HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting minutes and documents 1-17-2013Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7
June 17, 2013
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
June 17, 2013 Alaska Energy Authority Board Room
Anchorage, Alaska
10:01 am to 1:01 pm
DRAFT MINUTES
i. Call to Order
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at/10:01 a.m with
Chairman Rose presiding.
2. Roll Call
Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants
Chairman Chris Rose Sean Skaling Representative Paul Seaton
Jodi Mitchell Shawn Calfa (phone)
Representative Bryce David Lockard Wyn Menefree, DNR
Edgmon (phone) Alan Baldivieso Trey Atkinson, SEAPA
Brad Reeve Doug Ott Al Roskam, Alaska Pellet
Senator Anna Fairclough Josh Craft Supply
Senator Lyman Hoffman Devany Plentovich Sandy Burd, Senator
(phone) HelemTraylor Hoffman's Office
Patrick Johnson Jeff Turner, Representative
Yolandayinga Millett's Office
Chris,Gobah Sunny Morrison, ATD
MariuszSawicki Meghan Cavanaugh,
Sara Fisher-Goad Representative
Josephson's Office
3. Committee Members Changes
Chairman Rose recognized Vince Beltrami, who was the Chairman for the last four-and-a-half
years and is sorry to see him go. Chairman Rose welcomed Kathie Wasserman, who is the new
representative from the Denali Commission. She is not present today.
4. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
5. Agenda Comments
The agenda is approved as presented.
Renewable Energy Funu advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7
June 17, 2013
6. Approval of Meeting Minutes - April 4, 2013
Ms. Mitchell requested the approval of the meeting minutes from April 4, 2013 be moved to a
later point in the meeting because she has not reviewed them yet. Chairman Rose stated the
approval of the meeting minutes will be moved to after the break.
2S Evaluation Process Review
Mr. Skaling gave a historical review of the process AEA uses to evaluateyapplications. He
included updated pieces of information in the packet.
Senator Hoffman requested a breakdown of the areas that are entitled to thelaw by high energy
cost, what they have received for the last 4.5 years and what is proposed. Mr.)Skaling stated he
will address that in his presentation and asked Senator Hoffmamto ask the question again if it is
not answered adequately.
Chairman Rose asked if there was any plan to have economist,Mr. Szymoniak complete more of
the review process and if ISER would remain on Contract in the future. Mr. Skaling stated Mr.
Szymoniak will be used more in the future as the process is more streamlined inhouse, but ISER
will continue to provide information. Chairman Rose asked Mr. Skaling to explain what it
means for ISER to provide quality assurance reviews. Mr. Skaling stated they want to make sure
all the economists are on a level playing field and using the same criteria and model.
Mr. Skaling explained the scoring for Stage Two technical and economic evaluation with a
minimum score of about 30 points.to proceed to Stagé’Three, which is the ranking. Mr. Skaling
stated the answer to Senator,Hoffman's question has to do with the highest weighting score is the
cost of energy in the community, which ranks as 35% of the total weight. Senator Hoffman
commented at least 51% of funding should go to high energy areas of the state. He said that
effort has failed miserably.”
Chairman Rose wanted everybody, to understand, particularly the new members of the
Committee, the project*feasibility score from Stage Two is weighted currently at 20%. He stated
there is‘atug of war between the feasibility of the project and the statutory criteria of high cost of
energy. Chairman Rose commented this underscores the need for making sure the applicant does
not get out of StageéTwo, unless they are technically and economically feasible.
Senator Hoffman commented high energy costs have to be the number one priority. Chairman
Rose agreed. Mry Skaling believes most of the funding has gone to the high cost energy areas.
Senator Hoffman differs with that opinion and requested Mr. Skaling provide the heat analysis
he is referring to. Mr. Skaling stated he would provide the information.
Chairman Rose asked Mr. Reeve if the technical assistance staff are providing outreach to high
cost energy communities. Mr. Reeve stated this issue relates to regional planning. He said the
Northwest Arctic Borough has an energy coordinator that is working to try to filter through
projects, but believes there needs to be other forms of resources like project managers or other
engineering companies brought in as well. Chairman Rose asked Mr. Skaling if that is
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7
June 17, 2013
happening internally at AEA. Mr. Skaling stated this is taking multiple forms, including
technical assistance providers, program managers, community meetings and regional planning.
He believes there is more that can be done.
Senator Fairclough asked Mr. Skaling to provide the definition of a high cost energy community.
Mr. Skaling stated a definition is currently being proposed, which would use the median
weighted electrical cost of 20 cents per kWh as the dividing point. Anything above 20 cents is
high and anything below 20 cents is low. Senator Hoffman believes the 20 cents median should
be higher so the program money goes to the communities who are hurting. the most. He
suggested looking at Kotzebue, Dillingham, Barrow and Bethel to see what they are,paying and
above that is where the cutoff should be. Senator Hoffman believes by lowering the limit, it is
allowing Mat-Su and Southeast into the program. He stated thisyprogram»is for the high cost
energy communities, who are struggling to make a living with $10 a gallon for fuel.
Senator Fairclough stated the projects need to be cost effective and)supports Senator Hoffman in
making priority investments in rural Alaska. She stated Fairbanks\is on the Railbelt and is
experiencing high cost energy. She notes the focus of the program is forhigh cost of energy and
moving to 50% renewable energy.
Chairman Rose asked Mr. Skaling if there is a highenergy cost definition for heat. Mr. Skaling
stated on page 10 of 27 of the working draft shows the table with high energy cost of heat. If an
area does not have natural gas, they are considered a high heat energy cost area.
Ms. Mitchell commented the larger populations,can sustain and support debt service and the
smaller communities cannot. She stated the smaller communities lose their economic feasibility
because of borrowing too much. She believes.the focus needs to be on the smaller communities.
Chairman Rose requested, Mr. Skaling to, explain the difference between how a community
would be scored if;they were)20 cents and 60 cents. Senator Hoffman commented communities
who are paying20 cents shouldn't be eligible. He stated there is a village that pays $1.17 and the
people that afe really hurting should be addressed. Mr. Skaling stated out of a score of 10,
Nenana received a scoré of 2.8 at 22-cent power and Pedro Bay received a score of 10 at 91-cent
power. ‘Those numbers are then weighted as 35% of the total score.
Senator Faircloughjasked Mr. Skaling to explain what is happening inside the application process
and why staffiS making these weighted recommendations. Mr. Skaling stated the only part that
has changed is modernizing the cost line based on what the current costs are. Chairman Rose
suggested not ‘calling the above 20-cent energy areas high cost energy areas, because it is
confusing to say a 20-cent area is high cost, when the high energy cost areas are the areas
Senator Hoffman is talking about, which are 50, 60, 70 cents.
Mr. Reeve commented it might be appropriate to have another judging criteria based on the
ability to finance and the size of the community, which could relate to a greater need of the
program. Chairman Rose asked Mr. Skaling if the ability to finance is considered in Stage Two
of the economic feasibility. Mr. Skaling stated matching funds is currently considered. Senator
Fairclough asked Mr. Skaling what is being considered to ensure communities who do utilize
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7
June 17, 2013
this program are able to maintain the invested assets. Mr. Skaling stated the RFA and grant
document has language that requires the grantee to maintain and operate the facility for its entire
economic life.
Senator Hoffman asked how these proposed application criteria are lowering the cost of energy
in rural Alaska, which is the thrust of the bill. Senator Hoffman stated the primary issue is how
to get rural Alaska to 20-cent energy. The secondary issue is sustainability.
Mr. Reeve requested an update at some point on regional energy planning andycurrent projects.
Senator Fairclough asked Senator Hoffman if the state has not been investing enough so that the
high cost energy communities can qualify or if the communities\are not\ready to submit an
application. She asked if the high cost energy communities are applying and not succeeding or if
they are not even applying. Senator Hoffman stated it is probably both. He said Eek, Alaska
does not know what is available and they don't have the capacity to'submit an application.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated there has been the effort¢to help communities be able to prepare
applications. The two positions that were provided fomFY 13 have been filled. They have been
working with communities and regional planning to ensuresthey can operate and maintain the
projects that go in. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated/this is one way AEA is addressing the high cost of
energy. She said there are other programs including the,powerhouse, the distribution system and
the bulk fuel tank farms which are part of a portfolio of projects to address the issue. Ms. Fisher-
Goad stated she is happy to work with Senator Hoffman and specific communities with respect
to additional assistance they needyand what AEA can proyide.
Senator Hoffman stated he would like 20-cent.power statewide. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that was
one of the recognitions of the Power Cost Equalization Program, which does provide less than
20-cent per Kwh for a portion of the Kw that are sold in a community. Mr. Reeve commented
that heat is still a,problem. )Ms. Fisher-Goad stated they want to address heat differently and
want to continue to emphasize heat, especially in the areas that have high cost of diesel heating
fuel. Senatot Hoffman appreciates all the work Ms. Fisher-Goad has done. He stated the
Committee members)have a lot more work to be done regarding the high cost of heat energy in
villages\who are hurting,the most and is not concerned about regional balance. Chairman Rose
stated regional,balance is inthe statute and has to be addressed.
Chairman Rosé requested a color-coded graph be developed which shows where the funding has
gone based on the cost of energy in the communities. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated the information is
available and the.graph can be provided.
Senator Hoffman suggested a delay on finalizing this scoring criteria recommendation until the
next meeting, because of serious concerns the intent of the law is not being followed. He would
like to continue to look at this process, without holding up the issuance of the applications.
8. Review Draft Round 7 RFA and Application Forms
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7
June 17, 2013
Mr. Skaling stated there is only going to be one request form for either of the two application
forms. The applicant will request a heat application or an application for anything other than
heat, such as electricity or a transmission project. The heat applications and all other
applications will be reviewed separately and will have separate recommendation lists to the
Legislature.
Mr. Reeve suggested the information from Item #5 be reported in terms of BTUs saved, as
opposed to the variable cost of heat.
Mr. Skaling stated REFAC recommended changing the data requirement from 5 years to 10
years. He stated there has been a good discussion and debate on whether to make that change,
how that change would be made and what level of information is required.)Senator Fairclough
wants 10 years' worth of data collection included in these application changes. \Ms. Fisher-Goad
stated AEA wants to make sure the acquisition of the data is not burdensome for the projects and
the information is relevant. Mr. Skaling said getting 10 years' worth’of data\is included in the
current applications.
Chairman Rose recommended having a separate work session to determine what data points to
collect and who will analyze the data collection.
9. Discussion Points from Previous Meeting
9.a. Funding Resource Assessments for Emerging Tech
Chairman Rose suggested to staffto make it clear to proposers in the next application period that
they can apply for money to.do resource assessments for emerging technology like river
hydrokinetics, tidal and wave power. They will have to go back to the EETF to actually fund a
pilot project.
Senator Fairclough asked, if the funding for resource assessments for emerging technologies
would help or hinder Senator Hoffman's communities by reducing the availability of funds. Mr.
Skaling thinks it could.do both, depending on the situation. Senator Fairclough asked if there is
consideration of parameters of how much money will be invested in the assessments. Mr.
Skaling stated.on page 10 of,27 in the Request for Application Draft, under Eligibility of
Resource Assessments for Emerging Energy Technologies, it outlines the process and
recommendations. There is a recommendation of a maximum target of 4% of the fund for any
given year for these assessments. Senator Fairclough suggested modifying the language to
include the words’"may award from 0 to 4%," so there is not an expectation of automatic
approval.
The will of the Committee is to include the section and change the title to Eligibility of Resource
Assessments for Wave, Tidal and In-River Hydrokinetic Systems in the Request for Application
Draft with the modifications discussed.
Mr. Reeve asked if there is a way to get a global resource assessment of all of the areas that are
available. Chairman Rose stated the resource assessment is specific to a particular area and not
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7
June 17, 2013
for the whole state. The resource assessments would be discreet and tie in with a potential EETF
pilot project.
9.b. Excluding Heat Recovery as Eligible Project
Chairman Rose stated this issue is about what the Committee and AEA wants to emphasize. He
believes the heat recovery projects are some of the best projects that have been funded, but
should be funded from another source of money because they are not renewable energy projects,
even though they are eligible projects under the statute. Ms. Mitchell believes heat recovery
projects should remain eligible until there is another source of funding available.
Chairman Rose posed the question of why the state doesn't have its.own funding mechanism to
have a heat recovery project for every single diesel system in theState. He doesnot believe the
money should be coming from the Renewable Energy Fund. He requested a conerete, discussion
on the issue.
9.c. Requiring Project Performance Standards
Chairman Rose stated he wanted to keep this issue on the agenda and it could either be called
project performance or project design and it;ties intothe data collection discussion. He
recommended that a minimum requirement of design criteria should eventually be part of the
application in order to target the technologies that are really working. Chairman Rose wants to
brainstorm on how to incentivize project performance.
10. Committee Member Comments
Mr. Reeve stated havinga workshop is a. good idea to discuss these issues.
MOTION: Senator Fairclough moved to approve the meeting minutes from April 4, 2013,
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded by Ms. Mitchell. The
minutes were approved as amended.
Senator‘EFairclough stated it is a privilege to be part of this Committee and will ask questions
without embarrassment of not knowing. She believes in a process that should have all opinions
on the table. Senator Fairclough stated she joins Senator Hoffman in wanting to make sure rural
Alaska has theopportunity to have lower cost energy, while still having some regional
consideration to funds. She said the state's financing ability is being restricted and if there are
not other opportunities for the people of Alaska, the funding will continue to stay tight.
Ms. Mitchell stated she is appreciative of the program and have done a good job of policing the
grants. She said she is proud of what has been done.
Chairman Rose thanked staff for all of the work and preparation for the meeting and for making
the July 1st deadline for the application.
11. Next Meeting Date
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7
June 17, 2013
The next meeting was suggested to be within a few months and held as a workshop with the
Alaska Center for Energy and Power to provide ideas on how best to acquire data. Chairman
Rose will contact members to determine the best date for the next meeting.
12. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1:01 p.m.
[= ALASKA
@@m™m™> ENERGY AUTHORITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Alaska Energy Authority
813 W. Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska
June 17, 2013
10:00 - 1:00 pm
DRAFT AGENDA
1. Call to Order Rose
2. Roll Call (Committee Members, Staff, Public, Phone)
3. Committee Member Changes Rose
4. Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes)
5. Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions)
6. Approval of Meeting Minutes — April 4, 2013
7. Evaluation Process Review Skaling
8. Review Draft Round 7 RFA and Application Forms Skaling
9. Discussion Points from Previous Meeting Rose
a. Funding Resource Assessments for Emerging Tech
b. Excluding Heat Recovery as Eligible Project
c. Requiring project performance standards
10. Next Meeting Date Rose
11. Adjournment Rose
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
April 4, 2012 Centennial Hall
Juneau, Alaska
DRAFT MINUTES
is Call to Order
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 11:32 a.m., with
Chairman Vince Beltrami presiding.
2. Roll Call
Committee Members:
Chair Vince Beltrami; Chris Rose; Jodi Mitchell; Brad Reeve; Jim Posey; Representative Bryce
Edgmon; Representative Charisse Millett; Senator Anna Fairclough (arrived 12:15 pm); and
Senator Lyman Hoffman (arrived 12:10 pm).
AEA Staff:
Sean Skaling; Sara Fisher-Goad; Shawn Calfa; Nick Szymoniak; Gene Therriault; Josh Craft;
Chris Gobah; Doug Ott; Alan Baldivieso; Rich Stromberg; Jed Drolet; Cady Lister; Devany
Plentovich; Helen Traylor; and Teri Webster.
Public:
Gwen Holdmann, UAF; Wyn Menefree, Dept. Natural Resources; Clinton White, STG. Inc;
Adam Berg, Rep. Edgmon office; Sandy Burd, Sen. Hoffman office; Robert Venables, SE
Conference; Brian Bjorkquist, Dept. of Law; and Brian Hirsch, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
3. Welcome New Committee Members
Chairman Beltrami welcomed Representative Millett and Representative Edgmon.
4. Agenda Comments
The agenda is approved as presented.
Chairman Beltrami requested Vice Chair Rose become Chairman of the REFAC Committee
beginning the next meeting. There was no objection. Mr. Posey suggested Chairman Beltrami be
appointed Chairman Emeritus. Chairman Beltrami stated he intends to step down as Chairman.
There were no objections and Mr. Rose accepted the position.
4. Public Comments
Mr. White stated he works for STG Incorporated which primarily constructs energy
infrastructure and have built 40% of the projects that have been constructed through the RE Fund
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7
April 4, 2012
program. Mr. White fully supports the work and the projects that have been made possible
through the program providing real and tangible benefits to many communities. Mr. White stated
the reimbursement process does not work well with the way projects are implemented in rural
Alaska and causes impacts on grant recipients and would provide specific examples at the
request of the Committee.
Mr. White stated the procurement policies at AEA are seeping into this program threatening
private industry. He believes improvements need to be considered for the state to get all of the
benefits they can from this program. Mr. White suggested the potential solution of expanding the
applicant classes within the program to private investors.
Mr. Posey asked Mr. White what the difference is between private investors and independent
power producers (IPPs). Mr. White stated he doesn't see a difference. Mr. White commented his
proposed solution would circumvent the reimbursement process and take advantage of
depreciation benefits and production tax credits on the federal level that most grant applicants
cannot take advantage of as a public entity.
Mr. Posey asked Mr. White to clarify how his proposed solution would be different than the
current allowance of applications by IPPs. Mr. White stated the solution was developed in
consideration of rural Alaska and provides a way to leverage the grant funding to buy a facility.
Mr. Posey asked if Mr. White is suggesting to build a facility first and then apply for a grant. Mr.
White stated the application would be on the front side and the investor would know the grant
money will be available at the end of the period as long as they build and produce per the
application.
Mr. Posey asked Mr. White for further clarification of his proposed solution and how it is
different than the current process. Mr. White gave an example of a private investor and a local
utility partnered together to submit an application to the program and the project was awarded.
Instead of the money being made available to reimburse project expenses directly, as is done
currently, that money would be awarded, but not distributed. It would be held in trust. The
private investor would use their own money to pay for the facility to be constructed. The facility
comes online and begins supplying electricity to the local utility. The local utility pays the
private investor for the energy supplied by that project and the private investor owns it for a
period of five to seven years. During that time, the private investor has cash flow benefits of
depreciation and production tax credits which helps them earn their return on the project. Once
those benefits are exhausted, the state would evaluate the project to see if it met the application's
requirements. If all the targets were met, the money in the trust would be released to the investor
to fully earn the return. The ownership of the facility would then go to the local utility. Mr.
White stated the money the state would have to provide for this model to work would be
significantly less than the current reimbursement basis because the investor earns the majority of
his return through the combination of the sale of the energy, depreciation and tax credits.
Mr. Posey stated this proposed solution is similar to an offer made to CIRI on Fire Island a long
time ago. He stated it deserves consideration and review by staff.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7
April 4, 2012
Vice Chairman Rose asked Mr. White to explain what happens if the federal tax benefits change.
Mr. White believes the investor would have to bear that risk. Representative Edgmon asked for
clarification what would need to happen for a proposal like this to go forward.
Chairman Beltrami asked Mr. White if he has shared his detailed proposal with AEA staff. Mr.
White stated he has shared it with some staff members and some members of the Committee. He
will be happy to provide it to all who want it.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated she will provide an analysis to the Committee of what would need to
happen to accommodate this proposal and look at the pros, cons and risks.
Mr. Reeve stated it is a very complicated issue and he wants to ensure the benefits are realized
by the community.
6. Approval of Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2013
MOTION: Vice Chairman Rose moved to approve the meeting minutes from January 8,
2013, Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded by Mr. Posey. The
minutes were approved as presented.
7. RE Fund Program Update & Performance Briefing
Mr. Skaling reviewed the performance of the Rural Energy Fund Round 6.
Mr. Posey asked Mr. Skaling how much of the $52 million recommendation is the continuation
of prefunded projects. Mr. Skaling stated 18 of the 23 projects in the top $25 million are in the
construction category or in the design and construction category. Mr. Skaling stated they
wouldn't generally get to design or construction without a previous phase and presumed the
entire 18 had a previous phase. Mr. Posey suggested this data is important to get a higher score
for the budget year consideration.
Vice Chairman Rose requested knowing what percentage of the projects are coming from a
previous round. Mr. Skaling stated he would provide that follow-up analysis.
Vice Chairman Rose requested for future yearly Status Reports to include in Table 1 the number
of projects completed to give a sense of relative progress. He requested Table 1 include total
expenditures to get a sense of what the leverage of the state money has been. Mr. Skaling stated
some of that information is at the bottom of Table 1, including cash distributed, match provided,
and other known funding.
Mr. Posey commented, for the benefit of the two new members, this has been deemed as the best
program in the Unites States and the world of its type.
Vice Chairman Rose stated Vermont Energy Investment Corporation did a process review and an
impact review and offered to examine those with the new members.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7
April 4, 2012
8. Suggested Changes for Round 7
Mr. Skaling gave a presentation on the suggested changes for Round 7 and provided a three-page
list entitled Alaska Energy Authority Recommended Changes to Renewable Energy Fund Round
7 Request for Applications.
Mr. Reeve commented the proposed information for recommended change #5 “Heat Cost of
Energy” will be very valuable for the evaluation process. He asked Mr. Skaling to explain how
the information will be collected. Mr. Skaling proposed that the applicant provide the
information through evidence of their most recent bills.
Senator Fairclough requested Mr. Skaling take into consideration the state's contribution on
power cost equalization (PCE) or subsidies when calculating the benefit and total cost. Mr.
Skaling stated the list provided in the past is the residential rate before PCE is applied.
Vice Chairman Rose commented there is no baseline information regarding the number of
gallons of heating oil used per month because there is no requirement from vendors to provide
this information. He commented any information gathered from the recommended change #5
would be helpful for baseline energy efficiency efforts.
Senator Fairclough stated there is a consumer protection issue that has been raised regarding the
vendors supplying their price information and would let their competition know their price. She
has been told it creates an unfair business practice to mandate those numbers. Senator Hoffman
stated the number of gallons used in a community should be available information.
Mr. Posey supports getting the cost information directly from the applicant. Representative
Edgmon requested factoring in the fuel cost savings of weatherization and home energy rebate
programs. Mr. Posey asked to consider what the penetration has been on the weatherization and
home energy rebate programs in particular communities. He stated we need to concentrate on
heat conservation.
Vice Chairman Rose believes it is important to have some information about a community's
energy efficiency efforts on the heating projects to help determine scoring on projects.
Representative Millett stated not every community has a weatherization program and is
concerned it would not be a level playing field. She recommended amending the proposed
change to ensure those communities are not negatively affected. Vice Chairman Rose stated if
two exact projects are being compared on the scoring, it would be nice to know which
communities have really made an effort toward energy efficiency. He suggested the efficiency
requirement only applied if it was a public building that did have access to the public building
retrofit fund.
Mr. Reeve agreed with Representative Millett's comments because Kotzebue is on a two-year
waiting list for an energy rater and it is difficult to get the service. Mr. Posey stated he had a rater
in two weeks and suggested to be cognizant of the difference between urban and rural areas.
Senator Hoffman commented it is important to get the information. He stated the use of the
information is a separate issue.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7
April 4, 2012
Ms. Fisher-Goad believes addressing the energy efficiency component is very important. She
stated the process is a grant recommendation program. She suggested there be a special note or
special consideration with respect to the recommendation given to the Legislature for applicants
who are not meeting an efficiency standard. This will give an opportunity to address the
efficiency issue at the same time the recommendation is being reviewed.
Ms. Mitchell asked how AEA can help communities make decisions on heating solutions. Ms.
Fisher-Goad stated AEA needs to know when issues arise because technical assistance and
expertise has been funded and is available to help with applications. The goal is to get the best
applications possible and the best projects. Ms. Mitchell encouraged Kake to call AEA and hopes
there is outreach. Ms. Plentovich stated AEA has met with the Kake schools and have done a fair
amount of outreach and they are still focusing on propane, but they are continuing to work on it.
Mr. Hirsch stated there are some other details regarding LNG which are adding to the factors in
the decision making in Kake, but did not want to get off subject.
Vice Chairman Rose recommends AEA has to consider how this grant program could
disincentivize the use of the revolving loan program for energy retrofits through Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC). Mr. Skaling stated the AHFC program is for energy efficiency and
that is reflected in the recommended change #8, “Efficiency Requirement”.
Ms. Mitchell suggested giving more credit to a resolution of support from a body, like the local
Tribe, native corporation or the city than from an individual.
Mr. Posey commented on the recommended change #13 “Matching Funds”. He stated some
communities don't have a basic credit system and their only source of matching income is from
federal and state support. He wants to ensure there is no penalty for the size or location of the
community. Mr. Skaling stated the total amount of match would be excluded from the scoring.
He believes it is following the essence of Mr. Posey's comments.
Mr. Reeve requested Mr. Skaling consider other ways to count matching that a small community
could utilize.
Senator Hoffman requested Mr. Skaling promote recommended changes that would utilize the
provision in the program that requires giving additional credence to those applicants who live in
the highest energy areas of the state.
Chairman Beltrami asked Mr. Skaling to explain what the requirements are for reporting data
and what happens if projects aren't able to report data. Mr. Skaling stated the current requirement
is that gross monthly data be gathered. He stated most projects are able to comply with this
requirement, but there is an opportunity for more information to be gathered for continued
learning. Chairman Beltrami asked Mr. Skaling if the numbers are understated because of any
projects who are not reporting. Mr. Skaling stated there are three projects that have not reported
and the reasons are included on the performance table in the Notes section.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7
April 4, 2012
Representative Edgmon asked Mr. Skaling to explain the standard deviation of the current
numbers regarding recommended change #9 “Data Collection”. Mr. Skaling stated the variable
would be in the net generation reporting and would be within a range of a couple of points.
Vice Chairman Rose fully supports revised change #9 and suggests requiring data reporting for
even longer than five years. Mr. Skaling stated they could include data plans which would be
included in the grants to state the data points and frequency of reporting. Senator Fairclough and
Mr. Posey agreed the data reporting requirement should be longer than five years. Mr. Posey
recommended a ten-year term.
Vice Chairman Rose suggested the wording be amended from the recommended change #9 of
"possibly offer ‘black box' data" to a stronger wording providing more certainty of data collection
with standard equipment. He asked about the possibility of having a budget in the grant proposal
for data collection because it is an important upfront cost. Senator Fairclough and Mr. Posey
agreed funding could be budgeted for the cost of reporting. Ms. Mitchell agreed and stated it
would have to be obvious in the grant application.
Senator Fairclough asked Mr. Skaling to explain how ongoing maintenance costs are considered
in the grant application process. She also asked if the application process ensures there is the
expertise available to make any repairs should they occur. Mr. Skaling stated the application
requires ownership and maintenance throughout the lifetime. Senator Fairclough asked if an
applicant is required to contribute to a fund during the build-out phase so there are reserves to
pay for the operating costs. Mr. Skaling stated a utility is required to ensure proper operation in
the future. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated there is no requirement for money to be set aside for the
operation and maintenance, but it is a Regulatory Commission of Alaska question regarding
management capability and the plan to continue to operate and maintain the project. She stated
projects can receive additional technical assistance through AEA's traditional rural infrastructure
programs.
MOTION: Mr. Posey moved to implement the suggested changes for Round 7.
Seconded by Mr. Reeves. The suggested changes were approved.
Senator Fairclough suggested funding, through some program, a person to go to different
communities in a region to help support particular types of projects. Vice Chairman Rose
believes Seward has a good program that could work in conjunction with Senator Fairclough's
idea.
Mr. Rose gave ideas regarding changes to the program.
e The idea he suggested was to have a separate Request for Applications (RFA) for
technology, including wind or biomass heating, with particular specifications required in
the application. He believes this would push project innovation.
e Mr. Rose stated he is in favor of looking at the feasibility studies separately from the
design and construction projects.
e He suggested the timing of the recommendations be given before the Governor's budget
is released, which would require sending out the RFAs right after the legislative session
ends.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7
April 4, 2012
e Mr. Rose suggested considering heat recovery projects and renewable energy projects
differently.
e His last suggestion was to allow resource assessment for tidal, wave and river
hydrokinetics to be funded out of the Renewable Energy Fund and then if there is a
resource found under that money, the project can go back to the Emerging Energy
Technology Fund (EETF) and apply to actually pilot the technology. He recommended
the state have separate funds going to reconnaissance on renewable energy resources.
Senator Hoffman stated the Governor negotiated an upper limit on the programs. Senator
Hoffman believes there is broad support in the Legislature for the program, but does not know
how to address an adequate level of funding for the programs. Mr. Posey believes the penetration
of the programs should be 20% to 30%. He suggested discussing Mr. Rose's recommendations as
an agenda item for the next meeting. He recommends having a joint meeting with EETF.
Mr. Rose asked the Committee if it is acceptable to fund reconnaissance for a river hydrokinetic,
tidal and wave power out of the Renewable Energy Fund. Mr. Posey does not believe it is
appropriate to do that now with the current amount of funding available. He believes that is a
long-term discussion. Mr. Rose believes the statute is clear and stated the projects would still fall
in the 80/20 rule where the program doesn't want to spend more than 20% in any year on
reconnaissance and feasibility studies. He stated if there are good reconnaissance project
applicants for a tidal or river hydrokinetic, then they get funded. Mr. Rose believes there is a gap
between the REFAC and EETF programs regarding reconnaissance and feasibility study funding
for river hydrokinetic and tidal power. Mr. Posey suggested that be a topic during the joint
meeting. Mr. Skaling suggested the joint meeting happen before July Ist.
9. Next Meeting Date
The next meeting was suggested to be scheduled for the latter part of May 2013. Mr. Skaling will
contact members regarding the final date.
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1:21 p.m.
[= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund
<<WORKING DRAFT>>
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Requests for Grant Applications (RFA) AEA13-006 for
Renewable Energy Grant Program (ROUND VII)
RFA ISSUE DATE: July 1, 2013
APPLICATION DUE DATE: October 1, 2013, 5:00 pm
Two Applications: For this Round of the Renewable Energy Grant Fund and
Recommendation Program (“Renewable Energy Fund”), the Alaska Energy Authority (“AEA” or
“Authority”) is requesting applications for two different categories of renewable energy projects:
1) projects with a primary purpose of producing heat, and 2) all other eligible projects, as
defined in section 1.5 of this document. The project eligibility requirements have not changed
from prior years. Please note that there are two different application forms for the two project
categories. Both applications may be found at the Authority’s website at
www.akenergyauthority.org.
Register to Receive Notification: Interested applicants that want to be notified of updates or
changes to the Renewable Energy Fund Request for Applications must follow the directions
below; otherwise, we will be unable to notify applicants of possible addenda to this RFA.
To receive email notices regarding the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program, click on the link to the State of Alaska List Server (http://list.state.ak.us/); scroll down until you find
“Renewable.energy.fund.grants”; click ‘Join’ and follow the instructions.
Public Records Notice to Applicants:
e Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act, AS 40.25 and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
e In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) applicants may request certain information be
kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority.
e All applications and information received will be posted on the Authority web site after
final recommendations are made to the legislature.
Return Completed Applications to: Grant Manager: Shawn Calfa
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: (907) 771-3031
E-mail: scalfa@aidea.org
Deadline: lications must be received at the Alaska Energy Authority office by 5:00PM
on Tuesday, October 1, 2013. Faxed and emailed applications will not be accepted. Per Section 1.7 of this RFA, applicants are reminded to submit one hard copy and one electronic
copy of each application.
Past Applicants: The Alaska Energy Authority encourages applicants who were
recommended but not funded in previous rounds to resubmit updated applications for
reconsideration in the current round. If you have any questions regarding resubmittal of your
previous application please contact the Authority’s Grant Administrator listed above.
AEA 13-006 Page 1 of 27 6/11/13
1. Introduction and Instructions
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.28
2. Project Requirements
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3. Grant Requirements
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
3.7.
3.8.
3.9
3.10.
3.11.
3.12.
3.13.
AEA 13-006 Page 2 of 27
Table of Contents
Purpose.........
Introduction
Government Roles and Responsibilities
Eligible Applicants...
Eligible Projects
Public Benefit
Filing an Applicatio:
Application Deadline...
RFA Project Web Site...
Questions about the RF.
Modifications of the RFA
RFA Schedule..
Grant Regulations
Grant Funding Program Targets
Grant Funding Project Limits
Grantee Reimbursement
Pre-Award Obligations and Reimbursement
Applicant Match
Application Preparation Costs
Application Content Requirements...
Authorized Signature
Applicant's Certification
Correction, Modification or Withdrawal of Applications
Review of Applications - General
Public Notice and Recommendations to the Legislature
Notice of Intent to Award a Grant .
Grant AgreeMent......ccsrsecseseeseees
Failure to Procee&® ......s.seseesen
Project Management Requirements
Project Phase Descriptions
Phase I- Reconnaissance Requirements
Phase II Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design Requirements.
Phase III Final Design and Permitting Requirements -
Phase IV Project Requirements — CONStructiOn .......sssssssssessesseseensenesnsenenseneenteneeneeneeneeneen
Declaration of Public Benefit (Ref 3 AAC 107.605)
Grantee Project Manager
Approval to Proceed With Next Phase
Contracts for Engineering Services...
Site Control
Exclusion of Existing Environmental Hazards.
Environmental Standards
Current Prevailing Rates of Wage and Employment Preference.
Construction Plans and Specifications Review...
Construction Contractor Bonding
Post Construction Certification.
Ownership of Facilities
3.14. | Operation and Maintenance of Facilities
3.15. Performance/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Reporting
3.16. Tariffs & Rates for Use of Grant-Funded Assets eee
3.17. Grant-Funded Assets Not Included it PCE ....sscsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssscsnsssssssssssssnssnscsnssssssnssonsens
4. Application Evaluation Process
Stage 1 Review: Completeness and Eligibility.
Stage 2 Review: Project Feasibility and Benefits
Stage 3 Review - Evaluation of Individual Application
Stage 4 Review: Final Ranking Recommendations
5. Appendices
Application Forms (Heat Applications, Standard Applications)...
AEA 13-006 Page 3 of 27 6/11/13
4 Introduction and Instructions
11 Purpose
Pursuant to Chapter 31 Session Laws of Alaska 2008 and as amended by Chapter 12 Session
Laws of Alaska 2012 (referred to below as the program legislation), which establishes and
amends the renewable energy grant recommendation program in Alaska Statute AS 42.45.045,
the Alaska Energy Authority (“AEA” or “Authority”) is soliciting competitive applications from
qualified applicants for the purpose of recommending grants for renewable energy projects to be
funded by the Alaska State Legislature. Applications will be accepted and evaluated in
accordance with AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC107.600 — 695 and this Request for Applications (RFA).
ye Introduction
This RFA sets out the purpose, instructions, requirements, evaluative criteria, and other
information on submitting an application to the Authority for recommendation for grant funding.
This RFA is organized as follows:
Section 1: Introduction and Instructions — describes program and procedural requirements
for preparing and submitting an application.
Section 2: Project Requirements — describes project information that is required to be
discussed in each application.
Section 3: Grant Requirements - describes specific grant terms and conditions related to this
program.
Section 4: Application Evaluation Process and Criteria — describes the criteria that will be
used to evaluate and rank each application.
Section 5: Appendices - provides additional reference material to assist in application
preparation, application forms, grant documents, and applicable law.
Accompanying this RFA are Application Forms and Instructions to use in preparing your
application for a Renewable Energy Fund Grant.
1.3 Government Roles and Responsibilities
The Alaska Legislature established the Renewable Energy Grant Fund and the associated
Renewable Energy Grant Recommendation Program in Chapter 31 SLA 2008, which the
legislature enacted in 2008. This bill included a new statute, AS 42.45.045, outlining the
program and giving the Alaska Energy Authority responsibility for administering the program.
The legislature is responsible for final approval and funding of all grant projects, with the
Governor's approval.
The Authority is a public corporation of the State of Alaska with the purpose to promote,
develop, and advance the general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of the State by
providing a means of financing and operating power projects and by carrying out the powers
and duties assigned to it. AS _42.45.045 gives AEA the authority to solicit applications for
projects, develop and implement regulations, and recommend grants for renewable energy
projects to the legislature. The Authority has adopted regulations under 3 AAC107.600 — 695
for the purpose of implementing this program. These regulations are available at AEA’s web
site: www.akenergyauthority.org.
AEA 13-006 Page 4 of 27 6/11/13
The AEA Grant Manager is responsible for accepting applications, coordinating any
communications with grantees, and posting any changes or clarifications to the application
process. AEA’s Deputy Director of Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency is responsible for
coordinating the evaluation of all applications, and developing the lists of grant projects to be
recommended to the Legislature.
The Authority consults with the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee in establishing the
final ranking of recommended applications.
An AEA Project Manager will be assigned to assist each grantee whose application is selected
for grant funding. Tasks and level of the Authority project management will vary according to
the project management plan developed under the grant agreement. At a minimum, the AEA
Project Manager will clarify grant requirements, review reports and billings, and track progress
of the grant project. Applicants may self-manage the awarded project or request that AEA
manage the project.
The Executive Director of AEA or their designee will approve the final grant and carry out all
other duties as defined in statutes, regulations, and this RFA.
1.4 Eligible Applicants
To be eligible for a grant recommendation the applicant must demonstrate formal approval and
endorsement of its project by its governing authority (such as board of directors or executive
management if it does not have a governing board) and be one of the following types of entities:
1. An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05;
2. An independent power producer as defined under 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1);
"independent power producer" means a corporation, person, agency, authority, or
other legal entity or instrumentality, that is not an electric utility and that owns or
operates a facility for the generation or production of energy entirely for use by the
residents of one or more municipalities or unincorporated communities recognized by
the Department. of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development for
community revenue sharing under AS 29.60.850 - 29.60.879 and 3 AAC 180.
3. A local government; or
4. A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities).
In accordance with 3 AAC 107.610 an applicant must also be able to demonstrate that they will
take ownership of the project; own, lease, or otherwise control the site upon which the project is
located; and upon completion of the project operate and maintain it for its economic life for the
benefit of the public.
Applications whose applicants do not meet these requirements will be rejected without further
evaluation.
1.5 Eligible Projects
The Authority may recommend grants for feasibility studies, reconnaissance studies, energy
resource monitoring, and/or work related to the design and construction of an eligible project.
Applications for projects that are not within the scope of eligible projects will be rejected without
further evaluation
To be eligible for a grant recommendation the applicant’s project must:
1.5.1. Be a new project not in operation on August 20, 2008 or an addition to an existing
project made after August 20, 2008.
AEA 13-006 Page 5 of 27 6/11/13
and
1.5.2 Bea project that generates energy from or involves the direct use of:
wind, solar, geothermal, waste heat recovery, hydrothermal, wave, tidal, river in-
stream, hydropower; or
low-emission nontoxic biomass based on solid or liquid organic fuels from wood,
forest and field residues, or animal or fish products; or
dedicated energy crops available on a renewable basis; or
landfill gas and digester gas.
“Direct use of energy” means that it either uses renewable energy to generate energy or to
make fuel used to generate energy. (3 AAC 107.615)
Or
Or
Or
be a facility that generates electricity from fuel cells that use hydrogen from
renewable energy resources or natural gas.
be a natural gas project (other than landfill or digester gas) that benefits a community
that:
e has a population of 10,000 or less; and
e does not have economically viable renewable energy resources that it can
develop.
be a transmission or distribution infrastructure located in Alaska that links an eligible
renewable energy project or eligible natural gas project to other transmission or
distribution infrastructures. For electrical projects, distribution from the grid to end
users is not an eligible use. (An applicant requesting a grant for transmission or
distribution infrastructure is not required to be involved in the financing or
construction of the renewable energy project or natural gas project it may be
connecting.)
For waste heat recovery systems, if the waste heat is currently being wasted, then
the project is eligible. However, Renewable Energy Fund grant funds will be
allocated only to the portions of existing fossil fuel systems that are required for the
capture and distribution of heat.
As mentioned on page 1 of this document, two application forms are available this year. One
for heat projects, one for all other projects. Heat projects are those with a primary purpose to
produce thermal energy via renewable energy source. These include but are not limited to:
biomass or biofuels for heat generation; geothermal for heat; geothermal heat pumps; wind to
heat; hydro to heat; heat recovery; and solar thermal. Applicants proposing heat projects as
defined above should complete the heat project application form. All other projects should
complete the standard application form. If the proposed project generates heat and electricity,
the applicant should complete the standard application form.
AEA 13-006 Page 6 of 27 6/11/13
1.6 Public Benefit
In accordance with 3 AAC 107.605, an application for a grant from the Renewable Energy Fund
has to be for the greatest public benefit. Therefore, an independent power producer must
provide power based on a cost-based rate, rather than an avoided-cost rate.
During the economic evaluation and scoring of applications, only the economic benefits to the
public, direct and/or indirect will be included in the benefit/cost analysis. For example, if 50
percent of the energy produced is for the purpose of private industry, that portion of the energy
will not count as a public benefit in the economic evaluation.
Acz, Filing an Application
Applicants must submit one (1) hard copy of their complete application, double sided preferred,
including appendices that can be duplicated, and one (1) electronic version on an electronic
storage device (i.e. CD or jump drive) in PDF or other word searchable electronic format in a
sealed envelope(s) clearly labeled:
From: Applicants Return Address
To: Alaska Energy Authority
AEA 13-006 Renewable Energy Grant Application
813 West Northern Lights Blvd
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: 907-771-3000
1.8 Application Deadline
All applications must be received by the Authority no later than 5:00 pm October 1, 2013.
The Applicant is solely responsible for complete and timely submission of its application. The
Authority accepts no responsibility for submission of applications or for applications that are
received after the application deadline, whether because they were misdirected, delayed,
erroneously addressed, or for any other reason.
Failure to meet the deadline will result in the application being rejected.
1.9 RFA Project Web Site
The Alaska Energy Authority web site at: www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund-7.html has been
set up to make information available to the public regarding the program. The site contains the
following Round VII information and documents:
The RFA
Application and Grant forms
A summary of relevant questions received regarding the RFA and responses
Clarifications and addenda to the RFA
A list of all applications received upon completion of the review process
Status of applications received (upon completion of the review and ranking process)
PDF versions of all applications received (upon completion of the review and ranking
process). Applicants are reminded that all information submitted with an application will
be posted to the web; unless it is determined to be confidential. Resumes that are
submitted as separate electronic files will not be posted to the web. Please submit
electronic copies of resumes in a separate electronic file from the application.
AEA 13-006 Page 7 of 27 6/11/13
1.10 Questions about the RFA
Applicants should carefully review all documents and the Authority web site prior to contacting
the Grant Manager with questions. Any questions regarding the RFA or grant documents
should be directed to:
Grant Administrator: Shawn Calfa
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: (907) 771-3031
Fax: (907) 771-3942
E-mail: scalfa@aidea.org
Questions that require clarification or interpretation of this RFA that the applicant cannot answer
by careful review of the RFA should be submitted in writing (letter or e-mail) no later than 10
business days before the September 24, 2013 application due date.
The Grant Manager may contact the applicant directly by phone or e-mail to respond to non-
material questions. The Grant Manager will post the answer to material questions on the
Project website.
Technical and Grant Assistance
Technical and grant assistance is available on a time-available basis to any potential applicants.
AEA encourages potential applicants to contact AEA’s grant manager listed above if technical
assistance or grant application assistance is needed. The Grant Manager will direct applicants
to the correct project manager or technical assistance provider.
1.11 Modifications of the RFA
Applicants may submit written requests for modifications to this RFA to the Grant Manager no
later than September 10, 2013. Please be advised that the Authority cannot modify
requirements of Statutes AS 42.45.045 or regulations 3 AAC107.600 — 695 as it relates to the
solicitation. :
Acceptance or denial of the request is solely at the discretion of the Authority. Failure of the
Grant Manager to issue a written modification within 10 days from submittal of request shall be
considered a denial of the request.
Modifications to this request for applications may be issued at any time prior to the deadline for
receipt of applications at the Authority’s option. If modifications are issued within 10 days of the
deadline for applications, the application deadline may be extended to allow time for applicants
to respond to any changes. All modifications to this RFA will be in writing and posted to the
program web site at www.akenergyauthority.org and the Authority will provide e-mail notice to
those registered as described on the cover page of this RFA.
1.12 RFA Schedule
Below is a schedule of critical dates related to this request and award of grants. Actual dates
after_the application due date are tentative and may vary depending on the number of
applications received, the complexity of applications, and timely completion of review by the
Legislature.
AEA 13-006 Page 8 of 27 6/11/13
Task Target Dates
Application Due Date 10/1/2013
Complete Evaluation of Applications 1/15/2014
AEA Submit Recommendations to Legislature 1/24/2014
Projects Approved for Funding by Legislature 4/20/2014
and Signed by Governor 6/1/2014
Finalize Award Documents (Contingent upon 7/1/2014 to
the Authority receiving all documentation 7/30/14
needed for award)
Actual award dates may vary depending on timing of legislative approval and any modifications
that may be required to the grantee’s proposal prior to grant award.
1.13 Grant Regulations
Grant regulations, 3 AAC107.600 — 695, effective 10/16/2009, have been developed and are
available for review at: www.akenergyauthority.org
1.14 Grant Funding Program Targets
A grant resulting from this RFA is subject to legislative appropriation. The program legislation
indicates that the legislature intends to provide $50 million per year from State fiscal year 2009
through 2023 for Renewable Energy Projects under this program. The actual amounts available
for the program and for any particular grant are subject to legislative appropriation. Through FY
2013, the Legislature has authorized over $202 million in grants that are being awarded as a
result of the Authority's past Requests for Applications.
The Authority must receive approval from the legislature prior to award of any grant.
AEA has established funding allocation targets by project phase as indicated below as goals in
its selection of projects to recommend. The targets are preliminary and subject to adjustment
based on the available funding and the type, number, and quality of projects submitted.
Target Allocation —
Project Phase Percentage of Grant Funds
Recommended
Reconnaissance Study
Feasibility/Conceptual Design or 20%
Energy Resource Monitoring
Final Design and Permitting
Construction 80%
Heat Project Goal
Additionally, and new in Round VII, AEA has established a target allocation for heat projects at
30 percent of the total funding recommendation. This percentage is only a target and may be
exceeded or not met depending upon the availability of funds, the quality and number of
projects proposed. AEA will recommend two prioritized lists of projects to the legislature, one
from the group of heat applications and one from the group of standard application. This new
target indicates AEA’s and the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee’s interest in recent
years to fund more heating projects. Heating represents 70 to 80 percent of non-transportation
energy use in Alaska, while only approximately 10 percent of the Renewable Energy Fund
grants have supported heat projects in rounds | through VI.
AEA 13-006 Page 9 of 27 6/11/13
Eligibility of Resource Assessments for Emerging Energy Technologies
Resource assessments that support the development of emerging energy technologies is an
eligible project type, so long as other eligibility criteria are met in sections 1.4 and 1.5. While
these projects may score lower in the Renewable Energy Fund evaluation process, AEA
recognizes the need and value to these assessments, which are not eligible under the Emerging
Energy Technology Fund. Projects of this type will be scored using the same criteria as any
other renewable energy project. If a resource assessment application demonstrates its need
and value to developing emerging technologies, AEA may make a recommendation to the
legislature to fund one or more of these projects even if it does not rank as highly as other
projects. AEA does not anticipate recommending more than 4 percent of the total grant budget
to resource assessments for emerging energy technologies. To gain a recommendation higher
than the REF evaluation score, an applicant must demonstrate a high degree of importance of
the proposed resource assessment, as compared with other potential resource assessment
locations, and demonstrate the need for a resource assessment for the proposed emerging
technology, and evidence that the emerging energy technology shows potential for economic
deployments in Alaska in the future. Demonstration projects of emerging energy technologies
should apply for funding under the Emerging Energy Technology Fund until that technology is
proven prior to seeking project funding through the Renewable Energy Fund.
1.15 Grant Funding Project Limits
In addition to the above program targets, the Authority intends to impose limits on the amount of
funds that will be available for individual grant projects. The purpose of these limits is to be able
to fund more projects statewide and encourage financial participation on the part of the grant
applicants. Applicants should take these limits into account when preparing their application as
it is expected that the grantee will be responsible for any project costs beyond the grant funds
available to complete the project.
Phase Grant Limits by Location
Low Energy Cost Areas High Energy Cost Areas
(see list) (see list)
Phase |,
Reconnaissance The per-project total of Phase | and Il is limited to 20% of
Phase Il, anticipated construction cost (Phase IV), not to exceed Feasibility and Design $2M.
Phase Ill, 20% of anticipated construction cost (Phase IV), and
Final Design and counting against the total construction grant limit below.
Permitting
Phase IV, $4M per project, including | $8M per project, including
Construction final design and permitting | final design and permitting
(Phase Ill) costs, above. (Phase Ill) costs, above.
Exceptions
Biofuel projects Biofuel projects where the Applicant does not intend to
generate electricity or heat for sale to the public are limited
to reconnaissance and feasibility phases only at the limits
expressed above. Biofuel is a solid, liquid or gaseous fuel
produced from biomass.
Geothermal projects The per-project total of Phase | and II for geothermal
projects is limited to 20% of anticipated construction costs
(Phase IV), not to exceed $4M. Any amount above the
usual $2M spent on these two phases combined shall
reduce the total Phase III and IV grant limit by the same
amount, thereby keeping the same total grant dollar cap as
AEA 13-006 Page 10 of 27 6/11/13
all other projects. This exception recognizes the typically
increased cost of the feasibility stage due to test well
drilling.
For a given project, the limits are cumulative by project phase; including all prior rounds of
funding from the Renewable Energy Fund, and are subject to adjustment based on the available
funding and the type, number, and quality of projects submitted.
1.16 Grantee Reimbursement
Reimbursement to grantees under this program is on a cost reimbursable basis. In accordance
with the terms of the grant, a grantee is required to submit requests for reimbursements that
document commitment, expenditures, and demonstrate meeting milestones identified in the
grant.
The milestones, with a proposed reimbursement schedule, should be identified in the applicant's
proposal. The final reimbursement schedule is subject to negotiation and will be incorporated
into the final grant agreement.
The Authority may authorize a percentage of grant funds as an advance payment at the startup
of the Grant; however, the grantee is still obligated to document all expenditures of grant and
matching funds including any advance payment in subsequent requests for reimbursement.
The Authority will withhold a percentage of the total grant subject to completion of the project
and submission of final reports and other documentation that may be required by the grant.
1.17 Pre-Award Obligations and Reimbursement
If a potential grantee anticipates award of a grant the grantee may proceed with work on
projects prior to fully executed grant award provided:
e They do so at their own risk as there is no guarantee projects will be funded or funded at
the level requested in their application.
e They must have sufficient funds from sources other than this program to meet their
project commitments prior to grant award.
e The grantee documents all pre-award expenditures including matching fund
commitments and when requesting reimbursement for pre-award expenses follows the
reimbursement requests requirements in the grant document.
e No work performed or obligations incurred prior to will be considered
for reimbursement.
1.18 Applicant Match
When reviewing applications the Authority will favorably consider applications that commit the
applicant to provide matching funds to complete the project.
Applicants should identify the amount and source of matching funds or other resources
(collectively referred to as “match’) the applicant will contribute to the project based on the total
proposed grant project budget.
In order for funds to be considered as match, the amount and source of funds must be verified
to the Authority. Verification may be accomplished by submitting a resolution from the
applicant’s board or assembly that clearly recognizes the obligation of providing matching funds.
AEA 13-006 Page 11 of 27 6/11/13
Failure to provide this verification will result in no points being awarded for proposed
matching funds during the scoring of the application.
The proposed matching funds for this project cannot have been used to match a previous grant
request.
If matching funds or in-kind contributions are proposed, the applicant will be required in the
grant award to document the match contribution in their reimbursement requests. If labor or
equipment costs are to be presented as matching costs, the proposed rates for the labor or
equipment must be approved by the Authority.
Previous Renewable Energy Fund grants will not be counted as matching funds.
Applicants should note that if matching funds are pledged and budgeted in the grant agreement;
but later not provided during the grant project, the grant amount will be reduced accordingly.
See the budget form instructions and clarification for matching requirements.
1.19 Application Preparation Costs
The Authority shall not pay for any costs incurred by the applicants to prepare and submit their
application. No costs incurred by the applicants in preparation of their application may be
charged as an expense of performing the Grant.
The only reimbursable costs will be those allowed in the grant agreement signed by the
Authority.
1.20 Application Content Requirements
The application must address all the information required as noted in Section 2 for the type of
project proposed. Applicants should download and complete the Microsoft Word application,
cost worksheet, budget, and authorized signers forms provided from the Round VII web site at
www.akenergyauthority.org
Below is a list of document names and their purpose:
1.21. Authorized Signature
Applications must be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Applicant to its provisions
and to make the commitments of the application.
1.22 Applicant's Certification
By signature on their application, Applicants certify that they are complying and will comply with:
1) the laws of the State of Alaska; 2) the applicable portion of the Federal Civil Rights Act of
1964; 3) the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, the Americans With Disability Act (ADA) and
the regulations issued there under by the federal government; 4) all terms and conditions set out
in this RFA; and 5) the amount of matching funds being offered.
AEA 13-006 Page 12 of 27 6/11/13
1.23 Correction, Modification or Withdrawal of Applications
An application may be corrected, modified or withdrawn by providing a written request from an
authorized representative of the Applicant to the grant manager before the time and date set for
receipt of the applications.
After applications are opened, modifications may be allowed prior to completion of the
evaluation process if the Authority determines that it is in the best interest of the program to
allow modifications.
Applicants who may be recommended for grant awards may be requested to clarify, modify, or
correct their application prior to recommendations being sent to the legislature or prior to award
of a grant if the Authority determines that it is in the best interest of the program.
Applicants who fail to respond to requests for clarifications, modifications, or corrections within
the period specified in the request may have their application rejected or removed from the list
of recommended projects.
1.24 Review of Applications - General
Applications will be reviewed in four stages by Authority and Department of Natural Resources
staff, and consultants.
Stage 1 —- Completeness and Eligibility Review (3 AAC 107.635)
Stage 2 — Technical and Financial Feasibility Review (3 AAC 107.645)
Stage 3 — Evaluation of Individual Applications (3 AAC 107.655)
Stage 4 — Regional and Final Ranking Recommendations (3 AAC 107.660)
The review and evaluation criteria for each stage are listed in Section 4.
Applications that do not comply with AS. 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600-695, and all of the material
and substantial terms, conditions, and requirements of this RFA may be rejected. If an
application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its application has been
rejected and the basis for rejection.
The Authority may waive minor requirements of the RFA that do not result in a material change
in the requirements of the RFA and do not give an applicant an unfair competitive advantage.
At any stage in the review process, the Authority may request clarifying information and the
applicant will have a specified amount of time to respond to the request for information. Failure
to respond timely or provide adequate information will result in the application being rejected.
If information is sufficient and any minimum scores are met, the application will advance to the
next stage of review.
1.25 Public Notice and Recommendations to the Legislature
Upon completion of Stage 4 of the review process, the Authority will forward to the legislature a
summary of all applications received, their status, the technical score and the final rank of all
applications. The Authority will also post on its web site the applications, a brief summary of
each project, and the final ranking and disposition of all applications. The total cost of all
recommended projects may be for more or less total dollars than the current funding authorized
by the Legislature.
Applicants may be required to provide additional information to the legislature upon request.
AEA 13-006 Page 13 of 27 6/11/13
1.26 Notice of Intent to Award a Grant
Upon approval of funding by the legislature for Round VII grants and signing of the budget
authorization by the Governor, the Authority will notify successful applicants of their award.
Grantees whose authorizations are less than what was requested or whose scope, schedule, or
budget may have changed from when their application was originally submitted will be required
to update their application to assure the grant is consistent with the funding available.
1.27 Grant Agreement
Applicants whose projects are selected for grant funding will be required to sign a Grant
Agreement prepared by the Authority that contain the terms and conditions in the Grant form
included as an appendix to this document. The Authority may modify its standard form grant
agreement if necessary for this program or for particular projects.
1.28 Failure to Proceed
If an Applicant is unable to respond and indicate acceptance of the Grant Agreement within 30
days of receipt of the Grant Agreement or provide an update to its project as may be required;
then the offer of the grant may be withdrawn by the Authority. Available grant funds may be
offered to another eligible grant applicant subject to availability of funds and consistent with
legislative intent.
If the Authority and a grantee are unable to complete a grant agreement within one year of the
original Notice of Intent to Award a grant, the Authority may suspend negotiations, rescind the
grant offer and return the allocated grant funds to the Renewable Energy Fund. [3 AAC
107.670(b)]
2: Project Requirements
An application under the RFA should describe the Applicant's renewable energy project in one
or more phases as described in this section and include sufficient information to allow for the
evaluation and ranking of the application. The depth of information needed with the application
will vary depending on the type and complexity of the project, the number of phases for which
grant funding may be requested, the amount of state funds requested, and the estimated total
project costs.
All applicants are required to have a project management plan they intend to follow that includes
who is going to manage the project, how it is going to be managed, a schedule with milestones,
and how project risks will be mitigated. The level of detail in the plan will vary depending on the
project phase(s), amount of funds requested, and complexity of the project.
2.1 Project Management Requirements
The Applicant is responsible for implementing and executing a plan for managing the project so
that the project is completed within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
Project Management
Project Manager The Applicant must designate a project manager(s) responsible for
managing the project for the Grantee. This may be:
e Anemployee of the Grantee
e Aconsultant
e Or other partners committed to the project. For Example Native
corporations, other utilities, IPPs, or government entities.
AEA 13-006 Page 14 of 27 6/11/13
e If not known, the grantee should indicate how they intend to
acquire project managers.
Project Schedule Schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant.
Project Milestones Identifies key tasks and decision points in the project schedule. Project
management milestone charts and descriptions of major project decision
points are encouraged
Project Resources Identifies what people, equipment, or services will be used to accomplish
the project. Includes any commitments the grantee may have or
reference any existing contracts or the selection process that may be
used for major equipment purchases or contracts.
Project Identifies how the grantee will monitor the project and keep the Authority
Communications informed of the status.
Project Risk Identifies potential problems and how they will be addressed.
2.2 Project Phase Descriptions
The application should describe the project proposed for grant funding by phase in order to
demonstrate a likelihood that the project will be successfully completed and will provide
substantial public benefits. Applicants who have completed a project phase will be required to
document successfully completing the phase with a positive public benefit for the project prior to
the Authority releasing funds for a following phase.
Each type of technology may have issues or tasks that are specific to that technology that will
need to be addressed in addition to the issues or tasks identified in each phase.
Project phases or major project tasks that should be addressed in the applicant’s project
description are as follows:
Phase | A preliminary feasibility study designed to ascertain
Reconnaissance whether a feasibility study is warranted.
Phase II -Feasibility Analysis, Detailed evaluation intended to assess_ technical,
Resource Assessment, economic, financial, and operational viability and to
Conceptual Design narrow focus of final design and construction.
Phase III — Final Design and Project configuration and specifications that guide
Permitting construction. Land use and resource permits and leases
required for construction.
Phase IV — Completion of project construction and beginning of
Construction, Commissioning, operations. It also includes follow-up O&M reporting
Operation, and Reporting requirements.
Included after each phase described here are a list of possible milestones to assist with the
preparation of an application.
2.3 Phase I- Reconnaissance Requirements
The purpose of a Reconnaissance Study is to determine whether further study is warranted. A
study is required to consider and address the information and tasks below.
Phase | - Reconnaissance
Proposed Energy General description of the extent and amount of the renewable resource
Resource
Existing Energy For rural power systems and/or facility heating systems
System e Basic configuration (number, size, and type of gensets and
boilers; efficiency; operating hours)
AEA 13-006 Page 15 of 27 6/11/13
Capital and replacement costs
Annual O&M cost and schedule
Annual fuel consumption and fuel price
Load information (peak, minimum, average, and future trends)
Plans for system upgrades
For all systems
Residential and commercial electrical service rates
Avoided cost of energy
Proposed System
Design
Description of renewable energy technology specific to project
location
Alternative system discussion
Optimum installed capacity
Annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Proposed System
Costs
Total anticipated project cost for this phase
Projected capital, O&M, and fuel costs
Projected debt financing if applicable
Project Benefits Annual fuel displacement and savings over the project life
Annual revenue from energy sales, tax credits, green tags, and
other incentives
Discussion of non-monetary benefits
Energy
Purchase/Sale
Identification of potential energy market
Potential energy purchase and sales rates
Land Ownership Landowner(s) identified and contacted
Permits List of applicable permits
Anticipated permitting timeline
Potential regulatory barriers
Environmental Complete environmental screening that addresses:
Threatened and Endangered species and other habitat impacts
Fisheries and wildlife protection
Water and air quality impacts
Wetland and protected areas
Archaeological and historical resource impacts
Land development constraints
Telecommunications and aviation impacts
Visual and aesthetic resource impacts
Other environmental barriers
Analysis and
Recommendations Basic economic analysis of alternatives
Recommendations for additional project development work
Milestones for a Reconnaissance Project should include.
. Project scoping and contractor solicitation completed
. Resource identification and analysis completed
. Land use, permitting, and environmental analysis completed
. Cost of energy and market analysis
. Simple economic analysis completed
1
2
3
4. Preliminary design and cost analysis completed
5
6
7 . Final report and recommendations completed
Page 16 of 27 6/11/13
2.4 Phase II Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design Requirements
Phase II Feasibility Analysis requires a detailed evaluation intended to further assess technical,
economic, financial, and operational viability of a project and to narrow the focus of final design
and construction. In addition to addressing all the requirements of Phase |, a feasibility analysis
should address the information and tasks below.
Proposed Energy
Resource
Phase Il —Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design
Site-specific assessment of available energy resource following industry
standards usually based on field measurements, discussions with
resource owners, and other onsite activities. Examples of assessment
activities include:
Collection and analysis of meteorological tower data at
proposed wind turbine locations
Assessment of geological data from surface investigation and
test wells for geothermal and natural gas projects
Stream gauging and hydrological modeling for hydroelectric
projects
Analysis of wood and sawmill residue availability and delivered
cost to biomass energy project locations
Existing Energy e Annual load profile—power projects may require onsite
System measurement
e Load growth projections
e Transmission system layout and capacity
e Retirement schedule
Proposed System e Identification and analysis of system alternatives
Design e Recommended alternative including discussion of impacts on
existing system
e Assessment of project site, including geotechnical
characteristics as necessary
e Annual energy production profile
e Conceptual system design
¢ Conceptual integration design
e Identification of remaining technical barriers
Project Costs e Conceptual level cost estimates for final design and construction
e Annual O&M and fuel costs
e Other project costs including leases, taxes, insurance, and
financing
Project Benefits Annual fuel displacement and savings over the project life
Detailed analysis of revenue from energy sales, tax credits,
green tags, and other incentives
Discussion of non-monetary benefits
Energy
Purchase/Sale
Preliminary energy purchase or sales agreement
Land Ownership Assessment of site control requirements for proposed project
Authorization from land owners for onsite feasibility activities
Permits Obtain authorizations from all applicable agencies for any use of
land or resources for feasibility activities
Environmental Site-specific assessment of resources that may be significantly
affected. Examples include fish and wildlife habitat assessment,
visual impact modeling, and air quality assessment.
Plan for addressing potential environmental impacts
Analysis and Comprehensive economic and financial analyses of alternatives
Page 17 of 27
Recommendations e Recommendations for project design and construction activities
e Draft operational and business plan
Milestones for a Feasibility Project should include.
1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation completed
2. Detailed resource assessment completed
3. Identification of land and regulatory issues
4. Permitting and environmental analysis completed
5. Detailed analysis of current cost of energy and future market completed
6. Assessment of alternatives
7. Conceptual design and costs estimate completed
8. Detailed economic and financial analyses completed
9. Conceptual business & operations plan completed
10. Final report and recommendations completed
2.5 Phase III Final Design and Permitting Requirements
Building on information gathered in Phases | and II, applicants will be required to complete
Phase Ill prior to construction. The purposes of Phase Ill are to establish the project
configuration and specifications that will be used to guide construction, refine project costs
estimates, finalize business plans, and obtain land use and resource authorizations required for
construction. Work should address the information and tasks below.
AEA 13-006 Page 18 of 27 6/11/13
Phase Ill -Final Design & Permitting
Renewable Energy
Resource Updated data to confirm that resource is still available
Existing Energy
System
Final engineered and approved energy system configuration
including upgrades
Operational Plan
Proposed System e Final engineered and approved system design
Design e Final engineered and approved integration design
e Interconnection study
Project Cost e Final engineer’s estimate of project cost
Project Benefits ¢ Detailed financial analysis based on chosen business structure
and applicable costs, revenues, and incentives
Power Purchase/Sale e Executed power purchase/sales agreement
Land Ownership e Final land use authorizations obtained
Permits e_Allnecessary permits obtained
Environmental e Allenvironmental issues resolved
Business & e Final operational and business plan, including financial and operational plans for end-of-life
Milestones for a Design and Permitting Phase of a project should include.
Project scoping and contractor solicitation completed
Permit applications completed
Final environmental assessment and mitigation plans completed
Resolution of land use, right of way issues
Final system design completed
Final cost estimate completed
Updated economic and financial analyses completed
Power or heat sale agreements in place
1.
2
3
4.
5. Permitting, rights-of-way, site control completed
6
7
8
9.
1 0. Final business and operational plan completed
2.6 Phase IV Project Requirements — Construction
The purpose of the construction phase is to construct and commission the project, begin
operations, and provide follow-up reports on operations and maintenance for a specific period of
time to document the programs impact on the community. Grantees are expected to cover all
costs of operations and maintenance in compliance with their operational and business plans
developed in Phase III. The construction phase will address the information and tasks below
Renewable Energy
Resource
Phase IV —Construction, Commissioning, Operation, and Reporting Continuous monitoring to verify and update projections and
system efficiency
Existing Power
System
Coordination of conversion, integration, or surplus of existing
system
Proposed System
Design
Construction plan and schedule
Commissioning plan and schedule
Modifications to final design during construction
Project Cost Actively track project costs against the project budget
Propose budget modifications as needed
Manage cost overruns
Page 19 of 27
Environmental e Environmental monitoring as required
Permitting e Reports as required by permitting agencies
Analysis and e Update business plans and power purchase agreements as Recommendations needed to account for actual construction costs
e Final project report including as-built specifications and
drawings, final budget, schedule, and recommendations
e Periodic operation and maintenance reports as required by
grant including actual O&M, fuel, and equipment costs; O&M
measures and schedule; energy output; project availability;
conversion efficiency; renewable energy resource; and
recommendations. The Authority will work with the grantee to
implement this required reporting.
End-of-life planning e Include end-of-useful-life plans in the business plan, including
what activities are expected (replacement, refurbishment,
retrofitting, decommissioning, etc.) and a financial plan to
ensure that funds are available to implement the end-of-life
plan.
Milestones for a Construction project will include:
Design and feasibility requirements completed
Bid documents completed
Vendor selected and award in place
Construction — unique to each project
Integration and testing
Decommissioning of old system complete
Final acceptance, commissioning and start-up complete
Operations reporting
3. Grant Requirements |
To receive renewable energy grants, applicants must comply with the following standard terms
and conditions and the other terms and conditions in the Authority's standard grant document,
reference Appendices; Standard Grant Template 6.pdf. If the grantee is a tribal entity, a waiver
of sovereign immunity will be required as a condition of the grant. ONDA RWN >
3.1. Declaration of Public Benefit (Ref 3 AAC 107.605)
The grantee acknowledges and agrees that the Project shall be constructed, owned and
operated for the benefit of the general public and will not deny any person use and/or benefit of
Project facilities due to race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical handicap, sex, marital
status, changes in marital status, pregnancy or parenthood.
3.2. Grantee Project Manager
For construction projects, the Grantee will contract or hire competent persons to manage all
phases of the Project. Work at a minimum will include; management of Grantee’s labor for the
project, engineering firms and consultants, procurement, management of construction
contractors, selection of equipment, review of plans and specifications, on-site inspections and
review and approval of work, and other duties to ensure that the completed work conforms with
the requirements of the grant and the construction documents.
If the Grantee fails to provide adequate project management the Authority may terminate the
Grant or assume project management responsibilities with the concurrence of the Grantee.
AEA 13-006 Page 20 of 27 6/11/13
Costs for a Grantee Project Manager must be reasonable to be considered an eligible grant expense.
3.3. Approval to Proceed With Next Phase
A grant award may be for one or more phases of a project. The grantee must achieve
substantial completion of work or of designated grant milestones and receive approval from the
Authority prior to proceeding to the next phase of work.
3.4. Contracts for Engineering Services
In the event the Grantee contracts for engineering services, the Grantee will require that the
engineering firm certify that it is authorized to do business in the State of Alaska and provide
proof of licensing and required professional liability insurance.
Unless otherwise agreed by the Authority, the insurance required by this section shall, at a
minimum, included professional liability insurance covering all errors, omissions or negligent
acts in the performance of professional services under this agreement, with limits required per
the following schedule:
Contract Amount Minimum Required Limits
Under $ 100,000 $ 300,000 per Occurrence/Annual Aggregate
$ 100,000-$ 499,999 $ 500,000 per Occurrence/Annual Aggregate
$ 500,000-$ 999,999 $ 1,000,000 per Occurrence/Annual Aggregate
$ 1,000,000 or over Refer to Risk Management
3.5. Site Control
If the grant Project involves the occupancy and use of real property, the Grantee assures that it
has the legal right to occupy and use such real property for the purposes of the grant, and
further that there is legal access to such property. The Grantee is responsible for securing the
real property interests necessary for the construction and operation of the Project, through
ownership, leasehold, easement, or otherwise, and for providing evidence satisfactory to the
Authority that it has secured these real property interests.
3.6. Permits
It is the responsibility of the Grantee to identify and ensure that all permits required for the
construction and operation of this Project by the Federal, State, or Local governments have
been obtained unless otherwise stated in Appendix C. These permits may include, but are not
limited to, Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, State Historic Preservation Office, State Fire Marshal, Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Boroughs.
3.7. Exclusion of Existing Environmental Hazards
Grant funds will not be awarded for and may not be used for environmental investigation,
removal or remediation of contamination, remediation of existing facilities or properties, or any
other environmental matters, unless specifically provided in the Grant Agreement. In addition,
grant funds will not be awarded for and may not be used for the decommissioning or removal of
any existing facilities except as specifically provided in the Grant Agreement.
3.8. | Environmental Standards
The grantee will comply with applicable environmental standards, including without limitation
applicable laws for the prevention of pollution, management of hazardous waste, and evaluation
of environmental impacts.
AEA 13-006 Page 21 of 27 6/11/13
3.9. | Current Prevailing Rates of Wage and Employment Preference
To the extent required by federal and State law construction projects may require certain
grantees to include the requirements for ‘Davis-Bacon’ and ‘Little Davis-Bacon’ when
contracting for construction services. This requires contractors to pay minimum rates of pay for
specific classes of workers and provide certified payrolls to the State Department of Labor. The
current wage rates can be found at the following web sites:
The Federal wage rates at http://www.wdol.gov/
The State wage rates at http://www.labor.state.ak.us/Iss/pamp600.htm
If federal funding sources require federal ‘Davis-Bacon’ compliance, the grantee must use both
the Federal and State wage scale and the contractor is required to pay the higher of the State or
Federal wage scale. When only State Funds are used that requires ‘Little Davis-Bacon,’ the
grantee is only required to follow the State Rate schedule.
For projects that are only State funded, contractors are also required to use local residents
where they are available and qualified in accordance with AS 36.10.150-180, and 8 AAC 30.064
- 088.
The grantee is responsible for identifying any other sources of project funds and for ensuring
compliance with applicable wage scales for all sources of project funding. If a Grantee believes
they or their contractors may be exempt from these requirements, they should contact the State
of Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Wage and Hour Administration, for
a determination and forward a copy of that determination to the Authority’s Grant Administrator.
3.10. Construction Plans and Specifications Review
Prior to public notice of bidding a construction project, the grantee will provide the plans and
specifications to the Authority for review. Concurrence that the plans and specifications are
consistent with the grant award must be received before grant funds will be released for
construction related costs.
3.11. Construction Contractor Bonding
When the value of the construction is anticipated to be greater than $100,000, prior to beginning
construction on a project funded by this grant, the grantee or grantee’s contractor(s) must
provide the Authority either a payment and performance bond, as may be required by AS
36.25.010, a surety in form and substance acceptable to the Authority, or some other guarantee
or assurance acceptable to the Authority that the grantee or the grantee’s contractor has the
capacity, qualifications, and financial resources necessary to complete construction of the
project as proposed in the grant or construction contract(s) funded by this grant.
3.12. Post Construction Certification
Upon completion of construction the Grantee will submit a final report that includes:
e Certification that all work is completed in accordance with the grant and all costs claimed
are eligible costs and represent work completed on the Project;
e Summary of total project cost including detailed funding sources and any outstanding
debt;
e Certification that there is a release of any contractor or subcontractor liens on the
project;
e Identification of any outstanding construction issues;
e Demonstration that appropriate insurance is in place and,
e = As-built drawings.
AEA 13-006 Page 22 of 27 6/11/13
3.13. Ownership of Facilities
The grantee shall assume all liabilities arising from the ownership and operation of the project.
Grantee will not sell, transfer, encumber, or dispose of any of its interest in the facilities
constructed with this grant funding during the economic life of the Project without prior written
approval of the Authority.
3.14. Operation and Maintenance of Facilities
The grantee is required to maintain and operate the facilities defined in Appendix C of the Grant
agreement for the economic life of the facility or the specific period of time designated herein.
In the event that the grantee is no longer operating the facilities for the intended purposes the
Authority may require the grantee to reimburse the Authority an amount based on the total
contribution of the Authority, the value of the assets, and the terms and conditions of this
agreement. The Authority may require that the assets acquired under this agreement be sold
and the proceeds returned to the Authority.
3.15. Performance/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Reporting
If the grant is for Project construction, the grantee must provide the Authority with a
Performance/O&M Report annually for ten years after Project completion. The Performance/
O&M Report must include: (1) a detailed description of Project operations and maintenance
activities and issues; and (2) a detailed description of Project performance, including energy
output, estimated fuel savings resulting from the operation of the Project, and any other relevant
measures of Project performance reasonably requested by the Authority, a description of
repairs and modifications to the Project, and recommendations for improvements for similar
future projects.
The Authority may take into account the grantee’s failure to provide the required annual
Performance/O&M Report in evaluating future applications from the grantee for grant funds.
The Authority encourages grantees to provide annual Performance/O&M reports for the life of
the Project, and may consider the grantee’s voluntary submittal of annual Performance/O&M
reports beyond the first ten years in evaluating future applications from the grantee for grant
funds.
3.16. Tariffs & Rates for Use of Grant-Funded Assets
Rates for power provided as a result of generation or transmission facilities built with grant funds
may be subject to review and approval by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), or if the
rates are not subject to RCA review and approval, they may be subject to review and approval
by the Authority to ensure reasonable and appropriate public benefit from the ownership and
operation of the Project.
As a condition of the grant, Independent Power Producers will agree to sell energy resources for
electricity and heat at a cost-based rate for the economic life of the project. The Authority will
hire an independent economist to provide guidance in developing a cost-based rate for electric
sales with an appropriate rate of return on equity.
The allowable cost-based rate represents the highest rate that the Independent Power Producer
will be allowed to charge. Because the cost-based rates are a grant condition, avoided costs
rates or Public Utility Regulations Policies Act (PURPA) rates will not apply for projects which
obtain grant funding.
Application for a Certification of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) is also a grant
condition. RCA action related to the issuance of the CPCN must be completed prior to the
issuance of any construction grant funding.
AEA 13-006 Page 23 of 27 6/11/13
3.17. Grant-Funded Assets Not Included in PCE
The grantee agrees that it will not include the value of facilities, equipment, services, or other
benefits received under this grant as expenses under the Power Cost Equalization Program or
as expenses on which wholesale or retail rates or any other energy tariffs are based.
4. Application Evaluation Process
Applications will be reviewed in four stages by application evaluation committees, which may
include the Authority staff, consultants, and members of the Advisory Committee established
under the program legislation.
Stage 1 —- Completeness and Eligibility Review (3 AAC 107.635)
Stage 2 — Feasibility and Public Benefit Review (3 AAC 107.645)
Stage 3 — Evaluation of Individual Applications (3 AAC 107.655)
Stage 4 — Regional and Final Ranking Recommendations (3 AAC 107.660)
The review and evaluation criteria for each stage are listed here.
Applications that do not comply with AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600-695, and all of the material
and substantial terms, conditions, and requirements of this RFA may be rejected. If an
application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing or via email that its application has
been rejected and the basis for rejection.
The Authority may waive minor requirements of the RFA that do not result in a material change
in the requirements of the RFA and do not give an applicant an unfair competitive advantage.
At any stage in the review process, the Authority may request clarifying information and the
applicant will have a specified amount of time to respond to the request for information. Failure
to respond timely or provide adequate information will result in the application being rejected.
If information is sufficient, the application will be forwarded through to the next stage of review.
Stage 1 Review: Completeness and Eligibility
All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by Authority staff to assess if
the application is complete, meets the minimum submission requirements, and has adequate
information to proceed to Stage 2 — Feasibility and Public Benefit Review.
The following pass-fail criteria will be used to determine if the application meets the minimum
requirements.
Application . The application is submitted by an Eligible Applicant (sec 1.4).
The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.5).
ae . _Aresolution or other formal authorization of the applicant's governing
these criteria to body is included with the application to demonstrate the applicant's
be considered commitment to the project and any proposed matching funds are
further. available and in the applicant’s control (sec 1.22).
The application provides a detailed description of the phase(s) of
must meet all of
project proposed i.e. reconnaissance’ study, conceptual
design/feasibility study, final design/permitting, and/or construction
(sec 2.2).
The application is complete in that the information provided is
sufficiently responsive to the RFA to allow AEA to consider the
application in the next stage of evaluation. Page 24 of 27
The applicant demonstrates that they will take ownership of the
project; own, lease, or otherwise control the site upon which the
project is located; and upon completion of the project operate and
maintain it for its economic life for the benefit of the public (sec 1.4)
7. Wind applications requesting Phase III (Final Design and Permitting)
or Phase IV (Construction, Commissioning, Operation and Reporting)
funding will submit documentation necessary to demonstrate the
fulfillment of all requirements for earlier phases of the project
identified in Section 2 of the RFA [i.e. Phase II (Feasibility Analysis,
Conceptual Design) or Phase III (Final Design and Permitting)] 30
days prior to the application deadline. Submittals which do not
demonstrate the fulfillment of all requirements of earlier phases
identified in Section 2 of the RFA by the application deadline may
result in an application being deemed incomplete during Stage 1
review or result in an application receiving lower scores during AEA
Stage 2 review. The early deadline for advanced project phases in
wind projects will afford AEA project managers sufficient time for
design review and feedback while allowing applicants to make
adjustments or complete additional information, if needed, to fulfill
AEA's requirements. These adjustments could result in higher
technical scores.
If an application is ambiguous regarding questions 1-7, the Authority may request clarifying
information and the applicant will have a specified amount of time to provide the requested
information. Failure to respond timely or provide an adequate explanation will result in the
application being rejected.
Stage 2 Review: Project Feasibility and Benefits
For all applications that pass Stage 1 the Authority will perform a benefit and feasibility review in
accordance with 3 AAC 107.645 and the criteria below:
Application . _ Project Management, Development, and Operation
The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in
adequate detail. substantially . The cost savings estimates for project development,
meet these operation, maintenance, fuel, and other project items are
teri: realistic.
caer fo be The project team’s method of communicating, monitoring, and considered reporting development progress is described in adequate
must
further. detail.
Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating
and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable
and described in adequate detail.
Qualifications and Experience
The applicant, partners, and contractors have sufficient
knowledge and experience to successfully complete and
operate the project.
The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to
successfully complete and operate the project.
The project team is able to understand and address technical,
economic, and environmental barriers to successful project
AEA 13-006 Page 25 of 27 6/11/13
completion and operation.
d. The project uses local labor and trains a local labor workforce.
3. Technical Feasibility
a. The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable
basis, and project permits and other authorizations can
reasonably be obtained.
A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy
system.
Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable.
The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver
energy as planned.
If a demonstration project is being proposed:
e Application in other areas of the state, or another
specific benefit of the proposed project, is likely;
need for this project is shown (vs. the ability to use
existing technology); and
the risks of the proposed system are reasonable and
warrant demonstration.
4. Economic Feasibility and Benefits
a. The project is shown to be economically feasible (net savings
in fuel, operation and maintenance, and capital costs over the
life of the proposed project).
The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of
the grant-funded phase and has considered options for
financing subsequent phases of the project
Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated.
The Authority may develop a preliminary list of applications that may be technically and
economically feasible and request additional information from applicants at this time to confirm a
complete understanding of the project proposed.
If information is requested, the applicant may be required to provide information within a short
time frame to allow for the Authority to continue to the next stage of the review process.
Applicants that fail to respond to requests for information or to adequately address the criteria in
the technical review may be rejected.
If an_application for design or construction project funding is incomplete to the point that an
economic and/or technical feasibility evaluation cannot be completed, or there is no indication of
a feasible financing plan that will provide for project funding through completion of construction
the application will not be recommended for construction funding.
For all projects, the Stage 2 review score must be at least 40; otherwise the project will
not be recommended for funding and will not be considered for Stage 3 review.
Stage 3 Review - Evaluation of Individual Applications
All applications that pass the technical review will be evaluated for the purpose of ranking
applications and making recommendations to the legislature based on the following criteria
which include criteria required by 3 AAC 107.655 and AS 42.45.045.
AEA 13-006 Page 26 of 27 6/11/13
1. Cost of energy per resident in the effected project area relative to
other areas.
2. The type and amount of matching funds and other resources an
applicant will commit to the project.
3. A statewide balance of grant funds. (For example, if there is two or
more similar competing projects in a given area the Authority may
only recommend one.)
4. Economic and technical feasibility (Stage 2 evaluation).
5. Public Benefits including economic benefit to the Alaska Public.
6. Sustainability — the ability of the applicant to finance, operate and
maintain the project for the life of the project.
7. Local Support for the project. Letters of support and other
documentation of local support must be dated within one year of the
date of this RFA. Some examples of local support include letters
and resolutions from city or tribal councils.
8. The readiness of the applicant to proceed with phases of the project
proposed for the grant.
9. Compliance with previous grant awards in previous phases of
roject development.
Evaluation and
Ranking
Criteria to be
Used for
determining
applications to
recommend to
legislature
During this stage of review, the evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to
determine a more complete understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their
application.
Stage 4 Review: Final Ranking Recommendations
All applications recommended for grants as a result the Stage 3 evaluation will be ranked in
accordance with 3 AAC 107.660.
To establish a statewide balance of recommended projects, the Authority will provide to the
advisory committee a statewide and regional ranking of all applications recommended for grants
in Stage 3.
In consultation with the advisory committee the Authority will make a final prioritized list of all
recommended projects giving significant weight to providing a statewide balance for grant
money, and taking into consideration the amount of money that may be available, the number
and types of project within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank of each application.
In its final decision on an application the Authority may recommend a grant in an amount for
project phases different from what the applicant requested. In recommending a grant for
phases different from what the applicant requested, the Authority may limit its recommendation
to a grant for one or more preliminary project phases before recommending a grant for project
construction.
5. Appendices
Application Forms (Heat Applications, Standard Applications)
Standard Grant Agreement
AEA 13-006 Page 27 of 27 6/11/13
Renewable Energy Fund STATUTES
AS 42.45.045. Renewable energy grant fund and recommendation program.
(a) A renewable energy grant fund is established as a separate fund to finance certain energy
projects in Alaska.
(b) The authority shall administer the fund as a fund distinct from other funds of the authority.
The fund consists of
(1) money appropriated to the fund by the legislature to provide grants for certain energy
projects determined by the legislature;
(2) gifts, bequests, contributions from other sources, and federal money;
(3) interest earned on the fund balance; and
(4) investments to be managed by the Department of Revenue, which shall be the fiduciary of
the fund under AS 37.10.071.
(c) The fund is not a dedicated fund.
(d) The authority shall, in consultation with the advisory committee established under (i) of this
section and the Department of Natural Resources,
(1) develop a methodology for determining the order of projects that may receive assistance,
including separate requirements for grant eligibility, and adopt regulations identifying criteria to
evaluate the benefit and feasibility of projects for which an applicant applies for support from the
legislature, with the most weight being given to projects that serve any area in which the average cost of
energy to each resident of the area exceeds the average cost to each resident of other areas of the
state, and significant weight being given to a statewide balance of grant funds and to the amount of
matching funds an applicant is able to make available;
(2) make recommendations to the legislature for renewable power production reimbursement
grants; and
(3) not later than 10 days after the first day of each regular legislative session, submit to the
legislature a report summarizing and reviewing each grant application submitted under this section and
a recommended priority for awarding grants.
(e) In consultation with the advisory committee established in (i) of this section, the authority
shall make recommendations to the legislature regarding eligible applicants’ projects that finance
feasibility studies, reconnaissance studies, energy resource monitoring, and construction of renewable
energy projects, natural gas projects, or transmission or distribution infrastructure located in Alaska that
meet the requirements of (f), (g), or (h) of this section, as applicable, and shall, at least once each year,
solicit from the advisory committee funding recommendations for all grants.
(f) For a renewable energy project to qualify for a grant recommendation under (e) of this
section, the project must
(1) be a new project not in operation on August 20, 2008 or an addition to an existing project
made after August 20, 2008; and
(2) bea
(A) hydroelectric facility;
(B) direct use of renewable energy resources;
(C) facility that generates electricity from fuel cells that use hydrogen from renewable energy
resources or natural gas; or
(D) facility that generates energy from renewable energy resources.
(g) To qualify for a grant recommendation under (e) of this section, a project that is a natural gas
project must benefit a community that
(1) has a population of 10,000 or less; and
(2) does not have economically viable renewable energy resources it can develop.
(h) To qualify for a grant recommendation under (e) of this section, transmission or distribution
infrastructure must link a renewable energy project or natural gas project to the transmission or
distribution infrastructure. A grant may be recommended under this subsection even if the grant
applicant is not itself financing the construction of the renewable energy project or natural gas project.
(i) An advisory committee is established and consists of nine members, appointed as follows:
(1) five members shall be appointed by the governor to staggered three-year terms, with one
representative to be appointed from each of the following groups:
(A) small Alaska rural electric utilities;
(B) large Alaska urban electric utilities;
(C) Alaska Native organizations;
(D) businesses or organizations engaged in the renewable energy sector; and
(E) the Denali Commission established under P.L. 105-277, 42 U.S.C. 3121 note;
(2) two members of the house of representatives shall be appointed by the speaker of the house
of representatives; and
(3) two members of the senate shall be appointed by the president of the senate.
(j) A member of the advisory committee appointed under (i) of this section serves without
compensation but is entitled to travel and per diem expenses as provided in AS 39.20.180.
(k) The legislature may appropriate money for grants from the renewable energy grant fund for
renewable energy projects described in this section.
(I) In this section,
(1) "eligible applicant" means an electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under AS 42.05, independent power producer, local government, or other governmental
utility, including a tribal council and housing authority;
(2) "fund" means the renewable energy grant fund;
(3) "hydroelectric facility" has the meaning given to the term "project" under AS 42.45.350;
(4) "natural gas project" means use or access of natural gas other than landfill or digester gas;
(5) "renewable energy resources" means
(A) wind, solar, geothermal, wasteheat recovery, hydrothermal, wave, tidal, river in-stream, or
hydropower;
(B) low-emission nontoxic biomass based on solid or liquid organic fuels from wood, forest and
field residues, or animal or fish products;
(C) dedicated energy crops available on a renewable basis; or
(D) landfill gas and digester gas.
Renewable Energy Fund REGULATIONS
Article 4
Renewable Energy Grant Program
Section
600. Purpose.
605. Public purpose requirements of renewable energy grants.
610. Eligible applicants.
615. Eligible projects.
620. Public notice of application period; solicitation of grant applications.
625. Grant applications.
630. Disclosure of applications and other materials submitted to the authority; confidentiality.
635. Acceptance of applications for consideration; eligibility review.
645. Feasibility and public benefit review of grant applications.
650. Requests for reconsideration.
655. Evaluation of grant applications.
660. Ranking of applications.
670. Additional information from applicant or grantee.
675. Grant agreement.
680. Grant closeout; return of unexpended grant money.
685. Project operations and maintenance reporting.
690. Dispute resolution.
695. Definitions for AS 42.45.045 and 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC 107.695.
3 AAC 107.600. Purpose
The purpose of 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC 107.695 is to establish procedures and criteria for grant
applications, the evaluation of applications, recommendations to the legislature for the award of grants,
and the administration of grants from the renewable energy grant fund under AS 42.45.045.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.605. Public purpose requirements of renewable energy grants
The authority may take actions it determines are appropriate to protect the public purpose of
renewable energy grants and the public interest in and benefit from the use of grant funds, including
(1) limiting recommendations for grants to preliminary development phases, until the authority
determines that subsequent phases are feasible, will result in sufficient benefit to the public, and are
otherwise appropriate for grants;
(2) seeking repayment of some or all of a grant if the grantee fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the grant or, without the prior approval of the authority, sells, conveys, or encumbers a
project constructed with renewable energy grant money;
(3) requiring review and approval by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska or, if the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska does not have or exercise jurisdiction, review and approval by the authority, of
rates charged for the use of assets funded in whole or in part with a renewable energy grant and for
energy generated by those assets;
(4) determining whether an applicant that is not a governmental entity and not a utility regulated by the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska will own and operate the project in a manner that will provide
sufficient public benefit to support a recommendation under AS 42.45.045 and 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC
107.695 for a grant; in making a determination under this paragraph, the authority will consider the
applicant's previous experience, its ownership and financial resources, proposed financial oversight, and
other factors relevant to the analysis of public benefit.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.610. Eligible applicants
(a) To apply for a renewable energy grant, a person must
(1) be an eligible applicant within the meaning given in AS 42.45.045(I); and
(2) demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the authority and subject to (b) of this section, that the applicant
will
(A) own the renewable energy project;
(B) own, lease, or otherwise control the site upon which the project is located; and
(C) upon completion of the project, operate and maintain it for its economic life for the benefit of the
public.
(b) The authority may authorize conveyance of an ownership interest or of operations or maintenance
responsibilities if the authority determines that the conveyance protects the public interest in and
benefit from the grant.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.615. Eligible projects
(a) A project that meets the requirements of AS 42.45.045(f) - (h) is eligible for a renewable energy
grant.
(b) For purposes of AS 42.45.045(f)(2)(B), a project is a direct use of renewable energy resources if it
uses renewable energy resources to generate energy or to make a fuel used to generate energy.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.620. Public notice of application period; solicitation of grant applications
(a) The authority will provide public notice of the application period by publishing notice on the
authority's website and on the Alaska Online Public Notice System established under AS 44.62.175.
(b) The authority will publish on its website a request for grant applications that includes the date, time,
place, and method for delivering applications, and a description of the application requirements.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.625. Grant applications
(a) An applicant must submit an application to the authority within the time specified in the request for
applications with the documentation and in the format required in the request for grant applications.
The application must include
(1) information showing to the satisfaction of the authority that the applicant is an eligible applicant
within the meaning given in AS 42.45.045(l) and under 3 AAC 107.610;
(2) information showing to the satisfaction of the authority that the project is eligible under AS
42.45.045(f) - (h) and 3 AAC 107.615;
(3) information showing to the satisfaction of the authority that the project is technically and
economically feasible;
(4) a description of the public benefit from the project;
(5) a description of the project scope of work, schedule, milestones, and budget; the description must
include an estimate of total project costs, the amount of grant money requested, and identification of
other money or resources that are committed to the purposes of the grant;
(6) a description of the applicant's financial resources and financial capability of developing the project,
including matching resources and other financing necessary for project development; and
(7) additional information as required in the request for grant applications or under 3 AAC 107.670.
(b) As it considers necessary to obtain complete or additional information, the authority will require
applicants, including applicants who have previously received grants for preliminary development
phases or partial grants, to submit new applications for each solicitation to which the applicants are
responding.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.630. Disclosure of applications and other materials submitted to the authority; confidentiality
(a) A grant application and other materials submitted to the authority under AS 42.45.045 and 3 AAC
107.600 - 3 AAC 107.695 are subject to disclosure under AS 40.25.100 - 40.25.295 (Alaska Public Records
Act) and 2 AAC 96, unless the authority determines that the material is protected from disclosure under
AS 40.25.120.
(b) A person submitting a grant application or other material under AS 42.45.045 and 3 AAC 107.600 - 3
AAC 107.695 may request that the authority keep certain information confidential. The request must
(1) clearly designate the specific information to be kept confidential; and
(2) specifically describe the basis for asserting that the information is protected from disclosure under
AS 40.25.120; if the person believes the information is protected as a trade secret or business
proprietary information, the description must include analysis of whether the person's commercial
privacy interest in protecting the information from disclosure outweighs the public interest in obtaining
the information.
(c) If the authority receives a public records request and determines the information requested is
protected from disclosure under AS 40.25.120, the authority will not release the information except to
authority personnel and contractors for purposes of evaluating the person's application. If the authority
determines the information may not be protected from disclosure under AS 40.25.120, the authority will
notify the person submitting the information, who is responsible at the person's own expense for
seeking judicial relief or taking other action necessary to protect the material from disclosure under AS
40.25.100 - 40.25.295.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: Art. 1, sec 22,
Ak Const
AS 40.25.110
AS 40.25.120
AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.635. Acceptance of applications for consideration; eligibility review
The authority will accept for consideration, for a recommendation for a grant, each application received
on or before the deadline established in the request for applications. The authority will determine if the
application is complete, is submitted by an eligible applicant within the meaning given in AS 42.45.045(I)
and under 3 AAC 107.610, and is for a project that is eligible under AS 42.45.045(f) - (h) and 3 AAC
107.615. The authority will reject applications that fail to meet those requirements, and will notify each
applicant whose application is rejected of the authority's decision.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.645. Feasibility and public benefit review of grant applications
(a) For each application not rejected under 3 AAC 107.635, the authority will perform a benefit and
feasibility review, in which the authority will review
(1) project management, development, and operations, including whether
(A) the proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in adequate detail;
(B) the costs and savings estimates for project development, operation, maintenance, fuel, and other
project items are realistic;
(C) the project team's method of communicating, monitoring, and reporting development progress is
described in adequate detail; and
(D) logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and selling energy from the completed
project are reasonable and described in adequate detail;
(2) qualifications and experience, including whether
(A) the applicant, partners, and contractors have sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully
complete and operate the project;
(B) the project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete and operate the
project;
(C) the project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and environmental barriers
to successful project completion and operation; and
(D) the project uses local labor and trains a local labor workforce;
(3) technical feasibility, including whether
(A) the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis, and project permits and other
authorizations can reasonably be obtained;
(B) a site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system;
(C) project technical and environmental risks are reasonable;
(D) the proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as planned; and
(E) if a demonstration project is being proposed,
(i) application in other areas of the state, or another specific benefit of the proposed project, is likely;
(ii) the need for the project is shown; and
(iii) the risks of the proposed system are reasonable and warrant demonstration; and
(4) economic feasibility and benefits, including whether
(A) the project is shown to be economically feasible;
(B) the project has an adequate financing plan for completion of the grant-funded phase, and has
considered options for financing subsequent phases of the project; or
(C) other public benefits are demonstrated.
(b) The authority will reject applications that it determines under (a) of this section not to be technically
and economically feasible, or not to provide sufficient public benefit, and will notify each applicant
whose application is rejected of the reasons for rejection.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.650. Requests for reconsideration
(a) An applicant whose application is rejected in the eligibility review or the feasibility and public benefit
review may request that the executive director of the authority reconsider the decision of the
authority's staff to reject the application. The request for reconsideration must be in writing, including
by electronic mail, must state the basis for reconsideration, and must be received by the authority no
more than 10 days after the applicant has been provided written notice of the rejection, including notice
by electronic mail.
(b) The executive director may concur with the decision of staff and reject the application, request
additional information from the applicant before making a decision, or require further consideration of
the application under 3 AAC 107.645 or 3 AAC 107.655 if the executive director determines that the
authority erred in its rejection of the application.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.655. Evaluation of grant applications
(a) For each application not rejected under 3 AAC 107.645, the authority will perform an evaluation for
the purpose of ranking applications and making recommendations to the legislature for grants. The
evaluation criteria include
(1) the extent to which the proposed project serves an area of the state in which the average cost of
energy to each resident of the area exceeds the average cost to each resident of other areas of the
state; the authority will give the most weight to the criterion in this paragraph;
(2) the extent to which the applicant will provide matching resources for the project; the authority will
give significant weight to the criterion in this paragraph;
(3) the extent to which a grant to the project, considered with other recommended grants, achieves a
statewide balance of grant money; the authority will give significant weight to the criterion in this
paragraph;
(4) the likely economic and technical feasibility of the project; as part of its evaluation under this section,
the authority will consider the results of the review performed under 3 AAC 107.645;
(5) the public benefits of the project, including economic benefits; as part of its evaluation under this
section, the authority will consider the results of the review performed under 3 AAC 107.645;
(6) the ability of the applicant to finance, operate, and maintain the project for the life of the project;
(7) local support for the project;
(8) the readiness of the applicant to proceed with the phases of the project proposed for a grant;
(9) the applicant's previous compliance with the requirements of AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC
107.695, requests for applications, and grant agreements; and
(10) other project-specific criteria as identified in the request for applications.
(b) As a result of the evaluation under (a) of this section, the authority may recommend a grant in the
amount requested by the applicant, decline to recommend a grant for a project, or recommend a grant
in an amount or for project phases different from what the applicant requested. In recommending a
grant for phases different from what the applicant requested, the authority may limit its
recommendation to a grant for one or more preliminary project phases before recommending a grant
for project construction.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.660. Ranking of applications
(a) To establish a statewide balance of recommended projects, the authority will provide to the
advisory committee established in AS 42.45.045(i) a statewide and regional ranking of all applications
recommended for grants.
(b) In consultation with the advisory committee established in AS 42.45.045(i), the authority will
(1) make a final prioritized list of all recommended projects, giving significant weight to providing a
statewide balance of grant money, and taking into consideration the amount of money that may be
available, number and types of projects within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank;
(2) include in the final prioritized list any changes to the recommendations made following the
evaluation under 3 AAC 107.655; and
(3) include in the final prioritized list a list of applications that were rejected under 3 AAC 107.635 - 3
AAC 107.645.
(c) The authority will publish the final prioritized list on its website, and will provide it to the legislature
in accordance with AS 42.45.045(d)(3). Award of a grant is subject to legislative appropriation.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.670. Additional information from applicant or grantee
(a) As it considers necessary to perform a complete review of an application or project, and at any stage
in the review, evaluation, recommendation, or award process under 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC 107.695, the
authority will request that an applicant or grantee provide additional information. Requests for
information may include a request for information sufficient for the authority to confirm that an
(1) application meets the requirements of the request for applications; or
(2) applicant or grantee is willing and able to adjust the project scope and budget as required by the
authority in making a recommendation or as required by the legislature in approving a grant.
(b) If an applicant or grantee fails to provide timely or adequate information in response to a request
from the authority, the authority may reject the application, modify the authority's recommendations to
the legislature, or cancel a notice of intent to award a grant.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.675. Grant agreement
(a) As a condition for a grant under AS 42.45.045 and 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC 107.695, the applicant
must sign a grant agreement that the authority prepares and that contains the terms and conditions of
the grant, including
(1) a description of the project to be financed with the grant;
(2) a project schedule; the authority may make one or more disbursements of grant money conditional
upon
(A) completion and approval by the authority of pre-construction phases of the project;
(B) the grantee demonstrating that it has site control for the project;
(C) the grantee demonstrating that it has one or more permits or authorizations required for
construction of the project;
(D) the grantee's successful completion of other activities or objectives set under the project schedule;
(3) requirements for project management;
(4) a description of allowable costs;
(5) requirements for the documentation of expenditures and procurements;
(6) procedures for making grant payments to the grantee;
(7) requirements for the grantee's accounting and reporting;
(8) requirements for the grantee's maintenance and retention of project records;
(9) hiring preferences applicable under AS 36.10.150 - 36.10.180 and 8 AAC 30.064 - 8 AAC 30.088 to the
grantee and its agents, contractors, and subcontractors;
(10) procedures for verifying the provision of the grantee's matching resources to the project; and
(11) other terms and conditions that the authority determines are appropriate to ensure the public
purpose of and maximize the public benefit from the grant.
(b) If an applicant fails to execute the grant agreement within 30 days after receiving it from the
authority, the authority may cancel a notice of intent to award the grant and may offer the grant money
to another eligible applicant, subject to appropriation and approval by the legislature.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.680. Grant closeout; return of unexpended grant money
Upon completion of the grant-financed or termination of the grant, the authority will close out the grant
and the grantee shall return to the authority any grant money and interest on grant money not spent on
project work under the terms and conditions of the grant agreement. The grant agreement may provide
that specified obligations of the grantee survive grant closeout.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.685. Project operations and maintenance reporting
For a project constructed with a renewable energy grant, the grantee shall provide to the authority
reports on project operations and maintenance for the periods and with the information that the
authority specifies in the grant agreement. The authority may require information on project operations
and maintenance activities and cost, other costs of the project, energy output, estimated fuel
displacement resulting from the energy output, discussion of operational issues, and other information
useful to the authority for its evaluation of the project and the grant. If the grantee fails to provide
information as required under this section and in the grant agreement, the authority may determine the
grantee ineligible for recommendations for future renewable energy grants or ineligible for other future
grants from the authority.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.690. Dispute resolution
A person who has a claim concerning a grant awarded under AS 42.45.045 and 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC
107.695 may submit that claim in accordance with 3 AAC 108.915 - 3 AAC 108.920.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080
3 AAC 107.695. Definitions for AS 42.45.045 and 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC 107.695
(a) In AS 42.45.045,
(1) "independent power producer" means a corporation, person, agency, authority, or other legal entity
or instrumentality, that is not an electric utility and that owns or operates a facility for the generation or
production of energy entirely for use by the residents of one or more municipalities or unincorporated
communities recognized by the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development for
community revenue sharing under AS 29.60.850 - 29.60.879 and 3 AAC 180;
(2) "wasteheat recovery" means systems for the recovery of unused heat from systems or processes in
operation when the applicant applies for a renewable energy grant.
(b) In AS 42.45.045 and 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC 107.695,
(1) "matching funds" or "matching resources"
(A) means those resources that the grantee dedicates for the completion of the project;
(B) includes
(i) cash;
(ii) loan proceeds; and
(iii) grantee-provided equipment, labor, or other materials or services needed for the completion of the
project;
(2) "preliminary development phase" includes
(A) feasibility studies;
(B) reconnaissance studies;
(C) energy resource monitoring;
(D) design phases; and
(E) obtaining required permits and authorizations;
(3) "renewable energy resources" has the meaning given in AS 42.45.045(|).
(c) In 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC 107.695, unless the context requires otherwise, "grant" or "renewable
energy grant" means a grant recommended or awarded under AS 42.45.045 and 3 AAC 107.600 - 3 AAC
107.695.
History
History: Eff. 10/16/2009, Register 192
Annotations
Authority: AS 42.45.045
AS 44.83.080