The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREFAC Meeting documents 5-13-2014 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting App #1166 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 24.02 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 63.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.03 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 7.67 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 4.50 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 8 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1 7. Sustainability (5) 4.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 54.69 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 54.69 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $6,610,000 Cost of Electricity $0.55/kWh Grant Fund Request $1,305,000 Price of Fuel $4.46/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $70,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision The City of Chignik using the services of CE2 Engineers and Hatch produced a feasibility study for a hydro project on Indian Creek. The $207,500 in funding for the feasibility study came from previous REF. As required by the previous grants the City received control and ownership of the hydro resource from NorQuest Seafoods owned by Trident Sea Foods. Water rights for up to 18 cfs will need to be requested above the existing 2.7 cfs. The existing dam and penstock have historical significance. They will require studies and documentation before they can be considered for removal. Easements will be required for new facilities from the City. LIDAR mapping, stream gauging and geotechnical investigations will be needed. Potential issues with FERC, SHPO and DNR must be resolved as early as possible. Include upgrades at the existing diesel powerhouse to integrate the hydro power and their associated construction costs. The design must maximize the use of the excess hydro by additional sales to the local processor or by heating fuel displacement and include any additional construction cost. Recommend for full funding with the special provision of receiving a detailed design budget and a list of the proposed consultants prior to grant execution. AEA Funding Recommendation: $1,305,000 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 138/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 jo ALASKA... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting App #1166 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Bristol Bay Applicant: City of Chignik Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Project Description Complete final design and permitting for a 420-340kW storage hydroelectric project on Indian Lake in Chignik Bay. The project would consist of an approximately 25 foot high by 125 foot long concrete faced, rock filled dam impounding up to 204 acre feet of water, 7,280 feet of 22 inch underground penstock, 9,170 feet of new access road and trail, Turgo impulse hydro turbine and generator in a 26 x 26 foot powerhouse, tail race that returns water into Indian Creek above the anadromous reach of the creek, above ground insulated City water supply line, 1,600 feet of electrical tie line. This project would replace the existing, 1947 era, 60kW, nonfunctioning hydro. The new proposed project will continue to supply raw water to the City. The existing 60kW project was re-licensed by FERC in 2006. The application is based upon the findings of a the feasibility study funded by REF round 1 for $207,500 As required by the grant the City received control and ownership of the hydro resource from NorQuest Seafoods owned by Trident Sea Foods in the fall of 2012. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Existing project installed in 1947 needs upgrades. Pipeline crossing of Indian Creek authorized by Public Utility Easement under ADL 229178; replacement or upgrade of the lines authorized under ADL 229178 requires prior notification of DMLW and additional authorizations may be required. Otherwise, the project is not on state-owned lands. A Water Rights Permit issued from the Water Section. Non FERC project. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone and associated tsunami. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 137/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 j= ALASKA (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction App #1165 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.82 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $1,750,000 Cost of Electricity $0.67/kWh Grant Fund Request $1,750,000 _— Price of Fuel $7.00/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $00 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended This application was submitted for construction funding. However, permits, land use authorization, construction ready design and specifications, final design cost estimate and an updated business plan need to be completed prior to consideration for construction funding, per the AEA Request for Applications 15003 section 2.2 to 2.6. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia Page 136/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA_ (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction App #1165 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach Applicant: Native Village of Chenega Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Project Description The Native Village of Chenega (aka. Chenega Bay) proposes to construct a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project on Anderson Creek. The planned 64 kW capacity project will offset power currently generated by burning diesel. The non- jurisdictional hydro will offset up to 10,400 gallons of diesel annually which translates into $56,600 in annual savings. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments A Water Rights Certificate may be required from the DMLW Water Section. No SCRO involvement. The project is not located on State-owned land and the hydro source is not shown as navigable according to a review of DNR records. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone and associated tsunami. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 135/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 35.67 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.36 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $236,602 Costof Electricity $0.18/kWh Grant Fund Request $341,465 Price of Fuel $5.74/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $79,300 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2 The Port Graham Village Council proposes the construction of a cordwood fired biomass boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of four buildings: community hall; the clinic/police; an office; and a shop. The system would displace 5,365 gallons of fuel oil per year. The design and business/operating plan were funded in Round IV of the Renewable Energy Fund for $75,000. The project also received $127,640 from the US Department of Energy for design and permitting activities. The economics of this project are very challenging due mostly to the small amount of fuel that will be displaced and resulting in a benefit/cost ratio of 0.36. The applicant submitted additional heat loads that could be added to the system at the time they appealed AEA's decision to not fund the project. The integration costs associated with these loads was not included. The project B/C ratio would still be less than 1.0 with the additional loads, and even lower with the additional integration costs. This proposed change did not elevate the stage 2 score above the minimum threshold. No funding recommended. Did not pass stage 2. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 134/138 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description This project proposes the construction of a cordwood system in Port Graham to heat 4 community buildings: village council offices, clinic, public safety/fire station, and the Corporation offices. The Corporation will be invoiced for the heat for its building. This project will displace approximately 5,365 gallons per year of heating fuel. Design was funded through round 4 for $75,000. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments As noted by the applicant, timber harvest for biomass supply may require DNR Division of Forestry to be notified. No SCRO involvement. The project and related biomass sources are not located on State-owned lands. No DMLWinterests such as Section Line Easements or RS 2477 Rights of Way. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for construction of a Garn biomass district heating system that will heat four community buildings. Cordwood would come from road accessible village corporation lands near the facility. Itis anticipated that 100 cords per year would be needed. A biomass inventory assessment prepared by Chugachmiut Forestry stated that the annual allowable harvest on Port Graham village corporation lands is over 7,000 cords. As long as harvest areas are agreed upon, the resource should well be able to sustain this biomass system. The project proposal states that fuel source agreements are currently being negotiated with Port Graham Corporation and some Native allotment owners. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 133/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 21.86 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 75.67 2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.94 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 11.89 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.33 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 11.50 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 6 6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 1 7. Sustainability (5) 4.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 67.58 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 67.58 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $383,900 Cost of Electricity $0.49/kWh Grant Fund Request $307,120 Price of Fuel $5.00/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $76,780 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding This project shows a very good economic payback and much of the design work is already complete. The wind turbines have been operating for more than two years and there is an established performance baseline on which to model and design the secondary load system. Applicant has submitted a year (2012) of electrical load data along with wind turbine speed, a HOMER modeling file and hourly modeling of excess electricity. Additional high-resolution data (1-second interval) has been made available to study power quality with the existing system to identify if other factors need to be addressed in the final design. An earlier power sales agreement between the utility and the city is no longer in place. A new power sales agreement will be needed with the city and with the school/borough prior to allocation of construction funds. A 65% design has been completed for a 100KW electric boiler at the Sand Point health center and 500KW electric boiler at the school. AEA will need to accept the final design prior to release of any construction funds. Recommend full funding. AEA Funding Recommendation: $307,120 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 132/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description TDX AWE is requesting phase Ill and IV funding for installation of electric boilers at public facilities to utilize non-firm excess wind power for heating. This work was originally proposed in 2008 as part of the Sand Point wind turbine installation, but not implemented due to wind turbine project cost and schedule difficulties. Presently, lacking means to deliver excess wind, considerable excess wind energy is dissipated into a resistive dump load, and the Island’s two 500KW wind turbines are curtailed to 300KW each. This project proposes to install thermal nodes at 2 community facilities — the Sand Point School and Health Clinic - with total installed nameplate electric boiler capacity of 600 kW. Preliminary energy auditing (incorporating previous reports) will be performed on the facilities to determine the “energy baseline” from which project impact can be measured going forward. The project also includes integration of building energy use data into the existing power plant SCADA system such that ongoing operational performance can be measured and optimized. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No SCRO involvement. Applicant does not identify land ownership, but review indicates that the project is not on State-owned lands. No DMLWinterests such as Section Line Easements or RS 2477 Rights of Way. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 131/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 j= ALASKA (ENERGY AUTHORITY Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Phase Il App #1162 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 35 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 61.50 2. Matching Resources (15) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.52 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) aT) 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.83 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 10.00 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 3 6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 2 7. Sustainability (5) 3.33. Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 61.33 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 61.33 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $1,400,000 Cost of Electricity $1.20/kWh Grant Fund Request $85,000 Price of Fuel $5.61/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $00 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision AEA recommends continued feasibility work consistent with the reconnaissance study. TDX’s application is focused on the smaller of the two hydroelectric options identified. In order to fully address the feasibility of hydro development in Adak it is recommended that the scope of work and budget be increased to examine all recommendations in the reconnaissance report. Specific recommendations include performing feasibility level studies to further evaluate future load growth (or decline) along with fish processor loads, perform hydrology data collection and analysis, develop more detailed project cost estimates, and provide project capacity and storage recommendations with concept designs. Additional requirements for this phase include aquatic investigations and review of environmental flow restrictions, agency consultation, appropriate permitting investigations, and coordination with other community rehabilitation efforts particularly related to water and energy use. AEA recommends funding of $390,000 to complete a larger scope of work to include stream gauging, mapping, additional aquatic investigations, data collection as necessary, energy and economic modeling, concept designs, preliminary design criteria, initial agency consultation, and final recommendations for design and permitting. Recommended for funding with the special provision that additional funding be used to expand the scope of the feasibility study as described above. AEA Funding Recommendation: $390,000 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 130/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = AbdSkKA.. (@@EED ENERGY AUTHORITY Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Phase II App #1162 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: TDX Power, Inc. Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Project Description TDX previously completed an REF funded reconnaissance level analysis for a hydroelectric power plant in Adak. The reconnaissance study showed that a series of alpine lakes in the immediate vicinity of the city have the potential to displace the diesel power plant as the primary energy source for Adak. Resource availability, engineering considerations, land ownership and permitting issues were all considered. The proposed project is a continuation from the previous study that recommended two development options for further consideration and additional data collection and analysis before making a recommendation for future development. The first configuration consists of an intake at Lake Bonnie Rose and a powerhouse at Mitt Lake, with a preliminary capacity 440 kW and capable of generating 3,200 MWh’s at an estimated cost of $8 million. The alternative project utilizes the existing raw water transmission pipeline from Lake Bonnie Rose to the water treatment plant having a capacity of 75 kW to 90 depending on the domestic water needs and capable of producing approximately 760 MWh’s at an estimated cost of $2.75 million. An area of concern that required additional investigation are the instream flow requirements that significantly affect the economics of all of the diversion projects using water from the lake system. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Lakes targeted for feasibility study are unclear, but may include Lake De Marie, Lake Leone and Lake Bonnie Rose, all of which are BLM meandered, so any structures eventually placed on lands below mean high water within this water bodies will require a DMLW authorization. It doesn’t appear that any improvements will run under Sweeper Cove, so authorization will not be required there. No uplands are state-owned. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 129/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 18.8 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 78.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.67 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 12.67 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.33 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 12.38 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 4 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 4 7. Sustainability (5) 3.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 69.18 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 69.18 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $ Cost of Electricity $0.68/kWh Grant Fund Request $45,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.30/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $30,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The Hoonah Indian Association proposes feasibility and conceptual design for a district heating loop for Hoonah School/pool, autoshop/carving shed, Boys and Girls Club, HIA Cookhouse, Headstart, city hall, and a large privately owned commercial building (apartments, laundry, and store). This heating loop would be operated as a heat utility by HIA and could displace up to 32,000 of heating fuel annually. The community of Hoonah has developed a collaborative for energy planning and biomass development and is demonstrating initiative to understand potential biomass solutions to their high heating costs. Recommend full funding. AEA Funding Recommendation: $45,000 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 128/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description Hoonah Indian Association (HIA) proposes a feasibility study and conceptual design for a district heating loop for Hoonah School/pool, autoshop/carving shed, Boys and Girls Club, HIA Cookhouse, Headstart, city hall, and a large privately owned commercial building (apartments, laundry, and store). This heating loop could potentially be operated as a heat utility by HIA. HIA is also pursuing a community greenhouse, but this is not included in the feasibility study. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for a feasibility study for a biomass district heating system. The system would heat multiple buildings and a proposed greenhouse. Up to 32,000 gallons of heating fuel would be displaced using biomass. The Forest Service has been involved with Hoonah in looking at solutions to the high energy costs. Two mills near the town produce waste material that may be suitable for biomass. Landowners including the Forest Service, Hoonah Totem, and Sealaska may also be a source of biomass. The project appears to have adequate supplies of raw material available. Firewood is currently available for $250/cord. The study would determine a delivered price of wood pellets. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 127/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Indian River Hydroelectric Project Construction App #1160 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Standard Application Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 36.00 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.96 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $4,526,280 Cost of Electricity $0.74/kWh Grant Fund Request $977,000 Price of Fuel $4.60/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $280 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2 AREF Round 6 grant (#7060978) in the amount of $3,300,000 funded complete construction of the proposed hydro facility. The grantee is seeking an additional grant of $977,000. The proposed project did not pass the stage 2 minimum score and is not recommended for funding. The primary reason for the low score was the economic feasibility of the project scored in criteria 4 a, b and c, which comprise 40 percent of the score. With the additional $977,000 of costs requested in this grant, the benefit/cost ratio dropped from 1.57 when the project was reviewed in fall 2012 to 0.96 in the fall 2014 economic evaluation. This resulted in earning only 1 point out of 10 for criteria 4a. Additionally it is noted that the applicant has encountered significant delays in the submission of required deliverables associated with project milestones. AEA's Community Assistance program provides help with identification of funding for energy projects; the applicant is encouraged to contact this program for assistance moving the project forward. Additionally, the applicant may be eligible fora loan from AEA's Power Project Fund (PPF) loan program. Not recommended for funding; did not meet stage 2 minimum score. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 126/138 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 ‘= ALASKA... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Indian River Hydroelectric Project Construction App #1160 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: City of Tenakee Springs DBA Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Tenakee Springs Electric Department Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Construction Project Description The City of Tenakee Springs is constructing a hydroelectric project on Indian River. This will be a 180 kW low head, run-of- river plant displacing the use of 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually, or 90% of annual electric utility diesel consumption. At least 6,500 additional gallons of fuel oil can be displaced by heating public buildings with excess energy from the hydro project. The city successfully completed construction of Phase 1 of this project in June 2014, which consisted of extending access roads and trails to the powerhouse and intake sites. Phase 2 will commence this fall, which will construct the balance of the project. The final engineer's cost estimate exceeds the funds the city has available for this project, so the city is requesting additional grant funds to ensure Phase 2 can be completed without disruption. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Queen Charlotte/Fairweather fault system located ~70 km from the project. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 125/138 01/06/2015 App #1159 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 7=hse— (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting Standard Application Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 34.83 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.99 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $3,380,000 Cost of Electricity $0.80/kWh Grant Fund Request $102,300 Price of Fuel $5.08/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $56,900 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2 While the proposed project appears to be technically feasible using an available local hydro resource, which if paid for by REF grant funds could reduce the cost of electricity for Elfin Cove, the project did not pass the stage 2 (technical and economic evaluation) minimum score. The primary contributing factor to the low stage 2 score is a relatively low benefit/cost ratio of 0.99. This coupled with high technical complexity associated with operating a two-stage hydro project, and increasing construction costs (22% higher) over those presented in earlier grant applications, and late deliverables for the applicant's current grant for the same project, all contributed to the stage 2 score. Not recommended for funding; did not pass stage 2. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 124/138 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALsSkKAW. (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting App #1159 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Community of Elfin Cove Non- Proposed Phase(s): Design Profit Corporation, Elfin Cove Utility Commission Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design Project Description The community of Elfin Cove proposes a hydroelectric project that would be located on Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake, located approximately one mile south of Elfin Cove at 58.19N, 136.35W. The project will include a run-of-river hydroelectric plant between Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake (upper project) and a storage hydroelectric project between Jim's Lake and tidewater (lowerproject). A January 20, 2014 updated sizing analysis from Polarconsult recommended a configuration with a 35 kWrun-of-river upper project with a 105 kW storage lower project for a total installed capacity of 140 kW, based on updated hydrology and utility load data. The recommended project is estimated to displace 89% of the annual diesel fuel consumed by the electric utility generators. This funding request supplements the community’s existing funding for project permitting. FERC declared that the project was not eligible for license exemption in August 2014, so the project will require a FERC license. Based on recent FERC licensing processes in Southeast Alaska, the community anticipates more extensive resource studies than expected when the permitting budget was developed in 2010. The community is requesting this supplemental grant so the FERC licensing process can be completed without delay arising from funding constraints. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Does not qualify for FERC exemption. Wishes to develop existing ADL 100853 upland ROW & possible needs authorization for below MHW. Plans Spring 2015 site visit. Water Right application received. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Queen Charlotte/Fairweather fault system located ~30 km from the project. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 123/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= ALASKA __ (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project App #1158 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 13.12 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 40.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.25 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.00 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.33 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 6.38 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 13 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 3 7. Sustainability (5) 3.17 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 45.00 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 45.00 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $5,461,000 Cost of Electricity $0.30/kWh Grant Fund Request $1,800,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.16/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $1,061,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision A Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 6 grant (#7060929) in the amount of $2,600,000 was provided by AEA to fund the construction phase of the proposed project through completion. The grant application was evaluated at the time using the grantee’s expected total project cost provided at the time. The project is currently expecting higher construction costs and is seeking additional funding of $1,800,000 from REF in the current Round 8 evaluations to initiate the construction phase. Itis noted that the applicant has encountered significant delays in the submission of required deliverables, and the applicant has not yet demonstrated site control. AEA recommends full funding with special provisions. The applicant shall satisfy the following special provisions prior to the issuance of a R8 grant or expenditure of any existing project grant funds. Any obligation of project funds prior to the acceptance by AEA of the special provisions shall be at the applicants risk. 1. Demonstrate site control 2. Become current on financial and progress reports 3. Amend existing grants to reflect proposed milestone and deliverables 4. Provide detailed project management plan addressing project controls, reporting, and change management AEA Funding Recommendation: $1,800,000 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 122/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 l= ALASKA. (Ql ENERGY AUTHORITY Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project App #1158 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: City of King Cove Proposed Phase(s): Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Construction Project Description The Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project will result in a modest, run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility using Waterfall Creek and consisting of a concrete diversion/intake structure, 4,500 feet of HDPE penstock pipeline, 16 feet by 40 feet metal powerhouse on a concrete slab, Pelton Impulse Turbine and induction generator, remote-automatic control system, and 5,000 feet access road. This facility will be a working partner to the City’s existing Delta Creek hydroelectric project, which has been operating for the last eighteen years. It will produce 1 megawatt (MW) of electricity. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments A Water Rights permit issued from the Water Section. No opposition known. Non FERC. No SCRO involvement. (Likely no SCRO involvement as it appears Delta Creek and tributaries are not navigable.) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider ground motions generated by earthquakes along the Aleutian subduction zone. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 121/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.00 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $13,717,479 Cost of Electricity $0.17/kKWh Grant Fund Request $4,000,000 _— Price of Fuel $4.37/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $10,497,695 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The proposed heat recovery project would make excellent use of wasted heat. The project could serve as a demonstration of Organic Rankine Cycle generators operating in arctic conditions and may prove economical even if performance were lower than expected. However, as described in Section 1.6 of the Request for Applications (RFA AEA 15003): "During the economic evaluation and scoring of applications, only the economic benefits to the public, direct and/or indirect will be included in the benefit/cost analysis. For example, if 50 percent of the energy produced is for the purpose of providing power to one private industry user, that portion of the energy will not count as a public benefit in the economic evaluation." TDX North Slope Generating, Inc. exists to serve Prudhoe Bay oil service companies. AEA has concluded that the project does not provide an economic public benefit consistent with the above description that could be used in an economic evaluation. Per program regulations 3 AAC107.645(b): "The authority will reject applications that it determines under (a) of this section not to be technically and economically feasible, or not to provide sufficient public benefit, and will notify each applicant whose application is rejected of the reasons for rejection." No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 120/138 Election District: T-40 Arctic 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description TDX proposes to install (3) 800 kWe Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) power generation units to generate electric power from waste heat in the flue gas of two Solar Turbine Taurus 70 gas turbines. Furthermore TDX intends to utilize low grade waste heat downstream of the ORC topre-heat turbine inlet air to significantly improve the emissions profile at low temperatures. This new facility will require an extended 40x64’ structure to the west of the new gas turbine plant building. Approximately 10.5 MWth waste heat would be drawn from the gas turbine stacks and used to produce 2.1 MWe (net) electricity year round through the ORC system. Downstream the flue gas is exhausted through a separate stack. Systems are built on a pile foundation with an air gap. The extended facility will remain on the footprint of the existing gravel pad. Glycol fluid coolers are placed on the roof of the extension from lower level switchgear and shop rooms. Heat is intercepted downstream of the ORC and upstream of the fluid coolers and used in a coil to preheat inlet combustion air from each side of the main turbine room. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Proposed project is within the Deadhorse Airport DOT ILMA - coordination/approval from DOT/PF will be necessary. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 119/138 01/06/2015 App #1156 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Northwest Alaska Wind Resource Assessment and Intertie Study @mmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.40 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $25,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.63/kWh Grant Fund Request $230,000 _— Price of Fuel $5.61/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $00 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The applicant was not able to demonstrate in their application, and through follow-up questions, that they are an eligible applicant for the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) as outlined in the Request for Applications and in statute. Additionally, the proposed project is already covered under the scope of an REF Round 1 grant to the Northwest Arctic Borough entitled "Buckland Deering and Noorvik Wind Construction" (grant number 2195377). These funds should be used first to study the new location on Hotham Peak and further investigate possible benefits of an intertie beyond what was done in the existing conceptual design report. The applicant should consider approaching the grantee for 2195377, Northwest Arctic Borough, to team up on that project. AEA’s community assistance staff and technical staff can assist as needed. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 118/138 Election District: T-40 Arctic 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J = ALASKA... (lm ENERGY AUTHORITY Northwest Alaska Wind Resource Assessment and Intertie Study App #1156 Standard Application Project Type: Wind, Transmission Energy Region: Northwest Artic Applicant: Northwest Alaska Tribal Energy Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Organization (NATEO) Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Project Description NATEO proposes to assess the wind energy resource potential on Hotham Peak, between Noorvik and Selawik, along with an intertie between Noorvik, Kiana, and Selawik. According to modeling completed in the 2012 Noorvik Wind-Diesel Conceptual Draft Report, the most ideal location for a larger turbine would be on the southwest slope of Hotham Ridge between Noorvik and Selawik. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection for placement of a met tower and geotechnical fieldwork on Hotham Peak; permitting, purchasing, transporting, and installing a met tower; studying the wind resource for one year; and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical investigation. The Intertie between Noorvik, Kiana, and Selawik will be evaluated by looking at land use, permitting, and cost. AC and DC power transmission systems will be considered for cost estimating and O&M purposes. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Although precise met tower locations are not known/identified, the general location apears to be within Selawik National Wildlife Refuge - not on state land. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 117/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 l= ALASKA. (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY City of Noorvik Solar-PV App #1155 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score __ Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.69 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $165,000 Costof Electricity $0.65/kWh Grant Fund Request $165,000 Price of Fuel $6.36/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $1,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The City of Noorvik applied for $164,000 in grant funding for construction of a $165,000 20kW fixed-tilt solar photovoltaic project in Noorvik. 10kW of panels would be installed on a City building and 10kW would be installed on a Council building. This application is not associated with previous REF grant funding. The AVEC tariff regarding “qualified co-generators and small power producers” states an 18.2 kW cap for the community of Noorvik. There is an existing solar installation of 12 kW at the water treatment plant, leaving only 6.2 kW available, less than the proposed project. AEA requested a letter of support, MOA or copy of applicable utility rates and standards from the applicant but did not receive the requested information. AEA confirmed with the utility that even though the applicant does not intend to sell power back to the grid, if they are connected to the grid, the tariff applies. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: T-40 Arctic Page 116/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 T= ALdSkA. (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY City of Noorvik Solar-PV App #1155 Standard Application Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Northwest Artic Applicant: City of Noorvik Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Project Description With Round VIII AEA Renewable Energy funding, the City of Noorvik would install a 10kW solar photovoltaic array on the City building as well as install another 10kW solar photovoltaic array on the Noorvik IRA Council building. The anticipated annual generation, according to the new version of the PVWatts Calculator, will be approximately 8,982 kWh/building for a total of 17,964 kWh for both the City and IRA buildings, for an annual average of 2.85 kWh/m2/day per building. That translates into a total of $11,742 electrical savings per year for the City and IRA combined at an electrical rate of $.65/kWh. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project is for a feasibility study for a biomass district heating system. The system would heat multiple buildings and a proposed greenhouse. Up to 32,000 gallons of heating fuel would be displaced using biomass. The Forest Service has been involved with Hoonah in looking at solutions to the high energy costs. Two mills near the town produce waste material that may be suitable for biomass. Landowners including the Forest Service, Hoonah Totem, and Sealaska may also be a source of biomass. The project appears to have adequate supplies of raw material available. Firewood is currently available for $250/cord. The study would determine a delivered price of wood pellets. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 115/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score __ Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 27.88 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 48.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.59 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 2.67 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 0.50 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 20 6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 6 7. Sustainability (5) 4.33 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 48.38 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 48.38 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $299,754 Cost of Electricity $0.63/kWh Grant Fund Request $296,786 Price of Fuel $6.37/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $107,968 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a moderate amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the project demonstrates marginal economic value. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the design phase that can significantly improve the project economics. Partial funding of $50,000 recommended for final design. AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim Page 114/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Eek and use it to heat the city’s water system via heating connection into the adjacent water distribution loop main. The heat recovery system is projected to save the water system 4,000 gallons of the estimated 5,900 gallons of heating oil used per year. The existing water distribution loop is located 100 feet from the powerhouse; heat recovered from the power plant and injected into the circulating distribution loop can also be conveyed into to the more distant community water storage tank. The proposed connecting heat recovery pipe to the will be buried 1.5-in twin PEX carrier pipe insulated with a minimum of 1.25-in polyurethane insulation. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No SCRO involvement. (Improvements are to existing heat infrastructure.) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 113/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 CTY Unalakleet Wind-Diesel Optimization App #1153 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score __ Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.77 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6.Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $ Cost of Electricity $0.42/kWh Grant Fund Request $295,775 _ Price of Fuel $6.26/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $29,650 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended Unalakleet Village Electric Cooperative (UVEC) has applied for a $295,775 grant, with $29,650 in matching funds, to collect and analyze high-resolution electric power data from the hybrid diesel-wind project in Unalakleet. The results of the data collection and analysis would be used to model the system and as the basis for a conceptual design report describing system improvements to optimize its performance in terms of power quality, electric grid stability, and fuel savings. The UVEC wind farm is performing nearly as expected in a class four wind resource and UVEC's recent improvements to the controls will result in further performance improvements. There is limited potential for improving the production performance of the UVEC diesel-wind hybrid project. Ata proposed cost of over $300,000 for the data collection and analysis, the potential incremental performance improvements do not support these high costs. AEA does support continued improvements to the wind-diesel system performance and recommends continuing to work with AEA's wind and powerhouse programs and staff to identify specific areas to improve grid stability and efficiency in a more cost-effective manner. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 112/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = Ass... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Unalakleet Wind-Diesel Optimization App #1153 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Bering Straits Applicant: Unalakleet Valley Electric Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility Cooperative/UVEC Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility Project Description The hybrid wind-diesel system in Unalakleet is operational, but not performing to its full potential. UVEC will work with Marsh Creek to deploy a data collection system that will provide reliable synchronized information at a 1 Hz data rate from the wind farm, the feeder from the wind farm to the power plant, and all equipment in the diesel plant. Along with voltages and currents it will acquire waveforms of voltages under certain conditions. Marsh Creek will coordinate with NorthernPower to ensure useful data is obtained from the wind farm. The data will be reviewed by Marsh Creek, Northern Power and the Alaska Center for Energy and Power/ACEP. Informed hypotheses to address and mitigate problems with the system will be developed and modeled. From this work a conceptual design for modification to the system will be developed. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No SCRO involvement. (Exact location is unclear, but it appears the project will not be within the boundaries of USS 4394 or RST 456. If it does cross the boundaries of either, location should be moved.) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 111/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.06 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $309,450 Cost of Electricity $0.73/kWh Grant Fund Request $247,560 Price of Fuel $6.03/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $61,890 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The Lake and Pen Borough proposes the construction of cordwood boilers for the communities of Port Alsworth (Improvement Center and Fire Hall), Nondalton (single structure or multiple units), and Pedro Bay (Smokehouse Bay Annex). This project would displace approximately 9,104 gallons of heating fuel. This application is based on a feasibility study that was completed in June of 2010 that recommends different technology from what is proposed in this application. There is no discussion of the engineering design or the business/operational plan of the proposed system. Wood inventory work has only been completed on Native Allotments in this area. While the volume of wood required for this project is very small, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated the sustainability of this project without a business/operating plan. AEA recommends no funding at this time, but encourages the Lake and Pen Borough to apply for updated feasibility studies through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group and to further develop the business and operational plan for the biomass systems. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 110/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Lake and Pen Borough proposes the construction of cordwood wood boilers for the communities of Port Alsworth (Improvement Center and Fire Hall), Nondalton (single structure or multiple units), and Pedro Bay (Smokehouse Bay Annex). This project will displace approximately 9,104 gallons of heating fuel. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Possible Div. of Forestry authorization if tree harvest on State lands is proposed but otherwise no evident DMLW permit requirements for this proposal.Wood-burning boiler installation to displace current use of fuel oil in 3 communities: Nodalton, Pedro Bay and Port Alsworth. Tree harvests on private updlands identified for Nondalton and Pedro Bay but no information on wood source provided for Port Alsworth. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for construction of cordwood fueled outdoor wood boiler heating systems located in the Lake Illiamna region of southwest Alaska. The heating systems would be installed in three different villages within the region (Nondalton, Pedro Bay, and Port Alsworth). Itis estimated in the proposal that 9,104 gallons of fuel oil per year would be offset annually at an average price of $5.65 per gallon. The proposal states that area landowners support the project and have signed letters of intent to provide wood for the boilers. These landowners comprise the associated village corporations in the area. Itis estimated that 20-80 cords of wood in total would be needed per year for the project. The annual wood cost is estimated to be about $29,000 or about $360 per cord. It is unclear what extent of timber resources is available in these particular villages although a boiler is currently operating in Kokhanok. The Tanana Chiefs Conference has performed Native Allotment inventories in the Kokhanok area and these volumes per acre summaries could provide useful data concerning the forest resources in this area. At first glance however, the relatively small amount of wood required for this project appears to be sustainable. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 109/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 7= ea (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY St. Paul - 80% Renewable by 2020 - Community Energy Baseline Study App #1151 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $ Cost of Electricity $0.53/kWh Grant Fund Request $202,696 Price of Fuel $5.04/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $50,673 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended TDX Power, is applying for a $202,696 grant, and offering $50,673 in match, to perform a community energy baseline study in St. Paul. The application did not demonstrate that the proposed work is eligible under the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) as defined in section 1.5 of the request for applications. Specifically, the applicant stated in question 4.1 regarding the proposed energy resource: “The proposed Community Energy Baseline Study does not include identification of renewable energy resources. Previous studies conducted by TDX Power and others have shown that St. Paul is in a location where sufficient wind is available for abundant electrical power generation. In addition, 15 years of continued operation of the wind farms on St. Paul have validated the resource. This study defines energy use, transportation and efficiency.” While AEA supports the general “baseline study” approach outlined in the application to better understanding energy efficiency opportunities and energy generation and distribution needs in a community, the application as presented does not fit within the scope of the Renewable Energy Fund. The proposed work is in alignment with the Aleut Regional Energy Plan, currently underway with AEA funding. AEA recommends that the applicant incorporate this proposal into the regional energy plan for further development and prioritization. AEA staff will work with the applicant and other regional planners to incorporate aspects of the proposed baseline study. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 108/138 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 v= ALASKA (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY St. Paul - 80% Renewable by 2020 —- Community Energy Baseline Study App #1151 Standard Application Project Type: Other Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: TDX Power, Inc. Proposed Phase(s): Recon Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon Project Description TDX believes that there is sufficient wind energy at St. Paul that eventually 80% of the total energy consumption for electricity, heating, and ground transportation on the island could be sourced from renewable energy resources. Given the fifteen years of continuous wind power experience and recent improvements in controls, electrical storage and heat utilization, TDX is committing to reaching our goal of 80% Renewable by 2020. Although the first steps have been taken there are a number of important steps that need to be completed to fully develop and implement this vision. Under this grant proposal TDX is asking for support to conduct and implement a Community Energy Baseline study. This study would define the energy sources and energy resources, energy use on the island for electricity, heat and transportation, and provide a solid baseline of current needs. This information would also be used to create a roadmap to define specific approaches to both the reduction of energy consumption as well as the design of the renewable energy delivery system and required auxiliary components. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No SCRO involvement. (St. Paul community energy use baseline study and products including collection of data and production of reporting tools. No land usages or infrastructure installation proposed. No DMLW authorizations required based on reported methodology.) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 107/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA_ (Ql ENERGY AUTHORITY Adak Community Energy Baseline Study App #1150 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $ Cost of Electricity $1.20/kWh Grant Fund Request $85,000 Price of Fuel $5.61/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $17,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended Adak Generating LLC, a subsidiary of TDX Power, is applying for an $85,000 grant, and offering $17,000 in match, to perform a community energy baseline study in Adak. The application did not demonstrate that the proposed work is eligible under the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) as defined in section 1.5 of the request for applications. Specifically, the applicant stated in question 4.1 regarding the proposed energy resource: “The proposed Community Energy Baseline Study does not include identification of renewable energy resources. Previous studies conducted by TDX Power and others have shown that Adak is in a location where sufficient hydro is available for abundant electrical power generation. This study defines energy use, transportation and efficiency.” A Round 2 REF grant used to study potential hydro, geothermal and wind resources, used a portion of the funding to determine the community load. This and other existing research was not cited in the application. Finally, key sections of the application form were marked “N/A”. While AEA supports the general “baseline study” approach outlined in the application to better understanding energy efficiency opportunities and energy generation and distribution needs in a community, the application as presented does not fit within the scope of the Renewable Energy Fund. The proposed work is in alignment with the Aleut Regional Energy Plan, currently underway with AEA funding. AEA recommends that the applicant incorporate this proposal into the regional energy plan for further development and prioritization. AEA staff will work with the applicant and other regional planners to incorporate aspects of the proposed baseline study. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 106/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= (ED ENERGY AUTHORITY Adak Community Energy Baseline Study App #1150 Standard Application Project Type: Other Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: Adak Generating, LLC.,A Proposed Phase(s): Recon Subsidiary of TDX power, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon Project Description TDX believes that there is sufficient hydro, wind, or hydrokinetic renewable energy at Adak that eventually 70% of the total energy consumption for electricity, heating, and ground transportationon the island could be sourced from renewable energy resources. TDX is committing to reaching a goal of 70% Renewable by 2023. Although the first steps have been taken there are a number of important steps that need to be completed to fully develop and implement this vision. Under this grant proposal TDX is asking for support to conduct and implement a Community Energy Baseline study. This study would define the energy sources and energy resources, energy use in Adak for electricity, heat and transportation, and provide a solid baseline of current needs. This information would also be used to create a roadmap to define specific approaches to both the reduction of energy consumption as well as the design of the renewable energy delivery system and required auxiliary components. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No SCRO involvement. (Adak community energy use baseline study and products including collection of data and production of reporting tools. No Installation of infrastructure or other land usages proposed. No DMLW authorizations required based on reported methodology.) DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments Geothermal could be considered as a potential energy source as well. The Navy conducted a study from 1976 to 1982 and drilled geothermal observation holes, reported in Katzenstein, Allan M., and Whelan, James A., 1985, Geothermal potential of Adak Island, Alaska: China Lake, California, Naval Weapons Center, NWC TP 6676, 92 p. They reported that: “Favorable results point to the desirability of further drilling to verify the existence of an economic geothermal energy source.” The Adak Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Report (AEA REF Grant #2195450, August 29, 2011) reports that a consultant hired to evaluate geothermal potential on Adak was unable to obtain the results of those test. DGGS recently obtained a copy of this report and AEA has this document as well. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 105/138 01/06/2015 =_ Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 SS on Southcentral Small Hydro Assessments App #1149 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.66 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $ Cost of Electricity $0.13/kWh Grant Fund Request $75,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.13/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $75,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended A reconnaissance study can be completed for the suggested projects without performing stream gauging. There are years of data compiled on Ship Creek stream flow available through the USGS and agencies holding water rights. There are also enough gauges in the Seward area to supporta reconnaissance level analysis to assess potential hydroelectric generation. Without the stream gauging component, the applicant has committed sufficient match to perform reconnaissance level studies. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: L-23 Taku Page 104/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= ALASKA... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Southcentral Small Hydro Assessments App #1149 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Railbelt Applicant: Chugach Electric Association, Proposed Phase(s): Recon fia Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon Project Description The project is to assess the hydroelectric energy potential of Lowell Creek and Ship Creek. The proposed work includes review of the public record, the installation of stream gauging equipment at each location to measure annual water flow of each of the creeks, site reconnaissance, identification of permit requirements, and concept development. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Initial reconnaissance phases of proposed run-of-river hydro electric generation plants in Lowell Creek near Seward and Ship Creek at Ft. Richardson. No maps, plans or specific site locations yet provided but general project description indicates that DNR-managed state upland and shorelands underlying potentially navigable streams (depending on specific site location) may be involved. Proposed setting of stream gauges within navigable waterways will require authoriztion from SCRO Permitting Unit. Additional DMLW authorizations from SCRO and /or Water Resources appears likely for any development beyond this investigative phase. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 103/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _ (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project App #1148 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score’ Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 28.04 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 40.83 2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.71 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.28 4. Project Readiness (5) 1.17 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 7.25 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 11 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 5 7. Sustainability (5) 2.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 49.74 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 49.74 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $4,283,056 Cost of Electricity $0.64/kWh Grant Fund Request $305,000 _‘ Price of Fuel $7.18/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $3,050 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding ANTHC requested funding on behalf of Scammon Bay for a feasibility and conceptual design; plus 2 to 3 years of stream gauging. Scammon Bay's application was based on a feasibility study completed by Hatch in mid-September 2014. Stream gauging is typically done during reconnaissance. AEA recommends the project be partially funded to complete stream gauging. AEA and the applicant discussed and agreed to AEA management of this phase of the project. AEA has concerns with the lack of stream gauging information; the fact that earlier hydro studies questioned the feasibility; the fact that Hatch recommended additional 2 to 3 years of stream gauging; and concerns that the feasibility tended to be optimistic considering other concerns noted above. AEA recommends partial funding of $90,000 for stream gauging/reconnaissance phase only. AEA Funding Recommendation: $90,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 102/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (Ql ENERGY AUTHORITY Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project App #1148 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Applicant: City of Scammon Bay Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Recon Project Description Scammon Bay requests funding for feasibility and conceptual design for a 188 kW R-O-R hydro project on Hillside Creek. Proposed activities include surveying, 3 years of stream gauging and a 35% project design. Capital cost is estimated at $4.3M. Services to be provided by ANTHC DEHE. The basin resource size is limited at 0.7 sq mile, which reduces in flow during winter months. Existing electrical generation and distribution system in Scammon Bay is operated by AVEC. Project features would include an intake structure with coanda screen, 4300 If of 16” dia penstock, and a powerhouse with a single 188 kW dual nozzle pelton turbine, controls, etc. Expect FERC will have jurisdiction as Scammon Bay is located within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. Scammon Bay has requested Rnd 8 REF grant for heat recovery. AVEC has applied to REF for wind turbines to be installed in Scammon Bay. This application includes a feasibility study performed by Hatch for a hydroelectric project entitled Hillside Creek Hydroelectric Project. Completed in September 2014, the report was funded through a Round 5 REF grant (#847). However, there are a number of items within the report that raise questions, such as how a hydro project on Hillside Creek would interact with current community water supply for Scammon Bay (on the same creek) water is diverted for community use and/or needs to be re-pumped; over-estimation of hydro generation in 5 months of winter; under-estimation of capital cost from leaving out steep access road (13.5% grade) needed for intake/penstock construction; under estimation of licensing costs due to lands within the Wildlife Refuge, etc.) DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments A Water Rights Certificate likely not required during feasibility study. The in-river equipment may need DMLW permits. Feasibility and Conceptual Design phase, three years of in stream gauging and 35% of design for the hillside hydro project. Penstock is on land owned by the Askinu Native Corp. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 101/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 18.25 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 89.33 2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.33 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 16.44 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 14.50 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 2 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 2 7. Sustainability (5) 4.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 69.69 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 69.69 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $872,635 Cost of Electricity $0.42/kWh Grant Fund Request $832,635 Price of Fuel $4.17/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $124,708 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The Southeast Island School District currently operates cordwood fueled heating systems at their Coffman Cove and Thorne Bay Schools. The Thorne Bay system is undersized, so the school district is proposing the relocation of the Thorne Bay boilers to the schools in Hollis and Whale Pass. The application also includes the design and construction of replacement boilers for Thorne Bay and the design and construction of a heating system for the Naukati School to replace the heat recovery system that is being eliminated by the decommissioning of the Naukati power plant. The Southeast Island School District has proven the successful operation of cordwood boiler systems and has integrated the operation and maintenance of these systems into their culture. Greenhouses heated by the biomass systems have been installed on Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove, and more are planned in conjunction with this project. SEISD is a success story for the State of Alaska Biomass Program. Recommend full funding. AEA Funding Recommendation: $832,635 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 100/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = Aust A Southeast Island School District Wood Boilers App #1147 Heat Application Project Type: Biomass Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Southeast Island School Proposed Phase(s): Construction District Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Construction Project Description The project proposes the design and construction of cordwood boiler systems for Hollis, Naukati, and Whale Pass Schools (including teacher housing and greenhouses), and the replacement of the Thorne Bay school GarnPacs. The GarnPacs currently operated by the Thorne Bay School will be relocated Hollis and Whale Pass. The project will use wood biomass to replace diesel as the heat energy source by installing wood fired boilers in four school communities. The applicant has purchased a greenhouse for Naukati that will also use the heat from the boiler and will provide healthy, nutritious food for students and the community, in addition to giving students opportunities to learn life-long skills. Thorne Bay School received an AEA grantin 2009 to install two GARN wood fired boiler units, and while the system has been operating, it has proven too small for the job. The units currently in use, (proto-types), can easily be moved with a forklift, so part of the proposal is to install them at two other school sites, Whale Pass and Hollis Schools. In order to heat the facility in Thorne Bay, which includes a teacher housing unit and a hydroponic greenhouse, the current system would be replaced with 2 GARN 3200’s, and a structure built to house the boilers. Very little reconstruction would be necessary in Thorne Bay due to the portability of the current Garn Pacs. In Whale Pass and Hollis, structures would be built to house the boilers. A wood storage area will also be constructed at Hollis, now the only one of the four communities where there is no wood storage shed. At Naukati School a wood fired boiler (2 2200 Garns) would be installed. The Naukati School is the same size as Howard Valentine School, in Coffman Cove, which has a currently operating Garn system. Naukati will be modeled after the Coffman Cove set-up. Wood storage facilities have already been built in Naukati and Whale Pass, with 30 cords in Naukati and less than 10 in Whale Pass. Southeast Island School District is committed to moving in a direction of local energy independence, breathing life into small business enterprises such as wood cutting, and involving students in growing food, stoking the boilers, and acquiring both work and meaningful life skills. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not state land DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project was reviewed for the Round 7 application period. No changes for wood requirement have been made in the current application (approximately 250 cords per year). This projectis for upgrade of two Garn boilers at the Thorne Bay School to larger capacity units. The original units would be moved and installed in the Whale Pass and Hollis Schools. The project would also fund a Garn installation at the Naukati School. All of the schools are located within the Tongass National Forest on Prince of Wales Island. The proposal states that approximately 20-40 million board feet is available sustainably per Forest Service estimates. A vendor has been delivering wood to the Thorne Bay School and it appears other vendors are available. A sustainable wood supply for the approximately 250 annual cord consumption does not seem to be a problem. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 99/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 v= ALASKA. (lm ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project App #1146 Standard Application AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding with Special Provision The Applicant made an appeal to the AEA Executive Director contesting the original recommendation of no funding due to incomplete prior phases and incomplete information sufficient to perform an economic and technical evaluation. The AEA executive director accepted the appeal for reconsideration. AEA staff performed the stage 2 scoring of the application as required by the appeal process and performed a subsequent review in order to establish a recommended funding amount and any special provisions. AEA staff anticipate that Kenai Hydro may be able to perform the geotechnical component of design related activity in FY2016. AEA estimates geotechnical investigations will cost $394,000 with Kenai Hydro providing $36,000 (9%) as match. Recommended grant funding under Kenai Hydro’s application is $358,000. In order to receive design funding, Kenai Hydro will be required to complete the feasibility and concept design report to include, among typical feasibility work, analysis of alternative schemes including the no action alternative, alternative tunnel and powerhouse locations, a bored intake gate shaft with multilevel lake taps in lieu of a concrete intake structure, assess need for upper grant lake channel dredging, perform detailed energy modeling with reservoir levels, prepare quantity based cost estimates of alternatives, and provide economic analysis of benefits using tariff/contract/market based projected savings. The study shall include consideration of Falls Creek diversion using HDPE conveyance and recommendations for Grant Lake power house and turbine sizing if Falls Creek diversion may be constructed at a later date. Report shall be prepared under the direction of a qualified PE and shall be subject to AEA approval. Kenai Hydro LLC did not include proposed staff or resumes for qualified Alaska PE’s to perform the proposed design work. Kenai Hydro will be required to publicly solicit qualifications based proposals for performing the design work funded through this grant. Contract and award shall be subject to AEA approval. AEA recommends partial funding with the special provisions listed above. AEA Funding Recommendation: $358,000 Election District: P-31 Homer/South Kenai Page 97/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= ALASKA __ (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project App #1146 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 7.91 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 45.67 2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.28 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 1.89 4. Project Readiness (5) 1.33 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 5.63 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 17 6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 1 7. Sustainability (5) 3.33. Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 34.09 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 34.09 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $59,067,808 Cost of Electricity $0.18/kWh Grant Fund Request $358,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.18/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $36,000 Page 96/138 01/06/2015 = ALASKA (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project App #1146 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Railbelt Applicant: Kenai Hydro LLC Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Design Project Description The Grant Lake Hydroelectric Facility is a proposed 5 MW storage hydro project undergoing licensing (FERC P-13212) located near Moose Pass on the Kenai Peninsula in Southcentral Alaska and serving the railbelt. The project features include an existing lake to provide approximately 15,900 acre-ft of storage, a conveyance tunnel, annual energy of 19,500 MWh at an estimated cost of $60 million. The proposed project is comprised of an intake structure in Grant Lake, a tunnel, a surge tank, a penstock, a powerhouse, a tailrace detention pond, a switchyard with disconnect switch and step-up transformer, and an overhead or underground transmission line. The intake would be in Grant Lake near its outlet. Water would be conveyed from the intake through a 3200’ tunnel and a 150 foot penstock to a powerhouse containing two Francis-type turbines. The powerhouse would be located near the bank of Grant Creek and would discharge through a tailrace into Grant Creek. A transmission line would connect the facility to the Railbelt grid near Moose Pass. Supplemental water will be routed from the intake tunnel to provide instream flows for fish in the bypass reach. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project is on DNR managed land and DNR authorization required for the project. Current authorizations are for the environmental studies only. No applications received for any facility authorizations and consultation not complete for the Iditarod National Historic Trail. Concurrence required from USFS, KPB, KRSMA and SCRO for any trail reroutes per the area plan. Iditarod National Historic Trail is at this location and project is within KRSMA. Water Right application received. Itis a FERC project. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider ground motions from earthquakes generated on the Aleutian subduction zone. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 95/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.98 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 56.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.97 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 5.33 4. Project Readiness (5) 1.83 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 2.37 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 22 6. Local Support (5) 2.00 Regional (of all applications) 2 7. Sustainability (5) 3.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 32.51 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 32.51 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $50,000 Cost of Electricity $0.18/kWh Grant Fund Request $50,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.11/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $19,338 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding Interior Regional Housing Authority is proposing a biomass feasibility study in order to examine to potential is using woody biomass to heat three IRHA facilities - the IRHA office building in Fairbanks, the IRHA warehouse in Fairbanks and the Meda Lord Center which is a 15 unit senior housing complex in Nenana. All three facilities currently are using heating oil, and have been weatherized. AEA strongly supports this project and the use of high efficiency, low emissions biomass heating in the Fairbanks and Nenana areas. AEA recommends full funding and recommends considering a natural gas option in the feasibility report for the Fairbanks buildings. AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 Election District: A-1 Downtown Fairbanks Page 94/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description IRHA is proposing a biomass feasibility study in order to examine the costs and possibilities of various appliances and woody biomass sources for three IRHA facilities - the IRHA office building in Fairbanks, the IRHA warehouse in Fairbanks and the Meda Lord Center which is a 15 unit senior housing complex in Nenana. All three facilities currently are using heating oil, and have been weatherized. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Feasiblility study/reporting phase will likely not require DMLW permits; however, if in future a biomass project is pursued, biomass products which are expected to be purchased on the open market may come from timber sales from state land. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for a feasibility study for three Interior Regional Housing Authority facilities in Fairbanks and Nenana. The study will look at various types of biomass for heating that include cordwood, wood pellets and pellet logs. All these biomass types are available in the Fairbanks-Nenana area and with the State Division of Forestry, Toghotthele Corp. and the Fairbanks North Star Borough all offering timber sales, supply should not be a problem. Superior Pellet Fuels is also producing wood pellets and pellet logs in North Pole. Fairbanks Area state forestry is currently offering timber in the area well below its allowable cut threshold. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 93/138 01/06/2015 = ALASKA (lm ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Kake Senior Housing Solar PV App #1144 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Standard Application Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.42 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $60,000 Costof Electricity $0.68/kWh Grant Fund Request $56,000 ‘Price of Fuel $5.09/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $4,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed solar photovoltaic system would perform technically or economically. Specifically missing from the application were battery specifications, hourly load data, hourly solar production data, interconnection specifications, compliance with utility cogeneration policy, and other technical information. The project economics appear weak with an estimated benefit/cost ratio of 0.42. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 92/138 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 l= ALASKA. (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Kake Senior Housing Solar PV App #1144 Standard Application Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Proposed Phase(s): Construction Authority Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Construction Project Description THRHA proposes to install a ground-mounted PV solar array at the Kake Senior Center. The Senior Center is currently undergoing expansion and modernization to include new community and residential space, which will almost double the current electrical usage. The PV system will be designed to produce a minimum of 10,000 Watts and will displace approximately 25% -30% of the projected increase in electrical load at the Senior Center. The intent is to keep electrical operating costs sustainable. It will not reduce the current utility usage, and therefore will not have a negative impact on the local utility (IPEC). The PV system is intended only to avoid additional utility costs on a percentage of the new added usage expected when the modernization improvements are completed. The system will be parallel to the utility grid system, isolated with a non-grid tie inverter, and will not feed back into the utility grid system. The system will have battery storage to allow for night-time operation of specific house loads. The Project will include final design and installation of the PV system. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not state land DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 91/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 31.4 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 62.67 2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.26 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 7.56 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.17 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 6.25 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 12 6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 2 7. Sustainability (5) 3.17 | Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 59.55 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 59.55 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $763,898 Cost of Electricity $0.64/kWh Grant Fund Request $756,335 Price of Fuel $7.18/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $7,563 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding Extremely high fuel costs and accessible heating loads make powerhouse heat recovery particularly attractive in Scammon Bay. Unfortunately, numerous issues in the supporting feasibility study and application raise concerns regarding the thoroughness of effort made to accurately estimate project costs. A more deliberate approach is warranted; AEA recommends standalone funding for project design prior to committing funding for the construction phase. Partial funding of $60,000 is recommended to advance the project through final design. AEA Funding Recommendation: $60,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 90/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Scammon Bay and use it to heat three community buildings and the city’s water system via heating connection into the adjacent water distribution loop main. The heat recovery system is projected to save 10,933 of the estimated 11,578 gallons of heating oil used per year. The City Office and Old Clinic are both hydronically heated and had been served by a heat recovery system that is no longer in use. The planned Community Hall will also be hydronically heated; all buildings would be served by a heat recovery loop approximately 400 feet in length. The existing water distribution loop is located 300 feet from the powerhouse; heat recovered from the power plant and injected into the circulating distribution loop can also be conveyed to the more distant community water storage tank. The proposed connecting heat recovery pipe will be buried 2-in PEX carrier pipe insulated with 3-in polyurethane insulation. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on State Land DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 89/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.95 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 89.33 2. Matching Resources (15) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.97 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 16.44 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.67 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 13.13 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 13 6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 9 7. Sustainability (5) 5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 59.19 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 59.19 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $2,200,000 Cost of Electricity $0.12/kWh Grant Fund Request $220,000 Price of Fuel $4.10/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $00 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The Ketchikan Gateway Borough requests funding for the construction of a pellet fueled biomass heating system for the Ketchikan High School. The project is estimated to displace 108,715 gallons of fuel/year. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough received funding through the US Forest Service to complete the design of the Ketchikan High School and have requested construction funding. They have demonstrated their capability with the installation, operation, and maintenance of pellet systems through their library installation. The Borough is completing the design of a pellet boiler for the airport complex, and has received construction funding through the Renewable Energy Fund — Round 7. Ketchikan is an example of the effective use of pellet heating to stem the conversions to resistance heating that are occurring due to the low cost of hydroelectric generation. Recommend full funding for feasibility update and design. AEA Funding Recommendation: $220,000 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg Page 88/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Ketchikan Gateway Borough proposes the feasibility and final design and permitting for biomass-fueled boilers for five buildings: Schoenbar Middle School, Valley Park School, the Gateway Recreation/Aquatic Centers (two buildings) and the School District Maintenance Facility. This project could displace 209,900 gallons per year of heating fuel. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not state land DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project is similar to the above project 1140 because it is a conversion to pellet boilers from fuel oil. This project is for feasibility and design of a larger scale system that will supply heat to a variety of Gateway Borough owned buildings from a central installation. It is estimated that 2,203 tons of pellets would be required annually at a price of about $275.00 per ton. Currently the Federal Government, Forest Service and City of Ketchikan have pellet boilers in service so delivered prices as well as a reliable supply chain should be well established in this area. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 87/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.46 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $200,718 Cost of Electricity $0.62/kWh Grant Fund Request $198,731 Price of Fuel $7.64/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $105,773 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The proposal to insulate existing heat recovery pipes in Selawik does not demonstrate favorable economics based upon the proposed high cost and relatively small amount of heating fuel that would be offset. The economics of the project may improve if significant cost reductions could be identified. AEA recommends that BTU meter data from the existing system should be collected and analyzed to support assumptions regarding the performance of the existing system. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: T-40 Arctic Page 86/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) proposes to insulate above ground existing waste heat lines from the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant to the city’s water plant. ANTHC estimates that insulating the heat recovery lines between the power plant and the WTP will save an additional 1,935 gallons annually of fuel. The existing 20+ year old insulated piping system dates back to the original heat recovery system construction. The round trip length of arctic pipe to be insulated in 1,600 ft. The existing pipe and degraded insulation would be enclosed in closed cell Engineered Polymer Foam Insulation (EPFl) formed into clamshell sections for installation over the existing pipe, then wrapped with a self healing multi-ply embossed UV-resistant aluminum foil / polymer laminate with a layer of rubberized asphalt (Alumaguard). A wear barrier of 24 gauge galvanized steel will be installed over the exterior of the weather barrier and secured with stainless steel straps. The existing pipe supports would be re-used with new mounting hardware and two piece saddles to allow pipe movement.The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not state land DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 85/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.95 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 83.17 2. Matching Resources (15) 0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.46 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 14.39 4. Project Readiness (5) 450 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 9.63 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 16 6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 12 7. Sustainability (5) 5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 54.47 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 54.47 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $1,408,908 Cost of Electricity $0.12/kWh Grant Fund Request $1,288,018 Price of Fuel $4.10/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $00 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The Ketchikan Gateway Borough requests funding for the construction of a pellet fueled biomass heating system for the Ketchikan High School. The project is estimated to displace 108,715 gallons of fuel/year. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough received funding through the US Forest Service to complete the design of this system. They have demonstrated their capability with the installation, operation, and maintenance of pellet systems through their library installation. The Borough is completing the design of a pellet boiler for the airport complex, and has received construction funding through the Renewable Energy Fund — Round 7. Ketchikan is an example of the effective use of pellet heating to stem the conversions to resistance heating that are occurring due to the low cost of hydroelectric generation. Recommend full funding for construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design and the final business/operational plan. AEA Funding Recommendation: $1,288,018 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg Page 84/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Ketchikan Gateway Borough plans to replace two of three oil-fired boilers in the Ketchikan High School with pellet boilers, displacing approximately 108,715 gallons of fuel oil annually. This project received design funding through the US Forest Service and School Bond CIP Fund and has contracted Wise Wood to complete the work. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not state land DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for construction of two pellet fired boilers for the Ketchikan High School. Pellets are being made locally in Ketchikan and are also available from commercial vendors in Southeast. It is estimated that 1,049 tons of pellets would be required annually at a price of about $275.00 per ton. Currently the Federal Government, Forest Service and City of Ketchikan have pellet boilers in service so delivered prices as well as a reliable supply chain should be well established in this area. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 83/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= ALASKA. (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Chefornak Wind Heat System App #1139 Standard Application AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2 The City of Chefornak, applying as a local government, and working with Intelligent Energy Systems, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting of: a 475 kWwind farm; distribution repairs and upgrades; a secondary load at the power plant in the form of an electric boiler to control grid frequency and for the capture of excess wind power for use as heat; and 40 secondary loads to be installed in residential homes in the form of electric thermal storage (ETS) units that would capture excess wind power for use as heat. The proposed system would serve the community of Chefornak, Alaska. The final design would be based on a feasibility study and CDR (Conceptual Design Report) performed under a Round 4 Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grant #7040056. A feasibility study and CDR have been submitted for review. This project did not score high enough to pass the stage 2 technical and economic evaluation minimum score of 40. The primary contributing factor for the low score was the economic feasibility scores in criteria 4a which comprises 25 percent of the score. AEA's calculated benefit/cost ratio is 0.71. This score reflects a reduction in predicted annual energy production due to the underperformance of comparable projects. A score below 0.9 earns 0 points for criteria 4a. Other significant contributing factors to the low score are the tardiness of deliverables and reports and the underperformance of comparable systems in Kongiganak, Tuntutuliak, and Kwigillingok. The current CDR does not validate the selection of the proposed project. AEA recognizes that the wind resource in Chefornak is good and that a CDR that compared various turbine types and quantities and various secondary heat loads could identify an economical project for the community. AEA has met with Intelligent Energy Systems to discuss the project potential and improving the project economics. In addition to the low economic score, AEA has the following concerns that also influenced the stage 2 score: tardiness of project deliverables, progress reports and financial reports on the existing Chefornak wind feasibility grant, the underperformance of comparable high penetration systems, and the CDR not addressing the causes of the existing similar systems' low performance and recommending remedies in the proposed new conceptual design. Additionally, the application identifies upgrades and repairs to the distribution line that are required to proceed with the project as planned. Repairs are not eligible for funding and the upgrades required will need to be as a direct result of the proposed wind-diesel system to be eligible for funding. Any required, ineligible, upgrades or repairs necessary for the proposed project will need to be addressed prior to funding. AEA will continue to work with the applicant and their contractor towards completion of their CDR. No funding recommended. Did not pass stage 2 minimum score. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim Page 81/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J = ALASKA _ (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Chefornak Wind Heat System App #1139 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 30.33 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.71 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $4,526,458 Costof Electricity $0.90/kWh Grant Fund Request $382,400 Price of Fuel $6.58/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $7,500 Page 80/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= ALASKA... Chefornak Wind Heat System App #1139 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Applicant: City of Chefornak/Naterkaq Proposed Phase(s): Design Light Plant Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Project Description This project consists of the installation and integration of five Windmatic 17S turbines 95 kW wind turbines (475 kW) into the Naterkag Light Plant's generation system. The integration of this wind energy includes the installation of a load balancing boiler, 40 residential electric thermal storage (ETS) units, wind-diesel supervisory control and data acquisition system (WDSC), and improvements to the electrical distribution system which include sectionalizing, the replacement of3 power poles and one distribution transformer, as well as the extension of the distribution line by 3 power poles to the wind turbines. The proposed system is similar to those installed in theneighboring villages of Kongiganak, Kwigillingok and Tuntutuliak. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not state land. (Final design and permitting for 5 wind turbines on City of Chefornak lands.) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 79/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA __ (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project App #1138 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 16.09 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 42.83 2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.62 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.94 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 0.63 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 16 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 2 7. Sustainability (5) 3.33. Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 34.49 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 34.49 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $5,541,549 Cost of Electricity $0.37/kWh Grant Fund Request $88,400 Price of Fuel $4.48/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $8,840 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding with Special Provision The City of Ouzinkie partnering with ANTHC has recently replaced their previously condemned wooded dam with a new rock and concrete dam with $2,087,000, of which the majority, $1,800,000, came from a 2013 Alaska Legislature appropriation. The existing penstock and turbine started producing hydro power again with water from the new dam in mid November 2014. This proposed new replacement penstock and turbine is an addition to the existing hydro project. As such only the projected incremental increase in hydro power production is allowable in the economic analysis. The incremental increase of hydro power produced is projected to be about 141,218 kWh per year saving and additional 11,100 gallons of diesel generator fuel. Adding a new load bank and a new dispatchable electric boiler could increase the public economic benefits and reduce fuel consumption for both the diesel generators and heating fuel. AEA recommends partial funding for completion of the design and permitting. Once the design is complete with the maximum hydro benefit to the community considered the applicant may consider applying for construction funds in a future funding round. AEA Funding Recommendation: $88,400 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia Page 78/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J = (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project App #1138 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Kodiak Applicant: City of Ouzinkie Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Project Description ANTHC on behalf of the City of Ouzinkie proposes to complete the final design, permitting and construction of a replacement penstock and replacement hydro turbine for the City of Ouzinkie. The new project will provide increased hydroelectric capacity. A new 5,100 foot, 20 inch penstock will replace the one installed in 1987. Anew 150kW Ossberger type turbine will replace the existing 125kW turbine. The penstock is also used for the City water supply. The old wood dam at Mahoona Lake has recently been replaced by ANTHC with a rock and concrete dam. The new dam will utilize the existing penstock and the existing hydro turbine. It is scheduled to be back online generating electricity mid Nov 2014. The dams replacement cost was estimated at $2,087,000, of which the majority, $1,800,000, came from a 2013 Alaska Legislature appropriation. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments A Water Rights permit pending. Non FERC project. Lat/Long is incorrect. No SCRO involvement. (Final design and construction of a hydro including run of the river with penstock and power house on lands owned and managed by Ouzinkie Corperation.) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider ground motions from earthquakes generated on the Narrow Cape fault zone and the Aleutian subduction zone. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 77/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J = ALASKA __ (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project App #1137 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 6.56 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 79.17 2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.19 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 13.06 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.33 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 13.00 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 10 6. Local Support (5) 2.00 Regional (of all applications) 4) 7. Sustainability (5) 4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 50.45 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 50.45 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $26,272,407 Cost of Electricity $0.15/kWh Grant Fund Request $2,017,818 Price of Fuel $1.36/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $201,782 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding This current application is for final design and permitting for the “Barrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line and Home Conversions to Electric Space Heating’. This project was funded in rounds 2 and 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund for feasibility study and conceptual/preliminary design. The North Slope Borough also applied for but did not receive funding in round 7 as the preliminary design from round 4 was not yet complete. AEA recommends full funding for the final design and permitting of this project. AEA Funding Recommendation: $2,017,818 Election District: T-40 Arctic Page 76/138 01/06/2015 (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 l= ALASKA | Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project App #1137 Standard Application Project Type: Transmission, Other Energy Region: North Slope Applicant: North Slope Borough Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design Project Description This phase of the Barrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line Project is for final design and permitting required for the construction of the transmission line and home and building conversions to electric space heating. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 75/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= ALASKA __ (@lmm> ENERGY AUTHORITY Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design App #1136 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 6.56 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 48.83 2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.02 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 2.94 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 3.75 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 18 6. Local Support (5) 2.00 Regional (of all applications) 2 7. Sustainability (5) 467 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 31.92 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 31.92 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $4,565,200 Cost of Electricity $0.15/kWh Grant Fund Request $440,000 ‘Price of Fuel $1.46/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $44,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision North Slope Borough, applying as a utility, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community of Kaktovik, Alaska. The final design will be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040025. The feasibility study and conceptual design report have been reviewed and accepted by AEA. AEA recommends full funding with the special provision that a 65% design, that includes all necessary permits, be accepted by AEA prior to the release of funds for final design work. It is recommended that during the 65% design process the applicant re-evaluate the installation of a single wind turbine capable of meeting the project goals in order to increase the economic viability of the project. AEA Funding Recommendation: $440,000 Election District: T-40 Arctic Page 74/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = Assi... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design App #1136 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: North Slope Applicant: North Slope Borough Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design Project Description The North Slope Borough (NSB) envisions a wind energy and area-wide energy management system, consisting of wind diesel integration, end-use energy efficiency, automated building controls, and conservation. This phase of the project is the design and permitting phase of a three phase project which will include a phase for construction and commissioning for three anticipated wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Kaktovik. The contractor will provide overall project management and system engineering during this phase of the project. During the construction phase, NSB will recruit an engineering and construction contractor for design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 73/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 20.37 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 77.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.80 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 12.33 4. Project Readiness (5) 4.00 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 11.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 9 6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 7 7. Sustainability (5) 3.67 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 61.12 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 61.12 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $3,479,490 Costof Electricity $0.09/kWh Grant Fund Request $3,445,040 Price of Fuel $4.66/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $34,450 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The high cost of heating fuel, low cost of electricity, and moderate climate make Metlakatla well suited for heat pump systems. Although little data is available documenting the performance of commercial scale ground source heat pump systems in southeast Alaska, the large discrepancy in heating oil and electrical costs result in project economics that appear favorable even if the system performance is well below whatis anticipated. The proposed project can take advantage of excess hydropower and offset a significant amount of heating fuel. The fuel savings from the project will result in additional income to the local public utility and reduced operational costs for a community facility. Full funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $3,445,040 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg Page 72/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to design and construct a ground source heat pump system to provide heat for the Lepquinum Wellness Center in Metlakatla. The heat pump system would capture heat from the ground via a vertical bore loopfield and water-to-water heat pumps and tie into the facility's existing hydronic heating system, which would retain the oil-fired boilers for supplemental and backup heating. The heat pump system is projected to save the center 47,200 of the estimated 49,500 gallons of heating oil used per year. The loopfield would be located under the existing parking area; each of the approximately 80 6-in boreholes would be drilled to over 300-ft deep and use a 1-in HDPE pipe loop and thermal conductive grout. The proposed system would be sized to satisfy 92% of the building’s overall heat demand. The existing heating system would be modified to use the lower temperature water heated by the heat pump system. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by Alaska Energy Engineering. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Lat/Long indicate limited state holding (Ded Division Law and Finance) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/wwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 71/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 App #1134 (zeae ENERGY AUTHORITY Kwigillingok Wind Heat System — Electric Thermal Storage Stage 3 Scoring Summary Heat Application Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.18 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $284,562 Cost of Electricity $0.61/kWh Grant Fund Request $279,562 Price of Fuel $5.84/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $5,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended Kwigillingok received Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 1 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity by diverting surplus kilowatt-hours to residential heat loads. The current performance of the wind system is only 27% of the goal according to FY2014 PCE data - well below the level that could be explained by curtailing of wind turbines due to a lack of additional ETS heaters. The average benefits seen for the existing 27 ETS installations would be significantly lower if the number of heaters were increased to 50 as proposed in the application. The applicant has not been timely in submitting required quarterly operations and maintenance reports on the existing wind energy project and has not provided as-built drawings and an operations and maintenance plan required to close out the REF Round 1 grant. There is a pending grant to upgrade the Kwigillingok power distribution system. When the REF Round 1 deliverables have been met, the distribution system upgrade is underway and wind system performance increases significantly, and economic viability can be demonstrated, the applicant could consider reapplying in a future funding round. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 70/138 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description This project would expand the heat storage capacity of Kwigillingok Wind Heat Smart Grid System by increasing the number of electric thermal storage (ETS) devices from 27 to 50 units. The community of Kwigillingok (Kwig) has an operational, utility scale wind project that is designed to produce excess wind energy, and this excess energy is captured in residential ETS devices to displace home heating fuel. Additional ETS storage capacity is needed to make use of the full capacity of the wind system. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not state land. (This project would occur inside an existing power plant and within existing homes in Kwigillingok.) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 69/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 26.1 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 64.33 2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.14 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 8.11 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.33 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 7.13 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 10 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1 7. Sustainability (5) 3.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 60.67 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 60.67 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $2,692,700 Costof Electricity $0.40/kWh Grant Fund Request $2,495,189 — Price of Fuel $5.97/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $250,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The City of Kotzebue is proposing the design and construction of a refuse derived fuel (RDF) fired boiler system to heat two city owned buildings. This project is estimated to displace a total 98,000 of gallons per year of fuel oil, using cardboard, paper, and construction debris supplemented with wood pellets. Feasibility was completed with Round 4 funding through the Renewable Energy Fund. This project has the opportunity to provide key direction for rural communities struggling with municipal solid waste disposal. AEA recommends partial funding of $200,000 for the final resource inventory/operations plan, final design, and permitting. The City of Kotzebue should first assess the waste fuel availability and develop an operating plan to confirm the economics of this project. Final design and permitting must select appropriate technology to meet EPA's new emissions standards for incinerators. Recommend partial funding. AEA Funding Recommendation: $200,000 Election District: T-40 Arctic Page 68/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The City of Kotzebue is proposing final design and construction for a waste to energy/biomass project to heat the Kotzebure Public Works buildings — water treatment facility and maintenance shop. Feedstock for this system would consist of sorted and separated cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper, and wood materials from the city of Kotzebue's waste stream. The city's waste management equipment will be used to collect materials, either as source-separated material from the producers or mixed with the city's MSW waste stream. RDF fuel will be separated from the waste stream in the Bailer building, in conjunction with an aluminum and tin recycling program. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No state lands are affected, as the project is proposed for City property. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 67/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score __ Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 2. Matching Resources (15) 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) 5. Benefits (15) 6. Local Support (5) 7. Sustainability (5) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction Grant Fund Request Total Matched Funds Provided AEA Review Comments & Recommendation 27.53 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 49.33 6.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.58 3.11 3.00 Project Rank 0.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 19 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 2 4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 48.89 48.89 $706,701 Cost of Electricity $0.69/kWh $699,163 Price of Fuel $6.29/Gal $7,538 Partial Funding The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a significant amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the project appears uneconomical. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the design phase that can significantly improve the project economics. Partial funding of $50,000 recommended for final design phase only. AEA Funding Recommendation: Page 66/138 $50,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Wales and use it to heat the city’s water system via a heating connection to the planned water treatment plant's hydronic heating system. The heat recovery system is projected to save the washeteria/water treatment plant 9,619 gallons of the estimated 12,475 gallons of heating oil used per year. The new water treatment plant will be located 200 feet from the powerhouse will also serve as the community washeteria and will provide heat to circulating water lines and the community water storage tank. The proposed connecting pipe will be buried 2-in PEX carrier pipe with 1.5-in foam polyurethane foam insulation and an HDPE outer jacket. The most frequently used generator (DDS60k4, 1200 rpm) will be equipped with a marine manifold to increase the amount of recoverable heat.The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project not on state-owned land, however RS 2477 Right of Way is in the vicinity. If RS T 1623 will be used as a route for pipe system, DMLW should be contacted to determine if use will require public notice or permitting. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 65/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.78 | Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 86.50 2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.95 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 15.50 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 14.50 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 8 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 6 7. Sustainability (5) 3.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 65.78 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 65.78 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $660,977 Cost of Electricity $0.26/kWh Grant Fund Request $620,977 _ Price of Fuel $4.06/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $40,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The Hydaburg City Schools in Hydaburg, AK on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska has proposed the design and construction of a cordwood fired boiler system to heat the school buildings. The project will be a district heating system for the school buildings, four teachers housing units, and a greenhouse. The system is anticipated to displace approximately 25,500 gallons of heating fuel annually. The Hydaburg City Schools is under the same leadership as the Southeast Island School District (SEISD). SEISD has proven the successful operation of cordwood boiler systems and has integrated the operation and maintenance of these systems into their culture. Greenhouses heated by the biomass systems have been installed on Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove, and more are planned in conjunction with this project. SEISD is a success story for the State of Alaska Biomass Program. Recommend full funding. AEA Funding Recommendation: $620,977 _ Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg Page 64/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Hydaburg City Schools in Hydaburg, AK on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska proposed the design and construction of a cordwood fired boiler system to heat the school buildings. The project involves placing four Garn type wood fired boilers adjacent to the school site and running underground pipes from the wood fired boiler to plumb into the school’s heating system, four teachers housing units, and a greenhouse. The system is anticipated to displace approximately 25,500 gallons of heating fuel annually. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project was reviewed for the Round 7 application period. No changes for wood requirement have been made in the current application (212 cords annually). This amount is well within the realm of sustainability as the Tongass National Forest is stated to have an annual resource availability of 60-70 million board feet. There are commercial vendors available who are currently supplying biomass boilers for Coffman Cove and Thorne Bay schools. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Wwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 63/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.50 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $439,453 Cost of Electricity $0.60/kWh Grant Fund Request $390,449 Price of Fuel $6.94/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $74,009 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The applicant did not demonstrate an economical project with clear public benefits. The long distances to the heating loads from the power plant and the potential to offset only moderate amounts of heating fuel make the economics of a heat recovery system at Holy Cross challenging. Additionally, there were numerous discrepancies between the 2013 and 2014 feasibility studies for a heat recovery system that should be clarified. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 62/138 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Holy Cross Power Plant Heat Recovery for Water Distribution System App #1130 Heat Application Project Type: HeatRecovery Energy Region: Yukon-Koyuk/Upper Tanana Applicant: City of Holy Cross Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Project Description The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Holy Cross and use it to heat the city’s water system via heating connections into the water treatment plant’s hydronic heating system and the lift station. The heat recovery system is projected to save the water system 4,159 gallons of the estimated 4,826 gallons of heating oil used per year. The existing water treatment plant is located 750 feet from the powerhouse and also provides heat to the circulating water lines and heat to the community water storage tank. The lift station is located 200 feet from the powerhouse and is heated with electric resistance heaters. The proposed connecting pipe will be buried 2-in PEX carrier pipe insulated with 5-in foam insulation and an HDPE outer jacket. The powerhouse’s DDS60 1200 RPM generator would be equipped with a marine manifold as a part of the project increase the amount of recoverable heat. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not state land. (This project would occur inside an existing power plant.) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 61/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.71 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $705,893 Cost of Electricity $0.90/kWh Grant Fund Request $698,904 Price of Fuel $7.76/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $6,989 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended ANTHC and the City of Nikolai propose to complete the final design and construction of a biomass heating system to serve the community building, school, city lodge, and city shop. This system would be a manually-fed cordwood system and is anticipated to displace 9,630 gallons of heating fuel annually. The applicant did not demonstrate an economical project nor strong community involvement that is crucial to the successful implementation of a manually stoked cordwood system. AEA recommends no funding at this time, but encourages the City of Nikolai to work with AEA staff and the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group to identify potential operators and wood fuel suppliers. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 60/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The proposed project will install a manually-fed cordwood boiler into a prefabricated building to heat the City of Nikolai’s community building, city lodge, school, and city shop using circulating glycol heat transfer loops. Modifications to end user building heating systems will be carried out as needed to ensure effective utilization of biomass heat. The estimated heating oil reduction resulting from this biomass project is projected to save the City and school district approximately 9,630 gallons of heating oil per year. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Timber harvest for biomass supply may require DNR Division of Forestry to be notified. (Biomass Plantis in the vicinity of three separate management agreements to DOT&PF (ADLs 221521, 221534, and 221522) for the Nikolai Airport. DNR, Division of Forestry should be consulted regarding any potential harvest of timber from State land for use in the Biomass plant.) DNRIDOF Feasibility Comments This project is for the installation of a manually fed cordwood boiler to heat the community building, city lodge, school and city shop. It is estimated that 81 cords annually would be needed at a price of $300.00/cord. Resource availability has been previously examined by the Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program. A detailed inventory report was written that provides a preliminary assessment of the biomass energy resources within a 25-mile radius of Nikolai. A significant volume was available indicating that the 81 cords can be harvested relatively close to the village. A detailed harvest plan will be written as part of this proposal. This harvest plan should answer resource sustainability and harvest location concerns. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 59/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J = ALASKA... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Igiugig RivGen® Power System Project App #1128 Standard Application AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The proposal from the Igiugig Village Council to complete final design and construction of a river hydrokinetic power project follows years of work starting in 2008 with resource assessment and continuing with site characterization through device demonstration. It also builds on experience and information gained from an Emerging Energy Technology Fund (EETF) award and other significant state and federal investments in hydrokinetics. The community has actively pursued a hydrokinetic installation and the project team has been on the forefront of hydrokinetic development, including design and permitting. The proposed location in the Kvichak River is widely considered the most promising for a hydrokinetic device in the state with clear water, consistent current velocities, and lack of river ice formation. Significant salmon runs will play a central role in project permitting and require extensive biological monitoring. While the site and river characteristics are unique in Alaska, many aspects of the project could result in information transferrable to other sites and other device types and could contribute to lowering costs for similar projects in the future. The project proposes to use a second generation device that has not yet been constructed and would still need to overcome numerous hurdles to be successful. As a first-of-a-kind project, costs are expected to be high. Costly device retrieval and redeployment would need to occur annually, ata minimum. Given the state of development of the technology, the proposed project does not compete favorably in the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) process on economic or technical terms with more mature technologies. However, a successful project would represent a major step forward and could help pave the way for other projects to better compete on equal terms. AEA recognizes that the quality of the resource, the commitment of the community and project team, and the investment in site characterization and preparation combine to make this a compelling river hydrokinetic project. However, the substantial technical risk associated with deployment of a device that is still under development and the related economic uncertainty do not make this a suitable Renewable Energy Fund (REF) project. Therefore AEA does not recommend funding this project at this time. AEA and the REF Advisory Committee have identified a potential gap that exists between the EETF and REF programs in which technologies that have demonstrated some level of technical feasibility through an EETF award may still be unable to compete successfully for an REF award; this proposal appears to fall into that gap. AEA will be requesting the advice of the REF Advisory Committee regarding the appropriateness of funding projects that fall in the gap between the programs. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 57/138 01/06/2015 [Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 ‘= ALASKA... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Igiugig RivGen® Power System Project App #1128 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.34 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $2,458,622 Cost of Electricity $0.81/kWh Grant Fund Request $2,016,509 Price of Fuel $8.08/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $296,500 Page 56/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _ (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Igiugig RivGen® Power System Project App #1128 Standard Application Project Type: Hydrokinetic Energy Region: Bristol Bay Applicant: Igiugig Village Council d/b/a Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Igiugig Electric Company Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Project Description The Igiugig Village Council requests REF in the amount of $2,016,509 for Phase Ill Final Design and Permitting and Phase IV Construction of a RivGen® Power System on the Kvichak River by Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC (ORPC). This Project will be the first commercial installation of a river hydrokinetic power system in the state of Alaska and follows the Igiugig Village Council's successful completion of previous project phases — Phase | Reconnaissance and Phase II Feasibility and Conceptual Design, as well as ORPC’s successful demonstration of the RivGen® Power System, which generated electricity from the Kvichak River in August 2014. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments An easement will be required for any submerged electrical cable in the Kvichak River, and a lease or permit from SCRO will likely be required for the RivGen unit itself. (Depending on how ORPC connects a submerged electric cable from the unit in the Kvichak River, it could impact ADL 226067, an avigation and hazards easement to DOT&PF, Central Region, ADL 221403, a Management Right issued to DOT&PF, ADL 230875, a private, non-exclusive easement issued to United Utilities, Inc., and ADL 231288, a public utility easement issued to the Village of Igiugig. If any portion of electrical cable would cross uplands it may impact three seperate management agreements (ADLs 221403, 224031, and 228387) for the Airport at Igiugig.) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 55/138 01/06/2015 App #1127 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska = ALASKA _ (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Application Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.09 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $6,870,575 Costof Electricity $0.42/kWh Grant Fund Request $428,646 Price of Fuel $4.08/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $62,500 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The City of False Pass proposed to conduct a feasibility study for a tidal power project in Isanotski Strait, building on previous reconnaissance efforts. The proposal, which calls for additional field measurements, modeling, site selection, and preparation for permitting, was submitted on behalf of a strong project team actively involved in pioneering hydrokinetic development in the state. Itis difficult to predict how rapidly the installed costs of tidal power generation plants will decline as the technology matures. The applicant has reasoned that deployment and retrieval costs will decline dramatically as operators gain experience and equipment is improved. Although numerous challenges may remain before economic deployments can be realized in Alaska, the potential for such deployments does exist. The project does not compete economically with other renewable energy projects using mature technology types, and therefore is not recommended for funding. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 54/138 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim 01/06/2015 = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 d = ALASKA (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska App #1127 Standard Application Project Type: Hydrokinetic Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: City of False Pass Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Project Description The City of False Pass proposes to follow up a study of the tidal resource in Isanotski Strait with a feasibility study and conceptual design of a tidal power project. The proposed phase would include current profile surveys at 3-5 sites, submission of draft study plans to regulatory agencies, detailed economic analyses, conceptual design, cost estimates and operations plan, and completion of a sub bottom survey. The project envisions installation of a seafloor-mounted 200kW TidGen device made by Ocean Renewable Power Company. Power would be delivered first to the False Pass community grid with excess power sold to the recently expanded Bering Pacific Seafood fish processing plant. The city estimates that the project can generate 730,000 kWh and offset 58,400 gallons of diesel annually. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments On DMLW tide and/or submerged lands. DMLW permit LAS 28655 in place, additional permit applications planned for submission May 2015 correspondending to next phase of project. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Ground motions from earthquakes generated along the Aleutian subduction zone and associated tsunami hazards should be considered in project planning and design. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 53/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 29.71 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 40.67 2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.67 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.22 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 1.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 15 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) q 7. Sustainability (5) 3.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 54.51 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 54.51 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $503,990 Cost of Electricity $0.60/kWh Grant Fund Request $499,000 Price of Fuel $6.79/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $89,990 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding ANTHC and the City of Huslia proposed the Final Design and Construction of a manually-fed cordwood heating system to serve the Health Clinic and Washeteria/Water Treatment Plant in Huslia, Alaska. The project is estimated to save the Clinic and Water Treatment Plant 8,474 gallons of heating oil per year. The economics of this project are challenging, but there has been significant community involvement in the initial planning of the fuel supply. The community champion has attended biomass workshops and is knowledgeable of the proposed system. Recommend partial funding of $58,000 to complete the design phase only and work to improve the economics of the project. AEA Funding Recommendation: $58,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 52/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description In 2013, AEA provided funding to the community of Huslia through the Renewable Energy Fund for initial planning and conceptual design of a biomass heating system to serve community buildings. Under this previous grant, Huslia partnered with ANTHC to engineer a conceptual design and to develop an initial woody biomass resource assessment and a draft operations plan. The proposed project will build from this initial work to complete the design and construction of a biomass heating system to serve the Health Clinic and Washeteria/Water Treatment Plant in Huslia, Alaska. Specifically, this project will install a manually-fed cordwood boiler to be housed in a prefabricated building and integrated into the existing buildings using circulating glycol heat transfer loops. Modifications to end user building heating systems will be carried out as needed to ensure effective utilization of biomass heat. The estimated heating oil reduction resulting from this biomass project is projected to save the Clinic and Water Treatment Plant 8,474 gallons of heating oil per year. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Infrastructure is not on state land, and most biomass resource proposed for use is not state-owned; however, reports cited in application note potential for some state-owned biomass resource. If state timber resources are planned for harvest, state timber sales will be required. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for design and construction of a biomass heating system to heat the Health Clinic and Washeteria/Water Treatment Plan. A manually fed cordwood boiler would be installed in a prefabricated building. Itis estimated that 77 cords annually would be needed at a price of $300.00/cord. Resource availability has been previously examined by the Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program. A detailed inventory report was written that provides a preliminary assessment of the biomass energy resources within a 25-mile radius of Huslia. A significant volume was available indicating that the 77 cords can be harvested relatively close to the village. A detailed harvest plan will be written as part of this proposal. This harvest plan should answer resource sustainability and harvest location concerns. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 51/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 35 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 47.67 2. Matching Resources (15) 8.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.12 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 2.56 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 6.12 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 11 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 2 7. Sustainability (5) 1.17 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 60.35 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 60.35 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $433,379 Cost of Electricity $0.62/kWh Grant Fund Request $379,583 Price of Fuel $10.67/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $13,796 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision ANTHC and the City of Ambler propose the final design and construction of a cordwood-fueled biomass heating system to serve the Washeteria and City Office building in Ambler, Alaska. The proposed biomass heating system would be manually- fed and housed in a pre-fabricated building. The system is anticipated to displace 3,516 gallons of heating fuel per year. The request is a continuation of a Round 2 grant, "Upper Kobuk River Biomass". The economics of this project are marginal and there is opportunity to reduce the overall cost of the project. The design phase should focus on a lower cost installation. The community must also develop an acceptable operations and maintenance plan for this project, including contingencies for staffing and wood supply. Recommend full funding with the special provision that no construction funding be released until the final design and business/operating plan is approved. AEA Funding Recommendation: $379,583 Election District: T-40 Arctic Page 50/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Ambler Washeteria and City Office Biomass Heating System App #1125 Heat Application Project Type: Biomass Energy Region: Northwest Artic Applicant: City of Ambler Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Project Description In 2013-2014, the Northwest Arctic Borough, through funding provided by the AEA Renewable Energy Fund, contracted with Tetra Tech, Inc. and Dow! HKM to complete a biomass feasibility study and initial engineering design for the Upper Kobuk villages of Amlber, Shungnak and Kobuk. This study concluded that Ambler’s City Hall / Washeteria building offered the best opportunity in the region to integrate biomass heating into an existing community facility. The proposed project will build from this initial work to complete the design and construction of a biomass heating system to serve the City Hall / Washeteria in Ambler. Specifically, the project will install a manually-fed cordwood boiler to be housed in a prefabricated building and integrated into the existing building via a circulating glycol heat transfer loop. Modifications to the existing building heating system will be carried out as needed to ensure effective utilization of biomass heat as part of a separate Ambler Washeteria Upgrades project funded by the Indian Health Service (match to this project). The estimated heating oil reduction resulting from this biomass project is projected to save the Washeteria and City Office 3,516 gallons of heating oil per year. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Infrastructure and most potential biomass resources proposed are not on state land. If biomass is proposed for harvest from state lands at some phase of the project, applicant will need to obtain timber sales from the State of Alaska. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for design and construction of a biomass heating system to heat the City Hall and washeteria. A manually fed cordwood boiler would be installed in a prefabricated building. It is estimated that 30 cords annually would be needed ata price of $210.00/cord. Resource availability has been previously examined by the Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program. A detailed inventory report was written that provides a preliminary assessment of the biomass energy resources within a 25-mile radius of Ambler. A significant volume was available indicating that the 30 cords can be harvested relatively close to the village. A detailed harvest plan will be written as part of this proposal. This harvest plan should answer resource sustainability and harvest location concerns. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 49/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 24.4 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 50.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.75 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 3.33 4, Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 0.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 21 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 3 7. Sustainability (5) 4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 47.98 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 47.98 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $458,716 Cost of Electricity $0.63/kWh Grant Fund Request $454,277 _— Price of Fuel $5.58/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $26,439 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a significant amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the project is marginally economical. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the design phase that can significantly improve the project economics. Partial funding of $50,000 recommended for the final design phase only. AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 48/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Grayling and use it to heat the city’s water system via a heating connection into the water treatment plant's hydronic heating system. The heat recovery system is projected to save the water treatment plant 6,669 gallons of the estimated 8,004 gallons of heating oil used per year. The water treatment plant is located 250 feet from the powerhouse and will also provide heat to the circulating water lines the community water storage tank. The proposed connecting pipe will be buried 2.5-in PEX pipe insulated with 3.5-in foam insulation and an HDPE outer jacket. The powerhouse’s DDS60 1200 RPM generator would be equipped with a marine manifold as a part of the project increase the amount of recoverable heat. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No SCRO involvement. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 47/138 01/06/2015 App #1123 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project (=a ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.95 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $7,770,000 Costof Electricity $0.71/kWh Grant Fund Request $7,620,000 _‘ Price of Fuel $3.94/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $500,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended AEA does not recommend funding the requested phase of this project at this time due to incomplete prior phases, per the AEA Request for Applications 15003 section 2.2 to 2.6. The project appears to have marginal economic benefit and the final design and cost estimates may impact the economic viability. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 46/138 Election District: C-6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project App #1123 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach Applicant: Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI) Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Project Description Chitina's application is for design and construction of a new 300 kWrun of river (no storage) hydro on Fivemile Creek serving the community of Chitina producing approximately 2,000 MWh's of energy The proposed Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project consists of the following major components: 1. Creek diversion/intake structure- The proposed diversion/intake structure would divert a portion of the flow from Fivemile Creek into a pipeline (penstock and would also create a small impoundment that would provide freeze protection. 2. Penstock — The proposed penstock would transport water from the intake structure to the turbine powerhouse. The penstock will be buried, and will consist of insulated HDPE pipe (low pressure reach) and schedule 20 welded steel pipe (high pressure reach). The pipe will range from 12-20 inches in diameter and will be roughly 10,400 feet long. 3. Diversion Access Road — An access road will be constructed between the existing jeep trail and the proposed diversion/intake structure location. This road will be approximately 2,850 feet long and will provide access for construction and maintenance of the diversion/intake structure. 4. Turbine Building — the turbine building will house a 300 kW pelton wheel turbine/generator and controls. The building foundation will include a tailrace that will return water from the penstock to the creek. 5. Electrical Intertie - A 4-mile long overhead transmission line will connect the turbine power plant step up transformer to the community grid. The transmission line was constructed utilizing federal grant funds in 2008. 6. Diesel Integration - The proposed hydro switchgear will be linked to the community's existing diesel powerhouse controls. The diesel plant will function primarily as a backup system after the hydro is constructed. 7. Heat Recovery — An electric boiler will be installed in the existing diesel module and connected to the existing hydronic heat recovery system currently utilized to heat the clinic building and the AST used to store diesel fuel for the diesel plant. The boiler will provide frequency control and allow for continued utilization of the existing heat recovery system infrastructure. 8. Excess energy utilization — During most times of the year, excess water flow will be available to produce electricity above and beyond the community’s electric demand. During these times the excess energy will be delivered to dispatchable loads throughout town. The dispatchable loads will include electric heaters installed at community buildings, residential living facilities and commercial facilities. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Proposed project is entirely on Chitna Native Corp fee estate and/or BLM 17(b) access easement. However, page 8 of the 2014 application notes that Chitina Electric has abandonded an existing hydro project located partially within Town Lake (aka Trout Lake?) in Chitina; lake is not BLM meandered, butis approximately 35 acres in size. Removal of abandoned infastructure needed? A Water Rights application received. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 45/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 27.12 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 49.33 2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.70 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 3.14 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 0.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 18 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1 7. Sustainability (5) 4.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 52.81 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 52.81 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $729,600 Cost of Electricity $0.60/kWh Grant Fund Request $729,600 _‘ Price of Fuel $6.20/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $92,296 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a significant amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the project demonstrates marginal economic value. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the design phase that can significantly improve the project economics. AEA recommends partial funding of $50,000 to complete the final design phase only. AEA Funding Recommendation: $50,000 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 44/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium proposes to take waste heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plantin Koyuk and use it to heat the city’s water system via a heating connection into the water treatment plant's hydronic heating system. The heat recovery system is projected to save the water treatment plant 11,971 gallons of the estimated 12,300 gallons of heating oil used per year. The existing water treatment plant/washeteria is located 850 feet from the powerhouse and also provides heat to the circulating water lines and heat to the community water storage tank. The proposed connecting pipe will be buried 3-in polypropylene and fiberglass composite carrier pipe insulated with 3.5-in foam insulation and an HDPE outer jacket. The powerhouse’s DDS60 1800 RPM generator would be equipped with a marine manifold as a part of the project increase the amount of recoverable heat. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by ANTHC. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Application does not appear to involve state land, however DOT ILMA (casefile ADL 55622) is in immediate vicinity; if pipe systems must cross property, coordination with DOT would be appropriate. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 43/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $3,100,000 Costof Electricity $0.60/kWh Grant Fund Request $3,000,000 _— Price of Fuel $6.77/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $100,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1 This project did not pass stage 1 eligibility requirements. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim Page 42/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description Akiachak Native Community Electric Company (“the Utility”) proposes a biomass project to save fuel and reduce costs for the generators and community buildings. The project includes all phases of development including reconnaissance, feasibility, design and construction. The project would be located on Akiachak, Alaska about 18 air miles east of Bethel. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Timber harvest for biomass supply may require DNR Division of Forestry to be notified. Likely no SCRO involvement: Community roads (ADL 222349) or RST 22 and 32 possibly required for travel; project vehilces may exceed GAUs, as page 5 includes dump trucks, loader, etc. No DMLW fee simple involvement; biomass to be sources from Akiachak Village Corp Lands, and further there are no substantial areas of DMLW fee estate for 80+ miles from village. DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project's first step is examining the feasibility of offsetting fuel oil use with biomass. The source of biomass will be from forests on village corporation lands. Forest inventory data for this area is lacking and the only known sources are LandFire and the National Land Cover Dataset which have rather coarse estimates of biomass volume per acre. Depending upon how much biomass is ultimately needed this dataset could be used to provide initial resource estimates. Other data sources include recent Spot and Quickbird satellite imagery which covers much of the area around the village. More detailed forest inventory estimates may be required if timber resource sustainability becomes a question. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 41/138 01/06/2015 (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY [Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _ Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project App #1120 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 21.68 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 47.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio dail 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 2.33 4. Project Readiness (5) 1.67 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 6.00 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 9 6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 2 7. Sustainability (5) 3.33. Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 54.01 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 54.01 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $24,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.50/kWh Grant Fund Request $8,000,000 _— Price of Fuel $4.38/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $16,000,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision AEA REF review staff originally concluded that this application did not demonstrate a verifiable technically and economically feasible project for the following reasons: + Insufficient information was provided on the intake geotechnical conditions, hydraulic design, and design documents with sufficient information to evaluate the technical feasibility and cost of the project. + _ Insufficient information was provided on the stream gauging data and hydrology analysis to verify the economic feasibility of the project. AEA’s review staff performed a more detailed evaluation and found that the technical feasibility can be expected to be resolved in a timely manner, that the project is still economically viable even when the project operation and cost is adjusted to alleviate economic concerns. AEA recommends full funding with the special provision that the design be finalized and approved by AEA prior to issuing a grant for the construction phase. AEA Funding Recommendation: $8,000,000 Election District: C-6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border Page 40/138 01/06/2015 = x Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 / = ALASKA _ (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project App #1120 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Yukon-Koyuk/Upper Tanana Applicant: Upper Tanana Energy, LLC Proposed Phase(s): Construction (UTE) Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Construction Project Description Upper Tanana Energy's application is for construction of a new 1,500 kW run of river hydro on Yerrick Creek serving the communities of Tok and surrounding area capable of producing approximately 7,000 MWh's of energy annually at an estimated cost of $19 million. The communities in the upper Tanana region (Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, Dot Creek) are currently dependent upon diesel-fired generation of electricity and pay energy costs of $0.50/kWh (before PCE). Upper Tanana Energy, LLC is requesting $8,000,000 through the AEA REF Round Vill program for Phase IV — Construction which is the estimated level of funding support required by the State of Alaska that will result in a project which produces clean energy for half of the cost of diesel-fired generation of electricity. The Yerrick Creek hydropower project will displace approximately 40%, or 4,900 MWh’s, of the region’s diesel-fired generation. Tanacross Inc., the Native Village of Tanacross, and AP&T signed a Memorandum of Understanding expressing willingness to work cooperatively on the Yerrick Creek project in August of 2014. The three entities established a new partnership named Upper Tanana Energy to develop, own, and operate the project as an independent power producer (IPP). Yerrick Creek is located on private and State lands and has received a non- jurisdictional determination from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) making it possible to develop this hydropower project in a timely fashion without undergoing federal permitting processes through FERC. Construction is anticipated to be complete by 2017. Project partners anticipate that all remaining permitting, power sales agreement, and other pre-construction activities will be complete by the 2015 construction season. Unlike other communities in Alaska, Tok and surrounding communities of the upper Tanana region have not yet had the opportunity to transition from 100% diesel- fired generation to an energy mix including renewables. If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities will also benefit. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Some of the infrastructure will be on state land and require DMLW easements or leases and material site designation. Easement and material applications were filed during a previous phase of the project, but were suspended in 2010 when non-state land use negotiations faltered. On July 16, 2013, APT was notified that the files were being closed out due to non- action and no updates from applicant. The notice informed them that applicant would need to contact DMLW to re-activate applications if project resumed. To date, no re-activation requests have been received. No Water Right application received. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Ground motions from earthquakes generated on the nearby Dot "T" Johnson and Cathedral Rapids faults should be considered in project design. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 39/138 01/06/2015 = ALASKA _ (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY [Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J Shungnak Wind-Diesel Design App #1119 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 29.71 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 40.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.69 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.00 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.00 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 0.63 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 12 6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 3 7. Sustainability (5) 2.17 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 45.51 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 45.51 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $6,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.68/kWh Grant Fund Request $525,000 _— Price of Fuel $8.90/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $27,036 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding Because a full conceptual design has not yet been completed, several key technical considerations remain unknown. Without an intertie to Ambler, the combined load for Shungnak and Kobuk are not large enough to support more than 400kW of wind power without designing very complex controls. The Shungnak power plant is not currently scheduled for upgrades that would facilitate variable wind energy. The most significant factor influencing the developability of this project is the recent low river levels and resultant unpredictable barge deliveries. The project would need to incorporate turbines, materials and construction equipment that could be mobilized through alternate methods - likely by air cargo. This might eliminate larger turbines that offer better economies of scale and would add costs that are well above existing benchmarks. The applicant should work to finish the conceptual design report (CDR) that has been self-funded to date. In addition to the standard deliverables in AEA's wind Guidelines for Conceptual Design Reports, the applicant should address the logistical challenges that are unique to this location in the CDR. Recommend partial funding to complete the CDR. AEA Funding Recommendation: $95,000 Election District: T-40 Arctic Page 38/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Shungnak Wind-Diesel Design App #1119 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Northwest Artic Applicant: Native Village of Shungnak Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Project Description Based on the conclusions of a completed wind resource data collection report, the Native Village of Shungnak will, with Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) assistance, complete the design process to successfully install a wind-diesel system in the community. This includes automated controls and the equipment necessary to regulate, control and deliver reliable wind energy to the residents of the community. The project will produce the final designs and plans and complete the necessary permitting for one projected wind turbine and the associated equipment installations to upgrade the existing power generation and distribution system to produce power from a wind turbine-diesel engine configuration. The Native Village of Shungnak will hire and contract with an engineering consultant to complete this design project and provide management oversight of any subcontracted engineering/design firms. The consultant will also complete the construction solicitation package by working closely with NANA Regional Corporation, Shungnak Power Plant operator, and the Native Village of Shungnak. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project does not appear to involve state land; however RS 2477 rights-of-way ( RST casefile 105, 115, 124) are in the vicinity. If RS 2477 routes are intended to be used for the project, applicant should contact DMLW Northern Region to review proposed use. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 37/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 30.6 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) /vaule/ 2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.63 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 10.39 4. Project Readiness (5) 1.50 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 11.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 5 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1 7. Sustainability (5) 2.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 69.07 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 69.07 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $9,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.60/kWh Grant Fund Request $645,613 Price of Fuel $6.99/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $33,980 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding Bethel has ample waste heat available for recovery and numerous significant heat loads within a one mile radius of the powerhouse. The existing heat recovery system is near the end of its useful life and will require both immediate and ongoing repairs and modifications to prolong operation for an additional 20 years. Construction costs associated with repairs to the existing system are not eligible for Renewable Energy Fund funding, however, expansion of the existing system is eligible. Estimates of the cost of new connections to the heat recovery system were not provided although expansion does appear to be economical under a broad range of scenarios. The addition of exhaust gas heat exchangers contemplated in the proposal appears to increase the amount of heat available for recovery beyond the demand projected for the potential heat loads identified in the application; AVEC believes that additional loads may be identified that could increase demand to the point where additional heat capture could be beneficial. AEA is concerned with the high cost of ultrasonic testing of the existing main pipeline proposed in the application and believes that alternate methods may prove more cost effective. Such methods could include an assessment of maintenance history of the distribution pipes to identify common failure points, and physical removal and inspection of sections of the pipe. However, AVEC may choose to complete ultrasonic testing as a part of its operation and maintenance plan for the system. Partial funding in the amount of $325,000 is recommended to complete conceptual design of expansion of the heat recovery system. AEA Funding Recommendation: $325,000 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim Page 36/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative proposes to complete a detailed assessment of the existing 40 year old heat recovery system and prepare a conceptual design report of essential upgrades to the existing system and potential new recovered heat connections. The project would also consider additional heat capture using exhaust gas heat exchangers. Assessment of the existing system would include installation of BTU meters and inline ultrasonic inspection of the 10” pipeline mains. Heat is recovered from the powerhouse’s six 2.2 MW EMD 16-645 E4D generators. The application is based on a reconnaissance study completed by Coffman Engineers in 2014. Recommendations in the report include ultrasonic inspection, consideration of a list of potential future users of recovered heat, and evaluation of the installation of exhaust gas heat exchangers for system evaluation. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land. (Inspection of existing facility.) DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Wwww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 35/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _ (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project App #1117 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 27.53 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 59.33 2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio aete 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 6.44 4. Project Readiness (5) 4.00 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 5.50 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 5 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 3 7. Sustainability (5) 3.67 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 59.14 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 59.14 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $1,634,500 Cost of Electricity $0.63/kWh Grant Fund Request $123,500 Price of Fuel $5.28/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $6,500 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding AVEC (Alaska Village Electric Cooperative), applying as a utility, proposes feasibility and conceptual design work to determine the advisability of installing wind turbines in Goodnews Bay. AVEC is working with AEA, through the wind program's Anemometer Loan Program, to install a meteorological tower and study the wind for a minimum of 12 months. AVEC would perform geotechnical work and investigate multiple turbine types and quantities in the process of preparing a conceptual design report. Recommend full funding. AEA Funding Recommendation: $123,500 Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim Page 34/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _ (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project App #1117 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Project Description AVEC proposes to use wind data to be collected by AEA and to complete geotechnical work to determine the feasibility of installing wind turbines in Goodnews Bay. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-objection from the landowner for the geotechnical fieldwork and conducting a geotechnical investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design will be created based upon the wind data and geotechnical investigation. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 33/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 (= AbedASKAn (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Geotechnical Study and Final Design App #1116 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 27.52 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 61.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.36 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 7.00 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.17 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 8.50 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 2 6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (ofall applications) 1 7. Sustainability (5) 4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 61.69 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 61.69 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $9,200,000 Costof Electricity $0.63/kWh Grant Fund Request $400,000 _— Price of Fuel $5.53/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $20,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The project received grants in Round 1 (#73) for $225,000 and Round 4 (#644) for $237,500 to complete a feasibility study, FERC licensing, and preliminary design. Additionally, the City of Old Harbor received a Community Development Block Grant in support of the project for $250,000 to complete the FERC License Application and permitting. FERC license application processing could cause delay. Significant site control issues could arise since the project lands include Kodiak NWR and a conservation easement by Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. Turbine and penstock are oversized anticipating future growth. Requested funds for this portion of work are excessive. AEA recommends partial funding to advance final design work, excluding geotechnical work, with the special provisions that 1) the grantee maximize the use of excess hydro or reduce hydro size to maximize the public benefit and project economics, and 2) provide a detailed design budget a list of the proposed consultants prior to grant execution. AEA Funding Recommendation: $400,000 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia Page 32/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA. (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Geotechnical Study and Final Design App #1116 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Kodiak Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Proposed Phase(s): Design Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design Project Description AVEC requests funds to complete geotechnical and final design for a 262kW (initial) 525kW (future) run of the river hydroelectric project with water diverted from East Fork Mountain Creek in Old Harbor on Kodiak Island. Hatch was contracted by AVEC for the feasibility report. The 4-6 foot high by 100 foot long intake structure is proposed to be concrete. The 16 to 20 inch, 10,350 long buried penstock will consist of HDPE and steel. The 11,700 foot long intake access trail will be 12 foot wide. The hydro powerhouse is expected to be 25 x 35 x 12 foot metal building. The new 6,200 foot long road to the turbine will be 24 foot wide. A new 7,700 foot long 7.2kV 3 phase distribution tie lie will follow the new road alignment. The project will divert 5.9 to 11.8 cfs of water from East Fork Mountain Creek to the Lagoon Creek. The FERC license application was submitted in October 2013. FERC license anticipated to be issued in December 2015. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments SoA holds the development rights for a significant portion of the project under an EVOS acquisition; Feds hold the fee (LSH 478). SoAs Conservation easement may preclude the construction of the project, however, Cindy Schoniger / Title is presently working to modify the consevation easement to allow (no ADL reference). Water Right application received. Requires FERC review. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Project should consider ground motions from earthquakes generated on the Narrow Cape fault zone and the Aleutian subduction zone. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 31/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (@ED ENERGY AUTHORITY St. Mary’s-Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project Standard Application App #1115 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 25.59 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 56.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.00 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 5.33 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.83 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 2.63 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 4 7. Sustainability (5) 5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 56.38 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 56.38 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $4,886,000 Cost of Electricity $0.59/kWh Grant Fund Request $4,348,540 Price of Fuel $6.95/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $537,460 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a utility, proposes the construction of a wind farm along the St. Mary's/Pitka's Point intertie along with components necessary for the integration of wind power into the diesel power plant. The wind-diesel system would serve the communities of St. Mary's and Pitka's Point. The basis for the proposed wind-diesel system is a design funded through Round 4 RE Fund grant #7040017. Permitting for the project is completed, site control has been established and a 65% design has been submitted to the Authority. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the 95% design be accepted by the Authority prior to allocation of construction funds. AEA Funding Recommendation: $4,348,540 Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 30/138 01/06/2015 = Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 l= ALASKA __ (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY St. Mary’s-Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project App #1115 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Proposed Phase(s): Construction Cooperative, Inc. Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Construction Project Description AVEC proposes to complete construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of four wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation system for currently intertied communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. As a part of this project, AVEC will upgrade the electrical distribution line between St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point to a 3-phase line and upgrade the joint power plant to accommodate wind turbine energy generators. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 29/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 18.04 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 59.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.09 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 6.33 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.33. Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 4.75 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 14 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 10 7. Sustainability (5) 4.33 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 56.78 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 56.78 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $102,275 Cost of Electricity $0.26/kWh Grant Fund Request $102,275 Price of Fuel $4.12/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $314,381 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision THRHA have demonstrated that pellet and cordwood heating systems can significantly reduce the heating costs in their buildings. They are successfully operating and maintaining the systems and helping to develop the pellet supply infrastructure in Southeast. There are few details for the engineering design in this proposal and AEA is concerned that it might be difficult to complete the design within the budget allocations. Recommend full funding for design and construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design and the final business/operational plan. AEA Funding Recommendation: $102,275 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 28/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority proposes a biomass pellet heat system that will be installed at the (18) unit senior housing center in Klawock, Alaska. The building is currently heated with oil. The project will entail the installation of a single biomass heating system and will reduce the cost of heat by offsetting 4,750 gallons of fuel oil with 42 tons of pellets per year. The biomass heat system will be located within the existing building. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments The project is for the replacement of an oil fired boiler with a pellet boiler to provide heat for eight residential buildings and one community center in Klawock. Similar to the above grant application 1113, pellets would be provided by existing pellet manufacturers either in Southeast, Interior or out of state suppliers. It is estimated that the annual fuel cost would be $330.00 per ton with an annual fuel usage of 42 tons. Delivered pellet vendor price estimates were not included in the proposal though commercial scale pellet utilization is successfully occurring in various Southeast communities. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 27/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 -Angoon Low-Income Housing Pellet District Heat Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 22.75 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 75.83 2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.79 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 11.94 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.33 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 12.87 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 1 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1 7. Sustainability (5) 4.33 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 75.22 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 75.22 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $292,184 Cost of Electricity $0.68/kWh Grant Fund Request $240,592 Price of Fuel $5.20/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $266,592 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority proposes a biomass district heat system to serve eight multiplex residential buildings and one community center in Angoon, Alaska. This project is expected to displace 11,400 gallons of heating fuel annually. THRHA have demonstrated that pellet and cordwood heating systems can significantly reduce the heating costs in their buildings. They are successfully operating and maintaining the systems and helping to develop the pellet supply infrastructure in Southeast. The engineering complexity of this project is a concern and AEA recommends careful integration and budget planning. Recommend full funding for design and construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design and the final business/operational plan. AEA Funding Recommendation: $240,592 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 26/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Project Description A biomass district heat system will be installed to serve eight multiplex residential buildings and one community center in Angoon, Alaska. The buildings are currently heated with one oil boiler per residence and also one boiler for the community center. The objective of this project is to reduce fossil fuel consumption and operating costs by installing a wood-fired pellet heating plant to serve all nine buildings in the complex. This project is expected to displace 11,400 gallons of heating fuel annually. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on state land. Longitude does not appear to be correct. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments The project is for the replacement of an oil fired boiler with a pellet boiler to provide heat for eight residential buildings and one community center in Angoon. Pellets would be provided by existing pellet manufacturers either in Southeast, Interior or out of state suppliers. It is estimated that the annual fuel cost would be $360.00 per ton with an annual fuel usage of 103 tons. Delivered pellet vendor price estimates were not included in the proposal though commercial scale pellet utilization is successfully occurring in various Southeast communities. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 25/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable E App #1112 nergy Fund: Round 8 100 Kilowatt Solar Array for Kotzebue 7 (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.53 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 42.00 2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.30 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.67 4. Project Readiness (5) 0.50 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 7.13 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 15 6. Local Support (5) 2.00 Regional (of all applications) 4 7. Sustainability (5) 3.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 41.83 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 41.83 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $449,178 Cost of Electricity $0.40/kWh Grant Fund Request $384,730 Price of Fuel $5.97/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $64,448 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The application as proposed and additional information received did not fully address the feasibility and conceptual design- level issues expected to be complete prior to providing REF funding for final design and construction. AEA recommends partial funding of $20,000 to complete a feasibility study for solar PV development in Kotzebue. The study should consider fixed, single and dual tracking systems. AEA Funding Recommendation: Page 24/138 : $20,000 Election District: T-40 Arctic 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY 100 Kilowatt Solar Array for Kotzebue App #1112 Standard Application Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Northwest Artic Applicant: Kotzebue Electric Association Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction jamin Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Project Description Kotzebue Electric Association (KEA) has applied for final design, permitting, and construction funding of $384,730 fora $449,178 solar project. The project as proposed is a 100kW, dual-axis tracking solar photovoltaic system to be installed at KEA’s wind farm approximately four miles from Kotzebue. There are no prior REF grants directly associated with this project, although it would be constructed at KEA’s wind site which did receive REF funding for two 900kW EWT wind turbines and associated equipment. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 23/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J= ALASKA (ED ENERGY AUTHORITY Crater Lake Power and Water Project App #1111 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.01 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 71.67 2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.30 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 10.56 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.67 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 1263 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 1 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 1 7. Sustainability (5) 3.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 66.70 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 66.70 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $10,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.39/kWh Grant Fund Request $500,000 _—~ Price of Fuel $4.48/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $350,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision The proposed budget for the feasibility analysis appears insufficient for the project scope that should include stream gauging, operational modeling, sensitivity analysis and capacity recommendations, conceptual designs, cost estimating and economic analysis for the hydro, water supply system, and spinning reserve alternative analysis. Recommended for funding with the special provision that the prior phase of feasibility is included in the grant scope followed by design and permitting contingent on results and AEA acceptance of feasibility report. AEA Funding Recommendation: $500,000 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia Page 22/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Crater Lake Power and Water Project App #1111 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro, Storage, Other Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach Applicant: Cordova Electric Cooperative, Proposed Phase(s): Design as Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility, Design Project Description Cordova Electric's application is for design and permitting for a storage hydro using Crater Lake creating an estimated 400 acre-ft of storage for a 500 kW capacity project capable of generating 2,000 MWr's of electricity at an estimated cost of $10 million. Crater Lake is a perched lake located directly above existing City of Cordova chlorinator building and water supply line to Cordova, and a CEC transmission line from the Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project to Cordova. The reconnaissance study (Appendix B) indicates the project can deliver 2,000,000 kWh of direct energy, and up to 2,000,000 of additional energy by eliminating the need for Power Creek Hydroelectric Plant and Orca Diesel Generation Plants to provide spinning reserve — the most significant waste of hydro and diesel fuel resources on the CEC system. The Crater Lake Hydroelectric Project represents a relatively low risk, low cost, high value hydroelectric project with multiple extended public benefits. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Most of dam, intake, penstock, etc are proposed for construction on DMLW managed water or fee estate and will require SCRO authorization. Issued SCRO pededrian public access easement ADL 226467 may be affected. A Water Rights application recieved. Non FERC project. One or more stream gauges are presently installed on DMLW lands without application/authorization. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments Strong ground motions from subduction zone earthquakes should be considered in design. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 21/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Wood Boiler for the Native Village of Tazlina Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 16.76 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 68.67 2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.06 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 9.56 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.83 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 5.25 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) a7, 6. Local Support (5) 4.00 Regional (of all applications) 2 7. Sustainability (5) 4.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 53.40 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 53.40 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $200,000 Cost of Electricity $0.18/kWh Grant Fund Request $270,807 Price of Fuel $3.83/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $54,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. The buildings to be heated by this project are in need of energy efficiency upgrades, and the amount of fuel displaced would be significantly less after the energy efficiency work. The Copper Valley Region has embraced biomass as an alternative fuel source and has operating systems in Kenny Lake, Gulkana, and Glennallen. The Native Village of Tazlina has shown commitment to a successful wood heating project through persistence in their applications to the RE Fund. There is a sufficient wood supply through a BLM wildfire mitigation contract. The Alaska demonstration of the boiler technology proposed for this project is in the start-up phase in Mentasta Lake, and AEA is monitoring the performance. AEA recommends full funding for a cordwood boiler system. The applicant has requested that AEA manage the project. The project will examine energy efficiency within the served buildings. AEA Funding Recommendation: $270,807 Election District: C-6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border Page 20/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 j= ALASKA. (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Wood Boiler for the Native Village of Tazlina App #1110 Heat Application Project Type: Biomass Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach Applicant: Native Village of Tazlina Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Project Description The Native Village of Tazlina is proposing a small wood boiler to heat four community buildings: Community Hall, Clinic/Police Station, Office, and Shop. A centrally located boiler will supply heat through underground insulated pex pipe running to all four buildings. The existing oil boilers will remain as backup. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Timber harvest for biomass supply may require DNR Division of Forestry to be notified, but no SCRO involvement. (Proposed location for Biomass plant is near/within a building complex on Native alloted land, but within the vicinity of an ILMA with DOTPF ADL 52590, the Tazlina River, and a conveyed subdivision.) DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project was reviewed for the Round 7 application period and is for design and construction of a wood chip fired boiler at Tazlina. The system would be used to heat four collocated community public buildings. The supply of chips is expected to come from NRCS funded moose habitat clearings occurring on Ahtna lands and on BIA funded hazard fuel breaks. Roughly 116 green tons will be required annually. Based on state lands inventory data collected in the Glennallen area, roughly 30 green tons per acre of above ground biomass is present on the forest lands. The amount of raw material required for Tazlina would be quite sustainable if harvested in the Copper River Basin area. In the event these publicly funded projects are unable to provide biomass, Tazlina is willing to procure the raw material at an estimated cost of $90.00/green ton. They would also be willing to purchase fuel wood locally at $250-300 per cord and then chip prior to burning. At a fuel price of $90.00/ green ton, the annual fuel purchase price would be $10,400. This amountis significantly lower than the annual cost ($39,582) of 8,078 gallons of fuel oil. Tazlina expects to use information from the Mentasta village boiler for possible purchase ofa similar system for trial. If it does not perform adequately for Mentasta then Tazlina may default to a more standard Garn solid wool boiler. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 19/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.95 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 82.50 2. Matching Resources (15) 13.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.98 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 14.17 4. Project Readiness (5) 3.00 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 13.88 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) 3 6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 3 7. Sustainability (5) 4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 69.50 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 69.50 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $679,950 Cost of Electricity $0.26/kWh Grant Fund Request $493,100 Price of Fuel $4.10/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $186,850 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The Craig High School District in Craig, AK requests funding for engineering design and construction of a chip fueled biomass heating system for the Craig High School. The project is estimated to displace 18,485 gallons of fuel/year. The Craig City School District has over 6 years of experience in operating and maintaining a chip system at their middle school, elementary school, and pool complex. The chips will be supplied by a local sawmill and will be dried by dryer funded through the Renewable Energy Fund. Energy efficiency improvements are underway or completed at the high school to maximize the efficiency of the heating system. Recommend funding for design and construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design and the final business/operational plan prior to starting the construction phase. AEA Funding Recommendation: $493,100 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 18/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 j= (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion App #1109 Project Type: Biomass Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Craig City School District Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Project Description The project will consist of engineering and layout; acquiring machinery and equipment; installation of fuel delivery systems; and acquiring and installing biomass boilers to be integrated into the existing heating system of the Craig High School. The system will use dried fuel from the AEA funded dryer at Viking Lumber and benefit Viking Lumber by expanding the market base for dry wood fuel. The installed boilers would heat the 53,319 square foot high school using wood chips generated by operations ata local lumber mill. Feedstock for the mill and the resulting wood chips comes from timber logged from the nearby Tongass National Forest, Southeast Alaska State Forest, Alaska Native Corporation lands and other private lands. The project is similar in scope to the Craig wood-fired boiler and will share an existing contract to provide wood chips for the boiler. A preliminary feasibility study for conversion from fossil fuel to wood heating for the Craig High School was prepared for the Craig City School District by Robert Deering, Biomass Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. An energy audit has also been completed for the facility. DNRI/DOF Feasibility Comments This project was reviewed for the Round 7 application period. This project is for construction of a new biomass boiler to heat the Craig High School. The boiler will be in addition to one that is currently operational and is heating the elementary and middle schools. The system will use dried wood fuel from the AEA funded drier at Viking Lumber. Wood supply for this project appears sustainable because Viking’s raw wood supply originates from a variety of land owners including the Tongass National Forest, Southeast State Forest and village corporation lands. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 17/138 01/06/2015 App #1108 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 lm ENERGY AUTHORITY Neck Lake Hydropower Project Standard Application Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 25.61 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 63.50 2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.94 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 7.83 4. Project Readiness (5) 2.50 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 7.50 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 4 6. Local Support (5) 3.00 Regional (of all applications) 8 7. Sustainability (5) 3.33. Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 60.77 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 60.77 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $3,011,475 Costof Electricity $0.59/kWh Grant Fund Request $391,200 Price of Fuel $4.01/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $97,800 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding AP&T's reconnaissance study indicates this project may be economical despite the very low population and energy demand in Whale Pass. The application indicates that demand is expected to increase because several residents in Whale Pass lack connection to the local utility. AEA recommends feasibility analysis to include assessment of project size and economics for offsetting heat demand and the growth potential for the community followed by design and permitting if warranted. AEA Funding Recommendation: $391,200 Page 16/138 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J = ALASKA. (mm ENERGY AUTHORITY Neck Lake Hydropower Project App #1108 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Alaska Power Company Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility, Design Project Description Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), requests $391,200 for Phase Il and Phase Ill activities for the Neck Lake hydropower project. The 124 kW Neck Lake Hydroelectric Project will be located below the outlet of Neck Lake, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the community of Whale Pass on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The Project will displace as much as 450,000 kilowatt hours of diesel electric energy per year to the community of Whale Pass which is currently the sole source of electricity for residents. The relatively high and modulated flows from the lake combined with the steep drop at the lower end of the outlet stream provide an attractive opportunity for a small run-of- river hydroelectric project. Project features would include an access road, intake structure, 400 feet of penstock, a containerized power plant, a tailrace channel, and 4 miles of distribution line upgrades. The hydroelectric facilities will be designed to avoid interference with the existing salmon rearing and collection facilities operated at Neck Lake by the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA). APC conducted a reconnaissance study of the site in 2009 and determined that there is sufficient potential to almost always provide enough generation meeting 100% of current and future Whale Pass loads. This Project will provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate stabilization and lower rates for APC’s Whale Pass customers. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments SSRAA Lease ADL 106174. Uplands designated Public Facilities (P) and Public Recreation Undeveloped (Ru). ADFG has also recently inquired to place a trail in this area. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The proposed project is ~150 km from the Queen Charlotte/Fairweather fault, ground motions from earthquakes on this source should be considered in design.All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 15/138 01/06/2015 (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project App #1107 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.21 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $13,391,869 Cost of Electricity $0.12/kWh Grant Fund Request $2,797,935 Price of Fuel $4.09/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $6,695,934 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended AEA does not recommend the requested phase of this project be funded at this time due to unsupported feasibility claims and incomplete prior phases. For a design/construction project the applicant must provide sufficient information to complete an economic and/or technical evaluation. This application did not provide sufficient information on the amount and cost of diesel generation (the alternative to the proposed project) and a clear, verifiable demonstration of how much diesel generation is expected to be offset by the proposed project. Additionally, the application did not demonstrate the fulfillment of all requirements of earlier phases. This application indicates that that the final design and permitting tasks are not yet complete.A Southeast Alaska hydro needs assessment has been funded by the State to identify the next most economical hydro needs in the region. This work is underway but not yet complete.No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 14/138 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA. Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project App #1107 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: The Southeast Alaska Power Proposed Phase(s): Construction Agency (SEAPA) Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Construction Project Description Southeast Alaska Power Agency's application if for construction of a project that will raise the normal reservoir height 15' (5% head increase) at the existing Swan Lake hydro project, FERC No. P-2911, creating an additional 21,600 acre-ft of storage resulting in an average annual energy generation of 7,500 MWh's ata total cost of $13 million. The Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project is currently comprised of a concrete arch dam 174' high and 430' long atits crest, an intake structure near the dam, a rock tunnel and penstock water conveyance system, and a power house located near tidewater. It is located 22 air miles northeast of Ketchikan, Alaska and generates renewable energy for the communities of Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell. SEAPA proposes to raise the existing dam by 6' and install a gate system (fuse type and vertical gate) in the fixed spillway slot, which will result in an overall reservoir height increase of 15’. This will provide additional 25% increase in active reservoir storage. Modifications to the concrete intake structure will also be required, including raising the height and moving internal equipment to a higher elevation. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments ADL 106840 lease dam to port facility / ADL 106442 Swan Lake -Tyee Intertie. Use of additional state land required for impoundment area. Water Rights application received. FERC project. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments The proposed project is ~150 km from the queen Charlotte/Fairweather fault, however given the size of the dam ground motions from earthquakes on this source should be considered in design. All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 13/138 01/06/2015 = ALASKA. (QM ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 Mahoney Lake Hydropower Project App #1106 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Standard Application Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.28 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $45,320,707 Cost of Electricity $0.12/kWh Grant Fund Request $800,000 Price of Fuel $4.09/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $100,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The applicant did not adequately demonstrate feasibility. For a design/construction project the applicant must provide sufficient information to complete an economic and technical evaluation. This application did not provide sufficient information on the amount and cost of diesel generation (the alternative to the proposed project) and a clear, verifiable demonstration of how much diesel generation is expected to be offset by the proposed project. A Southeast Alaska hydro needs assessment has been funded by the State to identify the next most economical hydro needs in the region. This work is underway but not yet complete, and when complete may help the applicant better demonstrate the feasibility of this project. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 12/138 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Mahoney Lake Hydropower Project App #1106 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: City of Saxman Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Project Description City of Saxman's application is for design of the FERC licensed (P-11393) project that will create 9.6 MW of new hydroelectric capacity on Mahoney Lake with a storage capacity of 4,000 acre-ft and 41,700 MWh of energy ata cost of $45 million to serve Ketchikan and surrounding communities. Approximately 17,900,000 average annual KWH (17.9 aGWH) of power is available between November and April as winter storage, allowing the project to meet the key SEIRP (Southeast Integrated Resource Plan) objective of increasing winter storage. A detailed cost estimate was performed by Mead & Hunt, a third party engineering firm, in August of 2014, which estimated the project's total cost at $45,320,707, making the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project one of southeast Alaska’s most affordable options for new hydropower energy and capacity. This alpine lake tap project does not require construction of a dam, and the project's FERC license has already been issued. Project proponents are requesting $800,000 AEA REF Round VIII funds, and are proposing $100,000 match (cash and in-kind) to follow through on $200,000 of work funded to date by a SFY14 Capital Appropriation from the State of Alaska. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Ketchikan George Inlet 2013-08-28 KPU requests Resolution to Endorse Project. Uplands-native corporation land. Anadromous stream Adjacent tidelands. Water Right LAS 14359. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 11/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA __ (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project App #1105 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 21.68 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 42.83 2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1:23 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 0.94 4. Project Readiness (5) 0.67 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 5.88 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 14 6. Local Support (5) 2.00 Regional (of all applications) 4 7. Sustainability (5) 2.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 44.67 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 4467 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $15,922,000 Cost of Electricity $0.50/kWh Grant Fund Request $40,000 Price of Fuel $4.38/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $23,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The applicant requested funding in the amount of $413,600 with match and in-kind support of $103,400 for complete feasibility and conceptual design phases. There is limited supporting data in terms of potential hydro energy production, that if available, could increase AEA's confidence of the project economics. A number of conditions should be met before undertaking this secondary hydro development in the Tok region including additional assurance with regard to energy availability and project operability and subsequent economics. Stream gauging is recommended to evaluate the energy resource prior to undertaking more extensive studies. The gauging will improve confidence in energy availability for nearby Yerrick Creek as well. Demonstration of cost and operability of Yerrick Creek is also recommended before proceeding with Clearwater Creek development. AEA's funding recommendation is therefore limited to the proposed stream gauging work in the application consisting of $40k of REF grant, $10k grantee matching funds, and $3k other funds. AEA Funding Recommendation: $40,000 Election District: C-6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border Page 10/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (Ql ENERGY AUTHORITY Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project App #1105 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Applicant: Alaska Power Company Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Project Description Alaska Power Company's application is for a feasibility study for a new 1 MWrun of river (no storage) hydro project on Clearwater Creek to serve Tok and surrounding area producing 3,400 MWr's of energy at an estimated cost of $16 million. Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), requests $413,600 in AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII grant funding support for Phase II Feasibility / Conceptual Design activities for the Clearwater Creek hydropower project. The proposed project is a 1 MWrun-of-river hydroelectric project on Clearwater Creek, which is located approximately 15 miles southwest of the community of Tok on the Tok-Cutoff Highway (Glenn Highway). The project would supply approximately 3.4 GWh annually to Tok and surrounding interconnected communities. Clearwater Creek’s project features would consist of a small diversion structure, a 1 MW generating system (Turgo turbine), approximately 20,000 feet of penstock, an open tailrace channel, substation, approximately 5 miles of access road, and a distribution line. The project would interconnect with the Tok region grid via a 14-mile transmission connection made utilizing existing highway right-of- way. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project involves state land. Phase Il involves placement of stream gauges, which may require DMLW permits, though application states that none would be required until phase Ill. If futue phases of the project are undertaken, infrastructure will require DMLW authorizations. Access is described as going through a state campground - consultation with Division of Parks early in process will be necessary. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 9/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA _ (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment App #1104 Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score __ Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 5.25 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 81.83 2. Matching Resources (15) 15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.79 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 13.94 4. Project Readiness (5) 1.67 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 12.12 Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) a 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) an 7. Sustainability (5) 3.17. Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 56.15 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 56.15 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $170,583 Cost of Electricity $0.12/kWh Grant Fund Request $88,742 Price of Fuel $4.09/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $81,842 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding SEAPA submitted similar proposals in Rounds 5 and 7 and was recommended by AEA, but never funded due to the project's rank and funding availability those years. SEAPA has been given a 34-meter met tower from AEA's met tower loan program. Whether funded or not in Round 8, the applicant is encouraged to coordinate with the AEA wind program, which can assist in site assessment, site selection and permitting. If future REF funding will be applied for, the applicant should attempt to start collecting data as early as possible in order to complete either one or two full years of wind data collection prior to applying for the next phases of project development, which are typically due in September. The project schedule is thorough and achievable. The staff at SEAPA has experience with large energy projects. Due to the size of the electrical load and infrastructure in the region, a multi-megawatt scale wind project would be appropriate and allow for the best economies of scale. AEA recommends full funding. AEA Funding Recommendation: $88,742 Election District: R-36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg Page 8/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALdSkA.. (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment App #1104 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: The Southeast Alaska Power Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility Agency (SEAPA) Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility Project Description Applicant accepted delivery of a 34-meter Met Tower from the Alaska Energy Authority in July 2013 and seeks to conduct a reconnaissance and feasibility analysis to determine if it is feasible to use wind power to supplement the energy needs and displace diesel for the communities serviced by SEAPA. After the site assessment has determined the most suitable site for collection of raw wind data, the Met Tower will be installed to gather two (2) years of wind data for a thorough analysis. An analysis of the wind data and a final report will be performed by a qualified consultant specializing in the field. Page 7/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA __ (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Sitka: Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump Heat Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) 17.87 Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 83.50 2. Matching Resources (15) 11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.41 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 14.50 4. Project Readiness (5) 4.50 Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) 9.00 Statewide (of 30 Heat applications) ih 6. Local Support (5) 5.00 Regional (of all applications) 5 7. Sustainability (5) 4.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) 66.70 Total Stage 3 Score (100) 66.70 Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $740,000 Cost of Electricity $0.11/kWh Grant Fund Request $627,000 _~ Price of Fuel $4.08/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $168,278 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The proposal to use wastewater effluent as a source for a heat pump system is a compelling use of an otherwise unused heat source, and could serve as a model for similar systems in other parts of the state. The high temperature and availability of effluent would result in a higher heat pump COP than seen in other heat pump installations in the state. Cost savings identified by the applicant since a Round 7 Renewable Energy Fund submission have dramatically improved the project's economics. Full funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $627,000 Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 6/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 g= ALASKA. (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Sitka: Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump App #1103 Heat Application Project Type: HeatPump Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: City and Borough of Sitka Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Public Works Department Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Project Description The City and Borough of Sitka proposes to design and construct an effluent source heat pump system to provide space heat to the Wastewater Treatment Plant on Japonski Island. The heat pump system would capture heat from screen effluent through a stainless steel heat exchanger and water-to-water heat pumps for use in the buildings hydronic heating system. Effluent currently passes by the boiler at an average temperature of ~50 F; the 72-ton heat pump system is expected to perform with a higher efficiency as a result of the warm source fluid, with a coefficient of performance of approximately 4.0. Backup heat would be supplied by a new 955 MBH fuel oil boiler. The application is based on a 2014 feasibility study completed by Alaska Energy Engineering and a 2014 HVAC assessment complete by CH2MHill. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Awww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 5/138 01/06/2015 App #1102 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 J = ALASKA. Upper Hidden Basin Diversion (QD ENERGY AUTHORITY Standard Application Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 5.57 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $50,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.16/kWh Grant Fund Request $1,250,000 ‘Price of Fuel $4.42/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $1,250,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The design phase request is not recommended at this time. For design funding the prior phase of feasibility shall be complete so that the project viability and the future funding needs can be determined per the AEA Request for Applications 15003 section 2.2 to 2.6. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 4/138 Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Upper Hidden Basin Diversion App #1102 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Kodiak Applicant: Kodiak Electric Association, Proposed Phase(s): Design Inc. (KEA) Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design Project Description Kodiak Electric's (KEA) application is for final design and permitting for basin diversion project to augment existing Terror Lake (P-2743) hydroelectric generation serving Kodiak. No additional storage or capacity would be added by the project. The diversion is expected to produce 30,000 MWh of energy through the existing Terror Lake hydro at an estimated project cost of $50 million. Hydropower generated by the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project is KEA’s primary energy source. Enhancing water availability to Terror Lake with a new diversion would allow KEA’s future electrical load growth to be continually powered with renewable energy. The Upper Hidden Basin Diversion would supplement the available water supply for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility by capturing additional snow melt and rain in the upper reaches of the Hidden Basin watershed and conveying it to the existing Terror Lake reservoir. Structural components for the proposed project would consist of two dam embankments connected by an approximately 0.4 mile long channel, an intake structure connected to subterranean tunnel that would run through a mountain ridge for approximately 1.2 miles, and a gravel road for construction and future maintenance access. These diversion components would be a simple, non-mechanical design intended for un- manned water conveyance. Once the water from the Upper Hidden Basin diversion flows into the Terror Lake reservoir, the additional hydropower would be generated from the existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project and fed directly into the KEA grid. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Existing SAPA Terror Lake Hydroproject previously approved under SCRO lease ADL 204024, is seeking to add diversion works from Hidden Basin creek into Terror Lake. SCRO has an active permit to KEA under LAS 29042 for stream gauges. A portion of the proposed tunnel, and the entirety of the diversion dam and access road are proposed for construction on State- owned lands and would require SCRO authorization if built. Additional authorization from the DMLW Water Section may also be later required. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/Avww.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 3/138 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 y= ALASKA _ (mm ENERGY AUTHORITY App #1101 Stage 3 Scoring Summary Manokotak Renewable Energy Feasibility Project Standard Application Criterion (Max Score) Score Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Technical & Economic Strength Score (100) 37.33 2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.87 3. Project Feasibility from Stage 2 (20) 4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 36 Standard applications) 6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100) Total Stage 3 Score (100) Funding & Cost Total Cost Through Construction $2,100,000 Cost of Electricity $0.55/kWh Grant Fund Request $185,000 Price of Fuel $6.58/Gal Total Matched Funds Provided $15,000 AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2 AEA's primary concern with this project is the current condition of the power generation and distribution system. The utility needs to develop a plan to get their four original gensets in good working order and follow a maintenance schedule that ensures long-term operation before the addition of a wind energy project can be pursued. AEA has programs available to provide technical assistance to the utility to help with this. A preliminary wind study has been conducted in the Manokotak vicinity in 2008/9. That data was used to feed economic and technical assumptions into a wind-diesel model, which indicated that there may be an economic wind resource in the community. The next steps, once the current power generation system is prepared to accept wind energy, is to identify the specific location of the best local wind resource through the installation of meteorological tower(s), as requested in this application. At that time, AEA wind staff should be consulted prior to selecting the met tower locations. This project did not pass the Stage 2 (economic and technical evaluation) minimum score. No funding recommended. AEA Funding Recommendation: $0 Page 2/138 Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim 01/06/2015 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund: Round 8 = ALASKA... (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY Manokotak Renewable Energy Feasibility Project App #1101 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Bristol Bay Applicant: Manokotak Natives Limited: Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility Manokotak Power Company (MPC) Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility Project Description Manokotak Power Company (MPC) is proposing to install up to 4 small meteorological towers to determine a location with the following criteria: (1) a location with class 5 or better wind resource, (2) a location nearest to the road system and (3) location suitable for the installation of a wind turbine. The project would complete a conceptual design to establish and further the development of the project at a suitable wind turbine site and offer viable design configurations from available wind resource turbines and equipment. The conceptual design will offer a determination of the optimal capacity of any wind turbine system to be incorporated into the community's existing power plant (260 kW diesel powered generators). Based on similar configured systems, a system with two (2) 100 KW wind generators would be optimal in a class 5 wind environment. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Water general comment: Many construction projects will require use of water and may require Temporary Water Use Authorizations during construction regardless of land ownership. This is not noted in each project. DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http:/www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/23944 Page 1/138 01/06/2015