Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
REFAC Meeting documents 11-8-2013
Proposer: Karluk Tribal Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Design AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant Karluk is located on the west cost of Kodiak Island in Alaska. The village is cut-off from any road system. Fuel oil has to be shipped by barge to Karluk. Therefore, it is a high energy cost village with fuel oil at 4.92 $/gal. This project will perform a feasibility study and complete the design & permitting for a wind energy system and a heat recovery system to serve the existing power plant in Karluk, Alaska. For the wind energy system, wind data from a meteorological monitoring tower already installed at the proposed wind turbine location will be available for the analysis and design. The wind energy systems would consist of wind turbines installed on the mountain 0.7 miles south of the existing power plant, the transmission line to the power plant, and the electric boiler for excess energy utilization. The heat recovery system would consist of upgrading the existing power plant generators with waste heat recovery units and installing a total length of up to 1000ft hydronic heating loop to connect the power plant with the community buildings. Given that the existing diesel gensets are no’ done for both wind and heat considerations. A } load (hourly data collection). The wind challenge fd town, while still being sized appropriately for the ele tronic fuel injection which is needed for integration of wind power, there is much modeling to be ator must be chosen based on the results of the wind resource study and analysis of the electrical may be finding a turbine that can survive the potential harsh environment of the ridge south of Due to the complexity of this system, the $81,300 requested would not be enough to complete both the feasibility and final design phases. Recommend partial funding of $70,000 for feasibility, but not final design and permitting. Wind resource study and electrical load analysis should be complete and accepted by AEA prior to allocating money for the CDR. Project Cost: $1,300,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $81,000 Cost of Power: $0.60 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $300 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $81,300 Kodtak ee niattntteiantteseainanema TDDB suas 41212013 9:50:56 AM Fansid Page 1 of 170 a Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Weight) Score a 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 26.25 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 5.63 43.92 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 4.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 0.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 267 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW Permits or authorizations for project as currently described. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 9:60:56 AM P Page 2 of 170 an 2 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary J's Abedin. Proposer: Native Village of Cantwell Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant Cantwell is currently served by GVEA via the power transmission line between MEA and GVEA (Alaska Intertie System). The Native Village of Cantwell wishes to improve the reliability and lower the cost of the community of Cantwell’s power system. To accomplish this we propose to build a storage hydroelectric project on the Jack River, a short distance from Cantwell. The reconnaissance study currently under way has identified several project configurations with capacities between 700 kW and 7 MW that may be feasible. A feasibility study is necessary to identify which of these configurations would best meet the community's needs. rovision configuration of this project, licensing jurisdiction, ea be questioned given the pending completion of the 24 Watana project. ost, economics, power sales, utility organization, financing, etc. Even the need for the project can Eva Creek Wind Farm, re-start of 50 MW Healy Clean Coal Plant and the future 600 MW Susitna Despite the outstanding questions AEA supports this request for full funding. Special provisions: AEA requires: 1) the completion and AEA acceptance of the reconnaissance study, and 2) results of the study indicate that the project should advance prior to award of any new grant funding. Project Cost: $10,000,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $213,750 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $11,250 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $225,000 — (eee a ee iaicttecnitinens ania ATED as) 1/2/2013 9:52:24 AM P: 1 Page 3 of 170 ~ Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Giiterion (Welaht) Score T 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 9.81 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 3.00 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 11.60 44.82 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.00 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 11.76, 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 1.67 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Application for hydroelectric facility. AS 38.05.850 permits/easements required for transmission lines and penstock on state land. Possible lease required for powerhouse on concrete slab, Water rights app. LAS 27738 currently on file with DMLW. State land may be in reservoir and thus flooded. May take more than the projected 6 months to authorize. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments Qn All projects proposing the development of permanent’Sffuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Active fault structures in the vicinity of the site include the Denali fault and associated thrust faults. (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www. dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). The dam should be designed with considerations for strong ground motions based on a seismic hazards assessment. A detailed site specific geotechnical investigation should be performed to insure that no previously unrecognized faults extend through the dam site. 11212013 9:52:24 AM A Page 4 of 170 eee Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladultilliltee. Proposer: Northwest Arctic Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Construction Project Description as defined by applicant This project expands on a previous Feasibility study that has been ongoing for 2 years. In 2010 a Single 175W Solar A"ay was installed at the proposed location to see if Solar PV would be feasible for the Northwest Arctic. The panel has been facing south-east and is connected to a single Enphase inverter that is cogenerating with the Kotzebue Electric Association (KEA) grid. It was found that it produced 165 Kwh during 1 year average. @ $ 0. 54/Kwh this equals a savings of$ 89. 1 O/year A build-out of the a"ay to 10 Kw would save the Northwest Arctic Borough approximately $ 5, 132. 00/year in electric bills. * This would also be a good match as the Borough operate mainly day time, when the sun is available. The project aims to match the load of the building and offset just enough energy to try to get to stop the electric meter, this is important as we do not want to be paid for any generated electricity by the KEA Coop. « The project would consist of 42 pc. 240 watt panel, for a total of 10KWatts configured on the roof of the building in a configuration to match the load of the building. It would be a "fixed" array, non tracking. * It would also be configured in 2 directions, southeast and south, to match the electric needs of the during the day. Each individual panel will have it's own enphase micro-inverter. ¢ The entire array will be displayed and monitored on a website that can be accessed for edi ing, so not to overproduce with one large peak power Project is technically feasible. Schedule and budget look reasonable. Recommend full funding. Project Cost: $75,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $75,000 Cost of Power: $0.42 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $75,000 Northwest Arctic E 1/2/2013 9:53:11 AM Page 1 Page 5 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Suiterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 18.25 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 14.83 4) Project Readiness (Max. §) - 5.00 5) Benofite (Max 15) - 5.88 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 6) - 5.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) ii (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not state land DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments Ae DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments ‘on Hazards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 9:53:11 AM Page 2 Page 6 of 170 (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladin Proposer: City & Borough of Juneau Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Project Description as defined by applicant The City & Borough of Juneau is proposing the design and construction of a geothermal HVAC system to serve the heating and cooling needs at the new Dimond Park Library. The community of Juneau recently received a $7 million grant from Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development to construct the new library in Juneau’s Mendenhall Valley. The City & Borough of Juneau Assembly is interested in reducing the carbon footprint of Juneau and reducing the operating costs of their facilities. The use of a geothermal HVAC system rather than traditional oil-fired boilers and chillers provides an opportunity to achieve both goals of the City & Borough of Juneau and to expand the use of renewable energy in city facilities. roposed GSHP and a baseline diesel boiler (city policy prohibits installation of an electric The applicant has performed a life-cycle econopfic’a e is analysis includes health benefits not included in AEA’s analysis. boiler) which indicates economics that are b The project benefits from other successful GS supporting performance data from the other G! The proposed system would use approximately 12% fits’ capacity on an annual basis. A smaller heat pump system used in combination with an oil boiler could greatly reduce the capital costs while still offsetting 80% of diesel use relative to a baseline oil-only system. AEA estimates such a system would cost roughly $500,000, an incremental cost increase of $179,000 above the baseline system. Recommend partial funding of $300,000 to fund a smaller heat pump system with the following special provisions. Special provisions: 1. Data from the Dimond Aquatic Center heat pump system must be provided to AEA before grant funded work can begin. 2. AEA must approve final system design prior to construction. Project Cost: $875,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $700,000 Cost of Power: $0.12 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $175,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $875,000 Southeast f = — ~ 1/2/2013 9:64:15 AM Page 1 Page 7 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 5.29 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 10.50 3) Projoct Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 15.23 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.50 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 14.13 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 6) - 450 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score = (out of XX) err (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not state land DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments Geothermal heat pump DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All. projects proposing the development of permanent'Sffuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 9:54:15 AM Page 8 of 170 iii Alaska Renewab = le Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fe Mdetinlhan, 24 et aacih' Proposer: The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Other Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Project Description as defined by applicant This project will encompass performing a feasibility study to determine if a proof of concept hydrogen (or Ammonia) prototype should be designed, constructed, and operated as an alternative to spill during times of low production and high inflows of the hydroelectric plants in the SEAPA system, which serves the loads of Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Petersburg, Alaska. This stored energy would then be used for generation either by supplementing diesel combustion or through the operation of fuel cell technology during times of hydroelectric shortages. When surplus hydro generation conditions occur, typically all hydro operators in the region are not fully utilized. With an isolated system, there is no alternative other than spilling surplus energy over a spillway. The region is also experiencing significant winter load growth that has caused and will continue to cause both energy and capacity shortages. These shortages are met with diesel-electric generation that dispatches at a cost differential of four-to-one over the current hydro cost of 6.8 cents/kWh. The information obtained from performing this feasibility study will also be directly transferrable to all hydroelectric and wind utilities in Alaska. A successful demonstration of hydrogen producti viable. However, no data from existing hydrogé have a breakeven B/C ratio. Furthermore, the sea storage system; the hydrogen tanks would only likel charge/discharge cycles in a year. d subsequent electricity generation could have widespread applicability if proved economically cts were provided by the applicant or found by AEA that indicate that the proposed project would e of the utility's generation and load profiles appear to prevent full utilization of the benefits of a filled and emptied once annually but require the same capital costs of a system that would have multiple Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $244,385 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $244,385 Cost of Power: $0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $249,385 ole Carte niiticti isan tiie 1/2/2013 9:55:04 AM Pi 1 Page 9 of 170 ae Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank ‘Griterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 4.46 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 3.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 6.20 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 1.88 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 4.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) ETT (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Location is not fully identified but appears by proposal to not include state land. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sffuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks, Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 9:65:04 AM P: 2 Page 10 of 170 aa Proposer: City of Coffman Cove Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Design Project Description as defined by applicant This project would provide a renewable energy intertie to part of the City of Coffman Cove, Alaska that presently are self-generating because they are not on the islands micro-grid. The City of Coffman Cove was connected to Prince of Wales Island (POW) renewable energy microgrid in 2011, shutting down the diesel generators serving the community. However, significant portions of the community are not connected to the distribution system. There are 91 privately owned lots that must self-generate at an approximate cost of $2.35/kWh (based on the cost of residential fuel; small generator costs; and, the monthly average kWh used by those on the islands grid); the formula for determining this can be found below in the application. The renewable energy micro-grid on POW has a rate of $0.2243/kWh for a residential rate, which would provide a significant savings to these unserved lots . rovision City of Coffman Cove requests $175K in grant fu roads within the City to serve 91 privately-owned [dts ing and final design, and construction of a 1.75 mile single phase line extension along existing fenewable energy. The RE sources are from Black Bear Lake Hydro and South Fork Hydro. Project design, permitting and construction to be by Alaska Power Company. Special provision: Provide evidence of site control with stamped plans and recorded easement for the line extension. Project Cost: $175,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $175,000 Cost of Power: $0.45 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $36,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $211,000 Southeast A a alas = amma 1/2/2013 9:55:59 AM Page 1 Page 11 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank ‘Griterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 19.88 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 15.40 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 : 5) Bonofits (Max 15) - 11.63 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) on cps, (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments From the application it is difficult to tell if an easement to cross State land will be needed and in all probability existing platted easements within State developed subdivision(s) will probably be used. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 9:65:69 AM Page 2 Page 12 of 170 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Adisiilitlteas Proposer: City of Petersburg Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Recon Project Description as defined by applicant The proposed project will evaluate the technical and financial feasibility for integration and optimization of renewable energy based heating technologies to offset heating oil and electricity usage in the following Petersburg facilities: Stedman Elementary School, Mitkof Middle School, Petersburg High School, Petersburg Aquatic Center, Mountain View Manor Elderly Housing, and the City Municipal Building. ates that they are leaning toward heat pumps (ground and air source). Smaller GSHP projects of air source heat pumps would likely make them more favorable for retrofits; AEA is currently This study will compare heating alternatives butgthe have been rejected due to poor economics; the lowe funding a study of (residential) ASHP use in SE AK. A feasibility study that clearly considers the benefits of biomass, heat pumps, and oil-fired boilers is a logical step. AEA recommends full funding. Project Cost: $51,360 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $41,360 Cost of Power: $0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $51,360 Southeast AEA Funding mmendation 360. 11212013 9:57:04 AM Page 1 Page 13 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 4.46 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 9.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 12.77 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - VAT 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 9.76 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5,00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 450 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (gut of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land issues. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 9:67:04 AM Page 2 Page 14 of 170 (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladbltililtea Proposer: INN Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant INNEC proposes to conduct a feasibility study related to increasing tne capacity pf tne existing Tazimina Hydroelectric Project by replacing eitner one or two of tne existing generating units witn larger generating units. Tne study will evaluate existing energy use and future energy requirements for tne region. An economic analysis will compare tne costs of future generation under a variety of scenarios. A procurement package will be prepared if tne project is found to be feasible. na Hydroelectric Project thru replacement of the turbine-generators and controls from 824 kW as issued for the larger units and the plant throughput was built with this in mind, but the smaller Francis s in 1996. Annual energy is expected to increase up to 2,600,000 kWh. New markets for this increase private businesses and city governments at Newhalen, Illiamna and Nondalton. INNEC requests grant funding to study expansion (existing) up to 1.5 MW total. The FERC license turbine/generators were installed when the proje in energy may indude new dispatchable heating syste If the study shows the project is feasible, procurement documents will be prepared from this phase grant funding for the replacement turbine-generators and control systems. AEA recommends full funding. Project Cost: $2,600,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $160,000 Cost of Power: $0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $30,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $190,000 Bristol Bay comn dati — 1/2/2013 9:67:57 AM Page 1 Page 15 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Saiterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Enorgy (Max 35) - 26.01 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 9.75 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 18.33 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 4.33 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 12.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 47 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) epene (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permits or authorizations at this time - feasibility study for replacement of existing turbines only. Potential requirement for amendment of existing SCRO authorizations depending of extent of facility upgrade. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sfructures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The only known potentially active fault in the project vicinity is the Lake Clark fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska. gov/pubs/id/23944), The relative activity of this fault is unknown. 1/2/2013 9:57:57 AM - Page 16 of 170 aoe Proposer: City of Saxman Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant The City of Saxman was issued a license for the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project by the FERC on 01-22-98 (Project No. P-11393). The project was licensed to be a storage-type project with a lake tap of Upper Mahoney Lake, a tunnel-and-pipe penstock, a single unit powerhouse, and an overhead transmission line con- necting to the existing KPU transmission system at the Beaver Falls substation. The licensed capacity is 9.6 MW and the estimated potential annual generation is 41.7 GWH. Design documents were submitted to FERC for review in 2001 in anticipation of starting construction in 2002. However, at that time a decision was made to construct the Swan-Tyee Intertie instead of the Mahoney Lake project; the Mahoney Lake project license was stayed until requested by Saxman, but no later than 6 years after completion of the Swan-Tyee Intertie. Saxman has until 2015 to request lifting of the stay. The design documents submitted to FERC in 2001 proposed to construct the penstock using horizontal directional drilling (HDD), which was a different penstock design than licensed and an untested tech- nology for the hydroelectric industry. FERC had not commented on the design submittal prior to the stay being issued. Load growth in the SEAPA-interconnected systems and the potential for new industrial loads now makes it timely to resume the development of the Mahoney Lake project. However, because of the long delay, it is necessary to reexamine some aspects of the project, in particular: Re-evaluate the HDD-based design based on advances in the HDD industry in the last decade. It now expensive elements. * Re-evaluate the storage potential of the upper basin, either by lowering the lake tap in Upper M. Mahoney Lake. Additional storage would allow more wintertime generation by the project, whi * Route the transmission line north along the existing road system on Cape Fox land to an intel south over USFS land to the Beaver Falls substation. * Review permit status, and renew or revise permit applications as appropriate. * Update the design drawings, specifications, and design report as appropriate for * Update the cost estimate and economic analysis for the project, induding any revi * Begin power sales negotiations, and prepare a business and operational plan based At the completion of this work, KEC will be ready to begin construction on project as irs possible to simplify the design and eliminate some y Lake or adding storage in two natural lakes above Upper for the SEAPA-interconnected system. the Swan Lake line at the White River, rather than ke Hyd: ic Project and provide for the following: revise final design and specifications, The City of Saxman has requested funding to study the Mal A ‘ential of project, update cost estimate, begin power sales negotiations and prepare a business The primary developers are a public/private etchikan Electric Company, whose partners are Cape Fox Corp., AP&T and City of Saxman. The review team has the following concerns with’ after the proposed additions of energy from Whitma license is re-opened to re-engineer the project scheme? the market for the power is uncertain, given it is last to be used in the SEAPA system, including dro project and the proposed Metlakatla - Ketchikan Intertie, and proposed issues raised if the FERC The project appears to exhibit a high benefit/cost ratio if it can find a market for its hydropower. Partial funding for feasibility/conceptual design is recommended to reconfigure the project to meet potential needs of SEAPA proposed call for power and accomplish the following: (1) perform field studies to support re-opening FERC license; (2) negotiate new license terms; (3) revise engineering drawings in support of license changes; (4) negotiate power sales agreement, (5) prepare business, operational and finance plan; and (6) update cost of power, construction cost and potential available power by month. Partial funding recommended. Project Cost: $51,100,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $100,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,100,000 canner eee cassette stcnimns SOND) 4112/2013 9:58:60 AM Pasoatl Page 17 of 170 ios Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welant Score a 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 4.46 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 14.26 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 9.87 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 1.50 5) Bonofits (Max 15) - 11.76 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 117 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) INARAER (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land interests but water rights needed. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent ures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska. gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions. 1/2/2013 9:68:50 AM Pi 2 Page 18 of 170 i Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary (= = ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Lake and Peninsula Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant The Lake and Peninsula Borough seeks funding to design an approximate 1 OOkW wind turbine system in the village of Igiugig. The design of the turbine will indude its integration into the new generation system recently installed to maximize output and efficiency. The wind study is not complete, but the 11-month data point for the feasibility report includes the winter months when winds and demand are highest. LPB will finish the grant with a design that can be put out to bid. The total for the project is $250,000 and LPB is offering a $45,000 match. @ptual design has not been submitted for AEA to review and accepted prior to the review period for j ‘00 many factors are currently unknown to assess the viability of the project. In addition, the class 2 wind regime indicated by the statewide wind model id not provide enough benefit to produce an economic project. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $250,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $205,000 Cost of Power: $0.80 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $45,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $250,000 Bristol Bay i dati aia deaenaies ; a a 1/2/2013 10:00:19 AM Page 1 Page 19 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Satterion (Welaht Score ze a 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 35.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 9.75 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Bonofits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) ri (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permits or authorizations at this time - funding requested for data collection only at this time;. Possible future requirement for AS 38.05.850 permits/easements possible depending on selection of eventual project site but unlikely due to availability of village-managed lands. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent'structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should be designed to withstand ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). 1/2/2013 10:00:19 AM 5 Page 20 of 170 noeh2 Proposer: Lake and Peninsula Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Recon AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant The Lake and Peninsula Borough seeks funding to conduct a wind reconnaissance study on the behalf of the Levelock Village Council and its utility Levelock Electric Cooperative, inc. The project will consist of the installation of a needed 1 0-meter wind tower within the city to gather one year of wind data. Rich Stromberg of AEA has indicated the study can be done for approximately $10,000 using a smaller, 10-meter tower. The wind data will be analyzed by a professional firm that specializes in the interpretation of wind data. Following the completion of the data gathering, the firm will prepare a report that will give the LPB and Levelock an indication on whether or not the wind resources merit a feasibility study on the eventual construction of a wind turbine. While the existing wind resource model pred present time and the applicant proposes a lo the 10-meter configuration proposed will work buildings that might block the wind. Follect valid, usable data. A larger met tower would be needed for any future feasibility study, but aissance so long is the tower is placed in an area of minimal surrounding vegetation and away from Even if only a class 3 wind site is discovered, the high cost of fuel in this community might allow for an economic medium-penetration project using a remanufactured turbine. Full funding recommended. Project Cost: $10,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $10,000 Cost of Power: $0.70 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $1,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $11,000 Bristol Bay F 11212013 10:01:06 AM - Page 21 of 170 a Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 30.63 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 13.40 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 4.67 5) Bonofits (Max 15) - 4.60 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) oacns, (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permits or authorizations at this time - funding requested for data collection only at this time;. Possible future requirement for AS 38.05.850 permits/easements possible depending on selection of eventual project site but unlikely due to availability of village-managed lands. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent*structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should be designed to withstand ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). 11212013 10:01:06 AM Page 22 of 170 i ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary j= = Proposer: Lake and Peninsula Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Recon AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant The Lake and Peninsula Borough seeks funding to conduct a wind reconnaissance study on the behalf of the City of Egegik. The project will consist of the installation of a needed 10-meter or 30-meter, whichever is appropriate, wind tower within the city to gather one year of wind data. The wind data will be analyzed by a professional firm that specializes in the interpretation of wind data. Following the completion of the data gathering, the firm will prepare a report that will give the LPB and Egegik an indication on whether or not the wind resources merit a feasibility study on the eventual construction of a wind turbine. Hill east of the old airport appears to be the best"plaice measuring wind. Budget is high for a reconnaissance study - especially $45,000 for cost of energy and market analysis. The applicant only needs mon€yitoffire a contractor to purchase and install a met tower and power house monitoring and to analyze and write a wind resource report. The report should includé44OMER analysis of wind, diesel and solar against the seasonal load profile of Egegik. An RFP should be put out to see who can do this in the most cost-effective manner. Recommend partial funding of $60,000 to collect wind, solar and electrical load data for a minimum of one year, write a wind/solar assessment report and perform some basic HOMER modeling. Project Cost: $90,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $80,000 Cost of Power: $0.86 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $90,000 Bristol Bay oe acces eaein SEO 000 | 1/2/2013 10:02:03 AM Page 1 Page 23 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Geiterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 35.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 16) - 7.50 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 14.53 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2,00 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 8.50 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 450 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) sieht (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permits or authorizations at this time - funding requested for data collection only at this time;. Possible future requirement for AS 38.05.850 permits/easements possible depending on selection of eventual project site but unlikely due to availability of village-managed lands. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Feasibility study should consider design impacts of earthquakes on proposed facilities in regard to project cost. 1/2/2013 10:02:03 AM Py 2 Page 24 of 170 “= Proposer: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant As a condition of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of the Cooper Lake Plant in 2007, Chugach agreed to construct a project to divert water from Stetson Creek into the Cooper Lake reservoir and a related structure to release water into Cooper Creek. The project will enhance fish habitat and add water to Cooper Lake which will result in additional hydroelectric energy generation. Most importantly, constructing this project allows the license for the Cooper Lake hydro facility to be renewed for 50 years. A schedule showing how the project will proceed is attached. Project will add 5,500,000 kWh annually té@@eoper Lake Hyd in: (1) wat electric project; project i temperature and (2) increase flows at upper reaches of Cooper Creek to enhance fish habitat. Project bids were opened on 9/28/12; bid results € pending receipt, so bidding risk is low. Construction of this project satisfies Settlement Agreement established in support of FERC re-license of the Cooper Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Power Project which, along with this diversion, has annual energy of 47,500,000 kWh. Recommend full funding Project Cost: $23,808,913 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,453,920 Cost of Power: $0.14 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $17,343,267 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $20,797,187 Railbelt vAEA Fundi. O! ion: 2 920 11212013 10:02:45 AM Page 25 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score i 1) Cost of Enorgy (Max 35) - 6.23 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 15.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 18.80 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5,00 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 13.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0,00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 5.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) ee (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Applicant self-reports potential requirements for DMLW authorizations (probably Water and/or AS 38.05.850 Permits and Easements); need more specific project information to confirm. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:02:45 AM Page 2 Page 26 of 170 ENERGY AUTHORITY Alask ae a Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6-Preliminary f's= Aladiltillitlteam Proposer: Alaska Power & Telephone Company Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant Connelly Lake is an 85 acre alpine lake, and drains into the Chilkoot River. The Project facilities will include a dam at the lake outlet, a penstock about 6,200 feet long, a 12.0 MW powerhouse with two generating units, a 14-mile-long buried 34.5 kV transmission line and a 14-mile long access road. Phase III has not been completed yet with field studies, permitting and final design continuing. The Project will be developed by the Applicant to provide additional generation to its interconnected Haines and Skagway electrical systems (existing 15-mile submarine cable), to provide backup renewable power to Haines should the submarine cable fail, or should the only other storage project in Upper Lynn Canal, Goat Lake Hydro, have a major problem with a long term shutdown. And in the early years of operations to possibly provide summer power to cruise ships moored at Haines or Skagway to help pay off any debt as quickly as possible. The Project will be on state and private land, including the Haines State Forest and Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve. APC proposes additional three new env studies (fe AEA and APC entered into a grant agreement fg ign and permitting activities for a potential 12+ MW storage hydro project at Connelly Lake. feasibility and conceptual design for the project under round 4 application (#627). Current funded work includes concept optifqiza and study plans), field studies (stream gaugée“@sta and the final feasibility report. This work was sq studies are required. FERC notice of intent and preliminary application document, FERC scoping activities (documents lic refraction surveys; fish, wildlife, botanical, wetland, and heritage surveys; water quality testing); pletion in December 2012, but some snags in the licensing process have occurred and more APC has challenges with site control with access through the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, Haines State Forest and across several private parcels. FERC has requested they demonstrate this access to perform studies before FERC will devote any staff time on licensing for Connelly Lake. Environmental opposition to the project has been received in the past from some Haines residents. AEA believes additional grant funding for the 3 new environmental studies is warranted, but the request to fund final design and permitting is premature, given that several additional years of data collection may be necessary and project feasibility is uncertain. AEA also finds the amount requested for the three studies is excessive and therefore recommends grant funding be limited with a 20% cash match by applicant. Recommend partial funding. Project Cost: $46,475,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,752,000 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $438,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $2,190,000 eer (er iataeeeeicnccteetiteeiaiali0000 2) 1/2/2013 10:03:47 AM Page 1 Page 27 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score eee 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 9.62 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 10.50 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 12.10 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2,00 5) Bonofits (Max 15) - 11.37 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 1.83 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) iceie (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments This project has not changed from the previous round reviews. Possible public concern will probably be those related to the potential impact of the project to the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve. There may be secondary impacts with opening of the old logging road, also identified as an RS2477 in the application, increasing access into the Chilkoot valley. This could be controlled with gates. There may be some permitting challenges and resource management concerns related to the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The project is located in the vicinity of the Eastern Denali fault (Chilkoot River section) and the Chatham Strait fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand strong ground motions related to earthquakes on these structures. 1/2/2013 10:03:47 AM Page 2 Page 28 of 170 = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary J's Aledbltilihteas. (MD ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Alaska Power Company (APC) Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant The Eagle Solar Array Project will provide renewable energy to the communities of Eagle and Eagle Village. The Project will consist of one hundred sixty three solar panels, six three phase inverters, a programmable logic controller, SCADA system, and diesel powerplant interface for the towns of Eagle and Eagle Village. Energy derived will be used to offset diesel fueled generation; particularly during the summer months. the PV system as low temperature and ground bounce can increase the output along with io could vary between 1.709 to 1.761. The applicant may be underestimating the po improved inverter power-curve optimization tec Project is simple, low-cost and straightforward. It takes Tier 1 suppliers are selected. Final design must be submitted to and accepted by AEA prior to allocation of construction funds. dvantage of the worldwide drop in PV module prices and cost of installation. Technology is proven and Full funding recommended. Project Cost: $165,750 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $132,600 Cost of Power: $0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $33,150 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $165,750 u > Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana 1/2/2013 10:04:45 AM P; 1 Page 29 of 170 age Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score TET 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 26.86 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 9.75 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 16.67 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 4,00 5) Bonofite (Max 15) - 11.26 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.50 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) melane (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:04:45 AM aie Pi 2 Page 30 of 170 a Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - cee l= = (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Hydaburg City Schools Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Project Description as defined by applicant This project involves placing supplemental cord wood fired boilers in the schools. The supplemental heating system would be located at the Hydaburg City Schools in Hydaburg, AK on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska. We intend to use wood biomass to heat the school buildings, replacing diesel as the energy source. The project involves placing two Garn type wood fired boilers adjacent to the school site and running underground pipes from the wood fired boiler to plumb into the school’s heating system. The Hydaburg City Schools in Hydaburg, AK o1 heating system to the school buildings: gym; elemeg $500,000 over the life of the project. S/Island in Southeast Alaska requests funding for engineering design phase to build two cord wood ; high school. The project has the potential to save the Hydaburg School District in excess of AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design. Project Cost: $463,216 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $20,000 Cost of Power: $0.24 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,200 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $25,200 Southeast 1/2/2013 10:05:32 AM Page 1 Page 31 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank ‘Sxiterion (Welaht) Score 7 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 10.34 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 9.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 18.00 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 13.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) : A (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land interest. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments The project is for the replacement of oil fired boilers with wood boilers that utilize either wood pellets or chips to provide heat for the Hydaburg Schools campus. The campus consists of an elementary school, high school and a gymnasium each with its own oil-fired boiler. If pellets are the chosen fuel source, Sealaska has committed to delivering pellets to Hydaburg on a bi-monthly basis shipped from Juneau to Hydaburg for about $300/ton. A silo would house the bulk delivery of pellets in Hydaburg. This fuel delivery model is similar to what is employed in Juneau to provide pellets to the Sealaska corporate building. Hydaburg estimates $18,000 per year in fuel savings through the conversion to pellets. If wood chips are the chosen fuel source, Viking Lumber in Craig has committed to delivering chips to Hydaburg for $75 per ton. Hydaburg estimates $27,000 per year in fuel savings through the conversion to chips. This project appears to be well thought out and having two confirmed sources of delivered raw wood supply is an added bonus. The proposal however examines the total life cycle cost and when considering the increase in operation and maintenance costs associated with wood heat sources there is little economic incentive to convert the buildings to wood,Heating. The use of in state produced wood chips however has other economic spin offs of a positive nature to the southeast Alaska economy. This project may have a better pay back if a solid fuel wood heater such as a Garn boiler is used in a single building installation. ee DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sfructures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:05:32 AM ry Page 32 of 170 Ss Proposer: City & Borough of Sitka (CBS) Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant The City & Borough of Sitka proposes to raise the project dam from spill elevation 342 feet mean sea level (msl) to elevation 425 feet msl; construct a new powerhouse containing three 5.3-megawatt (MW) units; install new intake works and a surge chamber; and modify the power conduit to accommodate higher hydraulic pressure and connect new or relocated project features. In addition, the existing 0.670-MW fish valve unit generator would be replaced with a new 1- MW unit and the existing 0.870-MW pulp mill feeder unit would be decommissioned. The total authorized capacity of the project would rise from 7.5 MW to 16.9 Mw. City and Borough of Sitka request funds for‘@@astruction of argexpansion to the Blue Lake dam. Construction elements include 83 feet raise of existing reinforced concrete arch dam, new powerhouse with thré@jew turbinegenerator units totaling 15.9 MW capacity, a new intake and connection tunnel, and a new surge chamber. The project construction bids came in higher than expe ted so the CBS is seeking additional state funding and planning to sell more revenue bonds to cover the new estimated project cost of $145M. Special provision: AEA will require finalized financial plan before any new grants will be put in place. AEA recommends full funding. Project Cost: $145,000,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $4,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.09 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $4,000,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $8,000,000 Southeast AEA Fund ndatio ; waa 1/2/2013 10:33:48 AM Page 1 Page 33 of 170 7 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 414 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 14.26 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 18.50 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5.00 5) Bonofits (Max 15) - 13.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank ) Sumeinenesy (Max) po (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) a ene (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Propose to raise the height of the dam to increase capacity in the reservoir, increase from 342’ to 425’. Land that will be inundated is Forest Service land. No State land type interest identified. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent'structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska. gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions. 11212013 10:33:48 AM Py 2 Page 34 of 170 a ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary {= = Proposer: Municipality of Skagway Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant The Municipality of Skagway (Municipality) proposes to construct the West Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located on West Creek, approximately 7 miles west of Skagway and adjacent to the small community of Dyea. The primary purpose of the Project would be offsetting diesel generation by cruise ships that dock in Skagway from May through September each year. Up to five cruise ships per day dock in Skagway for 12-15 hours and continuously operate their diesel plants to provide for on-board electricity consumption. The continuous stack emissions spread a blue haze at about the 1,500 foot elevation where vegetation has been noticeably affected. The Project will improve air quality and save vegetation in the area (there may be other unknown environmental benefits). To emphasize how serious the air quality of the area is being taken, the National Park Service, Municipality of Skagway, and Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) have a cooperative agreement to place and maintain equipment at AP&T’s Dewey Lakes Hydro project site to monitor this pollution. Preliminary results of this monitoring are attached as an appendix. A secondary purpose of the Project is to provide winter energy to the local utility when they have a shortfall of hydro energy from their hydroelectric projects (2011 = Dewey Lakes Hydro, Lutak Hydro, Goat Lake Hydro, Kasidaya Creek Hydro) as well as to sell winter energy to other utilities in the area, and conceptual design of a 10-25 MW hydro project at West Creek to be connected to the r Dyea, 7 miles west of Skagway. The estimated cost of this project +$140 million. One 4.5 mile power tunnel to a powerhouse on the Taiya River. The primary purpose of the y in the summer. The secondary purpose is to supply power to the local grid during ect in rounds 2 (#262) and 5 (#800). AEA recommended the project for partial funding but due receive funding. The Borough and Municipality of Skagway (BMS) proposes Upper Lynn Canal (Haines-Skagway) grid. West.@fee most costly scheme would propose a 200’ da r project is to offset diesel generation by cruise periods of shortfall in the winter. BMS app to low scores and limited funding availability t The AEA review team has the following concerns ab& : a BMS states that a major benefit of the projeC¥is the reduced air emissions from diesel generation by the cruise ships. However, when the EPA mandated change in cruise ship fuel from bunker oil to ultra low sulfur diesel is implemented, the air quality issues associated with docking of cruise ships will decrease substantially. This, in turn, reduces the public benefit of this project. 2 AEA has previously committed funding for Connelly Lake, Schubee Lake, and Burro Creek reconnaissance and feasibility assessment. These projects would compete to meet the same loads as the proposed project. 3: Given that the chief aim of the project is to supply the shore-based cruise ship load, AEA questions the amount of public benefit to be received versus the high capital cost and high technical, business, and regulatory risks of the proposed project. 4. Since the project would potentially affect the viewscapes and upstream waters of the Klondike Gold Rush National Park, there is significant permitting risk. Project Cost: $140,000,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $236,000 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $84,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $320,000 i Cre ein i236000. 1/2/2013 10:06:20 AM Page 1 Page 35 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 9.52 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 11.26 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 8.40 44.59 4) Project Readinoss (Max 5) - 17 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 8.26 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 1.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Municipal entitlement not complete and application rests dependency on that. Timing of that decision may affect project timelines. Secondly water rights needed. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments: f ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent Str Uctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Eastern Denali fault (Chilkoot River section) (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www. dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions. 11/2/2013 10:06:20 AM Pe 2 Page 36 of 170 i Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6-Preliminary Js Abediitillilien 5 ' Sa bb aie = os Proposer: Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Kirk Warren Design Project Description as defined by applicant The proposed Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie is a 34.5-kV transmission line that will interconnect the electric systems of Metlakatla Power & Light (MP&L) and Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). The Intertie will include 14 miles of overhead wood pole transmission line to be constructed on Annette Island between Metlakatla and Walden Point and an approximate three mile submarine cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel between Walden Point and KPU’s Mountain Point Substation. The project will also include control system upgrades to allow for the integrated operation of the interconnected systems’ generating plants. Final design of the Metlakatla — Ketchikan Intertie is underway. Construction of the line began in June 2010 and all poles are set for the overhead line. Approximately 20% of the conductor is installed along the line. The control system upgrades were completed in July 2011. ditions of the grant will support a step-wise approach to determine feasibility; conceptual design; al design documents, final construction cost estimate, demonstration of site control, bathymetry, AEA is assisting MIC in complying with these conditions; however this work remains in process. The review team believes it is premature to allocate construction funds. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $14,510,599 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $9,570,434 Cost of Power: $0.10 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $9,570,434 Southeast ; i dati iiaaiaccie ; 1/2/2013 10:35:06 AM Page 1 Page 37 of 170 =—T Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank ‘Sriterton (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 4.46 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benetits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) one (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments This is the same project that was reviewed in previous rounds. DMLW has received an application for the portion of the intertie on State tide and submerged land, case file number ADL 108139. Presently this case is in the agency/public notice step of adjudication. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen [ All projects proposing the development of permanent 'structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:35:06 AM Page 2 Page 38 of 170 (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary fs Aadiiiilildeam Proposer: Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility AEA P. im M: 7 Di Ott rogram Manager: Doug Felice Project Description as defined by applicant Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority (THREA) is applying for funding to conduct feasibility, design, and obtain a FERC license for the Walker Lake Hydro Project. THREA filed a preliminary FERC permit application on June 11 , 2012 since it has municipal preference. THREA proposes to work with Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) the certificated utility for the service area of Klukwan and the Chilkat Valley in order to provide the lowest cost power for the benefit of IPEC's members/customers. The proposed project includes constructing two small dams at Walker Lake; intake and reservoir outlet works; a 24" penstock of approximately 12,000 feet in length; a powerhouse with installed capacity of approximately 1 MW; a tailrace of approximately 50' length; and a 12.4 KV underground transmission line of approximately 4 miles in length interconnecting with the existing transmission system of IPEC. The existing lake is at an elevation of 1,180 MSL and drains into Walker Creek and the Little Salmon River. The project is located on USGS maps shown on both Skagway B-3 and B-4 Please refer to Appendix A Map of Walker Lake Hydro Project Application river hydro project at Walker Lake. The primary purpose of the project would funding to study Walker Lake in Roundd 5 of the Renewab has ae the 600 kW Ten-Mile hydro project, which di 29)>but was not recommended. Since Round 5 application, in October 2011 IPEC b but 60% of the energy needed for the IPEC’s service area. The balance of their power needs at grid is 97% powered by hydropower, so the amount of diesel to be saved by building Sance e enor Walker Lake in 1988 with an estimated capital cost of $10.5M. Sealaska Corporation updated the assessment in 2005. Both studies concdudedit feasibility was marginal to poor. The project capital cost is not shown in this application. The review team has the following concerns with thi 1. The demand for the project power will be a fracti round. 2. While the application states that THREA will sell its power to IPEC for 7 cents/kWh, it is highly likely the cost of power from Walker Lake would exceed that purchased from AP&T. 3. There is no updated reconnaissance report available to ascertain if the project can be economically justified. 4. This project would displace very little diesel generation (approx. 1,300 gallons per year). 97% of the power purchased from APC (the load Walker Lake would satisfy) is generated from the Lutak, Kasidaya, Dewey, and Goat Lake hydropower projects. 5. AEA has already committed funding for Connelly Lake, Schubee Lake, West Creek, and Burro Creek reconnaissance and feasibility assessment. These projects would compete to meet the same loads as the proposed project. the a annual energy available from Walker Lake; given that the project will spill nearly year Project fails to pass the minimum Stage 2 score and is not recommended. Project Cost: $690,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $640,000 Cost of Power: $0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $50,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $690,000 Southeast 1/2/2013 10:35:58 AM Page 1 Page 39 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 27.12 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.75 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 5.90 A) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Bonofits (Max 15) - 0.60 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 4.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max §) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments This project is primarily on State land within the Haines State Forest. DMLW has received an application for this project and assigned it case file number - ADL 108134. The applicant is Southern Energy Inc. This is not the same entity that is seeking funding from AEA, the applicant for AEA’s Renewable Energy Fund is the Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority. There does not appear to be a cooperative relationship between the two entities in forwarding this project. Instead there may be a competing interest and presently we understand that both entities have applied for a FERC license. The division is not in a position to comment on the feasiblity of this application because we cannot adjudicate anything until we know which party will be issued the preliminary FERC permit. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent'sguctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Eastern Denali fault (Chilkoot River section) (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www. dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions. 1/2/2013 10:35:68 AM Pi 2 Page 40 of 170 = (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladbltildilivsm Proposer: AVCP Regional Housing Authority Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Construction Project Description as defined by applicant AVCP Housing intends to construct a Wood Biomass Heating System plant within its campus to reduce high energy costs. The wood biomass heating system is expected to supplant 85% of the estimated heat usage. The current diesel fuel cost is $6. 78/gal. in Bethel. Without the benefit of a biomass heating system, it is estimated we will be using 67,766 gallons of heating fuel annually beginning in the winter of 2012-2013. rovision AVCP Housing requests funding to design 4 buildings including a 16 unit assisted living source will be pellets. i Biomass Heating System within its campus to reduce high energy costs. This project will heat 12 1g complexes, 2 warehouses, a dormitory, a maintenance facility, and office buildings. The fuel This project has the potential to positively impact Bethljand the surrounding communities by providing a logistical supply of pellets to the region. A pellet distribution plan and the final design must be accepted by AEA prior to construction funding being released. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Project Cost: $3,399,387 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,149,387 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $250,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $3,399,387 miceibanaii iene actcnnaessnutimanannast AIS Bl esd 1/2/2013 10:36:51 AM be Pi 1 Page 41 of 170 a Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 22.24 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 7.50 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 12.20 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.00 5) Bonetits (Max 15) - 1.78 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 6) - 3.33 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permits or authorizations required for project as currently described. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project would design and construct a wood pellet boiler to provide heat to an Association of Village Council Presidents Rural Housing Administration campus in Bethel. The campus provides housing for 48 low-income households, a 30-bed aviation dormitory, and a 20-bed construction worker bunkhouse. It is anticipated that 540 tons of wood pellets would be required annually. It is estimated that with shipping costs included the annual cost would be $248,347 or $459.90 per ton. A silo would house the bulk delivery of pellets in Bethel. AVCP estimates $103,264 per year in fuel savings through the conversion to pellets. This is based on a diesel fuel cost of $6.28 per gallon. At these prices and a total grant cost of almost $3.4 million, the simple pay back time is about 33 years. Pellet costs were obtained from an engineering study investigating the use of pellet boilers at the AVCP Regional Housing Authority Complex. This study however was not included in the application. Ideally several quotes should be available for pellet delivery to Bethel since these prices form the overall cost savings assumptions used in the proposal. A letter of support from the president of AVCP acknowledges the benefits of woody biomass and considers the possible future use of biomass from the upper Kuskokwim River area. é DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen azards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent ‘ures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks, Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 12/2013 10:36:61 AM P: Page 42 of 170 oats (@MBED ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary ss Alediiltiliiltvcm. Proposer: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant The Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project (Project) will include construction of a small diversion dam and intake structure just above Gartina Falls, installation of a steel penstock, a powerhouse at the base of the falls, a new access road, 0.1 miles of transmission line buried in conduit, and installation of power poles for 3.8 miles of overhead transmission line within the access road right-of-way. The purpose of the Project is to divert water from above the waterfall into the power plant and then discharge water back to the base of the waterfall. The new hydroelectric system will have an installed capacity of 455 kilowatts (kW) and will therefore be used to avoid an estimated 30 percent of Hoonah's current diesel-powered electricity through hydro generation. IPEC requests construction funds for Gartina Fal . The project was previously funded for permitting and final design in Rd 3 (#462). Schedule proposed is aggressive and adds to the p i ‘of construction cost overruns. Special provisions: AEA must approve the deliverables from the prior grant #462 before any construction funds will be reimbursed: 1) Proof of site control, 2) FERC license and all permits, 3) site adapted final design plans and specs, 4) construction cost estimate, 5) project budget, 6) renegotiation to lower management/PM fees and 7) schedule. Project Cost: $8,009,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $6,694,000 Cost of Power: $0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $15,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $6,709,000 Southeast AEA Funding | datio pois: 11212013 10:37:35 AM Page 1 Page 43 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Griterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 27.09 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - §.26 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 15.67 72.97 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 12.12 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.83 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen zards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent ctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The project sits between the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather fault and Denali fault (Chatham Strait section) (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http: //www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions. 1/2/2013 10:37:35 AM Page 2 Page 44 of 170 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary J's Alediliild@llean Proposer: Native Village of Afognak Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Recon AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Feasibility Project Description as defined by applicant To conduct a study on the feasibility of installing a biofuel system at the Kodiak High School to provide fuel/heat to the building, decrease the overall waste going into the Kodiak landfill and provide a biofuel education service through the Kodiak High School Career and Technical Program. rovision The Native Village of Afognak proposes to co High School. The system would provide he 2 building utilizing waste from the Kodiak landfill and other biomass resources. The system would also provide a biofuel education service throt h School Career and Technical Program. In the application, the Native Village of Afognak re me § pursuing gasification technology from Community Power Corporation and hiring CPC to perform the technical analysis. CPC is a wholly owned subsidiary 0& e Afognak Native Corporation. AEA supports the project proposal for a reconnaissance, feasibility and conceptual design study for a biofuel system using municipal solid waste and other biomass resources, but requires that the study be conducted by an independent consultant experienced in biofuel systems. The proposed study would have to consider all potential biofuels technologies and not focus only on CPC technology. Recommend full funding with the provision that AEA approve the selected consulting firm. Project Cost: $1,633,974 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $170,974 Cost of Power: $0.19 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $170,974 vin (ee eer aantaeiniadimscammaniesi A OTA 1/2/2013 10:38:25 AM P; Page 45 of 170 nil Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score as 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 8.32 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 11.40 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 0,83 5) Bonotits (Max 15) - 11.88 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permits or authorizations for project as currently described. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by the Native Village of Afognak would produce a feasibility study and conceptual design for the installation of a biofuel system to heat the Kodiak High School. The proposal seeks to explore and assess identified potential feedstock material. This focuses on the use of available recycled material in Kodiak that may consist of cardboard, other paper resources and woody material species (if required). The boiler configuration proposed is downdraft gasification technology capable of converting locally available waste streams into power used to heat the school. Project implementation will depend on the amount of material available. If it is determined that there is not enough material, then other sources such as pellets and possibly chips may be able to supplant the raw resource. Afognak Island timber harvest operations could possible be a supplier of this resource but delivered costs are unknown at this time. The main information gathered on feedstock supply currently consists of Coast Guard base info of 707 tons of fiber waste that was recycled last year. DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen zards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent’ structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:38:25 AM Pe 2 Page 46 of 170 eal Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladin. (QM ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Kenai Peninsula Borough School District (KPBSD) Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Project Description as defined by applicant The proposed project will undertake final design and construction of a wood-fired hydronic heating system in three Seward schools. A Feasibility Study (FS) was completed in July, 2011 by Dan Parrent, USDA Forest Service, which served the purpose of both Reconnaissance and Feasibility. The Feasibility Study was also reviewed in a document prepared by Lew McCreery (USDA FS) of the USDA Wood Education and Resource Center (WERC). Both reports (attached to this application) attested to the viability and readiness of the project, which is now ready to proceed to Final Design and Construction Phases. This proposed Seward Schools Biomass Heating System project will implement the following multi-phased process: « Phase III, Final Design of a wood-fired hydronic heating system to heat the combined Seward High, Middle and Elementary School campus with woody biomass fuel. * Phase IV, Construction, Commissioning, and Operation of the heating system and follow up reporting on operation and maintenance. The project is designed to proceed without the delay of additional grant year cycles. Reports from the 2011 feasibility assessment and a 2011 District energy evaluation will serve as the reference documents for this project.Location — latitude and longitude or street address or community / communities served: The proposed project will serve the community of Seward, AK, located on the Kenai Peninsula. The three locations for the project are: 1. Seward Middle School, 304 Sea Lion Avenue, Seward, AK 99664 (60.132177,-149.431508. 2. William H. Seward Elementary School, 606 Sea Lion Avenue, Seward, AK 99664 (60.13: 3. Seward High School, P.O. Box 1049, Seward, AK 99664 (60.133855,-149.422388) rovision The Kenai Peninsula Borough School Distri€ middle, and high school. This project is esti completed feasibility phase work. esign and installation of pellet-fired boiler systems to heat three Seward schools — the elementary, ed to displacega'total of 120,600 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 1121 tons of pellets per year. The project has The application includes substantial support from the unity, USFS, and the local tribal council. This project will develop an anchor tenant for pellet supply in the Southcentral Alaska region and will potentially support the development of pellet manufacturing infrastructure. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding, with requirement of AEA acceptance of final design prior to release of construction funding. Project Cost: $1,415,234 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,367,464 Cost of Power: $0.19 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $47,770 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,415,234 Refoalt eee sanenennnimcnamebilaa Glade) 1/2/2013 10:39:19 AM Page 1 Page 47 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Siiterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 6.41 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 17.80 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3,00 5) Bonefits (Max 15) - 12.87 . 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 483 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permits or authorizations required for project as currently described DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project undertakes final design and construction of a wood-fired hydronic heating system in three Seward schools. The project is essentially a continuation of last year’s project # 834 proposal in that it seeks design and construction funds. The project was reviewed.in a document similar to this last year. Briefly, in pre- feasibility reports prepared by USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, a wood pellet system that replaces the oil fired boilers appears to be cost effective with a reasonable simple payback time period. Pellets would be shipped to Seward either from in state or out of state suppliers depending on price and availability. It is estimated that 80% of the annual fuel oll consumption could be replaced by wood for an a nual sa ings of approximately $117,330. This is based on a fuel oil cost of $461,794 at $3.83 per gallon. The project estimates an average wood resource demand 1,121 of wood pellets per year though it is not clear at what price the pellets would be bought for. Working backwards from the amount claimed, ‘Ge vings, roughl¥$344,464 would be spent for the pellets or $307.28 per ton. The pre-feasibility study researched commercially available pellet providers and‘dentified vendors th in-state and Outside including Superior Pellets in North Pole, a small plant in Ketchikan and Pacific Northwest and Canadian sources. It also looked at BTU comparisons between pellets and fuel oil with an estimated price of $453/ton equating to $3.82/gallon. As mentioned above for Property # 924, ideally several quotes should be available for pellet delivery to the facility to enable a range of estimated raw material costs to be calculated. Gis DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments All. projects proposing the development of permanent'Stfuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:39:19 AM P a Page 48 of 170 ae Proposer: Alaska Power & Telephone Company Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) proposes to conduct a Phase III project that will complete the Final Design and Permitting for a 2MWe biomass CHP (combined heat and power) system. The system will offset up to 1M gallons of fossil fuel per year and create a market for approximately $1M of locally sourced woody biomass, much of which would otherwise be wildfire hazardous fuels. AP&T, with support from the Alaska Gateway School District, the Tok Umbrella Association, the Upper Tanana communities of Tok, Tetlin, Dot Lake and Tanacross, the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and working with contracted Consultants, Foresters and Economists, is collaborating to develop a CHP system utilizing locally sourced woody biomass as fuel. The project will create the final design for the system, and thoroughly assess and prepare the permitting process for the biomass energy project. NOTE: Most of the detail in this grant application is from pre-feasibility work and the (full) Feasibility Study (FS Final Report pending November 2012, however excerpts are added to this document as attachments). AP&T is completing a screening level study of alternative generation strategies, as part of the Biomass CHP Feasibility Study. Also being considered in comparison to Biomass CHP are the following power generation scenarios: Diesel, Wind, Wind with pumping and storage, (trucked) Natural Gas, and Hydro. Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) propos@§ ase III project that will complete the Final Design and Permitting for a 2MWe biomass CHP (combined heat and power) system. This system is esti a While the review team is supportive of this project, this application for design and final permitting is premature. Small-scale CHP systems are emerging technology, and the feasibility report must be thoroughly reviewed before this agency can recommend further funding. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $18,000,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,990,000 Cost of Power: $0.49 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $60,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $2,050,000 Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana (ea 1/2/2013 10:40:30 AM Page 1 Page 49 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welght) Score 1) Cost of Enorgy (Max 35) - 21.26 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Bonofits (Max 16) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 3.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Tok biomass project. DOF issueing long-term contracts. DMLW might be involved in easements or materials sales for access. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments te This project submitted by Alaska Power & Telephone seeks to undertake final design and permitting ofa 2MW combined heat and power system located in Tok. This project has had extensive review of the wood resource in and around Tok. The state Division fi ‘Forestry has performed work to update the Tanana Valley State Forest inventory and has also completed an analysis of wood availability within several mileage ‘distance radii of the proposed CHP facility. In addition to the forest inventory work, Tok Area Forestry has conducted research to determine local values of, total above ¢ ‘ground wood weight by species and size class. Regression equations developed from this research will be applied to the forest inventory update to calculaté green weight values in addition to more common volume measurements such as cubic and board feet. Currently the state is developing a preliminary best interest finding to determine if it should proceed with a competitive 25-year timber sale contract for biomass. ar A DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen' All projects proposing the development of permanent*sfructures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11212013 10:40:30 AM Pace Page 50 of 170 “se Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary 's= Alediiilildvas. Proposer: Alaska Gateway School District Applicant Type: IPP Government Entity Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Construction Project Description as defined by applicant The Alaska Gateway School District (AGSD) Heat Loop Project request is for Phase III Design and Phase IV Construction of a waste heat recovery application for AGSD’s existing 5.5 MMBTU woody biomass energy facility. The project will recover waste heat which would otherwise be rejected and distribute it to ten (10) State-owned and Community building-clusters. The district heat loop will directly replace heat from the existing fossil fuel heating systems, offsetting the equivalent of 49,100 gallons of fuel oil #1 per year. Heat customers will be charged for heat on a cost-based rate, and the hydronic heat sales are exempt from RCA regulations. Over the 18-month project period, AGSD plans to explore various collaborative business structures with the local utility, Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) and other potential contractors to operate and maintain the heat loop. AGSD is prepared to independently operate and maintain the district heat loop. rovision Alaska Gateway School District proposes addin pioff the newly-completed wood-fired heating system at the Tok School to provide heat to ten (10) State-owned and Community building-clusters: ihe project team would complete a final design phase and construction documents prior to construction. This application is similar to the Round 5 submittal 6 was recommended for funding, but below the $25MM allotment. This Round 6 application significantly increases the number of buildings and thes e of the proposed in the heat loop. AEA is supportive of this project and continues to encourage the collaboration between the Alaska Gateway School District and the Alaska Power and Telephone biomass projects. Recommend full funding with the provision that AEA approve the final design before construction funds are released. Project Cost: $2,848,939 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $2,753,364 Cost of Power: $0.49 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $95,575 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $2,848,939 Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana nding Recomm on: 1/2/2013 10:41:40 AM Page 1 Page 51 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 21.25 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 8.40 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.00 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 1.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.17 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) . (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Proposal for waste heat recovery system for AGSD's existing woody biomass energy facility. Possible AS 38.05.850 permits/easements needed for transmission lines on state land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All. projects proposing the development of permanent'structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:41:40 AM Page 52 of 170 ae Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladin. Proposer: City of Galena Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Project Description as defined by applicant The City of Galena is requesting AEA Round 6 funding to provide a sustainable and predictable energy resource for its school district. The Galena Community Wood Heat Project will substantially reduce high costs for heat for the Galena Interior Learning Academy School (GILA) by utilizing woody biomass harvested and processed from local forests. The project will implement Phase III Final Design and Phase IV Construction over a two (2) year period to install a biomass boiler system for the GILA campus. Local coordination among the stakeholders group is strong, infrastructure and administrative resources are in place to support the project, and the Galena City School District has committed to purchasing the resulting heat. Existing Feasibility Studies and strategic community planning documents align with the project. ip-fired boiler systems to heat its school district and the Galena Interior Learning Academy School Egallons per year of fuel oil, using tons 2,950 tons of chips per year. The technical feasibility phase K is still in process. The City of Galena is proposing final design*afd installation o (GILA). This project is estimated to displace a%ota of this project is complete, but the harvest/fuel i The application includes substantial support from the community, the Louden Tribal Council, Galena City School District, and Gana’A-Yoo Limited. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend partial funding for final design and permitting and business/operational plan to allow the project team time to successful complete this stage of the project. Project Cost: $2,870,635 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $2,787,719 Cost of Power: $0.56 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $82,916 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $2,870,635 Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana NST STE ETS TTT ES ‘ ; mies J 11212013 10:42:33 AM Page 1 Page 53 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Srtterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Enorgy (Max 35) - 24.60 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 16.30 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 12.63 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 2.83 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) Men (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Biomass plant is not on state land. Forest resources have not been identified on state land. Doing an inventory to determine biomass sources. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by the City of Galena seeks to design and construct a biomass boiler for the Galena Interior Learning Academy campus. The boiler will be located at the Galena Base Steam Plant adjacent to the former Galena Air Force Base. The chosen system consists of a 4-7 MMBTU woodchip steam boiler, using wood fuels up to 40% moisture content. The projected amount needed per year is approximately 2,900 tons of woodchips which would displace 224,831 gallons of #1 fuel oil, An estimate of delivered biomass modeled for other off-the-road communities is $175-$200/ton. Current fuel oil at $4.91/gallon results in an annual fuel savings of $523,920 per year using $200/ton for the woodchips. The Louden Tribal Council préviously conducted a feasibility study of the project. As part of the feasibility study an initial estimate of available biomass on Galena village corporation lands was conducted by Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program in June 2012. The estimate confirmed that adequate supplies of biomass are available. The estimate was general in nature and a more detailed estimate has been contracted with Geographic Resource Solutions. This project would also be able to potentially harvest timber on nearby state lands however, detailed estimates of available timber volume from these lands has not been conducted. This project appear$'to be well thought out and likely to be successful given the fact that a significant amount of pre-planning has been undertaken. The village corporation has‘gigned a letter of support and is willing to enter into a contract for the sale of timber which will support procurement of the biomass. This commitment combined with:hearby state lands that would also be available as a raw wood supply should provide a means for a sustainable timber harvest operation in this area of Alaska. DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments All. projects proposing the development of permanent’ Structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 112/2013 10:42:33 AM Page 2 Page 54 of 170 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladtsiiiildres. ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: City of Ouzinkie Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Kirk Warren Project Description as defined by applicant This phase of the overall project is recommended in the completed feasibility report regarding extending Kodiak Electric Association’s Monashaka feeder line to the City of Ouzinkie, dated April 2011. (attached) The line extension will tie KEA’s current electrical grid, including hydro and wind power generation, to the City of Ouzinkie. Necessarily, the inter-tie will include a submarine electrical cable of approximately 1 to 1.4 miles (depending on route) in length between the Island of Kodiak and Spruce Island. The report reads, “as the project moves forward, the recommendation is to perform bathymetric surveys and marine geophysical studies to refine and verify the submarine feasibility.” The City of Ouzinkie currently has both electrical and hydro power generation but of limited capacity and reliability. Connecting Ouzinkie to the KEA power grid will provide virtually unlimited, primarily renewable, reliable power to the community and thereby facility community growth and economic development. The feasibility report, attached, was jointly funded by the Ouzinkie Native Corporation and Kodiak Electrical Association. rovision This phase of the project is to complete a bathym sy and marine geological study to refine cable route needed to extend Kodiak Electric Associations feeder line to the City of Ouzinkie. The extension wil ‘s current electrical grid to Ouzinkie. The intertie ultimately will include a sub-marine cable of 1 to 1.4 miles in length dependent upon the results of the survey and geological study. AEA recommends full funding for this project conditional upon a letter of support from Kodiak Electric Association. Project Cost: $6,129,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $356,400 Cost of Power: $0.41 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $25,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $381,400 Kodiak \ Funding Recommendation: eins ‘AQG 11212013 10:43:42 AM Page 1 Page 55 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Enorgy (Max 36) - 18.12 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0.75 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 12.50 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3,00 5) Benefits (Max 16) - 4.88 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 467 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Feasibility study to include bathymetric survey and geological marine study. No AS 38.05.850 permits needed at this time unless coring or placement of utility lines takes place. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sfructures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The proposed project does not cross any known fault zones. The closest seismic sources are the Narrow Cape fault zone and the Aleutian subduction zone. Both sources are capable of generating strong ground motions and should be considered in future project design (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http: //www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). 11212013 10:43:42 AM Pi Page 56 of 170 eoeee Alaska Renewable Ene a rgy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary J's Aladbltillildess. (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: City of King Cove Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant This project will be a modest, run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility using Waterfall Creek and consisting of a concrete diversion/intake structure, 4,500' HOPE penstock pipeline, 16'X40' metal powerhouse on concrete slab, Pelton Impulse Turbine and induction generator, remote automatic control system, and 5,000' access road. This facility will be a working partner to the City's existing and highly successful Delta Creek hydroelectric project, which has been operating for the last seventeen years. rovision City was awarded a $200,000 grant (#887) i plete permitting and final design for Waterfall Creek. These activities are underway at this time. V run-of-river Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric project. AEA supports this request though notes that the final design and construction cost estimate are not complete at this time and the City continues further discussion w/ ADF&G about the amount of stream flow reserved for resident fish. Special conditions include completion of all grant requirements of Grant 887, resolution of amount of instream flow reservation, demonstrate site control, etc. before any R6 grant funds are disbursed. Project Cost: $4,300,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $2,600,000 Cost of Power: $0.27 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $1,300,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $3,900,000 Aleutians AEA.Fund ec dation zs > aes 1/2/2013 10:45:57 AM Page 1 Page 57 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score c 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 11.60 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 12.75 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 16.00 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 12,00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) SusteineDiaty(48k.6) - ed (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) a (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Application for hydroelectric facility. AS 38.05.850 permits/easements required for transmission lines and penstock on state land. Possible lease required for powerhouse on concrete slab. Water rights application LAS 27738 currently on file with DMLW. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sffuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Aleutian subduction zone which is capable of generating strong ground motions at the site (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Designs should be implemented to withstand these forces. 1/2/2013 10:45:57 AM Page 2 Page 58 of 170 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6-Preliminary fs Aladbldillibras. ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant The Allison Creek Project is a run of the river (ROR) alternative involving construction of a diversion structure on Allison Creek at elevation 1,300 feet. Water will be diverted from the creek into a 42 inch surface / buried penstock to a 6.5 megawatt powerhouse near tidewater. Attachment A is the Final Feasibility Study which provides details on this project as presented and approved by the CVEA Board of Directors. CVEA requests $6,114,000 to construct a 65: lead items for the project. The project is e r-o-r hydroelectric power plant on Allison Creek. The funds would be used to purchase owner-furnished long ually) over 4 million gallons of diesel fuel now used for power generation. M final construction estimate are not complete; the ite: be purchased are not identified; CVEA already has $10M in state capital funds to purchase long lead items needed; the project development schedule provided is quite aggressive; Despite these shortcomings, it is a valid renewable energy project. Special provision: Complete prior grant funded activities and acceptance by AEA for: final design documents, construction cost est., construction schedule and plan of finance Project Cost: $38,804,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $6,114,000 Cost of Power: $0.28 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $6,114,000 nile wal Ce tiie neaennsSi ld i00..,) 1/2/2013 10:47:02 AM Page 1 Page 59 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Griterion (Welaht) Score TT 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 12.44 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 15.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 15.87 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.60 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 12,38 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.83 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Hydroelectric project. AS 38.05.850 permits/easements required for electric transmission line and penstock. Easement applications ADL 231698 rec'd 10/25/2012. LAS 27334 (land use permit) and LAS 28393 (water right application) also on file for this project. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent'SffUctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The Aleutian subduction zone, faults of the Chugach-St. Elias fold and thrust belt, and the Patton Bay fault have potential to cause strong ground motions at the site (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Appropriate design should be implemented to withstand these forces. 1/2/2013 10:47:02 AM P Page 60 of 170 =* Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary J's Aledhiililtra ‘ae | ee Sm og oS Ds age cen Proposer: Nenana City School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Project Description as defined by applicant The “Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report” dated July 24, 2012 states that, “Connecting the school with several nearby buildings with a wood fired district heating system appears to be an economically viable project.” (p. 2 of 13) The buildings for the City of Nenana include the Water Plant and the Fire Department. The building included for the Nenana Native Council is the Youth Educational Resource Center (YERC), which houses the Early Learning, Head Start, and Youth Center programs. The school district buildings included in the project are the Nenana City Public School, the Administration Building, the Warehouse/Vocational Education Building, and the Nenana Student Living Center. Though the Nenana Student Living Center is located approximately six blocks from the Nenana City Public School, the “Pre-Feasibility Assessment” states, “The additional energy saved by connecting several buildings together offsets the significant additional cost of underground piping and pumping costs. . . . Even with the significant piping costs, the extra pumping energy, and the extra wood fuel needed to offset the heat loss of the long pipe runs, this option remains the strongest relative to other options.” (p. 2 & 3 of 13) The Nenana City School District in Nenana, AKG: buildings: Nenana City School; Administration BOtd) Department . The project has the potential save ti ‘equests funding for engineering design phase to build a district wide heating system for following efiouse; Nenana Student Living Center; Nenana Native Council Day Care; City Water Plant; City Fire ‘City School District in excess $3,516,725 over the life of the project. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design; business plan with heat sales agreement; harvest plan; inventory plan. Project Cost: $3,006,607 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $466,890 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $19,200 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $486,090 Railbelt 1/2/2013 10:47:48 AM Page 1 Page 61 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 9.81 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stag 2 (Max 20) - 16.83 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 13.13 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Application references State lands within the future Nenana Tochacket Agriculture Project as a potential source of wood, noting that purchasers of state land must clear timber to prepare for cultivation - while this Is true, it must be clearly understood that Ag land sold by the state of Alaska is subject to covenants, and development of the parcel (including the extent and nature of clearing) must take place consistent with a state-approved farm conservation plan. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments Three entities including the Nenana City School District, the City of Nenana, and the Nenana Native Council have submitted this project for design of a wood fired district heating system. Toghotthele Corporation owns a significant amount of timber land near Nenana and has offered support for this project and is interested in participating in sales of the raw resource. The area is also close to the Tanana Valley State Forest which maintains a logging road infrastructure and offers timber sales in the Nenana area. This raw resource woodshed combined with volume potentially from state land agriculture clearings and Mental Health Trust Authority lands should ensure a sustainable harvest operation. It is anticipated that this project will ufllize a woodchip boiler that requires approximately 1,037 green tons (30% moisture content). The Tanana Valley State Forest Inventory update estimates 59:tons of above ground ‘biomass per acre. Thus approximately 20 acres of timber per year would be required for this project. The amount would be quite sustainable for ‘this ‘area of the Tanana Valley. DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen All projects proposing the development of permanent'Structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 41212013 10:47:48 AM Page 2 Page 62 of 170 et Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary j= Dilebilp Khe. ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Interior Regional Housing Authority Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Construction Project Description as defined by applicant The project will design and construct wood heating systems in three Interior Alaska rural communities. IRHA has conducted eight feasibility assessments including forest inventories and wood harvest assessments in eight Interior communities. Based on the feasibility studies, design and construction of biomass systems and wood storage facilities will begin design and construction in spring 2013 in Nikolai, Koyukuk, and Anvik. Round 6 funding is being requested for three more biomass systems in three more communities in the region. Projects will be selected based the likelihood of successful project implementation which includes identification of a project champion in the community, projected simple payback and adequate, sustainable forest inventory. IRHA will partner with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the individual tribes. Renewable Energy Fund Round 4 IRHA received funding for biomass feasibility studies for: Koyukuk Nikolai Anvik Holy Cross Nulato Hughes Ruby Kaltag Renewable Energy Fund Round 5 IRHA received funding for design and construction for three biomass projects to be determined by Round 4 feasibility studies( completed in August 2012) Nikolai, Anvik and Koyukuk are selected for design and construction based on the highest annual savings, lowest simple payback and biomass stocking figures that indicate sustainable harvest plans. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 IRHA submitting a Round 6 application for construction of three more biomass projects to be determined suing feasibility studies and forest inventories. IRHA submitting a Round 6 application for feasibility studies for seven more communities in the Interior- Alatna, Allakaket, Beaver, Stevens Village, Grayling, Shageluk and Northway. The location of the three biomass systems to be designed and constructed will be in three of the foll communities: Hughes (66.048890 N, 154,255560W), Ruby (64.739440 N 155.486940W), Nulato (64.719440 N 1 3060 W), Kaltag (64.327220 N 158.721940 W), Holy Cross(62.199440 N 159.771390 W), Alatna (66 .566920 N 152.666390 W), Allakaket (66.56261! 7560 W), Shageluk (62.682220 N 159.561940 W), Grayling (62.903610 N 160.064720 W), Northway (62.982220 N 141.951670 W), Beaver (66,3) 96390 W) or Stevens Village (66.006390 N 149,090830 W). The Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRBA identified in the future from feasibility studie AEA is supportive of small scale biomass heating systems in Interior Alaska that are economically viable within sustainable communities. The review team considered this application premature and the applicant should wait for the completion of the next round of feasibility studies to assure that the proposed projects are economically viable and sustainable. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $1,314,380 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,314,380 Cost of Power: $0.65 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $108,313 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,422,693 Funding: F ommendation.: ..... Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana 1/2/2013 10:49 AM Page 1 Page 63 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score rT ma 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 28.22 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 7.50 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) . ie (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Biomass resource ownership not identified. If on state land, resource sale likely required, Even if not on state land, state easements or permits may be required depending on access routes. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by Interior Regional Housing Authority would design and construct wood heat facilities in three Interior Alaska communities out of a total of 12 that have conducted or will conduct feasibility assessments. The studies include forest invey ind wood harvest assessments prepared by Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program and use a combination of existing inventory data and classified . Tanana Chiefs has currently assessed the villages of Hughes, Ruby, Nulato, Kaltag, and Holy Cross, The selection process will also look at village@apacity to hélp ensure a particular project's success. It is likely that the wood heating systems will be similar to the village of Tanana which utilizes Garn boiler$, Many of these villages are within forested areas along the Yukon se projects. 4 River. A sustainable supply of wood is generally thought to be available for the scale at 1e: Sn. 4 DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS General Comments f All. projects proposing the development of permanent'SffUctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:49 AM Page 64 of 170 paces Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary fs Aladiltildilteas. (MME ENERGY AUTHORITY — Proposer: _ Interior Regional Housing Authority Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Project Description as defined by applicant The seven communities named in this proposal- Alatna, Allakaket, Northway, Grayling, Shageluk, Beaver and Stevens Village- have all participated in energy planning meetings with IRHA and other organizations and have identified wood heating in public facilities as a key opportunity to displace fuel oil, reduce energy costs, utilize locally available renewable resources and create local employment. This proposal calls for feasibility assessments that include the study of public facilities where wood heating may be applicable, pre-engineering analysis of the size and type of boilers that would be required (including "boiler in a box" option), estimated fuel displacement and cost savings, capital cost and payback period, and forest inventory and wood harvest plan. Of the seven communities selected for this project, Stevens Village, Beaver and Northway had Preliminary Feasibility Assessments conducted in 2008. The 2008 studies suggested that biomass was a viable option for the communities, but that further analysis was necessary. For these three communities, the 2008 studies will be updated and expanded upon. Forest inventories will be completed as well. For the communities of Shageluk, Allakaket, Alatna and Grayling, IRHA proposes a two-pronged approach: (1) subcontract with a qualified biomass energy specialist to conduct a 1-2 day site visits in each community and prepare a feasibility assessment for each community, (2) subcontract with Will Putman, head forester for Tanana Chiefs Conference to conduct forest inventory and wood harvest planning. Following completion of these reports, project staff Kim Carlo and Nadine Winters of IRHA will continue to communicate with residents of the communities and facilitate their internal planning processes to determine whether each community wants to move forward with design and construction phases of the respective wood- heating projects, pending available funding . It bears mentioning that this proposal is identical in to one submitted by IRHA under Round 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund. It was funded and eight biomass feasibility studies are completed as is represents a deliberate approach whereby the applicant is proceeding in stages with conducting feasibility work prior to conceptual design, construction. It is anticipated that the phased approach will allow IRHA to conduct full assessments for most communities in the region. Alatna 66.566920 N 152.666390 W, Allakaket 66.562610 N 152.647560 W, Shagelul Northway 62.982220 N 141 .951670 W, Beaver 66.359440 N 147.396390 W, Steven: , 159.561940 W, Grayling 62.903610 N 160.064720 W, 106390 N 149.090830 W 19 for feasibility assessments and forest inventories in 7 communities to evaluate the potential use D feasibility assessments. A project for 8 communities was funded through Round 4, and a project for 7 communities was recommended for funding id 5, but was not funded. The proposed communities for this round are: Grayling, Northway, Beaver, Shageluk, Allakaket, Alatna, and Stevens Vilfag IRHA has assembled a strong team with a biomass energy and resource experience. AEA believes that the proposed approach is well-conceived. Recommend full funding of $168,959 for feasibility and biomass energy resource assessment. Project Cost: $168,959 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $168,959 Cost of Power: $0.66 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $168,959 Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana 1/2/2013 10:49:53 AM Page 65 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Siiterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 28.96 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0.00 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 15.30 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.00 5) Bonofits (Max 15) - 9.63 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 1.50 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score = (out of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Appears to be study only, with no development. If development were to occur, the biomass resource ownership not identified. If on state land, resource sale likely required. Even if not on state land, state easements or permits may be required depending on access routes, DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments al Interior villages. The project is essentially a continuation yr pre-engineering analysis of the size and type of boilers ar. to the facility in use for the village of Tanana but, the Shiefs Conference Forestry Program. The studies will ventory data and classified satellite imagery. This project will continue work to determine an operable sustainable biomass resourc! Unities within the region. of last year's project # 822 proposal. It will provide for a feasibility study of seven Interior villag required. The studies will examine the use of proposed cordwood fueled Garn boiler heating sydte! analyses are not limited to these systems. The proposal seeks to acquire forest inventory dj DNR/DGGS General Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sffuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:49:63 AM. Page 66 of 170 ieee Proposer: City of Savoonga Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant Currently, AVEC is not utilizing either the jacket heat from its diesel engines or the heat generated by the electric boiler installed to dispose excess wind energy. This project would recover heat from both sources at the AVEC plant and send that heat to the water treatment plant to heat the building, the circulated water loops, and the water storage tank. The AVEC power plant and the Savoonga water treatment plant are located next to each other in Savoonga. A feasibility study has been done for this project, the design has been completed and a construction cost estimate has been prepared. These are attached. Funds are being requested for construction only. The City of Savoonga in collaboration with, plant and an excess wind electric boiler to théjwater treatme! current fuel oil usage of 8800 gallons. NTHC is proposijg,the ruction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC power plant, water loop, and water storage tank. This project is estimated to displace 100% of the The feasibility study for this project was completed completed. and the heat recovery design was completed in 2012. The wind design of this project must be The heat recovery system will be operated and maintained through the ARUC program. Recommend full funding contingent on a heat sales agreement and accepted final design. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Project Cost: $425,701 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $425,701 Cost of Power: $0.49 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $11,752 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $437,453 din om datio Bering Straits 1/2/2013 10:50:45 AM Page 1 Page 67 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 21.48 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) ~ 5.28 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 16.30 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3,60 5) Bonefits (Max 15) - 11.63 8) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.33 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen } All projects proposing the development of permanent Structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site, Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:60:45 AM Page 68 of 170 rocens Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary fe Aladiidilildea ENERGY AUTHORITY gig ed: Proposer: Atmautluak Traditional Council Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the washeteria. Waste heat infrastructure will include waste heat transmission lines and upgrades necessary in the power house and washeteria. For more detailed information, see the attached feasibility study by Alaska Energy and Engineering. rovision The Native Village of Atmautlaulk in collabora Proposing the construction of a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the community power plant to the washeteria. Thi: ated to displace 4395 gallons of the annual fuel oil usage of 4800 gallons. The feasibility study for this project was completed in’ and the design was completed in 2012. The project is ready to purchase long lead items and to proceed into construction. Recommend full funding contingent on the successful negotiation of a heat sales agreement. AEA encourages the grantee to accelerate the installation so that the system can be operational for the 2013 heating season. Project Cost: $360,500 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $350,000 Cost of Power: $0.70 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $360,500 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim on 25 1/2/2013 10:51:50 AM Page 1 Page 69 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank ‘Criterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 30.63 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 5.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 14.73 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 4.00 6) Benofits (Max 15) - 6.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project is not on DMLW managed land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sfructures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:61:50 AM P: Page 70 of 170 ae ’ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary f's= Aedisiiliibean. ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: City of Chuathbaluk Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water system. The estimated fuel oil savings to the community water plant is projected to be 1 ,400 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached Chuathbaluk, Alaska 2012 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. The City of Chuathbaluk in collaboration with the community power plant to the water treat@ier 1834 gallons. ag the design and construction of a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from and water storage tank. This project is estimated to displace 1400 of the current fuel oil usage of The feasibility study for this project was completed in AEA is concerned that there is no preliminary heat sales agreement and there is no mention of the operations and maintenance plans for the new system. Recommend full funding contingent of a heat sales agreement and an O&M plan. Construction funding is contingent on acceptance of the final design. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Project Cost: $199,863 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $199,863 Cost of Power: $0.85 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,996 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $205,859 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim (AEA Eunding Recommendation: ” aa - j 1/2/2013 10:52:59 AM Pi 1 Page 71 of 170 a Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 36.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 5.28 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 11.93 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 1.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 2.67 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project is not on DMLW managed land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sfflictures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11212013 10:52:69 AM Pi Page 72 of 170 oe? Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary f= Aladiltildiidram. Proposer: Native Village of Kwinhagak Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the washeteria and combined utility building. The estimated fuel oil savings to the combined utility building and washeteria is projected to be 14,200 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached Quinhagak, Alaska 2012 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. rovision The Native Village of Quinhagak in collabo from the AVEC power plant to the water trea current fuel oil usage per year. S pro ig the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat on with ANTHG e ed utility and washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 62% or 14,200 gallons of the The feasibility study for this project was completed A project is currently underway to prove the viability o' project will be significantly less. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations. arine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Project Cost: $668,350 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $668,350 Cost of Power: $0.54 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $20,050 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $688,400 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim {AEA Funding Recommendation: ” } 1/2/2013 10:54:06 AM Pi 4 Page 73 of 170 ee Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 23.65 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 16.80 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 12.75 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 433 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project is not on DMLW managed land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments ~% DNR/DGGS General Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent'S¢fUctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11212013 10:64:06 AM Page 74 of 170 ei Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary J= biladacabed.... (@MMED ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Project Description as defined by applicant The purpose of this project is to further investigate the known geothermal resource at Tenakee Inlet and evaluate its potential to produce power and to evaluate alternative uses of the source. Hot springs encountered during our reconnaissance study have the highest recorded surface temperature (176° F) of any of the numerous geothermal springs tested on Chichagof Island. The reconnaissance study has indicated a viable resource with fluids having encountered subsurface temperatures of 260° F, and that the resource is larger in size than originally anticipated. We request funding for a feasibility study and conceptual design project with a timeline of approximately 28 months. We are currently completing a reconnaissance study that included mapping, remote sensing, and geochemical sampling of water and soils. A paper presented at the Geothermal Resource Council in October 2012 is attached. We also submitted a draft interim report to AEA in December 2011 with all of the data collected at that point. We propose for this feasibility study to continue our investigations by advancing one to two slim drill holes, conducting a feasibility analysis and developing a conceptual design of how best to develop the resource. Future work would include production level drilling, permitting, and power plant and infrastructure construction. A reconnaissance study was funded in Round 4 of the Rene\ rgy Fund. The conceptual model and economic analysis from the reconnaissance study are due after this review was conducted; the final re icant is due in June 2013. As a low-temperature geothermal resource, geothermal resources in Southeast AK. De additional and possibly larger scale geothe! Bains potentially promising and continued exploration would contribute to a greater understanding of ll-scale ORC (organic Rankine cycle) geothermal plant would help determine the viability of gion and in other parts of the state. Tenakee Springs is currently pursuing construction ft scored well in this Round 6 REF recommendation progra plant to cover 100% of its current load. infgfor a run-of-river hydroelectric project which would supply 90% of the existing load. That project and will be a recommended project. Pelican is in the midst of an AEA-managed upgrade of its hydro Transmission line costs, potential access routes, and SeaAlaska’s involvement/the development of tourism facilities are large unknowns which could significantly impact the economics of the project; however, there is no clear indication that any of these factors will bring down project costs in the near future. Funding for the second phase of a project should be justified by the results of the first phase. Because the first phase has not been completed—in particular the economic component—additional funding would be premature. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $27,000,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $3,485,000 Cost of Power: $0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $3,485,000 ia (Eee iinet ainieie cctnaiaatancacanned 1/2/2013 10:64:56 AM ay Page 75 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis olen & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 27.09 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 7.00 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 1.75 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 4.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) a (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Feasibility study and no State land type interest identified. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments ~® The proposed project plans to conduct mostly slim-hole drilling forgUipito two each to about 4000 feet, to evaluate the geothermal resources. An earlier Renewable Energy Grant (grant number 7040073) provided fuga onnaissance study in 2011 that included collection of detailed water analyses, conduct a shallow temperature probe study and to locate nN ot spring Ih the area. This study suggests that the geothermal zone is broader than originally thought and that water geochemistry suggests tem further suggests that ground-based geophysical studies lower temperature of the resource. A conceptual mode F) sufficient for binary electrical power generation (Organic Rankine Cycle). It Otellurics would not be suitable because of the water saturated ground and the eveloped as the result of the earlier study, and the geothermal resource may be shallow rather , and their depth capabilities and bore hole diameters should be included, along with information on used in the study. All projects proposing the development of permanent'sfuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska. gov/pubs/id/23944). Project should be designed to withstand appropriate ground motions. 1/2/2013 10:54:66 AM Page 76 of 170 ree (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary J= ae Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant This project will provide recovered heat from the new AVEC power plant to the new water treatment plant {WTP}, existing WTP, washeteria, clinic, Head Start Building, and school. The estimated fuel reduction for the six buildings combined is estimated to be 57,000 gallons a year with an expected savings of $240,000 annually. rovision The Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative in coll recovery system to connect recovered heat from start building, clinic, and school. This project is e INTHC and the community of Stebbins is proposing the design and construction a waste heat power plant to the new Water treatment plant, existing water treatment plant, washeteria, head displace 57,000 gallons of fuel oil out of an annual usage of 69,000 gallons. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. Project Cost: $1,341,063 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,319,088 Cost of Power: $0.56 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $21,975 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,341,063 Bering Straits 11212013 10:55:42 AM Page 1 Page 77 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 24,36 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 17.47 4) Project Rei 3.17 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 12.76 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 4.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 2.83 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DNR land authorizations appear to be required. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'StfUctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11212013 10:55:42 AM Page 78 of 170 esos? Alaska Re newable Energy Fu nd: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladbltillilires. ENERGY AUTHORITY gD) art Gn a as oad Proposer: City of Marshall Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water treatment plant and village store. The estimated fuel oil savings to these two facilities is projected to be 7,700 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached Marshall, Alaska 2012 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. rovision The City of Marshal in collaboration with ANIGF power plant to the Water treatment plant and year. is proposingjthe d and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC Eommunity Stofe, This project is estimated to displace 100% or 7,700 gallons of the current fuel oil usage per The feasibility study for this project was completed A project is currently underway to prove the viability of project will be significantly less. ” The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations. arine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Project Cost: $183,200 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $183,200 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $6,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $189,200 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim om on 1/2/2013 10:56:36 AM Page 1 Page 79 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 22.27 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 5.25 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 16.53 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.67 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 12.76 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (gut of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments AS 38.05.850 permits/easements needed for transmission lines on state land. Possible lease needed for community store. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sffuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:66:36 AM Page 2 Page 80 of 170 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladbltiliiltrcm Proposer: City of Noorvik Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water treatment plant. The estimated fuel oil savings to the community water plant is projected to be 18,600 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached Noorvik, Alaska 2012 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. The feasibility study for this project was completed in @@#2. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations. A project is currently underway to prove the viability of marine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this project will be significantly less. Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Project Cost: $985,808 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $985,805 Cost of Power: $0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $29,580 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $1,015,385 Northwest Arctic 1/2/2013 10:57:27 AM Page 1 Page 81 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 27.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 15.77 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 10.88 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 467 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DNR land authorizations appear to be required. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All. projects proposing the development of permanent’Sffuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:67:27 AM Page 82 of 170 rae Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary J's Aladbiiilleam. Proposer: Native Village of Tuntutuliak Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant This project will provide waste heat from the existing electrical power plant to the water treatment plant/washeteria. The estimated fuel oil savings to the community water plant and washeteria is projected to be 6,000 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information, see the attached Tuntutuliak, Alaska 2012 Heat Recovery Feasibility Study. rovision The Native Village of Tuntutuliak in collaborati@l from the community power plant to the water treaty S;proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat and washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 6000 gallons of fuel oil. The feasibility study for this project was completed in . AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan. Project Cost: $438,585 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $425,811 Cost of Power: $0.65 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $12,774 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $438,585 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim AEA-Funding omn a es caaie _ Sarre 4112/2013 10:58:28 AM Page 1 Page 83 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 28.44 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 5.25 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 14.30 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 6) Benofits (Max 15) - 7.43 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 217 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project is not on DMLW managed land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent res should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 10:58:28 AM Page 84 of 170 feel Proposer: OIT Inc. Applicant Type: IPP Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Karl Reiche Design Project Description as defined by applicant Organic Incineration Technology (OIT) incinerates non-hazardous petroleum contaminated soils, absorbent pads and sludges generated by Alaskan industries in a regulated, environmentally safe facility in Moose Creek, AK. The waste treatment process generates a substantial amount of energy which is currently exhausted and therefore wasted. Through the installation of a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), a steam turbine generator system and condenser, OIT intends to capture the waste heat from the existing incineration process and turn that energy into electricity to be used on-site and placed onto the grid for use by the surrounding community. Through the implementation of this system, OIT would be utilizing an existing energy resource to reduce the community’s dependence on traditional utility power sources fueled by the burning of fuel oil. AEA will partially fund the completion of the final design, pe , business plan, and power sales agreement. The proposed energy recovery project is pro generate electric power (via a steam gene year-round vs. present half-year. Project costS, revenue, and bank loans). Proposer indicates tha fe use and for resale to GVEA. Proposer indicates the upgrade will allow the business to operated fuction) are estimated to be $3,258,000: funded half by an AEA grant and half through OIT (cash, Prior to evaluating for funding of construction in futurejeunds, proposer will be requested to provide copies of: . The feasibility study . Conceptual design . A loan approval letter from a bank (mentioned pg 16) . A copy of OIT’s business plan The business plan should address OIT’s operational history, long term contracts, a financial pro forma, SWOT discussion, and written confirmation from GVEA regarding the power purchase rate and terms. RESCORE after they provide more information. Project Cost: $3,258,447 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $1,629,223 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $1,629,223 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $3,258,446 Railbelt ind , 4/2/2013 11:03:23 AM Page 1 Page 85 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank ‘Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 9.81 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 14.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 15.07 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 1.83 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 12.50 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 2.83 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) succes. (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DNR land authorizations appear to be required. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:03:23 AM Page 86 of 170 ee Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary lS aaa SE EMERY ATER y Proposer: Southwest Region School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Construction Design AEA Program Manager: Jim Vail Project Description as defined by applicant This project includes upgrades to the AVEC power plant cooling system, installation of heat exchangers at the AVEC plant and school boiler module with appropriate pumps and controls at both sites and 700 feet of underground piping between the plant and school boiler module. rovision The Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative and plant for heating the adjacent New Stuyahok Hig] Region School District are proposing to provide recovered heat from the existing New Stuyahok power The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment for the AVEC’Power Plant and New Stuyahok School project was completed in 9/19/12. Recommend full funding contingent on a heat sales agreement and accepted final design. Project Cost: $548,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $486,000 Cost of Power: $0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $62,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $548,000 Bristol Bay A Funs K aaa ‘ 86,000. 1/2/2013 11:04:22 AM Page 1 Page 87 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Eriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 27.24 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 5.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 17.93 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 4.33 5) Benefits (Max 16) - 12.87 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.83 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project is not on DMLW managed land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent'structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:04:22 AM - . Page 88 of 170 a Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary T= Andis ENERGY AUTHORITY a pe ot ~ i ' eee Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Josh Craft Project Description as defined by applicant Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is seeking $5,538,592 from this Grant Program to add a wind energy component to the existing diesel power generation system that presently serves St. Mary's and Pitka’s Point. The project will construct one 900 kW EWT turbine at a location 2.5 miles from St. Mary's and 1 miles east of Pitka’s Point, and will connect it to the existing power generation system. The EWT is expected to produce 2,717,000 kWh annually at 80% turbine availability. This project would also involve upgrading the existing power line between St. Mary's and the new wind turbine site from 2-phase to 3-phase. The total estimated project cost is $6,153,991 with AVEC contributing $615,399 as its match. This project, using previously awarded REF funds, is currently under design. Geotechnical work has been completed and permit applications have been submitted. The FAA approval has been obtained. Permits are expected to be in hand by December 2012. Final design will be completed by the end of 2012. rovision Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is prop Point. AVEC has also filed applications for intertiés construction). The size of the proposed turbine cou Struction of a Wind-Diesel system to serve the interconnected communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point wind project to Mountain Village (#954-design) and to Pilot Station (#955- E two or all four communities. AVEC is currently working on a 95% design for the proposed Wind-Diesel system under RE Fund Grant #7040017. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the 95% design under grant #7040017 be accepted by AEA prior to allocation of construction funds. Project Cost: $6,153,991 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $5,538,592 Cost of Power: $0.50 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $615,399 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $6,153,991 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim R = ; 11212013 11:05:41 AM Page 1 Page 89 of 170 aad Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 21.88 ’ 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 9.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 12.33 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.50 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 4.50 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.67 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Proposed project access road and tower 62Y07 (see propoal page 59 and 71) appear to be potentially located on top of a portion of RST 120 (Kotlik-Marshall). The issues with locating RS2477s can add complexity to the permitting as there may be disagreement between parties regarding location of the easement. Rest of land private. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent'Stfuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Kaltag fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). However, this fault is located north of the project and likely should not affect the proposed project. 11212013 11:06:41 AM Page 2 Page 90 of 170 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Alediildililtrssn. (BED ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is seeking $585,000 from this Grant Program to add a solar energy component to the existing diesel power generation system that serves two communities. It will construct a new 50kW array of 288 Photovoltaic (PV) modules in Shungnak, Alaska. The array will be inclined at 34 degrees from May through September, and 90 degrees the remainder of the year to take advantage of the solar angle at this northerly location, and would serve Shungnak and Kobuk via an existing electrical intertie. The annual power production of the array is estimated to be approximately 44,623 kWh (with shading). The solar array will be located on a lot just northwest of the existing Shungnak power plant which has been committed to AVEC for this use. Total project cost is $650,000 and AVEC is prepared to match grant funds with $65,000. costs do not change. This project proposed a cost 6 er watt. Other solar PV projects have been proposed this year with costs in the $4 to $7.50 per watt range for top tier PV and inverter suppliers. Those pric@ranges begin to make solar PV cost effective in areas of Alaska with the highest cost of fuel. AVEC's Kaltag (previously funded) and Upper Kalskag (not funded) proposals came in at $10 per watt over the past two years. While the proposal is feasible from a technical perspective, a less expensive approach is needed to improve the economics of this project. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $650,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $585,000 Cost of Power: $0.80 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $65,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $650,000 Northwest Arctic unding n nd 1/2/2013 11:06:54 AM Page 1 Page 91 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Griterion (Welaht) Score F 0 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 36.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 8.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DNR land authorizations appear to be required. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sgfuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:06:54 AM Pi Page 92 of 170 eS Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary f= Aledhliildildan Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant Building on the results of the already completed Concept Design Report (attached in Tab F), Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is proposing to complete the final design and permitting to install two Northern Power Systems Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines for a 200 kilowatt (kW) installed wind capacity, to the existing diesel power generation system in Marshall. Once work done under this grant is completed, AVEC would seek funding to construct the turbines. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative proposes thé work funded through a round 4 Renewabledne The review team has the following concerns: 1) The applicant has not completed the minimum@iz 2) The Wind Resource Assessment submitted with tigjafplication is based on an incomplete met tower study. 3) The Conceptual Design Report submitted with the application is based on an incomplete Wind Resource Assessment and does not address a variety of wind turbine models and quantity configurations as required by Grant #7040021. Completion of RE Fund Grant #7040021 will address these concerns. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $2,509,850 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $332,500 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $17,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $350,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim A : E aia sa es 41212013 11:07:38 AM Page 1 Page 93 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 22.27 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.75 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 4.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Proposed project site potentially within right-of-way for RST 168 (Paimute-Marshall). ; unclear if RST and project are colocated. If not, lands are private, no DMLW authorizations needed. The issues with locating RS2477s can add complexity to the permitting as there may be disagreement between parties regarding location of the easement. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent’ Structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Kaltag fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). However, this fault is located north of the project and likely should not affect the proposed project. 1/2/2013 11:07:38 AM Page 2 Page 94 of 170 4 . Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary f= Aledbitild@ldesn. (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant AVEC proposes to install two wind meteorological (met) towers and complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Wales in order to get a better understanding of the good wind regime in Wales. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the placement of the met towers and geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, transporting and installing met towers at two locations, studying the wind resource for one year, and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the sites. A conceptual design at one site will be created based on the outcome of the met towers’ recordings and geotechnical investigation. Permits and site control will be obtained for the project. Even though Wales was known to have strg regime that must be quantified - such as tuFaiile constructed. Further, study of the existing powers to demonstrate the capability of running in diese components were difficult to maintain. The system p major repairs, plus at least one turbine foundation is co a ime motivator for development of the original project, there are many aspects of a wind finds, Weibull K distribution, and other factors - before an optimum wind-diesel system can be tric loads is needed to design a proper solution. The original intent of the Wales pilot project was Ged a modest amount of power in 2005/6 and only 1,198 kWh in 2009. The old system is in need of promised due to settling or frost jacking. AEA supports the applicant's willingness to start over and pursue a new course in Wales with a wind resource analysis and conceptual design. Later stage funding will remain unallocated until a met tower study and wind resource analysis have been accepted by AEA. AEA recommends funding of this feasibility project to the amount that the remaining Denali Commission funds will not cover. Applicant requested $190,000; there is approximately $120,000 of Denali Commission funding remaining. AEA recommends $75,000 REF grant with a $7,500 match from the applicant. Project Cost: $1,020,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $190,000 Cost of Power: $0.64 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $200,000 Bering Straits nding commendatio 1/2/2013 11:08:50 AM Page 95 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 28.10 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 12.40 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.33 5) Bonatits (Max 15) - 3.76 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.50 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Actual Met tower placement appears to be on non-state land, however state easements or permits may be required depending on access routes and equipment type. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sfructures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Bendlebeden fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska. gov/pubs/id/23944). However, this fault is located north of the project and likely should not affect the proposed project. 1/2/2013 11:08:50 AM Page 96 of 170 “ © Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladbiiilliiean. ENERGY AUTHORITY a = = , Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant AVEC proposes to install a wind meteorological (met) tower and complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Kotlik. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the placement of the met tower and geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, transporting and installing a met tower at this location, studying the wind resource for one year, and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical investigation. Permits and site control will be obtained for the conceptual design of this project. A class 4 wind resource is possible according 267 assumption. AEA believes that the wind reg presence of lower wind regimes in the vicini Permitting plan, budget and schedule look reasot data simultaneously with wind met tower study. Appligadtshould ensure that the conceptual design report addresses all the factors listed in the Alaska Wind Program Guidelines for Conceptual Design Reports http#//www.akenergyauthority.org/Useful%20documents/Alaska%20Wind%20Program%20Guidelines%20for% 20Conceptual%20Design%20Reports%20-%20Rev%202.docx AEA agrees closely with power assumptions, although not all power in a 31% penetration system will be used to offset electricity. Some (~11%) will need to be diverted to a heat load at a lower economic benefit. AEA projects 39,761 gallons of diesel displaced and 1,849 gallons of heating fuel. Recommend funding with the caveat that the wind resource analysis and electrical load analysis be completed before allocation of remaining funds. Project Cost: $3,060,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $142,500 Cost of Power: $0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $7,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $150,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1/2/2013 11:37:53 AM Page 97 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Grtterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 26.78 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 11.83 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 1.50 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 3.38 6) Local Support (Max ) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.67 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient information to review. Request for funding for feasibility study. No location selected for placement of meteorological study tower at this time. DMLW permit required If DNR managed land selected. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments a DNR/DGGS General Commen zards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Kaltag fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). However, this fault is located north of the project and likely should not affect the proposed project. 1/2/2013 11:37:53 AM P; 2 Page 98 of 170 il . x Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary j= acai ad Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant AVEC proposes to install a wind meteorological (met) tower and complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Russian Mission. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the placement of the met tower and geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, transporting and installing a met tower at this location, studying the wind resource for one year, and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical investigation. Permits and site control will be obtained for the conceptual design of this project. The review team is concerned that there is n@ result in an economically viable project. In additi tower. The closest potentially viable wind regime is infeasible. Since both the wind resource model and t economically feasible project. site near Russian Mission. Our best estimate for in/near town is only a class 2 which would not ce of tall trees around Russian Mission prevents the possible use of a low-cost 10-meter met port data reflect class 1 wind speeds, this project is deemed high risk and unlikely to produce an Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $1,530,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $142,500 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $7,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $150,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1/2/2013 11:38:42 AM Pi Page 99 of 170 poets Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Griterion (Weight) Score s A -——. _ 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 23.86 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benefits (Max 15) - - . 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 6) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient Information to review. Request for funding for feasibility study. No location selected for placement of meteorological study tower at this time. DMLW permit required if DNR managed land selected. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Suctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNRI/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11212013 11:38:42 AM Page 2 Page 100 of 170 aa . ’ Alaska Renewable Energy | Fund: Round 6 - ST fe ellie eee a ceasencci ts Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant Building on the results of the already completed wind resource (V3 Energy LLC), economic modeling (Northern Economics, Inc.) and conceptual design reports (HDL Engineering Consultants), Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is proposing to complete the final design and permitting to install one EWT 900 wind turbine to supplement the existing diesel-fired power generation systems in St. Michael and Stebbins. Work under this grant would also be expended to design necessary wind integration controls for the power generation system at the new power plant in Stebbins. AVEC has completed the final design and obtained permits for the intertie between St. Michael and Stebbins. Once work done under this grant is completed, AVEC could seek funding to construct the turbines and an intertie to serve both communities. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative proposes th power to St. Michaels via a proposed interti Fund Grant #7040008. system in the community of Stebbins. The Stebbins Wind-Diesel system would supply in 2013. The design would be based on Conceptual Design work funded through RE The review team has the following concerns: 1) The applicant has not completed the minimum T2@fa@ftn long meteorological "met" tower study at the proposed wind turbine site. 2) A complete Wind Resource Assessment has not beeRaccepted by AEA. 3) A complete Conceptual Design Report has not been accepted by AEA. Completion of RE Fund Grant #7040008 will address these concerns. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $5,000,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $332,500 Cost of Power: $0.56 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $17,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $350,000 mas eee icon nainntcinsens) 11212013 11:39:27 AM Page 1 Page 101 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 24.35 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.75 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) ~ 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - Economic Analysis Benefit/Cost Ratio (Applicant) (AEA) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Proposed wind turbine Is not on state land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen All projects proposing the development of permanent Benefit/Cost Ratio Scoring & Project Rank ae Overall Rank Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) ards Applicable to all Projects ctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Kaltag fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944), Due its close proximity to the fault, appropriate design considerations should be employed for seismic shaking. 1/2/2013 11:39:27 AM Page 102 of 170 Page 2 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary salsthittion. Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg peel Project Description as defined by applicant The Northwest Arctic Borough is very large and the communities are small and isolated. Typically larger transmission systems have not been possible due to challenging construction and steep economics. Constructing an intertie is a large capital investment but can reap significant benefits in the form of reduced energy costs. This proposed project will include the completion of a Wind Resource Assessment in Cosmos Hills near Wesley Creek. The placement of the met tower will be north of Shungnak approximately five miles. In order to fully reap the benefits of wind energy in the Upper Kobuk region, and to reduce the cost of electricity for those communities, an intertie between Ambler and Shungnak will also be evaluated. All three communities are members of Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) who has completed other similar studies for greater community benefit. AVEC has installed numerous interties between communities, some with wind turbine generators, and has been able to successfully reduce the cost of power. $233,000 is a lot of money to spend for an al 2,500-ft elevation change and steep terrain mak prior to expending more money. The communities a significant barrier. d wind resource. The ridge tops of the Cosmos Hills likely have strong winds, but the 1,500 to ficult to develop. Significant wind reconnaissance should be performed to find suitable project sites need due to their very high costs of power, but the high costs to intertie all communities represents Recommend partial funding of $40,000 to purchase, ship and install one 34-meter met tower and up to three 10-meter met towers to collect data for one year or longer (longer is advised due to data from the wind model and airport) and write a wind resource analysis report. Hourly electrical load data should be collected in all three communities simultaneous with wind data collection. Project Cost: $233,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $221,350 Cost of Power: $0.74 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $11,650 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $233,000 Northwest Arctic as ; 11212013 11:40:24 AM Page 1 Page 103 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank i Cm 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 32.38 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 8.00 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 0.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.67 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Most uplands in the area of the project are not state lands; however, if geotechnical work/future intertie cross state-owned beds of navigable waterways, then DMLW authorizations may be needed. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sguctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:40:24 AM Page 2 Page 104 of 170 ai ‘ 1 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary j= amen si y . po age a Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant The Northwest Arctic Borough is very large and the communities are small and isolated. Typically larger transmission systems have not been possible due to challenging construction and steep economics. Constructing an intertie is a large capital investment. The intertie between Noorvik, Kiana, and Selawik would intertie three AVEC utilities and would be over 50 miles in length. The construction of an intertie could reduce the cost of energy in the community by equalizing the cost of diesel to that of the community with the cheapest fuel: in this case, Noorvik. Additionally, an intertie would provide generation support and increased reliabi lity for the overall electrical system. The construction of an intertie would also allow for installation of distributed generation at the most ideal location, in this case Hotham Peak which, through observations and modeling, has a superb wind resource. A greater wind resource provides the opportunity for installation of larger scale wind turbines. According to modeling completed in the 2012 Noorvik Wind-Diesel Conceptual Draft Report, the most ideal location for a larger turbine would be on the southwest slope of Hotham Ridge, between Noorvik and Selawik. A draft conceptual design report has already been co! fed for Noorvik under the NWAB grant. The economics on this project are difficult to pin down at this phase with many unknowns for the actual cost of interties and the wind energy potential at the proposed site. Presently, there is a lot of value in the learning from this feasibility study, so a B/C ratio of less than 1.0 isn't a large negative at this phase of the project. These communities have few options for renewable energy nearby, so wind from a centralized location with transmission lines may be their best option. Recommend funding, but with the provision that the proposed site must complete a wind resource study prior to allocating the remainder of funds. The NWAB and key stakeholders in Noorvik will need to be consulted to gain buy-in and consensus on this proposal since it creates a delay/change in the 2195377 project. Project Cost: $23,000,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $207,100 Cost of Power: $0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,900 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $218,000 Northwest Arctic a : : aaa 1/2/2013 11:41:19 AM Page 1 Page 105 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Griterion (Welaht) Score - 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 27.13 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stago 2 (Max 20) - 9.37 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.50 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 1.13 " 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments As this project Is in the assessment phase, exact locations for the facilities and intertie routes, geotech work, etc and not specified - while most uplands in the vicinity of the project are not state lands, DMLW authorizations may be needed if project work involves state-owned beds of navigable waterways. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sffuictures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site, Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:41:19 AM P, 2 Page 106 of 170 ais . ' Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fee Bladahailhln ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Josh Craft Project Description as defined by applicant Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is seeking $332,500 from this Grant Program to (final) design and permit an electrical intertie between the communities of St. Mary’s and Mountain Village. AVEC will contribute $17,500 as a cash match. The intertie will be designed with fourteen (14) miles of new connection along the existing gravel road that connects the two communities and will require an upgrade from single-phase to three-phase of an existing eight (8) miles. The conceptual design work indicates the intertie will not require any water crossings; it can be constructed in summer months and will need pole spacing of 125 feet. At present, St. Mary's and Pitka’s Point are connected by a distribution power line, but Mountain Village is a stand-alone diesel powered community. This project would electrically intertie Mountain Village to the St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point system. Standby generation capability will be maintained in Mountain Village but primary generation will be delivered by the existing St. Mary's power plant. AVEC has submitted another Round 6 Renewable Energy Grant Program application to build a wind energy system for the intertied communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. This project will add Mountain Village, about 20 miles from St. Mary's, to that wind system. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative is proposing has also filed applications for a wind project in St. proposed turbine could serve two or all four communi ‘and permitting of an intertie between the communities of Mountain Village and St. Mary’s. AVEC a’s Point (#945-construction), and an intertie to Pilot Station (#955-construction). The size of the Recommend full funding with the special provision that a 35% design, including construction cost estimates, be accepted by AEA prior to the allocation of the remaining funds. Project Cost: $7,449,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $332,500 Cost of Power: $0.57 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $17,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $350,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1/2/2013 11:42:02 AM Page 1 Page 107 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Griterion (Welaht) Score s 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 24.94 gt 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.76 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 9.00 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.50 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 0,00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.50 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) ad (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permtting requirements evident. Land not state owned. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'S$uctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:42:02 AM Fy Page 108 of 170 ee 2 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladtltilillesn ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Josh Craft Project Description as defined by applicant Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is seeking $5,581,800 from this Grant Program to construct an electrical intertie between the communities of St. Mary’s and Pilot Station, the total cost of which is $6,202,000. AVEC will contribute $625,000 cash as its match. The intertie will be designed with 14 miles of new connection through undeveloped terrain. The completed design work-to-date indicates the three-phase electrical intertie will require two river crossings and six slough/lake crossings, must be constructed in winter months, and will need pole spacing of 185 feet. Completed design work on the intertie is included in Tab F. At present, St. Mary's and Pitka’s Point are connected by a distribution power line, but Pilot Station is a stand-alone, diesel-powered community. This project would connect the electric system of Pilot Station to the St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point system. Standby generation capability will be provided with a new standby generation module in Pilot Station, but primary generation will be delivered by the existing St. Mary’s power plant and an EWT wind turbine. Another Round 6 Renewable Energy Grant Program application requests funding to build a wind energy system for the intertied communities of St. Mary's and Pitka’s Point. This project will add Pilot Station, about eleven miles from St. Mary’s, to that proposed wind system. Ce rovision Alaska Village Electric Cooperative is proposing th In of an intertie between the communities of St. Mary's and Pilot Station to connect to renewable energy source of the proposed St. Mary's wind farm. has also filed applications for a wind project in St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point (#945-construction), and an intertie to Mountain Village (#954-design). The size of the proposed turbine could serve two or all four communities. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the St. Mary’s (#945) project be funded or constructed prior to the allocation of funds for this project. Project Cost: $6,202,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $5,581,800 Cost of Power: $0.52 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $620,200 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $6,202,000 ee nee ea a aceite DAO ad 1/2/2013 11:43:08 AM Page 1 Page 109 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Suiterton (Welaht) Score 3 5 Em 1) Coat of Energy (Max 35) - 22.75 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 9.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 10.43 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) ~ 2.67 5) Bonofits (Max 15) - 1.13 eae 8) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.50 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) oe (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permtting requirements evident. Land owned by four village corporations. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All. projects proposing the development of permanent Sgpuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:43:08 AM Pe: Page 110 of 170 ned Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aledbidiliiliean. Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant AVEC proposes to install a wind meteorological (met) tower and complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Goodnews Bay. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the placement of the met tower and geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, transporting and installing a met tower at this location, studying the wind resource for one year, and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical investigation. Permits and site control will be obtained for the conceptual design of this project. A class 5 wind resource is assumed and 2 eter Wirid resource model developed by AEA/NREL/AWSTruepower. This feasibility will provide data to confirm or revise that assumption. Perm plan, budget'giad schedule look reasonable, ort that $23, 750 i is probably ‘high fora geotech reconnaissance study. AVEC should collect village electric load g and wind resource analysis have been accepted B AEA agrees closely with power assumptions, although all power in a 47% penetration system will be used to offset electricity. Some will need to be diverted to a heat load at a lower economic benefit. AEA projects 26,216 gallons of diesel displaced and 760 gallons of heating fuel. The challenge in the CDR phase will be to find a turbine solution with good economic payback. Recommend full funding. Project Cost: $1,530,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $142,500 Cost of Power: $0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $7,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $150,000 Roneeikerketcawim (ee meetin aeicecstcmensneell EO 11212013 11:44:27 AM Page 1 Page 111 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 25.46 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 11.13 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.00 6) Bonefits (Max 15) - 0.00 4 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.83 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permtting requirements evident. Land not state owned. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen' ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sffuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Denali fault (Togiak-tikchik section) (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs. alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). Consideration of seismic shaking should be done in assessing project costs during feasibility studies. 11212013 11:44:27 AM P: Page 112 of 170 = Proposer: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant AVEC proposes to install a wind meteorological (met) tower and complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Shishmaref. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the placement of the met tower, geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, transporting and installing a met tower at this location, studying the wind resource for one year, and conducting a reconnaissance-level geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical investigation. This project will also consider other turbines that can be relocated, if the village decides to move to another location. A class 5 wind resource is assumed and suppe to confirm or revise that assumption. Permitting’ study. AVEC should collect village electric load data ter wind resource model developed by AEA/NREL/AWSTruepower. This feasibility will provide data id schedule look reasonable, except that $23,750 is probably high for a geotech reconnaissance ously with wind met tower study. AEA believes that this site is a class 5 wind regime as opposed to a class 6 proposed. AEA projects 31,298 gallons of diesel displaced and 1,268 gallons of heating fuel. The challenge in the CDR phase will be to address concerns over possible village relocation. Recommend funding with the caveat that the wind resource analysis and electrical load analysis be completed before allocation of remaining funds. Project Cost: $2,040,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $142,500 Cost of Power: $0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $7,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $150,000 Bering Straits 1/2/2013 11:48:06 AM Page 1 Page 113 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Weight) Score mn 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 26.78 gas 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 10.87 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 1.50 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 0.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) ~ 267 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) 6 (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Exact location of project site in still undetermined, but most uplands in the area are not state-owned. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Suctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Bendlebeden fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska. gov/pubs/id/23944). However, this fault is located south of the project (>140 miles) and likely should not affect the proposed project. 1/2/2013 11:48:06 AM A Page 114 of 170 een Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary j= aarti (Gm ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: City & Borough of Wrangell Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design Feasibility AEA P. : ‘A Program Manager Construction Project Description as defined by applicant Wrangell has recently experienced an unprecedented increase in our electrical distribution load. The increase is a result of customers removing their expensive diesel fuel burning heating systems and replacing them with lower cost (hydro) electric units. During the 2011/2012 winter season Wrangell bad a record peak load demand of 9.5 MW. Currently the Wrangell Power Plant is capable of producing 8 MV A. If there were a catastrophic event that disrupted Wrangell's hydroelectric power supply from Tyee, such as the landslide that affected the Juneau area in January of 2009, our standby generators could not supply electricity to all of our customers. Preliminary indications are that Wrangell must install an additional standby generator. This project will evaluate, recommend, design and install the upgrades needed at the Wrangell Power Plant that will insure our ability to continue to support all of our customers and their renewable energy choices. Project Cost: $117,136 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $117,136 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $117,136 Southeast i ati . 1/2/2013 11:49:13 AM P: 4 Page 115 of 170 aa Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Setterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 0.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Bonofite (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) o (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land interest. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sgfuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The proposed upgrades should consider seismic shaking from the Queen Charolotte-Fairweather fault in design considerations (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). 1/2/2013 11:49:13 AM Pi 2 Page 116 of 170 aie Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary fs Aledtltiliieee. Proposer: Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) proposes the installation of a wood pellet boiler at the Ticasuk Brown Elementary School. Phase 1 of this project is currently underway through an AEA managed grant agreement with the FNSB. The $550,000, funding for Phase 1 of this project was provided by the 2012 Legislature through a DCCED grant to AEA. This proposed project, or Phase 2 of this project, will be comprised of: 1) Modular pellet boiler unit anchored to concrete sleepers, 2) heat loop to existing school boiler room. The boiler room is to be equipped with new heat exchanger for heat transfer to school system, including heat exchanger, manifolding, controls and re-circulating pump, 3) connection of electrical service from a panel in the existing boiler room, assuming required electrical capacity is available and 4) install pellet silo and auger system for pellet fuel storage and fuel supply stream. To ensure project continuity, the FNSB proposes this final phase of the project also be an AEA Managed Project. The FNSB is proposing Phase II for the in: le d boiler systems to heat Ticasuk Brown Elementary School. Phase I: Design and heat module procurement was funded through State of Ale propriation. This project is estimated to displace a total of 20,000 gallons per year of fuel oil. ity and the Borough. This project will develop an anchor tenant for pellet supply in the Interior Alaska region and will potentially support the develop of pellet manufacturing infrastructure. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Grantee requested AEA continue to manage the project. AEA concurs. Recommend partial funding. Project Cost: $350,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $350,000 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $350,000 iM a DE aidan OOlae 112/2013 11:49:56 AM Page 1 Page 117 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score 0 aT 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 9.81 ; 2) Matching Resources (Max 16) - 0,00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 17.43 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.17 5) Bonofits (Max 16) - 13,00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainabilty (Max 6) - 4.50 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (gut of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments & This project submitted by the Fairbanks North Star Borough seeks additional funding to continue with the construction of a wood pellet boiler for the Ticasuk Brown Elementary School in North Pole. It is expected that 20,000 gallons of fuel oil will be displaced annually,by the wood boiler. The installation of a pellet boiler is expected to save the school district an estimated $31,000 per year. The supply of pellets should bea sproblem since Superior Pellet Fuels is located only a short distance from the school and manufactures pellets for the Fairbanks area. The supply of raw, od to the pellet plant is also sustainable and is in part being sourced from state timber sales in the Tanana Valley State Forest. In the project proposal it mentions worki ith the local supplier of pellets and alternative sources if the local provider is unable to meet demand. This is a plus for this project tosfaVe multiple supply si nuirces identified. The proposal provides an estimate of $295 per ton as the delivered price of pellets to the wood boiler. } DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen' rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'StrUctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1112/2013 11:49:66 AM Page 118 of 170 oe Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary f= = Proposer: ORPC Alaska 2, LLC Applicant Type: IPP Resource: Other Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Project Description as defined by applicant ORPC Alaska 2, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC, (collectively, ORPC), is a global leader in the development of hydrokinetic power systems and ecoconscious projects that harness the power of ocean and river currents to create clean, predictable renewable energy. ORPC works in partnership with coastal and river communities to create and sustain local jobs while promoting energy independence and protecting the environment. Its technology includes the proprietary TidGen™ Power System, which includes one or more TidGen™ devices connected to an on-shore station with power and data cables. In ORPC’s TidGen™ Array Project, ORPC will install a four-device TidGen™ Power System in Cook Inlet with a rated generating capacity of 600 kW in a 6- knot current. ORPC’s REF Round 4 grant (award document signed) will help fund the first device of what eventually will be a four device TidGen™ Power System. REF Round 6 funding will help fund the TidGen™ Array Project to expand to a four-device system by adding an array of three TidGen™ devices. ORPC has demonstrated a commitment to a and has a track record of hiring local contr@Gtes Alaska. ORPC has garnered significant local $ llations. The benefit/cost ratio increases as the project expands (roughly $4M for the first unit, 's analysis, the B/C ratio remains below 1 even for a 100 MW plant. Initial costs are high and projected to drop for subs and $4M for the next 3 units). However, according to Given the high risk associated with the installation of a new technology in Cook Inlet and the uncertainty surrounding costs, it is logical to wait for the results of the installation of the first turbine before committing funds to expand the project. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $8,696,494 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $2,000,000 Cost of Power: $0.20 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $6,696,494 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $8,696,494 Railbelt ADO is , sitciaciaeitaaetiiaiiaeie 1/2/2013 11:50:46 AM Page 1 Page 119 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score GEIS 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 8.63 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 14.26 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainabliy (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score == (gut of Xx) ee (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Currently under permit for study phase (LAS 28046). Additional AS 38.05.850 permits or lease will be required for Phase VI (the post study phase). DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen' ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent’ ctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The proposed project should consider shaking from earthquakes along Cook Inlet fault-cored folds and Aleutian subduction zone (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). 1/2/2013 11:50:46 AM Page 2 Page 120 of 170 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary j= (gm ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: City of Atka Applicant Type: Local Government Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Recon Project Description as defined by applicant This project seeks funding for completion of a reconnaissance and feasibility study for wind generated energy in Atka. The study will analyze whether wind power used in combination with the recently completed Chunixsax Creek Hydro-Electric project and diesel generated power can provide additional power needed to support electric heat to the entire Atka community and a planned expansion of Atka Pride Seafoods (APS) to a year-round processing operation with increased energy needs. Atka Pride Seafoods is a subsidiary of the Aleutian/Pribilof Community Development Association(APICDA) and is partially owned by the community of Atka. The ultimate goal is to meet 90% or more of Atka energy needs using renewable energy sources. The City of Atka has recently completed a h and diesel demand are not presently known. Community Development Association (APICDA) ha inder the Renewable Energy Fund. A detailed understanding of the new electrical load demand done to quantify the electrical load profile for Atka Pride Seafood (APS). Aleutian Pribilof Island eed to purchase and install a met tower near the community. City of Atka is not current with Power Cost Equalization€PCE) reporting and this raises concerns. Not recommended for funding. | wind program managers will work with APICDA to analyze met tower data using Windographer(TM) software and hourly electrical load data collected for the city and for APS using HOMER(TM) software. Project Cost: Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $140,000 Cost of Power: $0.70 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $50,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $190,000 —_" (na eateries) 1/2/2013 11:51:42 AM : Page 121 of 170 see Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 30.80 2) Matching Resources (Max 1) - 11.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 8) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) eee (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land or authorization for this wind project. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent res should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The feasibility study should consider the impacts of strong seismic shaking due to earthquakes on the Aleutian subduction zone on project design costs (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). 1/2/2013 11:51:42 AM n Page 122 of 170 ene Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary Js =i Proposer: Manokotak Power Company Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant The Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Project proposes a further look at the viability of wind to produce electricity for residential and non-residential uses, A 2009 wind resource report written by V3 Energy, LLC indicates a mid-Class 2 (marginal) resource, but given the position of the community in relation to nearby elevation (for a higher wind class) and an old landing strip (for a solid foundation) a further look is warranted. The project proposes using the Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program (WAsP), a software application from Denmark, to further analyze the current met tower data and investigate options for the installation of 3-4 small met towers for additional resource data collection and analysis. The end result would be a conceptual design report in compliance with the Alaska Wind Program Guidelines for Conceptual Design Reports that includes in broad categories a wind resource analysis, electrical system overview, and heat load overview. as the original 30-meter met tower. 10-meter met tOWEg@iriay need to be equipped with NRG dataloggers and sensors in order to quantify turbulence. Electrical load data should be collected at the powerhouse simultaneous with the new met towers. A new wind resource study (that may include WAsP analysis) should be completed and accepted by AEA prior to allocation of funds for later-stage activities. Conceptual design report should follow AEA guidelines for CDRs posted on the wind program Web page. Recommend partial funding of $143,000. Project Cost: $1,020,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $193,000 Cost of Power: $0.55 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $7,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $200,000 ely et cancion sencilla 1/2/2013 11:52:33 AM Page 1 Page 123 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank AYA 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 24.06 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - §.26 “ 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 9.60 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 4.00 5) Benofits (Max 16) - 1.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 4.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.83 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) caees (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient information regarding location of study towers. Possible authorizations required If on DMLW managed land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRIDGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent res should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:52:33 AM P: 2 Page 124 of 170 a eaeccier ie acres Alaska Renewable o Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary f= = Proposer: The Aleut Corporation Applicant Type: IPP Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Construction = Fer Design AEA Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Feasibility Project Description as defined by applicant Recon Mount Makushin geothermal energy potential has been discussed and evaluated by the State of Alaska and others for the last twenty or so years. An exploratory drilling program, funded by the Department of Energy in the early 1980s made the determination that the Makushin geothermal resource is the only proven high temperature geothermal system in Alaska that could be used for power generation. While the data has been encouraging there has not been a sustained effort to develop the resource beyond its current status since 1995 when the design and permitting reports were completed for a 12MW power plant for which the financing was approved by the Alaska State legislature. This grant will help the Aleut Corporation re-characterize the Makushin resource and develop the preliminary design of a production facility with the intention of building and operating a geothermal plant on Unalaska for the benefit of the Island. The cost elements in this grant are based on a 30MW plant — which we expect to be the maximum size project (likely project size range 10-30 MW). During this phase we will evaluate all options and determine the optimum size of the project as well as the optimal location of the steam field and other facilities. The geothermal resource on Mount Makushj access and transmission challenges are po$ particularly for the development of a smaller} Te | has been demonstrated to exist at a high temperature and high pressure. Significant ss of the location and the rugged terrain; these challenges complicate the economics of the project, only the City’s load. Successful development of the Makushin geotherntaiiie € will require, at a minimum, agreement and participation between land owners, subsurface rights holders, and the City of Unalaska. Failed negotiations the past five years between the City, the applicant, and the land owners have prevented additional exploration and development; a 2008 legislative appropriation of $1.5 million for additional geothermal exploration remains unspent due to failed negotiations. Without the support of all parties or a clear indication of a forthcoming agreement, no additional funding is warranted. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $311,304,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $32,464,000 Cost of Power: $0.45 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $540,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $33,004,000 1/2/2013 11:53:27 AM an Page 125 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score a . 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 19.64 “| 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.75 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benefits (Max 1) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 6) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Water permit, tideland lease and possible AS 38.05.850 permits required. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments The proposed project is requesting ~$32.5 million for geothermg at will include drilling, feasibility, design and permitting and construction of a sal plans to design a field exploration campaign to delineate the geothermal alyze the exploration and drilling data as the project proceeds. The proposal ling sites in the reconnaissance phase. The applicants should provide a Ormation it will provide that will directly lead to development of the geothermal ermal testing operations. This information should include a description of the current data he planned project area, any planned non-drilling mapping of the field, how the wells will be S@yells (i.e. are these production test well size?), and how the geothermal reservoir and flow applicant to show how these operations will change what is currently known about the resource this proposal without significant additional information. detailed outline of the methodology for this proposed study; resource, and provide a detailed list of the plannedgd All projects proposing the development of permanent'Siuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Facilities should incorporate design to withstand strong ground shaking due to the Aleutian subduction zone (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http: //www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944). 1/2/2013 11:63:27 AM p Page 126 of 170 ari? Ee Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary ss Alsdhltildiliese. Proposer: Haines Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant A Phase II Feasibility Study would be carried out, including the following tasks: >Project scoping >Detailed energy resource analysis >Identification of land and regulatory issues >Permitting and environmental analysis >Detail analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets >Assessment of alternatives >Conceptual design analysis and cost estimate. >Conceptual business and operations plan >Final report and recommendations. The Haines Borough proposes feasibility assessrp Beauty's fish processing facility and residenceg 14. There is no community power system, The project received a round 4 Renewable Ené anadromous habitat has been completed and wo include anadromous fish concerns.... Major conce! fish passage at the intake structures". The balance of & protection of these species include minimum flows below a diversion facility and the potential need for at grant-funded work remains incomplete. The reconnaissance study will address fish habitat, electrical service and estimated load for the Borough subdivision, establishment of community utility, business arrangement for selling power to the fish processor Ocean Beauty, site control and land ownership, and FERC jurisdiction. It will include consideration of fish habitat issues as it affects the cost, capacity, and energy output of the project and environmental licensing concerns. This application did not score high enough to pass Stage 2 review. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $15,900,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $213,536 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $223,536 sien Cee a ietincaiisnnabnitinasetiaitiids) 11212013 11:64:22 AM Page 1 Page 127 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Satterion (Welaht) Score a 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 0.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 16) - 5.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 5.97 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 3.63 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments This is the same project as reviewed in the previous rounds. This project proposes to put two small dams, one on South Excursion Inlet Creek (type is rockfill 5’ high by 40’ long) and the other on North Excursion Inlet Creek (type is concrete diversion 5’ x 70’), The two proposed locations of the dams are on Federal land but both streams have mean annual flows of about 120 cfs, comparable to Montana Creek. The gradients from the topo map indicate a relatively low gradient and both streams are identified as anadromous. The division may recommend that a navigability determination be made for these two streams. For North Excursion Inlet Creek a portion of the project is on state land the improvements includes portions of the flume, the powerhouse, and portions of the transmission line. For the South Excursion Inlet Creek it is more difficult to determine but a short section of the flume may have to go into State land. There may be some resource concerns rearding the flumes that would divert water from fairly significant lengths of both streams and if there would be sufficient remaining water to support the fish DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sguctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Feasibility should consider ground motions due to earthquakes on the Denali fault (Chilkoot River section) for design purposes. 1/2/2013 11:64:22 AM Page 128 of 170 ier ED ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aledistililleasn. Proposer: Haines Borough Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Project Description as defined by applicant Project funds will be used to design, purchase and install six wood pellet boilers and storage silos at the following Borough-owned buildings: sewage treatment plant, human resources I preschool building, Haines Borough School District vocational education building (also referred to in this application as voc-tec building), swimming pool, Borough administrative offices, and visitor center. The Haines Borough is proposing final desigg resources/pre-school building; Haines Bord This project is estimated to displace a total o feasibility/conceptual design phase work. boiler systems to heat Borough-owned buildings: sewage treatment plant; human ational education building; swimming pool; Borough administrative offices; and visitor center. r year of fuel oil, using 263 tons of pellets per year. The project has completed The application includes substantial support from the’& unity and Borough. Haines Borough has already purchased and installed a pellet system Borough Senior Center. This project will develop an anchor tenant for pellet supply in the Southeast Alaska region and will potentially support the development of pellet manufacturing infrastructure. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding, with requirement of AEA acceptance of final design, logistics plan, and operational plan. Project Cost: $517,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $472,000 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $45,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $517,000 Se MEN etait nnanseddillilld 1/2/2013 11:56:14 AM p Page 129 of 170 —* Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Satterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 9.62 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.75 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 17.07 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.50 6) Bonefits (Max 15) - 12.75 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 6) - 3.83 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The consultant identifies that the Haines State Forest will be the majority provider of pellets for this project. Forestry should comment. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project submitted by the Haines Borough seeks funding to conduct design and construction of six owned buildings. It is expected that the pellet boilers will displace 31,000 gallons of fuel oil annuall pellet boilers and storage silos in several Borough- Ora savings of over $50,000. This is based on a pellet to provide a secure, long-term supply of pellets. Pellets out and likely to be successful given the fact that the iy € proposal also mentions that Chilkoot Indian Association in Haines is considering the construction of a pellet plant in Haines. If this m, falizes, it could provide another source of pellets to the borough. material for pellet production. The State Division of Forestry lume estimates of its lands. DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sgeictures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:55:14 AM Page 2 Page 130 of 170 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aladdin. Proposer: Kokhanok Electric Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant By the end of 2011, the high development costs of the Kokhanok wind-diesel project drove Sustainable Automation out of business. Sustainable Power Systems LLC was subsequently formed to pursue new business opportunities in the field of renewable energy systems integration. Given adequate funding, Sustainable Power Systems is ready and willing to take on the task of completing the remaining system development and commissioning work that will be required to make the Kokhanok project a success. What remains to be done at this point is to complete the development, testing, and commissioning of the software for the Hybrid System Supervisory Controller, the component that monitors and orchestrates the operation of all other system components. Specifically, the following functions remain to be fully implemented: Automatic diesel dispatch * Automatic inverter dispatch * Automatic feeder control Data logging to a local database Fault logs for each component * Data log exporting Automatic report generation « Fault notification Public portal Much of the remaining work can be accomplished in the Sustainable Power Systems offic major changes to the system operation, the automatic dispatch algorithms in particular, The Kokhanok wind project has been running i Dde for more than a year. The equipment has all been installed. Wind turbines are functioning. Applicant is seeking funding to complete the hybrid Bry controller development. Applicant has not requested REF for this project in the past. If successful, Alaska turns a curtailed project into a successful one. project is gating other proposed high-penetraion wind systems. Until we have success and learning on the Kokhanok system, AEA is holding off funding for other proposed high-penetration systems. Wind resource is very good. Recommend full funding. Project Cost: $190,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $185,000 Cost of Power: $0.90 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $190,000 Bristol Bay AEA-FundinairR ame . 3 ces ™ TT 12/2013 11:56:01 AM Page 1 Page 131 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 35.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 16) - 5.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 14,80 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 483 : 5) Bonofits (Max 15) - 12.25 5 iv 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainabbllity (Max 5) - 3.50 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Comments lazards Applicable to all Projects All. projects proposing the development of permanent'Sgictures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Insufficient info regarding scope of project and land ownership to determine if DMLW authorizations required. If all development sites are within the community, no state land is affected. 1/2/2013 11:66:01 AM P: 2 Page 132 of 170 ae Fund: Round 6- Preliminary fs Aladsltilddiean. SE RT Alaska Renewable Energy Proposer: G&K Electric Utility Applicant Type: IPP Resource: Heat Recovery Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Devany Plentovich Project Description as defined by applicant Cold Bay requests funding for this waste heat recovery study as a step towards supplementing the high cost of diesel generators currently in use. The waste heat recovery study and will satisfy Phases I, Reconnaissance and Phase II, Feasibility, and the study will result in a feasibility report on the technical, economic, financial and operational viability and guidelines of implementing the next three phases of a waste heat recovery system. The grant would be managed by the Aleutians East Borough and calls for the solicitation of a contractor to perform the analysis and a community meeting with the contractor for presentation, review and discussion of the results. Participants in the project will include: 1. G&K Electric Utility 2. Aleutians East Borough who will provide overall project management. 3. A contracted firm who will provide civil and electrical system engineering. G&K Electric Utility proposes a Feasibility/Co! dy for the implementation of diesel heat recovery at their existing power plant. The grant will be managed by the Aleutians East Borough. This Cold Bay utility is a good candidate for a heat ree system as identified in the Alaska Energy Pathway. AEA has worked extensively with heat recovery feasibility studies in the past few years. A feasibility study with sufficient information to qualify for Design and Construction funding through the Renewable Energy Fund should not cost more than $30,000. Recommend partial funding of $30,000. Project Cost: $114,765 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $109,765 Cost of Power: $0.72 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $114,765 Aleutians . Ou 1/2/2013 11:56:50 AM Page 1 Page 133 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank ‘Griterion (Welaht) Score (SSE a A 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 31.34 A 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 5.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 16.47 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 10.50 cy 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 4.50 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) ae (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW authorizations required. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent res should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:66:60 AM 7 Page 134 of 170 oe Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs= Aedisliiliilleaen. (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: City of False Pass Electric Utility Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant False Pass currently produces all their electricity from diesel generators and heating from burning fossil fuels. Data from a met tower set up several years ago was compromised and has data gaps when bears damaged the equipment, but the data still may be useful if analyzed using appropriate assumptions and software. The wind resource may prove to be good, but we won't know until the data is analyzed and a wind resource report is completed. In addition, an avian study will determine if birds will be of concern and/or if mitigation measures are necessary. This project seeks design and permitting for the False Pass wind project. The design and permitting phase will include project scoping and community solicitation for planning and design, permit applications and acceptance, final environmental assessments and mitigation plans, resolution of land rights and right of way, final system design, engineers cot estimate, updated economic and financial analysis, and final business plan and operational plans. A similar application was received and reviewed ingaup ble Energy Fund. AEA’s comments at the time were as follows: "False Pass may need to do extensive feasibility work to find the righ} e resource, terrain, small population, avian and FAA issues. Alternatives from residential eC additional funding to complete this work. B/C is difficult to calculate due to the variables. Estimating actual construction petical configuration is difficult. Wind resources in the region warrant a feasibility and CDR and the budget looks reasonable." ‘submission of this REF round 6 request and thus we do not have enough information to decide IS F&WS requires more detailed study but the scope has not been quantified, and actual site selection (which may include additional met tower data collection if the proposed turbine site is moved considerably relative to the terrain that is causing high turbulence) is still undetermined. Not enough research has been conducted in the feasibility phase for this application to be reviewed for final design. Guidance on this step can be found at AEA’s web site under the wind program: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programwindanalysisdata.html Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $190,195 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $185,195 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $190,195 rio (re ere oneness laine eaneaummninnianess) 1/2/2013 11:57:36 AM P A Page 135 of 170 aa Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 22.40 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (gut of Xx) ica (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No State land involved for this wind project. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen' ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sguctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Feasibility study should incorporate impacts of strong ground shaking due to earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone on design costs and design plan (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944), 1/2/2013 11:67:36 AM Page 136 of 170 esaei2 (QM ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6-Preliminary fs Aladehiililhean Proposer: Nelson Lagoon Electric Cooperative Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant Nelson Lagoon requests funding for this wind study as the first step towards supplementing the high cost of diesel generators currently in use. The wind study will result in a feasibility report on the technical, economic, financial, and operational viability and guidance of implementing the next three phases of a wind energy system. The grant would be managed by the Aleutian East Borough and calls for the solicitation off a contractor to perform the analysis and a community meeting with the contractor for presentation, review and discussion of the results Participants in the project will include: 1. Nelson Lagoon Electrical Cooperative (owned by the Native Village of Nelson Lagoon) 2. Aleutians East Borough who will provide overall project management 3. A contractor firm who will provide civil and electrical system engineering. The lack of an accepted conceptual design prohi powerhouse, the electrical distribution system, co! proceed with the feasibility and conceptual design wol inds for design activity as AEA is unable to properly assess the viability of the wind resource, the at loads and the various wind turbine and integration options evaluated. The applicant should eady funded through round 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $218,195 Cost of Power: $0.77 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $223,195 Matore Ce Ee apn nutinnasnents 1/2/2013 11:58:33 AM Page 137 of 170 ext Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sxiterion (Weight) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 33.50 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.26 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) —_ ees oe (out of XX) out o} DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW authorizations required if existing facility selected. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sfpuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Feasibility study should incorporate impacts of strong ground shaking due to earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone on design costs and design plan (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944), 1/2/2013 11:68:33 AM Page 138 of 170 thea Alaska eee Energy Fund: Roun on Pretininary =e ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Kipnuk Light Plant Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant Kipnuk Light Plant is proposing to complete the final design, permitting and construction of a community wind diesel system for the community of Kipnuk, Alaska. The project will be owned and operated by the Kipnuk Light Plant and the community of Kipnuk. Construction of the wind plant will be conducted in conjunction with the construction of a new school, powerplant and bulk fuel facility in the community. The new school is currently under construction and is anticipated to completed in late 2013, early 2014. Funding has been received for a new diesel powerplant and bulk fuel storage facility. The new powerplant construction will take place in the winter of 2014. The wind project would be completed at the same time. The design of the wind system has been completed and is straightforward, in that is similar to the systems which have been installed in Kongiganak, Kwigillingok and Tuntutuliak. The only design elements remaining to be completed, are: the installation and wiring diagrams for the specific installation of the load balancing boiler, system master control, communications gateways and static var compensation in the new powerplant. These design elements will be conducted concurrently with the design and construction of the new diesel powerhouse. edback in Renewable Energy Fund rounds 4 and 5. 1) A meteorological tower study and wind gasturbine location. 2) An acceptable conceptual design report that covers the planned diesel and d (see AEA CDR guidelines at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programwindanalysisdata.html or the community 4) Final design and permitting need to be completed prior to approving er in 2012 through the state anemometer loan program. 3) a more accurate electrical and heat load model TS¥e: construction funds. AEA offered the community a me AEA expects the funds from the 2009 Legislative appropriation to be spent on a met tower study, a wind resource analysis, a conceptual design report and final design and permitting activities prior to requests for construction funds. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $4,067,778 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $2,567,778 Cost of Power: $0.58 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $1,500,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $4,067,778 EE 4112/2013 11:59:19 AM Page 1 Page 139 of 170 “ Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 26.18 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 12.76 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No State land involved or DMLW authorizations required. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent res should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 11:69:19 AM - Page 140 of 170 eae Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary j= (@@EED ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Copper Valley Development Association Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Recon AEA Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Project Description as defined by applicant This project will conduct the much delayed follow up on the Wescott report. In 1985 Wescott and Turner study published the results of their geothermal investigations in the Copper Basin during the 1982 field season. They recommended that additional detailed gravity and self-potential data be taken at the confluence of the Tazlina where a high helium anomaly was located. In addition they also recommended self-potential surveys in two other anomaly areas and one area was recommended as a prime drilling target.1 We are requesting funds to do further reconnaissance by completing the recommended studies using modern tools and efficiencies as well as compiling other research and exploration that has been done since 1985 in the Eastern Copper Basin of the area could be a valuable addition to the work done to date based on recommendations peratures. However, the likelihood of identifying a geothermal resource capable of powering a A reconnaissance-level investigation of the from previous studies and anecdotal reports 6 250 MW plant is remote. No work plan detailing the survey methods that would sed in the reconnaissance is identified in the application and no justification for the proposed budget is provided. The applicant does not present supporting evidence indicating that a geothermal plant of any size could be economically favorable; without such evidence, funding exploration work is not justified. Not recommended for funding. ; Project Cost: $0 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $695,950 Cost of Power: $0.28 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $695,950 Oe Re eter titties 1/2/2013 12:00:01 PM P: 1 Page 141 of 170 one Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Weight) Score >» 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 12.44 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 5.43 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 1.76 i 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project describes usage of state managed land. Possible .850 permits may be required during the study phase. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments This project proposes to conduct detailed gravity and SP gg may denote geothermal potential. One area in the 1985 $ 4 ev ; the geologic feasibility of this proposal, the applicant needs to provide details what geological and/or geophysical methods will be used, what are the results these methods Gation maps). Additionally, the proposal should address their plan for transmitting energy from on the specific geothermal resource studies they planste will report, and where these studies will be cong@etec the proposed geothermal sites to the local pg DNR/DGGS General Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sguctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site, Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 12:00:01 PM Ps Page 142 of 170 ue ee Alaska Renewable Energy | Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary = Proposer: Akiak Native Community/ Akiak IRA Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant This project is a feasibility study to evaluate the potential wind resource in Akiak. The wind resource is likely poor-to-marginal it The initial data coming in from the Kwethluk and Akiachak met towers support the wind resource model estimates, which show a poor wind resour ind regime continues to drop off the further upriver one goes on the Kuskokwim. The economics look poor for developing either a class 2 wind site né or a class 3 wind site 4 miles east of town. The latter would involve a 4-mile transmission line across poor soils and involve an approximate half-mile span aG¥oss the Kuskokwim which would be very costly. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $2,000,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $181,000 Cost of Power: $0.63 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $181,000 name ii a cain antnisncdsnaiitcaniisiteiiis 1/2/2013 12:00:46 PM Page 1 Page 143 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 27.56 2) Matching Resources (Max 16) - 0.00 Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) rT (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Insufficient info regarding scope of project and land ownership to determine if DMLW authorizations required. No final site has been determined. The proposed site involves no state land, nor would any site within approximately 10 miles of central Akiak. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sfpuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 12:00:46 PM 7 Page 144 of 170 tees Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary (ee iiiasei hE Proposer: City of Elim Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Geothermal Proposed Project Phase: Recon AEA Program Manager: Alan Baldivieso Project Description as defined by applicant The AEA Energy Pathway 2010 indicates hot springs located on Elim Native Corporation land surrounding Elim are potential energy sources, but only comprehensive analysis can determine how, and under what conditions, geothermal energy might be viable. The City of Elim, the Native Village of Elim, Elim Native Corporation, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks propose a Resource Assessment (Reconnaissance} I Feasibility Analysis of Elim geothermal sites. It will use low cost airborne and ground-based reconnaissance and mapping techniques to develop a conceptual model. Feasibility, cost analysis, and design of viable solutions will follow. The reconnaissance-level geothermal explora’ geothermal potential. Use of the area’s geothe presence of numerous hot springs; a better und: could assist the community in its energy planning. |-planned and reasonable and would contribute to the understanding of the region’s geology and or power and/or heating for Elim has been the subject of considerable speculation due to the the potential capacity of the resource and a more detailed assessment of the costs to develop it However, the estimated cost of transmission from the resource to the community, the small size of the community energy demand, and the distance to other possible communities makes the economics of a geothermal project look poor under every scenario. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $10,000,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $527,908 Cost of Power: $0.59 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $527,908 Bering Straits 1/2/2013 12:01:34 PM Page 1 Page 145 of 170 = Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Criterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 25.67 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0.00 Stage 2 (Max 20) - 0.00 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 0.00 vs 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments The proposal seeks to explore near the village of Elim for low to e geothermal resources to determine their potential for binary (Organic Rankine Cycle - similar to Chena Hot Springs) electrical power g munity, The proposal recognizes the need to locate a nearby geothermal ity using a binary system. They propose a 4 stage approach to evaluate any Based Reconnaissance-water chemistry and geologic mapping. 3) Develop a a ‘concur that collecting new chemistry data for Clear Creek hot springs is an important step and would show if there are any changes intl cted reservoir temperatures from the earlier 1970's era chemistry and is a valuable component e and collecting water temperature and water chemistry data is important as well. Assuming ermal resource, after the reconnaissance investigation is completed, would be to proposal how these determinations will be made, and we recommend that the applicant used to select the best drill sites with the highest chance of encountering the active hydrothermal esource potential. potential geothermal resource: 1) Thermal Infrared Mapg those results are positive, the next step in e determine the best location to conduct test@ provide details on how the thermal and geoldgij system, and sufficient porosity and permeability DNR/DGGS General Commen' ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sfpuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Feasibility study should incorporate impacts of strong ground shaking due to earthquakes on the Bendlebeden fault on design costs and design plan (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944), ing. It is not & apping will 1/2/2013 12:01:34 PM Pi Page 146 of 170 ai Alaska Renewable Energy f Fund: Round 6 - - Preliminary f= =~ Proposer: Alaska Power Company (APC) Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility Design AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant APC proposes to construct a small run-of-river hydroelectric project at Neck Lake, a 1,000 acre lake located 1.5 miles southwest of the community of Whale Pass on Prince of Wales Island. The Project would supply power to the community of Whale Pass, and would offset diesel generation, which is currently the sole source of electricity. The relatively high and modulated flows from the lake combined with the steep drop at the lower end of the outlet stream provide a good opportunity for a small run-of-river hydroelectric development. Facilities would include an access road, intake structure, 400 feet of penstock, a containerized power plant, a tailrace channel, and upgrade of 4 miles of transmission line. The hydroelectric facilities will be designed to avoid interference with the existing salmon rearing and collection facilities operated at Neck Lake by the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA). APC conducted a reconnaissance study of the site in 2008, and determined that there is sufficient potential to almost always provide enough generation for Whale Pass loads (see Section 11 for a copy of the reconnaissance report). The Project will provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate stabilization and lower rates for APC’s Whale Pass customers. AP&T proposes to perform a feasibility : proposed plant would be co-located adjacent tGjtke Fund (#223) to perform reconnaissance study ang jurisdiction was declared, however they now plan to SSRAA has a lease for the site and has expressed rese' declined from 58 in year 2000 to 31 today. al design for a 124 kW run-of-river hydroelectric facility on Neck Lake to serve Whale Pass. The aculture facility on State lands. The project received funding in round 2 of the Renewable Energy ind 3 (#440) to perform feasibility study. AP&T later returned most of the round 3 grant after FERC RC’s expedited small hydro licensing approach and have once again requested feasibility funds. ations about impacts to their operations from the proposed project. The population in Neck Lake has The application fails to pass Stage 2 due to low scores. In particular the benefit/cost ratio of 0.74 indicates that the project would cost more than the accrued benefits. Project Cost: $2,777,885 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $297,600 Cost of Power: $0.60 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $74,400 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $372,000 Sous a niles inaneaninmensinneaed 4112/2013 12:02:18 PM Page 1 Page 147 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank ‘Srtterion (Welaht) Score 7 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 26.17 ° 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 9.75 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 5.77 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 6) Benefits (Max 16) - 0.12 i 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 3.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments This Is the same project as proposed in previous rounds and AP&T has worked with the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA) and developed a better project description and layout with respect to where the project components will be located and integrated with SSRAA's existing aquaculture facility. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sguctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider earthquakes along the Queen Charlotte-Fairweather fault in project design (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs. alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944),. 1/2/2013 12:02:18 PM . Page 148 of 170 ond Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Sa Proposer: Ram Valley LLC Applicant Type: IPP Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant The proposed project is a run-of-river hydroelectric project located on private property along Juniper Creek in the Eagle River Valley, approximately 10 miles from Eagle River, Alaska. The proposed project would include an intake / diversion structure at approximately the 1900-foot elevation and powerhouse at the 1500-foot elevation. The design flow is estimated at 10 to 20 cfs, for an estimated installed capacity of 250 to 500 kW. Participation of adjacent downstream property owners would increase the head available for the project from 400 feet to either 900 feet or 1,100 feet if one or two adjacent land owners were to participate. This would increase installed capacity to as much as 1,300 kW. Ram Valley expects to determine the participation status of these land owners prior to the start of the feasibility study. rovision e Eagle River valley. Ram Creek Valley LLC would sell Juniper Creek Hydroelectric power to MEA for the project from 250 to 1,300 kW, some of which involve private landowners not currently as an IPP. Several different development optio 3 ally as proposed. committed to the project. The project would gene Given that no prior formal reconnaissance report has been prepared for this site, AEA recommends this report be prepared and the project scheme be explored before requesting funds to advance into feasibility study. Special conditions: In the course of conducting the recon study, explore and define the project scheme and obtain commitments from involved landowners. Project Cost: $4,300,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $127,900 Cost of Power: $0.14 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $44,800 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $172,700 he IPSS UES Son rt a EN 1/2/2013 12:03:03 PM rs Page 149 of 170 eee Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 6.23 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 11.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 12.00 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 4.83 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 8.13 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 4.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Water permit required. While the physical project is on private land, the effected lands could include Chugach State Park, possibly requiring additional DNR authorizations, DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All. projects proposing the development of permanent'structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider earthquakes along the Castle Mountain fault in project design (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska. gov/pubs/id/23944). 12/2013 12:03:03 PM P; Page 150 of 170 = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary /= laces (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Pedro Bay Village Council Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Design AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant The proposed project is an approximately 150 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Knutson Creek near Pedro Bay. The hydro project will provide most of the electricity needs of the village, as well as providing a significant amount of interruptible energy to heat the tribal council building, church, school, and potentially other buildings. A recon study was completed in 2009 for the’ population decreased to 44. A feasibility study o-r hydro project appears to be oversized for com anadromous and resident fish habitat which will be ai be found jurisdictional by FERC. roelectric Project in Pedro Bay. Since then the school and clinic have closed and the village . Neither of these studies were funded by the Renewable Energy Fund. The proposed 150 kW r- Bus, especially since village is losing residents. Additionally, there is > 1 mile of Knutson Creek with d by the proposed project leading to substantial licensing challenges. It is unknown if the project will Recommend special provisions as follows: (1) AEA to receive feasibility study and must review and approve its findings before any REF funds committed; and (2) project size to be re-evaluated based upon current village population reduction. Project Cost: $3,400,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $290,000 Cost of Power: $0.91 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $2,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $292,500 Bristol Bay AEA-F: ocomi Se — 1/2/2013 12:03:65 PM Pi 1 Page 151 of 170 ose Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Saiterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 35.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 5.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 9.57 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.60 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 11.88 Pa 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 4.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 2.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) eA (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Water permit. No additional authorizations needed. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments % DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent res should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site, Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Lake Clark fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska. gov/pubs/id/23944). The relative activity of this structure is unknown. 1/2/2013 12:03:65 PM P, Page 152 of 170 eee ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs Aleditiililiean. Proposer: Native Village of Cantwell Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Recon AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant Cantwell is currently served by GVEA via the power transmission line between MEA and GVEA (Alaska Intertie System). The Native Village of Cantwell wishes to improve the reliability and lower the cost of the community of Cantwell’s power system. To accomplish this we propose to study a run-of-river hydroelectric project on Carlo Creek, approximately 10 miles north of Cantwell along the Parks Highway. The Native Village of Cantwell proposes a reconnai of a 1.5 MW run-of-river project on Carlo Creek to sell power to GVEA through the AK Intertie. This is similar to Jack River hydro site now being stu reconnaissance by NVC through the Renewable Energy Fund. Partial funding recommended for reconnaissance study. Project Cost: $7,500,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $66,500 Cost of Power: $0.22 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $3,500 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $70,000 rl (AEA ee tsi) 1/2/2013 12:05:29 PM Page 1 Page 153 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Satterion (Welaht) Score z a 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 9.81 2) Matching Resources (Max 16) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 7.90 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 1.25 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.33 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments While most uplands in the vicinity of the project are not state lands, DMLW authorizations may be needed if project work involves state-owned beds of navigable waterways. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sfftictures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Earthquakes on the Denali fault and Park Road fault should be considered in project design (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska. gov/pubs/id/23944), 1/2/2013 12:05:29 PM m Page 154 of 170 aoa Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fs, Midasdttenthet. Proposer: City of Tenakee Springs DBA Tenakee Springs Electric Department Applicant Type: Utility Local Government Resource: Hydro Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Doug Ott Project Description as defined by applicant Replace diesel generation of electricity for the community of Tenakee Springs with renewable hydroelectric power. The City of Tenakee Springs proposes to construct a hydroelectric project on Indian River. This will be a 180 kW low head, run-of-river plant displacing the use of 31,400 gallons of diesel fuel annually, or 90% of annual electric utility diesel consumption. At least 6,500 additional gallons of fuel oil can be displaced by heating public buildings with excess energy from the hydro project. rovision el generated electricity for Tenakee Springs; Will have excess hydro energy available to offset some A 180 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project to off! d permitting and final design (#895). heating needs. Prior REF grants funded feasibility Special condition: No funds from this request are to be used for activities already funded from prior grants. No funds are authorized until all prior funded R4 grant activities have been submitted and accepted by AEA. Project Cost: $3,674,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $2,988,000 Cost of Power: $0.69 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $332,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $3,320,000 matheas Ca ite tinnatinsteinintiZe dE OO0 as) 1/2/2013 12:06:25 PM Page 1 Page 155 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Griterion (Welaht) Score os KG 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 30.16 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 9.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 16.10 4) Project iness (Max 5) - 3.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 11.00 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainabilly (Max 5) - 5.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments This project has not changed from the previous rounds. DMLW is now in a position to issue an Early Entry Authorization under case file number — ADL 108047. This permit will allow the City of Tenakee Springs to construct the project and then complete the as-built survey of it so DMLW will be able to issue the easement. DMLW public notice process is done and no public comments expressing concerns were received. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNRI/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen' ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Stfuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11212013 12:06:25 PM Page 2 Page 156 of 170 “ Alaska Renewable ® Energy F Pan: Rounds 6 - Preliminary — l= lll REF ASTORARTY Proposer: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Resource: Biofuels Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Project Description as defined by applicant This project is to perform a feasibility study, including a conceptual design, to assess the viability of a WtE plant. Other than some recyclable materials, municipal solid waste (MSW) in Anchorage is largely disposed of in the municipal landfill The quantity of refuse currently being disposed of in this manner is approximately 375,000 tons per year. There may also be an opportunity to incorporate other fuel, such as wood being disposed of in local woodlots. WtE plants, while somewhat rare in the U.S., are very popular, efficient and environmentally effective in many European and Asian countries. If feasible, a WtE plant would be expected to provide energy, environmental, reliability, economic and community benefits. Chugach Electric Association, Inc. proposes to d a feasibilif municipal solid waste that currently goes to the AI : idy and conceptual design to assess the viability of a waste to energy plant. A portion of the dfill would fuel the plant. AEA supports the concept of utilizing municipal solid waste as an energy source. The first step in accessing the viability of waste to energy is a thorough understanding of the resource availability through a waste stream characterization study. AEA recommends partial funding of $40,000 for a waste characterization study/resource inventory. Project Cost: Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $550,000 Cost of Power: $0.14 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $150,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $700,000 fom ore Ta caineiidl ad 11212013 12:07:11 PM Page 1 Page 157 of 170 ee Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sriterion (Welaht) Score > 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 6.23 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.76 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 9.13 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 0.00 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 8.88 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.50 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Feasibillty study only with no final site selected. No authorizations needed at this time. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent res should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 12:07:11 PM Pi Page 158 of 170 ia (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary f= Aladin. Proposer: Bristol Bay Borough School District Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Design Construction AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant 1. Solar PV Installation This project will consist of a 50 kW (DC) ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) system, to be installed next to the school building. The PV system will generate clean, renewable power for decades to come, reducing the amount of electricity the school buys from the local utility and reducing pollution associated with burning fossil fuels. The system will also provide an opportunity for the school's students and the wider community to learn about PV. The system will be composed of (185) 270-watt photovoltaic (PV) collector panels, (1) 50 kW DC to AC power inverter and a data acquisition system with a graphical display inside the building and accessible through the Internet. The panels will be wired in multiple DC series circuits called strings. The strings will be wired to a combiner box, then connect to the power inverter which transforms the DC power into AC power suitable for use by the building's existing electrical system. The inverter assures that the PV generated power is compatible with the power supplied by the utility grid and will disconnect from the electrical system in the event of a utility power outage to prevent "back feed” to the utility grid. The proposed system is sized to supplement current electric usage and peak demand only, as it will not store power. The proposed system will be interconnected with the electrical system and controlled to "follow" the existing systems’ electrical characteristics. A dedicated data acquisition system tied directly to the inverter will display the performance of the PV system and describe how it works through a dedicated live display setup in the lobby. A revenue grade utility meter will also be installed on the PV system to accurately measure the power generated. The existing electric systems supply 208-volt, three phase power for larger loads and 120-volt, single-phi r most of the distributed loads from a three phase service provided by NEA. The average monthly electric demand for the school is approximately 13 2. Heat Recovery from Exhaust Air Sensible heat-recovery systems that transfer sensible (d building are proposed to be installed for the fresh air supply air handling units using cross, grid or through plate heat exchangers made of metal or plastic. Warm air passing another grid or plate where the air is warmed. The plates form alternating exhaust the exhaust air to the supply air entering the . This system transfers energy through a crossover for (7) fresh-air units, to pre-heat roughly 12,000 cfm of fresh air with the exhaust air from the space. The HR units would be tied to existing building ent system to ensure proper functioning and provide visibility to building operator. Technically, this solar photovoltaic (PV) pr6 z integrate within the Naknek power system. The key questions surround the accuracy of cost estimates for an installed 50kW system 4 power is valued for economic benefit. The standard maximum net metered system is 25 kilowatts letter from Naknek Electric in support of this approa Other solar PV projects and heat recovery projects recommended for funding had provided initial drawings, calculations and cost estimates from a qualified contractor. The applicant has not provided that level of detail. Without more information, it is risky to recommend for funding. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $460,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $45,000 Cost of Power: $0.51 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $10,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $55,000 cae Me LET a itsetashssniinnes 41212013 12:07:58 PM Page 1 Page 159 of 170 a Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 22.13 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 6) - (Applicant) (AEA) — - por pa (out of XX) (out of DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land involved or DMLW authorizations required. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sguctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 11212013 12:07:68 PM P. Page 160 of 170 at Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary edad. (MED ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: City of Tanana Applicant Type: Local Government Resource: Solar Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Project Description as defined by applicant The Tanana Solar Public Facilities Heating Project seeks to implement the market transformative benefits of combining biomass space heating technologies currently being installed at Tanana’s public facilities with solar thermal collectors. This Round 6 Renewable Energy Fund application has been revised since its original submission during Round 5 and limit solar thermal application to best “low hanging fruit at Tanana which is the large domestic hot water demand at the Tanana Tribal Elders Residential complex and the City’s Senior housing four-plex. The synergistic benefits of the village existing biomass thermal storage capacity with solar thermal collectors will serve to result in reduced imported petroleum consumption and also serve to optimize operation of the biomass boilers currently being installed at Tanana. Heat energy is, by far, the greatest financial burden facing Alaskans, and particularly those in rural Alaska. It is also the most critical as heat during Alaska’s extreme winters is a matter of survival. Many rural communities in Alaska are moving in the direction of biomass as an alternative to fuel oil for heat energy generation. Tanana has become a model in Alaska for demonstrating the effective use of renewable energy to reducing heat energy operational costs. Tanana was one of the first villages in Alaska to incorporate the use of GARN biomass boilers for offsetting the high expense of fuel oil for generating hot water in the community washeteria. In 2011, as a part of a major biomass expansion project, systems are being i in numerous commercial and residential scale buildings. Solar thermal is an excellent complement to the biomass boilers. During the winter months amount of the fuel oil normally required. The cordwood fuel source also allows many of cordwood and manpower required to feed and boilers is local. During the summer the bi the community are diverted to essential traditional cultural activities. The solar thi unattended, allows those activities to continue uninterrupted. Thus it is an excellent requirement for at least nine months of the year. The combination of the two heat energy source. main in the community since the supply of the lesirable alternative. The focus and energies of rgy source that can operate largely the biomass and can contribute substantially to the heat energy virtually eliminates the dependency on fuel oil as the heat Technically, the project is feasible. This project d rade the economic benefit of the biomass project. Schedule and overall budget look reasonable. Contractor has experience in this scope of work. AEA accept design prior to construction funding. Recommend full funding. Project Cost: $81,700 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $81,700 Cost of Power: $0.71 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $50,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $131,700 Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana i iti : 7 1/2/2013 12:08:48 PM o Page 161 of 170 all Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Sdtterion (Welaht) Score ~ 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 31.23 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 11.47 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.47 5) Benefits (Max 15) - 0.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 2.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - aig (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sgpuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks, Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 12:08:48 PM Page 162 of 170 Paes? Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary j= lata Proposer: Mentasta Traditional Council Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Construction AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor ow Project Description as defined by applicant Mentasta’s predicament, as is the case for most of rural Alaska, is its dependence on imported expensive petroleum for space heating of community facilities. Mentasta’s community facilities are centrally located and can be serviced by one woody biomass heating plant strategically located adjacent to Mentasta’s clustered public facilities (see Map - Attachment II). The project is estimated to cost $460,000 of Round VI funds and donated building space with estimated value of $50,000 and will serve the school, teen center, clinic and tribal offices/post office building and are expected to displace approximately 22,000 gallons of heating oil. rovision Mentasta Village Council proposes final de of a cordwood boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of the school, teen center, council building, post office, and would consume approximately 220 cords per year and displace 22,000 gallons of fuel oil per year. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska (s) as a match. AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuel wood market in the Tok area. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. y Development Task Group indicates a viable project. MVC is supplying a building to house the boiler Recommend full funding with requirement that Mentasta provide a fuel supply plan and final design acceptable to AEA before construction funds are disbursed. Project Cost: $510,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $460,000 Cost of Power: $0.67 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $50,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $510,000 Copper River/Chugach 1/2/2013 12:09:29 PM Page 1 Page 163 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank 1) Cost of Energy (Max 36) - 29.38 2) Matching Resources (Max 16) - 8.25 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 16.40 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 3.00 5) Benofits (Max 15) - 12.63 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Possible Forestry permit if wood harvested from DMLW managed lands. DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This proposal submitted by Mentasta Traditional Council (MTC) seeks construction funding for the oa of a cordwood fueled Garn boiler heating system for four community facilities located centrally in the village of Mentasta. MTC has consulted with the City ofTanana and Gulkana Village Council which both have operating Garn units, This project hopes to displace approximately 22,000 gallons of heating oil. Thig'would require the burning of about 220 cords annually to meet the heating loads of the four facilities. The amount of wood stoking may be somewhat opti iyen that the village of Tanana is burning between 35 and Seasoned cord wood sells for $200 per cord in Mentasta. This supply is expected to cor 6m vendors in the Tok area. Harvest of Tok fuel wood is managed on a sustainable basis by the State Division of Forestry, Tok Area Office. The harvest ge ly occurs.on Tanana Valley State Forest lands which have established an DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sguctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 4/2/2013 12:09:29 PM e Page 164 of 170 re Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary T= Aditi EXERC SOEATY Proposer: Organized Village of Kake Applicant Type: Resource: Biomass Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Helen Traylor Project Description as defined by applicant This proposal will focus on a feasibility assessment and conceptual design for a wood heating system and district heating loop for an office building and lodge owned by the Organized Village of Kake (OVK), a federally recognized tribe. The overall goal of the feasibility study is to determine what kind of wood heating system will best meet the objective of the tribe’s energy planning targets which are to: reduce the cost of energy, reduce the environmental impacts of energy consumption, explore locally sourced sustainable energy supplies and to provide energy related job opportunities. The assessment will expand on previous reconnaissance work performed by Dan Parrent in 2008 (Preliminary Feasibility Assessments for High Efficiency Low Emission Wood Heating in Kake, Alaska) for the Kake School and Community building and provide an analysis of the economic and social benefits of high efficiency low emission cordwood/multifuel systems (e.g. Garn and Wood Master) versus pellet systems for the two tribal buildings. The scope of the feasibility study will include assessing the suitability and economics of various wood boiler systems including storage and delivery infrastructure, comparing the costs of locally sourced cord-wood and imported bulk fuel, conducting a thorough resource inventory for local cord-wood production and evaluating and comparing the potential of locally sourced wood and imported pellets to create jobs. This feasibility study will also include collaboration with efforts of the Renewable Energy Alaska Project to determine how, if at all, efficiency measures may decrease the OVK campus energy loads and influence the final system design, as well aso what degree switching to biomass heating may help to recirculate.money back into the community that would otherwise be spent on imported fuel oil. The me of the feasibility study will be a conceptual design and final system recommendation based on the economic, logistical, environmental and social obj of the community. The state recently released a regional energy plan (Southeast Integrated Resource Plan) that recommends significant conversions fro! 0 wood based heat. The tribe also recognizes the potential of wood based heat to support a sustainable community energy portfolio by offsetti i wi job opportunities and aiding in forest health. The tribe has identified wood heating as one, egic Technical Assistance Response Team) ass specifically, and in June 2012 invited a lessons learned from projects throughout the state. The ‘s energy planning and project efforts. The Organized Village of Kake is proposing a fea: building and lodge owned by the Organized Village of fuel oil; the fuel source will be determined in the Community Energy Committee. nt and conceptual design for a wood heating system and district heating loop for an office ‘OVK), a federally recognized tribe. This project is estimated to displace a total 4,800 gallons per year The application includes substantial support from the community and the endorsement from the Kake Recommend full funding for feasibility study/conceptual design. Project Cost: Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $30,700 Cost of Power: $0.62 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: $5,000 Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $35,700 — Lett inanimate 1/2/2013 12:10:12 PM Page 1 Page 165 of 170 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank Suiterion (Welaht) Score . <a> 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 27.01 “a ‘1 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 6.26 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 12.10 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 2.33 6) Benefits (Max 15) - 1.38 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 5.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - 3.00 (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) Tail (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land interest. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for feasibility and design of a wood heating system and district heating loop for an offi The assessment will expand on previous reconnaissance level work performed by Dan Parrent in 2! and economics of various wood boiler systems, comparing costs of locally sourced cordwood ai cordwood production. The study will also compare job creation attributes between locally so} forest inventory information exist for this area but potential sources could include the National Forest. Sealaska or the Division of Forestry may also maintain some useable to sustain the project given that the project proposal estimates a demand of 53 cor lilding and lodge owned by the Organized Village of Kake. e scope of the study will include examining the suitability ulk fuel and conducting a resource inventory for local imported pellets. At this time no known sources of of the surrounding area is within the Tongass that adequate biomass resources are available DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen rds Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'sgpuctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 41212013 12:10:12 PM Page 2 Page 166 of 170 “ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 -Preliminary f= Alediidililln. QM ENERGY AUTHORITY Proposer: Noatak IRA Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Wind Proposed Project Phase: Feasibility AEA Program Manager: Rich Stromberg Design Project Description as defined by applicant This project is a feasibility study to evaluate the potential wind resource in Noatak $181,000 is a large amount of money to spend in no validated wind resource. Both airport data and the statewide wind resource model suggest that dass 1 winds are in the region. Not recommended for funding. Project Cost: $2,000,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $181,000 Cost of Power: $0.74 /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $181,000 Northwest Arctic AEA Funding Ri j sa a ecommendatic 1/2/2013 12:12:32 PM > Page 167 of 170 = Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Scoring & Project Rank ‘Sriterion (Welaht) Score 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 32.55 2) Matching Resources (Max 15) - 0,00 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - 6) Benefits (Max 16) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 6) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of Xx) . (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen ards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sguctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 12:12:32 PM panei Page 168 of 170 a 4 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 6 - Preliminary fe chilli. Proposer: Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Government Entity Resource: Transmission Proposed Project Phase: Recon AEA Program Manager: Kirk Warren Project Description as defined by applicant This project will involve exploration and research regarding installation of transmission lines between the communities shown in Table 2.2.1 in the Nuvista region. Some of the communities have wind turbines and all communities have diesel power plants. The final report will present a plan for connecting communities into small power grids to increase efficiency and reliability. . Project Cost: $82,000 Funding & Cost Requested Grant Funds: $82,000 Cost of Power: /kWh Matched Funds Provided: Energy Region: Total Potential Grant Amount: $82,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim ei 1/2/2013 12:13:21 PM Page 1 Page 169 of 170 Rank Stage 3 Scoring Summary Economic Analysis Criterion (elon Score Aa Ay 1) Cost of Energy (Max 35) - 0.00 2) Matching Resources (Max 16) - 3) Project Feasibility Stage 2 (Max 20) - 4) Project Readiness (Max 5) - Scoring & Project 5) Benefits (Max 16) - 6) Local Support (Max 5) - Benefit/Cost Ratio Benefit/Cost Ratio Overall Rank 7) Sustainability (Max 5) - (Applicant) (AEA) Stage 3 Total Score (out of XX) mae (out of 100) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Preliminary study, no authorizations needed at this time. Utility easements and other DMLW authorizations would be required if project moves forward. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments DNR/DGGS General Commen azards Applicable to all Projects All projects proposing the development of permanent'Sguctures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimen-tal effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional informa-tion on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments 1/2/2013 12:13:21 PM Pi 2 Page 170 of 170 = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund = ALASKA... D RA FT Statewide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6 > DRAFT January 2, 2013 Hl oo | 4a | 7247 [ 7 $548,000] 000] 62,000] 72.05 8 $114,765) $109,765] Partial $30,000} [450 | 7201 | 9 | $165,750] $132,600] $33,150] _—‘Full~__—«4|__ $132,600) $11,t95,600]__—S 600 | 283 | 7057] 10 | $1,341,063] $1,319,088] __—*$21,975] __—~FullSP__|_ $1,319,088] _ $12,514,688] 514,688] | __ $120,179| __ $1,198,909] Design{lonstruction | 4.67 08 75 433 | 6853 $668,350] $668,350 Fullsp___ | $668,350] 6 $56,015] 450 . 4.00 | 6819 ‘$10,000 $10,000} ___Full Ln 6 $10,000] 433 | 67.49 701) $425,701 Full SP $425,701] Construction 12.75 [300 | oxa7 [a7 | sie3,200{ $183,200] $6,000[_Fulsp [$163,200] $15,395,582] $29,600] $153,600) Designtlonstruction | | _ $4,300,000] __ $2,600,000] __ $1,300,000} [$2,500,000] $18345,532] | _—$2,600,000]Construction | $4,000,000] Ful sp [$4,000,000 $22,345,532] [| $4,000,000]Construction | [$38,804,000] $6,114,000] [ruse [$6,114,000] $2a459,552[ | $6,114,000Construcion | LE a ee ee (ee baa $23,808,913] $17,343,267 Full $3,453,920] _ $31,913,452] ee a roa Pie ee ee ee $1,020,000} $190,000} $10,0 $75,000} $32,583,222] | Feasibilit $199,863 fH FullsP__[ $199,863] $32,783,005] [$21,210 $178,645) Designonstruction_| Eraeeuebe rape 3615399[ _Fusp | $5,538592] saszier]| TT $5,538,592|Constructon | ef ecapleraen $175,000] 6000] FulsP___ [$175,000] $38,516,677 | $25,000] $150,000|DesignConstruction | [$6,129,000] $356,400] $25,000 FuisP___ | $356,400| saa.240saif $356,400 Design | es ee a $40,000] __ $40,747,431 $40,000] |ReconBeasibili ied eg ees a $3,060,000 $142,500] $7,500] Full $142,500] _ $40,971,631 as [$3,258,447[ $1,620,223[ $1,629,223] Partial SP [$225,000] $41,196,631] $225,000 DesignConstruction | [$23,000,000 $207,100] $10,900] Ful__—«—_—$207,100{ _$43,405,73a]_szo7ioof A easbitcy | Pull Full EPP EP EE “RPE EE BPE E SiBiz|sipIz rele * = = 2 Nv 137_| Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria B ele ay BBSESS850800 Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant & Community Store [Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery Project Atmautluak Traditional Council Waterfall Creek Hydroelectne Proje 917 |Blue Lake Hydroelectric i Project © opper Valley Electric Association, Inc. d up to $50 million tou a ae eee ed ion/Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project {Chugach Electric Association, Inc. [Biomass Feasibility Studies in Public Facilities, Intesior Region interior Regional Housing Authonty Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant/Washeteria Building __ [Native Village of Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery Wales Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind. Heat Recovery for the Water System. |City of Chuathbaluk |Heat Recovery . Mary's / Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wind Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project [Coffman Cove Hydropower Line Extension [Transmission 924 |Seward Schools Biomass Heating System Kenai Peninsula Borough School District Biomass 928 [Bath survey and marine geol stud i [Transmission |Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating System Project [Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertic Assessment |Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. fanana Solas Domestic Hot Water Heating Project City of Tanana \Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual De: ge Electric Cooperative, Inc. EE | . lO i 3 E ie i : & 5 i 5 ? i El LEE EB ‘ll find Tee [ a find 46.83, [Wood Heat Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design g z [Biomass [Haines Borough Pellet Heating Project | 955 |St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction | 921 [AVCP RHA Wood Biomass Heating System™* Ee : PER FEEE EEE EF | [Rl & be ale 2 8 4 3 ° iz > clelele ale sjaleis i SISIR le TEEISfEE p 8 267 2 * if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, funding amount for #930 will be reduced by $3,459,532 ** if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, funding amount for #9211 will be reduced by $637,618. 1 Resommended fF \ding (Third Rank exceed FY14 recommended appropriation] ioe aa | 956 |Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual D [Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Northwest Arctic | 903 [Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Statewide Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6 2 z n : i 5 8 » IManokotak Wind & Heat ayes Study | . M ge Wind fSoutheast__—— | 904 [Dimond Park Library Geothermal HVAC S} hase] juniper Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasib is i Sl web Ble eee hate ok/Upper Tanana ee P sowhens fo Heeb Commun, Hera Siem Revo Fesbiny Su; fer iRsibele 902 Pack River Hycroclectic Project Feasibility Stud [Native Village of Cantwell Electne ci tt lel ke te ae ———— $1,020,000] $193,000] $143,000] $51,178,118} $143,000] 2 ale fale efelelele Bal dadddada x 3|e ziele je |B la $/3/s/3/8 rip leds [> 5/8 ]/5/s/8 sls 3 S]e © a y a xv 3 58. fe iS el- 3 3 Ra: 347 fe [The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Lake and Peninsula Borough [Hydro Biofuels Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tanana [Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) Southeast 938 eoeey Study & Conceptual Design -Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Northwest Arctic 946 |Shungs Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim. | 950 [Russian Mission Wind Feasibility and Conc | 951 ]st. Michael/Stebbins Wind Eni | 960 _[TidGen™ Array Project | 961 Atka Wind Power Project 2 joj z[S HUTTE TPE ER PRE sae $3,942,693} $17,500] Not Recommended 00 $7,500] Not Recommended $17,500] Not Recommended] $2,000,000] $6,696,494] = ee ee a oe a Te | 970 | SI/SIS/RIs s/s13 sls yer River/Chugach 971 [Lower Powe Yor unseen pare: Yet Ketabes Straits Not Pass Stage 2 Not Pass Stage 2 [Lower pete ‘Kuskokwim_ [Subtotal IGRAND TOTAL * If the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, funding amount for #930 will be reduced by $3,459,532 ** if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, funding amount for #921 will be reduced by $637,618. Not Pass Sta $117,136 ETT TTT TTT SPREE ei ee Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Regional Ranking and Fu DRAFT in - Round 6 nding Alloca’ DRAFT Janauary 2, 2013 ‘The Aleut Corporation (City of False Pass Electric Utility Nelson Lagoon Electric erative $5,000] Not Recommended $5,000] Not Recommended 2 a ERIE & |_ 934 |Savoonga Heat Recovery System - Power Plant to Water Plant | 948 |Wales Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project [Alaska Village Electric tive, Inc. 28.10 6.00 So os DT $17 stolen 3A7 3 & v aly 25.79 | 6.00 2 3 FERERE 5 ° EE BEE +. ch > z iS iS BIS lo iB z 3]3 A |e els] 2 ePBEE EE & & {| FEE! ||| lee LT El Bt ta [Lower Yokon-Kuskokwim | 937 [Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria [Native Village of Kwinhagak [Heat Recovery | 8400 | 196 [248 | [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 940 [Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant & Community Store [City of Marshall [Heat Recovery | az67 | 364 [461 | lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 935 [Atmauthuak Washetena HeatRecovery Project JAtmauthuak Traditonal Counc Heat Recovery| 73.67 [110 | 1.49 | [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 942 [Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant/Washeteria Building [Native Village of Tuntutuliak [Heat Recovery | 74.50 | 1.22 | [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 936 [Heat Recovery forthe WaterSystem [City of Chuathbaluk Heat Recovery 59.67 | 0.71 | pares Yukon Kuntokwin 45 |S. Mays / P's Pent Wad Ene Projest____[ya Vile etic Cooperveinc. [Wind _} 64. | ce Yukon Kuskokwin 99) [oth Wind ney Frain and Cone Desgn Prost __[Wasa Via ests Cooper ne vind _f so | Hower Yukon-Kuskokwim 955 [St. {Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 921 |AVCP RHA Wood Biomass wg aT + / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction \Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 2 a es [$668,350] $608,350] | scons] $612,335) SS = [$668,350] BEE! | Fe py 3 = ur [2.00 _] | 433 | | 433 | | 250 _| 467 | 3.00 _| -— [3.00 _| | 4.00 _| | 267_| |_ 4.00 | [3.00 _| [3.00 _|] | 350_| | 1.50_| = | 16.40 | | 15.87 | == [12.50 | B= | 16.80 | | 16.53 | 14.73, | 1430 | [11.93 | | 11.83 | | 10.43 | Ip iS § p p 318 8i5 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim | 985 [Electrical Power Lines -Westem Alaska Se |Feasibilit [Nowhwest Arcuc id: 941 [Heat Recovery forthe Water Treatment Plant IGity of Noorvik__ Heat Recovery | 78.83 [165 | 2.25 | fNonteen Ascic | 952 [Gonmos is Wind Reso and ineie Assessment _[alta Vile ese Coopentve,inc._[Wind__} som }_ at toes | ols = [coas | 13 | s905,a0e{ s9esjaos| $29,580] rasp | $9a5,805| soas,eos|_ 74502] $01,213] eee | [Feasibility LLU PPE PIER! | FEEl || BEI | | PEPPER ele a1 4.67. 3.67 5 els als lel LL | [ ele tetelelsefelee iB 8 | Se [Northwest Arctic 946 [Sin [Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc INoatak IRA [see [sf sessonf sansof_sunciol pas! {sage} __suausansl sooo} __f iConstruction $65,000] Not Recommended, INorthwest Arctic 953 _|Hotham Peak Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment 46.83 Northwest Arctic 903 T4A7. — * if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, funding amount for #930 will be reduced by $3,459,532 ** Hf the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, funding amount for #921 will be reduced by $637,618. py = 100] $1,232,905] ___ $207,100] Ba aa $1,307,905] [Designtionstruction_| Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Regional Ranking and Funding Allocation - Round 6 DRAFT Janauary 2, 2013 =- = (@@m ENERGY AUTHORITY [Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project ee eee tem |OIT Inc Waste Heat Turbine P alle zee (ek Hitiua gach Electric Association, Inc. Co gh enone A poses | ae fsexnosrnaf snssnoaf rsasaf fal ssssonofasgyaof _f_}_nasionofonsnssin ps2 f20_|_siatszzi] _sisezacl__sevof__puse__ suseracal__sasoned] __}___ 103000} __ $1267 ses DesigeTonerveton | 5i Zz fz eS Fee || KEBEREER is EERE! | | FERPEREIE ST 00 " ! | i L 1 | ce li i nani Peat se | Fame 27. esa faba sas ass Sse) Ratbelt (95 | aa fRaibele 902 | peters 2) are = | el ie Eis 2 ee Southeast 978 | Southeast 97 pied oie ISoutheast | 906 [Southeast (983 J Southeast 2 5 ll | | FEE EEE dab Seared eee Se er Line Extension ca rs “TERE rELE TA ft / ; CLC eee | [ e PEPE EREEBEEL {Flee tlel Ey droPower Surplus to Stored Hydrogen Feasibility Study | : /alker Lake Hydro Feasibility Project f fF rudy & tual Design -Tenakee Inlet Geothermal ell Power Plant U; scursion Inlet Hydro Pro jeck Lake Hydro Proj - Phase II th a TT en Zz : 2 5 jukon-Koyukok/ Upper Tanana ! Ae 13 Yukon: Koyskok/Uppes Tanana [953 [Biomass Feasb & s|z EL | BEEP PERE || PEEP PEE 3 lo}=|> eyel> Ne at = se p= B PELL LTT BEEF a a Se 60 SEE eee [$108,313] Not Recommended) TY Designtionstruction_] S/S Nukon-Korutok/Upper Tanana FTanana Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating Project as a a ae Pee ete fete 00p Proje Alaska Gateway School Distnct peer errtentcarteredaed ta Bows Teterbone Conmeer PT 76 P76 | Interior Regional Ho HEE [TTT TTT BEBE Author * If the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $25M, funding amount for #930 will be reduced by $3,459,532 ** if the FY14 appropriations budget is limited to $50M, funding amount for #921 will be reduced by $637,618. i