HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting agenda and minutes 11-8-2013= ALASKA...
mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Alaska Energy Authority
813 W. Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK
Tuesday, November 8, 2013
10:00am to 2:00pm
AEA Board Room
AGENDA
1. Call to Order Beltrami
2. Roll Call (Committee Members, Staff, Public, Phone)
3. Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes)
4. Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions)
5. Approval of Meeting Minutes - November 15, 2012
6. Review Round 6 Evaluation Methodology Skaling
7. Review AEA Round 6 Recommendations Skaling
8. Next Meeting Date Beltrami
9. Adjournment Beltrami
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044
Draft Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
November 15, 2012, 10:00 am
Alaska Energy Authority Board Room
813 W. Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, Alaska
a: Call to Order
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 10:05 a.m., with
Chairman Vince Beltrami presiding.
2. Roll Call
Committee Members
Chairman Vince Beltrami; Chris Rose; Brad Reeve; Representative Bill Thomas (phone);
Senator Bert Stedman.
AEA Staff
Sean Skaling; Shawn Calfa; Alan Baldivieso; Doug Ott; Josh Craft; Emily Binnian; Karin St.
Clair; Chris Gobah ;Jed Drolet ;Nick Szymoniak ;Audrey Alstrom; Deborah Vo; Rich Stromberg;
Helen Traylor; May Clark ;Teri Webster; Yolanda Inga
Other Participants in person
Julie Estey, Alaska Center for Power and Energy (ACEP); Wyn Menefee (Department of Natural
Resources); Donovan Walker, Accu-Type Depositions.
Other Participants via phone
Chris Badger and David Hill, Vermont Energy Investment Corp (VEIC); Representative Paul
Seaton; Louie Flora, Representative Seaton's Office; Pat Walker and Sandy Burd, Senator
Hoffman's Office.
3. Public Comments
No public comments were made.
4. Agenda Comments
No comments on the agenda were made. The agenda is approved as presented.
53 Approval of meeting minutes - May 9, 2012 and June 14, 2012
MOTION: Mr. Rose moved to approve the meeting minutes from May 9, 2012, Renewable
Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded by Mr. Reeve. The minutes were
unanimously approved.
MOTION: Mr. Rose moved to approve the meeting minutes from June 14, 2012,
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded by Mr. Reeve. The
minutes were unanimously approved.
6. Impact Evaluation Report, Vermont Energy Investment Corp.
Renewable Energy rund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5
November 15, 2012
Mr. Skaling stated AEA retained the services of Vermont Energy Investment Corporation to
evaluate the Renewable Energy Fund through the process evaluation and the impact evaluation
report.
Mr. Hill and Mr. Badger, from Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, gave a PowerPoint
presentation.
Mr. Rose requested the leverage number be included in either of the tables on pages seven or
11 in the executive summary. Mr. Rose asked Mr. Badger to give an example of how the PCE
program would pay less to a community after the community installs a renewable energy project
under the program. Mr. Badger said in order to understand the PCE payments to the
community, that they are really looking at the cost of the diesel in order to generate the
electricity that would go to the residential or community facilities. He gave the example of a
renewable energy project that is generating electricity and offsetting the use of diesel, that is
reducing the cost of the electricity within that community and because of that, it will reduce the
percentage that the PCE program needs to offset in order to bring their annual rate down.
Mr. Rose asked Mr. Hill if the projected return on investment ratio is expected to increase. Mr.
Hill stated it is designed to improve over time and there is a potential for significant long-term
benefits. Mr. Badger noted there is a wide disparity of performance across the different
renewable energy sectors.
Mr. Rose asked if EIA projections for oil prices are being used in their cost and benefit analysis.
Mr. Badger stated the EIA projections are being used, as well as local data by community.
Senator Stedman asked Mr. Hill for a clarification of how oil is valued in the analysis and what
discount factors are being used. Mr. Hill said the values used in the cost/benefit analysis are
consistent with the values ISER and AEA uses for the project evaluation. He said they are not
using any discount factors for this study. Mr. Hill stated the future escalation rate is driven off
the EIA projects, but ISER also provides significant data on a community specific energy cost
information.
Senator Stedman asked what discount value are they using in the net present value calculation.
Mr. Badger stated a discount rate of 3% is used in the total resource cost and the participant
tests. Mr. Skaling requested Mr. Szymoniak, AEA economist, address the question. Mr.
Szymoniak confirmed the discount rate of 3% is used in the ISER analysis as well. He stated
the oil price forecast is different for each community, but it is driven off of crude oil prices by the
EIA. He said it starts at about $110 in 2014/2015 and escalates a couple of dollars a year.
Mr. Rose recommended AEA continue tracking and reporting the levelized costs. He suggested
combining all the different recommendations throughout the report into one place. This could be
an appendix to the report. Mr. Reeve agreed there needs to be a section in the report that
summarizes all of the recommendations.
Senator Stedman asked Mr. Badger if the net present value factors are related back to the
village customer's actual bill they receive. Mr. Badger stated it is a different case for each
community, but it is offsetting the cost of diesel or thermal generation within the community. He
said the savings are reflected in different ways as the electricity is offset. Mr. Hill stated there is
a participant test at the community level and for the residents who are eligible for PCE support
may not see that much of a change in their annual energy bill as a result of the project. The
‘ Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5
November 15, 2012
project will potentially reduce the PCE payments to a particular community and will add
significant savings benefits for those community members who are not eligible for the PCE
rates.
Mr. Rose suggested Mr. Hill and Mr. Badger graphically represent the difference between
stabilizing costs and lowering costs. Mr. Rose stated the intent is to keep costs from going up
by displacing the amount of diesel being used, which is subject to volatile market prices. He
said it could be useful to show how those stabilized prices benefit the community. Mr. Rose
suggested another graphic that breaks down the 5.1 million dollars in reduced PCE payments
and shows which communities have been impacted.
Mr. Rose asked if there were any particular concerns or recommendations regarding the
number of grant agreements that have not been reached. Mr. Badger stated that was
addressed in the process evaluation. He said Mr. Skaling could talk about their efforts with
these issues.
Mr. Rose also asked if it was worth comparing the leverage in the program with other programs
around the country. Mr. Badger said he could look at the data and see if there are any other
examples of studies that have focussed on the amount of leverage funds within their program.
Mr. Hill stated many renewable markets are seeing the ability to move the market with roughly
25% of the installed cost. He said it is possible for states to put a dollar on the table and to be
leveraging roughly 3/4 of the installed cost. Mr. Hill believes the incentives required in the form
of state funds might be somewhat reduced as the market becomes more sophisticated, grows
and is shown to be operational and cost effective.
Mr. Reeve asked for clarification regarding the levelized cost of energy and how it doesn't
capture the relative scale of benefits and costs associated with each project. Mr. Badger said a
levelized cost of energy doesn't identify whether the data is from a very small-scale project or a
larger utility-scale project. He stated the reason to look at present value costs and benefits is
that it shows an overall scale of what the economic savings and costs are for the state. Mr.
Badger stated if an evaluation was performed strictly based on comparing levelized costs of
energy, the total net benefits would not be 500-million-dollars. The cost comparison would be
between a small wind turbine, a medium-scale wind turbine and a large wind turbine. He said
that further context is needed to help give a sense of the overall impacts to the state economy.
Mr. Badger stated the levelized cost of energy is a helpful metric and has value, but it doesn't
give the magnitude effect of the associated total net benefits and costs.
Representative Thomas asked if the study was done before the Governor signed the current 10-
year renewal bill. Mr. Badger said it was completed before the recent renewal bill and that
needs to be reflected in a footnote or other appropriate place in the report.
Te RE Fund Round 6 Update
Mr. Skaling stated evaluations are currently ongoing and gave an update on that process.
Chairman Beltrami asked how many projects have been disqualified. Mr. Skaling said two were
ineligible and therefore disqualified.
Senator Stedman asked Mr. Skaling if the low scoring of geothermal in this analysis will be
taken into consideration during the evaluation. Mr. Skaling stated the economic evaluation
levels the playing field for everyone.
Renewable Energy 1 uud Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5
November 15, 2012
Mr. Rose asked what kinds of assessments will be made to the operational projects since they
have been performing less than expected. Mr. Skaling stated adjustments have already been
made to the economic model to account for some of that.
Mr. Reeve asked Mr. Skaling to explain the methodology used to address economic variables in
the evaluation process. Mr. Skaling stated the review consists of taking the information the
applicant provides and combining it with additional current information from AEA.
Mr. Rose asked Mr. Skaling if regional planning is going to impact how competing projects
within a community are viewed. Mr. Skaling stated there is an area of scoring in the process
guidelines that relates to the Alaska energy plan. He recommends changing that language to
the current regional energy plan. Mr. Skaling said there is at least one community that is
addressing this issue currently.
Chairman Beltrami asked for more specifics regarding the Stetson Creek Diversion project as it
relates to the existing main hydro projects. Mr. Ott, hydro program manager for AEA, stated the
Stetson Creek project came about during a settlement agreement that was reached in
conjunction with the relicensing of Cooper Lake. This was a condition to Chugach Electric's
license renewal with FERC. Mr. Rose asked Mr. Ott to explain the goals of the project. Mr. Ott
stated the project diverts water from Stetson Creek into Cooper Lake, which increases the
volume of water the Cooper Lake hydro turbines can utilize. Mr. Ott said this project allows for
lake water to fill the upper regions of Cooper Creek, which will improve the spawning and
rearing habitat for the salmon there.
Mr. Rose requested AEA prepare for a discussion of the remaining recommendations to the
program before the next round begins. Mr. Rose suggested the program managers of the
different technologies give presentations to the Committee. Mr. Rose stated if the EETF does
not get funded this year, then wave, tidal, river hydrokinetic power are in a state of limbo and it
will then have to be determined if they will continue.
8. NEXT MEETING DATE
The next meeting was scheduled for January 10th, 2013.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:03 p.m.
KRWF
Kenai River Watershed Foundation, Inc. 907-595-2129
P.O. Box 815, Cooper Landing, Alaska 99572 kenailake@arctic.net
December 27, 2012
Yolanda Inga
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard By email: <yinga@aidea.org>
Anchorage, AK 99503
Public Comment: Renewable Energy Grant Recommendation Program--Impact
Evaluation Report
Dear Ms. Inga:
This renews ongoing Kenai River Watershed Foundation, Inc. (KRWF) concerns
about how the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Fund (REF)
Grant Program is administered.
A qualified reviewer quickly realizes that AEA is an Energy Authority in name
only. AEA simply functions as a once-removed funding dispensary for
Legislature-directed alternative energy appropriations.
The Impact Evaluation Report is presented as a qualified, un-biased,
independent program review. However, qualifications are not stated and bias is
apparent, which contradicts independence. It is recognized that the evaluation
report is intended to blunt very strong public criticism received over the past five
(5) years. Thousands of words filed with state and federal agencies document
public criticism, which is also strongly supported by testimony and the media.
After experiencing such criticism, the word "impact" in this report is now being
deceptively represented as positive and desirable.
This misrepresented independent evaluation is simply a biased, self-serving
whitewash of the AEA REF program. No critical words about negative public
impacts are included, nor are critical words about AEA program failings.
“Recommendation” has been uniquely added to the program title of the report to
defocus critical attention on AEA.
Out of great concern that negative public impacts are being perpetuated by this
biased program evaluation, KRWF stakeholders will continue to insist on
accountability by AEA and the Legislature. Public policy cannot be redefined in
this manner.
AEA : Kenai River Watershed Foundation, Inc.
REF Program Evaluation December 26, 2012
KRWEF stakeholders are keenly sensitive about the expensive defensive burden
caused by multiple hydroelectric proposals funded by AEA and the Legislative
over the past five years. Stakeholders will not allow our natural area to be
irreversibly industrialized by such projects, or the integrity of the Kenai River to
be placed at risk.
Systematic problems at AEA are evident from its long-term indifference to valid
concerns and risks that stakeholders have repeatedly raised. A truly
independent REF program evaluation would have recommended restructuring of
AEA.
I. L ;
/s/ Robert L. Baldwin, President
Kenai River Watershed Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 815
Cooper Landing, AK 99572-0815
<kenailake@arctic.net>
cc: AIDEA Board
Legislative Budget & Audit Committee
Select Media
bins Heat Recovery Project
[Galena Community Wood Heat Project
Pacwoans ——_____] 929 | Waterall Creek Hy rodecrie Projet Southeast] 917 [Be Lake pdroclectne Expansion Prgeat__———=d ay & Borough of Sia (CBD fino] 9250 200] z0z] ara]
interior Regional Housing Authonty Native Village of Tuntutuliak Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc (City of Chuathbaluk [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. ydaburg City Schools
iL
Bering Straits ‘948 [Wales Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project en oe
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim ISt. Mary's / Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Project
ee |Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project Southeast] 96 [Coffman Cove Hydropower ne Extension [i of Coffman Cove RRailbele 924 |Seward Schools Biomass Heating System Kodiak FRailbelt
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Statewide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6
Post Stage 4 Regional Spread DRAFT January 8, 2013 le 5.00 3 2) 3) I 2 & 8 3 debe slals ala] 3] 4] 8) 67.00 3 8 &| 3 eles else eel al a a 2 3 ee ~ SISISISIS: y g z eee EEL Ltd 15.87
18.80 5|8 [Hydro 79.33 12.44 15.00 fae — or] ss] oy Taso] —143[ _105[ 2896] 000] Tisof 122] 137] zava] 525] 62.00 6.00
5.25] 11.93
9.00] 1233
1034] 9.00] 18.00 [ex 00|
2
217
3.50
267 rlele 3] 3/5 3] 3/8 Bla} = rls 318 els 5 4.00
= o>
@@mm ENERGY AUTHORITY He ‘lh
|__ $10,000] $14,654,031] $10,000f_ fRecon
[Fullsp [$132,600] $14.7 6,631] Nees ane eS oe Set ft [Constructon |
|Construction
| 63.03 | $23,808,913] $3,453,920] $17,343,267] Full $3,453,9. $31,913,452] [| __$3,453,920[Construction —_| a a ED 62.09 $75,000] $32,583,222] SSM Se WS Reet | Feasibility
60.85 $199,863] $32,783,085] $178,645 |Designonstriction
$6,153,991 $5,538,592] $38,321,677] 3463.21 7
$150,
3 z cle Pe elle als 3] BIS|S 8] 8] 8) | B|E z
$1,267,
58.
92
57.91
BEBE g B/E [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana
wi
e}ely 8/38/8
[Lower Yukon Kuskokwim [955 [Se Marys / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction Proj [sez [Manckoak Wind & ent Fasbiy Stay [Nanokowk PowerCompany [Wind
* if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, funding amount for #930 would be reduced by 3,459,532
** If the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, funding amount for #926 would be reduced by $784,595
5724 50,000}
$7,500)
g pv » rinlolale & 8} 8] 5} 8] 5) y le
naref Wind Enerpy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project
juniper Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Olzl= TEA: | * ¢ a F 5] A & z a : i ie ele] S]S [sls] 213/3[221818 =) S/EISTEIE ey = : / a 3) e g § Northwest Arctic Borough el ale eee | AT 3 a s eel Elea ella [i E f i ska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc
[Ram Valley LLG) (City of Saxman ‘airbanks North Star Borough (FNSB)
laska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. ‘ 2 e 31S) 8) 3]8]5) [Shungnak Solar Energy Construction Project [Atka Wind Power Project Igiugig Wind Turbine Design Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project [Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal IKipnuk Wind Diesel Power Generation and Heating Design and Construction of Biomass Systems in Interior Villages
|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim FYukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana
[Chugach Electnc Association, Inc [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. ae li 3 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Statewide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6
Post Stage 4 Regional Spread DRAFT January 8, 2013 cealltsle: sell Ble 31 8 cleleleletel eleleteletefeletele clelels{ele 5 ale el
Ps00] 935] saz] | saves] s5,e9e7] s2s0000] Falls $3:199.387] gsagsaoma]___——*Y—_—stauoonl 3,005,381] Desgnonsmicon |
500] 303] saz] [$1,530,000] $142,500] $7,500 Full | $142,500] $54,151,482] $142,500) Feasibility
|__| $2,040,000] $142,500] $7,500] Full $142,500] __ $54,473,982] stazsoof YT feasibiry
[J $350,000f$350,000f Partial $250,000] $55,806,482] TT $250,000]Construction | fp s6e5[ [$51,360] $41,360[ $10,000f Full $41,360] $55,927,842] s41360f I easibiliyftecon |
1.67 [7 482 [[ $10,000,000f $213,750] $11,250] Full sp] $213,750] $56,474,002] san3.750f TF Feasibiicy 1.00] 4459 [_T $140,000,000] $236,000] $84,000] Full] __ $236,000] $56,710,002] $236,000} Feasibity | i [ara] —— | rater [rca oe $170,974) $170,974] $56,951,066] $170,974) i 2 a a 4 3 2 3 a ‘ y :
$1,530,000] $142,500}
$2,000,000] $181,000}
iElim Geothermal Resource Assessment I Feasibility False Pass Wind Energy Project
a SO
Bristol Bay Borough School District Energy Project
[Mount Makushin Geothermal Project
[Eastemn Copper Basin Geothermal Assessment
HydroPower Surplus to Stored Hydrogen Feasibility Study [Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie [Neck Lake Hydro Project
FThe Southeast Alaska Power Agency [Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) g 5
[Excursion Inlet Hydro Project- Phase II | Wrangell Power Plant Upgrade
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim [Electrical Power Lines -Westem Alaska
Tlingit Haida Regional Electric Authority Haines Borough [City & Borough of Wrangell [Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc.
* if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, funding amount for #930 would be reduced by 3,459,532
** if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, funding amount for #926 would be reduced by $784,595
Not Recommended
Not Pass Stage 2 Not Pass Stage 2 Not Pass Stage 2 Not Pass Stage 1
TET TTT eee TTT TTT ee THEE 3 3 ETT TTT TTT Teese ee is B ie &
Count
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Regional Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6
DRAFT January 8, 2013
$1,300,000] Full SP $50,000] Not Recommended
Lagoon Electric Cooperative City of False Pass Electric Utility
$5,000] Not Recommended
$5,000|Not Recommended
$540,000] Not Recommended
_| @5) | (25) 20) 5) 31.34 | 5.25 | 16.47 | 200
11.60 | 12.75 [ 16.00 | 3.00
[4.28 | 2435 [600 [ 17.47 | 3.17 |
[Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(City of Elim
IKokhanok Electnc
Lake and Peninsula Borough
essttay oa New Stuyahok Heat Recove: Southwest R
rent Bay — Bay
School District
\Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibil:
fie fe er ee aos Pas as Pa] 7497
een 4783 | 204 | 214 | 35.00 957 11.88 | 200 | 70.19 pee fo | Pt Ha 13.40
ESS ep 000] Full SP. $486,000 a $290, $3,400,000} ao] $2500] Fusp | s20qo00] $1,181,000 $10,000] sit,ooofrun $10,000 aaa
[_-$7,000}Partal | «$143,000
[Bristol Bay | 910] igiugig Wind Turbine Design [Lake and Peninsula Borough $45,000]Not Recommended
Bristol Bay Borough School District $10,000]Not Recommended
$50,000} Full SP.
[Copper River/Chugach
Kodiak oda Joo ark Teal Coun = Wind Energy S 5.00 038 5.00 [267 eS eer rn emma Tae SP Td cr [es [To se en Oa fa Seo aT a
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim.
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim_
$25,000] Full SP.
: [Paral $70,000
$170,974] Full SP_ $170,974]
7 | $668,350] jae
= Des fo ee ——_—$§_} S|
10,500] Full SP_ 0,000}
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Native Village of Tuntutuliak
eee bem oar ates Pa
[Heat Recove: a2. 67 3.64 x 5.25 16.53 2.67 | 12.75 |
5.25
$12,774] Full SP.
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim.
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim.
Heat Recovery for the Water System’ ISt. Mary's / Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Project Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim IKotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project
[City of Chuathbaluk Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $5,996] Full SP
$615,399] Full SP
$851, ae ee sc0)peetinan | $4, sussof 50,000] Construction |
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim ’s / Pilot Station Wind Eni
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim AVCP RHA a Biomass a [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim ra] er Ba g i
[Lower Yolon Kuskokwim
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
$620,200] Full SP
$250,000] Full SP
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim.
Akiak Native —— ‘Akiak IRA Council Electrical Power Lines -Westem Alaska [Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc.
of Noorvik Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc
[Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant [Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment [Hotham Peak Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV [Shungnak Solar Energy Construction Project, INoatak Wind Resource Assessment [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
INoatak IRA.
* If the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, funding amount for #930 would be reduced by 3,459,532
** if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, funding amount for #921 would be reduced by $1,037,618
$985,805) $40,000] $207,100] 000
$985,805 $74,592] $1,025,805 $40,000]
$1,232,905) a Feasibility $1,307,905] DesignConstruction — a
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Regional Ran
g and Funding Allocation - Round 6
DRAFT January 8, 2013 (qm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Seward Schools Biomass Heating System.
[Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating System Project
$3,453,920|Construction
$100,000] $1,267,464|DesignConstruction
$466,890) D
$225,000] g |OIT Inc Waste Heat Turbine Project OTT Inc_
d [Carlo Creek Hydroclectnc Project Reconnaissance Study [Native Villag |Waste-to-Energy Feasibility Study
| 44.82 | ["$10,000,000f $213,750] $11,250frunsp__ $213,750] $6,007,024f___$213,750[ Feasibil
[3529 |__| _ $7,500,000] $66,500] ____—$3,500[Partal__|__— $30,000] $6,037,024] $30,000f Recon
| 978 indian River Hydroclectnc Project Construction
$150,000] Partzal 340,000 Feasibi $6,696,494] Not Recommended Construction ay 8,000|Construction |
922 |Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project
917 [Blue Lake Hydroelectric
(City of Coffman Cove ized Organized Village of Kake [Haines Borough Pellet Heating Project, oug
$2,988,000] $332,000] Full SP 52,988,000
15,000] Full SP £000,000] Full SP 000] }13,682,000] ee VS VET [[8175,000f$175,000[___$36,000frun sp $175,000f $13,877,000] $25,000] $150,000] ConstructionDesigs
Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project
[Dimond Park Library Geothermal HVAC System
|Mahoney Lake Hydroelectnc Proyect: Phase Ill it
[Petersburg Community Heating System Retrofit Feasibil
a) 55.42 $517,000] $472,000) $45,000] Full $472,000)
[$875,000] $700,000] ___$175,000}Partial sP_|__ $300,000]
Southeast,
Son 974 Neck Lake Hydro Project
utheast
Southeast 920 |Walker Lake Hydro Feasibility Project
Southeast 964 |Excursion Inlet Hydro Project- Phase II
ec” oF era Ls]
FYukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana_| 927 [Galena Community Wood Heat Project [City of Galena [Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana__| 915 [Eagle Solar Array Project P Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana__| 933 [Biomass Feasibility Smdies in Public Facilities, Interior Region interior Regional Housing Authorit
Yukon-Koyukok/U; (Tanana Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating Project, City of Tanana
Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project [Alaska Power & Telephone Compan
AGSD District Heat Loop 5:
|} —sasaletss ——| et — pt | ae $50,000] Full SP $81,700} $701,047 $81,700]Construction
$60,000]
9: 575] Full SP_
| 983 | [ 925] 2
[ 926 JAG: Project aaa i Ceara RETR
* If the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, funding amount for #930 would be reduced by 3,459,532
** if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, funding amount for #921 would be reduced by $1,037,618
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund J=
D RA FT - Pa Fe 1 Statewide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6 =
j (@lmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Post Stage 4 Regional Spread with 25M Allocation
DRAFT January 8, 2013
(City of Tenakee Springs DBA Tenakee Springs [Hydro
|Kokhanok Electric i
Lake and Peninsula Borough INN Electric Cooperative, Inc.
| Mentasta Traditional Council
‘967 |Cold Bay Waste Heat Recovery Project |G&K Electric Utility
939 | Stebbins Heat Recovery Project [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
‘927 [Galena Community Wood Heat Project City of Galena
976 [Knutson Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting Pedro Bay Village Council
941 |Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant |City of Noorvik
937 |Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria Native Village of Kwinhagak 911 |Levelock Wind Reconnaissance Study [ake and Peninsula Borough
915 |Eagle Solar Array Project [Alaska Power Company (APO)
934 |Savoonga Heat Recovery System - Power Plant to Water Plant City of Savoonga
[Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Community Store _|City of Marshall [Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery Project Atmautluak Traditional Council
{Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project (City of King Cove Blue Lake Hydroelectric Expansion Project [City & Borough of Sitka (CBS)
[Tanana Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating Project [City of Tanana
i i [Alaska Power & Telephone Company
[Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (
* If the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, funding amount for #930 would be reduced by 4,110,191 “* If the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, funding amount for #926 would be reduced by $784,595 1
DRAFT - Page 2
(omni
7
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Statewide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6
Post Stage 4 Regional Spread with 25M Allocation
DRAFT January 8, 2013
[Recommended for Funding (Second Rank up to $50 million total) Railbelt 913 [Stetson Creek Diversion/ Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project (Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Hydro 94.00] 523] 058] 623| 15.00] 1880] 5.00] 1300{ 000| 5.00] 63.03 $23,808,913] $3,453,920[ _ $17,343,267 Fall $3,453,920 $32,564,111 $3,453,920] Construction
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 942 |Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant/Washeteria Building Native Village of Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery 71.50 1.22 1.57 28.44 5.25 14.30 3.00 TAZ 2.00 217 62.28 $438,585} $425,811 $12,774 Full SP $425,811 $32,989,922 $41,884] $383,927|DesignConstruction
Bering Straits 948 | Wales Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 6200] 104] 133] 2810] 600| 1240] 333] 375| 5.00[ 350] 6209 $1,020,000 $190,000] $10,000 Partial $375,000] $33,064,922 $75,000 Feasibility
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 936 [Heat Recovery for the Water System (City of Chuathbaluk Heat Recovery 59.67| 071] 092] 3500| 5.25| 1193] 300] 1.00] 200] 207| 085 $199,863 $199,863} $5,996} Full SP $199,863] $33,264,785 $21,218] 3178,645| DesignConstraction
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 945 |St. Mary’s / Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. | Wind 61.67 1.19 1.15 21.88 9.00 12.33, 3.50 4.50 5.00 3.67 59.88 $6,153,991 $5,538,592) $615,399] Full SP $5,538,592] $38,803,377 $5,538,592! Construction
916 |Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project Hydaburg City Schools Biomass 9000] 285] 393] 1034] 900| 1800] 300{ 1300| 200| 400| 5934 $463,216] $20,000 $5,200] Fall $20,000| $38,823,377 $20,000] Design
906 |Coffman Cove Hydropower Line Extension City of Coffman Cove | Transmission 77.00 3.52 34.74 19.88 0.00 15.40 3.00 11.63, 5.00 4.00 58.91 $175,000} $175,000} $36,000} Full SP $175,000} $38,998,377 $25,000] $150,000} |ConstructionDesign
‘924 |Seward Schools Biomass Heating System [Kenai Peninsula Borough School District (KPB| Biomass 39.00] 554] 601] 841] 600| 1780] 300] 1288] soo| 483] 5792 $1,415,234] $1,367,464 $47,770 Full SP $1,367,464] $40,365,841 $100,000| __ $1,267,464] DesignConstruction
928 | Bathymetric survey and marine geological study to refine submarine cal City of Ouzinkie Transmission 6250] 104] 104] 1812] 975] 1250] 300| 488| 500| 467| 5791 $6,129,000] $356,400 $25,000] Fall SP $356,400 $40,722,241 $356,400] Design
931 |Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating System Project Nenana City School District | Biomass 84.17 2.02 2.79 9.81 6.00 16.83 3.00 13.13, 5.00 4.00 57.77 $3,006,607 $466,890} $19,200] Full $466,890} $41,189,131 $466,890} Design
952 |Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 40.00, 0.64 0.65 32.38 6.00 8.00 2.00 0.38 5.00 3.67 57.42 $233,000} $221,350] $11,650] Partial $40,000) $41,229,131 $40,000} |FeasibilityRecon
949 |Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 39.17| 140| 099] 2578| Goo| 11.83| 150] 338] 5.00] 367[ 5715 $3,060,000 $142,500] $7,500 Full $142,500] __ $41,371,031 $142,500 Feasibility
943 |OIT Inc Waste Heat Turbine Project OIT Inc. Heat Recovery 75.33 215 215 981 14.25 15.07 1.83 12.50 0.00 2.83 56.29 $3,258,447 $1,629,223 $1,629,223] Partial SP $225,000] $41,596,631 $225,000] |ConstructionDesign
953 [Hotham Peak Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 46.83 0.56 0.63 27.13 6.00 9.37 3.50 1.13 5.00 4.00 56.12 $23,000,000} $207,100} $10,900) Full $207,100} $41,803,731 $207,100] | Feasibility
983 |Wood Heat Feasibility Stady and Conceptual Design for the Organized Organized Village of Kake Biomass 7050] 060} 060| 2701] 525| 1210] 233| 138] 5.00| 3.00] 5007 $30,700 $5,000 Full $30,700] $41,834,431 $30,700] Feasibility
965 |Haines Borough Pellet Heating Project Haines Borough Biomass 85.33 1.77 217 9.52 6.75 17.07 3.50 12.75 2.00 3.83 55.42 $517,000] $472,000} $45,000) Full $472,000} $42,306,431 $472,000] | DesignConstruction
955 |St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction Project |Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 52.17 0.92 0.86 22.75 9.00 10.43 2.67 1.13 5.00 3.50 54.48 $6,202,000} $5,581,800} $620,200} Full SP $5,581,800} $47,888,231 $5,581,800} Construction
962 |Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Study |Manokotak Power Company Wind 48.00 0.99 0.66 24.06 5.25 9.60 4.00 1.38 4.00 3.83 5212 $1,020,000} $193,000} $7,000} Partial $143,000} $48,031,231 $143,000] Feasibility
926 | AGSD District Heat Loop Project | Alaska Gateway School District | Heat Recovery 42.00 fis 0.72 1.05 21.25 6.00 8.40 2.00 1.00 5.00 4.17 47.82 $2,848,939) $2,753,364] $95,575) Full SP $2,753,364] $50,784,595} $349,621 $2,403,743] DesignConstruction
|Count = 19 $82,949,795, $23,424,977) $20,552,654 $21,674,404) $638,300) $2,078,013} $18,958,091)
2.94%) 9.59% 87.47%
921 |AVCP RHA Wood Biomass Heating System |AVCP Regional Housing Authority Biomass 61.00 0.67 0.65 2224 7.50 12.20 2.00 1.75 5.00 3.33, 54.02 $3,399,387] $3,149,387] $250,000} Full SP. $3,149,387 $53,933,982] $144,006} $3,005,381] DesignConstruction
903 |Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV_ | Northwest Arctic Borough Solar 74.17 1.21 1.21 18.25 0.00 14.83 5.00 5.88 5.00 5.00 53.96 $75,000} $75,000} Full $75,000] $54,008,982] $75,000] | DesignConstruction
956 |Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Projeq Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 55.67 0.88 1.05 25.46 6.00 11.13 2.00 0.00 5.00 3.83 53.42 $1,530,000} $142,500} $7,500} Full $142,500] $54,151,482] $142,500} | Feasibility
914 [Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project [Alaska Power & Telephone Company Hydro 50} 447] oat] 952] 1050] 1210] 200] 1138] 500] 183] 5233 $46,475,000] __ $1,752,000 $438,000] Partial $180,000 $54,331,482 $180,000] Feasibility
957 |Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 3433[ 087] 130| 2579] o00| 1087] 150| 000] 500| 207] 5183 $2,040,000} $142,500] $7,500] Full $142,500) $54,473,982 $142,500] Feasibility
954 |St. Mary’s / Mountain Village Wind Energy Intertie Final Design | Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. {Wind 45.00 0.78 0.69 24.94 6.75 9.00 2.50 0.00 5.00 3.50 51.69 $7,449,000} $332,500} $17,500} Full SP. $332,500] $54,806,482] $332,500} Design
904 {Dimond Park Library Geothermal HVAC System City & Borough of Juneau Geothermal 7617 1.68 0.60 5.29 10.50 15.23, 2.50 11.13 2.00 4.50 51.15 $875,000} $700,000} $175,000} Partial SP $300,000} $55,106,482! | $300, | DesignConstruction
975 |Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study [Ram Valley LLC Hydro. 60.00 1.48 1.55 6.23 11.25 12.00 4.83 8.13 4.00 3.00 49.43, $4,300,000} $127,900} $44,800} Partial SP $30,000] $55,136,482] $30,000} [Recon
909 [Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project: Phase Ill (City of Saxman Hydro 4933] 308] 867] 446| 1425| 987] 150] 1175] 500] 117| 4800 $51,100,000] $1,000,000] $100,000] Partial $500,000] $55,636,482 $500,000] Feasibility
959 |Ticasuk Brown School Pellet Boiler Project-Phase 2 |Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) ‘Biomass 87.17 1.80 1.80 9.81 0.00 17.43 3A7 13.00 0.00 4.50 47.01 $350,000} $350,000} Partial $250,000} $55,886,482} $250,000] Construction
907 [Petersburg Community Heating System Retrofit Feasibility Study | City of Petersburg Biomass 83] 159 446] 900] 1277] 1.17] 9.75] 5.00] 450| 4665 $51,360] 341,360 $10,000] Full $41,360) $55,927,842 $41,300 FeasibiliyRecon
947 |Marshall Wind Energy Design and Permitting Project |Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 42.67 0.79 0.85 22.27 6.75 853 2.50 0.00 4.00 250 46.55, $2,509,850} $332,500} $17,500] Full SP $332,500 $56,260,342} $332,500] [Design
902 |Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study | Native Village of Cantwell Hydro. 58.00, 243 243 9.81 3.00 11.60 2.00 11.75, 5.00 1.67 44.82 $10,000,000} $213,750} $11,250] Full SP $213,750] $56,474,092} $213,750] | Feasibility
918 [West Creek Hydroelectric Project | Municipality of Skagway Borough Hydro. 42.00 1.45 1.53 952 11.25, 8.40 1.17 8.25 5.00 1.00 44.59 $140,000,000} $236,000} $84,000] Full $236,000} $56,710,092} $236,000} | Feasibility
901 [Rarluk Tribal Council — Wind Energy System [Karluk Tribal Council Wind 217} 043] 048] 2625| 000| 503] 400] 038| 500] 207| 4393 $1,300,000] $81,000] $500] Partial $70,000] $56,780,092 $70,000] FeasibilityDesign
923 [Afognak Biomass Feasibility Study [Native Village of Afognak Biomass 37.00| 347] 322| 832] 000| 1140] 083| 1188] 5.00| 300] 4043 31,633,974] $170,974 Full SP $170,974] $56,951,066 $170,974] ReconFeasibility
977 |Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study Native Village of Cantwell Hydro 39.50 0.94 4.59 9.81 6.00 7.90 2.00 1.25 5.00 3.33 35.29 $7,500,000} $66,500} $3,500} Partial $30,000] $56,981,066] $30,000] [Recon
979 | Waste-to- Energy Feasibility Study (Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Biofuels 4567| 148] 148] 623] 675] 913] 000| 88s] 000| 350] 3448 $550,000 $150,000 Partial $40,000] $57,021,066 $40,000 Feasibility
(Count = 18 $280,588,571| _$9,463,871| $1,316,850 $6,236,471) $1,797,084 __$1,184,006| $3,255,381 30
946 |Shungnak Solar Energy Construction Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Solar 0.66 0.63 $650,000} $585,000} $65,000] Not Recommended] Construction
961 | Atka Wind Power Project City of Atka Wind $140,000} $50,000] Not Recommended] FeasibilityRecon
910 |Igmpgig ‘Wind Turbine Design Lake and Peninsula Borough Wind 0.52 121 $250,000} $205,000] $45,000] Not Recommended] Design
969 |Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project /Nelson Lagoon Electric Cooperative Wind 0.93 0.56 $218,195] $5,000] Not Recommended) Design
938 [Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal |Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (Geothermal 038] 1.06 $27,000,000] $3,485,000] Not Recommended| Feasibility
970 |Kipnuk Wind Diesel Power Generation and Heating Kipnuk Light Plant Wind 0.81 1.49 $4,067,778} $2,567,778} $1,500,000] Not Recommended) DesignConstruction
Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana | 932 [Design and Construction of Biomass Systems in Interior Villages __|Interior Regional Housing Authority Biomass 190} 147 $1,314,380] $1,314,380 $108,313] Not Recommended DesignConstructon
Bering Straits 951 [St. Michacl/Stebbins Wind Encrpy Final Design and Permitting Projec| Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind To] 1.76 $5,000,000] $332,500] $17,300] Not Recommended] Design
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 950 |Russian Mission Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind 0.52 0.89 $1,530,000} $142,500} $7,500] Not Recommended, Feasibility
[Northwest Arctic 984 |Noatak Wind Resource Assessment Noatak IRA. Wind 0.98 1.53 $2,000,000] $181,000) Not Recommended] FeasibilityDesign
Bering Straits 973 |Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment | Feasibility |City of Elim Geothermal 0.28 0.39 $10,000,000} $527,908] Not Recommended] [Recon
Aleutians 968 |False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass Electric Utility Wind 0.64 0.30 $190,195 $185,195} $5,000] Not Recommended) Design
Railbelt 960 |TidGen™ Array Project ORPC Alaska 2, LLC Other -0.01 0.01 $8,696,494] $2,000,000} $6,696,494] Not Recommended Construction
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 972 | Akiak Wind Resource Assessment |Akiak Native Community/ Akiak IRA Council |Wind 0.58 1.24 $2,000,000] $181,000} Not Recommended] Feasibility
Bristol Bay 980 | Bristol Bay Borough School District Energy Project Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar 1.45 1.06 $460,000) $45,000] $10,000} Not Recommended] |DesignConstruction
Aleutians 963 | Mount Makushin Geothermal Project ‘The Aleut Corporation Geothermal 0.49 3.13, $311,304,000) $32,464,000} $540,000] Not Recommended] \ConstructionDesignF'{
Copper River/Chugach 971 |Eastem Copper Basin Geothermal Assessment Copper Valley Development Association (Geothermal 0.68} 0.00 30 $695,950] Not Recommended] Recon
Southeast 905 |HydroPower Susplus to Stored Hydrogen Feasibility Study The Southeast Alaska Power Agency (Other 0.5 $244,385] $244,385 $5,000] Not Recommended Feasibility
Southeast 919 | Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) | Transmission 1.94 1.94 $14,510,599] $9,570,434 Not Recommended \ConstructionDesign
Southeast 974 [Neck Lake Hydro Project ‘Alaska Power Company (APG) Hydro 28.83] 074| 088 $2,777,885 $297,600] $74,400| Not Pass Stage 2 FeasibilityDesign
Southeast 920 | Walker Lake Hydro Feasibility Project Tlingit Haida Regional Electric Authority Hydro 2950| 001] 001 $690,000 $640,000] $50,000] _Not Pass Stage 2 DesignFeasibilityRecc
Southeast 964 | Excursion Inlet Hydro Project- Phase II Haines Borough Hydro 29.83 1.09 1.86 $15,900,000} $213,536] $10,000] Not Pass Stage 2 Feasibility
Southeast 958 | Wrangell Power Plant Upgrade (City & Borough of Wrangell HydroTransmission $117,136] $117,136] Not Pass Stage 1 DesignFeasibilityCon:
[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 985 | Electrical Power Lines -Western Alaska /Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc. TransmissionWind $82,000] $82,000] Not Pass Stage 1 Recon |
Subtotal Count = 24 $408,784,852| $56,435,497, $9,189,207
* if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, funding amount for #930 would be reduced by 4,110,191 ;
** If the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, funding amount for #926 would be reduced by $784,595
[= ALASKA
@@mm™ ENERGY AUTHORITY
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation
DRAFT for January 8, 2013 REFAC Meeting
Overview of Review Process
The purpose of this document is to provide a thorough description of how the Renewable
Energy Fund (REF) Round 6 applications were evaluated. This document, including the attached
Appendix A, is posted on the Alaska Energy Authority’s Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 6
webpage http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund-6.html.
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) received a total of 85 applications for Round 6 of the REF.
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 two 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,
Institute of Social Economic Research (ISER) staff, and private economists under contract to
AEA. Projects may have been recommended for partial or no 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 2014
or afterwards. That is, funds would be tied up unreasonably.
e There were competing projects for which planning is desirable
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 program 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 26 projects, the AEA Executive Director
received requests for reconsideration from eight applicants. In response to the reconsideration
requests, the Executive Director directed staff to score two of the eight proposals. As a result
AEA recommended 61 projects for partial or full funding. The third stage was a final scoring
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044
based on the specific guidelines in the RFA that was conducted by AEA staff. The scoring was
done based on a number of matrices and pre-established weighting for each of the criteria:
Cost of Energy (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%) SS as aC.) Nair 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 May 9, 2012 and on June 14, 2012 to discuss issues
including the schedule and details of the Round 6 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, and the draft RE
Fund Program Impact Evaluation Results as presented by Vermont Energy Investment
Corporation (VEIC).
Midway through review of the applications AEA staff and the Committee met on November 15,
2012 to discuss progress on the review, and the final RE Fund Program Impact Evaluation
Results as presented by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC).
Following AEA evaluation of all applications, AEA staff and the Committee met on January 8,
2013 to review the proposed recommendations, and to address requirements for achieving a
statewide balance of funds. Based on this discussion AEA finalized its recommendations.
On January 25, 2013, AEA recommendations for funding Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
projects will be submitted to the legislature for review and approval.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Page 2 of 2 DRAFT 01/08/2013
[= AbASKA— mm ENERGY AUTHORITY
Appendix A
Guidelines for Renewable Energy Fund Application Evaluation
Table of Contents
Stage 1 Review Process:
Reviewers.
Criteria...
Process...
Stage 2 Review Process:
Reviewers.
Criteria...
Process...
Stage 3 Review Process:..
Reviewers.
Criteria ..
Process..
Funding Limitations on Recommendations Sec 1.14. |
Beecrmemnnrnnere ers ee cence neenrer neritic aatmaniensngcanmnnemnanen
YUNYAAD UawWW WWND Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations. ....
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 3 Criterion Cost Of EMEIgy......ssscsssessseesssessnseesseesnesssessneesseessseesseesnnessseesssesenseensessseesnsessseesnseesnsessnessse 15
These are the Evaluation Guidelines and instructions for evaluation of the Round 6 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 in a
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:
All communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through the
Grant Administrator.
The Executive Director is the Executive Director of AEA, Deputy Directors are those
Management Personal in AEA who have program oversight for AEA programs, Program
Managers are the subject matter technical experts, and the Grant Manager is the person
responsible for overseeing the grant process for the Authority.
All applications will be reviewed using the same process and criteria established in the
RFA.
Decisions made in each stage of the review process will be documented in writing and
made a part of the grant file.
If reviewers think they may have a potential conflict of interest, (financial or personal
interest, such as friend or family members) they should inform their supervisor
immediately of the potential nature of the conflict.
Reviewers should make notes of any questions they may have about an application.
Reviewers should not contact applicants directly.
If Reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should contact
the Grant Manager. If Reviewers have technical questions they should contact the
Program Managers.
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 Manager explaining why their application has been rejected or not
recommended. Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Manager the reasons
for why the application is being rejected.
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 Manager. The Grant Manager will review the appeal with the Executive
Director, Deputy Director, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate
course of action.
Stage 1 Review Process:
All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by the Authority staff to assess
if the application is complete, meets the minimum submission requirements, and has adequate
information to proceed to Stage 2 — Technical and Economic Evaluation.
Reviewers
Grant Manager and at least one Deputy Director
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 2 01/07/2013
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 1.2).
2. The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.3).
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 1.2).
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 2.1).
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 1.2)
Process
e The Grant Manager will evaluate criteria 1-3 & 6 above.
e The Deputy Director will evaluate criteria 4-5 above.
e If it appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional
data the Deputy Director or Program Managers (PM) may make a recommendation to
the Grant Manager for additional information. The Grant Manager 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 Manager 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 Manager. The Grant Manager will review the request with the 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 Program Managers — the AEA technical subject matter experts.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 3 01/07/2013
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 ISER — University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research — is providing
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
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 a demonstration project is being proposed:
e Application in other areas of the state, or another
specific benefit of the proposed project, is likely:
ao RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 4 01/07/2013
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.
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
Program 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 Manager. The purpose of follow-up is
for clarification and to help the Program Manager gain a sufficient understanding of the
project proposed.
Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Manager to the
applicant by e-mail, Bcc to project manager, requesting a response time of 7 days or
less.
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.
The Deputy Directors, or their designee will meet with the Program Managers to review
the applications and discuss final Stage 2 scoring. Scoring per the Stage 2 criteria may
be adjusted based on final discussions between the Deputy Directors, Program
Managers, Economists, and Executive Director.
Applications may be not recommended prior to generating scores for Stage 2.
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.
Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may not
be recommended for funding or further review.
A minimum score of 35 is required for Stage 2 in order to pass to Stage 3.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application
failed Stage 2.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 5 01/07/2013
¢ 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 Manager, with staff assistance, will score the cost of energy, type and amount of
matching funds, and local support, using the formulas and methods outlined in Appendix A.
Two Deputy Directors or their designee and the Program 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.
Reviewers
e Grant Manager (Local Support and Match Criteria)
e Two Deputy Directors
e Program 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 6
Weight
Cost of energy per resident in the affected project 35
area relative to 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.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 6 01/07/2013
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 Manager 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 1.14
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.
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.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 7 01/07/2013
¢ Competing or interactive projects guidelines
co 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
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.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 8 01/07/2013
Reviewers
Grant Manager
Deputy Director
Executive Director of AEA.
Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations)
Process
Upon completion of scoring and specific project recommendations by AEA all
applications will be grouped within geographical regions.
Each group of applications will be ranked within their geographical region based on the
final Stage 3 score.
Each application will have Stage 3 score and regional rank.
A draft recommendation of projects for funding, (based on available funds) will be
presented to the Advisory Committee for Review along with the complete list of all
projects.
Consistent with the process established in rounds 1-5, 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.
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 2014 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-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 9 01/07/2013
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 A+ | The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the criteria
requirements and completely addresses them thoughtful manner.
The application addresses the criteria in a manner clearly superior to
other applications received. There is no need for additional follow-up
with the applicant to understand how they meet the requirements of
the criteria
7 B The application provides information that is generally complete and
well-supported. Evaluators may still have a few questions regarding
how the applicant meets the 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-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 10 01/07/2013
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 10
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan
(Maximum Stage Two points 5)
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?
Are these additional funds secured, or are they pending future approvals?
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 5. 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.
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
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 11 01/07/2013
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
Stage 3 Criterion Match
Total of 20 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 +| Total Amount | 5
Pts Match to total | Pts of Match (1) Pts
Grant
Request
Support of any kind referenced | 1 -01% - <5% of |1 >$1 -<$15K |1
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 12 01/07/2013
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 $15K - <$100K | 2
| project completion of Grant =
Another grant [State] as Match 3 >10% - =<15% | 4 $100K <$1 mil | 3
of Grant =
Other (Grant Fed) Or private 4 >15% - =<30% | 6 $1 mil - <$6 4
of Grant mil
Loan or Local Cash or any 5 >30% - =<49% | 8 > $6 mil 5
documented In-kind Match of Grant =
> 49% of Grant | 10
(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 or village council 2 points
Support demonstrated by local entity other than applicant 3 points
Support demonstrated by two local entities other than the applicant 4 points
Support demonstrated by three or more local entities other than the 5 points
applicant
Letters of support from legislators do not count toward this criterion.
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;
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 13 01/07/2013
such as an item with a ‘long lead time’ to procure.
Applicant has obtained all necessary permits, met all permit requirements,
and addressed all regulatory agency stipulations. 2 points
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.b).
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.
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
Grant
Alternative Energy
Solicitation (Round 0)
Round I-IV
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?
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 14 01/07/2013
Stage 3 Criterion Cost of Energy
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,
2012.
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.
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.
Res-
Energy Region | Community Utility ra
Aleutians Adak TDX Adak Generating LLC
Low Yuk-Kusk Akiachak Akiachak Native Community Electric Co 0.59
Low Yuk-Kusk Akiak City of Akiak 0.63
Aleutians Akutan City of Akutan 0.32
Low Yuk-Kusk Alakanuk AVEC 0.59
Bristol Bay Aleknagik Nushagak Electric Coop 0.40
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Allakaket/Alatna Alaska Power Company 0.85
Northwest Arctic | Ambler AVEC 0.63
North Slope Anaktuvuk Pass North Slope Borough 0.15
Railbelt Anchor Point Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Railbelt Anchorage, Municipality of Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.13
Railbelt Anchorage, Municipality of Anchorage Municipal Light & Power 0.14
Railbelt Anderson Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
Southeast | Angoon Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.62
Low Yuk-Kusk | Aniak Aniak Light & Power Company 0.72
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Anvik AVEC 0.59
Aleutians Atka Andreanof Electric Corporation 0.70
Low Yuk-Kusk | Atmautluak Atmautluak Tribal Utilities 0.70
North Slope Atqasuk North Slope Borough 0.15
North Slope | Barrow Barrow Utilities & Electric Coop 0.12
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Beaver Beaver Joint Utilities 0.65
Low Yuk-Kusk ‘| Bethel /Oscarville Bethel Utilities Corporation 0.51
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Bettles Alaska Power & Telephone Company 0.63
Railbelt Big Lake Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Bering Straits Brevig Mission AVEC 0.54
Northwest Arctic | Buckland City of Buckland 0.47
Railbelt Cantwell Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Central Gold Country Energy 0.77
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Chalkyitsik Chalkyitsik Village Energy System 0.95
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 15 01/07/2013
Low Yuk-Kusk | Chefornak Naterkaq Light Plant 0.58
CopRiv/Chug Chenega Bay Chenega IRA Council 0.44
Low Yuk-Kusk | Chevak AVEC 0.48
Railbelt Chickaloon Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Bristol Bay Chignik City of Chignik 0.47
Bristol Bay Chignik Lagoon Chignik Lagoon Power Utility 0.69
Bristol Bay Chignik Lake Chignik Lake Electric Utility, Inc. 0.67
Southeast Chilkat Valley Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.62
Kodiak Chiniak Kodiak Electric Association 0.19
CopRiv/Chug Chistochina Alaska Power Company 0.67
CopRiv/Chug Chitina Chitina Electric Inc. 0.63
Low Yuk-Kusk Chuathbaluk Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.85
Railbelt Chugiak Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Circle Circle Electric Utility 0.77
Railbelt Clam Gulch Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Southeast Coffman Cove Alaska Power Company 0.45
Aleutians Cold Bay G&K, Inc. 0.72
Railbelt College Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
Railbelt Cooper Landing Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.13
CopRiv/Chug Copper Center Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
CopRiv/Chug Copperville Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
CopRiv/Chug Cordova / Eyak Cordova Electric Cooperative Inc. 0.42
Southeast Craig Alaska Power Company 0.24
Low Yuk-Kusk Crooked Creek Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.85
North Slope Deadhorse * TDX North Slope Generating, Inc. 0.28
Northwest Arctic | Deering ** Ipnatchiaq Electric Company 0.77
Railbelt Delta Junction Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
Bristol Bay Dillingham Nushagak Electric Coop 0.40
Bering Straits Diomede (Little Diomede) Diomede Joint Utilities 0.60
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Dot Lake Alaska Power Company 0.49
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Eagle / Eagle Village Alaska Power Company 0.59
Railbelt Eagle River Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Low Yuk-Kusk Eek AVEC 0.61
Bristol Bay Egegik Egegik Light & Power Company 0.86
Railbelt Eklutna Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Bristol Bay Ekwok Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 0.71
Southeast Elfin Cove Elfin Cove Utility Commission 0.73
Bering Straits Elim AVEC 0.59
Low Yuk-Kusk Emmonak AVEC 0.56
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Evansville Alaska Power Company 0.63
Railbelt Fairbanks Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
Aleutians False Pass City of False Pass 0.51
Railbelt Ft Greely / Ft Wainwright Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Fort Yukon Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company 0.59
Railbelt Fox Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 16 01/07/2013
CopRiv/Chug | Gakona Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Galena** City of Galena | 0.56
Bering Straits Gambell AVEC 0.53
CopRiv/Chug Glennallen Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
Bering Straits Golovin Golovin Power Utilities | 0.55
Low Yuk-Kusk Goodnews Bay AVEC | 0.58
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Grayling AVEC | 0.56
CopRiv/Chug Gulkana Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
Southeast Gustavus Gustavus Electric Company, Inc. 0.45
Southeast Haines Alaska Power & Telephone Company 0.22
Railbelt Halibut Cove Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Railbelt Healy Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Healy Lake Alaska Power Company 0.81
Southeast Hollis Alaska Power Company | 0.24
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Holy Cross AVEC 0.54
Railbelt Homer Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Southeast Hoonah Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.62
Low Yuk-Kusk Hooper Bay AVEC 0.52
Railbelt Hope Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.13
Railbelt Houston Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Hughes Hughes Light & Power 0.71
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Huslia AVEC 0.55
Southeast Hydaburg Alaska Power Company 0.24
Southeast Hyder/Stewart B.C.* BC Hydro 0.09
Bristol Bay Igiugig Igiugig Electric Company 0.80
Bristol Bay | Tliamna I-N-N Electric Coop 0.59
Southeast Juneau, City & Borough of Alaska Electric Light & Power 0.12
Railbelt Kachemak Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Southeast Kake Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.62
North Slope Kaktovik North Slope Borough 0.15
Railbelt Kalifornsky Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Kaltag AVEC 0.52
Kodiak Karluk Alutiiq Power Company 0.60
Low Yuk-Kusk Kasigluk AVEC 0.53
Railbelt Kasilof Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Railbelt Kenai Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
CopRiv/Chug Kenny Lake Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
Southeast Ketchikan Ketchikan Public Utilities 0.10
Northwest Arctic | Kiana AVEC 065
Aleutians King Cove City of King Cove 0.27
Bristol Bay King Salmon Naknek Electric Assn 0.51
Low Yuk-Kusk | Kipnuk Kipnuk Light Plant 0.58
Northwest Arctic | Kivalina AVEC 0.64
Southeast | Klawock Alaska Power Company 0.23
Southeastt Klukwan Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.62
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 17 01/07/2013
Railbelt Knik-Fairview Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Northwest Arctic | Kobuk Kobuk Valley Elect Coop 0.87
Kodiak Kodiak Kodiak Electric Association 0.19
Kodaik Kodiak Station Kodiak Electric Association 0.19
Bristol Bay Kokhanok Kokhanok Village Council 0.90
Bristol Bay Koliganek New Koliganek Village Council 0.51
Low Yuk-Kusk Kongiganak Puvurnagq Power Company 0.56
Low Yuk-Kusk Kotlik AVEC 0.59
Northwest Arctic | Kotzebue Kotzebue Electric Assn 0.42
Bering Straits Koyuk AVEC 0.55
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Koyukuk City of Koyukuk 0.50
Low Yuk-Kusk Kwethluk Kwethluk Inc 0.52
Low Yuk-Kusk Kwigilingok Kwig Power Company 0.59
Kodiak Larsen Bay Larsen Bay Utility Company 0.41
Bristol Bay Levelock Levelock Electric Coop 0.70
Low Yuk-Kusk Lime Village*** Lime Village Traditional Council 1.52
Low Yuk-Kusk Lower Kalskag AVEC 0.58
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Manley Hot Springs TDX Manley Generating LLC 0.46
Bristol Bay Manokotak Manokotak Power Company 0.55
Low Yuk-Kusk Marshall AVEC 0.51
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | McGrath McGrath Light & Power Company 0.51
Railbelt McKinley Park Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
Low Yuk-Kusk Mekoryuk AVEC 0.55
CopRiv/Chug Mendeltna Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
CopRiv/Chug Mentasta Alaska Power Company 0.67
Southeast Metlakatla Metlakatla Power & Light 0.09
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Minto AVEC 0.59
Railbelt Moose Pass Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.13
Low Yuk-Kusk Mountain Village AVEC 0.55
Bristol Bay Naknek Naknek Electric Assn 0.51
Railbelt Nanwalek Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Low Yuk-Kusk Napakiak Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company 0.83
Low Yuk-Kusk Napaskiak Napaskiak Electric Utility 0.64
Southeast Naukati Bay Alaska Power Company 0.55
CopRiv/Chug Nelchina Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
Aleutians Nelson Lagoon Nelson Lagoon Electric Coop 0.77
Railbelt Nenana Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
Bristol Bay New Stuyahok AVEC 0.62
Bristol Bay Newhalen I-N-N Electric Coop 0.59
Low Yuk-Kusk Newtok Ungusrag Power Company 1.00
Low Yuk-Kusk Nightmute AVEC 0.52
Railbelt Nikiski Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Nikolai City of Nikolai 0.80
Aleutians Nikolski Umnak Power Company 0.60
Railbelt Ninilchik Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 18 01/07/2013
Northwest Arctic | Noatak AVEC 0.74
Bering Straits Nome Nome Joint Utility Systems 0.36
Bristol Bay Nondalton I-N-N Electric Coop 0.59
Northwest Arctic | Noorvik AVEC 0.62
Railbelt North Pole Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.22
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Northway / Northway Village | Alaska Power Company 0.66
North Slope Nuiqsut North Slope Borough 0.08
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Nulato AVEC 0.54
Low Yuk-Kusk Nunam Iqua (Sheldon Point) | Nunam Iqua Electric Co. 0.53
Low Yuk-Kusk Nunapitchuk AVEC 0.44
Kodiak Old Harbor AVEC 0.58
Kodiak Ouzinkie City of Ouzinkie 0.41
Railbelt Palmer Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Southeast Pedro Bay Pedro Bay Village Council 0.91
Southeast Pelican Pelican Utility 0.68
Bristol Bay Perryville Native Village of Perryville 0.95
Southeast Petersburg City of Petersburg 0.10
Bristol Bay Pilot Point Pilot Point Electrical Utility 0.50
Low Yuk-Kusk Pilot Station AVEC 0.54
Low Yuk-Kusk Pitkas Point AVEC 0.50
Low Yuk-Kusk Platinum **** City of Platinum 0.50
North Slope Point Hope North Slope Borough 0.15
North Slope Point Lay North Slope Borough 0.15
Bristol Bay Port Alsworth Tanalian Electric Coop 0.68
Railbelt Port Graham Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Bristol Bay Port Heiden (Meshik) Port Heiden Utilities 0.75
Kodiak Port Lions Kodiak Electric Association 0.19
Low Yuk-Kusk Quinhagak AVEC 0.54
Low Yuk-Kusk Red Devil Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.83
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Ruby City of Ruby 0.84
Low Yuk-Kusk Russian Mission AVEC 0.55
Aleutians Saint George City of Saint George 0.83
Low Yuk-Kusk Saint Mary's /Andreafsky AVEC 0.50
Bering Straits Saint Michael AVEC 0.55
Aleutians Saint Paul St. Paul Municipal Electric Utility 0.52
Railbelt Salamatof Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Aleutians Sand Point TDX Sand Point Generating, Inc. 0.57
Bering Straits Savoonga AVEC 0.49
Southeast Saxman Ketchikan Public Utilities 0.10
Low Yuk-Kusk Scammon Bay AVEC 0.57
Northwest Arctic | Selawik AVEC 0.58
Railbelt Seldovia Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Railbelt Seward City of Seward 0.19
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Shageluk AVEC 0.59
Bering Straits Shaktoolik AVEC 0.58
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 19 01/07/2013
Bering Straits Shishmaref AVEC 0.59
Northwest Arctic | Shungnak AVEC 0.73
CopRiv/Chug Silver Springs Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
Southeast Sitka (Mt. Edgecumbe) City and Borough of Sitka 0.09
Southeast Skagway Alaska Power Company 0.22
CopRiv/Chug Slana Alaska Power Company 0.67
Low Yuk-Kusk Sleetmute Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.85
Railbelt Soldotna Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Bristol Bay South Naknek Naknek Electric Assn 0.51
Bering Straits Stebbins AVEC 0.56
Railbelt Sterling Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.20
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Stevens Village** Stevens Village Energy Systems 1.07
Low Yuk-Kusk Stony River Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.85
Railbelt Sutton-Alpine Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Takotna Takotna Community Assoc. Utilities 1.02
Railbelt Talkeetna Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Tanana PCE Tanana Power Company, Inc. 0.71
CopRiv/Chug Tatitlek PCE Tatitlek Electric Utility 0.61
CopRiv/Chug Tazlina Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
Bering Straits Teller AVEC 0.63
Southeast Tenakee Springs City of Tenakee Springs 0.69
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Tetlin Alaska Power Company 0.49
Southeast Thorne Bay / Kasaan Alaska Power Company 0.24
Bristol Bay Togiak (Twin Hills) AVEC 0.57
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Tok / Tanacross Alaska Power Company 0.49
Low Yuk-Kusk Toksook Bay AVEC 0.52
CopRiv/Chug Tolsona Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
CopRiv/Chug Tonsina Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
Low Yuk-Kusk Tuluksak Tuluksak Traditional Power Utility 0.60
Low Yuk-Kusk Tuntutuliak Tuntutuliak Community Service Assoc 0.65
Low Yuk-Kusk Tununak AVEC 0.41
Bristol Bay Twin Hills Twin Hills Village Council 0.55
Railbelt Tyonek Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.13
Bering Straits Unalakleet Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative 0.39
Aleutians Unalaska (Dutch Harbor) City of Unalaska 0.45
Low Yuk-Kusk Upper Kalskag AVEC 0.58
CopRiv/Chug Valdez Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.28
Yuk-Koy/UpTan | Venetie* Venetie Village Electric 0.75
North Slope Wainwright North Slope Borough 0.15
Bering Straits Wales AVEC 0.64
Railbelt Wasilla Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
Southeast Whale Pass Alaska Power Company 0.60
Bering Straits White Mountain City of White Mountain 0.72
Railbelt Whittier Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.13
Railbelt Willow Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.15
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 20 01/07/2013
Kodiak Women’s Bay Kodiak Electric Association
0.19
Southeast Wrangell City and Borough of Wrangell 0.11
Southeast Yakutat Yakutat Power Inc. 0.50
No data available in Preliminary 2011 AEPS, so the most current residential rate available is:
* - based on from REF Round 3
** ~ based on 2009 Alaska Energy Power Statistics
*** —~ based on 2010 Alaska Energy Power Statistics
**** — based on 2008 Alaska Energy Power Statistics
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 21 01/07/2013
Energy_Region | App | Project_Name Utility COE
Kodiak 901 | Karluk Tribal Council — Wind Energy Alutiiq Power Company 0.60
System
Railbelt 902 | Jack River Hydroelectric Project GVEA 0.22
Feasibility Study
Northwest Arctic | 903 | Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Kotzebue Electric Association 0.42
Southeast 904 | Dimond Park Library Geothermal HVAC 1 Alaska Electric Light and Power 0.12
System Company
Southeast 905 | HydroPower Surplus to Stored Hydrogen Ketchikan Public Utilities, City and 0.10
Feasibility Study Borough of Wrangell, City of
Peterburg
Southeast 906 | Coffman Cove Hydropower Line Alaska Power Company 0.45
Extension
Southeast 907 | Petersburg Community Heating System City of Peterburg 0.10
| Retrofit Feasibility Study
Bristol Bay 908 | Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Capacity I-N-N Electric Cooperative 0.59
Increase
Southeast 909 | Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project: Ketchikan Public Utilities, City and 0.10
Phase Ill Borough of Wrangell, City of
zi Peterburg
Bristol Bay 910 | Igiugig Wind Turbine Design Igiugig Electric Company 0.80
Bristol Bay 911 | Levelock Wind Reconnaissance Study Levelock Electric Coop 0.70
Bristol Bay 912 | Egegik Wind Feasibility Study City of Egegik 0.86
Railbelt 913 | Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake CEA 0.14
Dam Facilities Project
Southeast 914 | Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company , Individual 0.22
Generators
Yukon- 915 | Eagle Solar Array Project Alaska Power Company 0.59
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana
Southeast 916 | Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Alaska Power Company 0.24
Project a
Southeast 917 | Blue Lake Hydroelectric Expansion City and Borough of Sitka 0.09
Project
Southeast 918 | West Creek Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company 0.22
Southeast 919 | Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Power and Light, City of | 0.10
Ketchikan
Southeast | 920 | Walker Lake Hydro Feasibility Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 0.62
Lower Yukon- 921 | AVCP RHA Wood Biomass Heating Bethel Utilities Corporation 0.51
Kuskokwim System
Southeast 922 | Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 0.62
Kodiak 923 | Afognak Biomass Feasibility Study KEA 0.19
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 22 01/07/2013
Railbelt 924 | Seward Schools Biomass Heating System | City of Seward 0.19
Yukon- 925 | Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project Alaska Power Company 0.49
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana |
Yukon- 926 | AGSD District Heat Loop Project Alaska Power Company 0.49
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana
Yukon- | 927 | Galena Community Wood Heat Project City of Galena** 0.56
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana |
Kodiak 928 | Bathymetric survey and marine geological | City of Ouzinkie 0.41
study to refine submarine cable route
Aleutians 929 | Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project City of King Cove 0.27
Copper 930 | Allison Creek Project | CVEA 0.28
River/Chugach
Railbelt 931 | Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating GVEA 7 0.22
System Project
Yukon- 932 | Design and Construction of Biomass City of Hughes and others 0.645
Koyukuk/Upper Systems in Interior Villages
Tanana
Yukon- 933 | Biomass Feasibility Studies in Public Alaska Power Company and others 0.662
Koyukuk/Upper Facilities, Interior Region
Tanana | a
Bering Straits 934 | Savoonga Heat Recovery System - Power | AVEC 0.49
Plant to Water Plant
Lower Yukon- 935 | Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery Atmautluak Tibal Utilities 0.70
Kuskokwim Project =I
Lower Yukon- 936 | Heat Recovery for the Water System Middle Kuskokwim Electric 0.85
Kuskokwim Cooperative, Incorporated
Lower Yukon- 937 | Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment AVEC 0.54
Kuskokwim Plant and Washeteria
Southeast 938 | Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 0.62
of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource
Bering Straits “| 939 | Stebbins Heat Recovery Project AVEC 0.56
|” Lower Yukon- | 940 | Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment AVEC 0.51
Kuskokwim Plant and Community Store
Northwest Arctic | 941 | Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment AVEC 0.62
Plant
Lower Yukon- 942 | Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment | Tuntutuliak Community Service 0.65
Kuskokwim Plant/Washeteria Building Association
Railbelt 943 | OIT Inc Waste Heat Turbine Project GVEA 0.22
Bristol Bay 944 | New Stuyahok Heat Recovery AVEC 0.62
Lower Yukon- | 945 | St. Mary’s / Pitka’s Point Wind Energy AVEC 0.50
Kuskokwim Project |
Northwest Arctic | 946 | Shungnak Solar Energy Construction AVEC 0.80
Project
Lower Yukon- 947 | Marshall Wind Energy Design and AVEC | 051
Kuskokwim Permitting Project
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 23 01/07/2013
Bering Straits 948 | Wales Wind Energy Feasibility and AVEC 0.64
Conceptual Design Project
Lower Yukon- 949 | Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and AVEC 0.59
Kuskokwim Conceptual Design Project
Lower Yukon- 950 | Russian Mission Wind Feasibility and AVEC 0.55
Kuskokwim Conceptual Design Project
Bering Straits 951 | St. Michael/Stebbins Wind Energy Final AVEC 0.56
Design and Permitting Project
Northwest Arctic | 952 | Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertie | AVEC 0.74
Assessment
Northwest Arctic | 953 | Hotham Peak Wind Resource and Intertie | AVEC 0.62
Assessment
Lower Yukon- 954 | St. Mary’s / Mountain Village Wind AVEC 0.57
Kuskokwim Energy Intertie Final Design
Lower Yukon- 955 | St. Mary’s/ Pilot Station Wind Energy AVEC 0.52
Kuskokwim Intertie Construction Project
Lower Yukon- 956 | Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility | AVEC 0.58
Kuskokwim and Conceptual Design Project
Bering Straits 957 | Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility and AVEC 0.59
Conceptual Design Project
Railbelt 959 | Ticasuk Brown School Pellet Boiler GVEA 0.22
Project-Phase 2
Railbelt 960 | TidGen™ Array Project HEA 0.20
Aleutians 961 | Atka Wind Power Project City of Atka 0.70
Bristol Bay 962 | Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Study | Manokotak Power Company 0.55
Aleutians 963 | Mount Makushin Geothermal Project City of Unalaska 0.45
Southeast 964 | Excursion Inlet Hydro Project- Phase II Individual Generators
Southeast 965 | Haines Borough Pellet Heating Project 0.22
Bristol Bay 966 | High-penetration Wind Energy Project- Kokhanok Electric 0.90
Kokhanok
Aleutians 967 | Cold Bay Waste Heat Recovery Project G&K Inc 0.72
Aleutians 968 | False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass 0.51
Aleutians 969 | Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Nelson Lagoon Electric Coop 0.77
Lower Yukon- 970 | Kipnuk Wind Diesel Power Generation Kipnuk Light Power 0.58
Kuskokwim and Heating
Copper 971 | Eastern Copper Basin Geothermal CVEA 0.28
River/Chugach Assessment
Lower Yukon- 972 | Akiak Wind Resource Assessment City of Akiak 0.63
Kuskokwim
Bering Straits 973 | Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment I AVEC 0.59
FeasibUity
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 24 01/07/2013
Southeast 974 Neck Lake Hydro Project Alaska Power Company 0.60 | 7
Railbelt 975 | Juniper creek Hydroelectric Project CEA 0.14 Feasibility Study
Bristol Bay 976 | Knutson Creek Hydroelectric Project Pedro Bay Village 0.91
Design and Permitting
Railbelt 977 | Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project GVEA 0.22
Reconnaissance Study
Southeast 978 | Indian River Hydroelectric Project City of Tenakee Springs 0.69
Construction
Railbelt 979 | Waste-to-Energy Feasibility Study CEA 0.14
Bristol Bay 980 | Bristol Bay Borough School District Naknek Electric 0.51
Energy Project
Yukon- 981 | Tanana Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating | Tanana Power Company Inc 0.71
Koyukuk/Upper Project
Tanana
Copper 982 | Community Facilities Woody Biomass Alaska Power Company 0.67
River/Chugach Space Heating Project
Southeast 983 | Wood Heat Feasibility Study and Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 0.62
Conceptual Design for the Organized
Village of Kake
Northwest Arctic | 984 | Noatak Wind Resource Assessment AVEC 0.74
** City of Galena based on 2009 Alaska Energy Power Statistics
For Round 6 Projects addressing multiple communities, the following average cost of
power ($/kWh) and scores were used:
Application #932 Design and Construction of Biomass Systems in Interior Villages for the
benefit of Hughes, Ruby, Nulato, Kaltag, Holy Cross, Alatna, Allakaket, Shageluk, Grayling,
Northway, Beaver and/or Stevens Village (average cost $/kWh: 0.645, score 8.06).
Application #933 Biomass Feasibility Studies in Public Facilities, Interior Region for the benefit
of Alatna, Allakaket, Northway, Grayling, Shageluk, Beaver and Stevens Village (average cost $/kWh: 0.662, score 8.28).
Application #946 Shungnak Solar Energy Construction Project for the benefit of Shungnak and
Kobuk (average cost $/kWh: 0.80, score 10.00).
Application #952 Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment for the benefit of
Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk Village (average cost $/kWh: 0.74, score 9.25).
Application #953 Hotham Peak Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment for the benefit of
Noorvik, Kiana and Selawik (average cost $/kWh: 0.62, score 7.75).
Application #954 St. Mary’s / Mountain Village Wind Energy Intertie Final Design for the benefit
of Mountain Village, Pitka's Point and St. Mary's (average cost of $/kWh: 0.57, score 7.13)
Application #955 St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction Project for the
benefit of Pilot Station and St. Mary's (average cost of $/kWh: 0.52, score 6.50)
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 25 01/07/2013