Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting minutes agenda and documents 3-1-2011Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting March 1, 2011 — AEA Boardroom 1:12 pm to 4:00 pm 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 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 /=ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, March 1, 2011 Terry Miller Legislative Building, Room 104 and AEA Boardroom 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 — January 7, 2011 6. Presentation on AEA heating programs—Biomass and Heat Recovery _Plentovich 7. Discussion on Potential REF Program Modifications 8. Next Meeting Date Beltrami 9. Adjournment Beltrami Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 — AEA Boardroom 10:00 am to 4:00pm DRAFT MINUTES 1. Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee convened at 10:05 a.m. Chairman Vince Beltrami presided over the meeting. 2. Roll Call: Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants Chair Vince Beltrami Mike Harper Denali Daniels, Denali Commission Jodi Mitchell Peter Crimp Rep. Paul Seaton/Homer (phone) Sen. Lyman Hoffman James Strandberg Mike Nave, Department of Law Brad Reeve David Lockard Pat Walker, Sen. Hoffman's Office (phone) Hannah Gustafson (for Mr. Rose) Butch White Paul D. Kendall Jim Posey Douglas Ott Julie Frizzell, Dept. of Labor/Bus. Partnerships Rep. Bill Thomas (phone) Emily Binnian Phillip O. Kairaiuak Wyn Menefee Audrey Alstrom Richard Stromberg James Jensen Shauna Howell May Clark 3. Agenda Comments Chair Beltrami switched Agenda comments to Item 3 and Public comments to Item 4. There were no objections. 4. Public Comments Mr. Kendall spoke about a letter of understanding that the world’s major automobile dealers sent out to utility and oil companies asking to begin the “hydrogen highway” now. It suggests that it will occur sooner than 2015 — batteries and fuel cells look to be viable for the future. He cited several internet articles that may interest the Committee. He pointed out that 13% of major utility CEO's believe that by the year 2050 power will be decentralized and Alaska, technologically, has a foot in both the new and the old world. 5. Alaska State Energy Sector Partnership (ASESP) Julie Frizzell, Program Coordinator, State of Alaska Department of Labor/Business Partnerships, spoke about grant applications that are available for training projects under ARRA in Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency (RE/EE) job training industries. The grant fund is in the amount of $3.6M and per grantee amount is $100,000. Filing will be electronic and there is no limit on eligibility. Specific areas of training include wind turbines, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal and weatherization and rehabilitation of public facilities, commercial facilities and multi-residential facilities. RE/EE jobs require upgrading skills of incumbent workers; teaching new skills to workers in RE/EE technologies and preparing entry level Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 1 of 11 workers planning to enter RE/EE jobs and careers. The first deadline for submission of grant applications for the first review is January 18, 2011, and they need REFAC assistance in spreading the word. Chair Beltrami stated he is on the steering committee for the sector partnership grants and certain partners have already been allocated, such as AVTEC. The funds have to be spent in three years and $1.5M may still be available in the competitive process. Ms. Mitchell asked for examples of projects granted. Ms. Frizzell said AVTEC has installed a wind turbine and is creating a curriculum for training and hiring instructors to train technicians. Mr. Reeve asked if the smart grid would fall under this, i.e., EE advanced metering, in home displays, and different ways to get information out of the electric system. Ms. Frizzell said that was possible as other states are doing that. It was pointed out that RE Fund grant applicants could also apply and they would be notified. Mr. Harper stated AEA partners with DOL and works closely with AVTEC where AEA sends their village utility trainees. Mr. Reeve said he would inform the energy coordinator for wind projects in the Kotzebue area. Mr. Strandberg stated he would give this information to the SE Conference energy coordinator, as they are currently undertaking regional planning. Mr. Posey suggested military technicians might also fit into this program. 6. Approval of Meeting Minutes — November 9, 2010 Mr. Menefee clarified the statement on page 3 of 6, “DNR announced there was going to be a new fee schedule established to charge projects for the state permitting services.” to “DNR announced there may be additional fees charged for projects for the state permitting services.” The minutes were approved with the clarification. MOTION: Mr. Posey moved to approve the meeting minutes from the November 9, 2010 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee as clarified. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. There were no objections. 7. Review AEA Round 4 Recommendations Mr. Crimp reviewed the meeting handouts. Round 4 activities to date were recapped. The RFA was released July 21 and 108 proposals were received on September 15 requesting $103.1M. Stage 1 review for eligibility and completeness was performed, resulting in not recommending four projects requesting $7.5M. Stage 2 & 3 reviews were done in November and December having three major components: 1) Economic Review was completed in December and was coordinated by ISER who managed five economic firms that AEA hired competitively. 2) DNR Permitting & Resource Review was coordinated by Mr. Menefee of DNR which included the Divisions of mining, geological and geophysical surveys and forestry. 3) AEA Technical Staff Stage 2 & 3 Review scores were entered into our database. A printed copy of the projects with AEA’s written review comments was provided the Committee. A ranking spreadsheet was also provided. Stage 2 resulted in recommending no funding for 29 projects at $45.2M. The 29 applicants who failed Stage 2, along with the four who failed Stage 1 review, were notified on December 21 by the Grants Administrator and appeals are due January 10. Partial funding was recommended for 31 projects at $56.5M. Total funding was recommended for 43 projects at $21.4M. Final construction and design allocation equals 73% of a targeted 80% - 20% recon and feasibility — 50% of the funding allocation is construction. The ranking list is preliminary subject to appeals and geographic spreading to be discussed at this meeting. Draft Methods for Proposal Evaluation & Grant Recommendation — January 4, 2011: Mr. Crimp stated this is the methodology established by the REFAC for proposal review and is basically the same as in the past with a few changes: Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 2 of 11 Under ‘Recommendation Guidelines: Page 8, Partial Funding Guidelines: Exception 1: “/f AEA believes project can be built for less, then lower figure can be recommended. AEA will provide justification for lower figure in its recommendations.” AEA found some projects too expensive so our best judgment was used and we recommended less money, (i.e., Cordova Community Biomass: $245K was requested for assessing buildings in Cordova, AEA recommended $75K. Bethel area: Chefornak Wind Feasibility, $250K was requested for wind feasibility, AEA recommended $137K. Chefornak already has a MET tower installed). Bethel is proposing a few projects on the same system. Since TDX is proposed to take over the Bethel system later this year, AEA felt it was reasonable for them to perform the feasibility on their large scale wind projects. The Housing Authority has proposed projects for which we do not recommend funding. There's also a construction project in Bethel from Rounds 0 and 1 for several turbines. AEA will not take back the funds but will ask the City to work closely with TDX and we will merge projects if local consensus is favorable to do so. Ossie Kairaiuak, who is from Chefornak stated Chefornak is the most populated of the 57 villages in the Bethel region located 82 miles from Bethel and pointed out that the climate of the villages are different and that should be considered. Mr. Posey pointed out that the discussion was centered on Bethel proper and not Bethel region and we are aware of the differences from one village to another. Mr. Crimp pointed out that the detailed recommendations show what AEA is trying to accomplish and that “one size does not fit all” in the review process. The evaluation guidelines lay out the rules. Page 13, Stage 3 Criterion Local Support: “Letters of support from legislators do not count toward this criterion.” This was discussed at the last meeting and agreed to. All present were in agreement, including Rep. Thomas. Page 13, Stage 3 Criterion Project Readiness: “Proposed work is reconnaissance level and is consistent with specific recommendations under the Alaska Energy Pathway.” If a Pathway specifically addresses, i.e., wood energy, in a community and the community comes up with a plan to implement it, they would receive four points. Page 14, Stage 3 Sustainability: Text was added to address the capability of grantee to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and financially, to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project, 2) likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project, 3) likelihood of market for energy produced over the life of the project. Basically, what are the risks the project will not happen in the future? Mr. Posey asked how that analysis would affect some of the resource oriented projects such as fish plants — that would be difficult to evaluate. Mr. Crimp agreed and said the five points involved are important points. Another example would be a community rapidly losing population and availability of timber to support a mill. Mr. Posey asked if the criteria followed the Denali Commission's guidelines. Ms. Daniels, manager of energy programs for the Denali Commission, pointed out that the Denali Commission's process of evaluation is non-competitive. As projects become ready to proceed, they look at sustainability and minimum requirements. Sustainability is measured through a business plan and a thorough due diligence process. Mr. Crimp stated AEA referred to the Denali Commission's sustainability guidelines in writing our criteria. Mr. Reeve asked if there was a way to measure the fuel sources in the regions, i.e., biomass projects, to determine what the sustainable levels are regarding distances to travel and expenses. He stated that it's good to see more heat projects as they have an immediate effect and can that be measured into the sustainability equation. Mr. Crimp said yes, through a detailed land use plan. AEA program manager, Devany Plentovich, is working with State Forestry to set up a procedure of compiling the data which will be provided through the Alaska Data Inventory System. In the RE Fund, there are individual projects doing those type of resource assessments. Mr. Harper pointed out that one of the main elements of the Pathway was to visit the 228 communities to inventory their power, electricity, heat and transportation needs. Mr. Posey said since the Pathway assessment was not a complete assessment of the biomass available, it could be a large Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 3 of 11 part of the heating question he discussed with Senator Hoffman; what could be done about heating on a project basis, how much is there and how much more work has to be done to look at heat versus electric. It's a big piece for fuel use for the existing communities. Mr. Menefee pointed out that fuel sources are not just about the availability of the physical (biomass), but also about land management restraints — access through private lands to reach them. Mr. Posey said the state governments and private and federal interests should be open for business in dealing with the communities and solving the problems in working towards the same sustainability. With the price of fuel rising, there’s not a lot of time to solve the problems. We need to talk about those issues with Sen. Hoffman so that when he heads back to Juneau we need to know what resources are going to be here. Those from the outside look at our program as the best in the world for looking at these issues and trying to solve problems. We have put forth more effort in doing this than any other governmental entity and we should continue to move forward. Mr. Crimp stated the biomass availability is part of the DNR review and their work has been thorough. Mr. Posey questioned whether the new EPA rules that are being applied to Fairbanks and other regions on air quality have been left out; i.e., using catalytic converters and air filters. We need to use the best technology and not add to the air quality problems and to avoid being shut down by the EPA. Mr. Crimp said we are mindful of technology being promoted. The GARN stick-fired boilers are clean-burning and are being used in many communities. Larger boilers have emissions systems and are higher tech. Mr. Menefee said BLM lands could be used for biomass collection, but there’s also a policy out now that will likely turn millions of acres of federal land into wilderness study areas. Mr. Lockard referenced two studies Devany Plentovich, AEA Biomass Program Manager, has recommended on this matter. The first is a fact sheet entitled “A Balanced Definition of Renewable Biomass and can accessed at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean energy/balanced- biomass-definition.pdf. The second is a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Technical Report and can be found on their website under Technical Reports, March 2003, NREL/TP-510-33123, “Biopower Technical Assessment: State of the Industry & Technology,” Chapter 6, about air emissions comparisons with other technologies. Mr. Crimp proposed that Ms. Plentovich make a presentation to the Committee outlining the AEA biomass program. The Committee agreed. MOTION: Mr. Reeve moved that the REFAC approve the DRAFT Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation dated January 4, 2011 as presented. Seconded by Mr. Posey. There were no objections. (Senator Hoffman joined the meeting in person at 1:06 p.m.) Page 8, Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations: Mr. Crimp referenced the ranking sheets and detailed write-up of the project recommendations. The preliminary ranking spreadsheets show projects ranked from numbers one to 74 and the other sheet shows projects separated by region. The Governor's budget was submitted for $25M for the RE Fund and the top $25M projects are shown in green on the ranking sheet, adding up to $24.151M, the additional dollars will be added onto the first project in the yellow area, Reynolds Creek Hydro. The list is subject to geographic spreading and action on appeals due on January 10, 2011. Chair Beltrami said he understands the Governor's budget is $25M, but pointed out the REFAC, being in compliance with the statute, views the statute amount at $50M per year. All of the approved projects total only $36M, which the Committee will want to recommend. Senator Hoffman said last year the Governor's office justification on funding $25M was that we had prefunded $25M in the first year. Chair Beltrami said he recalls their saying that by doing so, “we are still keeping within the $50M per year allocation,” and we want to continue to recommend that amount. He said $36M does not come near the $50M, so the REFAC must decide in terms of recommendations how we should approach this. Mr. Posey said we are following the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 4 of 11 80/20 geographic spread per legislative direction, but maybe we should consider taking the caps off in some categories to keep projects moving forward such as in reconnaissance, construction or actual drilling, specifically as in the Ormat project, drilling is expensive. If we took the caps off and stayed within the guidelines, as our program is the best in the world for what we’re doing, we must not step back from that now in funding. REFAC put the caps on to make sure the money went further and we need to think about what categories we could take the caps off, if the funding was available, or do we go beyond the $250M, which he recommends. Ms. Gustafson asked if there was an opportunity to take a look back at qualified applicants not funded in past years and could they be looked at for funding again. Mr. Crimp said AEA has generally shied away from going back in time for applicants as they become stale. Many are not stalled due to lack of funding, but are stalled for other reasons. With regard to capping, in Rounds 1 and 2 we have placed the caps on the fly and we agreed that was unfair because people didn’t have the ability to assess need to additional financing. Therefore, in Round 3 we allowed proposers to apply for additional funding. However, in the Round 4 RFA we set a cumulative cap so that people would know before the fact the amount of supplemental financing necessary to finance their project. Mr. Reeve agreed with staff procedure in handling this, adding that projects and conditions change over time and giving people the ability to reapply works. Mr. Crimp said some grantees knew they would be capped. For example, GVEA geared their application for the large Eva Creek wind project to bring them up to the combined cap for final design and construction. Mr. White pointed out that Yerrick Creek Hydro in the Tok area and the Kenai Winds projects are good examples of cumulative capping. Senator Hoffman said he supports the concept of lifting the cap, but there has to be another upper limit, because several projects could absorb just about all of the funds. Ms. Daniels said, as a question to Mr. Crimp, that before the RFA was out, Denali Commission received feedback from potential applicants that had vocalized disincentives regarding the availability of funds and construction timelines. They were not interested in proceeding because of non-clarity about when the funds would be available and like issues. She asked if that was a major issue since resolved, or does that continue to be an issue. Mr. Crimp pointed out that when we first started, we were slammed with work, so we didn’t get funds out as quickly as we wanted, but now we have plenty of staff to get the funds out, so that is not so much an issue anymore. Ms. Daniels clarified it was more a construction season question on legislative funding. Mr. Crimp said the problem is that by the time Legislature approves funding and the Governor signs the bill, the date is July 1 and the fact is the construction season is lost in most cases. Senator Hoffman said we can discuss this with Representative Thomas to see if we can get the appropriations expedited. Representative Thomas agreed. Mr. Reeve also agreed that was an interesting concept, which may not mean a lot of money had to be put into it, but $5M for example could be used as a reserve to get those approved projects going so they could be out the door immediately to hit a construction season that summer-fall. Senator Hoffman commented that could also put the Governor in a position of making a level of funding decision earlier. Mr. Crimp said the applications were sent in with the idea of certain timing and the feasibility analysis would be completed with permitting, etc. and questioned how many projects would move faster if more funding were to be made available as the framework has been set up for the applicants. It would be a good idea next time around if we could ask them if they would like to receive their funding earlier to allow a jump on the construction season. Senator Hoffman said that would be worthwhile to consider — so that we are ready when the appropriation is ready. Ms. Daniels said it was still unclear as to whether or not the lower number of applicants had anything to do with a potential disincentive with that timeline, which relates back to the total number we are considering for the program and is probably something AEA cannot confirm. Mr. Posey said the first principle to learn in dealing with the government is you must turn square corners, which is appropriation and timing when money is available. Mr. Crimp asked Senator Hoffman if he was suggesting we look at the projects to see which ones could be sped up if funding were available. Senator Hoffman affirmed this, stating if a higher amount was put to Legislature it would be in place and when the Governor decides his amount or veto there’s less chance of reducing the amount in session. Mr. Crimp said AEA has seen Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 5 of 11 money not spent and during this review we are trying to get it right on the third time around, so we are not allocating funds for projects we don’t think are going to happen within a reasonable timeframe. AEA was stricter in adhering to the guidelines and we feel that it reflects poorly on the program if projects don’t go forward, which therefore jeopardizes the program. We lay out our reasons for not recommending funding proposal by proposal. Senator Hoffman reiterated his concern that many projects are to reduce electrical costs and in rural Alaska the highest costs are still in heating, which was discussed at the last two meetings and asked the status of the “heating” topic. Mr. Crimp replied that as requested last time, in the last part of this meeting we will lay out the allocations for heat versus power and suggested at our next meeting that Devany Plentovich, AEA Biomass Manager, make a detailed presentation to the group. Mr. Posey commented to Senator Hoffman that before his arrival, he asked if we would be willing to look at additional money for this program, stating gasoline could be up to $5 or $10/gallon by 2012. A state effort was made on how to treat the heating issue in rural Alaska, however, he said he is not in favor of creating another group just to deal with heating, but is in favor of another $50M-$100M added to the program over the next three years using the same process--staff, economics and experts to do it He suggested another meeting next month rather than in two months to deal with this issue, as the Legislature needs to know what the projections and possibilities are. Senator Hoffman said rural Alaska is already paying $5/gallon for fuel. (Mr. Posey left the meeting for another appointment at 11:36 a.m.) Referring to the regional allocation summary spreadsheets, Mr. Crimp stated the regional summaries show actuals, not what was originally allocated. The Railbelt, SE, Lower YK and NW Arctic are the four largest allocation areas. Senator Hoffman said he is concerned, and has said many times, that legislation provisions state those areas of the state with the highest energy costs are given the most credence, but in Rounds 1 through 4 the areas at the top of the percentages are the Railbelt and SE and not the Bering Straits, Bristol Bay, etc. regions, stating that legislative intent does not seem to be working. Ms. Mitchell commented that, with all due respect, many of the SE areas pays over 15 cents per kWh. Senator Hoffman said Lime Village pays 115 cents per kwh and he understands there are communities in SE that are not tied into the Railbelt and still have high costs as their primary source of heating is still oil, going back to what we need to do regarding the areas of the state that have high oil costs and are heavily dependent on oil for heating and what we can do to address those concerns. Ms. Mitchell agreed, but said the chart draws a different picture than what it is and maybe it should be a different category called rural SE. Senator Hoffman reiterated that legislative intent indicates areas of the state mentioned previously would be at the top of the list and the Railbelt areas would be at the bottom of the list. Chair Beltrami agreed and said we have to try to answer the question for the number of projects being applied - do we have enough projects to try to meet that percentage in those areas? Senator Hoffman said no. Those areas of the state with the highest energy costs have the least capability of getting the paperwork in. Those areas of the state such as the Railbelt have the personnel and manpower to submit those applications. How can we mitigate that? The thrust of the program needs to be met. Chair Beltrami said that’s the biggest challenge. Mr. Reeve asked if there was a potential for somebody like AIDEA to provide a ready-made match for projects that are having more difficulty putting projects together in the rural areas. They feel they don't have match resources and don’t have the ability to do it, but if it’s built in to a good economic equation where it lowers their costs and they get the payback on the loan, couldn’t they set up with AIDEA that there be pre-match dollars that could be available through a loan program? We need to start looking at other tools to answer some of the Senator’s questions about why we aren't getting enough money out into those regions. If there are other tools that we can develop as a group here and make recommendations to implement, we can get more applications going into the areas that have the highest costs. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Harper said AEA is trying. We are not quite there, but agreed with Senator Hoffman that we need to find another way. AEA has worked out scoring (10 points) very well and higher cost locations are scored higher. He visited the Bethel region speaking before regional groups specifically about this program, and we have been trying to urge the communities to get involved in the renewable energy process. Unfortunately there is not much interest or activity to generate applications from the area, but certainly the Bethel community is good at getting their applications in. For the outlying areas, we need help. Senator Hoffman stated in the $360M EE program he instituted two programs through the Housing Authority and not legislative, to allocate to regions with boundaries, they knew they would receive the allocation so they applied and instituted. The distribution of those dollars throughout the state was much fairer and equitable than how the RE Fund has been in getting dollars to the areas of the state with the highest energy costs. Mr. Crimp said in this round of recommended projects there are 20 wind feasibility projects. Western Alaska and interior are the problem areas. We are doing well in the biomass program. Many of the wind projects are 15-20 year paybacks and are more marginal in terms of economics, but then when you look at them there’s not a whole lot else other than heat recovery and generation efficiency. We might be able to do some type of regional larger scale deployment of wind technologies to speed things up. Senator Hoffman said the problem with wind projects for some of the smaller areas is it makes a community more reliable on the wind, but they have PCE so drastic reduction in rates aren’t seen, and because they're consuming less oil they're buying a smaller amount and not getting the volume break. Their heating costs go up and their electricity costs stay the same and the state saves money on PCE. (Lunch break was taken from 11:45 a.m. to 12:20 p.m.) Mr. Crimp introduced West High School students, Amber and Morgan Weimer. They are being mentored by AEA as part of the gifted mentorship program and are interested in becoming engineers. Mr. Crimp continued discussion on the ranking sheets. There is $36.5M in total grants for Rounds 1 through 4. In the Round 4 $25M allocation, he explained the methods for geographic spreading. The average cost of power within the regions is weighted by population, based on the 2009 population count. He announced that AEA, in conjunction with ISER, is resuming publication of the yearly power statistics, and plans to add transportation and heating fuel consumption and price, for all Alaska communities. Senator Hoffman again emphasized the problem of getting funding to those areas of the state with the highest cost of power, and attributed it to the time pressure to get the funding out. He suggested a better approach would be to allocate the funds by region and let those regions compete for the dollars and not worry about the implementation period. For example, if one region gets their projects accomplished in three to five years, and another region gets theirs accomplished in seven to 10 years, there’s no problem, we wouldn't be trying to adjust after the fact, but to allocate the funds up front would be the most fair and those regions would then compete. Ms. Gustafson stated that since we are very near the final year of the original program, we need to think about the future of the program and make recommendations and bring up ideas on the heating issue and addressing projects to those communities with the highest cost of energy. Chair Beltrami agreed, stating that is part of the REFAC role. Senator Hoffman said he pushed strongly for the AHFC Energy Efficiency Program. The AHFC board met and they are coming up with additional request for funds this year when there’s still another $100M available. He felt the Legislature will favor the request. If the current program shows successes, there should be legislative support for an additional Round. He believes the savings will be vastly more in the 10-year full implementation then the original program cost. Chair Beltrami stated it will take time to see what the savings will be. He asked what will AEA do to monitor the outcome of the projects and how quickly can outcome be reported (to the Legislature). There will be a gap in the program, so how do we keep it rolling. Mr. Crimp stated that one of the most important functions of AEA is to monitor the technical and economic performance of the projects. We are currently devoting Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 7 of 11 resources to that end. James Jensen has taken the lead in our reporting system and we will work with UAF Alaska Center for Energy and Power, to get a handle on the systemic issues of performance of the wind diesel systems. He pointed out it takes time for construction projects to come on line. Seven projects are done, which we have statistics on. We can measure what we know that has happened, and we can estimate future results by graphs. Chair Beltrami asked about the timeframe for legislative funding and was told it was five years at $50M per year. Mr. Reeve agreed that we should look at adding on to the program, but we need to act soon to request more funding and continuation of the program and not create something new. There is justification for doing so. Ms. Gustafson suggested the REFAC could assist the communities in the future with technical assistance (grant writers). Mr. Reeve said a key partnership has developed over the years between AEA and the Denali Commission and there's a lot of knowledge base built into that organization. A lot of their processes are more adaptable and may be quicker in developing the partnerships in rural areas. Perhaps we can discuss this with the Commission to make it a priority. Chair Beltrami said the Denali Commission energy advisory committee will meet February 3 and that will be a topic. Mr. Kendall said the RE Fund scope and scale are being underestimated. When you look at energy converting to all electric, he calculates it comes out 10 to 17 times the normal use of electricity. The oil companies are not informing the public about the huge role energy plays. You have to be prepared to go very large very quickly. Mr. Hoffman’s suggestion about regions is appropriate and, looking at the 80 page application, cannot see how small business can operate under the grant conditions. The very basis of innovation is the individuals in the small communities. One of our biggest mistakes is not teaching everybody at the same time. All those villages have capacity to generate energy but circumstances change with the seasons and other criteria. In 15 years we will see energy paradigms the likes we've never seen before. For the next 15 years we will see unparalleled chaos, not just high priced energy, but you will be lucky if energy is available in the first place. Alaska is unique and we have the resources to do it now. Senator Hoffman asked what type of reallocation we would be looking at if $36M or $50M was funded. Whatever it is, the same process could be used without us reviewing it. Mr. Crimp pointed out that $36.5M is the sum of all of the projects. Chair Beltrami said the REFAC would want to include all of the recommended projects. Mr. Crimp discussed the subject of appeals, stating that Mr. Harper, acting AEA Executive Director, has designated, along with himself, Sara Fisher-Goad, responder to the appeals received, of which we have received two this round. Some of the projects not recommended were discussed. 8. Status of current grants Mr. White stated that the grant application contains 25 pages and not 80 pages as previously suggested. We have disbursed $44.4M to date. For Rounds 1 and 2 all grants are in place, except for two from Round 1 that have specific issues. He pointed out that the grantees are not spending the money, and that is not due to delay by AEA. Funding available for reallocation has increased due to schedule updates. Reallocation will be done by Legislature. Mr. Reeve said the reason projects like ours (Kotzebue Electric Association) aren’t spending grant funds; this is one of those projects from Round | that was capped at $2M. KEA is waiting to get more of the design completed, up to the 65% design. It’s not like funds aren't being expended, we just aren't charging to the grant yet. There may be another way to depict progress on these projects that have not drawn grant funds yet to show where they currently stand. KEA is waiting for our clean renewable energy bonds as an additional part of our match and to complete the design. As you know, down payments on turbines and other costs are moving targets. This might be something that would help entities understand. AIDEA could provide financing, if they had a pool of funds that could also be used for getting design completed on the smaller systems like ours. Making cash available for these small systems would be the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 8 of 11 type of help we need. Mr. White agreed and said he would try to demonstrate progress made in the table under funds obligation, to depict what's really committed. Mr. Crimp said AEA is not entirely comfortable with the pace of a lot of the projects. We are starting to send letters to grantees expressing our concern and giving them a drop dead date and asking for a concrete schedule. Our project managers are working closely with them. Ms. Gustafson asked what we heard back from the recipients as to why they haven't sent paperwork. Mr. White said two had a 12/31/2010 drop dead date and neither bothered to respond. This is a recommendation program, we can't reallocate funds. Senator Hoffman said he didn’t think it has to go back to Legislature, as long as we fulfill the obligations of lowering energy costs in those areas of the state that have the highest costs, if we initially went out and allocated by region and a region wasn't performing and the region lowest on the list would receive the funding. We really don’t have a way to address where those dollars would go under the current system. In the next allocation process we need to look at a better system of allocating dollars to those areas of the state with the highest energy costs. Areas of the state that are more organized can react much quicker and get things accomplished. We shouldn't be worried about the timeframe if we feel that it’s going to get accomplished; some areas of the state may be able to get theirs done in four years, where other areas may take 10 years. We need to keep our eye on the ultimate goal of reducing costs of energy in those areas of the state that have the highest energy costs. We have to be responsible in the way we administer the fund, because the Legislature is looking for the success of the program as well. Mr. Crimp pointed out that these are not easy projects to build. There are many barriers. We need to keep this in mind. Mr. Reeve asked Senator Hoffman if it would be worthwhile for the committee to go through the project phases step by step so they can understand the process of developing a project. Senator Hoffman said Representative Thomas can address that as well, but how we convince the Legislature that the program is working is a problem. The best way to do that is to look at the annual fuel savings chart, which shows 83% power projects, but the high cost of energy in rural Alaska is in heating. We can’t continue the way we're going; somehow the program needs to be modified. To sell the program, it’s easy to show the fuel savings in the communities and not get down into the intricacies of each project. 9. Charts/Reports Requested by REFAC — PCE Savings, Heating Projects, Projected Fuel Displacement by Region Mr. Crimp said at the last meeting the REFAC requested a breakdown of cumulative annual fuel savings. They are shown two ways, by resource, around $7M gallons per year displacement, includes natural gas per year after 2013. Additional projects are not counted which are faltering and will likely show more displacement. Senator Hoffman said that showing gallons is impressive, but showing dollars would be more impressive. Mr. Crimp said we could do that, we’d have to give a date, 2012 or something. The second graph totals the same but is shown by region. Chair Beltrami said to get the support of the Railbelt legislators they need to see annual savings in fuel. Mr. Crimp said that in Round 4 Eva Creek Wind Project, with a $2M allocation into final design and construction will show many gallons to be added on. Much of the funding has gone to power projects at 83% (mostly wind), 13% heat, and 4% heat and power. Regarding estimates on impacts on the PCE, he found too difficult to do and concluded that we need a more rigorous way to do that. He suggested our PCE department could possibly take on the task. Mr. Crimp noted that fuel prices dropped greatly between FYO9 and FY10, masking the impact of developing the hydro in Gustavus. (Mr. Posey returned to the meeting at 1:10 p.m.) Mr. Posey asked what the effect was of fuel switching from oil to electric due to the hydro power costs in Gustavus. Mr. Lockard said after the hydro was completed, the residential rate dropped to 29 cents/kWh, about $9/gallon equivalent for heating oil. However the local utility is very interested in a creative rate structure using energy spilled at the hydro. We have been sharing information about ways of putting in Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 9 of 11 an electric boiler that would provide cheaper heat for the school, and would also improve the operations and capacity at the hydro facility because of better control frequency and increased capacity of the generation system in dispatch mode. They are also working with the National Park Service on an intertie to Bartlett Cove at Glacier Bay that would increase the load by 50%, and on possible time of day rates to incentivize electric vehicles which matches better the extra energy available at the hydro to focus in summer rather than winter. Mr. Crimp said there’s been a lot of concern by Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) power grid about load increases due to electric heating. Mr. Strandberg will be dealing with this in the SE IRP. Mr. Posey suggested that before we encourage fuel switching, we need to do as much as we can in conservation. Mr. Kendall told Mr. Posey that assuming an average home of 8900 kWh, and an Enstar average annual gas usage, and 1,000 gallons of gasoline: converting all of those to electricity he comes up with 10 to 17 times the amount of electricity normally used. Mr. Posey said he hadn't done the calculations. With agenda items completed, Chair Beltrami opened up the meeting to questions. Mr. Posey said it's important that we look at the heating issue and not wait for an emergency. We need to look at it now and let Legislature and Governor know that we think it’s important and it’s also important to fund things like this. Senator Hoffman said we could look at the legislation to see if there’s any way that this board can submit RFP’s for reducing energy costs in rural areas of the state and maybe we could allocate some of the additional $14M for heating costs in those areas. Chair Beltrami said he’s concerned we are recommending total projects of just $36M, as we're falling short of legislative allocation. It's important that we add on to that in terms of a recommendation to address the heating issue. Senator Hoffman said after we take a look at the legislation, we should see if there are industry solutions for the next Round, instead of just specific people that are providing heat or electricity in a community. Mr. Crimp questioned whether our regulations would allow us to do that. Senator Hoffman said he was not worried about the regulations, but about the legislation. Mr. Posey said we need to state that $14M shortfall isn’t a shortfall in need, but is a shortfall in the things that we have set out and had come back to us. But there are the needs that we talked about for heating and we need to look at those and take a look at why we have caps if the Legislature and Governor are willing to fund it all the way or put some additional money in it. No one is doing as well as we are and we shouldn't slow down. Chair Beltrami said we have never been faced with this and we've not taken action other than recommending the projects. Given the fact that there is a shortfall and that we do have a concern, we need a recommendation forwarded with (and put this on the record) i.e., a one page letter that articulates this issue that should go along with the $36.5M recommendation. Mr. Posey said we need to take a look at the AHFC conservation effort because all the money's been put in the pot for the same reasons and we need to be as good as AHFC in getting money out there appropriately. We have a good number for legislators who are listening about how well this process is working, because we’re $14 million short due to our regulations and operating procedures--not in needs to the state. Chair Beltrami suggested he put those thoughts in a letter to circulate back to the Committee for comment. Mr. Crimp said as part of the package of recommendations, AEA will produce a comprehensive status update with graphs, construction schedules, and estimated draw down. Mr. Harper suggested that when (a Board) wishes to make a major policy statement, typically a resolution is the best approach. Mr. Posey and Mr. Reeve said they will compile the resolution. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 10 of 11 Mr. Crimp stated we will meet with LB&A on January 14, 2011 and we will update our construction schedule with due dates and send them to the Committee. Mr. White announced that the RFA for Emerging Energy Technology Fund grants is out and completed applications are due March 2, 2011. The Legislature appropriated $2.4M to the fund for FY2011. In addition, the Denali Commission contributed $2.4M. Mr. Crimp added that AEA released the RFA for commercial energy audits on January 5, 2011. Owners of eligible public buildings (under 125K square feet) in Alaska may be reimbursed up to $6,500 for a qualifying energy audit. Non-profit buildings are included. Completed applications are due February 15, 2011. 10. Next meeting date: March 1, 2011 in Juneau, AK. a4: Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 1:34 p.m. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2011 Page 11 of 11 (= ALASKA @al ENERGY AUTHORITY Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting Renewable Energy Fund Update March 1, 2011 Current Status e Rounds I-IV Grant and Funding Summary tele ate Mt Soto m el rare MIT Round IV Total Applications Received 112 118 123 108 461 Projects Funded 73° 30 25 TBD 133 Grants in Place 76° 29’ 13 TBD 118 | Grants Cancelled 4 as 0 N/A 5 Amount Requested ($M) $453.8 $293.4 $223.5 $123.1 $1,093.8 AEA Recommended ($M) $100.0 $36.8 $65.8 $37.3 $239.9 Appropriated ($M) $100.0 $25.0 $25.0 TBD $150.0 | Cash Disbursed ($M) $41.9 $7.7 $.2 $o $49.8 Available for reallocation ($M) $3.0° $1.0° $.18 $o $4.1 T 2- 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 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) and Manly Hot Springs ($193,625) projects. Angoon grant balance ($545,934), Neck Lake Hydro balance (~$75,000), 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). Reducing the Cost of Heat in Rural Alaska Devany Plentovich Alaska Energy Authority February/March 201 | Agenda Heating Costs in Alaska Technology options and current projects District Heating Infrastructure Diesel Heat Recovery Biomass Other Next Steps Break-down of Energy Costs ™ Heating Transportation Electric (with PCE) Anchorage Bethel YA Ke Southeast f Source: Alaska Energy Authority Internal Analysis using 2008 Energy Costs District Heating Systems Basic Infrastructure that provides heat to multiple buildings Heating Source (diesel generator, biomass, etc.) Heat Exchangers Circulating pumps Underground piping Controls and Meters mio @)io) Can provide heat from multiple, different sources Power systems can be added in the future Can be expanded to grow with a community Output 26,000BTU OLD POWERHOUSES Mechanical Losses 5,200 BTU 4% Electrical Output 39,000 BTU \ 30% icket Heat ecovered Recove: \\ 23,400 BTU 19,5008TU || 18% | Efficient Diesel Generators System designs maximize the capture of generated heat District Heating systems transfer heat to end UNS KE McGrath Heat Recovery System RE Fund Grant $687,315 Total Project Cost $929,125 Est Fuel Displaced/yr 60,000 gal 2010 (May-Dec) 12295 gal > Operational > Proposed (Since 2000) Diesel Heat Recovery Strategy Continue to include Heat Recovery in every viable Powerhouse Replacement ) “Fill The Pipeline” Conduct feasibility studies for new systems and major maintenance on existing systems 3-year program State Alternative Energy & Energy Efficiency funds Utilize state funding as matching for Federal Grants Develop partnerships to maximize grant opportunities, share technology, and conduct outreach Gulkana Community Wood-Fired Boiler RE Fund Grant $500,000 Total Project Cost S 500,000 Est Fuel Displaced/yr 14,600 gal 2010 (Oct-Dec) ~3,000 gal Chip Boilers Tok School Wood-Fired Boiler ee RE Fund Grant $ 3,245,349 Total Project Cost § 3,805,349 ces Est Fuel Displaced/yr 50,400 gal “ _— Pellet Boilers Sealaska Plaza Total Project Cost $ 1,400,000 (efficiency upgrade, transportation) Est Fuel Displaced/yr ELM 010-42) Actual (Nov 19 — Dec 2010) 5000 gal Biomass Projects A = Proposed A Feasibility A “ ; A FE ALASKA Biomass Strategy Continue education and outreach for biomass heating opportunities With State Forestry, prioritize and conduct resource assessments to assure sustainable harvest “Fill the Pipeline” 3-year plan to conduct feasibility studies including technology and resource assessments Collaboration with Regional, State, and Federal Agencies Utilize state funding as matching for Federal Grants for design/ construction Support rapid deployment of heating systems in rural Alaska Garn in a Box Support Pellet Manufacturing in Alaska Other Heating Options Electric Boilers Excess hydroelectric or wind power to heat community buildings or district heating systems Aides in grid stabilization Ground Source Heat Pumps Industrial Heat Recovery North Pole Refinery condenser heat is used to heat turbine building Pitkas Pojnigaint Mary's Kan, ak Kanapon wethluk iak ertutalick &ek i k Kwigill -_" ee Aleutians West rk ——— 0 50 100 200 Miles Bind me inalakleet sigpbind see Lower Yukon- Kuskokwim Inset £iet Point Xelson Lagoon Cold Bay False Rast Excess Wind A Operation 4 Construction Design Feasibility Combined Heat and Power Production of electricity and useful thermal energy from a single source of energy Small scale biomass technology (less than 2 MW) is emerging Renewable Energy Funded Demonstration Projects Cordova (Diesel) Unalaska (Diesel) Kotzebue (Diesel) Chena Power (Biomass) Continuing to monitor technology development Partnerships US Department of Energy’s Northwest Clean Energy Application Center Educates and promotes industrial combined heat and power, district energy, and waste heat recovery. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska WWW. norhwestcleanenergy.org Pacific Regional Bioenergy Partnership Encourages the use and development of biomass energy technologies that are technically feasible and cost effective Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska WWW. Dacificbiomass.org Next Steps Continue to collaborate and conduct outreach to educate Communities on heating opportunities Initiate feasibility studies for biomass and diesel heat recovery Continue to evaluate wind and hydro projects for heating potential Pursue partnerships and funding opportunities for design/construction of viable projects Thank you Devany Plentovich dplentovich@aidea.org Alaska Energy Authority 613 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska. 99503 wwWw.akenergyauthority.orq Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Grant Construction Resource Amount Cost Region ID |Project Name Proponent ee ee ae ee 621 [Akutan Geothermal Development Project City of Akutan False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass Electric Utili Aleutians Cold Bay Wind Energy Project G&K Electric Utili Aleutians 679 _|Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Key: Projects currently funded by RE Fund Rounds 1-3 Potential projects that could be in construction by 2012-2013 Potential projects that could be in construction by 2014-2015 Notes: List is compiled from RE Fund Round 3 and 4 applications that were recommended for funding and judgment of AEA staff. 2012-2013 project costs do not count preconstruction funds that have already been appropriated. Total project cost is subject to refinement based on further design and feasibility work. This list does not address how projects would be financed. Currently, AEA has no recommendations on grant, equity, or debt financing mix. Pwnd = Page1 of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Grant Construction Region ID |Project Name Proponent Resource Amount Cost Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Resource Assessment [University of Alaska Fairbanks ACEP eothermal Stebbins Wind Feasibili Alaska Village Electric Coop Al i [os toe ee ee as] g illag i Sv siiaee ig atagecrtat aos Cane | Koyuk Wind Phase laska Village Electric Coop ind Seer ie wee [Bering Straits | 640 [ElimWind —C—its—“‘*‘“;C™SCC[ Alaska Village Electric Coop ae Eee [Bering Straits | 513 [Teller Wind-Final Design, Permitting & Construction Alaska Village Electric Coop [et a Seen os tae Td PERE eS a ee eee on PRET SER ees eo key || Page2 of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Construction Proponent [Bristol Bay | 681 [Lake &PeninsulaWood Boilers Lake & PeninsulaBorough Biomass, | | 969,900 | [Bristol Bay | 702 [Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project [Chignik Lagoon Power Utility [Hydro | [Bristol Bay | 686 _|PortHeiden Wind Turbine Project [Lake & PeninsulaBorough [Wind | oe Sa se SERRE eS laces ap Elsie a | eee chee ee eceg | OM eee [mesa Gee | 515 [New Stuyahok Wind-Feasibility Analysis [Alaska Village ElectricCoop [Wind | 684_|New Koliganek Wind & Heat Recovery Feasibility Study |New Koliganek Village Council [Wind | PPAR PF SE CR Sea | ae ee ee | Reta ne [NP Page3 of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Grant Construction Proponent Resource Amount Cost Region ID |Project Name 565,485 3,602,000 167,485 peel eee 4 Kenny Lake School Wood Fired Boiler Copper River School District Biomass Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric, Inc. Hydro SSSR TE | Sg os a ge eae eae) eae tact oe Cordova Community Biomass Native Village of Eyak Biomass {oe a [ease eae eee Se ee ee ee eee Page4 of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Construction ID |Project Name Proponent Resource Cost 4,100,000 [Kodiak __—i| 644_| Old Harbor Hydroelectric Alaska Village Electric Coop lHiydiOssmre 0) Ao ae f [Kodiak __—_—|_ 653 _| Terror Lake Unit 3 Hydroelectric Project Kodiak Electric Association ERGO saisinS| ing os ona 14,459,790 Res se ay 18,559,790 Page5d of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Construction ID |Project Name Proponent Resource Cost Lime Village Photovoltaic System Retrofit Lime Village Traditional Council Sola a aces ee | 645 _|St. Mary's/Pitka’s Point Wind Alaska Village Electric Coop Wider span 4,500,000 Lower Yukon-K' Akiachak Wind Akiachak Native Community/Akiachak Ltd. |Wind Lower Yukon-K' Marshall Wind Alaska Village Electric Coop [Wind | Lower Yukon-Ki Scammon Bay Wind Alaska Village Electric Coop [Wind : | Lower Yukon-K |Chefornak Wind City of Chefornak * [Wind | | Lower Yukon-Ki |Chefornak Wind City of Chefornak |Wind | Lower Yukon-Ki| 498 [City of Napaskiak Wind City of Napaskiak Electric Utility {Wind | Lower Yukon - H 639 |Eek Wind Alaska Village Electric Coop [Wind | Lower Yukon-Ki] 685 |Napaskiak Wind, Power and Heat Recovery City of Napaskiak Electric Utility Wind | ' ewer Yukon-Ky 664 |Kwethluk Wind Organized Village of Kwethluk Wind ver Yukon-Ki 673 |Atmautluak Wind Village of Atmautluak Wind | TOTAL | | : : Page6 of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Construction Cost 14,000,000 [North Slope | 611 [Point Hope Wind North Slope Borough —|wind| | 4.000.000 | [North Slope | 612 [Point Lay Wind |North Slope Borough [Wind | | 4,000,000 | a lr ee ee a ee ee ee pee : : Proponent Page7 of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Grant Construction Resource Amount Cost Region ID {Project Name Proponent i Selawik Wind Upgrade Alaska Village Electric Coop Winds woken [een im peeeeee nee nr | 512 _|Kivalina Wind-Intertie Alaska Village Electric Coop Mindset es | es een ere] Page8 of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Grant Construction Region ID |Project Name Proponent Resource Amount Cost 750,000 800,000 703,800 22,700,000 34,830,000 Susitna Valley High School Wood Heat Matanuska Susitna Borough Blomass see ace a ea eae ae fee sete EEE eee | 200,000 Suet te Eee | Fea coat Sse eae 689 Port Graham Village Council [Seward Marathon Lk Hydro Training Facility _—_—(|Alaska Vocational Technical Center Hydro 74 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Hydro 675 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. [Hydro Other | Renewable Support Mode for BESS Golden Valley Electric Association 660 _|Cook Inlet TidGen ORPC Alaska, LLC Eva Creek Wind Golden Valley Electric Association Windies 25 EAS SERS eae aes cone Me Sarat ce Mount Spurr Geothermal rmat Nevada, Inc. [a ae eh cee na eee ee | z : 2,000,000 93,300,000 155,283,800 2 ee [Railbelt_ | Railbelt_ | [Railbet_ | [Railbelt_ | [Railbet_ | Railbelt [Railbelt_ | [Railbelt_ | TOTAL [Railbelt_ | [peRe ate P| Page9 of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Grant Construction Region ID |Project Name Proponent Resource Amount Cost Southeast | 605 |BiomassFuelDryer CCC City of Craig Biomass 350,000 Southeast i25_Hoonan Giy Schools lomass Heating __ Hoonah City School District Biomass 800,000 [Southeast _| 636 _|Thorne Bay School Wood Fired Boiler Southeast Island School District Biomass 520,000 Southeast City and Borough of Juneau Geothermal 1,000,000 Southeast City and Borough of Sitka Geothermal 165,000 Southeast 687 Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. _|Heat Recove' 475,000 Southeast 418 |Spur Road Distribution Line Extension __—_{City and Borough of Wrangell Hydro 161,386 Hydro 16,500,000 City of Pelican Hydro 1,896,836 Southeast | 695 Indian River Hydroelectric City of Tenakee Springs Electric Departmer|Hydro 2,711,000 Southeast 670-1 |Thayer Lake Hydropower Kootznoowoo, Inc. Hydro 11,112,402 Southeast 672 |Snettisham Transmission Line Avalanche Mitigation Alaska Electric Light & Power Compan Transmission 4,019,600 Southeast 629 |Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Alaska Power Compan Transmission 5,000,000 utheast 656_|Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Communi Transmission 9,405,200 TAL : 54,116,424 Southeast 707 |Sitka Centennial Hall & Library GS Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Geothermal Southeast | 706 |Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant GS Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Geothermal Southeast 441 |Schubee Lake Hydroelectic Alaska Power & Telephone Company Hydro Southeast _| 437__|Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Alaska Power Company Hydro | Southeast 430 |Ruth Lake Hydroelectric City of Angoon Hydro Southeast 485 |Scenery Lake Hydroelectric City of Angoon Hydro Southeast 692 _|Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Community of Elfin Cove Utility Commissior| Hydro Southeast 462 |Hoonah-IPEC Hydro Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. _|Hydro pee _| 655 _|Triangle Lake Hydroelectric Metlakatla Indian Community Hydro Page10 of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Grant Construction Region ID |Project Name Proponent Resource Amount Cost 67,000 551,408 | 481 |Tok Forestry Office Wood Heating laska DNR Div Forestry Tok Area Biomass <8), Organic Rankine Cycle Field Testing iniversity of Alaska Fairbanks ACEP |HeatRecovery{| —s_—_—_—i eee Er ste a 618,408 |Yukon-Koyukuk] 665 [Upper Tanana Biomass CHP laska Power & Telephone Compan Biomass 55 S| Se [eee ea AES A CTS Ae, SEK eg ae eee fee a Sees ata Page11 of 12 Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Construction ID |Project Name Proponent Resource Cost Biomass Projects to be identified in 2011 (2-4 cordwood Mee ee ec a eee, Bomacs 1.60.00 Heat Saercees Projects to be identified in 2011 (2-4 pe ee eee Heat Recover Regional hub (Bethel, Dillingham, Naknek, Nome) Wind ca (one 2MW project) Various : 12,000,000 Biomass Projects to be identified in 2012 (4-6 cordwood il iomass heating) Statenige Ea 6 projects) Various (AEA coordination: ee eeaNeD : Regional hub (Bethel, Dillingham, Naknek, Nome) Wind iil a eae aa (two 2 MW projects) Various Page12 of 12 I= ALASKA @@al ~ ENERGY AUTHORITY Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting Renewable Energy Fund Update March 1, 2011 Current Status e Rounds 1-—IV Grant and Funding Summary Round | tole Te ML Round Ill Round IV Total Applications Received 112 118 123 108 461 Projects Funded 73° 30 25 TBD 133 | Grants in Place 76° 29’ 13 TBD 118 Grants Cancelled 4 A> 0 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 $37.3 $239.9 Appropriated ($M) $100.0 $25.0 $25.0 TBD $150.0 Cash Disbursed ($M) $41.9 $7.7 $.2 $o $49.8 Available for reallocation ($M) $3.0° $1.0° $.1° $0 $4.1 1- 2- 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 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) and Manly Hot Springs ($193,625) projects. Angoon grant balance ($545,934), Neck Lake Hydro balance (~$75,000), 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). Existing and Potential Renewable Energy Construction Projects--Summary RE Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Alaska Energy Authority - March 1, 2011 - DRAFT Potential 2012-13 Total Cost Aleutians 270,000 Bering Straits Bristol Bay 4,969,900 Copper River/Chugach 4,167,485 Kodiak 18,559,790 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 4,575,000 North Slope 26,000,000 Northwest Arctic Railbelt 155,283,800 Southeast 54,116,424 Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 618,408 Statewide 15,100,000 283,660,807