HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting agenda minutes documents 6-6-2011Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
June 6, 2011 — AEA Boardroom
1:00 pm to 4:00 pm
MINUTES
1.Call to Order
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 1:10 p.m. Chairman Vince Beltrami presided
over the meeting.
2. Roll Call:
Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants
Chair Vince Beltrami Sara Fisher-Goad Geoff Genzano, REAP
Jim Posey Peter Crimp Jodi Fondy, Denali Commission
Chris Rose Butch White Thomas Deerfield, Dawson Energy Inc.
Jodi Mitchell Douglas Ott Kaci Schroeder-Hotch, Rep. Thomas' Office
Brad Reeve Devany Plentovich Chantel Bennett, Denali Commission
Representative Paul Seaton (Phone) Mike Nave, Dept. of Law
Senator Lyman Hoffman (Juneau) James Strandberg
Wyn Menefee Rich Stromberg
Emily Binnian
Shawn Calfa
Audrey Alstrom
Amber Converse
David Lockard
Shauna Howell
May Clark
Karin St. Clair
3. Public Comments
Thomas Deerfield - Dawson Energy, Inc., had two suggestions to improve the REFAC application process: 1) Consider
alternate deadline for Round V and subsequent rounds, as August-September is very busy for Alaskans; 2) the method of
incorporating ideas be made replicable for many villages, i.e. Garn in box, as there could be many potential applicants in
rural Alaska. Mr. White said we have tried to move the deadline from July 1 to the end of August. He introduced Shawn
Calfa, AEA’s new Grants Assistant.
4. Agenda Comments
Mr. Reeve suggested that some grantees and construction people should be invited to future meetings to discuss the
process to help us streamline the process. Mr. Rose suggested a potential addition to Agenda item 8 might be how we
could strategically grant projects, and also discuss how data requirements work long-term. Ms. Fisher-Goad suggested
that strategic granting could be discussed under regional planning process, agenda item 7. She said she supports the
suggestion that grantees attend a meeting and speak to REFAC about their program experiences. She also said she
would also sit down and talk with the grantees about their concerns about the program administration if they didn’t want to
wait for a formal meeting.
5. Approval of Meeting Minutes — March 1, 2011
MOTION: Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from the March 1, 2011 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory
Committee meeting. Seconded by Mr. Rose. The minutes were unanimously approved.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting June 6, 2011
Page 1 of 5
Chair Beltrami thanked staff for a commendable synopsis of the minutes.
6. RE Fund Status Update
Mr. White said reallocation has occurred and we have $4.1 M designated and expect $1.9 M soon that has already been
accounted for in the capital budget. The REF is capitalized at about $30 M and over $36 M in projects is allocated.
7. Regional Planning Progress
Ms. Fisher-Goad said that the capital budget process as requested by the Governor has been well received for the past
two years and would be surprised if it was vetoed; however, we have additional funds to continue the regional planning
process. The Railbelt project was completed last year and Mr. Strandberg is now heading up the Southeast Regional
Integrated Resource Plan (SEIRP). We started working with Alaska Center for Energy and Power and Denali
Commission to coordinate planning in the Calista and Tanana Chiefs regions. Funding is available and we want to start
incorporating the regional planning process into development projects. Strategically, it is important to start working
through projects that are developed through a local planning process. AEA would offer technical assistance to facilitate
the planning process and provide feedback to communities. Mr. Reeve said that NANA regional energy plan needs to be
looked at further to find ways to make it easier for them to consolidate projects. The villages need the expertise to
manage the utility themselves. Ms. Fisher-Goad said we are also emphasizing community relationships in our RPSU
program, making our RPSU project managers involved in Round V evaluations to assess deficiencies in RPSU system,
and to make sure a community is sustainable and that their diesel system is capable for integrating wind projects. Mr.
Crimp said the St. George project is not being canceled, but we are keeping the dollars for the wind turbines. The
approach we are taking for the wind projects is that solid diesel systems and controls are put in first. Ms. Fisher-Goad
said Mr. Harper’s replacement, Sandra Moller, will be heading up the funding effort for other locations. AEA can better
update the REFAC with our work plan after July (when FY12 funding is known). We have received requests to help with
technical assistance, but realize planning is needed.
Mr. Crimp said Mr. Strandberg is heading up the Southeast Integrated Resource Plan (SEIRP) in partnership with the
Southeast Conference. In other regions, however, AEA will be significantly involved in the planning process, but will not
actually manage it. Mr. Menefee asked how AEA’s planning process incorporates the ideas of other agencies, as there
are land use planning issues to consider. Mr. Crimp said he assumed so, and perhaps DNR should plan a more formal
role in the process. Chair Beltrami said the Denali Commission approved $300,000 for technical assistance. Mr. Rose
said the plans should all be the same with the same goals and uniform structure. Mr. Crimp added that AEA will have a
significant role in reviewing regional plans and processes such that plans prepared by a regional entity are considered
valid.
8. Discussion of potential REF program modifications
8A. Project consistency with regional plan and EE policy
Mr. Rose suggested we might provide incentives for regions that meet their EE goals first, based on a per capita
advancement, i.e. the region that makes the most EE advances in a year would receive more money. They will need to
link generation and efficiency with EE as the first step. We need to make sure they are implementing energy efficiency.
The same standards would apply to the Railbelt. Mr. Posey said he would prefer the Legislature come up with a reward
system to not interfere with or add to our process. Mr. Rose said if we had regional planning the legislature might decide
that they want to link REF to the regions with a separate pot of money to benefit those that do the best. Mr. Posey said
this is consistent with his conversation with Senator Hoffman regarding the concept of trying to use the Cold Climate
Housing Research Center concept and getting some of those built in every community. If it's a separate pot of money and
doesn't affect our process of scoring then he agrees with the concept. Mr. Rose said we are talking about potential
program modifications so we can think them over and share our ideas with the legislature. Ms. Fisher-Goad said she
thought Round V would be the last one under the current law. Senator Hoffman commented that Round V might not be
the last one because we haven't yet reached the $250 M allocation. We previously noted that we saved in excess of $2
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting June 6, 2011
Page 2 of 5
billion this year surplus with the price of oil and we need to show adequate documentation on the success of the funded
projects. There is going to be a renewed interest in what we as a State are going to do regarding energy costs and the
legislature may look at the REFAC for recommendations. A short discussion followed regarding the termination dates for
Round V. Ms. Fisher-Goad pointed out that this is a grant recommendation program and there are a variety of things that
we could do with respect to having a similar RFA for solicitation for a program, and we could start talking about what this
program could look like over the next five years at the next session.
8B. Changing Funding Level Caps on Grants
Mr. Crimp said we will discuss details on changing the level of caps. Cutoffs on benefit to cost ratios for the upcoming
session would need input from the REFAC. Ms. Fisher-Goad said the Garn boilers and heat recovery are two of the
programs eligible for renewable energy and AEA managed projects should be considered. There’s an option through the
RFA process for us to manage some of the projects on behalf of the grantee similar to the Denali Commission model. We
could provide a single grant to a number of communities through one recommendation. Mr. Crimp said that the AEA
biomass program has allocated approximately $300,000 to move projects forward for design and construction. Mr. Rose
said REFAC needs to provide AEA guidance, as caps are hurting rural projects. Mr. Posey said he supported removing
the caps and that we spend a lot of money in this State on energy and if we can impact that by 20-30% through this
program, then we should be doing it. Mr. Reeve said he agreed with taking the caps off, but was concerned that the funds
may not be disbursed fairly. Mr. Rose said taking the caps off would not limit the advisory committee or AEA from
granting less than requested and stated the legislature needs to fund the Power Project Loan Fund (PPF) and AEA needs
to support this legislation. Mr. Posey pointed out that he supported separate appropriations done outside our process for
projects that we had partially funded that run up against the caps, that were vetted through the REF process. He said he
has heard projects that get money from the State should go through a process like REF — a feather in our cap, that shows
how well we have done in the views of the legislature and administration.
Senator Hoffman said he supports appropriations for energy projects that reduce energy costs for all Alaskans, but how
can we fairly appropriate funds to all. We should expand our expectations and request more funding in the future. Ms.
Fisher-Goad said we see very little Railbelt use of the PPF, nor will we under its current statutory framework. The PPF is
an important funding source, but it is not a Railbelt funding source. Mr. Posey said he supported Senator Hoffman $500
million to shoot for as the 80/20 rule setup by the legislature, as it has worked so far. Senator Hoffman said he thought
the legislature will continue funding energy projects, but funding needs to be distributed fairly. Mr. Rose said it would help
to know how much each region needs as demand is huge and we are trying to do a lot with a little. It would make a lot
more sense if all of the projects were going through one funnel. Regarding allocation of funding to address the high cost
of heating in rural Alaska, $100 million was suggested as a REF target. Mr. Crimp said we don’t have enough heating
projects that are ready to address that $100 M, but it could be a long-term goal. Mr. Rose asked if the REFAC was going
to ask AEA to look at requesting $200 M from the legislature for Round V. Mr. Posey said we should be realistic and ask
for $80 M for Round V, and $80 M for Round VI and $100 M for Round VII, etc., and keep creeping it up and pushing the
envelope for the program. Mr. Crimp said he would be surprised if we could fund $100 M worth of projects in Round V
given current caps.
Mr. Rose said we need emphasize heating projects in the Request for Applications. Mr. Reeve said affordability of water
and sewer systems in general are other village concerns. We need to look at uniformity and ask the right questions when
we look at the whole picture. Mr. Rose agreed we should try to mandate or offer incentives to get the job done. Mr.
Strandberg pointed out that creating a regional plan is a capital improvement plan. For the SEIRP we hope to define how
much capital is needed for heating projects, to address an emerging situation where we are seeing resistance to heating
connections in many of the hydro communities. This plan has load forecasting for the electric utilities as a key element
and the draft report is due out in November. We hope to come up with a capital plan for a reasonable definition of where
each of the regions need to go with their capital. The IRP considers transportation, heating and electricity in largely equal
parts. We are partnering with the Southeast Conference and Sealaska Corporation on initiating Biomass projects. The
IRP is an ordered list of capital projects and has a list of proposed transmission projects largely supported by the IRP. Mr.
Rose said if there is not going to be a mandate to follow for regional planning, then we should create other incentives to
make it happen. Ms. Fisher-Goad said when you start talking about mandating entities to follow an IRP, it’s difficult
because part of it needs to be updated regularly, but there are also transmission projects in alignment with the IRP. For
instance, a project important to the Railbelt is the Cook Inlet Gas System which isn’t in the IRP, but is an important project
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting June 6, 2011
Page 3 of 5
to develop. The Seward Project wasn’t part of the IRP because it was smaller, but was an important stability issue for the
utility. The mandate sounds good if there is a desire for the State to help fund regional planning. That's where we are
looking for consistency. Mr. Rose said efficiency should be a huge part of planning. Mr. Crimp suggested doubling the
cap and anything above the cap needs to be matched 50%. But Senator Hoffman noted that the problem is that some
areas of the State cannot match. Ms. Fisher-Goad said we are not sure why we couldn't have different match
requirements. Mr. Posey pointed out that match was not previously required for rural projects. Mr. White agreed that they
were not required, but that would leave 20 points on the table at the outset in scoring. Rural areas are naturally ahead
because of the cost of energy and by statute it must be a significant criterion.
8c. Increasing Scoring Weight on Match and 8D. B/C Ratio Cutoffs
Mr. Rose said he didn’t agree to require matches, but maybe we could increase the significance of a match in the scoring
system. If we had regional plans it would be a lot easier as the plan would set allocation priorities for a region based on
their priorities. Mr. Crimp suggested that we should stick with what we have for match and double the caps at this point.
We should question if the project is economic or not. The REFAC intention is to make good projects better, supporting
projects that are economic by their nature versus subsidizing marginal projects. Mr. Reeve said there are other risks
involved in communities these days, such as how long will a community exist. Mr. Crimp said that AEA and ISER assess
economics using the entire project cost—not the subsidized cost. Mr. Reeve questioned what the cost-benefit with the
grant and what is the cost-benefit without the grant. We need to go beyond the normal cost benefit analysis to look at
what risk there is to a community to not fund a project. Our thinking needs to be more open. Mr. Rose said if we do the
cost benefit analysis with the amount of money that they would get in the grant using the cap, it takes into consideration
some of the indirect benefits and risks to the community so he would prefer the analysis is done so once the money is
disbursed the benefit is realized. He noted that life cycle assessment depends on assumptions about future fuel prices
using energy information agency data. Mr. Crimp said that during review, however, we need to know where to draw the
line on a project in the Stage 2 technical and economic review. He suggested delineating a minimum score that takes into
account capability of the proponent, the resource availability, technical feasibility, and economics. Mr. White agreed that
having a minimum score would allow us to fund better projects. Mr. Crimp said he would send REFAC members a
spreadsheet of Round 4 stage 2 scores to help us delineate where that minimum might be drawn. The draft RFA will be
out for committee comments on June 20 back and hopefully published by July 1.
8E. Technology Readiness: RE Fund vs. Emerging Energy Tech Fund
Mr. Rose commented that the Emerging Energy Technology Fund (EETF) was funded at $2.4 M with a Denali
Commission match for a total of $4.8 M. He asked what the linkage was between the EETF and REF, suggesting a joint
meeting of the committees because he felt some (tidal) projects have already fallen through the cracks. Before the
emergence of the EETF, the REF has funded tidal projects. Mr. Crimp said Brian Hirsch chairs the EETF Advisory
Committee and they have established clear technology readiness levels that show what phase of readiness a project is in.
Barbara Triplett, EETF Program Manager, is working with ACEP and others to look at a technology transfer chain.
9. Data requirements
Mr. Crimp said AEA requires five years of data reporting for their projects. We will require additional data for wind diesel
systems, specifically SCADA (Supervisory Control & Data Acquisition) data. Performance data was included in our
legislative status report in terms of fuel savings, etc. Mr. Rose questioned whether the five-year requirement was long
enough to gather enough data to provide the legislature; we may need 10 or 15 years’ worth. Mr. Reeve said if you are
looking for fuel displacement information we may want short-term information while long-term information can be provided
through the Alaska statistical reports. Mr. Menefee cautioned that there is confidentiality clause of engineering data on
state land. DNR must grant confidentiality if it's requested.
10. Progress on Program Evaluation
Mr. Crimp said he has been in contact with Clean Energy States Alliance. AEA will be publishing an RFP for a third-party
program evaluation based on the USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy's five different types of
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting June 6, 2011
Page 4 of 5
program evaluations: 1. Needs & Market Assessment Evaluations. 2. Process Evaluations. 3. Outcome Evaluations. 4.
Impact Evaluations and 5. Cost-Benefit Evaluations.
11. Future of the REF Program
Ms. Fisher-Goad said it’s frustrating not having the money before hand in this grant recommendation program. Since it
goes through a legislative process, we have to wait until the budget is signed, causing us to lose a construction season.
The legislature has accepted our recommendation list completely in the past. Perhaps there’s enough faith in the process
that we could forward-fund it to issue grants after the evaluation period is completed and catch a construction season. In
the EETF money is already available. Once AEA completes our review processes and the regulations are in place, we
can evaluate projects and can start issuing grants. Unlike the REF there is no recommendation process. Review and
grants can be done at different times of the year. Right now it’s an annual procedure. Mr. Rose agreed and said we
should also think about getting ready to reauthorize the program. Mr. Nave pointed out repeal of the statute is June 30,
2013 if Round VI occurs in October 2012. Senator Hoffman agreed that we should request reauthorization next year, and
will look into any helpful suggestions to begin. Ms. Fisher-Goad said we need a process to wind down existing projects if
we don’t get reauthorized.
12. Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date will be November 9, 2011.
13. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting June 6, 2011
Page 5 of 5
JE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, June 6, 2011
AEA Boardroom (813 W. Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, AK)
1:00 pm to 4:00 pm
AGENDA
1. Call to Order Beltrami
2. Roll Call (Committee Members, Staff, Public, Phone)
3. Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes)
4. Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions)
5. Approval of Meeting Minutes — March 1, 2011
6. RE Fund Status Update White
7. Regional planning progress Fisher-Goad
8. Discussion of potential REF program modifications Beltrami
a. Project consistency with regional plan & EE policy
b. Changing funding level caps on grants
c. Increasing scoring weight on Match
d. B/C ratio cutoffs
e. Technology readiness: RE Fund vs Emerging Energy Tech Fund
9. Progress on program evaluation Crimp
10. Future of REF program (discussion) Beltrami
11.Next Meeting Date Beltrami
12. Adjournment Beltrami
Fe W, Leen (Avett 2011) A rn ynauagers auiole F evaluahug OT ee energy Sroqrrins dean”
Il. Types of Evaluations
According to the US Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE), there are five different types of program evaluations:
I. Needs and Market Assessment Evaluations identify target markets and seek to understand a
particular market or audience. They also identify and analyze barriers to the adoption of
renewable energy, establish market baselines, and explore customer needs. They can help
program managers design appropriate, effective programs and establish baselines that can be
used to measure future progress.
2. Process Evaluations examine program implementation processes and operations in order to
determine how to improve the program’s efficiency and effectiveness. They look at whether
the program is well-designed, efficiently managed, effectively marketed, and is producing
satisfied customers.
3. Outcome Evaluations determine the extent to which a program’s intended outcomes and
objectives are being achieved.
4. Impact Evaluations estimate the share of the outcomes that were the result of the program
rather than other influences. Because this type of evaluation factors out outcomes that would
have taken place anyway, the findings may be more meaningful than those produced by an
outcome evaluation, but they are also more difficult to obtain. [Some private sector
evaluators use the term “net outcomes” rather than “impacts”, and use the term “gross
outcomes” for evaluation type #3 above.]
5. Cost-Benefit Evaluations compare the value (generally financial) of a program’s impacts to
the cost of achieving those impacts. More elaborate cost-benefit analyses consider indirect
effects, such as the economic impact of changes to retail electricity prices or the indirect jobs
created by state spending on a major renewable energy installation. This type of evaluation is
often of particular interest to politicians, regulators, and board members who oversee state
clean energy agencies, but it can be difficult to produce precise results that are fully
defensible and invulnerable to criticism, especially when indirect economic effects are
considered.
> The material in the succeeding paragraphs is adapted from Harley Barnes et al., EERE Guide for Managing
General Program Evaluation Studies: Getting the Information You Need (Washington: US DOE, 2006), pp. 2, 9, 17;
available at www |.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/evaluation mgmt guide final 2006.pdf. The EERE Guide is a
useful reference work for state clean energy program managers, because it offers a clear step-by-step approach for
how to plan, design, and manage a program evaluation. Although the recommended approach is sometimes overly
bureaucratic and aimed at federal program management needs, there is much useful information, some of which is
reproduced in the appendix to this report.
Evaluation Type What It Does Why It Is Used
Needs and market
assessment
Identifies target markets
Identifies barriers to the
adoption of renewable energy
Understand a market or audience
Help program managers
design programs
Establish baselines for
measuring future progress
Process evaluation Examines program
implementation processes and
operations
Determines whether the program
is well-designed, efficiently
managed, and effectively
marketed
Assess customer satisfaction
Identify ways to improve
the program
Understand the views of
customers and other
stakeholders
Outcome evaluation Determines whether the program
is achieving its intended
outcomes and objectives
Keep program managers
and others focused on the
program’s goals
Know whether a program is
achieving its objectives
Determine whether the
program should be
modified so that it is better
achieving its objectives
Impact evaluation Determines the share of the
outcomes caused by the program
rather than other factors
Identifies unintended but
valuable benefits of the program
Understand what the
program is actually causing
to happen
Determine whether the
program is unnecessarily
providing funding to free
riders who do not need
program to act
Cost-benefit evaluation Compares the economic and/or
other benefits of a program’s
impacts to the cost of achieving
those impacts. Determine the extent to
which the program’s
benefits outweigh its costs
Understand whether the
program is cost-effective
Decide whether the
program should be
continued as is, modified,
or ended
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
March 1, 2011 — AEA Boardroom
1:12 pm to 4:00 pm
DRAFT MINUTES
1. Call to Order
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee convened at 1:12 p.m. Chairman Vince Beltrami
presided over the meeting.
2. Roll Call:
Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants
Chair Vince Beltrami (Juneau) Sara Fisher-Goad Paul Verhagen representing
Rep. Bill Thomas (phone) Douglas Ott Rep. Alan Dick’s office
Brad Reeve (Juneau) Butch White (Juneau)
Jay Livey representing Peter Crimp (Juneau)
Sen. Lyman Hoffman (Juneau) Mike Harper
Jodi Mitchell (Juneau) Devany Plentovich (Juneau)
Chris Rose (Juneau) Ron Brown
Jim Posey (Juneau) Heidi Sheldon
Wyn Menefee (phone) Shauna Howell
May Clark
3. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
4. Agenda Comments
Discussion of a REF program modification resolution written by Mr. Posey and Mr. Reeve could be added
to today’s agenda. It was agreed that what is really needed is to do is get more money into REF and to
put money into heating programs that will accelerate projects in rural Alaska. We need to make sure the
cold regions energy efficiency research is part of the solution.
5. Approval of Meeting Minutes — January 7, 2011
It was stated that the minutes were too long and maybe capturing only the action items should be
incorporated into future minutes. Ms. Fisher-Goad pointed out that the January 7, 2011 meeting was
substantial which required the lengthy minutes as many topics were covered.
MOTION: Mr. Posey moved to approve the minutes from the January 7, 2011 Renewable Energy
Fund Advisory Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. There were no
objections. The minutes were unanimously approved.
6A. Presentation on AEA heating programs -- Biomass and Heat Recovery
Devany Plentovich, AEA Biomass Program Manager, made a PowerPoint presentation to the committee
(copy attached).
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting March 1, 2011
Page 1 of 3
6B. Review AEA Round 4
We are halfway through Round 4. Mr. Posey stated it’s a great program and should continue to show
why it should be kept going. Mr. Reeve said that program should be able to show its effectiveness and
justification for continuance, looking at all of the economics in Alaska. Mr. Crimp stated that perhaps one
or two members should review the scope of work for a program evaluation. He noted that if you look at
the status report it has the information on only two projects with a year’s worth of data. With construction
season approaching there will be more activity. Evaluation should cover the program and how well it is
accomplishing its stated objectives. While the program has a large number of projects in process of
finishing construction, how do we build hope for the rural communities whose needs have not been
addressed. It’s important we look at the primary objective which is far-reaching. There will be 20
completed projects by the end of the year. Funds were not released until February 2009 — only two years
ago. We keep talking about a five-year program, but we've been at this for less than four years.
(Break 2:33 p.m. to 2:46 p.m.)
Sid Atwood joined the meeting.
7. Review Potential Program Modifications
Mr. Reeve stated that the REFAC needs to come up with solutions to help keep heating costs down in
rural communities as fuel tanks are very expensive. For instance, we should find solutions to enable us
to approach homeowners — maybe as a group -to think of ways to work together on this in order to keep
community costs down. Mr. Rose stated he didn’t think this program could be made into an individual
residence program, but added that there is a niche out there. There may be ways to start subsidizing
heating applications, which all ties to building codes and energy efficiency programs. The Senate asked
the Governor to come up with recommendations on how to start integrating programs. We need to be
strategic with the monies — maybe through an RFP process. Mr. Reeve said they tried to look at
regionalizing some of these projects. There are a lot of villages that don’t have this expertise and we
need to encourage small villages to partner together. Mr. Crimp stated that AEA has substantial amount
of funding for regional energy planning and we should act on that. We have an idea on how to approach
regional planning and we will be scheduling a meeting with Denali Commission to discuss cooperation
with the university and others. In rural areas, we feel that AEA should not take the lead, but should
provide technical assistance and quality control. We have prepared a write up that we will share with
everyone after we meet with the Denali Commission Jay Livey said he favored regional organization, but
said there should be guidelines on how the region will relate to AEA, and who will be making decisions.
Mr. Crimp stated that the existing programs should be used but everyone should agree on the project
goals. Mr. Posey pointed out that Legislation controls the money, but the REF process takes care of the
region.
Regarding energy efficiency improvements, Mr. Livey pointed out that the communities get a tax break if
the retrofit is done but may lose taxpayers if they move due to not being able to afford heating costs. Mr.
Posey stated that even though three quarters of Alaska pays property taxes, rural Alaska does not. Mr.
Crimp asked if it made sense to bring in new housing or retrofit the existing ones. Mr. Reeve pointed out
that the communities need engineering expertise. Chair Beltrami stated that the Committee needs to
come up with recommendations for program modifications.
Referring to the handout entitled “Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects”, Mr.
Crimp noted that there are a lot of potential projects in the next two years and additional projects in the
2014-15 timeframe. The latter do not have cost estimates associated with them. Mr. Rose stated that
there is a need to come up with a proposal that would spur innovation and asked if there was a need for a
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting March 1, 2011
Page 2 of 3
formal resolution at this point. Mr. Crimp asked how we could speed up on more biomass projects; Ms.
Plentovich stated that more feasible studies are needed to know which communities to target. Chair
Beltrami stated we need to be working on changing or editing the program to accommodate for next year.
Mr. Rose stated that the REFAC should prepare a resolution stating it is directing AEA to work at
recommending $200 million of projects next year. It was also stated that AEA needs to ensure people
know how to complete the applications and AEA should work with Denali Commission on that issue. Mr.
Crimp pointed out that the thrust of these Regional Energy Plans is identifying what should be done. Mr.
Rose reiterated that the resolution would be a short history of the program — why, what heating needs to
be included and directive to staff to request $200 million for projects next year.
Sara Fisher-Goad said there was a work session held last week with the new Board members and they
are very interested in the Renewable Energy Fund Program. AEA plans on discussing in great detail the
Renewable Energy Fund Program at a future Board meeting with REFAC in attendance.
8. Next meeting date: May 10, 2011, 1-4 pm at AEA.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting March 1, 2011
Page 3 of 3
I= AASK @@ ENERGY AUTHORITY Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting - June 6, 2011
Renewable Energy Fund Update
(as of May 26, 2011)
Current Status
e Rounds I-IV Grant and Funding Summary
Round | Eto T ae RL ECO RL Round IV Total
Applications Received 112 118 123 108 461
Projects Funded 73° 30 25 TBD 133
| Grants in Place 76° 29’ 16 TBD 121
Grants Cancelled 4 og ) N/A 5
Amount Requested ($M) $453.8 $293.4 $223.5 $123.1 $1,093.8
AEA Recommended ($M) $100.0 $36.8 $65.8 $36.6 $239.2
Appropriated ($M) $100.0 $25.0 $25.0 TBD $150.0
Cash Disbursed ($M) $46.4 $12.0 $1.4 $o $59.8
Available for reallocation ($M) 1-
De
$3.0° $1.0° $.1° $0 $4.1 |
Includes eleven projects from an earlier solicitation issued by AEA.
Nikolaevsk Wind Farm, Southfork Hydro, Galena Wood Heating project, and Fish Hook
Hydro. Some funds transferred to Takatz Lake project; these plus other reallocated
funds make Takatz Lake Hydro now fully funded ($2,000,000) per LB&A directive.
Angoon Heat Recovery project - completed with other funds.
Balance of Southfork Hydro, ($152,134), Haines Central Wood ($99,602), Cordova Wood
Processor ($10,960), Fish Hook Hydro ($2,000,000), Ambler Solar ($529,430), Delta
Junction Wind Assessment ($39,587) and Manly Hot Springs (~$175,000) projects.
Angoon grant balance ($545,934), Neck Lake Hydro balance ($85,525), and balance after
grant amounts adjusted ($386,986).
Two projects (Reynolds Creek Hydro and Bethel Wind) remain unexecuted. For both,
the grantee is responsible for the delay in getting the grant executed.
Kenai Winds grant combined with Round | grant for same project.
Neck Lake Hydro ($90,000).
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Statewide Ranking and Funding Allocation Round 4 /= ALASKA REVISED 3/23/2014 Se Seay AHOraTy,
Project Bene/Cost _ Stage 3 Review Scores (max) Cost and Request Recommendation Development Phase
1. Tech & 7
Total Cost of 2. Econ 5. 6. Sustain-
Stage 2| AEA | Appi | Energy | Match Feas Benefit Local Total Grant Permitting/ Energy Region 1D Project Name Applicant Applicant Type | Project Type| Score | B/c | B/c | (25) | (20) | (20) (15) _|supt(5)|__ (5) _| (100) Project Cost | Requested | Match Offered Type Funding _|Cumulative Final Design| Construct (Top Ranked $25million after Regional Spread
687 |Hoonah Heat Recovery Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Heat Recovery) 89.33 3.55 | 4.82 13.19 17.00 17.87 8.00 12.50 4.00 76.55 1,005,000, 475,000} 530,000) Full 475,000) 475,000) 475,000}
654 |Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Resource Assessment University of Alaska Fairbanks INE/ACEP_ |Governmt Entity Geothermal 86.67 1.91 1.87 11.50 18.00 17.33 5.67 13.75 5.00 75.08 3,330,467 1,330,467 2,000,000) Full 1,330,467 1,805,467 1,330,467)
668 | Upper Kobuk River Biomass Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority |Governmt Entity ic 24.97 9.00 14.93 .( 12.75 5.00 73.65 2,200,000) 250,000} 20,000 Full 250,000) (2,055,467, 250,000}
636 _|Thome Bay School Wood Fired Boiler Project Southeast Island School District |Governmt Entity Biomass 76.00 1.34 | 2.26 18.56 13.00 15.20 8.00 9.38 4.00 71.64 580,179) 300,000) 60,000 Full 300,000) 2,355,467, 300,000}
Aleutians 680 |Cold Bay Wind Energy Project G&K Electric Utility IPP ‘Wind 82.33 1.89 | 1.00 20.13 16.47 4.00 12.38 68.97 2,937,068 158,625) 10,000 Parti 99,075) 2,454,542, 99,075)
i Terror Lake Unit 3 Hydroelectric Project Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. 86.33 2.21 6.56 78 12.75 15,907,950} 7,459,790) 3,751,840 6,206,382 3,751,840]
670-1] Thayer Lake Hydropower Development Generation - Transmission ‘Kootznoowoo, Inc. IPP Hydro. 75.00 1.77 1.65 13.19 15.00 6.00 12.13, A : 30,402,216} 8,000,000) 1,956,000) 7,266,882 1,060,500}
| Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana} Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project. Alaska Power & Telephone Company Utility Biomass 81.33 3.10 4.50 16.59 16.27 3.67 13.50 5.00 2.33 68.36 18,000,000} 380,000} 45,000} Full 380,000} 7,646,882
|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bethel Renewable Energy Project TDX Power, Inc. a 5. 11.75, A . 4,660,750) 3,961,638) 699,113} 213,690) 7,860,572)
Railbelt 675 | Battle Creek Diversion Project Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Utility Hydro. 90.33 1.94 1.94 6.19 18.00 18.07 6.00 11.88 3.00 5.00 68.13 34,530,000} 500,000) 500,000} Full 500,000} 8,360,572| 500,000)
Old Harbor Hydroelectric Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility 4,100,000) Full 237,500} 8,598,072) 237,500)
Port Heiden Wind Turbine Project Lake & Peninsula Borough Local Governmt c . . x 2,123,536) Partial 250,000) 8,848,072) 250,000)
Railbelt 616 |GVEA Eva Creek Wind Turbine Purchase |Golden Valley Electric Association Utility Wind 78.83 1.25 1.60 5.25 20.00 8.00 2.00 467 63.68 14 93,300,000} 1,463,200) 36,329,400} Full 1,463,200 10,311,272)
Southeast 672 |Snettisham Transmission Line Avalanche Mitigation Alaska Electric Light & Power Company Utility Transmission 89.67 2.56 3.14 3.47 14.00 12.00 5.00 4.67 63.07 15 4,019,600) 3,215,680} 803,920} Partial 2,000,000 12,311,272) 268,000}
[Southeast Pelican Hydroelectric Upgrade Project \City of Pelican Local Governmt Hydro. c 5,520,836} 1,896,836) 14,208, 108)
Southeast 695 | Indian River Hydroelectric Project \City of Tenakee Springs Electric Department. Utility Local Governmt | Hydro 80.67 1.84 E 12.00 2.00 5.00 61.35 2,711,000) 203,000} 26,000} Full 203,000) 14,411,108) 203,000}
'Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana] 658 |Organic Rankine Cycle Field Testing University of Alaska Fairbanks ACEP Governmt Entity Heat Recovery} 77.17 2.21 2.00 17.59 2.00 12.88 4.00 3.67 61.24 18 472,787) 472,787| Full 472,787| 14,883,895) 472,787)
Bristol Bay Lake & Peninsula Wood Boilers Lake & Peninsula Borough Local Governmt Biomass . . 2.25 5.00 2.33 61.04 19 493,200} 369,900} 123,300) Full 369,900) 15,253,795) 369,900}
Copper River/Chugach 682 |Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project |Chitina Electric, Inc. Utility Hydro 78.67 1.37 1.18 16.56 9.00 7.50 2.00 4.17 60.96 20 4,405,000) 3,602,000) 803,000) Partial 277,000) 15,530,795} 277,000)
Railbelt 652 |Mount Spurr Geothermal Project Ormat Nevada, Inc. IPP Geothermal 75.17 1.08 | 067 472 19.00 6.38 5.00 4.17 60.29 21 300,000,000) 1,999,972) 3,882,298) Full 1,999,972] 17,530,767 1,999,972
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Napaskiak Wind, Power and Heat Recovery City of Napaskiak Electric Utility Local Governmt E . . 8.25 59.90 22 1,075,000 171,275) Partial 61,225) 17,591,992 61,225)
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 645 |St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction |Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Utility Wind 64.50 0.95 1.07 18.56 12.00 12.90 4.00 2.00
| Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana| 608 | Renewable Energy Feasibility Study Louden Tribal Council Local Governmt Biomass 74.67 2.97 3.27 17.59 0.00 14.93 4.33 14.25,
Railbelt 615 |CEA Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Utility Transmission 88.33 10.21 | 10.74 472 9.00 17.67 4.00 14.13
|\Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana| 637 | Feasibility Assessments for Wood Heating in Interior AK Communities _| interior Regional Housing Authority |Governmt Entity Biomass 81.00 1.12 1.12 21.66 0.00 16.20 4.00 7.50 26 18,722,023)
| Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 607 |Lime Village Photovoltaic System Retrofit Lime Village Traditional Council |Governmt Entity Solar 46.33 0.82 1.82 25.00 7.00 9.27 8.00 1.38 57.98 27 72,000 69,000 3,000) Partial 25,000} 18,747,023) 25,000}
Southeast 605 | Biomass Fuel Dryer Project City of Craig, Alaska Local Governmt Biomass 66.00 1.04 | 433 6.16 18.00 13.20 9.00 3.38 57.90 28 600,000) 350,000) 250,000} Full 350,000) 19,097,023} 350,000}
Railbelt 693 | Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Independence Power, LLC IPP Hydro. 75.33 2.14 2.25 3.94 15.00 15.07 6.00 11.75, 57.42 29 16,700,000, 136,500) 61,500} Full 136,500} 19,233,523} 136,500)
Northwest Arctic 667 |Kotzebue Paper & Wood Waste to Energy City of Kotzebue Local Governmt Other 67.83 1.49 1.49 14.50 10.00 13.57 0.00 10.13, 56.86 30 2,500,000} 85,000 9,250) Full 85,000 19,318,523} 85,000
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 673 |Atmautluak Wind Renewable Energy Village of Atmautiuak Utility Governmt Entity | Wind 57.50 1.00 1.40 24.19 7.00 11.50 5.00 3.75 bs 5. 56.77 31 1,700,000) 225,000) 25,000} Partial 100,000) 19,418,523] 100,000}
‘Bering Straits 648 |Stebbins Wind Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Wind 64.17 0.89 | 0.97 19.03 8.00 12.83 4.67 2.63 . 4 56.66 32 4,000,000} 137,750) 7,250) Full 137,750} 19,556,273} 137,750)
Southeast 692 | Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project ‘Community of Elfin Cove Utility Commission Utility Hydro. 52.17 1.16 1.47 16.34 11.00 10.43 6.00 488 56.65 33 3,100,000} 347,000} 48,000} Full 347,000) 19,903,273 347,000)
Southeast. 620 {Whitman Lake Project ‘City of Ketchikan dba Ketchikan Public Utilities Utility Local Governmt | Hydro 68.50 3.30 3.00 20.00 13.70 7.67 2.25 56.62 34 19,150,000} 2,000,000) 14,500,000 Partial 700,000} 20,603,273) 700,000}
Lower Yukon - Kuskokwim 639 | Eek Wind Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Wind 57.00 0.79 | 093 21.94 8.00 11.40 5.00 0.75 56.25 35 750,000} 142,500) 7,500) Full 142,500} 20,745,773) 142,500}
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 664 |Kwethluk Wind Feasibility Organized Village of Kwethluk Governmt Entity Wind 62.67 1.11 1.15 16.25 11.00 12.53 4.00 4.88 56.16 36 1,466,813} 145,000} 16,000) Full 145,000} 20,890,773} 145,000}
Southeast 705 | Japonski Island Boathouse Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Local Governmt ‘Geothermal 73.00 1.52 2.88 13.00 14.60 4.00 10.00 . . 54.48 37 165,000} 125,000} 40,000 Full 125,000} 21,015,773} 25,000} 100,000}
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 643 |Marshall Wind Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. ‘Utility Wind 60.00 0.74 19.53, 8.00 12.00 4.00 1.13 5.00 4.50 54.16 38 2,000,000} 111,150} 5,850] Full 111,150) 21,126,923} 111,150}
Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Nelson Lagoon Electrical Cooperative Utility |Wind 55.33 0.89 23.13 8.00 11.07 4.00 0.38 4.00 3.33 53.90 39 1,815,480} 158,625) 10,000) Partial 99,075 21,225,998}
Atqasuk Transmission Line North Slope Borough Local Governmt x 40 14,000,000} Full 210,000) 21,435,998)
| Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana| 641 |Kaltag Solar Construction Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Solar 60.33. 0.67 Full 90,000 21,525,998}
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 646 |Scammon Bay Wind Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. ‘Utility |Wind 63.83 0.91 Full 142,500 21,668,498} 142,500
Railbelt 674 |Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake Dam Facilities |Chugach Electric Associ: Utility Hydro. 57.17 0.29 5.00 52.28 43 23,900,000} 2,000,000) 21,900,000} Partial 576,080) 22,244,578} 30,000 546,080)
Bristol Bay 684 |New Koliganek Wind & Heat Recovery Feasibility Study New Koliganek Village Council Governmt Entity |Wind 53.17 0.94 | 0.96 15.63 8.00 10.63 6.00 1.50 3.00 3.17 47.93 53 662,050} 105,050} 7,000) Full 105,050} 22,349,628} 105,050}
North Slope 613 |Wainwright Wind Turbine Design North Slope Borough Utility Local Governmt | Wind 53.33 0.78 | 0.88 469 11.00 10.67 4.00 0.38 4.00 4.00 38.73 63 4,433,000) 400,000} 40,000, Partial 298,000 22,647,628} 298,000}
Kaktovik Wind Diesel North Slope Borough Utility Local Governmt | Wind 57.00 0.67 | 0.78 469 10.00 11.40 4.00 0.75 3.00 4.50 38.34 65 4,565,200) 132,000} 13,200} Full 132,000} 22,779,628) 132,000}
Point Hope Wind Turbine Design North Slope Borough Utility Local Governmt | Wind 54.67 0.75 | 084 469 11.00 10.93 4.00 0.38 2.00 4.00 37.00 66 4,433,000) 400,000} 40,000) Partial 298,000} 23,077,628 298,000}
612 |Point Lay Wind Generation Design North Slope Borough Utility Local Governmt | Wind 53.33 0.60 | 0.83 469 11.00 10.67 4.00 0.38 2.00 4.00 36.73 67 4,433,000) 400,000} 40,000) Partial 298,000) 23,375,628 298,000}
635 |Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility Kenai Hydro LLC IPP Hydro. 62.83 1.40 1.32 5.50 14.00 12.57 . 1,500,000 375,000} Partial 1,184,000) 24,559,628 1,184,000}
Northwest Arctic | 647 | ‘Selawik Hybrid Wind Diesel System Turbine Upgrade Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility | Wind 49.00 0.52 0.87 20.47 10.00 9.80 3.33 0.50 3.00 51.44 45 2,500,000) 85,000 8,500) Full 85,000} 24,644,628 85,000} ‘Count = 49 ‘SUB TOTAL 751,260,132 53,139,432| 97,417,257| 24,644,628| _24,644,628| _6,607,246| 4,808,634]
Recommend for Funding (Second Ranked up to $36.6 million total)
Southeast 629 | Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Project Transmission Line * |Alaska Power Company Utility Transmission 1.09 0.84 10.03 14.00 2.00 5.00 51.40 46 3,000,000} 2,000,000} 400,000) 2,000,000) 26,644,628!
Railbelt 657 |AVTEC Hydro Training Facility | Alaska Vocational Technical Center Governmt Entity Hydro 2.15 1.56 3.94 2.00 3.00 4.50 50.88 47 720,388) 703,800) 16,588) 67,500} 26,712,128} 67,500 Bering Straits 642 _|Koyuk Wind Phase Il Feasibility ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility Wind 067 | 073 | 1972 | 800 | 1147 4.00 450 | 5081 | 48 2,000,000] 142,500 7,500 142,500| 26,854,628) 142,500) Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 50 [Chefornak Wind Feasibilitly City of Chefomak Local Governmt Wind 0.53 | 062 | 2031 | 9.00 5.00 | 400 | 5069] 49 4,198,905} 250,000] 75,000] 736,750] 26,991,378 736,750
Bering Straits 640 | Elim Wind Feasibility |Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Utility | Wind 0.76 | 082 18.69 8.00 4.00 4.50 50.18 50 2,000,000} 142,500) 7,500} 142,500} 27,133,878) 142,500}
Aleutians 621 |Akutan Geothermal Development Project City of Akutan Local Governmt Geothermal 1.59 2.03 10.09 12.00 4.00 3.33 49.74 51 45,000,000} 2,695,000) 355,000) 2,695,000} 29,828,878) 2,695,000}
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 669 |Akiachak Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design | Akiachak Native Community/Akiachak Ltd. Utility Governmt Entity | Wind 0.83 0.83 19.69 8.00 2.00 4.00 49.13 52 4,250,000} 110,000} 15,000) 110,000} 29,938,878) 110,000}
Railbelt 660 |Cook Inlet TidGen Project ORPC Alaska, LLC IPP. Other 0.01 -0.18 4.72 20.00 5.00 2.00 46.79 54 8,459,989) 2,000,000) 6,050,538} 2,000,000, 31,938,878) 2,000,000} ‘Southeast 627 [Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project ‘Alaska Power Company Utility Hydro 021 | 211 | 663 | 14.00 5.00 | 350 | 4663 | 55 33,300,000] 7,040,000 260,000 468,000| 32,406,878! 468,000)
‘Aleutians 678 |False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass Electric Utility Utility Local Governmt | Wind 0.75 | 060 | 1625 | 800 4.00 250 | 4591 | 56 7,594,320) 128,625) 10,000 69,075| 32,475,953 69,075 |
|Copper River/Chugach Cordova Community Biomass Feasibility Study Native Village of Eyak Local Governmt Biomass 0.00 10.34 7.00 5.00 4.17 44.47 57 1,800,000) (245,065) 3,000} 75,000) 32,550,953} 75,000
Railbelt Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Eklutna, Inc. IPP. Hydro. 1.47 2.05 5.28 13.00 2.00 2.17 42.33 58 25,000,000} 84,000, 16,000} 84,000, 32,634,953} 84,000
| Railbelt Port Graham Biomass Waste Heat Demo Project Port Graham Village Council Local Governmt Biomass 0.30 | 0.38 6.28 14.00 4.00 3.83 41.99 59 845,805) 697,475] 148,330) 75,000} 32,709,953} 75,000
| Railbelt 623 |Susitna Valley High School Wood Heat Matanuska Susitna Borough Local Governmt Biomass 0.75 | 0.79 5.28 7.00 5.00 3.83 40.63 60 755,500} 750,000} 5,500) 750,000} 33,459,953} 750,000}
| Copper River/Chugach 649 |Kenny Lake School Wood Fired Boiler ‘Copper River School District Local Governmt Biomass 0.91 1.20 6.19 2.00 | 0.00 417 39.63 61 565,485] 565,485) 565,485) 34,025,438} 565,485]
| Southeast 630 |Schubee Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company Utility 0.25 1.64 6.63 13.00 . | 4.00 3.00 39.27 62 40,200,000} 160,000} 40,000) 80,000} 34,105,438} 80,000} Railbelt 676 |Eska Creek Hydroelectric Project Bering Pacific Engineering IPP 134 | 1.03 | 528 | 12.00 2.00 | 183 | 3840 | 64 5,800,000] 37,000) 7,400 37,000| 34,142,438 37,000
Southeast 656 |Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Community |Governmt Entity isi 0.13 | 3.60 2.88 14.00 2.00 3.83 35.42 68 12,725,200} 9,405,200) 3,320,000) 1,180,000 35,322,438} 750,000) 430,000}
625 |Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Phases | and II Haines Borough |Governmt Entity Hydro. 0.05 1.38 663 7.00 5.00 2.83 31.66 69 15,500,000} 317,130} 10,000) 93,593 35,416,031 93,593) Railbelt 606 _|Jack River Hydro Project Native Village of Cantwell Local Governmt Hydro 5.25 | 8.00 5.00 | 250 | 3058 | 70 200,000 190,000] 70,000 30,000] _ 35,446,031 30,000]
Wrangell Electric Vehicle Feasibility Study |City & Borough of Wrangell Local Governmt Other 0.39 | 0.27 4.13 10.00 2.00 3.33 30.53 71 125,000} 112,500} 12,500) 25,000} 35,471,031 25,000)
Southeast 707 |Sitka Renewable Energy Feasibility for Centennial Hall & Library City & Borough of Sitka Local Governmt Geothermal 2.88 12.00 0.00 4.00 29.96 72 39,000) 30,000) 9,000} 30,000} 35,501,031 30,000)
Southeast 706 |Sitka Renewable Energy Feasibility for Wastewater Treatment Plant City & Borough of Sitka Local Governmt Geothermal 0.00 2.88 12.00 0.00 4.00 29.69 73 26,000) 20,000} 6,000) 20,000, 35,521,031 20,000}
Southeast 632 | Reconnaissance Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Utility Geothermal E 0.56 12.00 0.00 4.00 2.50 27.80 74 27,000,000} 2,579,200) ) 599,200) 36,120,231 599,200)
Southeast 655 | Triangle Lake Hydroelectric Project Metlakatla Indian Community |Governmt Entity Hydro. 0.13 | 3.60 2.88 0.00 2.00 4.50 25.62 75 18,530,700} 500,000} 500,000} 36,620,231 500,000
Count = 25 SUB TOTAL 253,636,292) 24,905,480) 10,724,856 11,975,603} 36,620,231 2,642,618! (3,587,500) 5,745,485]
* If allocation is limited to $25M, AEA recommends partial funding to #629 Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Project in the amount of $355,372 Page 3 of 6
Green indicates top ranked for $25 million allocation while those in yellow are 2nd ranked
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund = Statewide Ranking and Funding Allocation Round 4 / —_— REVISED 3/23/2011 (= ENERGY AUTHORITY
Project Stage 3 Review Scores (max) Development Phase
Tech & 4 a
Econ Readi- 6. Sustain- Feas | ness Local | ability Reconn/ | Permitting/
Project Name Applicant (20) (10) (5) Type _| Funding Cumulative Feasibility | Final Design | |Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company Not Pass S1
Kenai Winds Expansion Kenai Winds LLC Not Pass S1
‘Southern Railbelt Small Hydro Reconn. Study Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. Not Pass S1
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim |Akiak Integrated Renewable Energy Projects ‘City of Akiak 142,000)
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim |AVCP Housing Wind Turbine Project AVCP Regional Housing Authority .! 3,045,000}
Copper River/Chugach Waste Energy Powered Absorption Refrigeration Unit Valdez Fisheries Development Assn., Inc. 1,021,287)
Adak Renewable Diesel Project TDX Adak Generating, LLC Utility
Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Analysis City & Borough of Sitka Utility Local Governmt
NWAB School Alternate Energy Solar Awareness Project Northwest Arctic Borough Local Governmt
|Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tananal Tok Schoo! Biomass Heating Project Alaska Gateway Schoo! District Local Governmt
[Southeast Port St. Nick Fish Enhancement Hydropower \City of Coffman Cove Local Governmt
Copper River/Chugach |Carison Creek Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company Utility
Nushagak Community Wind Power Project Nushagak Electric & Telephone Cooperative (NETC) it . 3,554,889) 3,199,400)
Nikiski Combined Cycle Conversion (NCCC) |Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative 85,000,000} 2,000,000)
Yukon River Debris Mitigation Project Alaska Power & Telephone Company 1,190,876) 1,190,876) ‘Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project ‘Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Utility
Kachemak Bay Tidal Power City of Homer Local Governmt
Turnagain Arm Tidal Electrical Generation Project | Turnagain Tidal Energy Corporation IPP
Copper River/chugach (Gulkana Village Pellet Fuels Project (Gulkana Village Council ‘Governmt Entity
Railbelt lonia Renewable Energy Training Center |Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Governmt Entity
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Akiak Hydro Study City of Akiak Local Governmt
Railbelt |Cook inlet Tidal Hydrokinetic Power Generation Baker Hughes, Inc. IPP 3,600,000] 400,000] 1,960,000]
Railbelt 691 |Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project Glacier Fork Hydro, LLC Utility Hydro 1.07 | 1.09 370,000,000) 210,000} 40,000} Not Recom
|Railbelt 696 |Merrill Field Landfill Gas Heating/Energy Project Municipality of Anchorage Local Governmt Other 0.22 | 0.27 2,200,000) 2,000,000) 200,000] Not Recom
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 697 |Napakiak Wind Design & Construction Planning Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company ‘Utility Wind 1.39 | 262 302,395} 282,395) 20,000} Not Recom
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 698 |Kongiganak Flywheel Energy Storage Puvurnag Power Company ‘Utility Other 0.55 | 1.14 1,561,368) 1,395,231 166,137| Not Recom
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 700 | High Penetration Wind Diesel Power and Heat Kipnuk Light Plant ‘Utility | Wind 1.24 | 1.12 4,624,041 3,424,041 1,200,000} Not Recom
Railbelt 701 |Paimer ice Arena Geothermal & Heat Recovery improvements ‘City of Palmer Local Governmt Geothermal 1,344,695 1,094,695) 250,000} Not Recom
Bristol Bay 702 | Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project |Chignik Lagoon Power Utility Utility Hydro 2,500,000) 2,440,000} 60,000] Not Recom
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 703 | Tuntutuliak Wind Energy Storage Tuntutuliak Community Services Assn. Inc. Utility Other 1.02 | 1.42 708, 162) 3,200,000} Not Recom
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 704 | Kwigillingok Wind Energy Storage Kwig Power Company Utility Other 1.07 1.42 708, 162| 3,200,000] Not Recom
[Southeast 628 | Neck Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company Utility Hydro 2,440,000 1,844,000 596,000} Not Recom-W|
|Copper River/Chugach 618 |CVEA Silver Lake Feasibility |Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. Utility Hydro 81.67 3.53 | 2.86 10.34 16.00 16.33 6.00 11.88 3.00 2.50 66.05 89,560,000} 637,500 212,500} Withdrawn
‘Sub Total Count = 33 SUB TOTAL 3,717,350,096| 45,125,493| 36,999,649
[GRAND TOTAL Count = 107 SS See | 14,722, 246/520] 123,170,405] 145,141,762, 36,620,231 36,620,231) 9,249,864| 8,396,134] 16,974,233
* If allocation is limited to $25M, AEA recommends partial funding to #629 Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Project in the amount of $355,372 Page 4 of 6 Green indicates top ranked for $25 million allocation while those in yellow are 2nd ranked
May Clark
From: Shauna Howell
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:47 PM
To: B_Reeve; Banks, Kevin; Bill Thomas; BOB SWENSON; Butch White; C_Rose; chris Nye; Christopher Rutz; David Lockard; Davidovics, Linda; Devany Plentovich; Douglas Ott; ed fogels; Heidi Sheldon; J mitchell; James Jensen; James Strandberg; Jessie Badger; Kaci Hotch; Kaci Schroeder; Linda Hay; Lyman Hoffman; May Clark; Michael Nave; Patricia
Walker; Peter Crimp; Posey, Jim; Richard E. Stromberg; Sandy Burd; Sara Fisher-Goad;
Sean Skaling; Senator Lyman Hoffman; Shauna Howell; Vince Beltrami; wyn Menefee; Emily
Binnian; cecile_elliott@legis.state.ak.us; Madeline Lefton
<Madeline_Lefton@legis.state.ak.us> (Madeline_Lefton@legis.state.ak.us);
representative_paul_seaton@legis.state.ak.us; hannah@realaska.org;
Senator_Lyman_Hoffman@legis.state.ak.us
Subject: Next REFAC Meeting Date/Time
Importance: High
Good afternoon,
Please mark your calendars: the next REFAC meeting will be Monday, June 6, 2011 from 1-4 pm in
Anchorage, in the AEA board room. Meeting documents will follow. Thank you.
Dpeune Leinedl
Executive Assistant
Alaska Energy Authority
showell@aidea.org
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
PHONE: (907) 771-3028
FAX: (907) 771-3044