Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting documents2 5-13-2014Renewable Energy Fund Projects, Rounds | - VII Biomass or Biofuels Heat Pump Heat Recovery Hydro Ocean/River Solar Transmission Wind Other = ENERGY AUTHORITY Renewable Energy Fund Projects Round VIII Recommended Projects Draft 1/5/15 for REFAC Meeting ET is, eson i; ie Biomass 1133 1155 11, Wy BB? TWN! S Heat Pump ro be % Heat Recovery is Wind to Heat Hydro Ocean/River Solar Transmission Wind her a © ® 6 6 2 © x @ ry Energy Region 1234 Project ID for recommended Application in the top tier (within the Governor's budget of $15.0M) 4234 Project ID for recommended Application in the second tier (outside the Governor's budget of $15.0M) @@m™m™ ENERGY AUTHORITY Bm peed oc = Interactions — Incentives — Illustrations Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting eS K oo Presentation purpose * Respond to perception that the state PCE program is the primary beneficiary of REF funded project savings ¢ Clarify impact of REF projects in PCE communities and throughout the state Presentation overview = PCE program and characteristics of eligible communities = What happens when an RE project is introduced = Distribution of REF project savings = Questions = ALASKA. _ ENERGY AUTHORITY RNIN inh iter ci oS sp eka eR Le Statewide PCE Electric sales in PCE communities (kWh) 188 PCE communities eee eee $4,0 million annual disbursement eligible 21% Percent of kWhs that are PCE eligible varies by Community = community facility PCE * Across all PCE communities (weighted Other NOT etgible7 average) 28.5% of all kWhs sold are eligible. eligible 61% * Eligible PCE sales range from 5% to 72% of aaa total sales. Res|certial * Inatypical (un-weighted average) PCE NOT eligible i 9% community, 40% of all kWhs sold are eligible. Community facility NOT cig /= ALASKA (E> ENERGY AUTHORITY 5 7 Communities with small populations have higher % of eligible kWhs 7,000 80% Population - % kWh PCE eligible 6,000 All communities 70% — Statewide PCE 5000 60% Residential sales * 69% PCE covered 50% + 31% not covered 4,000 40% Community facility sales 3,000 * 83% PCE covered 30% + 17% not covered 2,000 a 20% Ineligible customer sales * 81% commercial 1,000 | | | | 10% * 19% government ° HH, | ll Ma ‘ul ol tds hil. inl, Hi Hal bast o% “Population —-% of Total kWh, PCE Eligible f= ALASKA. mm ENERGY AUTHORITY I anise Si Soe ee ee, ga Calculating PCE level and effective rates Utility cost per kWh PCE vocabulary (cost/kWh) = total Mrellinmecrseicercln ava Base rate: The weighted average cost per kWh in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau sold “ PCE level: The state subsidy per eligible kWh calculated for each community Effective rate: The cost per kWh that customers will pay for a PCE eligible kWh Base rate = $0.1482 Gn nel meer: fea Lae =t-1 3 fear mimeo 4 PCE level = (cost/kWh — cost kWhs fr} a) (cost/kWh-base rate) x 95% base rate) x 95% si a ies seco $1M 2M $1M/2M= $0.1482 ($0.50-$0.1482) x 95% = $0.3342 $0.50-$0.3342 =) S0ug0 = $0.1658 Effective rate = cost/kWh — PCE level = ALASKA. — ENERGY AUTHORITY — PCE impacts on rates $0.80 $0.20 $0.00 PCE communities ‘Utility Residential Rate M@—BEffective Residential Rate © ——Base Rate = ALASKA... — ENERGY AUTHORITY How do RE projects impact PCE? When a renewable energy project comes online there are decreases in fuel costs and there may be increases in non-fuel costs (e.9. O&M). These costs are part of the PCE level calculation. We should expect the PCE level for that community to change because their costs have changed. ! Fi. How the impacts of those changes are 5 @ distributed Soe most on the percent of ; ~~ community kWhs that are PCE eligible. : ‘ a= ALASKA mm ENERGY AUTHORITY 7 Distribution of RE benefits - 2 community profiles Sharing RE savings Assumptions: = Cost based rates means that savings are passed through to ineligible PCE kWh customers « The RE project reduces fuel costs and has zero impact on non-fuel cost Community benefit Community A: 40% eligible kWhs/60% ineligible kWhs Community benefit / ik ces §=— aaa m@ PCE program @ Ineligible kWhs @ Eligible kWhs Community B: 60% eligible kwhs/40% ineligible kWhs mm ENERGY AUTHORITY 4,000,000 Community example: Kotzebue $0.30 3,500,000 $0.25 3,000,000 $0.20 2,500,000 2,000,000 $0.15 1,500,000 $0.10 1,000,000 $0.05 500,000 ° $0.00 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 mm Wind generationkWh/yr |= —Effective rate - PCE kWhs —Fuel cost/diesel generated kWh = ALASKA... l= @mm ENERGY AUTHORITY —— | PCE Communities with Operational | Renewable Energy Fund Projects (Electric and Heat) a © PCE Communtties @ Community with Electic . . HE Community with Heat ., . o- m . oe ——_— oe . . 12 Last year: * There were 26 generating REF funded energy projects in PCE communities * 1g electric projects * 7heat projects E and Anticipated Renewable a Energy Fund Projects _ | | | © PCE Community . Operating Projects © © Community with Electric . B® Community with Heat Future Projects ® Community with Electric 1 Communty with Heat Five years from now: * There will be 80 generating REF funded energy projects in PCE communities * 38 electric projects yates = ALASKA 42 heat projects J mm ENERGY AUTHORITY REF benefits statewide from the first $75.6 million spent on the first 37 projects to start generating energy State PCE savings Community savings Projects in PCE communities * $3.3 million annual savings stays in community (ineligible kWhs + portion of reduction to eligible kWhs + heat) Projects in Non-PCE communities * $24.5 million savings to communities $29.5 Million (2013) Annual savings from REF projects = ALASKA. — ENERGY AUTHORITY REF investment in PCE vs. Non-PCE communities Kodiak, 2% The difference in population and scale between urban and rural energy systems means that, much like consumption, savings from projects are greater. REF funds are invested heavily in PCE communities in a larger number of small projects. REF investments outside PCE communities are in a fewer number of larger projects to serve the much larger demand for energy in these communities. On average for generating projects the REF covers: * 70% of total costs for projects in PCE communities * 31% of total costs for projects in Non-PCE communities (46% state investment including direct appropriations) Statewide Consumption Of the 37 currently generating REF funded projects * 26 are in PCE communities ($55.8M in REF funds) * 11 are not in PCE communities ($19.8M in REF funds + $10M direct appropriation) * Most of these savings come from three projects, Anchorage Landfill Gas (Railbelt), Eva Creek (Railbelt) and Pillar Mountain (Kodiak) j= = ALASKA... mm ENERGY AUTHORITY Saving from RE Heat Projects 100% of savings from heat projects stay in the community * 7REF funded heat projects saved $1.3 million last year in displaced heating fuel in addition to creating local jobs * This year there will be 22 operating REF heat projects * Heat projects include biomass, heat pumps and heat recovery = ALASKA. = ENERGY AUTHORITY Takeaways 1. The large majority of savings associated with REF funded projects stays in communities 2. REF projects create price stability, protecting against uncertain and uncontrollable diesel prices 3. Savings to PCE communities are greatest in places with larger commercial, or otherwise ineligible loads; these tend to be larger communities 4. Smaller PCE communities with little ineligible load benefit most from the PCE program = ALASKA. mm ENERGY AUTHORITY AKEnergyAuthority.org Renewable Energy Fund PRELIMINARY Status Report REFAC 1/9/15 Preliminary The following graphs and numbers are a preliminary view of analysis AEA is conducting for the REF status report to be presented to the Governor and Legislature in late January. = ALASKA. — ENERGY AUTHORITY a ee 2 TE Renewable Energy Fund Projects, Rounds | - VI Renewable Energy Fund: Annual Fuel Savings a 2009 2010 2011 oak 2013 2014 2015 echocha Actual Actual Actual Annualized Projected Projected 20 | | | uw Million Gallons Diesel Equivalent S @LandfillGas Biomass MHeatPumps mHeatRecovery m Hydro Solar Transmission = Wind 44 Operating Projects Overall Program Benefit/Cost Ratio =2.8 REF CURRENLTY OPERATING PROJECTS $900 $800 $700 HILLIONS $ b a s 3 $200 $100 NPV Capital Cost NPV Benefits = Landfill Gas § Transmission Solar a Hydro m= Heat Recovery mu Heat Pumps = Biomass = ALASKA... = ENERGY AUTHORITY 5 Renewable Energy Fund Projects, Rounds | - VII Biomass or Biofuels Heat Pump Heat Recovery Hydro Ocean/River Solar Transmission Wind Other SKOPCCOD>> ) ENERGY AUTHORITY 6 Renewable Energy Fund Projects Round VIII Recommended Projects Draft 1/5/15 for REFAC Meeting ii A ® e a é ’ % ® x q Ss lf ey 1234, ProwetiO for recommended Asotcation the top fer ‘qui the Govemors budget of $18 OM) 1234 Project O for recommended Applicaton nthe second fer (eataide he Govemors budget of $15 OM) REF Grant and Funding Summary Applications Received 732 Applications Funded 277 | Grants Currently in Place | 122 Grants Completed and 115 Closed Grants Cancelled or 12 Combined Grants Unissued to Date’ 28 Amount Requested? ($M) $ 1,442.3 AEA Recommended ($M) $ 398.3 Appropriated ($M)* $ 247.5 Cash Disbursed ($M) $ 163.3 Match Budgeted ($M)? $ 152.1 Grants unissued are due mostly to grantee conditions that require earlier phases of work to be completed first or awaiting grantee action on the grant document. 2. Total grant amount requested by all applicants. Represents only amounts recorded in the grant document and does not capture all other funding. a» 4. $12.8 Million was re-appropriated from earlier rounds for use in Round IV ($10M) and Round VII ($2.8M). a= Ab ASKA nn QD ENERGY AUTHORITY EE eee ol o Round I-VII Funded Projects by Energy Source (Million S's) 1.73 5-74 0.99 18.69 i 98.43 @ Hydro (72) = Biomass/Biofuel (48) = Heat Recovery (32) = Wind (73) Solar (5) = Heat Pump (15) = Ocean/River (3) = Other (8) @ Transmission (9) = ALASKA... = ENERGY an Round I-VIl Funded Projects by Phase (Million $'s) Y = Recon (35) = Feasibility (153) = Design (89) = Construction (164) @@lD ENERGY AUTHORITY 10 Round I-VII Funded Projects by Region (Millions S) 2.50 0.57 = Southeast = Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim = Northwest Arctic = Aleutians = Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana ® Bristol Bay = Copper River/Chugach ® Railbelt @ Bering Straits = Kodiak = North Slope = Statewide = ALASKA... = ENERGY AUTHORITY 1 Round I-VII Applications by Energy Source Round VIII Applications by Energy Source = Hydro = Hydro = Biomass/Biofuel = Biomass/Biofuel = Heat Recovery = Heat Recovery = Wind = Wind Solar Solar = Heat Pump = Heat Pump ™ Ocean/River ™ Ocean/River = Other = Other = Transmission = Transmission -- Abe ASIA en J= @@™lm ENERGY AUTHORITY 2 Round VIIl Recommended Applications by Energy Source (Million $'s) al = Hydro (11) = Biomass/Biofuel (13) = Heat Recovery (6) = Wind (6) Solar (1) = Heat Pump (2) = Transmission (1) = ALASKA. — ENERGY AUTHORITY 1s Round I-VII Applications by Phase = Recon = Feasibility = Design = Construction Round VIII Applications by Phase = Recon = Feasibility = Design = Construction el j= (ED ENERGY AUTHORITY 14 Ee Round VIII Recommended Applications by Phase (Million S's) 0.18 = Recon = Feasibility = Design = Construction = ALASKA... lm ENERGY AUTHORITY | 1s Round I-VII Applications by Region ° = Southeast = Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim = Northwest Arctic = Aleutians ® Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana = Bristol Bay = Copper River/Chugach ® Railbelt ® Bering Straits = Kodiak = North Slope = Statewide Round VIII Applications by Region = Southeast = Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim = Northwest Arctic = Aleutians ® Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana = Bristol Bay ® Copper River/Chugach ® Railbelt ® Bering Straits = Kodiak ® North Slope = ALASKA... mm ENERGY AUTHORITY oT Round VIII Recommended Applications by Region (Million S's) = Southeast = Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim = Northwest Arctic = Aleutians = Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana = Bristol Bay = Copper River/Chugach = Railbelt = Bering Straits ® Kodiak = North Slope 0.69 /= ( | b SKA ml ENERGY AUTHORITY 7 Round I-VII Applications by Recommendation = Full Funding = Full Funding with SP ® Partial Funding = Partial Funding with Special Provision ™ Did Not Pass Stage 2 = Not Recommended ® Did Not Pass Stage 1 = Withdrawn Round VIII Applications by Recommendation >i = ALASKA. ED ENERGY AUTHORITY = Full Funding ® Full Funding with SP = Partial Funding = Partial Funding with Special Provision = Did Not Pass Stage 2 = Not Recommended = Did Not Pass Stage 1 . Community Assistance Provided Applic # Project Name Applicant Name ; Rec? 1101 Manokotak Renewable Energy Feasibility Project Manokotak Power Company — : | No 1109 | Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion | Craig City School District "Yes 1110 | Wood Boiler for The Native Village of Taziina -—|~Native Village ofTazlina = Yes 1113 Angoon low-income housing pellet district heat Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Auth. Yes 1114 | Klawock low-income housing pellet heat | Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Auth. _Yes _ 1131 Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project.‘ Hydaburg City School District _ “Yes 1132 Wales Water System Heat Recovery cs | City mw os Oe ee 1133 Kotzebue Paper & Wood Waste to Energy Project | City of Kotzebue “Yes | 1136 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design a North Slope Borough |Yes | 1139 | Chefornak Wind Heat ‘ System — | _ City of Chefornak/Naterkaq Light Plant | No 1144 | Kake senior housing solar PV | Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Auth. nee S| No 1147 | Southeast Island School District wood boilers —- Southeast Island School District | Yes 1148 | Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project rae Roe City of Scammon Bay es oe = ALdSIOA ea @@lD ENERGY AUTHORITY ee oe AKEnergyAuthority.org i=.