher cost of energy. The project applied for funding in the first round of Emerging Energy Technology Fund (EETF) but was not awarded funding. A proposal was not submitted to EETF Round 2. Although reviewers see potential benefits of demonstrating the technology, the REF proposal was evaluated by criteria used for all applications, and did not score high enough to pass Stage 2. Until the technology is proven, this type of demonstration and technology-advancing application is more appropriate for the EETF program than the Renewable Energy Fund. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $1,940,558 Cost of Power: = $0.22 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $1,560,558 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $120,000 Election District: C-06 Richardson Highway 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 5 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= Resource: Hydrokinetic Proposer: Whitestone Power and Communications Applicant Type: IPP Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments »p #1002 Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Demonstration. _ Standard Application Proposed Project Phase: Construction Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Energy Region: Railbelt Economic Analysis & i> 39.17 wy” | . Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) Project Rank MO LI { " 0 Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank (out of 100) Project is will be based in navigable waters, and needs land use permit for location of float, anchors to shore, and electric line. Applicant has obtained this already, and the permit is attached to the application file, starting on page 304 of the full application. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 6 of 89 Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design . Construction Proposer: City of Saxman Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom . «gs E Region: Southeast Project Description a The 9.6MW Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project (FERC License P-11393) will provide Ketchikan and SEAPA-region residents and businesses with 41,743,000 KWH (41.7 GWH) of renewable hydropower per annum, allowing for continued economic and community growth while displacing use of diesel fuel. Approximately 17,900,000 KWH (17.9 GWH) of power is available between November and April as winter storage. The most recent (June, 2012) cost estimate for the project is $46,000,000 +/- 20%, making the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project one of southeast Alaska’s most affordable options for new hydropower. This alpine lake tap project does not require construction of a dam. This application proposes State participation in the project through grant-funded cost-sharing in remaining Phase III Final Design and Permitting tasks, and initial IV construction tasks, which will help assure the Mahoney Lake can be constructed in a manner which benefits the Alaskan public, and provides the additional benefits of supporting new economic growth and job creation. Not Recommended City of Saxman requests funds for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project to provide for the following: revise final design and specifications, obtain permits for construction, review ways to increase storage potential of project, update cost estimate, begin power sales negotiations and prepare a business and operational plan based upon power sales agreement. Additionally, they request construction funding, with no explanation of the source of the remaining $39 M in capital project costs. AEA has the following concerns: the market for the power is uncertain, given it would be the last to be used in the SEAPA system, including after the proposed additions of energy from Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project and the proposed Metlakatla - Ketchikan Intertie. Additionally, potential issues could result if the FERC license is reopened to reengineer the project. The Round 6 application (#909) was recommended for partial funding of $500,000 but did not score within the funding limit. The project did receive a $200,000 FY14 legislative grant for pre-construction activities, but that work has only recently been initiated. Work to be completed under the legislative grant includes hydrology update, license, market, operational, site, and financial reviews, design analysis, and an update of construction cost. Given the current FY14 funding from the legislature, the project is moving forward to answer key questions; therefore, the project is not recommended for funding from the RE Fund at this time. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $51,000,000 ae = i Requested Grant Funds: $4,000,000 i Matched Funds Provided: $4,000,000 Election District: Q-33 Ketchikan/Wrangell AEA Funding Recommendation: 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 7 of 89 Wind Energy System ) # 1004 _ Karluk Tribal Coun Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility , . Design Proposer: Karluk Tribal Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Rich Stromberg ; aes E Region: Kodiak Project Description ia Karluk is located on the west cost of Kodiak Island in Alaska. The village is cut-off from any road system. Fuel oil has to be shipped by barge to Karluk. Therefore, it is a high energy cost village with fuel oil at 4.92 $/gal. This project will perform a feasibility study and complete the design & permitting for a wind energy system and a heat recovery system to serve the existing power plant in Karluk, Alaska. For the wind energy system, wind data from a meteorological monitoring tower already installed at the proposed wind turbine location will be available for the analysis and design. The wind energy systems would consist of wind turbines installed on the mountain 0. 7 miles south of the existing power plant, the transmission line to the power plant, and the electric boiler for excess energy utilization. The heat recovery system would consist of upgrading the existing power plant generators with waste heat recovery units and installing a total length of up to 100011 hydronic heating loop to connect the power plant with the community buildings. ____ Did Not Pass Stage 2_ Karluk Tribal Council submitted this proposal in Round 6 and again this year. The community of 37 people sits on the western coast of Kodiak Island along Karluk Anchorage and Karluk Lagoon. The wind regime ranges from relatively calm winds in town to fierce and damaging winds on the ridge 1,100 feet above and along the coast toward Cape Karluk. This project is challenging because the community electric load is so small when compared with available options for diesel generators and wind turbines. Finding an efficient diesel generator that can handle wind energy penetration will be difficult. The high wind regime up on the ridge south of town is costly to develop given the size of the overall energy system. In addition to measuring the wind resource up on the ridge, a second 10-meter tower should be installed closer to town to validate or modify the wind resource model at that location. A class 4 or 5 wind resource next to town could be easier and cheaper to develop. The feasibility schedule looks aggressive, but doable. Wind resource studies and electrical/heat load analysis should be complete and accepted by AEA prior to allocating money for the CDR. Karluk is encouraged to work directly with AEA staff to explore the possibility of integrating wind or other energy systems into their community energy needs. Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for direct assistance. Did not pass minimum stage 2 scoring. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $1,300,000 Cost of Power: $0.60 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $81,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $300 Election District: R-35 Kodiak/Cordova 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 8 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. #1004 Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System __Karluk Tribal Counc 1 Ene iia _Standard Application _ Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility ; : Design Proposer: Karluk Tribal Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Energy Region: Kodiak Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score \, y i V LE ‘ A » 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 1.83 | LY 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) j 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20: Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio , ; ; - bs ; ; (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) (Is JI, eee | / \ J \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) | { \ 6 , | | 7) Sustainability (Max 5) | ey Co Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No DMLW-managed lands or permit requirements apparent from the information presented. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Narrow Cape fault zone and Aleutian subduction zone. 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 9 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY ic Project Construction ard Application Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom ; inti E Region: Copper River/Chugach Project Description el ieee The Allison Creek Project is a run of the river (ROR) alternative involving construction of a diversion structure on Allison Creek at elevation 1,300 feet. Water will be diverted from the creek into a 42/36 inch surface / buried penstock to a 6.5 megawatt powerhouse near tidewater. requests $5,914,491 to construct a 6.5 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Allison Creek. The funds would be used to complete construction of the project. The project is expected to offset up to 1.4 million gallons of diesel fuel annually. AEA has the following concerns: A portion of the land the project will use will be purchased in the future from Alyeska Pipeline, however an agreement is in place to allow construction; and a FERC license amendment is being sought to allow penstock to be installed below grade and a portion to be within a tunnel. Despite these concerns substantial progress has been made over the last year to advance the project including: issuance of FERC license, completion of final design, Maximum Allowable Construction Cost contract has been awarded, PM contract awarded, turbine-generator owner equipment has been awarded, and owner CM contract awarded. Recommend full funding with the requirement that the grantee obtain the ERC amendment prior to expending Round 7 grant funds. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $49,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.28 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $5,914,491 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $5,914,491 Election District: Ee i ii a C-06 Richardson Highway AEA Funding Recommendatio Hh) 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 10 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT #1015 Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project Construction —__ Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score | A IN VON 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 12.44 | 89.33 | 3.68 | QV 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 | i ibili 17.87 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 4.00 __ Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.12 (JE AG 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 { 16 \ ( 1 ‘ 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 \ Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments out Project is on DNR/DMLW lands, requires land use authorization. A land use permit is currently being processed by DMLW. A decision favorable to the project was issued, but the land use authorization has not been issued, pending the results of the appeal period. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from Aleutian subduction zone. 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 11 of 89 , Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Chignik Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom j ipti Energy Region: Bristol Bay Project Description ‘gy Reg This project will complete the necessary design and permitting for the recommended hydroelectric project in Chignik Bay, AK. The existing hydro project currently only serves as the community's raw source and transmission and does not produce power for the City. The existing project is in imminent danger of failing and a replacement dam and pipeline will be required in the near future. This work will fulfill the design and permitting needs of the replacement project. The City of Chignik requests funding for permitting and final design of a hydroelectric project on Indian Lake and River to replace an existing 60 kW plant which is at the end of its useful life. The City received a Round 1 REF grant (#2195388) for $207,500 to perform a feasibility study, conceptual design and cost estimate for a replacement hydroelectric plant. Additionally, it was funded to enter into a MOU with Trident Seafoods to transfer the FERC license for the existing hydro to the City. The license has been transferred but the study is incomplete. AEA has the following concerns: The already funded feasibility study remains incomplete as of the date of application, with less than 45% of the grant funds expended. A preliminary 13 page report was submitted with the application but significant questions of project feasibility remain unanswered, including size of plant, project cost, project impacts to resident and anadromous fish, economy of project, etc. The requested grant funding is very high and no information has been provided to support this large amount. Therefore, AEA recommends partial funding of $500,000 to complete design and permitting. Special provision: AEA must receive and approve the feasibility study before any grant funds for this phase be expended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: Cost of Power: = $0.48 /iWh Requested Grant Funds: $1,375,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $0 Election District: S-37 Bethel/Aleutians 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 12 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT yex ALASKA... (@@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY 8 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting "Standard Application _ Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: City of Chignik Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Bristol Bay Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiat s : {Em \ 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 20.81 1.60 | & 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 0.00 i f ibili 10.43 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.50 _ a Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 4.88 LEE yo 6) Local Support (Max 5) 0.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.00 j a Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments fout.ot, 100) Proposal for rehabilitation and upgrade of existing facility sited primarily on non-DMLW uplands. Applicant reports that a DMLW Water Permit and Dam Safety clearance will be required. The installed raw-water transmission line referenced in this application is approved for its crossing of Indian Creek under SCRO Easement file ADL 229178. Any design that includes placement of additional infrastructure on the creekbed should be reviewed to determine if additional SCRO Easement or Lease requirements apply (based on the navigable status of the stream at the specific location). DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards. 16/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 13 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1019 Survey Creek Hydroe! __ Standard Application Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: Edna Bay Community Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom / Rs E Region: Southeast Project Description nergy Region Currently, all electric power in Edna Bay is provided by private gas or diesel generators. Significant gains in efficiency and reliability would be realized with the installation of a diesel power plant integrated with a hydroelectric Archimedes type screw driven generator distribution system. The proposed project is a reconnaissance study for the potential of Survey Creek to provide Hydroelectric power to the community of Edna Bay. In addition, the feasibility of constructing a power plant and distribution system also needs to be evaluated. Besides private homes, the electric service would also serve businesses (including saw mills, the General Store, and the Post Office), the school, the church, and AP&T’s communication site. Edna Bay Community proposes reconnaissance of a 35-70 kW hydroelectric project on Survey Creek. Edna Bay has no existing electric utility system and depends on individual privately owned generators for its local power needs. The proposal also requests funding to study the feasibility of constructing a utility system power plant and distribution system. AEA has the following concerns: the applicant suggests an Archimedes Screw hydroelectric technology may work, but this technology has not been constructed in the U.S. and limited access to this remote site seems to make it a poor candidate to resolve application problems from an unproven technology; Survey Creek is listed as anadromous fish habitat by ADF&G; the proposed site is in the Tongass National Forest and is subject to the Roadless Rule restrictions; and it is outside the scope of the REF to evaluate the need for a conventional power plant and distribution. . AEA encourages Edna Bay to work directly with AEA staff to address the community energy needs. Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for direct assistance. The project did not pass the minimum Stage 2 score criteria. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $3,562,772 Cost of Power: /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $62,272 Price of Fuel: $3.80/gal Matched Funds Provi $3,500 Election District: UI SIME MT int ; Q-33 Ketchikan/Wrangell AEA Funding Recommendation: 16/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 14 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1019 Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project _ “Standard Application | Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: Edna Bay Community Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Southeast Economic Analysis A Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weiat s a > < 1.48 > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 39.33 1.37 | NY 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) i j Feasibility ft 2(M Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) — casibi ity from Stage 2 (Max 20) orton) popeat nar 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) pa oo / / Em 6) Local Support (Max 5) | { \ 7) Sustainability (Max 5) | Ye | Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No known issues DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Fairweather fault. 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 15 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA. (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1020 [Excursion Inlet Hydr ct Fe i yon Standard Applicat i Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Haines Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Southeast Project Description A Phase II Feasibility Study would be carried out, including the following tasks + Project scoping + Detailed energy resource analysis * Identification of land and regulatory issues * Permitting and environmental analysis * Detail analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets * Assessment of alternatives * Conceptual design analysis and cost estimate * Conceptual business and operations plan + Final report and recommendations The Haines Borough requests funds for a feasibility assessment of two hydroelectric projects totaling 3 MW, and 1.5 miles of transmission to connect to the Ocean Beauty's fish processing facility and residences in the non-organized community of Excursion Inlet. The processor and most residences are seasonal. There is no community power system, which would be necessary to distribute the power to the community. The project received a Round 4 grant (#625) to perform a two-step reconnaissance study. The first step to determine the reach of anadromous fish habitat is now complete. Work continues on the second half of the study. The currently funded second half of the reconnaissance study is to address fish habitat, electrical service and estimated load for the Borough subdivision, establishment of community utility, business arrangement for selling power to the fish processor Ocean Beauty, site control and land ownership, and FERC jurisdiction. It will include consideration of fish habitat issues as it affects the cost, capacity, and energy output of the project and environmental licensing concerns. While the fish habitat study has been completed, the final reconnaissance study has not been reviewed or accepted by the Authority. Because this study is not complete it provides no support for this application. The applicant should also be aware that the Renewable Energy Fund has a strong public benefit purpose. An estimated 2 percent of the energy generated would serve the public, while 98% would serve a private company. AEA encourages Haines Borough and Excursion Inlet to work directly with AEA staff to address the community energy needs. Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for direct assistance. The application is not recommended due to incomplete prior phases of the project. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $14,500,000 Cost of Power: /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $213,536 Price of Fuel: $6.00/gal Matched Funds Provided $10,000 Election District: Tse 7 Hi P-32 Downtown Juneau AEA Funding Recommendation: 16/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 16 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA. #1022 SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase | and II Standard Application Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Recon Feasibility Proposer: The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Rich Stromberg u wo E Region: Southeast Project Description MMII Applicant accepted delivery of a 34-meter meteorological tower (‘Met Tower’) from the Alaska Energy Authority in July 2013 and seeks to conduct a reconnaissance and feasi analysis to determine if it is feasible to use wind power to supplement the energy needs and displace diesel for the communities serviced by SEAPA. After the site assessment has determined the most suitable site for collection of raw wind data, the MET Tower will be installed to gather two (2) years of wind data for a thorough analysis. An analysis of the wind data and a final report will be performed by a qualified consultant specializing in the field. ___ Full Funding _ Comments and Recommendation __ SEAPA submitted a similar proposal in Round 5 and has already been given a 34-meter met tower from AEA's met tower loan program. Applicant should work with AEA's anemometer loan program to get the existing met tower installed in Spring of 2014. Site ent and selection should begin in 2013 with the assistance of the AEA met tower loan program. A permitting plan can be developed at that time. Most met towers require an FAA permit which takes a shsort time to complete, a preliminary meeting with US Fish & Wildlife Service and request for site access from the land owner. US Forest Service permission can be requested in 2013 at very low cost to applicant. The staff at SEAPA has experience with large energy projects. Due to size of electrical load and infrastructure in the region, a multi-megawatt scale wind project would be appropriate and allow for the best economies of scale. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $170,583 oe j ni lil Requested Grant Funds: $158,771 - Matched Funds Provided: $11,812 Election District: Q-33 Ketchikan/Wrangell AEA Funding Recommendation: = $158,771 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 17 of 89 . ' Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT yex ALASKA... @gm> ENERGY AUTHORITY ‘App #1022 _SEAPA Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Recon Feasibility Standard Application Proposer: The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiaht) Score Lo hao 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 4.47 ( | wy 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 7.00 | Cay” j j ibili A Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 18.07 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 13.13 force La. aan | / " LE, 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 | ( 47 =~) i 132) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.67 | Ye \ Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No known issues DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 18 of 89 Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom : a E Region: Southeast Project Description ——e Swan Lake is currently comprised of a concrete arch dam, 174' high and 430! long at its crest, which is located approximately 3/4 mile downstream from the mouth of the original Swan Lake. SEAPA proposes a 15-foot lake raise, and a new reservoir level of 345 feet, raising the crest of the dam to 350 feet. SEAPA would install a 15-foot high Obermeyer gate system as shown below in the existing spillway to achieve the new maximum normal operating pool level of 345 feet. The intake structure would need to be raised to contain the maximum operating pool of 345 feet. This would require raising the concrete intake structure, relocating the gate hoist equipment, and increasing the gate lift shaft. iew Comments and Recomme SEAPA requests funding to perform final design and construction to raise the Swan Lake reservoir by 15 feet. This will increase the firm energy available to the SEAPA system and provide for an additional 7500 MWh of hydroelectric generation in an average water year. SEAPA anticipates submitting the non-capacity license amendment to FERC in April 2014, begin design in May 2015, complete design in March 2015, bid construction in spring 2015 and award construction contract in summer 2015. Given the anticipated project schedule, AEA believes it would be premature to award grant funds for construction in this round. Also, a 50% cost share will allow SEAPA to match on an equal basis through final design. Partial funding of $560,488 is recommended to complete the final design phase. Special Provision: Issuance of FERC non-capacity amendment and resolution of land issues before any Round 7 funds are expended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $13,391,869 Cost of Power: $0.10 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $4,000,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $8,813,869 AEA Funding Recommendation: $560,488 __} Election District: Q-33 Ketchikan/Wrangell 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 19 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT # 1023 Resource: Hydro Proposer: The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Applicant Type: Government Entity Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 4.47 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 16.23 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.25 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project —= a || (qm ENERGY AUTHORITY __ Standard Application. Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Southeast Economic Analysis ) & 07 > 4.07 | YY Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) (AEA) UL Project Rank 4 \ LE \ A », ( 37} ( 9°} e. = Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank ern Stage 2 Total Weight (out of 100) Stage 3 Total Weight (out of 100) ADL 106840 lease dam to port facility / ADL 106442 Swan Lake -Tyee Intertie. Use of additional state land required for impoundment area DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Fairweater fault. 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 20 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. (@mmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard App ication Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon a - : ; . Feasibility Proposer: Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom i inti E Region: Southeast Project Description nergy Region THREA proposes to conduct a Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design in an effort to further prove the Walker Lake Hydro Project and apply for a FERC license. The Project is expected to have a 1 megawatt power output, generating 3,615 MWH of energy, using an estimated 780 feet of head and 18 cfs of flow year-round using Walker Lake as a reservoir. Two small earthen dams will raise the lake elevation from 1,180 ft to 1,195 ft, increasing the reservoir storage capacity to allow for year-round power production. A penstock will run from two small dam locations and join together to supply an 11,000 ft long buried penstock that terminates at the powerhouse next to Little Salmon River. THREA proposes to work with IPEC to provide the lowest cost power from the project to benefit of IPEC's members in the Chilkat Valley and Klukwan service areas and the Upper Lynn Canal (ULC) grid. Did Not Pass Stage 2 THREA requests $700,000 in grant funds to perform a reconnaissance and feasibility storage or run-of-river hydro project at Walker Lake. The primary purpose of the project would be to supply IPEC’s Chilkat Valley and Klukwan system with hydropower. THREA would be an IPP selling to IPEC. IPEC applied for funding to study Walker Lake in Round 5 (#829) and Round 6 (#920) but did not score within the funding limit in either case. In October 2011 - acquired the 600 kW Ten-Mile hydro project, which provides about 60% of the energy needed for the IPEC’s service area. The balance of their power needs (700,000 kWh) is purchased from AP&T’s Upper Lynn Canal grid. That grid is 97% powered by hydropower, so the amount of diesel to be saved by building Walker Lake is very limited (1,500 gallons per year). Alaska Power Authority prepared a reconnaissance assessment for Walker Lake in 1988 with an estimated capital cost of $10.5M. Sealaska Corporation updated the assessment in 2005. Both studies concluded that the project feasibility was marginal to poor. The current application did not include an estimated project capital cost. AEA has the following concerns with this project: 1. AEA has already funded reconnaissance and feasibility assessments for possible hydro projects in the region including Connelly Lake, Schubee Lake, West Creek, and Burro Creek. These projects were found not to be economically feasible, mainly from a lack of a market to justify the capital costs. 2. The demand for the project power will be a fraction of the potential annual energy available from Walker Lake; given that, the project will spill nearly year round. 3. While the application states that THREA will sell its power to IPEC below the APC rate, it is highly likely the cost of power from Walker Lake would exceed that purchased from APC unless the project was fully funded with grants, given the rising costs of FERC licensing and construction for new hydro projects. 4. This project would displace very little diesel generation (approx. 1,500 gallons per year). 97% of the power purchased from APC (the load Walker Lake would satisfy) is generated from the following hydropower projects: Lutak, Kasidaya, Dewey, and Goat Lake. 5. The amount requested for the reconnaissance study exceeds that which can be justified. If funded, partial funding is recommended. The project did not pass the minimum Stage 2 score criteria. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $825,000 “eer 082 / Requested Grant Funds: $700,000 : ga A ; 125,000 Election District: ee a sien LS Q-34 Southeast Island AEA Funding Recommendation: 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 21 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT je: ALASKA... (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #41024 Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibility - Standard Application Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon rere, . : . Feasibility Proposer: Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score ON Leer 1) Cost of Ener: | « 1.05 > gy (Max 35) 39.00 wy” 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) | j ibili 2 (Max 20) Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) ee cacy from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) Tacpicart (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) _ Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) eS my ; LEG \ LED . 6) Local Support (Max 5) { \ f ) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) j Ye Mey oe Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Kout of, 100) ADL 108134 easement application - HSF - UA land possible access concerns DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Denali fault. 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 22 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1025 Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Standard Application ) Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon . . . Feasibility Proposer: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom A eas E Region: Southeast Project Description nergy Region IPEC proposes to conduct a Feasibility Study for the Gunnuk Watershed. In 1977, the Alaska Power Authority identified two potential hydroelectric projects near Kake. The focus was on the Gunnuk Creek water shed. However, the projects were never pursued due to the relatively low cost of diesel fuel which was less than $1.00 per gallon at that time. Since then diesel has risen sharply to over $4.00 per gallon making the potential for this hydro project more attractive as a more economical power source for the community. _ Partial Funding - Special Provision _ IPEC requests funds to perform feasibility study of a hydroelectric project on Gunnuk Creek near Kake. AEA has the following concerns: The principle study attached to the application appears to draw unsupported conclusions upon which to base award of grant funds. Because of this, AEA recommends a new reconnaissance report be prepared using a professional engineer, qualified to perform such a study. Recommend partial funding for a reconnaissance study. The application did not have an estimated project cost. AEA estimated a cost of $7.5 million, from which the B/C ratio of 4.44 is derived. Once the reconnaissance study is complete a new project cost should be available, and thus a new B/C ratio. Additionally, Kake’s powerhouse and bulk fuel facilities are being upgraded through AEA’s RPSU program. The reconnaissance study should help determine the next course of action for Kake in regard to power generation. Special Provisions: All available basin records be collected and meeting transcripts between USACE, ANTHC and IPEC to provide backstop for the new study. Field collection and analysis of data shall be conducted. Study will also consider other potential renewable energy sources to serve Kake, and in comparison to the proposed Kake-Petersburg intertie. Elements of the study are to be as listed in the RFA. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $300,000 Cost of Power: $0.62 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $275,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Election District: Matched Funds Provided: $25,000 Q-34 Southeast Island " 000 _ $80,0 1162014 8:10:38 AM Page 23 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7'- DRAFT (= Dadian (@mmi=> ENERGY AUTHORITY » #41025 Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Standard Application _ Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon . . . Feasibility Proposer: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis eg : \ Criterion (Weight) Score | » fad 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 27.14 | SY 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 7.00 | j ibili 2 (Max 20 14.60 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.63 [ ee meg AER y aN | { \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 68.20 f.-A17. ) | 4 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.83 | Yay Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) Gunnuk Creek - Kake Hatchery-Anadromous stream/ City Water supply conservation easements created in exchanging land at Jenny Creek DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Fairweater fault. 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 24 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT g= ALASKA. @mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY ___ Standard Application _ Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Alaska Power Company Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Rich Stromberg 7 ge E Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Project Description nergy Region The Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project would consist of installing a single 50 meter meteorological tower (met tower) to record wind velocities, temperature, and humidity to determine if this site is feasible for a wind turbine installation to generate electricity for the Tok power grid. w Comments and Recommendation sacesiai Full Funding _ The applicant has studied the wind resource in other locations south and southwest of Tok. AP&T has a very experienced staff working in Port Townsend as well as the Tok facility. APC already has a 50-meter tower staged in Tok ready for deployment to the Chisana Mtn site. Access to the proposed site is relatively easy. Met tower site is adjacent to a 15kV buried transmission line. Permitting is relatively straightforward for this project. A class 4 wind regime has been found elsewhere in the region. The electrical load allows for a fair amount of wind energy on the system. Construction costs for this project would be among the lowest for wind projects in the state do to the location on the road system. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $148,800 ek See et a Requested Grant Funds: $119,000 . . a Matched Funds Provided: $29,800 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages { AEA Funding Recommendatio ? Pen pees S000 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 25 of 89 Resource: Wind Proposer: Alaska Power Company Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 21.46 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 11.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 17.00 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.50 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.50 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.17 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state lands are involved. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments # 1027 -Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibi ity Projec' Standard Application Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Say Analysis Energy Region: y \ a & ao 85.00 Ca) 3 stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) Project Rank fe >» A \ | 70.63 | ( vey (<3 Stage 3 Total Weight (out of 100) Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Cathedral Rapids fault. 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 26 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA. #1028 Carlo Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study Standard Application Proposer: Native Village of Cantwell Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom / ste E Region: Railbelt Project Description OPAL The proposed project is a reconnaissance study of a 1 to 2 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Carlo Creek near the Parks Highway approximately 10 miles north of Cantwell. The hydro project’s output would be sold to the local electric utility, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA) to reduce GVEA’s reliance on diesel and naptha for generation. Recommendation __ ____ Partial Funding — Native Village of Cantwell requests funds for a reconnaissance study of a 1-2 MW run-of-river project on Carlo Creek to sell power to GVEA through the AK Intertie. This is similar to the Jack River hydro site recently studied in reconnaissance through Round 4 (#606). The Village applied for funding in Round 6 (#977) but did not score within the funding level. Partial funding recommended for reconnaissance study. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $8,340,000 most Pater $0.22 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $54,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: Election District: S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley AEA Funding Recommendation 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 27 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT 1p #1028 Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: Native Village of Cantwell Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Railbelt Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis teri ; = y ON 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 9.81 1.88 | QI 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 9.00 ‘e/ j Fi ibili 2 (Max 20 12.20 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project casi ility from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 1.50 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.63 [oa LEE os | / \ / \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 | 52.13 [= Si { 4 | 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.00 | Yay a Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) Project includes a water line and intake structures on state lands. DMLW land use authorizations will be required for these structures. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Denali fault and Park Road fault. 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 28 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. ; Standard App ication Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Native Village Of Cantwell f ; Program Manager: Applicant Type: Government Entity ogram Manager: Audrey Alstrom j ipti Energy Region: Railbelt Project Description mi The proposed project is a feasibility study of a 3 MW storage hydroelectric project on Jack River near Cantwell. The hydro project’s output would be sold to the local electric utility, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA) to reduce GVEA’s reliance on diesel and naptha for generation. Other project configurations with installed capacity ranging from 1.6 to 7.3 MW were identified in the 2013 Reconnaissance Study and may be considered in the feasibility study. EA Review Comments and Recommendation _ Did Not Pass Stage 2 The Native Village of Cantwell requests funds for feasibility assessment of a 3 MW storage hydroelectric project on Jack River. The Village received grant funds in Round 4 (#606) for reconnaissance sment of the project and has installed a stream gauge. The results of the funded reconnaissance report were that a hydroelectric project on Jack River is technically possible with a range of installed capacities from 1.7 to 7.3 MW. The proposed used a mid-range estimate, or $40.9 million, to arrive at the benefit/cost ratio of ¢ costlier than the existing energy system. project reconnaissance report had a cost estimate of $31.5-$50.3 million. A 0.79, indicating the project is likely to have poor economics and would likely The project was scored but did not pass minimum Stage 2 scoring. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $31,500,000 eee $0.22 / ee Requested Grant Funds: $213,750 /ea Matched Funds Provided: $11,250 Election District: S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley AEA Funding Recommendatior 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 29 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKAW. #1029 Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study i Standard Application - Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Native Village Of Cantwell Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Railbelt Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score yy b y N 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 1.21 | wy 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) . j ibili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) inna feces from Stage 2 (Max 20) aerate) prosreials pees 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) fn, Ns 6) Local Support (Max 5) ( \ ( \ 7) Sustainability (Max 5) KD Yay Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Couto 100) ‘The State of Alaska considers portions of the Jack River to be navigable and state owned. It appears that all three prospective sites are located within the navigable portions; landowner authorization would be require for all activities exceeding Generally Allowed Uses below OHW. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Denali fault. 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 30 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. (@mmmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY andard Application Resource: Storage of Renewable Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Fi elles E Region: Kodiak Project Description Berri The Flywheel Energy Storage Systems (FESS) for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane is the installation and integration of two (2) ABB modular PowerStore flywheel energy storage units at the City of Kodiak’s Pier II]. Modernizing Kodiak’s shipping infrastructure with an electric crane instead of a diesel-powered crane requires KEA to install the two new ABB flywheel energy storage systems, each with one (1) megawatt (MW) of generating capacity, in order to safely integrate the crane’s electrical load demand onto KEA’s isolated grid. This project allows KEA to be the energy solution for the communities of Kodiak Island by making it possible to power a critical component of the City with locally generated, clean renewable energy. The versatile grid(stabilizing flywheel generator would mitigate the sudden increase in electric load caused by the operation of a high powered electric cargo crane, and would also supplement KEA’s existing Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) for systemwide electric grid support and conserve water utilized at the hydro facility. By being firstUin (line to respond to rapid micro/lsecond grid frequency fluctuations, the FESS optimizes the range of frequency and voltage support provided by KEA’s other renewable generation, thereby making KEA’s entire grid system more robust. This project is the next step in advancing KEA’s renewable energy vision for the benefit of all Alaskans by bringing renewable energy to more sectors of Kodiak Island and by demonstrating a new energy storage technology in Alaska. EA Review Comments and Recommendation Partial Funding - Special Provision Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) presents a compelling proposal for the incorporation of a flywheel into their grid with numerous potential benefits including accommodation of a new electric crane at Pier III, extension of the life of the utility’s battery energy storage system, and facilitated integration of future wind turbine installations. KEA is well-suited to demonstrate how flywheel systems can be used for integration of variable renewable energy sources and provide grid stability. However, because the electric crane would serve a private entity, the offset diesel fuel by the flywheel is not included as a public benefit in AEA’s economic evaluation, dramatically reducing the application’s Benefit/Cost ratio and overall score. The application also proposed construction of a new tie line to relieve several overloaded feeders; although this tie line could help the integration of the flywheel, its construction will be required regardless and was therefore removed from the recommended award amount. This had the effect of increasing the Benefit/Cost ratio and overall score. Partial funding recommended, excluding construction of the proposed tie line. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $3,800,000 eee $0.19 / ral Requested Grant Funds: $1,900,000 j /8a Matched Funds Provided: $1,900,000 Election District: ene) eckini Renee BEE Ieee i R-35 Kodiak/Cordova AEAFundingRecommendation: = =—s«S$:1,470,548 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 31 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT jm ALAS K Aran (@mmmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY # 4030. Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane , Standard Application — Resource: Storage of Renewable Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Energy Region: Kodiak Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criteri Neight) Score > he > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 8.32 QV 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 ; bili 13.37 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.50 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 3.25 es LL. oo / \ he » 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 [. 46 j (2) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4,00 ‘ey SS Aen Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No apparent DMLW permitting requirements from the project description provided; however the route of proposed new powerlines should be reviewed when more detailed alignment plans are available to ensure that they fall entirely within ADOT&PF or municipally-managed ROWs as currently planned. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 32 of 89 41034 Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Design ; I Construction Proposer: Metlakatla Indian Community Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Kirk Warren 7 ae E Region: Southeast Project Description nergy Region The proposed Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie is a 34.5-kV transmission line that will interconnect the electric systems of Metlakatla Power & Light (MP&L) and Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). The Intertie will include 14 miles of overhead wood pole transmission line on Annette Island between Metlakatla and Walden Point and an approximate three mile submarine cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel between Walden Point and KPU’s Mountain Point Substation. The project will also include control system upgrades to allow for the integrated operation of the interconnected systems’ generating plants. Final design of the Metlakatla — Ketchikan Intertie is underway. Construction of the line began in June 2010 and the overhead line to the new ferry terminal at Walden Point was completed in August 2013. The line to the ferry terminal is scheduled to be energized at 12.47-kV in the fall of 2013. The control system upgrades were completed in July 2011. EA Review Comments and Recommendation | Not Recommended _ Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) proposes construction of an intertie that connects Metlakatla to Ketchikan. AEA is providing $2 million in Renewable Energy Fund rounds 1 and 4 (applications #20 and #656). Additionally another $2 million in grant funds from the state have been awarded. The RE Fund round 4 grant was negotiated this year (2013). Conditions of the grant support a step-wise approach to determine feasibility; conceptual design; and completion of all preconstruction activities (including final design documents, final construction cost estimate, demonstration of site control, bathymetry, NEPA, and permitting) prior to construction funding being awarded. AEA is assisting MIC in complying with these conditions; however this work remains in process. The review team believes it is premature to allocate construction funds. $4M has previously been provided to the requesting entity and previous grants suggest a step-wise approach. [‘unding for this round is not recommended until such time as the previous grant’s milestones have been met as described above. Not recommended for funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $14,510,599 Cost of Power: $0.10 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $9,281,615 pbbesenree /gal Matched Funds Provided: $0 Election District: re eee one Q-34 Southeast Island AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 33 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT yex ALASKA... @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource _Standard Application _ Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso j ioti E Region: Southeast Project Description nergy Region The Reconnaissance Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource funded by Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Grant #7040073 was completed in July 2013. The reconnaissance study was the first time this geothermal resource had been significantly studied. The surface expression of the resource is four hot springs that occur together near the base of a hill approximately 200 feet high in a rugged, isolated, stream valley on Chichagof Island in southeast Alaska. During the field effort in September 2011, the hot springs had surface water temperatures of between 1610F to 1760F. Geochemical sampling of water and soil, a shallow temperature survey, and geological mapping occurred in this first field effort. Later fieldwork in the spring and summer of 2012 included infrared imaging of the area, additional shallow temperature survey, and CO2 gas survey. The purpose of this phase of the project is to further evaluate the viability of the geothermal resource by 1) obtaining Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data to locate faults and obtain topographical information for design; 2) drill two slim holes to about 2,500 feet each and conduct well testing; 3) conduct an environmental assessment to address agency and environmental issues; 4) prepare a conceptual design to develop the resource; and 5) refine the economic analysis based on the conceptual design and more detailed economic parameters. The primary goal of the site work during this phase would be to collect the information needed to verify resource viability and evaluate whether this project should be considered for Phase 3 investigation and development. The drill holes will be approximately 10 inches in diameter necking down to approximately 2.5 inch core hole. Each well will have a temperature/pressure survey conducted and rock chip samples will be analyzed for fluid inclusions and alterations. If the wells penetrate the reservoir we will conduct flow tests on the wells and collect water samples for chemical analysis. The location, depth, size and flow characteristics are important parameters that determine the viability of the geothermal resource. Evaluating those parameters was beyond the scope of the Phase 1 reconnaissance study. If found viable, the results of this Phase 2 investigation would provide information necessary to support the development phase of the project. <Project description edited for reporting purposes. See original application for full scope of work.> With a Round 4 Renewable Energy Fund grant, IPEC completed a reconnaissance study to investigate the Tenakee Inlet geothermal resource. The study indicated some encouraging early signs regarding the potential resource, but also confirmed that the significant transmission line and access road costs make the project very expensive and economically unfavorable, with a benefit/cost ratio below 1. While there does not appear to be demand for electricity produced by the project in either Pelican or Tenakee Springs, many residents of Hoonah demonstrated their support for the project. Construction of a road to the geothermal site and the addition of other large electrical loads in the area could change the economic picture for a geothermal plant, but at this point both prospects are speculative. Without exploration wells—proposed in this application—key characteristics of the geothermal resource and the viability of a geothermal power plant will remain unknown. But absent a clear economic justification for the power plant itself (a community energy demand and an apparent cost-effective manner to generate the energy), costly geothermal exploration is inappropriate. No funding recommended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $49,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.65 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $3,378,500 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $0 Election District: Q-34 Southeast Island _AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/6/2014 10:04:13 AM Page Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@@mim> ENERGY AUTHORITY Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource Standard Applic: Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative | Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Energy Region: Southeast Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score | A>» | | 0.44 > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) | 1.24 : | 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) j ibili stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) eae fen from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 7 = > 1 i 6) Local Support (Max 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) { Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) Source- USFS land Tenakee Creek head of Tenakee Bay. Anticipates transmitting power to Hoonah & Pelican DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments The proposed project plans to conduct a LIDAR survey initially to locate faults and topographical details to design a drilling program that will be also based on an earlier reconnaissance study in 2011 (Renewable Energy Grant number 7040073) that included collection of detailed water analyses, conduct a shallow temperature probe study and to locate a number of hot springs in the area. The reconnaissance study suggested that the geothermal zone at Tenakee Inlet is broader than originally thought and that water geochemistry from this site suggests temperatures of (127°C, 260°F) are sufficient for binary electrical power generation (Organic Rankine Cycle). It further suggests that ground-based geophysical studies such as SP and magnetotellurics would not be suitable because of the water saturated ground and the lower temperature of the resource. It appears that is why the Round VII proposal will add a LIDAR survey to attempt to examine local structures. This Round VII proposal includes the drilling of two slim holes to about 2,500 feet each to collect thermal temperature data and conduct well testing. This is more within the capabilities of a shm-hole drill rig than an earlier proposal (Round VI) that called for drill holes up to 4000 feet deep. The project will prepare a conceptual design to develop the resource and refine their economic analysis with the primary goal to collect the necessary data to verify resource viability and determine whether the project should move on to an investigation and development in a Phase 3. The proposal cost reasonable for slim-hole drilling to 2500 feet as well as the time necessary to drill two holes with a slim-hole drill rig (about 50 days for completion). We recommend that the applicant provide a detailed outline of the methodology that will use the reconnaissance thermal probe and chemistry data along with the LIDAR data to select and justify the drilling locations for the first drill hole, understanding that the second drill hole would be determined on the basis of the results of the first drill hole. It may be that after the first drill hole is completed, two 1250 ft deep holes may be necessary rather than a single 2500 foot deep hole. This is the nature of exploratory drilling. Additionally, we suggest a summary description of slim-hole drill rigs being considered and their depth capabilities and bore hole diameters should be included. It appears from the proposal that they will not be actually coring with these rigs, but rather collecting cutting chips for their studies that will include fluid inclusions. DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Fairweather fault. 116/2014 9:21:13 AM Page 35 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT (= AbASK Acc (@@mi> ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Application Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chignik Lagoon Village Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom E aa E Region: Bristol Bay Project Description eee The project is a high head run-of-river hydroelectric power plant on Packers Creek in Chignik Lagoon with an installed capacity of 167kW. The first phase of this project, currently under construction, includes a 480 square foot powerhouse, a 1,500 foot long access road with a bridge across Packers Creek to the powerhouse, a 3,260 foot long access trail to the intake, as well as supply of the turbine, generator, and switchgear. This grant funds the second phase of this project which includes a 9-foot tall concrete dam, a 3,260 foot long 18-inch and 16-inch diameter penstock, a 1,750 foot long overhead power line extension to the existing distribution system and 3,000 foot long control connection to the existing diesel power plant, interconnection to the existing diesel plant controls, addition of dispatchable electric heat to the existing diesel plant waste heat system feeding the school, environmental upgrades to Packers Creek at the Powerhouse location required by ADF&G, and start-up and commissioning of the new hydroelectric power plant. Chignik Lagoon Village Council requests an additional $2,352,653 to complete construction of the 167 kW Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project. The project will displace 97% of diesel fuel (521,000 kWh) used to generate power today and will also displace additional heat energy through dispatchable electrical heat to the school. The project received grants in Round 1 for permitting and design (#14) and Round 5 for construction (#836). The project was bid and all bids received were well above the engineer’s estimate. Phase I under the Round 5 grant includes construction of access roads and bridge, powerhouse, and purchase and installation of turbine, generator, and switchgear. Phase I is anticipated to be complete by August 2014. Phase II will complete the remainder of the project. Despite the increase in cost the project still appears favorable and is expected to result in a decrease in electric costs from 75 cents to 33 cents per kWh. The applicant calculation of their B/C ratio differed from AEA analysis in a few substantial ways. The applicant calculated using base system generation efficiency of 10 gallons/kwh; AEA analysis uses 13 gallons/kwh. Applicant analysis assumed 10,000 gallons of displaced heat load; AEA analysis assumes that no additional heat beyond that going into existing heat recovery system is used. Applicant analysis assumes generation level that is greater than current community demand; AEA analysis uses current community demand. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $5,389,149 Cost of Power: $0.69 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $2,352,653 Price of Fuel: /gal $3,036,496 i v Election District: conn anal S-37 Bethel/Aleutians $2,352,653 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 36 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY # 1036 Packers Creek Hydroelect Pr j ct Phase Il Standard App ication Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chignik Lagoon Village Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Bristol Bay Stage 3 Scoring Summary Pees Ano’ 6 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 30.26 _ 86.33 3, 3 < 6, 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 11.00 | j ibili 17.27 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.83 | Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) A DMLW Water Permit is in force for this project under file LAS 27818. Packers Creek is not currently identified as navigable on DNR maps. If the navigability determination of this waterbody changes, impacted creekbed sites should be reviewed for potential additional easement or lease requirements from SCRO. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards. 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 37 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT je ALASKA... (@mmD ENERGY AUTHORITY A p p # 1039 _Four Vi jages Intertie esign. i Standard Application ) Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: 7 -—e E Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description at ee This project will perform initial design, right-of-way planning, and environmental work for transmission lines between the communities shown in Table 2.2.1 in the region. This project will connect closest and largest population center villages shown in table 2.2.1. This initial village group connection is a critical foundation block for the region intertie system, and enables access to alternative energy options. All communities currently have diesel power plants. Subsequent phases to complete design and perform construction are contingent upon the technical findings and community acceptance under this phase. Did Not Pass Stage 1_ Ineligible for further review because the applicant is not an eligible party as defined in Section 1.4 of the Request for Grant Applications dated July 2, 2013. The transmission project proposed does not “link an eligible renewable energy project or eligible natural gas project to other transmission or distribution infrastructures” as required in Section 1.5. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $1,250,000 Cost of Power: /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $1,250,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $0 Election District: ——— aa = _ S-37 Bethel/Aleutian AEA Funding Recommendation: 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 38 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. (@m> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon i I Feasibility Proposer: Tanalian Electric Co-op, Inc. Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom i le E Region: Bristol Bay Project Description Wea The proposed project will assess hydroelectric and hydrokinetic resource potential and economics of the Tanalian River for providing electric energy to the Community of Port Alsworth. Reconnaissance of hydroelectric at Tanalian Falls has already been complete and this project will include the feasibility and conceptual design of hydroelectric at the waterfalls. Due to land use designations at the proposed hydroelectric power plant we would also like to include a reconnaissance of in-river hydrokinetic along the Tanalian River. This portion of the proposed project has documented National Park Service support and may be a viable option for an alternate location of hydropower. The Tanalian Electric Cooperative requests funds to assess hydroelectric and hydrokinetic resource potential and economics of the Tanalian River for electrical generation for Port Alsworth. The Tanalian River is located in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve and any hydroelectric development would require specific authorization by Congress, indicating significant permitting challenges. The application included a support letter from the National Park Service (NPS) for investigation of a potential hydrokinetic project; however, the letter was dated October 29, 2008 and was in support of a previous Round 3 grant application and applicant (#436), and did not indicate any support for a conventional hydroelectric project. It is unknown if the NPS supports hydroelectric studies in the Tanalian River. Additionally, the river is a known salmon stream and is listed as anadromous by Alaska Department of Fish & Game. In Round 4, Alaska Green Energy submitted and was funded for a similar proposal (#436) to conduct a reconnaissance study of hydroelectric potential for Port Alsworth. However, the grant was canceled before expending any grant funds due to inactivity and inability of applicant to obtain support letters for the project and to hold community and agency meetings. Although assessment of the hydrokinetic potential of the river was mentioned in the application, no detail was provided regarding the work to be performed, the amount budgeted for the work, or the location of interest. Even if NPS support for a hydrokinetic project had been renewed, insufficient detail was provided for consideration of this component of the proposal. Additionally, hydrokinetics is a developing technology and economics are unlikely to be positive at this time. Until the applicant can demonstrate that a project has a reasonable chance to be developed and permitted at the location, funding is not recommended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $7,224,213 on Pee $0.68 / aT Requested Grant Funds: $159,000 wn Vea Matched Funds Provided: $10,000 Election District: al alae . R-36_ Dillingham/Illiamn 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 39 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: North Slope Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Rich Stromberg i inti Energy Region: North Slope Project Description TA The North Slope Borough (NSB) envisions a wind energy and area-wide energy management system, consisting of wind diesel integration, end-use energy efficiency, automated building controls, and conservation. This phase of the project is the design and permitting phase of a three phase project which will include a phase for construction and commissioning for three anticipated wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Kaktovik. Participants in the project include North Slope Borough(NSB), a contracted engineering/design firm, and Northern Power Systems of Barre, Vermont (wind turbine experts and supplier). The contractor will provide overall project management and system engineering during this phase of the project. During the construction phase, NSB will recruit an engineering and construction contractor for design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide Northwind 100B model wind turbines plus startup & commissioning services. Kaktovik has received REf Round 4 funding to complete a wind resource analysis, feasibility study and conceptual design. The existing power plant is easily adaptable to integration of wind energy. Power plant description in section 3.5 and 4.2.2 of this application is one of the most detailed we've seen. Good summary of permitting and environmental concerns. NSB has a long history of maintaining village power systems at a high level of reliability and functionality. Budget is higher than standard wind project designs due to increased environmental assessment and permitting. Good wind resource. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $4,565,200 Cost of Power: $0.15 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $440,000 Price of Fuel: /gal L a Matched Funds Provided: $44,000 Election District: T-40 Arctic 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 40 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA. ENERGY AUTHORITY pp #1048 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design and Permitting ====—_ Standard Application | Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: North Slope Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Energy Region: North Slope Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criteri Weight) Score ree A » < 1.03 > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 6.56 | 65.83 we 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 9.00 | j ibili 0 13.17 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) fout of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 4.00 = i ~ Pane fi \ / \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 [ 64 | (2) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 YS Cy SE Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) Coastal Zone review no longer applicable since the ACMP program sunset in 2011; ADNR will not be coordinating a coastal zone management review. Project review should take place, but should be initiated by the NSB. US Fish and Wildlife Service must be included for review given endangered species, migratory birds, and proximity to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. No state land involved; KIC lands. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 41 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT (= ALASKA. (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY ___ Standard Application _| Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: North Slope Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Kirk Warren j inti Energy Region: North Slope Project Description gy Isog This phase of the Barrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line Project is for final design and permitting required for the construction of the transmission line as wells as home and building conversions to electric space heating. EA Review Comments and Recommendation ___ Full Funding - Special Provision This grant request is to fund the subject Project for final design and permitting. There is a current grant to the North Slope Borough for Feasibility and Concept Design in the amount of $210,000. As of this current grant application review there have been $0 expended on the grant currently in place although much work has taken place. Recommend funding of this Project commensurate with substantial completion and acceptance of the previous grant documents. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $17,342,837 Cost of Power: $0.15 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $2,017,818 Price of Fuel: /gal Be Lesa $201,782 Election District: eee ant nr a t T-40 Arctic 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 42 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. (@mmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY # 1049 Atqasuk Transmission Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: North Slope Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Kirk Warren Energy Region: North Slope Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score LE. firiam ) < 3.30 > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 6.56 3.55 Ne 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 9.00 l ; aii 14.83 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) — reeeeey from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.50 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.38 Cee LEE a | ZL \ Lea ». 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 | 52.27 { 50 | (<2) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 | ey ' — Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments {Out of 100) 2.6 and 2.7 cost figures don’t match. No state land involved; within BLM-managed NPR-A, City of Atqasuk, Alaska land use permit and easement are needed; no state land involved so no DNR authorizations are ne ASRC, and UIC. Section 4.3.3. lists state of ry. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 41612014 8:10:38 AM Page 43 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT yex ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1050 Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar PV Project _ Resource: Solar PV Proposed Project Phase: Design ; ae Construction Proposer: Bristol Bay Borough School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: David Lockard A tl tale E Region: Bristol Ba Project Description Pra eai| ; This project will consist of a 50 kW (d.c. rating) ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) system, to be installed next to the school building. The PV system will generate clean, renewable power for decades to come, reducing the amount of electricity the school buys from the local utility and reducing pollution associated with burning fossil fuels. The system will also provide an opportunity for the school’s students and the wider community to learn about PV. The system will be composed of (200) 250-watt photovoltaic (PV) collector panels (e.g. Solarworld 250W monocrystalline or equivalent), 50 kW DC to AC power inverter capacity (multiple smaller inverters, e.g. SMA Sunnyboy 6000TL) and a data acquisition system with a graphical display inside the building and accessible through the Internet. The panels will be wired in multiple DC series circuits called strings. The strings will be wired to a combiner box, then connect to the power inverter(s) which transforms the DC power into AC power suitable for use by the building’s existing electrical system. The inverter assures that the PV generated power is compatible with the power supplied by the utility grid and will disconnect from the electrical system in the event of a utility power outage to prevent “back feed” to the utility grid. The proposed system is sized to supplement current electric usage and peak demand only, as it will not store power. The proposed system will be interconnected with the electrical system and controlled to “follow” the existing systems’ electrical characteristics. A dedicated data acquisition system tied directly to the inverter will display the performance of the PV system and describe how it works through a dedicated live display setup in the lobby. A revenue grade utility meter will also be installed on the PV system to accurately measure the power generated. The existing electric systems supply 208-volt, three phase power for larger loads and 120-volt, single-phase for most of the distributed loads from a three phase service provided by NEA. The average monthly electric demand for the school is approximately 137 kW. The applicant proposes a 52kW solar photovoltaic system at the Bristol Bay Borough School in Naknek. This system would offset approximately 42,367 kWh of electricity in the first year. The applicant did not provide details regarding electric load (weekday average, weekend average, summer average, etc.) or an agreement with the utility regarding interconnection. Naknek Electric Association provided a 10/30/13 e-mail stating that it does not offer net metering. Both the application and the utility director indicated that the applicant had not discussed the project with the electric utility to request permission to interconnect. AEA does not recommend this project for funding due to the lack of electric load detail and the lack of an agreement with the utility that would allow the proposed system to be connected to the local grid. AEA encourages BBB School District to work directly with AEA staff to address the community energy needs. Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for direct assistance. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $235,000 Cost of Power: — $0.50 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $230,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Election District: R-36 Dillingham/Illiamna AEA Funding Recommendation: | 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 44 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mmml> ENERGY AUTHORITY , Standard Application. : Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design . . Construction Proposer: Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: 7 oe E Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description nergy Region The applicant will work with Energy Unlimited, LLC on final design of an alternative energy system that includes a wind tower, solar panels, and an energy storage system. The products we intend to use for each of these technologies are tested, warrantied, and commercially available. However, the combination of these technologies to achieve maximum local benefits is innovative. w Comments andRecommendation __ Did Not Pass Stage 1 Ineligible for further review because the applicant did not provide a conceptual design report 30 days prior to the application deadline as required and identified in Sections 1.12, 2.5 and Section 4 of the Request for Grant Applications dated July 2, 2013. Section 4 of RFA, page 26 7. Wind applications requesting Phase II] (Final Design and Permitting) or Phase IV (Construction, Commissioning, Operation and Reporting) funding will submit documentation necessary to demonstrate the fulfillment of all requirements for earlier phases of the project identified in Section 2 of the RFA [i.e. Phase II (Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design) or Phase III (Final Design and Permitting)] 30 days prior to the application deadline. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $2,284,000 Cost of Power: /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $141,000 Price of Fuel: /gal . a $20,000 Election District: : S-37 Bethel/Aleutians 16/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 45 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= > AladSKiAvam a) ENERGY AUTHORITY # 056. Adak Wir Wind Data Collection Analysis and Preliminary Des Design _ Standard Application. , Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of Adak, Alaska Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Rich Stromberg j inti E Region: Aleutians Project Description nergy Region The proposed project is for wind field data collection, analysis and preliminary engineering design. Wind field data collection will require a one year collection period as recommended by AEA for location of wind generators. The wind data will be analyzed and used for the design of the wind generators and related facilities. The City of Adak has completed a hydroelectric power feasibility analysis and preliminary engineering prepared by McMillen LLC. The report recommends hydro — wind generation with pump storage development project that includes hydroelectric power generation, raising the Lake Bonnie Rose and Lake DeMarie dams, construction of the penstock, powerhouse (2 MW hydro), transmission lines, wind generation (4.5 MW), wind pump from L. DeMarie to L. Bonnie Rose storage, and associated facilities. Both lakes are in the same watershed. The hydro - wind generation with pump storage project will supply hydro and wind generated power to the community as well as pump water to the higher elevation Lake Bonnie Rose to store potential energy for conversion into hydropower generation to the community to meet demand (a buffering effect). The next step in the development process is wind field data collection and analysis to design the wind generation system. The hydropower feasibility component and preliminary engineering design is complete in the McMillen report. The City of Adak is proposing to conduct a feasibility analysis of including wind energy in their local energy grid. The wind resource model predicts a Class 6 wind resource at the proposed met tower site, indicating a very good wind resource. AEA is concerned that the existing community power generation and distribution system is not currently ready to incorporate wind energy, but we also recognize that Adak is addressing the energy system and is likely to be working with AEA through the Rural Power System Upgrade program in coming years. The amount of wind energy proposed for this community is much higher than AEA is comfortable pursuing. AEA believes that a 0.9 to 1.0 megawatt system would be more appropriate for this community. The cost estimate to install the met towers is twice the highest AEA has ever seen. Weekly monitoring of the met tower site is warranted given the extreme winds possible in Adak. Electrical load data must be collected with dataloggers at the power plant and in parallel from the fish processing plant and other self-generating users not presently connected to the grid to develop a properly sized power generation system. AEA encourages Adak to continue to work with AEA staff to address the community energy needs. Please contact AEA’s energy planning staff for direct assistance. The project did not pass the minimum Stage 2 score criteria. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $72,400,000 Cost of Power: — $0.81 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $160,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided $0 Election District: PPRPIRRIIRDE re Pe oP ana na aa SP S-37 Bethel/Aleutians AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 46 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1056 Adak Wind Data Collection Analysis and Preliminary Design Standard Application Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of Adak, Alaska Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Energy Region: Aleutians Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) j ibili stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) — cee from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) ‘Applicant (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) [ a Li ~ \ y — \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) | { ) } | i 7) Sustainability (Max 5) oe Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed Land. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 16/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 47 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ye: ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY __ Mertarvik Renewable Energy Feasibility an Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Recon nd t Feasibility Proposer: Ungusraq Power Company (UPC) / Newtok Traditional Council Applicant Type: IPP Program Manager: Josh Craft 7 a Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description aye The Newtok community must move due to the erosion of the existing community site and based on the Mertarvik Relocation Plan, the time has arrived to begin the study and development of an efficient energy project for the new site. Ungusraq Power Company (UPC) is the independent power producer for the community of Newtok, Alaska. This proposed UPC project will begin the conceptual and preliminary design and feasibility study work necessary to utilize the least diesel fuel and to maximize the renewable energy resources for: electrical and heat generation production systems at the new Mertarvik community site. The community of Newtok, AK is relocating due to erosion. The new community site of Mertarvik, Alaska is Southeast of the current location and the State wind model projects a possible class four to six wind resource in the area. Ungusraq Power Company (UPC) / Newtok Traditional Council (NTC), applying as an Independent Power Producer (IPP), proposes feasibility and conceptual design work for a diesel power plant and distribution system and to determine the advisability of installing wind turbines, solar pv, biomass and/or heat recovery in Mertarvik, Alaska. Design work for the power plant and distribution system is ineligible for funding under the RE Fund. Conceptual design work for a wind or solar farm or heat recovery loop should be done concurrently with or after the power plant and distribution system has been addressed. A biomass feasibility study should be performed concurrently with or after a determination of which buildings could be served by a heat recovery loop. Currently, there are two groups claiming legitimacy as the Newtok Traditional Council with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) making the determination. An initial decision was made by BIA and is being appealed. It is anticipated that a final decision from BIA will be made in the second half of 2014. Securing site control and obtaining a proper Waiver of Sovereign Immunity may be an issue until this situation is resolved. Recommend partial funding of $75,000 to collect wind data at Mertarvik and electrical and thermal load data at Newtok, both for a minimum of one year, and to write a wind/solar resource assessment. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $8,000,000 Requested Grant Funds: $375,000 Matched Funds Provided: $25,000 Cost of Power: $0.80 /kWh Price of Fuel: /gal Election District: R-36_ Dillingham/Illiamn 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 48 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ye ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY ) # 1057 Mertarvik Renewable Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Standard Application . Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Recon o : Feasibility Proposer: Ungusraq Power Company (UPC) / Newtok Traditional Council Applicant Type: IPP Program Manager: Josh Craft Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Welat s . a» 2 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 35.00 | 53.00 Rey a 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 7.00 | par 60 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) hina on from Stage 2 (Max 20) 10. (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 4.50 LEZ y _ \ _ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 } (38) ) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 1.67 \ A Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments {out of 100) Project appears to be entirely off of DNR/DMLW lands. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 49 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ye: ALASKA... (@mm—> ENERGY AUTHORITY rray Construction Proje Resource: Solar PV Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Northwest Arctic Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: David Lockard A lee E Region: Northwest Arctic Project Description nergy Region Northwest Artie Borough is seeking $447,800.00 from this Grant Program on behalf of Noatak and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC), to add a solar energy component to the existing diesel power generation system that serves the community. Northwest arctic Borough will construct a new 52.5 kW array of 210 pe. 250W, Photovoltaic (PV) modules in Noatak, Alaska. The array will be inclined at 34 degrees from May through September, and 90 degrees the remainder of the year to take advantage of the solar angle at this northerly location. The annual power production of the array is estimated to be approximately 49,500 kWh (with shading). The solar array will be located on a lot of land under discussion near the powerplant. A Feasibility study was performed for a system of similar size in 2008, see attached. A request for funding was turned in at that time for round 1, Renewable Energy Fund. Since that time fuel prices have increased and equipment( Solar Arrays) have come down in price. This have made the project more economically feasible. Considering that no other renewable energy option is available for Noatak as Wind and Hydro is below development stage, Solar-PV is a good match for this community. Additionally Solar-PV is being successfully installed and integrated for the regions Water-plants to help offset the use of Diesel fuel and lower the cost of living. The Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) proposes a 52.5kW solar photovoltaic system adjacent to the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) powerhouse in Noatak. The NWAB intends to transfer ownership and operation of this project to AVEC. The project would generate approximately 49,500 kWh the first year with a capacity factor of 11%. This proposal contains a number of technical deficiencies: - There is no design, which is typically required for a project of this size - There is no site control in place, which is required for construction projects - The feasibility study provided, which is the basis for the application, was performed without a site visit. - The proposed site is between the powerhouse, which is in the floodplain, and the river - The cost estimate did not provide cost details - The NWAB resolution authorizing the grant application was not signed - The Noatak powerhouse needs work: the smallest genset is in poor condition, the three phase is unbalanced, and the heat recovery system is not working. AEA does not recommend this project for funding. The AEA powerhouse program offers technical assistance to the community and utility in planning for improvement of the diesel powerhouse and heat recovery system, and AEA’s energy planning staff is also available for assistance. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $447,800 Cost of Power: $0.74. /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $447,800 Price of Fuel: /gal Election District: T-40 Arctic 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 50 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom . Bie E Region: Northwest Arctic Project Description nergy Region After careful consideration of the potential hydropower sources in the Cosmos Hills, as documented in the Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Report, AVEC has chosen to move forward with design and permitting for a hydroelectric project on the Kogoluktuk River. The Kogoluktuk River project would be a run-of- river project with a small diversion dam and intake, a long above-ground penstock pipeline, a small Kaplan turbine and powerhouse, and a tailrace back to the river. The project would also include an access road, a transformer, and a high-voltage transmission line. At this location, the upstream basin catchment area is approximately 424 square miles. AEA Review Comments and Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2 AVEC requests $2,922,000 in grant funds for permitting and 65% design for a 690 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project on the Kogoluktuk River. The project would serve the communities of Ambler, Shungnak and Kobuk. Shungnak and Kobuk are interconnected at present, while Ambler is not interconnected. Ambler is 29 miles from Shungnak. The project received a Round 1 Renewable Energy Fund grant (#74) for $1,025,000 to complete a feasibility study. A draft feasibility study was included with the application but has not been finalized and accepted by AEA. According to the draft feasibility study, it is still unknown if the project would require FERC licensing and the project description mentions fish ladders may be required. FERC licensing adds additional costs to a project and fish ladders also create higher costs and a technical barrier for development. It is unknown if a fish ladder can be permitted and operate successfully in an Arctic environment. A feasibility study generally would be more definitive with these matters. The requested funds of $2.9M for the design phase of work are high and unsupported. The proposal does not indicate the design team members. Additionally, small hydropower engineering and operation with long, above-ground penstocks have not been proven north of the Arctic Circle, and a major concern is system freeze-up during sustained temperatures approaching -40 to -50 deg. F. Therefore, practical successful operation of potential projects remain speculative and risky. The project is estimated to provide 1,669,835 kWh of the electrical demand and displace approximately 45,000 gallons of diesel used for heat. The proposal estimated a total capital cost of $38.66 million; however, the cost estimate did not include the cost of a transmission line to Ambler nor the cost to implement hydro generation to be used for space heating. Although the project appears to have fairly significant benefits, the costs are more substantial and the benefit/cost ratio of 0.38 reflects this. Considering the concerns listed above and the challenging economics, the project was not recommended for funding. The applicant appealed AEA’s decision. Staff reconsidered based upon new information and scored the project which did not meet the minimum Stage 2 score. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $38,660,000 Cost of Power: $0.74 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $2,922,000 Price of Fuel: /gal ; i J Matched Funds Provided: $150,000 Election District: - i T-40 Arctic 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 51 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Application App #1059 Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and Permitting _ Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Northwest Arctic Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis ( ) & ne 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 1.05 | = 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) | “7 i ibili Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project eine from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6) Local Support (Max 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) A \ Ma, { \ ) Sy oy Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments four ot 100) Should this project move forward, a formal navigability determination should be requested to determine the status of the Kogoluktuk River. In a letter dated 8/20/2010 to AVEC, it was noted the navigability status of the river is currently unknown. If the river is navigable, state authorizations will be required. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 52 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT p= ALASKA. ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Hydrokinetic Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of False Pass Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Project Description Energy Region: Aleutians The Ci ty of False Pass requests Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) funding through the Renewable Energy Grant Program (RFA 2014-006) to complete Phase II Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design Requirements (Project) for a proposed tidal energy project at False Pass in the Isanotski Straight. The City of False Pass, like most communities of the Aleutian Islands, depends on diesel fuel to meet their electricity and heating needs. While diesel fuel is currently the most practical option for such communities, it also creates economic, energy security and environmental problems—it has a disproportionately high carbon dioxide (CO2) output compared to other power generation systems—at both local and global levels. The City of False Pass, fortunately, is situated near a significant hydrokinetic (tidal) resource at the Isanotski Straight that offers a potential to significantly reduce, or eliminate, the use of diesel fuel. The viability of this resource was confirmed through a reconnaissance study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Energy Program that included measurement of the current velocities in the vicinity of False Pass through a full lunar cycle. This Project proposes to build on the completed reconnaissance study to accelerate efforts to develop this tidal energy resource. The following goals will be achieved in this Project: (1) measure current velocities and collect turbulence data at 3-5 sites selected for potential deployment of tidal turbines based on University of Alaska (UAA) circulation modeling, (2) analyze the data from the field effort including extending UAA modeling efforts to select the optimal site(s) for tidal turbine placement, (3) collect existing environmental data and develop draft environmental study plans in consultation with regulatory agencies, (4) initiate stakeholder outreach efforts, (5) collect additional geophysical data required to inform engineering of the project, and (6) complete a conceptual design and economic analysis for a tidal energy project at False Pass. The Project Team is comprised of the City of False Pass; Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. (APIA); Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA); University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA); Benthic GeoScience, Inc.; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and ORPC Alaska, LLC (ORPC). The City of False Pass proposed to conduct a feasibility study for a tidal power project it, building on previous reconnaissance efforts. The proposal was submitted in response to language in the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 7 Request for Applications (RFA) that specifically identified reconnaissance and feasibility stage hydrokinetic projects as eligible for REF funding; this language was included in an effort to address a perceived eligibility gap between the Emerging Energy Technology Fund (EETF) and REF. The proposal, which calls for additional field measurements, modeling, site selection, and preparation for permitting, was submitted on behalf of a strong project team actively involved in pioneering hydrokinetic development in the state. As required by the review protocol described in the RFA, the proposal was evaluated by the same criteria used for all REF applications, and was disadvantaged by the high costs and uncertainty associated with a nascent technology. The proposal is recommended for funding. As described in the RFA, in order for the proposal to be recommended for funding ahead of its rank, it also needs to demonstrate both the importance of the proposed resource area relative to other potential resource areas and evidence that tidal power shows potential for economic deployments in Alaska in the future. While other strong and potential promising tidal resources exist in Alaska, the project team has made the case that the proposed resource site is exceptional because it boasts the strongest tidal currents identified in the state being considered for power generation and is located nearby an electrical load. With only a single grid-connected tidal installation operating in the country, it is difficult to predict how rapidly the installed costs of tidal power generation plants will decline as the technology matures. The applicant has made the case that deployment and retrieval costs will decline dramatically as operators gain experience equipment is improved. Although numerous challenges remain before economic deployments can be realized in Alaska, potential for such deployments exist. AEA requests the advice of the REFAC regarding the advancement of the proposal ahead of higher ranking projects as permitted by the RFA. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $5,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $428,646 Price of Fuel: /gal . oe Matched Funds Provided: $137,820 Election District: 00 a _ _ _ S-37 Bethel/Aleutians AEA Funding Recommendation: __ si 28,646 46/2014 9:32:27 AM Page 53 of 89 Resource: Hydrokinetic Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of False Pass Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Energy Region: Aleutians Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score y A> | < 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 22.45 | | 0.22 g 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 13.00 | NY 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 8.57 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio " / (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.50 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.75 (7) fa \ pos. | \ ; » 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 35477 { 43 | 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 2.50 Vey Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) The submerged velocity monitoring research equipment referenced in this application are currently authorized by SCRO temporary permit LAS 28655. Applicant states that "The tideland access near the airport at False Pass...is considered a municpal tideland. The area is retained in state ownership and managed by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. If the [proposed] transmission line route is designed within the boundaries of the airport'sjurisdiction, application and approvals would be needed from ADOT&PF." However, ADOT&PF acquired their airport management right from non- State upland owners rather than DNR and so do not necessarily have use of adjoining tidelands. In addition, SCRO recently issued an easement for municipal use of submerged lands near False Pass that would not have been required if an ATS to the City or Borough had been in force at the project location. Applicant is advised to contact DMLW SCRO in addtion to ADOT&PF Airport Management personnel well prior to finalization of plans for any project component intended for placement on tide and submerged lands in order to determine accurate jurisdiction and permitting requirements. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards. 11612014 9:32:27 AM Page 54 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY lliamna Solar Ground Mounted Energy System Resource: Solar PV Proposed Project Phase: Recon : i : Feasibility Proposer: _ lliamna Village Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: David Lockard l eee E Region: Bristol Bay Project Description Nae This project entails the construction of a ground-mounted, stand-alone solar energy system to manage the energy capacities of the Iliamna Village Council and adjacent maintenance buildings, eventually adding houses and/or additional community facilities to this solar energy powered system as funds permit. Further study will take place during Phase I of this project to assess the measure of insolation in our location, to determine how much sunlight will be available for solar panels to convert into electricity and how many hours of peak sunlight the location receives per day, making adjustments for Net Metering with the local power company, or for a battery-storage system. We will assess the number of devices that will be electrically powered in total for both buildings, and the total kWh and wattage consumption of these devices. An assessment must also be performed to determine an accurate cost for both buildings’ heating fuel requirements. Once a thorough energy cost assessment has been completed, Phase I will meld into Phase II as further assessments are implemented to develop cost evaluations for installing a solar electric system to successfully power total electric energy consumption requirements, as well as solar energy systems to manage both buildings’ heating needs, taking into account plausible separate and hybrid systems. Phase II will also entail developing a detailed evaluation intended to further assess the technical, economic, financial, and operational viability of the project. Phase II will be completed by narrowing the focus of our final ground mounted solar panel design and construction plans, to prepare for future final design and implementation of the Project, and establish pre-construction equipment, shipment costs, time-frames etc. EA Review Comments and Recommendation Not Recommended _ The Iliamna Village Council has applied for an $800,000 grant with a $120,000 match for reconnaissance, feasibility and conceptual design of a ground-mounted solar photovoltaic system. The system would offset heating and electrical costs at its Village Council office and possibly adjacent buildings. Since 2009, AEA has assisted the Iliamna-Nondalton-Newhalen Electric Cooperative (INNEC) with a series of utility upgrades to repair the hydro tailrace, rebuild hydro turbines and generators, improve the intake system, upgrade controls, and install interruptible electric boilers at the schools in Newhalen and Nondalton. These projects are intended to benefit all three communities by improving the reliability and reducing the cost of hydropower. AEA has recently funded a feasibility study to determine if the existing capacity at the Tazimina Hydro project should be increased. AEA does not recommend this application for funding because of its high cost, minimal proposed fossil fuel savings, the lack of a utility net metering policy and procedures or endorsement of the project, and the alternative opportunity to heat with interruptible hydropower from INNEC. AEA recommends that the applicant contact the INNEC board regarding electricity rates and the possibility of heating the applicant building with excess hydropower. Also consider energy efficiency measures in public buildings for cost-effective energy savings. The applicant may also be able to participate in the projections of future heating and power use that will be part of the Tazimina Hydro capacity increase study. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $2,000,000 ra $0.59 / iT Requested Grant Funds: $800,000 ; /ea Matched Funds Provided: $120,000 Election District: R-36_ Dillingham/Illiamn 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 55 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... (@@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Applicatio: Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design ; | Construction Proposer: Native Village of Chenega Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom . + ae Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach Project Description gy Bed The Native Village of Chenega (aka. Chenega Bay) proposes to construct a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project on Anderson Creek. The planned 64 kW capacity project will offset power currently generated by burning diesel. The non-jurisdictional hydro will offset up to 10,406 gallons of diesel annually which translates into $56,600 in annual savings. Engineering design is 95% complete and permit applications to the appropriate agencies have been submitted. iew Comments and Recommendatio Native Village of Chenega requests $1,400,000 to construct the 64 kW hydroelectric project on Anderson consumption for electrical generation by half. “reek. The project is estimated to reduce diesel The project received grants in Round 0 for reconnaissance study and Round 3 for final design and permitting (#455). AEA has the following concerns: Permits and site control have not been received, the Declaration of Intent has not been submitted and it is unknown if the project is exempt from FERC licensing. Draft plans titled as 95% design were submitted with the application but did not include technical specifications, and cannot be finalized until permitting is complete. The estimated cost for construction is $1,650,000 and it is unclear where the additional funding will come from. For these reasons we believe it is premature to grant further funding. Not recommended. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $1,650,000 Cost of Power: $0.44 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $1,400,000 er /gal Matched Funds Provided: $0 Election District: (00 SASeS8ESeNe Eee eee cnn SeeR Ae SOR GSS SSS SS RSS e Ses ene asna es enS nn SSRs R-35 Kodiak/Cordova AEA Funding Recommendation: 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 56 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (@@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Application Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design : 4 Construction Proposer: Native Village of Chenega Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) \ A>» (am) 6114) i ji Benefit/Cost Rati 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio nefit/Cost Ratio (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) ‘q LE, 6) Local Support (Max 5) ( : 7) Sustainability (Max 5) Vay Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) Applicant self-reports a requirement for DMLW Water Use Permit and on-going involvement of Water Resources Unit staff. No apparent DMLW-managed lands or permit requirements based on the project description provided. DMLW resources do not currently identify Mountain Creek as navigable; if this determination is amended the project should be reviewed again for potential additional lease or easement requirements from SCRO. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone and other upper plate crustal faults such as Hanning Bay and Patton Bay faults. 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 57 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT /= Abas (@mmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom . ee E Region: Kodiak Project Description cere ae ‘The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEO), the electrical utility provider in Old Harbor, is proposing to complete final design and permitting of a hydroelectric project in Old Harbor, Alaska. The 262 kW (initial; nominal) basin diversion project will be located on East Fork Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek Tributary. The project will be capable initially of generating an average of about 2,018,924 kWh annually and could grow to an annual generation of 2,725,646 kWh when demand warrants and an additional turbine is installed. The project will run year-round and meet all the existing and future electricity demands of the community. AVEC requests $1,092,500 to complete final design for a 262 kW hydroelectric project on East Fork Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek at Old Harbor. The project received grants in Round 1 (#73) for $225,000 and Round 4 (#644) for $237,500 to complete a feasibility study, FERC licensing, and preliminary design. Additionally, the City of Old Harbor received a Community Development Block Grant in support of the project for $250,000 to complete the FERC License Application and permitting. AEA has the following concerns: The FERC License Application was submitted October 2013 and it will take 18-24 months for the application to be reviewed and granted. Site control, including an easement within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, and changes to the conservation easement with the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, remains to be established. Additionally, project economics are marginal and the requested funds for this phase of work are extremely high and unsupported. Recommend partial funding to complete final design. It is suggested AVEC make every effort to keep as much of the costs down to keep this project moving ahead. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $8,155,000 Cost of Power: $0.58 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $1,092,500 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $57,500 Election District: ETE EEE ELC R-35_Kodiak/Cordova AEA Funding Recommendation: _ shied OOD.) 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 58 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT Resource: Hydro Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Stage 3 Scoring Summary 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 25.21 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 7.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 11.27 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) 5.37 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments # 4065 Old Harbor Hydroelect c Project Final Design and Permitting Stage 3 Total Weight jax ALASKA... @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Applica’ ion. Proposed Project Phase: Design Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Kodiak Economic ita | 56.33 eee ( +79 ) way sane 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) ha Rank io y’ = | 60.35 — © © Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank (out of 100) Expect a water right application and DNR is aware of the project. No other authorizations appear to be needed. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone and Narrow Cape faults. 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 59 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA. m (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Josh Craft f elas Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description oT Building on the results of the completed Conceptual Design Report (attached in Tab G), Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is proposing to complete the final design and permitting to install three Northern Power Systems NPS 100-24 turbines, each with a 95 kilowatt (kW) installed wind capacity (aggregate generating capacity of 285 kW), to the existing diesel power generation system in Marshall. Once work done under this grant is completed, AVEC will seek funding to construct the turbines. A met tower in the proposed turbine site has collected 21 months of data. A wind resource report has been completed based on data from the met tower and has revealed a Class 4 (good) wind resource at the site with an average wind speed of 6.30 m/s. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a Utility, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community of Marshall, Alaska. The final design would be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040021. The draft conceptual design report was submitted and reviewed by AEA prior to the Round 7 RE Fund application deadline. A final conceptual design report has been submitted. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the final conceptual design report be accepted by AEA prior to allocation of design and permitting funds. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $3,214,875 Cost of Power: $0.50 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $353,400 Price of Fuel: /gal $18,600 Election District: Ee Ue IU S-38 Wade Hampton/MckKinley _ $353,400 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 60 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Marshall Wind Energy Final Des > # 1066 Standard Application Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design n and Permitting Project _ Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Josh Craft Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis teri i Score G > y » 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 22.05 1.60 Qe 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 7.00 | ee i ibility fr Max 2! 10.43 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Paae i ity from Stage 2 (Max 20) aacracoy ‘pplicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.50 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 1.50 pores (EE yo 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 | ( 49 (| ( 13 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.83 Gy | a Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No state managed land involved. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 61 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY ility and Conceptual Design Standard Application Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Josh Craft . nae Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description ie AVEC proposes to complete a conceptual design report (CDR) for a wind energy project in Mountain Village. This project will move the project towards the goal of reducing fuel usage by establishing a renewable energy resource in the community. A met tower collected data east of Mountain Village from November 2009 to August 2011. A wind resource report was completed and revealed a low Class 5 (excellent) wind resource with an average wind speed of 7.62 m/s. Work under this grant will include updating the wind resource report, conducting a geotechnical investigation at a proposed wind site, completing the CDR with the preliminary design of a wind farm. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a utility, proposes to complete a wind feasibility study and conceptual design report to study the advisability of installing wind turbines in Mountain Village, Alaska. The applicant performed a meteorological tower study from November 2009 to August 2011. A Wind Resource Analysis based on this study was submitted with the application and demonstrates a class five wind resource. Class four through seven wind regimes typically support viable wind-diesel projects in Western Alaska. A best case scenario is often used by AEA Project Managers when evaluating the merits of a feasibility project and, in regards to this proposal, resulted in higher production estimates than the applicant. The proposed project and future design work would refine production estimates prior to construction. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $4,833,000 Cost of Power: $0.54 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $123,500 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $6,500 i 123 500 Election District: S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 62 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ia AleASK Arcs (@mmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY _ Mountain Village > Wind Feasibility and Conceptual | Design 5 # 1067 Standard Application Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Josh Craft Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic a” Criterion (Weight) Score a] Saar j 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 23.80 | 79.17 | 1.23 5 ey 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 7.00 | eed j ibili 20 15.83 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.50 Sl Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.63 : | fa Mm. | / f 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 | 70.26 i a2 ) 4 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 | Ju Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments {out of: 100) No state managed land involved. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 63 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA Standard App ication 8 Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Proposed Project Phase: Design p # 106 Resource: Wind Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Josh Craft i + ti Energy Region: Bering Straits Project Description ae The proposed project is located near the village of Stebbins on St. Michael Island. Stebbins is located approximately 430 miles northwest of Anchorage, on the south side of Norton Sound. Stebbins is 8 air miles from the village of St. Michael. This project will benefit both the communities of Stebbins and St. Michael as an intertie to connect the two communities and a new joint power plant will be constructed by 2015. ___Full Funding _ EA Review Comments and Recommendation Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a Utility, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community of Stebbins, Alaska. The wind-diesel system would service the communities of Stebbins and Saint Michael, Alaska. The final design will be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040008. The feasibility study and conceptual design report have been reviewed and accepted by the AEA Wind Program. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $3,946,050 cost ot ower : on i Requested Grant Funds: $342,000 : ga A : 18,000 Election District: ; Matched Funds frovided Ee $ i T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages ‘unding Recommendation $342,000 Page 64 of 89 1/6/2014 9:34:04 AM Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA. (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY _ Standard App cation Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Josh Craft Energy Region: Bering Straits Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 24.42 | 83.33 2.74 ey” 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 7.00 | 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 16.67 eed ila italy) Ratio 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.63 fg y > 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 a7 \ 1 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.50 Vey Nay Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) Any cross country travel (winter or summer) crossing navigable water bodies may require a permit from DNR as underlying lands are state owned, even if the adjacent uplands are owned by a village or regional native corporation. It appears that the main intertie between Stebbins and St Michael will be within the road right-of-way which has an existing federal right-of-way. However, if there are spur roads/lines to the wind turbines or other areas outside the existing right-of- way and they cross navigable water bodies, an easement from DNR may be needed. For any supporting gravel mining operations, a Reclamation Plan is required for gravel mining operations even on non-state land, if the operation disturbs more than 5 acres or excavates more than 50,000 cubic yards. There may be a minimal benefit to state resources as there will be a slight decrease in their use of diesel fuel. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Bendeleben fault. 4116/2014 9:34:04 AM Page 65 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA. (@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Josh Craft : Par E Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Project Description nergy Region AVEC proposes to complete construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of four wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation system for currently intertied communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. As a part of this project, AVEC will upgrade the electrical distribution line between St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point to a 3- phase line and upgrade the joint power plant to accommodate wind turbine energy generators. This project has been in planning for over 10 years, and with funding from this grant AVEC will complete the St. Mary’s wind farm. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a utility, proposes the construction of a wind farm along the St. Mary's/Pitka's Point inter tie along with components necessary for the integration of wind power into the diesel power plant. The wind-diesel system would serve the communities of St. Mary's and Pitka's Point. The basis for the proposed wind-diesel system would be a design funded through Round 4 RE Fund grant #7040017. Permitting for the project is completed, site control has been established and a final design has been submitted to the Authority. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the 95% design be accepted by the Authority prior to allocation of construction funds. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $4,782,528 Cost of Power: $0.49 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $4,274,575 Price of Fuel: /gal eae : $507,953 Election District: - See renee arovlaed f S-38 Wade Hampton/McKinley AEA Funding 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 66 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA ax (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1069 St Marys Pitkas Point Wind Energy Construction Project ” Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction Standard Application Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Josh Craft Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score Ey, A h 1) Cost of Ener: < 1.19 > gy (Max 35) 21.60 1.47 Sa 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 9.00 | i ibili 13. Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 3.00 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 4.50 esa LE oe \ ». 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 62.43 { 31 \ 6 9 } 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.33 | ey Kay rll Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) This project is not located on DMLW-managed Land. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 67 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA. (@@ml> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1070 Sand Point E1 sites Standard Application Resource: Storage of Renewable Proposed Project Phase: Design | ! Construction Proposer: TDX Sand Point Generating, LLC Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: David Lockard F faa E Region: Aleutians Project Description nergy Region TDX Power intends to build on a successful wind-diesel power system at Sand Point, Alaska, by adding an energy storage component to its Sand Point Generating power plant. The additional hardware — inverter and battery bank — will allow the utility to purchase more wind power from the existing turbines and shut off the diesel engines for approximately 30% of the year. The project includes the final design, procurement, installation and commissioning of an inverter and battery bank and integration with the existing wind diesel power system in Sand Point, Alaska. TDX Power intends to build on a successful wind-diesel power system at Sand Point, Alaska, by adding an energy storage component to its Sand Point Generating power plant. The inverter and battery bank would allow the utility to purchase more wind power from the existing turbines and shut off the diesel engines for approximately 30% of the year. The project includes the final design, procurement, installation and commissioning of an inverter and battery bank and integration with the existing wind-diesel power system in Sand Point, Alaska. AEA recommends partial funding of $200,000 for a feasibility study and final design to provide additional detail on the proposed project as well as alternative savings options. additionally, AEA recommends that the applicant consult with AEA’s powerhouse design team regarding the latest innovations in diesel efficiency, marine manifolds, heat recovery design, and dispatchable boilers for frequency control. The feasibility study should investigate the economics of expanding the heat recovery loop to the clinic, school and/or city buildings, adding marine manifolds to one or more of the gensets, adding interruptible electric heating to commercial customers, and/or adding a dispatchable electric boiler to the heat recovery loop. The study should consider repairing or replacing the smallest genset to improve system diesel generation efficiency and the potential for paralleling effectively with the wind turbines. The lessons learned from other battery installations in Alaska (Kodiak, Kotzebue, Kokhanok, etc.) will provide a valuable framework. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $1,397,403 Cost of Power: $0.58 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $1,256,403 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $141,000 Election District: S-37 Bethel/Aleutians _ AEA Funding Recommendation: stiches i 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 68 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = DL digit @@mi> ENERGY AUTHORITY #107 Resource: Storage of Renewable Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction 0 Sand Point Energy Storage Project _ ) ™ "Standard Application Proposer: TDX Sand Point Generating, LLC Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: David Lockard Energy Region: Aleutians Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score La yoON 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 22.55 ( 1.01 | bf 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 9.00 Soa i ibili 7 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) een any from Stage 2 (Max 20) 9.50 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 4.13 Feanepesrnsas ee: Mm, aT | | / » A _ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 | 54.17 { >) | 4) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.00 | Coy ni Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments out o#.100) No apparent DMLW-managed lands or permit requirements according to the project description provided. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 69 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA Standard Application ind Resource Feasibility and Conceptual Design Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Igiugig Village Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Josh Craft Energy Region: Bristol Bay Project Description The Village of Igiugig seeks funding to complete the final feasibility of our wind resource and conceptual design to verify the economic viability of a wind-diesel electric generation facility. A Rural Power Systems Upgrade was completed in 2011, and a preliminary wind feasibility study was completed by Knight-Piesold Consulting in 2012. Igiugig has a class 3-4 wind resource, and with the higher cost of diesel and the increasing electrical demand, it was determined that a high- penetration wind turbine system is economically viable. A final feasibility study and conceptual design with a construction cost estimate remains to be completed. The total cost of the project is $110,000 and the Lake and Peninsula Borough has committed a $20,000 match. Igiugig Village is providing a $10,000 in-kind match, and requesting the additional $80,000 needed. Igiugig Village Council, applying as a governmental entity, proposes to complete a feasibility study and conceptual design report to study the advisability of installing wind turbines in Igiugig, Alaska. The applicant has finished a meteorological tower study and has submitted a Wind Resource Report with the application. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the Wind Resource Analysis and Feasibility Study be accepted by AEA prior to allocation of Conceptual Design funds. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $110,000 Cost of Power: $0.80 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $80,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $30,000 Election District: ee at) R-36_Dillingham/Illiamna { AEA Funding Recommendation: ' $80,00 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 70 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round7-DRAFT f= AbASKA.. (@mmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY onceptual Design Standard Application oJ Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Igiugig Village Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: josh Craft Energy Region: Bristol Bay Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score ees a, hom» | < 0.86 > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 35.00 | 47.00 | 1.40 wy 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 13.00 | 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 9.40 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio : 7 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.50 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.00 [ 2 ME j N 6) Local Support (Max 5) 3.00 | i 9 ) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.17 i | LET Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) Applicant's immediate funding objective is completion of a feasibility study; system plan and design efforts have not yet been undertaken. Test equipment is proposed for placement on Village Council lands so no DMLW authorizations appear to be required at this stage of project develoment. Applicant should provide DMLW with site location and design information when available to determine if any lease, easement, or permit authroizations are necessary for implementation. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. 116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 71 of 89 a of = ALASKA... (@ED ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Application _ Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Blue Hole Properties, LLC (BHP) Applicant Type: IPP Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom i a E Region: Copper River/Chugach Project Description meray Seger The proposed project is an approximately 200 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Cascade Creek at MP 35 of the Richardson Highway. The project would provide power to CVEA via a proposed 14-mile line extension or tie into the 138 kV transmission line that runs within '/ mile of the project site. omments and Recommendation _ Full Funding Blue Hole Properties, LLC req $170,000 in grant funds to complete feasibility and conceptual design of 200 kW run-o Creek, located at milepost 35 of the Richardson Highway and adjacent to the Taina Lodge. ver hydroelectric project on Cascade The project is estimated to cost $2.25 million to construct and would require a 14-mi transmission to interconnect to the CVEA transmission system. It does not appear the cost of interconnection has been included in the cost estimate. It would provide 1,040,000 kWh annually. How much would be purchased by the CVEA system is unknown due to the Allison Creek project currently under construction and already operational Solomon Gulch. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $2,250,000 Cost of Power: — $0.28 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $170,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $30,000 R $170,000 Election District: C-06 Richardson Highway 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 72 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA... (@mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY # 1075 Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: Blue Hole Properties, LLC (BHP) Applicant Type: IPP Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 12.44 3.46 1.30 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 11.00 i ibili fF Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) fhe Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 9.17 (out oF 100) (Apoieann (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 6.38 Lm, rN 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 f 58) ( 3. 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 1.33 ey > Lo Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) Project will require water right, and possibly a land use authorization from DNR/DMLW for the water line, unless included in the water right. If the generator is outside applicant's property, it will require a land use authorization as well. Boundaries are described in USS 3905 and accompanying notes, but application is not sufficiently descriptive to determine generator location. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone and Chugach St. Elias mountains faults. 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 73 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT yo ALASKA... #1077. Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project _ Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Native Village of Tanacross Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom j ipti Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Project Description gy Region The communities in the Upper Tanana Subregion to be served by this renewable energy project are economically distressed in part caused by the very high cost of electricity at $0.51 per kWh. These communities currently rely on diesel generation to meet their electric needs. Renewable energy is a must for this area to remain economically viable during these difficult times. The Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project, first pioneered by Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T), would be the first renewable electric energy project for the Upper Tanana Subregion and is now a collaborative effort of the Native Village of Tanacross, Tanacross, Inc. and AP&T. The project site can be accessed at MP 1339 of the Alaska Highway Native Village of Tanacross requests $6,000,000 for construction of a seasonal 1.5 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Yerrick Creek to serve Tanacro} Tok, Tetlin and Dot Lake, located 20 miles west of Tok. Total project cost is $19,000,000 and depends upon many other sources of funds that are not in hand (USDA RUS, New Markets Tax Credits, BIA loan). The project is to be jointly owned by NVT and Tanacross Inc., which will form an IPP to sell power to AP&T. The project will require 15,000 ft of penstock and 10 miles of transmission line upgrade from single phase to three phase. AP&T will be hired to prepare final construction plans and specs. The project was partially funded by AEA several years ago through a series of RE Fund grants when AP&T was the sole developer but ran into problems with lack of cooperation by landowner Tanacross Inc. Funds were made available in what is called Round 0 for reconnaissance study and Round 3 (#438) for construction. AEA has the following concerns: All funds for construction are not available, MOA not signed, IPP not formed, land ROW not in hand, permits not in place, design not complete, cost estimate is vague, exact siting of intake and powerhouse is unclear. Recommend partial funding of $75,000 to finalize permits, final design and specs, cost estimate, IPP arrangements, MOA, power sales agreement, bid documents, etc. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $19,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.49 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $6,000,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $11,500,000 Election District: WL Mu Hl] it 7 T-39 Bering Straits/Interior Villages | AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 74 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT p= ALASKA. @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY k Creek Hydroelectri Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Native Village of Tanacross Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 21.46 | 58.33 9.84 4.23 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 | | Leeman ; i ibility fi Max 2 11.67 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) ‘Applicant (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.25 faa \ A es _ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 (aa (aa 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.17 nae Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) This project was originally applied for by AP&T (ADL 418154 - easement, ADL 418921 - material sale. New application states that the Yerrick Basin will be protected from outside intrusion: it is unlikely that DNR would issue authorizations that would impede the use of existing 17(b) access through Tanacross land to the state land in the remainder of the basin. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Dot "I" Johnson and Cathedral Rapids faults. 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 75 of 89 ' « Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT (= DLABIGA. (@mm=> ENERGY AUTHORITY Ko iganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery : Standard ‘Applica ion Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: New Koliganek Village Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Josh Craft 7 UI hla E Region: Bristol Bay Project Description Oar This project proposes to install two remanufactured Vestas V20 wind turbines in the community of Koliganek. Koliganek was awarded a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) in Renewable Energy Fund Round IV to complete a conceptual design for installation of wind turbines, with possible construction beginning in 2015. New Koliganek Village Council owns and operates the electric utility for the community of Koliganek. The moderate wind resource at this site could support a medium penetration wind-diesel system. The Draft Conceptual Design Report for the RPSU project does not currently include the prospect of integrating wind energy. Koliganek has received $300,000 for conceptual design and design completion for the Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) project. The 2009 Conceptual Design Report (CDR) will be updated starting in January 2014. This project proposes that the conceptual designs of both the wind-diesel and RPSU project proceed in coordination. If the projects are designed together, potential retrofitting expenses will be avoided and savings realized through the elimination of redundancies. The New Koliganek Village Council, applying as a governmental entity, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community of Koliganek Alaska. The final design will be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040011. The feasibility study has been completed and a draft conceptual design report has been reviewed by the AEA Wind Program. A final conceptual design report will be completed in early 2014 in conjunction with an AEA Rural Power System Upgrade Program power plant conceptual design report. Recommend full funding with the special provision that a final wind-diesel conceptual design report be accepted by the Authority prior to the allocation of final design and permitting funds. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $2,566,000 fee rene Requested Grant Funds: $306,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $10,000 $306,000} y Election District: R-36_ Dillingham/Illiamna AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 76 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1079 _Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery _ ‘Standard Application ; Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Proposer: New Koliganek Village Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Program Manager: Josh Craft Energy Region: Bristol Bay Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score LEE he > { < 1.05 > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 22.09 1.60 | NO” 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 6.00 : i ibili 10.47 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) ces a from Stage 2 (Max 20) 0 (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 3.83 i Project Rank }) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 | 51.68 54 } 3 | 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.17 | rd wu Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No apparent DMLW managed lands or permit requirements according to the provided project description. Proposed infrastructure planned for placement on non-State lands which ADOT&PF either previously or currently held limited management rights for operation of local airport. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 77 of 89 ‘ . Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT (= Abed SKAc (@m> ENERGY AUTHORITY #1080 False Pass Wind Energy Project Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Standard Application Proposer: City of False Pass Electric Utility Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Josh Craft 5 aes E Region: Aleutians Project Description Tica False Pass currently produces all their electricity from diesel generators and heating from burning fossil fuels. Analysis by Marsh Creek LLC confirms that, despite the ample Class 4 wind resource, a Class 3 S designation is most appropriate. Turbulence from complex terrain precludes a typical rural Alaskan wind project. This project proposes feasibility completion funding to 1) fully assess commercially available wind turbines for deployment in high turbulent locations and 2) expanding available wind resource data at the 10 meter height on proposed sites and 3) revised Conceptual Design Report (CDR) recommending the best turbine to proceed to design in Round 8. Vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) are potentially a mechanically and economically sound upgrade to False Pass’s current diesel generator system. This project will consider ten (10) 5 kW Kelso VAWTs in comparison to the use of either the Xzeres Skystream and Bergie options. The CDR recommendations will closely examine three potential turbines and research other potential options. The Vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) are potentially a mechanically and economically sound upgrade to False Pass’s current diesel generator system. This project will consider ten (10) 5 kW Kelso VAWTs in comparison to the use of either the Xzeres Skystream and Bergie options. This project seeks feasibility funding for the False Pass wind project. The feasibility funding would allow for further site testing of wind resources at the proposed system height of 10M and heat recovery analysis. Conceptual Design Report Updates will include additional HOMER analysis with wind resource data at the 10M height, Down East Heat Recovery modeling, WASP modeling, wind turbine profiles, revised economic analysis and recommendations. EA Review Comments and Recommendation Full Funding - Special Provision The City of False Pass Electric Utility, applying as a local government, proposes feasibility and conceptual design work to determine the advisability of installing wind turbines on the False Pass electrical grid. This work will augment feasibility and conceptual design work already performed under a Round 4 Renewable Energy Fund Grant #7040051. The results of the Round 4 grant demonstrated that the False Pass wind regime contains enough energy to create a feasible wind project but, due to complex terrain, has high turbulence. The applicant proposes to continue wind and electrical data collection to investigate other locations in False Pass for a less turbulent wind regime and better understanding of community loads. The applicant proposes to then revise the existing Conceptual Design Report based on the aggregate findings. Recommend full funding with the special provision that Wind Resource Assessment(s) and Feasibility Study be accepted by AEA prior to the allocation of Conceptual Design funds. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $52,050 pas ay mi / Ril Requested Grant Funds: $47,050 . g ided: 5,000 Ser eM mM Matched Funds Provided HN $5, S-37 Bethel/Aleutians AEA Funding Recommendation: $47,050 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 78 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (mm ENERGY AUTHORITY op #1080 False Pass ; Standard Application. ; Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Proposer: City of False Pass Electric Utility Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Josh Craft Energy Region: Aleutians Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis ar ; Lm», Criterion (Weight) Score ] \ } & zo 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 22.45 | 46.33 0.61 | A 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 9.00 | j ibili : Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Tel from Stage 2 (Max 20) 9.27 cack 100) ‘Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.50 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 0.38 yo > Sm / \ / \ 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 / 55 ) ( 5) 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 1.67 Vy ey a Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) No apparent DMLW managed lands or permit requirements according to the provided project description. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards. 116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 79 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT ja ALASKA. (@mmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY #41081 Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Study Standard Application — Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Helen Traylor : a E Region: Railbelt Project Description nergy Region The project is the performance of a reconnaissance study to provide a preliminary assessment of the viability of a WtE plant in Anchorage. Other than some recyclables that are recovered prior to disposal, municipal solid waste (MSW) in Anchorage is largely disposed of in the municipal landfill. The quantity of refuse currently being disposed of in this manner is approximately 330,000 tons per year. There may also be an opportunity to incorporate other fuel, such as wood being disposed of in local woodlots. WE plants, while somewhat rare in the U.S., are very popular, efficient and environmentally effective in many European and Asian countries. If feasible, a WtE plant would be expected to provide energy, environmental, reliability, economic and community benefits Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Inc. request funding for a reconnaissance study to provide a preliminary assessment of the viability of a waste to energy project in Anchorage. A portion of the municipal solid waste minus recyclables that currently goes to the Anchorage landfill would be used as fuel for the plant. AEA supports the concept of utilizing municipal solid waste as an energy source. The first step in clearly understanding the viability of a waste to energy project is a comprehensive assessment of the fuel resource availability. CEA has provided a match of $100,000 toward this effort. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow Chugach Electric Association (CEA) to make an informed decision about pursing a waste to energy project in Anchorage. AEA recommends partial funding of $50,000. Funding & Cost Project Cost: Cost of Power: $0.15 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $150,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $100,000 Election District: BEEEEEE a 7 ; x ee K-22 Taku AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 80 of 89 __Waste to Energy Reconn Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Helen Traylor Energy Region: Railbelt Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis tad om a. a» 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 6.78 1.34 } Sy 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 | i ibili 12.30 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 0.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 8.25 [ La. = | fi \ A 6) Local Support (Max 5) 2.00 L257 { 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 4.00 way payee Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) DNR/DMLW lands will not be affected by the feasibility study. The application mentions possible evolution of the current project, so if structures are to be built under this grant, re-assessment may be needed with better location information. If the project is entirely on Chugach Electric Corporation's land in Anchorage, no DNR/DMLW lands will be affected. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by Chugach Electric Association is for a reconnaissance study to determine the feasibility of developing a waste to energy system for electricity generation. The waste to energy system would be located in Anchorage and utilize a portion of the approximately 330,000 tons of refuse disposed in the municipal landfill. At this time it is not known if the project is sustainable relying solely on the landfill. Annual usage of refuse will be determined in this study. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 81 of 89 = ‘ @mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom j inti Energy Region: Railbelt Project Description Ee As a condition of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission {FERC) relicensing of the Cooper Lake plant in 2007, Chugach agreed to construct a project to divert water from Stetson Creek into the Cooper Lake reservoir and a related structure to release water into Cooper Creek. The project will enhance fish habitat and add water to Cooper Lake which will result in additional hydroelectric energy generation. Most importantly, constructing this project allows the license for the Cooper Lake hydro facility to be renewed for 50 years. Chugach Electric Association requests $3,453,920 to complete construction of the Stetson Creek Diversion to Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project. Project will add 6,020,000 kWh annually. It will also provide environmental benefits for increase in 1) water temperature and 2) increase flows at upper reaches of Cooper Creek to enhance fish habitat. Bids were opened on 9/28/12 and construction is underway. Project cost is $21,772,523. CEA received funds in Round 4 (#674) for $576,080 for design and permitting and a State appropriation for $5,825,000 in FY13 for construction. The project applied for funding in Round 6 but failed to score within the funding limit. CEA will continue to seek grant funding and finance any cost in excess of grant amounts. Construction of this project satisfies the Settlement Agreement established in support of the FERC re-license of Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project, which, along with this diversion, has annual energy of 48,000,000 kWh. Recommend full funding. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $21,772,523 Cost of Power: $0.15 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $3,453,920 Price of Fuel: /gal Election District: N-28 North Kenai $13,591,226 2283453020) 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 82 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT j= ALASKA... (@m> ENERGY AUTHORITY ; Standard Applicatio Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Railbelt Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weight) Score hE» ZA. oN i } \ 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 6.78 0.89 | sg 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 | i ibili 18.87 Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio 3) pies Fey from Stage 2 (Max 20) (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 5.00 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 12.87 ese memes LE a 6) Local Support (Max 5 ( \ o> ) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 68.52 | {45.4 1 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 j | Voy "seems neg —— Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 100) Project may involve an RS2477 trail. Applicant must apply to DNR/DMLW for any clearing, grading, or other road development within the route. This RS2477 trail is catalogued under casefile # RST 619, Stetson Creek Trail. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 83 of 89 Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of King Cove Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom i inti Energy Region: Aleutians Project Description tgy Region This project will be a modest, run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility using Waterfall Creek and consisting of a concrete diversion /intake structure, 4,500’ HDPE penstock pipeline, 16’X40’ metal powerhouse on a concrete slab, Pelton Impulse Turbine and induction generator, remote-automatic control system, and 5,000” access road. This facility will be a working partner to the City’s existing and highly successful Delta Creek hydroelectric project, which has been operating for the last eighteen years. City of King Cove requests an additional $800,000 to construct the 1 MW run-or-river Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project. The City was awarded a $200,000 grant (#887) in Round 5 to complete permitting and final design for Waterfall Creek and $2,600,000 (#929) in Round 6 for construction. Permitting, final design, site control, and bidding all remain incomplete. AEA supports this request though notes that permitting, final design, construction cost estimate, and bidding are not complete at this time. Special conditions include completion of all grant requirements for #887 and demonstration of site control. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $5,500,000 Cost of Power: $0.28 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $800,000 Price of Fuel: /gal Election District: S-37 Bethel/Aleutians Matched Funds Provided: $1,900,000 endat 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 84 of 89 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT y= ALASKA (@mmmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard App at on | Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction Proposer: City of King Cove Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Aleutians Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (Weiaht) Score o | yX 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 12.26 1.87 Ww 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 14.23 ie a atl Weal ices Ratio 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.83 Project Rank 5) Benefits (Max 15) 7.62 / MEER ms y oN 6) Local Support (Max 5) 5.00 34 (| 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 5.00 | { 2 | eo | Stage 3 Total Weight Statewide (out of 86) Region Rank DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments (out of 10) an No apparent DMLW lands or permit requirements beyond the Water Use Permit self-reported by applicant in the project description. DNR resources do not currently identify Waterfall Creek as navigable. If this determination changes, infrastructure proposed for installation on the creekbed may need to be evaluated for additional lease or easement authorizations by SCRO. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone. Consider tsunami hazards. 11612014 8:10:38 AM Page 85 of 89 , . Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT = ALASKA. #41084 Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Standard Applicat Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon Proposer: Ram Valley, LLC Applicant Type: IPP Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Project Description Energy Region: Rallbelt The proposed project is a run-of-river hydroelectric project located on private property along Juniper Creek, a tributary of Eagle River about 10 miles upstream from the Glenn Highway. The proposed project would include an intake/diversion structure at approximately the 1900-foot elevation and powerhouse at the 1500- foot elevation. The design flow is estimated at 10 to 20 cfs, for an estimated installed capacity of 250 to 500 kW. Participation of adjacent downstream property owners would increase the available head from 400 feet to either 900 feet or 1,100 feet if one or two adjacent land owners were to participate. This would increase installed capacity to as much as 1,300 kW. The adjacent landowner is open to discussion, but questions the resource and impacts. Results of the feasibility study are expected to encourage local support and participation. mendation Ram Valley LLC requests funds for reconnaissance study of a hydroelectric project on Juniper Creek. The run-of-river project is located in high alpine terrain near Mile 10 of the Eagle River valley. Ram Valley LLC would sell Juniper Creek Hydroelectric power to Matanuska Electric Assoc. as an IPP. Several different development options are proposed for the project from 250 to 1,300 kW, some of which involve private landowners not currently committed to the project. The project would generate seasonally as proposed. AEA recommends funds for a reconnaissance study. Special conditions: In the course of conducting the reconnaissance study, explore and define the project scheme and obtain commitments from involved landowners. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $2,350,000 Cost of Power: $0.15 /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $35,750 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $35,750 i So TO Election District: M-26 Eagle River Valley 4116/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 86 of 89 Alaska Renewable » Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT #1084 Ju Resource: Hydro Proposer: Ram Valley, LLC Applicant Type: IPP Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) 6.61 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) 15.00 3) Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (Max 20) 14.63 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) 2.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) 11.25 6) Local Support (Max 5) 4.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) 3.83 DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DNR/DMLW lands affected. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments @mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Application Proposed Project Phase: Recon Program Manager: Audrey Alstrom Energy Region: Railbelt Economic Analys's La ‘ 3.49 Ce Stage 2 Total Weight Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio (out of 100) (Applicant) (AEA) ae tenes ae LEE: { © © we (out of 86) Region Rank Stage 3 Total Weight (out of 100) DNR/DGGS General Comments (permanent construction sites and potential geohazards) All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Consider seismic ground motions from the Aleutian subduction zone and Castle Mountain fault. 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 87 of 89 7 ’ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 7 - DRAFT yee ALASKA... (@mmi> ENERGY AUTHORITY Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction Proposer: Natergak Light Plant, City of Chefornak Applicant Type: Local Government Program Manager: Projec t Descrip an Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim This project consists of the installation and integration of 5 each Windmatic 175 turbines 95 kWe wind turbines (490 kW) into the Naterqak Light Plant diesel power grid. The integration of this wind energy includes the installation of load balancing boiler, 40 residential electric thermal storage (ETS) units, wind diesel supervisory control and data acquisition system (WDSC), and improvements to the electrical distribution system which include sectionalizing, the replacement of 3 power poles and one distribution transformer, as well as the extension of the distribution by 3 power poles to the wind site. The proposed system is similar to those installed in the neighboring villages of Kongiganak, Kwigillingok and Tuntutuliak. Ineligible for further review because the applicant did not provide a conceptual design report 30 days prior to the application deadline as required and identified in Sections 1.12, 2.5 and Section 4 of the Request for Grant Applications dated July 2, 2013. Section 4 of RFA, page 26 7. Wind applications requesting Phase III (Final Design and Permitting) or Phase IV (Construction, Commissioning, Operation and Reporting) funding will submit documentation necessary to demonstrate the fulfillment of all requirements for earlier phases of the project identified in Section 2 of the RFA [i.e. Phase IT (Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design) or Phase III (Final Design and Permitting)] 30 days prior to the application deadline. Funding & Cost Project Cost: $4,358,784 Cost of Power: /kWh Requested Grant Funds: $4,308,784 Price of Fuel: /gal Matched Funds Provided: $50,000 Election District: iecaeiecianarcanotciiossins R-36 Dillingham/Illiamna AEA Funding Recommendation: 1/6/2014 8:10:38 AM Page 88 of 89 ~ Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 Standard Applications Recommended Projects Biofuel Geothermal Hydro Hydrokinetic Solar PV Storage of Renewable Transmission Wind Major Roads (<3 Energy Regions The State of Alaska makes no expressed or implied warranties (including warranties of merchantability and fitness) with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of data portrayed by this product or its appropriateness for any user's purposes. Map prepared by AEA EnergyData/GIS. For additional information on AEA Energy Programs visit www.akenergyauthority.org PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1-05-14 ey AO 0 Aleutians » ae f : F <a SR ees gr a eaea nies Agenda Ttem art Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Weekly Report for the Week of March 6, 2011 Production Overview Actual Change Previous Change Previous Week/Same Year _Year/Same Week Electricity "577,481 173,419 ect iY Electricity not 29 -3.93 Wind power ; 15,707 Wind | am Diesel power 571,439 189,198 Bese po - Diesel ERT 14.66 PH C9117" 2219 TET SOMO OO MO OUUABOUUONOON | ENVANMOMERPLYNONOENRNOAOIY SOGRRENOA MONI NRONDDD AE UU ebb |. [=Total Produced] Si : _ [Total Delivered 0 i i i i i i Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Mar—-09 Mar—10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 System Health Overview Actual Change From Change Previous Previous Week Year/Same Week "= Mean 60.13. 0.12 N/A jE 5 AMIE 8 ARDS 3 AC RS - Max 60.51 0.08 N/A Power Factor -Std.Dev. 0.0151 =Ssi(‘(<‘«‘«é«‘CS NC “N/A 3 0.552 1.551 N/A 277.20 -0.32 N/A - Max 289.84 9.30 N/A PEAS EE aS Vol B-N - Std. Dev. 0.631 -0.128 N/A - Min 261.74 2.01 N/A - Mean 276.03 0.10 N/A - Max 289.84 8.03 N/A Voltage Imbalance [% - Std. Dev. 0.01 -0.01 N/A - Min 0 0 N/A © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 a _ — 4 2 S a System Frequency [Hz] B » oa Oo 59F 7 i i i i i i Mar-—06 Mar-07 Mar—08 Mar-09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-—12 Mar-13 Power Factor o 9 9 N @® © S 2) Mar-06 Mar-—07 Mar-—O08 Mar-O09 Mar—10 Mar-11 Mar-—12 Mar-13 0. ° So eS = ® ° c 8 © Q £— © a © es S > ° io mn) nae 0 Mar-06 Mar—07 Mar—08 Mar-09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Interruption of Service (Outages) None. Would list all interruptions and their individual duration. © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Diesel Generator 3 Caution No active cautions. Warning No active warnings. Alert Data Channels not recording: - Fuel usage - Low Oil Pressure - Volts A-B UGeneraliinforma tion MUU CAEL LUE EE Actual Change Previous Change Previous Week/Same Year _Year/Same Week Run time [h] 166 N/A Energy produced 38,043 10,674 (*) N/A [kWh] Capacity Factor 47.7 13.4 (*) N/A [%] Total Fuel Used N/A N/A N/A [gal] Total Efficiency 14.33 BAG N/A [kWh/gal] Efficiency when = 14.52 -0.10 N/A delivering power [kWh/gal] Engine lowly 0.84 -2.95 N/A loaded [h] Engine 0 0 N/A overloaded [h] 500F “4 = 400 a aan x g 300 o & 200 S © 100} OF Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Mar-09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Wind Turbine Generator 1 Caution No active cautions. Warning No active warnings. Alert Data Channels not recording: - Voltage C-N General Information Actual Change Previous Change Previous Week/Same Year _Year/Same Week Run time [h] 152533 -7.94 N/A Energy produced 1,036 -2,704 N/A [kWh] Energy Expected 1,105 -- N/A [kWh] Capacity Factor 6.20 -16.10 N/A [%] RPM - Mean 38.21 -7.84 N/A - Max 58.92 -0.61 N/A got} ° Turbine output : 4 —— Theoretical Output a o T WTG 1 Power [kW] bb Oo 0 2 4 6 8 10 Wind speed [m/s] © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Note: This document is a mock-up data report is for illustrative purposes only. Additional data channels and calculated values can be added, or existing removed as desired, as long as pertinent data is recorded at a given location. The intended audience of this report format is utility management and powerhouse operators. This report is based on data from the SCADA at the Unalakleet Village Electric Coop’s powerhouse. Prepared by Dr. Marc Mueller-Stoffels, mmuellerstoffels@alaska.edu, 01/02/2014 © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed.