The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREFAC Meeting agenda and minutes 5-13-2014/= ALASKA @@m™m> ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Kodiak Electric Association Board Room 515 Marine Way Kodiak, Alaska May 13, 2014 2:30 pm — 5:30 pm Teleconference: 1-800-315-6338, code 3903# AGENDA Call to Order Roll Call (committee members, staff, public, phone) Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes) Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions) Approval of Meeting Minutes — January 7, 2014 Kodiak Electric Presentation Overview of Changes for Round 8 Data Collection Update, ACEP 9. Economic Evaluation Improvements oN SP oS ON 2 10. Review of Evaluation Guidelines 11. Committee Member Comments 12. Next Meeting Dates (proposed): Wednesday November 12, 2014 Friday January 9, 2015 Wednesday May 20, 2015 13. Adjournment 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 1 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 15 January 7, 2014 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting January 7, 2014 Alaska Energy Authority Board Room Anchorage, Alaska 10:06 a.m. to 1:04 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES a Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 10:06 a.m., with Chairman Rose presiding. A quorum was established. 2. Roll Call Committee Members Roll Call: Chairman Chris Rose (1/1), Jodi Mitchell (1/1), Representative Bryce Edgmon (1/1), Brad Reeve (1/1), Senator Anna Fairclough (1/1) and Senator Lyman Hoffman (1/1). (Numbers in parenthesis represents attendance since January 2014.) Staff/Public Roll Call: Josh Craft, Emily Binnian, Helen Traylor, Sandra Moller, Devany Plentovich, Alan Baldivieso, Audrey Alstrom, Shawn Calfa, Sean Skaling, Sara Fisher-Goad, Yolanda Inga (AEA); Maggie McKay (Marsh Creek, LLC); Ron Vecera (Chugach Electric); Noel Janda (DSI); Chris Dillon (Consultant); Steve Gilbert (Alaska Village Electric Cooperative); Wyn Menefee (Department of Natural Resources); Tom Williams (Ventura Winds); Sunny Morrison (Accu-Type Dispositions) 2 Public Comments Mr. Williams, from Ventura Wind, asked if public comments could be submitted by letter. Chair Rose provided the contact information. 4. Agenda Comments The agenda was approved as presented. 5: Approval of Meeting Minutes - November 12, 2013 MOTION: Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the meeting minutes from November 12, 2013, Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee meeting. Seconded by Senator Hoffman. The minutes were approved unanimously. 6. Approval of Evaluation Guidelines Mr. Skaling believes this is the most important REFAC meeting of the year where feedback is received from the Committee regarding the recommendations for this year. Mr. Skaling reviewed the draft document entitled Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation. He noted AEA received 86 REF Round 7 applications this year. Four of the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 15 January 7, 2014 applications were found ineligible. One of those was given reconsideration and allowed to advance with minor changes. Mr. Skaling noted the minimum scoring was changed from 35 to 40, setting the bar slightly higher for the technical and economic evaluations to pass Stage 2. Senator Hoffman requested the department look at ways to alter the program to differentiate between electricity applications and heat applications and give more weight to the heat applications. Senator Hoffman noted the largest amount of Alaskans' disposable income is spent on heating costs. Mr. Skaling advised there were significant changes in that arena this year. There are two separate recommendation lists; a list of heating projects and a list of recommended standard applications, which includes, electric, transmission, storage, and heat and electricity combined. We changed the formula that determines the points earned in the matching funds category and also started using the cost of heating oil for heating projects, rather than using the cost of electricity. Stage 3 is the review process for ranking the applications. This is shown ina spreadsheet format. Mr. Reeve asked how the public benefit category is judged. Mr. Skaling noted on page 13 of Appendix A, shows the scoring criteria used for the public benefit review. Stage 4 is regional spreading, which includes insights and opinions from the Committee to ensure adequate representation of the state. Mr. Skaling requested the Committee adopt the draft Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation. Mr. Reeve believes one of the primary public benefits should be reducing the cost of energy for the community. There may be some regulatory oversight needed for the applications to ensure there is a public benefit factor going into the grants. Mr. Skaling responded to Mr. Reeve and believes the benefit/cost ratio and economic evaluation fairly robustly addresses Mr. Reeve's concern. Mr. Reeve commented it is not evident in his review of the documents. Mr. Skaling advised the benefit/cost ratio looks at the life cycle of the project, compares the existing infrastructure as a baseline to the total operating cost and capital cost of the new alternative. The benefit/cost ratio of 1.0 is equal benefit to the cost of the preexisting infrastructure. Mr. Reeve noted if that does not translate into reduced rates in costs or reduced cost of fuel for the community, then it may not end up being a public benefit. Mr. Skaling stated a benefit to the utility is still a benefit to the public because it should be reducing rates. Mr. Reeve commented utilities are not the only entities with projects. Mr. Skaling agreed. Ms. Fisher-Goad believes this is a really good point and Mr. Reeve's perspective as a utility manager is valuable. She noted AEA struggles with the issue of reducing the costs and whether that equates to reduced cost per kilowatt hour for residents and if it does not equate to that, what is it doing to provide benefit. Ms. Fisher-Goad reported the intent is to quantify and capture the benefits as much as possible. The benefit may not be a rate reduction, but could help provide reliability to the utility, which is clearly a benefit to the rate payers. Senator Hoffman stated heating cost is not included on the chart on page 21. The chart shows the cost of power. Senator Hoffman noted the highest cost for Alaskans is heating costs and the ranking may be different if the heating costs were shown. He requested the chart reflect heating costs, electricity power costs, and cumulative total costs. Mr. Skaling noted Senator Hoffman's Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 15 January 7, 2014 request is possible. Mr. Skaling referenced page 21 of Appendix A and stated generally the electricity cost is representing the heat cost and where this is high cost heating, there is also high cost electricity, with the exception of Southeast. Mr. Skaling does not believe this tool is so sensitive that the rankings would change much and will include Senator Hoffman's recommendation in next year's evaluations. Chair Rose recommended having a cumulative chart for next year which includes Rounds 7 and 8, showing the balance of heating projects funded. Chair Rose noted most projects funded in the first six rounds have been electric projects. Ms. Fisher-Goad explained this chart is to demonstrate the spreading curve region based upon cost and does not reflect how projects are evaluated. Senator Fairclough asked if Senator Hoffman's comments were specific to the cumulative percentage of dollars being invested in projects in Round | through 7 of the chart on page 21 of Appendix A. Senator Hoffman clarified he is referring to the average cost of power category and the cost of heating is not reflected. Senator Hoffman was asking what differences the chart would show if the cumulative cost of power and heating was illustrated. He noted Mr. Skaling believes there would be very little change in the chart. Senator Hoffman disagrees. He believes the state needs to address how to make living in all parts of Alaska as affordable as possible. Senator Fairclough noted in looking at the charts on page 21, it seems 22% of the funds are being spent in Southeast, where their energy costs are already lower, to get them on renewables and displace oil and other hydrocarbon consumptions. She asked how are those projects scoring so much higher when the Legislature's intent was to displace hydrocarbon usage and lower fuel and energy costs in rural communities. Senator Hoffman commented many places in Southeast are still heavily dependent upon diesel as their primary source of heat and the charts do not show where the funds are being spent. Senator Hoffman agreed with Senator Fairclough regarding the intent of the legislation to concentrate on those areas of the state that had the highest energy costs. Senator Hoffman stated he continues to make the same comment every other meeting and again asks the question of whether the intent of the Legislature is being accomplished. He believes the Committee is moving in the right direction, but not reaching the intent. Ms. Mitchell believes the way the information is being displayed is very misleading, especially showing Southeast as having 15-cent power. She noted many communities that the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) serves have rates of 62 cents. Ms. Mitchell recommends, and noted she has recommended previously, separating the Southeast costs into different regions of Southeast because the average is not reflective of true costs. Mr. Skaling noted the whole purpose of this chart is to elevate those regions that have been underfunded in cumulative previous rounds. Mr. Skaling stated few applications are being received. Senator Hoffman commented not receiving applications from specific areas should not be a problem anymore because two positions have been added to specifically get applications from Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 15 January 7, 2014 those regions. Mr. Skaling believes that has happened quite a lot this year and the chart is looking at the cumulative of Rounds | through 7. Every year that gap gets smaller and smaller. Chair Rose commented this is the first time a request for application (RFA) has focused more on heating projects. He asked the Committee to determine what is most important, heat or electricity, and if the Committee would like to make a recommendation of a percentage split between heat and electricity. Chair Rose noted the Committee has not advised the recommendations be split 50% heat/50% electrical or any other percentage. The advice has been only to receive more heat applications. Mr. Skaling agreed. Mr. Reeve suggested taking the cost of energy, including heat, electricity, and transportation of snowmobiles and four-wheelers, for a family of four by region, with a sub region for Southeast, to show what those costs are and relate that to an average income in the area, which would give a percentage of the cost of energy per household as an evaluation tool to see if what the Committee is doing has an effect over time. Mr. Skaling stated the information already available includes cost of power and cost of fuel. Mr. Skaling would have to determine how to get quantities. He noted he will take a look at Mr. Reeve's suggested scenario and see if it would affect the sensitivity. Chair Rose believes Mr. Reeve's suggestion would get more to the point of the total cost of energy per household. One of the problems is heating fuel usage and gasoline usage is not tracked in many places, so an average would have to be determined. Mr. Reeve noted the number would be subjective. Chair Rose commented this would provide a better sense of what people in different regions are spending, including sub regions, particularly in Southeast. Ms. Fisher-Goad wants to ensure the Committee understand the numbers that are reflected in the charts with respect to average cost of power are not the numbers used to evaluate the project. She noted the review looks at specific projects and specific communities addressing the costs associated with that specific community. These charts are trying to take all the information and demonstrate a regional representation, which is a statutory requirement. Ms. Fisher-Goad noted the spreadsheets in Item 7 are separated into two lists, the standard application of electricity or combined heat and power, and a separate list specific to heat. The development of the two lists was a direct response to discussions at this Committee led by Senator Hoffman to further emphasize and isolate the heating projects. These charts are a representation and assured the Committee 15 cents per kilowatt hour was not used to evaluate a Kake project. 7. Review of Round 7 Recommendation A. Tables of Recommendations Mr. Skaling explained the set of spreadsheets which are AEA's recommendations for Renewable Energy Fund projects for this year. Chair Rose asked if all of the recommended projects were funded, does Mr. Skaling have a sense of what the funding amount applied for would be next year or in two years to construct the projects that would have received feasibility funding in this round. Ms. Fisher-Goad believes the Project Cost column Chair Rose referenced earlier is a good indication of the project's total costs. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 15 January 7, 2014 Senator Hoffman asked what date is the statewide goal for renewable energy. Mr. Skaling advised it is 50% by 2025. Senator Hoffman asked if AEA tracks how that goal is going to be achieved in the next 12 years and what this appropriation will provide. Mr. Skaling noted preliminary review of the numbers has occurred, as well as tracking completed construction projects of the REF and non-REF projects. Mr. Skaling believes the 50% goal will be reached if the REF projects and non-REF projects are combined. Ms. Fisher-Goad commented this is an electrical energy goal and the impact will be seen mainly in the larger population areas. She reported the current status is 22%, depending on the hydro level. It has been as high as 24%. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated it is just as important to address the energy needs and to try to reduce the fuel costs in the small rural communities. She added AEA has the statistics and is tracking the information, along with the energy efficiency goal, which is a 15% reduction by 2020, and the tracking information can be provided to the Committee. Chair Rose commented the purchase of heating fuel and transportation fuel is not tracked within the state and so the numbers are truly estimates. He believes one of the reasons for the renewable energy goal is to stabilize costs and determine how much money is being spent on energy. Chair Rose stated he would like to see more information about the purchase of heating fuel and transportation fuel because that contributes to the total cost of energy and provides a more complete representation of energy costs that can be measured and understood. He believes it would be good for the entities that have the information, whether it is the University, AEA, or AHFC, to come together and provide the information. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated one of her New Year's resolutions at AEA is to determine how to make the information they have been providing more useful. She wants to get feedback from the Committee on what information and data is not being collected. Ms. Fisher-Goad wants the data that is collected to be useful and lead to better projects. She wants the information available to help the Board of Directors, and the Administration make better decisions about energy policy and projects moving forward. B. Standard Application List, Summaries and Map documents Cc. Heat Application List, Summaries and Map documents Chair Rose asked members to provide comments and recommendations to staff regarding this list. Representative Edgmon wanted to talk about the three underserved regions, and what it would take to get the Igiugig wind project within the recommended list. Chair Rose believes there are a few ways to address the situation. The Committee can decide to move the Igiugig wind project into the first tier and move another project out and/or the Committee can recommend the entire list down to almost $25 million for the standard applications and almost $16 million for the heating applications. Chair Rose noted there is the heating application Minto project in the Upper Tanana Valley that is an underserved region and is $274,750, which is also just off of the top tier. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 15 January 7, 2014 Chair Rose reminded the Committee they do not have a standard or a criteria by which a specific number of heating or electric projects have to be included. He believes staff has provided a list of both heating and electric projects that add up to $20 million, but that does not necessarily have to be the $20 million worth of projects the Committee recommends. Mr. Skaling agreed. Representative Edgmon stated he does not see the analysis of recommending $25 million worth of projects as opposed to $20 million. He asked if the Committee has to recommend the Governor's proposed number. Chair Rose stated the Committee is not constrained to the Governor's proposed number and in the past has recommended far more than what has been in the Governor's budget. However, if only $20 million is appropriated and approved by the Governor, then only the projects within the first $20 million tier actually get funded. Chair Rose asked the legislators on the Committee what they think the chance is of getting more than $20 million dollars of funding. Senator Hoffman believes this year would be the worst year to anticipate additional dollars being spent, given the fact there is a huge deficit. Senator Fairclough echoed Senator Hoffman's comments and does not believe it is likely there will be more funding available for renewable energy. She understands design should be in the queue at all times, but wonders if the focus should be on completing projects versus placing new designs into the starting phase. Senator Fairclough noted Senator Hoffman has served longer than she has and she will take his lead. Senator Hoffman commented his view is to look at the changes and concentrate more on heating than on electricity. He suggested reversing the current recommendation from $12 million of electric projects and $8 million of heating projects to $8 million of electric projects and $12 million of heating projects. He believes the Committee's recommendations should reflect heating projects because people are paying the highest cost for heat. Senator Hoffman stated he would keep the current criteria and move toward funding more heating projects. Senator Fairclough asked Representative Edgmon if the project he was discussing was an ongoing project. Representative Edgmon stated the project has not started. Chair Rose gave two observations that almost all of the phases of the heating projects are either construction or design construction. Kake Community Energy is design only. He noted the heating projects are relatively small amounts of money per project compared to the electric projects. Only two projects are over a million dollars. Chair Rose believes more heating projects could be completed in less time and for less money relative to the electric projects. Ms. Mitchell suggested reducing one of the multi-million dollar electric projects by $80,000 to fund the heating project Representative Edgmon was discussing. Chair Rose asked Ms. Mitchell what she thought about the suggestion made regarding funding more heating projects than electrical. Ms. Mitchell stated that would be fine. Mr. Reeve recommended reviewing the geographic representation of the projects as well, because he believes the Igiugig Wind Project is worth funding. Representative Edgmon requested an informal comparative analysis from staff regarding the readiness category for both heat and electrical projects. Mr. Skaling explained a formula is Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 15 January 7, 2014 followed adding points for different levels of readiness. The closer to construction and completion the project is, the higher the points are. Representative Edgmon asked which of these projects are the closest to construction and suggested the emphasis is put on heat and electric projects that are closer to the construction stage. Chair Rose reminded the members this is the first time the projects have been listed separately in terms of heat and electrical projects. Chair Rose noted the amount of funding available for projects this year is lower than it ever has been, which makes these decisions difficult. Chair Rose advised that the members have to provide project recommendations to AEA today. The considerations include funding distribution for heating projects, electrical projects and consideration of regional spreading. Staff indicated on the electric side, the Igiugig Village Council project and a Lower YK Delta project are really close to the funding threshold. On the heating side, the Village of Minto project is very close to the threshold. The committee broke for lunch. Chair Rose stated according to the current recommendations, almost half of the total funding, about $9 million, is going to two projects, Stetson Creek Diversion and Allison Creek Hydroelectric. He noted one of the discussions at the break was finding ways to reduce the amount of funding for those two projects in a way that enables higher cost energy places to get more projects built. Chair Rose suggested reducing the funds from the Stetson Creek Diversion project more than potential reductions from the Allison Creek project. The Stetson Creek Project is a Railbelt project and the Railbelt has already had quite a bit of funding from this program. He commented if two or three million dollars were reduced from those projects, we could fund several more heating projects and probably a couple more electric projects. Chair Rose requested comments from members regarding this approach, especially from those on the phone who were not present for the discussion during the break. MOTION: Senator Hoffman moved a recommendation for discussion purposes that the proposed funding for the Stetson Creek Diversion Project, 1082, be reduced by 50%, the proposed funding for the Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project, 1015, be reduced by 20%, which will fund the Igiugig Project, 1072, Mertarvik Project, 1057, and the remainder amount will fund heating projects in proposed order. Seconded by Mr. Reeve. Senator Fairclough noted there is really no way for her to comment on the validity of the conversation in comparison to this proposal. She believes the Railbelt has had less overall funding from this program than Southeast. Senator Fairclough commented she will support the Committee's suggestions, but believes the Stetson Creek Project is going to provide lower cost energy to a larger percentage of the state than any of the other projects combined. She does not know what a 50% cut in that project will do for Chugach Electric. Senator Fairclough said her power comes from Matanuska Electric, who may buy power from Chugach. Senator Fairclough requested more discussion regarding why the only Railbelt project proposed would be reduced by 50%. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 15 January 7, 2014 Chair Rose commented this motion is for the sake of discussion. He believes the obvious place to look at potentially spreading out more money were the two biggest recommended funded projects, which were 1082 and 1015. They take up about half of all of the money that is being recommended, totaling about $9.5 million of $21 million. Chair Rose stated the Stetson Creek Project is almost a $22 million project and was asking for $3.5 million. He believes if that $3.5 million was reduced by 50%, it probably would not make a difference, particularly for a large utility who has access to other low cost capital. Chair Rose believes the larger reduction was proposed for the Railbelt region since they have already received quite a bit of funding from this program. He noted it is all up for discussion. Chair Rose believes the reduction from the Copper Valley region project is a relatively small percentage of the entire project and the hope is the reduction will not impact the project's ability to go forward. Chair Rose noted the monies from the reductions would go to funding four or five more heating projects. He stated this explanation covers everything that was briefly discussed while offline. Senator Fairclough noted a reference that the Railbelt has received more money from this program than any other region. She directed attention to the Cumulative Rounds 1-7 table under Item 6, Appendix A, page 22 and requested clarification on the percentage of total funding column. Mr. Skaling reported the Rounds 1-6 table at the tops of both pages 21 and page 22, under Item 6, Appendix A, shows the funding that has been provided thus far. Southeast has received $52 million. Railbelt has received $26 million. Lower Yukon has received $27 million. These are the absolute dollars and are not weighted by energy or population. Chair Rose reiterated the motion is for discussion purposes and if he were to provide a suggestion, it would be to recommend all of the projects equaling $41 million and specifically advocate this is an important program and these are all important projects. Chair Rose stated if the Committee is in agreement that it is unlikely the entire $41 million will be funded this year, then the idea of partially reducing the grants recommended on two projects is one way to provide for more heating projects. Senator Hoffman suggested reducing the amount of funding for electric projects to include only the first six proposed projects, which eliminates Allison Creek, 1015, and Gunnuk Creek, 1025. He recommended that additional funding be used for heating projects. Senator Fairclough stated she supports the particular concept of moving the amount of funding from electric projects to heating projects, but she does not support the motion on the table because she believes the Committee is trying to make recommendations and prioritize projects. Senator Fairclough commented AEA and staff have worked very hard to rank the projects and make these recommendations. She does support the recommendation of prioritizing heating projects by allowing $12 million of proposed heating projects and allowing $8 million for proposed electric projects in their current ranked order. She noted her first argument against the motion on the table was the comments that the Railbelt had received more funding from the program than any other region. Senator Fairclough stated there are other regions who have received more program funding than the Railbelt. She supports the concept that heating may be more of a critical issue for all Alaskans than generation of power. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 15 January 7, 2014 Senator Hoffman agreed with Senator Fairclough and believes the legislation intended to give priority to the areas of the state that have the highest energy costs. Chair Rose believes the Committee's general agreement is that heating is a bigger cost to most Alaskans and is very important. He believes the reasoning behind the current motion is to find a way to include more heating projects without completely eliminating some of the recommended electric projects. Senator Fairclough commented the Legislature and the state of Alaska are getting ready to face multiple projected years of downturn revenue. She noted some people may believe it is due to the change in oil taxes, but stated that is not true because the state is doing better under the new model for revenue than the old model. As revenue gets tighter, the Senate Finance Committee wants to ensure the prioritized good projects have the money to be completed. Senator Fairclough reads the spreadsheet as staff's project recommendations ranked in order of priority. The projects need to be completed so the benefits can be received from those invested dollars. Mr. Reeve stated there is some precedent in the past where the Committee has not had enough funding, has set limits on particular projects and reduced the amount of available funding for projects. Mr. Reeve commented a category that might have been good to include in this scoring criteria is the ability to finance or self-finance and to review the percent of the project cost from the grant basis. He believes this would help with the goal of the legislation to affect the highest cost areas of the state and those areas that do not have the ability to finance. Mr. Reeve noted this is not the final ranking because there is typically a geographic representation sheet that follows and there has been a precedent in the past where those projects have been included in project funding. Senator Fairclough believes Mr. Reeve made an excellent point and the projects who have the ability to bond or get other funding are scored differently than those who cannot provide for themselves. Senator Fairclough stated she thought that had already been imbedded into the criteria. She asked Mr. Skaling to clarify. Mr. Skaling stated staff has the ability to recommend partial funding of projects and the typical reason is because of milestones or cost seeming excessive. He noted staff conducted a separate analysis of the projects to determine if any of the benefit/cost ratios were so high that they could get a loan or a partial loan. No results from that analysis were applied to the current recommendation. Mr. Skaling advised if the motion on the table passes, the proposed funded projects would include projects 1 through 26 on the table entitled Heat and Standard Combined Statewide Ranking on page 3. This brings the funded total to just under $20 million. Mr. Skaling noted the project on Line 43 of the same table, False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study, would be worth discussing because that project could be elevated due to specific language in the request for applications. Mr. Skaling asked Chair Rose if this is an appropriate time to discuss that project. Chair Rose stated he prefers to stay with the current motion. Chair Rose explained this project was the only reconnaissance or feasibility study for an emerging Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 15 January 7, 2014 technology. The Committee approved the ability for AEA to recommend funding for emerging technology feasibility studies, even though the Emerging Technology Fund is the appropriate funding source for the construction of emerging technology projects. Mr. Skaling reported staff knew this particular application for emerging technology would not score very high in the criteria. The staff and Committee have the capability of raising this project's ranking if it provides the best location to study the emerging technology and if it has a reasonable likelihood of becoming economically viable in the future. Mr. Skaling wanted to bring this project to the Board's attention for consideration. Chair Rose requested Committee comments or questions regarding the False Pass Hydrokinetic project. Senator Hoffman stated given its ranking, he would leave False Pass out of the present discussion. Chair Rose asked Senator Fairclough if she has any suggestions about how to reduce the funding for electric projects and provide more funding for heating projects. Senator Fairclough recommended following the proposal of staff and stopping the funding line at $20 million. Senator Hoffman believes more money should be spent on heating projects. Senator Hoffman noted he went forward with the motion to accommodate Representative Edgmon. Senator Hoffman stated his first preference would be to eliminate projects 7 and 8 and having those dollars fund more of the heating project list. Senator Hoffman commented the Committee still has not addressed how to split the appropriations between heating and electrical projects. Senator Fairclough agreed with the statements made by Senator Hoffman focusing on heating projects. Senator Fairclough stated this process has become complicated and she does not want to be responsible for cutting a project that is outside of the Railbelt. Chair Rose believes regional spreading has occurred almost every year, in which an amount of proposed funds were taken from one region and placed in another region, even though the project whose funds were reduced had a higher score. Chair Rose believes there is a fundamental tension within the statue giving the highest weight to the highest cost energy areas while including regional spreading. Ms. Mitchell called for the question. The motion to recommend funding for the top $20M of projects as presented with project 1082 Stetson Creek Diversion Project partially funded at approximately 50%, and project 1015 Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project partially funded at approximately 80% in order to fully fund heating projects 1021, 1043, 1032, 1053, 1073, and 1041, and further to fund a one electrical project identified as a stage 4 regional spreading priority project, 1072, passed five to one, with Senator Fairclough voting no. Chair Rose asked staff if the motion that was just passed addresses all recommendations staff requested from the Committee. Mr. Skaling stated his understanding is if the funding is limited to $20 million, the approved motion is the Committee's recommendation, and Mr. Skaling understood Chair Rose requested staff nominate the entire AEA recommended project list to the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 15 January 7, 2014 Legislature. Senator Hoffman believes it is unrealistic to anticipate additional funding will be provided. Chair Rose asked if Senator Hoffman proposes to recommend the amount determined by the passed motion. Senator Hoffman agreed. Ms. Mitchell asked if the Legislature will be able to see that there are other good, staff recommended projects that could have been funded beyond $20 million. Mr. Reeve believes that issue should be a very strong component of the presentations given by AEA to the Legislature. Mr. Reeve requested Mr. Skaling and Ms. Fisher-Goad convey the message to the Legislature that there is a lot more that needs to be done and a lot more that could be done. Chair Rose suggested saying the Committee supports the funding of the entire AEA list of projects totalling $41 million, but the Committee recommends the funding of the $20 million. Senator Fairclough believes it would be good to share with Legislature that the Committee has held to the $20 million the Governor has proposed. She suggested if more funding is requested from the Legislature, the funding should go to the projects whose funding was reduced. An explanation should be provided stating the Committee understands that Alaska's revenues are seeing a dip and this Committee has done everything in its power to stay within the Governor's desired appropriation amount and communicating the amount by which the two recommended projects' funding was reduced. She also suggested the amount of qualified projects and dollar amounts not funded should be provided to the Legislature so they understand the Committee limited its recommendation to the number proposed by the Governor due to fiscal constraints. Senator Fairclough believes this shows the Legislature the Committee recognizes there is a limit in the amount of available funding. She stated there are 13 legislators that may not be interested in regional spreading for the Railbelt and may see their communities are disadvantaged by reducing the Railbelt project's funding in half. Senator Fairclough believes if the recommendation to the Legislature includes the $20 million first and then if there is any additional funding available, it could go to fully funding the two projects that were reduced. MOTION: Senator Hoffman moved to follow Senator Fairclough's suggestions. There was no second. Motion failed. Mr. Skaling requested returning to Item 6 to ensure the Committee approved the draft evaluation guidelines as they are stated. Chair Rose asked for a motion to that effect from the Committee. Senator Fairclough asked if Senator Hoffman's question regarding the balance of heating projects get addressed in the evaluation guidelines. Chair Rose noted Senator Hoffman was shaking his head in the negative and did not get his question answered. Senator Fairclough commented she is not ready to vote for approval of those guidelines until the heating project balance is incorporated. Chair Rose does not believe there is a rush in approving the evaluation guidelines because the recommendation is already going forward. He asked Mr. Skaling if the approval of the evaluation guidelines can be taken up at the next meeting and staff can address the questions and issues voiced by the Committee. Mr. Skaling agreed the approval can occur at the next meeting. He explained it is nice for applicants to see a formalized process. Mr. Skaling noted he will post the evaluation guidelines as a draft. Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 15 January 7, 2014 Mr. Reeve suggested adding as part of the public benefit, criteria which provides the ability to measure different categories, including jobs created or reduction in fuel surcharges. Mr. Skaling advised this year the application took a step in that direction by asking the question; what is the anticipated impact on rates? He noted there are future steps to take to get more in depth analysis. 9. Data Collection Progress Update, ACEP Tabled to the next meeting. 10. Analysis of Not Recommended Applications & Technical Assistance Update Tabled to the next meeting. 11. Committee Member Comments Representative Edgmon stated this was a good meeting and the phone transmission was good on his end. Senator Fairclough expresses her appreciation to staff for all of their hard work toward providing energy and lowering the cost of energy and heat to Alaskans. She thanked all the Committee members for their service on this Committee. Ms. Mitchell commented the regional spreading is important, but is not an easy process. She believes the Committee has made the right decision and expressed her appreciation to everyone for working through these decisions. Mr. Reeve expressed his appreciation to staff for their great job presenting all the information to the Committee. He requested an update at some point on how the additional staff are helping the smaller utilities and if better technical applications are being provided. Chair Rose expressed his appreciation to staff for the complicated preparations they have undertaken to pull this information together for the Committee. He noted it is not easy to cut project funding when there is not enough money for full funding and appreciated the work completed today. 12. Next Meeting Date, Tentative: May 13, 2014, Kodiak Senator Fairclough requested extending an invitation on the May 13th meeting to the Representatives and the Senators in Kodiak. Chair Rose agreed. 13. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 1:04 p.m. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII - Statewide Recommendations and Funding for Heat and Standard Applications LTE e eg ESET RR Ue ree) Lai) nae g rue ey i Cor ae 6 ir ree 2 i ? ere eT Srrg re Cee) Ed re: oe: OM LL) C2) ) io} ) (ee Ld Peter Grant Requested Match Offered INT) Tr} TUT} 3347 | 1100 1657| 500] 1200] 300] 400) | ___$114.965] $114.69 sm eo] v0] ern] «| 30 nd [ee] — snl Frade] sore] safe] sol clr ue = 311 Peal sen amr penne us | i | 300] 267 | 251 25 Fast vee[ ve] wal wale] ral ar| 20a] oo] co] cs Fecal 216] one] io] so] or | neo] war] aer| 0] sem] aeoleer| «| staan] vacon] tonamlooaman formas || somo) sone sen] rar] aor] wi] ssn]zae| cao] eco] soo] 02s] mn] av7feeve] e | smaoe] eran] sersufoewoencen rar [[__srtad Fire s7a soz] salve] ooo] 70] se] 205] 20] aso]res] a | stare] — sizaran) _storaaloeponanan fuse || sara] sean Yukon-Kuskokwim Heat Recovery System i rec one To Vet Wo Conmiy args pci Gomme nay [oonase [onan] 102] 127| soe] soe] oon] soo] oer] a0] so] sao] avr[ormo] a | sana] sare] _s7eq0]omrowencim ruse [| serra] soon BT owes: [10 foustSonenOorceoryton _[vendomiavonmn fnaiGomrmen Jaonae [rar 145] 2| sos ss] 200] nn] as] 20] aes] soo] av7[aer] @ | sees] cnr] wazooonencan formas | stan] _seaaon I [one vaortcn [1073 engin Was esa! Saape [PowneaPove Conny Jom ___[wrarnen_[rar7| 170] a5] ss] son] z7s7] oo] aa] zea] re] ooo] soofeszi| a | ssa] sorias] sailor racer | [sore] sora IA [owecracorcomm [101 [Ome Wow Von Poeatecoey _[Ovtchown ___onenmntenty [enteonen [eo] ei] 240] sae] sao]sear] con] vor] sco] an] soo] 2malencr] mo [essen] sskeld v16elnsmcuaiain FUL || sensi 10877 Sea See ecu EURO AERO CL ae $13,725,202 SSRIS PAK PYAR) $10,303,176 SubTotal Fur | | sseraor]_srzseo.se4 [ery ee acl iD eye ud ua a SE Tg REF VII Applications recommended and funded in the Legislature's FY15 Budget /Atka Dispatchable Heat fenetie Clinic Heat Recovery 1a Community Wood Heat Project junam Iqua Heat Recovery Project Centennial Hall Air Source Heat Pump untutuliak Heat Recovery mmonak Heat Recovery System Community Energy likan Gateway Borough Biomass Heating Project Mission Water System Heat Recovery ia House Ground Source Heat Pump Project Borough Municipal Buildings Biomass Project i j i g a nsae He ABBA REAR 2 z S s 2 eNS eee UEEE FHA) alt a|8 als | IH a|2 ME Ta | | = g Ble 8/2 813 a ‘ : i iS S E $13, ; ‘ a Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Kuskokwim 1085 1061 e 3 8 i | 8B alS]ajrays BHEBREREE sleek 2 8 eletel=|-|-Fts HEA 8 8 a ‘ i | 3 ile g : j ‘ i é g < HE i a[2[8|2|8|8 | Haines Borough i Ht : STC SUPER tune ut RURAL LCC ag ree SCAR) Px MLL EL ES $12,540,564 ATE] Tce eum uu MUR UCER Abc else oe $118,224,724 $29,972,868 $36,760,109 $22,843,740 SubTotal 5/8/2014 Page 1 i UNkOys Se CRE oR CDS) Leyak ele PCa ey I Sustan: AEA Appl Te) (Too ice) cs uO meets uc aa Da] ery Ry NaN ed rs} Preah ie pvr AEA aCe CuSnCCuuMCUe Ck aaa a CCR UR ee cee ae MeL sl i 1017 {Southeast Island School District Wood Boilers ‘Southeast Island School District 1045 |Grayling Heat Recovery System City of Grayling Government Entity 80.17 Southeast rg Hydaburg City School District Government Entity |Biomass 77.83 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwil i e ibili Wind Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim] 1071 _|Kwigillingok Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Kwig Power Company Utility Wind to Heat Northwest Arctic 1038 |Kotzebue Pape e i City of Kotzebue Local Govemment_|Biomass 53.00 64, 62, 74 City of Holy Cross 57 is [Kodiak _________| 1065 |Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Final Design and Penmitti{ Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc._|Utili dro Southeast 1023 |Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project The Southeast Alaska Power Agency _|Government Entity |Hydro H_|Southeast 1013 |Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Local Government _|Heat Pumps S_|Railbelt 1084 | Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Stud Ram Valley, LLC IPP dro Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion (Craig City School District Government Entity [Biomass H_|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim] 1042 |Eek Water System Heat Recovery City of Eek Government Entity [Heat Recovery ; Southeast Sitka Sea Water Source Heat Pump Proj 1062 |False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study City of False Pass Local Govemment_[Hydrokinetic UI _|Lower Yukon-Kuskokwi TCSA Electrical Services Utility Wind to Heat SS_|Aleutians 1070 |Sand Point Energy Storage Project TDX Sand Point Generating, LLC Utili Storage of Ri 1014 {Wood Chip Boiler for The Native Village of Tazlina |(022_|SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase | and II The Southeast Alaska Power ae y North Slope 1049 [Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project |North Slope Borough Local Govemment_| Transmission iS_ [Railbelt [1028 [Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Proj Native Village of Cantwell (Government Enti dro Mendenhall Valley Library Geothermal HVAC System __|City & Borough of Juneau Local Goverment aH {Southeast 1012 |Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effiuent Heat Pump _|City and Borough of Sitka Local Goverment [S_[Bristol Ba 4079 |Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recover ity and Borough of Sitka Heat Pumps 1074 |Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage H_|Co River/Chugach _| 1 Native Village of Tazlina Government Entity [Biomass 'S_| Southeast 1 Government Entity_|Wind S_| Kodiak 1030_| Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane. Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. Util orage of Re iganek Village Council Government Enti | 5.00] 4.00 164.71] 27_| $1,058,775} $940,950) $177,825} FULL SP a $940,950 $940,950) 4.00 1.19 1.53 1.12 3.50 $322,903) 35.00 [ 7.00] 10.60] 2.00] 4.50] 2.00] 1.67 30 $8,000,000 $375,000 $25,000|ReconFeasibility _|PARTIAL gz $75,000] _ $1,463,853} J $293,737 $293,737| $6,032,165 E $270,000] $6,302,165 $0.28 pez tes 14.23 | 2.83 61.95] 34 | $5,500,000) $800,000] $1,900,000 Construction FULL SP 79 | $0.58 7.00 [44.27 [ 2.00 60.35] 36 $1,092,500 $57,500|Desi PARTIAL Spit aa Hart wos 3 HI $4,000,000 813,869 Construction [PARTIAL SP_|_| $560,488] $8,560,426 49 | $0.15 57.33] 39 $2,350,000} $35,750 $35,750|Recon ULL CI $35,750) 26,376| $0. $0. | 8.57] 250] 0.75] 5.00] 2.50]54.77] 43 $5,000,000 sey Feasibil FULL | $428, $9,725,608 s[oart ao] 200 spear —es08tr| sol arucon FUL S> —|- | een} sor 3.00] 4.125] 2.00] 4.00 |54.18] 4 $1,256,403] $141,000[DesignConstruction [PARTIAL SP_| 5] 4.00] 3. 2 : 5.00] 4 47 | $0.49 21.60] 9.00] 13.00] 5.00] 4.50] 5.00] 4.33[6243] 31 $4,782,528 $4,274,575) $507,953] Construction FULL SP | $4,274,575] _ $5,738,428) 1.73 | $0.60] $5.95] 26.03 | 6.00 | 12.83 2.00 | 2.50 |62.20| 32 $302,737, $9,000] Construction FULL SP 16 | $0.42| $6.07] 26.56 | 7.00|12.57| 2.00] 6.00] 5.00] 3.00]62.13| 33 $2,692,700] __ $2,495,189 $95,000] DesignConstruction [PARTIAL SP__[Y $800,000] $7,102,165] $8,155,000 lesignConstruction 1.12 | 1.54 [ $0.29 11.00 [13.27 | 3.00] 6.38] 2.00] 3.50[55.77] 40 $585,450 $492,850 $82,550] DesignConstruction [PARTIAL SP $125,000] $8,951,376 1.01 | 1.35 | $0.60] $3.89] 17.02] 6.00[14.03] 5.00] 4.50| 5.00] 3.83|55.39] 41 $297,408 $288,745 $8,663] DesignConstruction [FULL $288,745] $9,240,121 50 | 0.52 5.00] 10.97 | 4.00] 0.50] 5.00] 4.17 [55.34] 42 $388,838 $373,838! $825,000|DesignConstruction [PARTIAL SP $56,84 $1,397,403 7 —fisolecareatmy Pau 1 [tani sa 1 $11,812 $1,900,000 ‘ULL SP Soa pxeracse [1 — saat Constru PARTIAL SP__| | $1,470,548 $353,400 $12,284,144 ‘ULL SP. [ | $2,017,818] $14,301,962] $8,340, 000 000] Recon ARTIAL 35,000] $14,336,962 $84 $113,000|DesignConstruction [FULL $849,984 $2,566,000 $306,000 $10,000] Design FULL SP. Y $306,000 $15,846, $16,152,946 151.68] 54 | S_ [Aleutians False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass Electric Utility 49.26 $47,050 H_|Railbelt 1080 Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating System Project 1081 _|Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Stud RiveriChugach _] 1075 [Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study ‘oyul 4 ailbelt Nenana School District gach Electric Association, Inc. Blue Hole Properties, LLC (BHP) Alaska Gateway School District Local Govemment_|Wind Government Entity Util iofuel Hydro. Government Entity |Heat Recovery | 59.83] 0.97 45.83 0.38 | 4.00] 1 1.00 | 5.00] 4.00 8.25 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 48.33 48.69 = 55 $5. 56 $3,244,225 57 TBD $367,965 $150,000 $2,250,000] $629,000 $367,965] $16,567, $50,000] $16,617,961 $47,050 Feasibility FULL SP $25,800] Design FULL Y $100,000]Recon PARTIAL a $170,000]__$30,000]Feasibility FULL $170,000] _ $16,787,961 S 59 ) Copper ‘ukon-Koyukok/Upper Tq 1051_|AGSD Extension of Heating Loop ailbelt 4078 |Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project 1_|Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project _ Chickaloon Native Village Northwest Arctic Borough Biomass Local Govemment_|Solar PV 43.67 0.68 0. l 1.30 | 3.46 | $0.28 97 | 1.45 | $0.49] $3 0.74 | 0.79 | $0.15] $3. $152,867 $127,065 $75,000] $17,584,961 (City of Seward Local Govemment 11.00] 9.17 6.00 | 11.97 | 4.00 23 [11.00 | 8.73} 3.00 00] 9. 00 | 4 $4,000|DesignConstruction |FULL $625,000] $17,412,961 $25,802] DesignConstruction [PARTIAL SP $97,000} __$17,509.961 a $17,809. $225,000 $77,000 onstruction FULL SP $250,000 $2: 000} Construction FULL BLANK| $1,375,000 $0] PARTIAL SP_ $18,309,961 64 | $4,565,200] $440,000] $44,000[Design FULL | | $440,000] | $18,749,961 $104,571,759 $29,203,979 $15,794,924 BER rel Northwest Arctic Railbelt [Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Recovery Project $3,562,772 $1,940,558) $825,000) $31,500,000 $72,400,000 $38,660,000 $1,300,000) $51,000,000) $1,940,379) $232,430) $14,500,000 $14,510,599) $62,272 $1,560,558 $700,000 $213,750 $160,000 $2.9: $3,500|Recon $120,000] Construction $125,000|ReconFeasibili $11,250] Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 2 Did Not Pass Stage 2 Did Not Pass Stage 2 Did Not Pass Stage 2 $0] Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 2 $150,000] Design Did Not Pass Stage 2 ————— $4,000,000] DesignConstruction | Not Recommended! lot Recommended $6,770|DesignConstruction |Not Recommended. — $0] DesignConstruction |Not Recommended $9,281.61 6 20 3, Bristol Ba Chignik Hyd gn and Permitting City of Chignik Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project 39.33] 1.48 Local Govemment Kodiak 1004 |Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System Karluk Tribal Council Wind 1003 |Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase III and IV 1006 98 | $0.85 0.09 | 3.93 |_ N/A Transmission 1.28 | $0.10) | $0.68 ectric Project 60 | $0. 81 | 0.00 AT tye eel leur i sem Eee eeu ak) aN Edna Bay Community ‘Local Government _|Hydro 2_|Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Demonstration Whitestone Power and Communications |IPP. Hydrokinetic 39.17] 0.16 Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibilit Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority] Utili Hydro 39.00} 1.05 Utili IS Government Enti Southeast City of Saxman Hydro H_ [Bristol Ba NEA Stack Heat to Power Project Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Util Heat Recover S Geothermal 0.44 | 1.24 | $0.65 Bristol Bay 1046 |Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase Port Alsworth Improvement Corporation |Government Entity [Hydro IS__}Bristol Ba 1050 |Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar PV Project Bristol Bay Borough School District ‘Solar PV 1.28 | $0.50] ‘Solar PV 4.22 | $0.74) Hydro REF Vil Applications not recommended for funding in FY15 IS _[Railbelt 1029 |Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study_ Native Village Of Cantwell Government Entity [Hydro 35.33] 0.79 ‘S_ [Aleutians 1056 |Adak Wind Data Collection Analysis and Preliminary Desig} City of Adak, Alaska Wind 35.33 S__ [Northwest Arctic 1059 _|Cosmos Hills i ign and Permitting ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative dro 27.50 Local Goverment ower Yukon-Kuskokwim} 1008 |Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recovery City of Chuathbaluk Government Entity |Heat Recovery Southeast 1020 |Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual Haines Borough Local Goverment Southeast 1034 |Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie Metiakatla Indian Communit Government Entit IS _}Northwest Arctic 1058 |Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array Construction Project] Northwest Arctic Borough S_ [Bristol Bay 1063 |lliamna Solar Ground Mounted Energy System 0.40 | $0.59 S_ [Copper River/Chugach_| 1064_|Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction Local Govemment Hydro. ‘Southeast 035 |Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource _|Inside Passage Electric Cooperative __| Utility $49,000,000) $3,378,500} $0]Feasibility _—'|NotRecommended] =| * zatool — eaten — Soest Reseed a $235,000) $230,000) $5,000] DesignConstruction | Not Recommended) + a lliamna Village Council Government Entity $2,000,000) $800,000 $120,000]ReconFe: Not Recommended) Native Village of Chenega Government Entit 1.02 | $0.44 [| $1,650,000} $1,400,000) $0[DesignConstruction a H_ [Northwest Arctic 1076 |NWAB School District Solar Thermal Systems Northwest Arctic Borough School District [Government Entity |Solar Thermal 1 3.14 | $0.63} $467,252 $456,252 $11,000] Construction Not Recommended) Four Villages Intertie Design Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative _|Government Entity | Transmission Ps eee $1,250,000) $1,250,000 $0 —a IS_[Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim| lultiple Altemative Energy Sources for Napakiak Napakiak Ircinrag Power Company Util Wind $2,284,000) $141,000 $20,000|DesignConstruction |Did Not Pass Stage 1 1086 | Chefomak High Penetration Wind Diesel System Naterqak Light Plant, City of Chefornak [Local Govemment [Wind | oT) oT of fT of oy of | ft oj ft | tt $4,358,784] $4,308,784 Did Not Pass Stage 1 ee Sub Total - Not Recommended Applications RSI Pa Te $33 ly $4,739,820 SubTotal CEU ALC eA =i WUE Sc $524,085,270 $93,011,953 $57,294,853 cere Notes H = Heat application, applications that deliver heat only, not electrity. These applications are highlighted in orange, with a dark orange representing those applications in the FY 15 Capital Budget ‘$= Standard application, applications that deliver electricity, energy storage, transmission or a combination of electricity and heat. These applications are highlighted in blue, with a dark blue representing those applications in the FY 15 Capital Budget Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2 BIC = BenefitCost Ratio over the Ife of the project. AEA B/C ratio uses AEA's best assumptions in the standard REF economic model. Some not recommended projects’ BIC ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons. The Applicant B/C ratio uses the applicants assumptions in the standard Renewable Energy Fund economic model SP = Special Provisions Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. SA 5/8/2014 Page 2 Sie feud 10 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII - Funding for Heat and Standard Applications by Energy Region Cem ers STR cd ura) eC es TT are Loy Tech& 4. a U eee ee mes mee Cre 70) (5) iD) (5) F tI ne (35) ir aid Sigal 2. Cod i) By Benefit i) cn) Seed Cd Cost of ey i) or wide Goat feted | +] $136,254] I $1,900, AEA cla aa EG arr) ery Funding eeu) Grant Requested oe) $114; ead Applicant Type Energy Source Match Offered Be ou H s | 1070 [Sand Point Energy Storage Project S_ |Aleutians 1080 |False Pass Wind Energy Project S_ {Aleutians 1056 |Adak Wind Data Collection Analysis and Preliminary Design Uc JS_[Bering Straits [Bering Stats | 1040 [Brevig Mission Water System Heat Recovery | Pee Cec js _[BistolBay 1036 [Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase Il fs [BrstolBay ‘| 1072 [igiugig Wind Resource Feasitilty and Conceptual Design _| Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery IChignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting NEA Stack Heat to Power Project Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project i JAeutians ___—_| 1062 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasbilty Study i | 5500, a | 43 | ___ $5,000,000] __$428.646] $137,820 | [$423,646] _ $1,343,614 [ z2ss{ ooo] oso] 300] 4125] 200] soo[seie[ 45 [| $1.a07.40a] $1,256.403] $141,000]DesignConstruction [PARTIAL SP__[¥| $200,000] _ $1,643,611 22.45 ot 49.26 | 55 $52,050 $5,000] Feasibility FULL SP $47,050] _ $1,590,661 {2 $72,400,000] $160,000 $0} Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 2 BSL ad PRT AU Ey $2,204,109 SRL [1.51 [ 201 [ sos4] $5.29) 23.14] 6.00] 1660 500] 10.25] soo] 317]eate] 18 | $7533t3] $731,372] $21,944] DesignConstrucion [FULL TT $731,372] $1,073:372 OT LEED Sed erie New Koliganek Vilage Council 1.05] 160] sos] [2209] 600] 10.47] 363] 413] 200 a17]sr6a] 54 | $2,566000[__$308,000]____—$10,000fDesign_— FULL SP_ City of Chignik 0.00] 10.43] 3.50] 4.88] 0.00] 4.00 $0[Design __—_—sPARTIALSP__| | Naknek Electric Association, Inc. $97,000] FeasDesignConstr._}|Not Recommended TDX Sand Point Generating, LLC City of False Pass Electric Utility City of Adak, Alaska Local Government $1,843,379 Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase Port Alsworth Improvement Corporation [Government Entity Hydro $159,000 $10,000} ReconFeasibility [Not Recommended | S |Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar PV Project Bristol Bay Borough School District Government Entity [Solar PV $230,000 $5,000] DesignConstruction [Not Recommended iS {Bristol Bay Meet oc [S_|Copper RiveriChugach_[1015+4 lliamna Solar Ground Mounted Energy System liiamna Village Council $120,000} ReconFeasibility INot Recommended $3,238,653 IEEE MCH $7,146,032 $3,308,496 [Construction | at ea | | __ $5,914,491] Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach eee iS _|Kodiak 1065 s 1030 Ss 1004 Kodiak RC Laroc| Kodiak H4_JLower Yukon-Kuskorwim | 1052 | Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Final Design and Permitting Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System $0.28] $4.17] 1824] 600] 1290| 300] 625] 400] 300|s330] 46 | $278.50] $267,150] ___$17,000[DesignConstructon JParTIAL sP__ || ___ $125,000 —f tool s17[ 300] 636[ soo] 133[4ea2] se [$2,260,000] $170,000[$30,000fFeasibity [run | _ $170,000] P| [1,650,000] $1,400,000] $0|DesignConstrucon |Not Recommended | | $0.44 PSX $7,751,641 Sea APs [Aaska Vilage Electric Cooperative, Inc. [utity _——fidro. == 56.33] 1.11 | 1.79 sosel [25.21] 7.00] 11.27] 200] 538] soo] 450] 6035] 36 | $8,156,000] $1,092,500] ___$57.500|Desin __ifarriaL || _ $400,000 56.33 Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. lity Storage of Renew 66.83} 0.51 | 1.02 | $0.19 13.37| 3.50} 3.25] 5.00] 4.00 $3,800,000} $1,900,000 $1,900,000] Construction PARTIAL SP i $1,470,548 Karluk Tribal Council Government Ent Wind 1.83 | $0.60) $300} FeasibilityDesign _|Did Not Pass Stage 2 0.76 $1,300,000) $81,000 $13,255,000 $3,078,500 $1,957,800 $1,870,548 Local Government [Heat Recovery | 97.67 2.20 | 2.33 | $0.53] $4.36] 19.16] 13.00] 17.53] 300] 1250 500] 350|7369] 5 | $603,000] $460,000] ___—$153,000[Constrction _rut._—_ | __ $450,000] __ $450,000 | 600] 1627{ 383] 10.13] 300] 3oo]71se[ @ | saeaati[ $455.42] $13,669)DesignConstrction [ru _——[| | _ $455,642] $905,642} Native Village of Chenega 1.02 1085 1064 | 1067 | 1043 |St Marys Heat Recovery System | 1073 |Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage [00] 1250[ 300] 267} roo] 9 | s6c02si] $688,251] ___$20677]constuctonDesgn [ru se | | $609.51] _ $1.504803 Fiiz5] soo] aa7forar] 21 | s7s7.200] 8735202) $22057]DesignConsiucten [Fut | [| ___$735 202] _ $2453635 F236] ooo] 300662] 2 | sa0.ase] sa1i486] _$6000|Constucion [ruse ___| | __sar.4s6] $2,765,001 1250] 500] 2a3]e521] 26 | seseeva] _s5s30ta] $16 768|DesignConsmucton [run se] | _ssss.ta] _$3,373,05 1057 14069 |St Marys Pitkas Point Wind Energy Construction Project Kwigillingok Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage $8,000,000} $375, $25,000} ReconFeasibility PARTIAL $75, $3,398,905] $4,782,528) $4,274, $507,953} Construction FULL SP $4,274,575] _ $7,673,480 Wind to Heat ,000} Construction $293,737| 967, Eek Water System Heat Recovery Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Project Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recovery DesignConstruction $288,745} Construction $250,817| Design $353,400} DesignConstruction Government Entity }|Heat Recovery . Wind to Heat _| 46.67 Wind | 52.17 [Government Entity JHeat Recovery | $259,817| $3,214,875] $232,430] ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. City of Chuathbaluk [Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Four Villages Intertie Design [Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative (Government Entity Transmission | $1,250,000] Feasibility Did Not Pass Stage 1 “O/a| r/o] x] zr] rlo|o Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Multiple Alternative Energy Sources for Napakiak [Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company Utility Wind | $2,284,000] DesignConstruction |Did Not Pass Stage 1 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim \Chefornak High Penetration Wind Diesel System STM CLO CC LUC e /Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project Local Government _|Wind Naterqak Light Plant, City of Chefornak Did Not Pass Stage 1 BSR) $2,017,818} _ $2,017,818) 1S_ [North Slope 1049 a 1048 |Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design and Permitting Pa Ue ae Northwest Arctic Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project North Slope Borough Local Government _| Transmission North Slope Borough Local Government Wind City of Kotzebue [Northwest Arctic Borough | $2017.818 [3.00] 400] 200] sso [4223] 64] $4,565,200] $440,000) $21,908,037 SRA Ad Biomass Solar PV | 46.00 $1,000] Construction | 4059 |Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and Permitting ‘Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Hydro | 27.50 $150,000|Design Did Not Pass Stage 2 Northwest Arctic Borough Local Government _|Solar PV | $0|Construction |Not Recommended | 1058 [Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array Construction Project 1076 |NWAB School District Solar Thermal Systems Be ea ae ‘Solar Thermal $11,000} Construction $257,000 Northwest Arctic Borough School District__|Government Entity INot Recommended boy L EY Kea BEA 5/5/2014 Page 3 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII - Funding for Heat and Standard Applications by Energy Region tte SET CRB Retour] Oy nag eel) 4s0| 525] 500] aeaferoa[ 19 | sa6zeos] $318,200] $411,835]DesignConstruction fru. | [| $318,280] $3,772,209 | 2.00] 11.25 4.00} 1.50 5.00 3.00 car) i $25,800[Design ——fFuLL_—sY|—_—$367,965] $4,210,924) 50] 1. . 0.00] 8.25] 200] 4, $100,000|Recon PARTIAL —| | ———=$50,000] $4,260,924) IChickaloon Native Vilage i . 2.00 } $97,000 [Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Recovery Project City of Seward i : J J y , FULL {| $225,000 Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Demonstration Whitestone Power and Communications inetic . .940, 960, Did Not Pass Stage 2 Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Native Village Of Cantwell . +900, , Did Not Pass Stage 2 $69,912,978 $14,352,663 SR YAY Sitka Centennial Hall Air Source Heat Pump i i J . i $232,620] | _ $1,021,393]DesignConstruction |FULL ss] || ~—_—_—#$232,620 Kake Community Energy J : $1,423,292 PARTIAL Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass Heating Project Ketchikan Gateway Borough i J J ; 7 $1,957,261 $353,222[Construction PARTIALSP | | Haines Borough Municipal Buildings Biomass Project i ji ; J ’ $1,374,892} 237, $137,448] DesignConstruction $1,237,403} 'Yakutat Biomass District Heating Loop City and Borough of Yakutat i J ; $335,456] $49,290] DesignConstruction $103,000 ‘Southeast Island Schoo! District Wood Boilers [Southeast Island School District ity [Bi . I $1,058,775} ; $177,825] Construction $940,950] Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat Pump Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion ‘Sitka Sea Water Source Heat Pump Project 1022 |SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase | and I! 1007 |Mendenhall Valley Library Geothermal HVAC System City & Borough of Juneau 1012 TSitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka 1019 {Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project Edna Bay Community i $3,562,772 1024 |Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibility i $825,000 1003 |Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase Ill and IV (City of Saxman ant | $51,000,000) 1020 |Excursion inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual Haines Borough $14,500,000] 1034 |Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Community $14,510,599) 1035 |Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource Inside Passage Electric Cooperative ili . . $49,000,000} PAR uate SEL e i) LYLE RTs $16,170,800 SRL L Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Taf] 1044 |Venetie Clinic Heat Recovery Village of Venetie Government Entity |Heat Recovery | 85.17] 1.68 | 2.45 | $0.90] $8.50] 35.00[ 6.00] 17.03] 4.00] 11.25] 4.00] 333/8062] 3 $204,428 $198,474 $11,908] DesignConstruction [FULL | $198,474] $198,474 Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Taf] 1047 |Galena Community Wood Heat Project City of Galena Local Government [Biomass 8.00| 4.31 | 3.96 | $0.56] $6.02] 26.34] 6.00| 17.60| 383| 14.13] 5.00| 450[ 7740] 4 $3,144,200 $3,096,898 $47,302|Construction FULL SP | | $3,096,898] $3,295,372} Grayling Heat Recovery System City of Grayling {Government Entity 2.02 | $0.56] $5.00] 21.88] 6.00 | 16.03 : , $19,374|DesignConstruction [FULL Holy Cross Water System Heat Recovery City of Holy Cross 0.55 | 0.74 $7.15] 31.28| 6.00[ 11.53] 4.00] 1.25] 5.00] 283] 61.90 ’ $14,933] DesignConstruction [FULL IH |Yukon-Koyukok/Upper Tar] 1051. [AGSD Extension of Heating Loop Alaska Gateway School District 1.45 | $0.49] $3.79] 16.58] 6.00 : : i $4,000[DesignConstruction [FULL COLI Te EU UE RL SYS DL $11,134,798 RRS Rd WWE cme Cle CORES SKR OLB RS SLA cd OT RCK RO] Biomass Heat for Minto Community Buildings Village of Minto i 1.37 Ef 21.88 | 15.00 | 13.87] 3: 38 | 5.00] 3.17 | 67.29 f $278,800|DesignConstruction [FULL SP Notes H = Heat application, applications that deliver heat only, not electricity. These applications are highlighted in orange, with a dark orange representing those applications in the FY15 Capital Budget $ = Standard application, applications that deliver electricity, energy storage, transmission or a combination of electricity and heat. These applications are highlighted in blue, with a dark blue representing those applications in the FY15 Capital Budget Total Stage 2 Score column is the technical and economic evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2 BIC = BenefitCost Ratio over the life of the project. AEA BIC ratio uses AEA's best assumptions in the standard REF economic model. Some not recommended projects’ B/C ratios may be incomplete due to incomplete information provided or other reasons. The Applicant B/C ratio uses the applicants assumptions in the standard Renewable Energy Fund economic model. ‘SP = Special Provisions Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting energy efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. 5/5/2014 Page 4 Data Collection and Jason Meyer May 13", 2014 REFAC DC&M Program Objective - Demonstration that data driven analysis of energy systems can have substantial real world impacts » Support for community, government, and industry partners by providing access to high quality data » Facilitation of robust, high-quality research Target DC&M Data Services ¢ Instrumentation specification, Acquisition procurement, commissioning ¢ Technical assistance ¢ Formatting, quality assurance, Management storage, access, automated reporting ¢ Project specific tasks, reporting, analysis, dissemination Deliverables ‘Alaska Center for Energy and Power Emerging Energy Technology Grant Denali Commission An Investigation of the Alaska SeaLife Center Seawater Heat Pump Demonstration Emerging Energy Technology Fund ... Prior to making a final grant award, the state will enter into discussion with selected applicants to negotiate an agreement for collection and analysis of data generated by the project ... Elements of the plan will include, at minimum: 1. Identification of key data points for collection and analysis 2. Overview of instrumentation that will be used to collect the data 3. Agreements for access to the project instrumentation 4. Plan for accessing/transmitting identified project data The negotiated data collection plan will be incorporated into the grant agreement... ee Emerging Energy Technology Fund - Review of critical stage data reporting for consideration in AEA project milestone assessment * Site visits to support and review data collection activities - Monitoring of data collected during demonstration phases - Independent analysis of system and component performance Renewable Energy Fund » ACEP is under an RSA to deliver products specific to Renewable Energy Fund projects - Utilizing data from several relevant projects « Cordova, Nome « Interior biomass projects © Unalakleet ¢ Products include: « Data management, archiving, and dissemination « Automated reporting Automated Reporting ¢ Reporting that is automatically produced and published with customized time-scales, data resolution, audiences, and content ° Quality assurance a key aspect to reporting ¢ Examples: © Weekly Report « Annual Report © “Roll-Up” / Program / Summary Report - Collaboration with ISER Program/Project Reporting Alaska Energy Data Gat VEEN, The Alaska Energy Data Gateway (AEDG) is a public resodjtce funded by a grant from tHe Department of Energy's EPSCoR program Public Data Three RePower 2.05 megawatt turbines at the Eva Creek Wind Farm (Rich Stromberg, AEA) The Alaska Energy Data Gateway provides the public, as well as project developers and researchers, with comprehensive energy data from across the state. With this information, the public can make informed decisions about energy issues in their communities and see how similar issues are being addressed in other parts of the state. To access our public data, choose one of the options below Most of the data in the Alaska Energy Data Gateway is available at the community level with the intent of providing information to assist communities in their on-going energy development and efficient energy use. Information can be downloaded and combined with data from the Alaska Community Database Online to provide comprehensive community information. Community Data Summaries Community Data Summaries show a selection of current data about communities, including geography, population and employment, fuel prices, electric rates, and more. To see the data summary for a community, select the community from the menu below Select a community v| Community Data Summary Select another community Bethel : Overview t {Employment gay ao oa ao https://akenergygateway.alaska.edu Data Search Tool The Data Search tool provides capabilities to browse, search, filter, preview, and download all of our public datasets in a variety of file formats with complete documentation. To use the data search tool, click the button below Fuel Price Survey Data Data trom the semiannual survey conducted by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) for use AHFC's en nd stored in the AkWarm database, AHFC collaborates with the Alaska Department ot nity, and Economic Development (DCCED Regional Attairs red by OCRA Price (Ne and No. 2 tue ns Serving Communes aroun ate and retiect the pnoe fo} ACEP Asion of Community at je data from communtie home Opane. and wood) are collected trom v ported by the vendor at ne point in hme ot the survey Select Variables ee ACEP REF Next Steps ¢ RSA delivery date of June 30", 2014 c Example automated reporting - Discoverable, downloadable data sets from portal ° Deploy services to several current REF projects ¢ Soft launch for projects with data collection/ reporting needs and sufficient infrastructure * Deploy services for select Round 8 projects © Assist AEA in development of data collection agreements for REF Round 8 projects Contact Information « Jason Meyer « Partners Research Professional > Department of Energy jason.meyer@alaska.edu * Experimental Program to (907) 306-9900 Stimulate Competitive Research > Alaska Energy Authority ° Institute of Social and ¢ Brent Sheets Director of Research bjsheets2@alaska.edu Economic Research (907) 474-1194 > Arctic Region * www.uaf.edu/acep Supercomputing Center - https://akenergygateway.alaska.edu ACEP Alaska Center for Energy and Power 6 Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Weekly Report for the Week of March 6, 2011 Production Overview Actual Change Previous Change Previous Week/Same Year _Year/Same Week Electricity 560,271 184,139 : N/A delivered [kWh] Electricity 577,481 173,419 N/A produced [kWh] Electricity not 17,210 -27,930 N/A sold [kWh] Electricity not 2.98 -3.93 N/A sold [%] System Electric 15.83 -3.83 N/A Efficiency [kWh/gal] Wind power 6,042 -15,707 N/A produced [kWh] Wind power 1.04 -4,34 N/A produced [%] Diesel power 571,439 189,198 N/A produced [kWh] Diesel power 98.06 3.44 N/A produced [%] Diesel Efficiency 14.66 0.67 N/A [kWh/gal] 800 Total Produced Total Delivered n So o 600 500 400 300; Power Produced and Served [kW] 8 oO an o 3 0 i i i i i i Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar—08 Mar—09 Mar—10 Mar-11 Mar—12 Mar-13 © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 System Health Overview Actual Change From Change Previous Previous Week Year/Same Week Frequency [Hz] - Mean 60.13 0.12 N/A - Std. Dev. 0.032 -0.012 N/A - Max 60.51 0.08 N/A - Min 59°35) -0.21 N/A Power Factor - Mean 0.947 -0.012 N/A - Std. Dev. 0.0151 -0.133 N/A - Max 1.000 0 N/A - Min 0.552 1.551 N/A Voltage A-N [V] - Mean 277.20 -0.32 N/A - Std. Dev. 0.583 -0.021 N/A - Max 289.84 9.30 N/A - Min 264.75 0 N/A Voltage B-N [V] - Mean 277.01 0.45 N/A - Std. Dev. 0.631 -0.128 N/A - Max 290.84 9.03 N/A - Min 261.74 2.01 N/A Voltage C-N [V] - Mean 276.03 0.10 N/A - Std. Dev. 0.792 -0.238 N/A - Max 289.84 8.03 N/A - Min 261.74 1.01 N/A Voltage Imbalance [%] - Mean 0.31 -0.01 N/A - Std. Dev. 0.01 -0.01 N/A - Max 0.97 -0.73 N/A - Min 0 0 N/A © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 61f 1 60.5 60 59.5 System Frequency [Hz] 59F 1 Mar-06 Mar—07 Mar-—08 Mar-—09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 ° wo Power Factor ° °o N © S (o2) Voltage Imbalance [%] ° nD on eee 0 Mar-—06 Mar—07 Mar-—08 Mar-09 Mar-—10 Mar-—11 Mar-12 Mar-13 | © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Interruption of Service (Outages) None. Would list all interruptions and their individual duration. © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Diesel Generator 3 Caution No active cautions. Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Warning No active warnings. Alert Data Channels not recording: - Fuel usage - Low Oil Pressure - Volts A-B General Information Actual Run time [h] 166 Energy produced 38,043 [kWh] Capacity Factor 47.7 [%] Total Fuel Used N/A [gal] Total Efficiency 14.33 [kWh/gal] Efficiency when 14.52 delivering power [kWh/gal] Engine lowly 0.84 loaded [h] Engine 0 overloaded [h] 500+ Change Previous Week/Same Year N/A 10,674 (*) 13.4 (*) N/A 2.96 -0.10 -2.95 Change Previous Year/Same Week N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A sb 2° fo) wo °° o tO So ° Gen 3 Power [kW] = So ° of Mar-O06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Mar-09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. Wind Turbine Generator 1 Caution No active cautions. Warning No active warnings. Alert Data Channels not recording: - Voltage C-N General Information Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Actual Change Previous Change Previous Week/Same Year _Year/Same Week Run time [h] 152.33 -7.94 N/A Energy produced 1,036 -2,704 N/A [kWh] Energy Expected 1,105 -- N/A [kWh] Capacity Factor 6.20 -16.10 N/A [%] RPM - Mean 38.21 -7.84 N/A - Max 58.92 -0.61 N/A 80+ Turbine output 4 —— Theoretical Output a oOo T WTG 1 Power [kW] Nh .~ Oo oO ° T oO Nh iN 6 8 Wind speed [m/s] © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. 10 Unalakleet - Weekly Report - 03/06/2011 Note: This document is a mock-up data report is for illustrative purposes only. Additional data channels and calculated values can be added, or existing removed as desired, as long as pertinent data is recorded at a given location. The intended audience of this report format is utility management and powerhouse operators. This report is based on data from the SCADA at the Unalakleet Village Electric Coop’s powerhouse. Prepared by Dr. Marc Mueller-Stoffels, mmuellerstoffels@alaska.edu. 01/02/2014 © 2013 All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power. This report is automatically generated from data sources not controlled by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Accuracy of the data cannot be guaranteed. PRODUCTION Electricity Produced (MWh) Total Diesel (MWh) Percent of total electricity produced (Illustration) Total Wind (MWh) Percent of total electricity produced (iilustration) Total Pv(MWh) Percent of total electricity produced (illustration) Electricity Delivered System Electric Effeciency (kWh produced/gal Heat Delivered (BTU) Diesel Generator tin Electricity Produced (kWh) Fuel used (gallons) Generator Effeciency (kWh produced/gallons) Heat Delivered (BTU) Heating Loop Outflow Temp (°F) Heating Loop Return Temp ("F) Flow Volume (GPM) Wind Turbine tn (Nameplate Capacity 1 MW) Electricity Produced (kWh) Capacity Factor Average Wind speed (m/s) Battery (MWh) Cycle Equivalents (energy (intout)/capacity)) Battery capacity (kWh) Energy in (kWh) Energy Out (kWh) ‘Average state of charge (%) Min, State of Charge (%) Max. State of Charge(%) Loans Residential (MWh) Commercial (MWh) Other (MWh) MOCKUP: ILLUSTRATION OF ANNUAL TRACKING 5,246 95% 2255 4.07% 007 1% 5,322 14.2 5,246,417 391,524 Beez 225,511 30.3% 10.98 8.89 253 2,249 1,799 96% 100% 5,051 1417 2,587 1,047 ‘= Total PV(MWh) ‘Total Wind (MWh) ‘© Total Diesel (MWh) Feb 4,608 4,338 2100 4.56% 0.06 1% 4 A248 148 4,338,111 312,094 eee 209,985 28.2% 11.19 9.96 252 2,510 2,008 78% 100% 4,198 1,178 2,150 870 March 3,708 3434 93% 226.2 6.10% 0.05 1% 3,560 14.0 NA 3,433,553, 264,119 13.0 SEEE 226,243 30.4% 12.13 8.43 251 2,116 1,693 94% 75% 3,378 1,730 2m 2,531 91% 205.4 741% 8.86 250 2215 1m 2,526 1,294 524 6,000 5,000 + 4,000 ~ § 2000 - i Ti Js iJ L s FES eK Foe eS May Jun 1,836 936 1,597 710 87% 76% 248 ©2135 11.70% © 22.81% 0.02 0.01 1% 1% 1,763 899 154 174 NA NA 1,597,307 710,289 119,202 $3,810 134 13.2 ESSE SEE 214,825 213,543 289% 28.7% 14.00 11.01 851 9.09 250 248 2128 2,254 1,702 1,803 81% 80% 65% 64% 91% 90% 1,673 853 469 239 857 437 347 77 Jul 68 242 52% 2199 46.98% 0.01 1% 449 9.40 248 2,331 1,865 $38 426 218 Aug 1,368 1,128 82% 224 16.26% 0.02 1% 1,313 16.4 NA 1,127,777 83,539 Bs NA NA NA NA 222,439 12.32 93 248 2215 1m 7% 1,246 350 258 2,304 2,052 225 9.66% 0.03 1% 2,212 15.4 Oct 3,240 2.978 220.1 6.79% 0.04 1% 3,110 wa 2,051,540 2,977,743 149,747 137 EEE 222,508 29.9% 10.06 9.54 247 2,356 1,885 93% 2,099 589 1,075 435, 229,057 13.0 Eres 220,137 29.6% 14.79 8.13 247 2,008 1,606 7% 2,952 828 1512 612 4,140 3,861 93% 2256 545% 14s 3,860,563, 285,968 13S NA NA NA NA 225,617 12.08 9.67 247 2,388 1911 86% 69% 96% 3,772 1,058 1,932 782 ‘mother (MWh) = Commercial (MWh) ‘Residential (MWh) 5076 4,789 2209 435% 0.07 1% 4873 142 NA 4,789,092 357,395 34 NA NA NA NA 220,920 14.35 9.49 247 2,344 1,875 87% 97% 4,625 1,297 2,369 959 32,905 2,627 047 34,560 32,904,999 2,452,381 2,627,001 2 109 27,115 21,692 9,200 16,800 6,800 ACEP Automated Data Report ANNUAL POWER SYSTEM REPORT FOR CORDOVA ELECTRIC HY DRO-DIESEL SYSTEM Marc Mueller-Stoffels Funded by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power ACEP Alaska Center for Energy and Power March 2014 ©2014 Alaska Center for Energy and Power, Fairbanks, AK, USA. All rights reserved. Alaska Center for Energy and Power Institute of Northern Engineering University of Alaska Fairbanks PO Box 755910 Fairbanks, AK 99775-5910 Gwen Holdmann, Director gwen.holdmann@alaska.edu Dr. Marc MuellerStoffels, Power Systems Integration Program Director mmuellerstoffels@alaska.edu 1 INTRODUCTION i Introduction Data was provided by Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) from their powerplant SCADA. This file is automatically generated from MATLAB code and Cordova’s data. Reporting Time Frame: Start date: 18-Sep-2012 10:07:51 End date: 18-Sep-2013 10:07:50 1.1. Demand and Production Overview Demand: Summary Total demand for the recording period: 279783.6 MWh. Table 1: | Jan | Feb | Mar _| Apr_| May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct _| Nov | Dec | Demand MWh] 1902 | 1678 | 1832 2066 | 2097 | 2878 | 3002 | 4002 | 2198 | 16160 | 1837 | 1972 Max Demand {kW] Mean Demand [kW] 4156 | 3808 | 4026 | 3855 4480 | 6632 | 7333 8305 4727 3966 | 4269 2556 2496 | 2462 2870 2819 3997 | 5244 | 5379 3053 2551 2650 3391 2172 Time-series, distribution and CDF for annual demand. Demand data is the sum of the channels: * ?ORCA_VARCTRL_TOTAL_ KW’ * ‘CHBC_BUSPTM_3PH_ACTPOWER’ 1.1 Demand and Production Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Demand [kW] 9000 Demand time-series 7000 - 3000 2000 - Oct-13 1.1 Demand and Production Overview 1 INTRODUCTION x10" Demand Distribution and CDF - Full Year 8 T T T T T T T P(Demand) > 0 1 i 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Demand [kW] 1 T T T 0.8F 4 s 5 ost 4 £ 0. oD a Ps 0.4- 4 oO 0.2F 4 0 i 1 1 lL lL I 1 1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Demand [kW] Montly CDF plots of demand. 1.1. Demand and Production Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Sat zs 1 Ss ir ce Cc c o oO o 5 5 § 6% 8 05 805 5 5 5 © 70 oO 0 Oi O, 0 2000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 0 2000 4000 January - Demand [kW] February - Demand [kW] March - Demand [kW] St zs 1 Se c c . oO oO oO § & 5 8 05 . 8 05 & 05 5 5 5 oO 0 Oo 0 oO 0 0 1000 2000 3000 0 2000 4000 0 2000 4000 6000 April - Demand [kW] May - Demand [kW] June - Demand [kW] oA = zs 1 at Cc c & o oO oc 5 5 5 8 05 : ‘ 8 05 8 05 5 5 5 O70 Oo 0 O70 0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 July - Demand [kW] August - Demand [kW] September - Demand [kW] me zs 1 ct & : & ce oO a a 5 5 5 8 05 8 05 & 05 5 5 5 Oo 0 Oo 0 ; Oo 0 - 0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000 0 2000 4000 October - Demand [kW] November - Demand [kW] December - Demand [kW] Reactive Power: Time-series, distribution and CDF of annual reactive power. Re- active power is the sum of the channels: *?ORCA_VARCTRL_TOTAL_KVAR’, *CHBC_300G1_3PHS_MVAR’, *CHBC_300G2_3PHS_MVAR, *>CHBC_300G3_3PHS_MVAR’ (these channels actually record in kVAR). 1.1 Demand and Production Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Reactive Power Demand time-series 5000 T T — T 2000 -- 1000 Reactive Power Demand [kVAR] -2000- 3000 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Time 1.1. Demand and Production Overview 1 INTRODUCTION x10" Reactive Power Demand Distribution and CDF - Full Year + T Ut T T T T wo T P(Reactive Power Demand) = nD T 0 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Reactive Power Demand [kVAR] exit T T T vz & e E08 4 a = 06 4 oS a o 2 04 | 3 os D £02 4 Ww a °o 0 1 1 4 4 4 1 L 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Reactive Power Demand [kVAR] Power Factor: Time-series and power factor vs real demand. Calculated from real power (P) and reactive power (Q) as PF = P/(P? + Q?)'? 1.2 Diesel Generators 1 INTRODUCTION Power Factor time-series and relationship to real power 8 o wu & 5 a Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Time 5 GB a wu & 2 So a 05+ : 4 a] 4 i i i i 1 i i i -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1.2 Diesel Generators All diesel generators are located in the Orca Powerhouse. The following gives an overview of the gensets. Note that operating hours are for the time of the data record only, and are calculated by adding the times the frequency output of the genset is non-zero. Generator Name (CEC SCADA): GEN7 Generator Capacity [kW]: 3800 Generator Run Hours: 2599.0 Generator Name (CEC SCADA): G3EPM Generator Capacity [kW]: 2500 Gen- erator Run Hours: 329.1 Generator Name (CEC SCADA): G4EPM Generator Capacity [kW]: 2450 Gen- erator Run Hours: 1721.2 Generator Name (CEC SCADA): CATCCMGs Generator Capacity [kW]: 1125 Generator Run Hours: 854.3 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Generator Name (CEC SCADA): CATCCMG6 Generator Capacity [kW]: 1125 Generator Run Hours: 1434.4 1.3 Hydro Power Overview There are two hydro power stations: Power Creek with 6 MW of nameplate capacity and Hump Back Creek with 1.25 MW of nameplate capacity. Total hydro energy for the recording period: 18114.3 MWh. Table 2: [Jan] Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul_| [Sep | Oct _| Nov | Dec Energy IMWhT $47] Bor | 175] 66 | 1857 | 2835] 3801 | 3767 | 1940 | 1303 | 468 | 253 Hydro {%] 4s 8 10 3 89 99 97 94 88 81 25 B Max Power {kW 3096 | 2677 | 2312 | 414 | 4479 | 6639 | 7059 | 7020 | 4686 | 3287 | 1292 | 2059 Mean Power [kW] | 139 | 1192 | 235 | 92 2496 | 3938 | s109 | 5063 | 2604 | 1752 | 650 | 34t Time-series, distribution and CDF for annual Power Creek Production. 10 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Hydro power output time-series 8000 T T T T 7000 - 6000} 5000- 4000+ 3000-- Output [kW] 2000} 1000} - 000 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Time II 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Hydro Power Distribution and CDF - Full Year 10 T T T T aT T T P(Power) 1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Power [kW] CDF(Power) — id oa oo e rT i o > T o ny T 0 1 1 4 1 1 I 1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Power [kW] Montly CDF plots of Power Creek Production. 12 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION NAAN 1000 2000 3000 1000 2000 1000 2000 January — Power [kW] February — Power [kW] March — Power [kW] = = CDF(Power) Oo a CDF(Power) oO a CDF (Power) ° oO a > Oo Oo o Oo o CDF(Power) Oo Oo ua = CDF(Power) ° oO a al CDF(Power) ° oO a = 0 200 400 2000 4000 2000 4000 6000 April - Power [kW] May — Power [kW] June - Power [kW] o o = a CDF(Power) ° ono CDF(Power) ° o U8 CDF (Power) ° Oo a = 0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 July - Power [kW] August - Power [kW] September - Power [kW] Rael ae 2 1 o oO ® = = = & 05 hae & 05 Ne i uw uw we a a a Os 0 oF 0 O10 0 1000 2000 3000 0 500 1000 0 1000 2000 October - Power [kW] November — Power [kW] December — Power [kW] Power Creek Hydroplant: The Power Creek hydroplant provides up to 6 MW from two 3 MW turbines. During hydropower-only operation the plant provides fre- quency requlation via a governed deflector blade in the instream jet. This comes at the cost of having to keep 500 kW of spinning reserve on turbine "H4’. Production Summary: Energy and Power data is given based on the complete time-series. Fre- quency and reactive power data is filtered for times the system is delivering power. Total Energy [MWh]:14803.6 Time-series, distribution and CDF for annual Power Creek Production. 13 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION | Jan | Feb | Mar Energy MWh] 628 631 133 ‘Max Power [kW] 2373 | 1908 | 2240 ‘Mean Power {kW1 845 938 166 ‘Max kVAR [kVAR] 176 | 78 | 855 Mean kVAR{kVAR] | -178 | 127 | -or ‘Min kVAR {kVAR] 27 | -608 | 543 Max Frequency {Hz} | 60.47 | 60.71 | 60.19 Mean Frequency {Hz} | 59.99 | 60.00 | 60.00 Min Frequency {Hz} | 59.18 | 0.00 | 3376 Power Creek output time-series 7000 T T T T 6000 ;- 5000 4000/- 3000 - Output [kW] 2000 - 1000 1000 : Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Time 14 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Power Creek Power Distribution and CDF - Full Year 10 T T T T T T 107+ 4 5 5 4 a a 10° a 1 1 L 1 1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Power [kW] CDF(Power) S ° ° R a ®& ° iv 1 1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Power [kW] Montly CDF plots of power output of Power Creek. 15 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION = = & 05 & 05 £05 w re uw a a a Oo 9 Oo 9 Co oO 0 1000 2000 0 500 1000 1500 0 1000 2000 January - Power [kW] February - Power [kW] March — Power [kW] = 1 = 1 = 1 : $ : & 05 : £05 & 05 L Ww wL a pei a a So So a) 0 100 200 0 1000 2000 3000 0 2000 4000 April - Power [kW] May - Power [kW] June - Power [kW] - 1 <1 <1 © oO oO 5 g s a 0.5 a 0.5 a 05 re Ww Ww a a a Coo Co 0 So 0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 July - Power [kW] August — Power [kW] September - Power [kW] a 1 a 1 a 1 oO Oo oO 3 3 3 2 0.5 a 05 2 05 Ww ra we a a a oO 9 Oo 9 - Oo oO 0 1000 2000 3000 0 200 400 600 800 0 500 1000 1500 October - Power [kW] November — Power [kW] December - Power [kW] Power spilled and power station reserve During low demand water is spilled down Power Creek, instead of being diverted into the penstock. The amount of spilled power can be calculated from the dam height and water level behind the dam by using: Popitted = 18 + 48.3 + 3.3(Rwater — Raam)? fOr Rater > Naam: @® with hyater and hgam being the water level and dam height respectively. Power sta- tion reserve is the difference between the current power level and the maximum possi- ble power level. The maximum possible power level is limited by either the nameplate capacity or the flow. Time-series, distribution and CDF for annual power spilled at Power Creek. 16 13__Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION x 10° Power Creek Spilled Power time-series 8 T T T T eee die ctervestnttye ve s dyiovolterrtory ces ats ne svaiiond s/s aah a4 Glen ig ep sesh sa uments .heqpoons iaiilaae 4 fees enamide gs to eeietogss ys eoumeame ni -eseseemeee ss 4 Be se eenctera toe a efecto zn eriasn noise eee gees |S eS eeaeltte ete an 4 z S é 4e : eee ope t ewe e teense steerer ee Sew ewenbeges 4 3 : a : 2) 3r-°:: = : oo ee eee: perce es 4 Detours ciperges i | spelaaiesa | Tete ee tee ed } anal | i ae Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Time 17 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Power Creek Spilled Power Distribution and CDF - Full Year 10 T T T T T T T P(Spilled Power) 3S T 1 10°F ] 10° 1 1 1 1 1 ! : 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Spilled Power [kW] x 10° 1 T T T : ' ' ] = o08t | oO = o 2 ost | ZC 2 G04 | L a © 02 1 0 L 4 1 L 4 5 6 7 Spilled Power [kW] x 10° Montly CDF plots of spilled power at Power Creek. 18 13 Hydro Power Overview a INTRODUCTION CDF (Spilled Power) CDF(Spilled Power) CDF(Spilled Power) CDF(Spilled Power) 0 1 ° or oh ery » ras ° o on CDF(Spilled Power) CDF(Spilled Power) CDF(Spilled Power) 3 S 1 2 ft z q a a 0.5 Bos Bos a a @ @ \ Jr ou xz Oo 0 5000 10000 15000 8 0 2 4 8 0 2 4 6 January - Spilled Power [kW] February - Spilled Powgr kW} — March - Spilled Power [ky¥] 4 So a 1 ° a 2 4 6 April - Spilled Power {ky} o Lo 2 4 6 May - Spilled Power SF o 2 4 6 June - Spilled Power [ki °o = S a o ° Oo oa oe pled 2 July - Spilled Power Ky 0 August - Spilled Powey iW] 0 4 2 3 1 o 5 0 0 2 4 6 September - Spilled Power kW] 0 2 4 6 October - Spilled Powey {1 a ° a DF (Spilled Power) CDF(Spilled Power) CDF(Spilled Power, 0 0 5000 10000 15000 1 0.5 0 5000 10000 15000 November - Spilled Power (kW) December - Spilled Power [kW] Time-series, distribution and CDF for annual reserve power at Power Creek. 19 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Power Creek Reserve Power time-series 1600 T \ T Tt 1400; - 1200+ 3 8 800; Reserve Power [kW] 600 400 ‘| Wl pe wall Ai 0 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Time 20 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 10 T T Z INTRODUCTION Power Creek Reserve Power Distribution and CDF - Full Year P(Reserve Power) T 10 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Reserve Power [kW] a T T T = 08 | oO é 0.6 2 3 & 04P 4 5 0 0.2- a 0 - al i 0 500 1000 1500 Reserve Power [kW] Montly CDF plots of reserve power at Power Creek. 21 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION 3 3S 1 5 14 5 4 a a o @o 05 5 05 5 0.5 Q Qn © © \ 0 ro ir 0 _ : 0 5000 10000 150000 0 2 4 a 0 2 4 6 January - Reserve Power kw February - Reserve Powes awe March - Reserve Power fo] 1 5 14 1 0.5 0.5 ) 0.5 0 : 0 0 : 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 0 2 4 6 April - Reserve Power May - Reserve Power [I June — Reserve Power [I x K k 1 1 1 ° a 0.5 ° a oO 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 2 4 «6 August - Reserve Powgr{kW]£ September - Reserve PowepfkW] 1 4 Oo 1 2 July - Reserve Power [ky] So rCDF (Reserve Power{DF (Reserve Pow 1 ° a 0.5 Ae 0 2 4 6 0 5000 10000 15000 G 0 5000 10000 15000 October - Reserve Power, awP November - Reserve Power [kvq December - Reserve Power [kW] Humpback Creek Hydroplant The Humpback Creek hydroplant provides up to 1.25 MW from two 500 kW turbines and one 250 kW turbine. Production Summary Total Energy [MWhl: 3310.7 (Reserve Pow Oo a CDF(Reserve Power{DF (Reserve Power{DF(Reserve PowerfDF (Reserve Power) DF(Reserve Power{DF (Reserve Powerf{DF (Reserve Po Table 4: | Jan | Feb | Mar_| Apr | May | Jun | Jul__| Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov_| Dec “Energy MWHT 219 170 3 3 502 654 «| 459 395 384 285 69 7° ‘Max Power {kW m2 u22 | sor 307 | ajo | ram | 1309 | 6s | 1287 | 127 354 1086 ‘Mean Power {kW} 294 253 70 n 675 908 | 617 531 533 383 96 9 Max Frequency {Hz} | 60.45 | 68.75 | 60.24 | 60.26 | 60.26 | 6051 | 6039 | 60.49 | 60.47 | 6154 | 6135 | 60.93 Mean Frequency [Hz] | 59.92 | 59.94 | 59.86 | 59.82 | 59.91 59.97 | 59.98 | 59.99 | 59.99 | 60.00 | $9.99 | 59.99 Min Frequency [Hz] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1786 | 394 | 7.40 | 1381 | 0.00 | 24.49 Time-series, distribution and CDF for annual Power Creek Production. 22 13 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Humpback Creek output time-series 1400 T T T 7 1200+ 1000 + 800; 600 — Output [kW] 400} - 200- -200 L 1 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Time 23 1.3 Hydro Power Overview 1 INTRODUCTION Humpback Creek Power Distribution and CDF - Full Year 10 T T T T T T P(Power) 10° 1 1 1 1 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Power [kW] 1 T 0.8 4 g 4 s 0.6 a To4 4 Oo 0.2 4 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Power [kW] Montly CDF plots of Humpback Creek production. 24 1 INTRODUCTION & s ‘ —_ aS CDF(Power) ° oo? a CDF (Power) ° oO a CDF (Power) ° Oo a = TN 500 1000 500 1000 200 400 ean Power [kW] February — Power [kW] March — Power [kW] Eee 100 200 300 500 1000 500 1000 April - Power [kW] May — Power [kW] June — Power [kW] = 500 1000 500 1000 500 1000 July - Power [kW] August — Power [kW] September — Power [kW] 0 500 1000 0 100 200 300 0 500 1000 o obe, — Power [kW] November — Power [kW] December — Power [kW] o o = = BS CDF(Power) Oo o Um CDF(Power) ° Oo a CDF(Power) Oo a of o °o _ CDF(Power) o a CDF(Power) ° o nan = CDF(Power) ° Oo a = oO o o o = CDF(Power) o ua CDF(Power) ° oO a = CDF(Power) ° a = oc? 1.4 Appendix Data Quality Assurance Adjust for daylight savings. There are gaps and over laps in the record due to observance of DST. The record is adjusted by subtracting 1 hour from those time stamps that fall into the DST range. Data Channels: The data consists of the following channels: ” PWRC_TOTAL_KW_OUT’ ” PWRC_BUSPQM_3PHS_MVAR’ *PWRC_BUSPQM__ FREQUENCY’ ”ORCA_VARCTRL_TOTAL_KVAR’ *ORCA_VARCTRL_TOTAL_KW’ ’GEN7_489__ FREQUENCY’ 25 1.4 Appendix 1 INTRODUCTION *ORCA_G3EPM_RAW_FREQ’ "ORCA_G4EPM_RAW_FREQ’ *ORCA_CATCCMG5__FREQ’ "ORCA_CATCCMG6__FREQ’ ’ CHBC_BUSPTM_3PH_ACTPOWER’ * CHBC_BUSPTM_LINE_FREQ’ ’ CHBC_300G1_3PHS_MVAR’ ’CHBC_300G1_3PHS_MW’ ’ CHBC_300G2_3PHS_MVAR’ * CHBC_300G2_3PHS_MW’ ” CHBC_300G3_3PHS_MVAR’ * CHBC_300G3_3PHS_MW’ ” PCFB_DAM_HEAD_LEVEL’ ” PCFB_DAM_PSI_FTH20’ * PCFB_SLC_GATE_PCTOPEN’ ” PWRC_H4_DEF_PCTOPEN’ ” PWRC_H4_KW_RESERVE’ * PWRC_H5S_DEF_PCTOPEN’ * PWRC_HS5_KW_RESERVE’ ’GEN7_FUEL__CURACC’ "TIMEVEC’ Simple Stats Each channel is scanned for consistency, i.e., it has to be of the same length as the associated time vector. If the consistency check is passed, simple statis- tics are displayed. Note that for generation units that are not always online, some of the stats, particularly mean values are no indicator of actual operation. Scan results for channel PWRC_TOTAL_KW_OUT: summaryMsg: ‘All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: -205 Maximum measured: 6247.18 Average measured: 1689.9041 Standard deviation measured: 1698.9826 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% 26 1.4 Appendix Scan results for channel PWRC_BUSPQM_3PHS_MVAR: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: -731.31 Maximum measured: 3897.74 Average measured: 372.6072 Standard deviation measured: 911.6588 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel PWRC_BUSPQM__ FREQUENCY: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 61.65 Average measured: 59.967 Standard deviation measured: 1.4099 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel ORCA_VARCTRL_TOTAL_KVAR: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: -1986.52 Maximum measured: 3887 Average measured: 238.0329 Standard deviation measured: 996.4798 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel ORCA_VARCTRL_TOTAL_KW: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: -108 Maximum measured: 7727 Average measured: 2815.9412 Standard deviation measured: 1131.7621 27 I INTRODUCTION 1.4 Appendix Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel GEN7_489__ FREQUENCY: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 61.67 Average measured: 17.801 Standard deviation measured: 27.4088 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel ORCA_G3EPM_RAW_FREQ: summaryMsg: *All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 64 Average measured: 2.2541 Standard deviation measured: 11.4086 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel ORCA_G4EPM_RAW_FREQ: summaryMsg: ‘All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 62 Average measured: 11.7882 Standard deviation measured: 23.8391 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel ORCA_CATCCMGS_ FREQ: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 6550.6 28 Ti INTRODUCTION 1.4 Appendix Average measured: 5.8449 Standard deviation measured: 17.9558 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel ORCA_CATCCMG6__FREQ: summaryMsg: ‘All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 1638.3 Average measured: 9.8152 Standard deviation measured: 22.224 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel CHBC_BUSPTM_3PH_ACTPOWER: summaryMsg: ‘All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: -2 Maximum measured: 1310 Average measured: 377.9354 Standard deviation measured: 361.1742 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel CHBC_BUSPTM_LINE_FREQ: summaryMsg: ‘All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 68.75 Average measured: 57.3293 Standard deviation measured: 12.3478 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel CHBC_300G1_3PHS_MVAR: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ 29 1 INTRODUCTION 1.4 Appendix Minimum measured: -1697.3 Maximum measured: 1582.1 Average measured: @.0022519 Standard deviation measured: 2.6941 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel CHBC_300G1_3PHS_MW: summaryMsg: ‘All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: -1428.3 Maximum measured: 1734 Average measured: 0.12378 Standard deviation measured: 2.5623 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel CHBC_300G2_3PHS_MVAR: summaryMsg: ‘All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: -1629.9 Maximum measured: 1783.1 Average measured: -0.0017062 Standard deviation measured: 3.3453 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel CHBC_300G2_3PHS_MW: summaryMsg: ‘All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: -1786.2 Maximum measured: 1642.7 Average measured: 0.16769 Standard deviation measured: 2.2537 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel CHBC_300G3_3PHS_MVAR: 30 1 INTRODUCTION 1.4 Appendix summaryMsg: ‘All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: -1699.7 Maximum measured: 1763.4 Average measured: -0.0029009 Standard deviation measured: 2.9814 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel CHBC_300G3_3PHS_MW: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: -2457.2 Maximum measured: 1579.3 Average measured: 0.081764 Standard deviation measured: 2.4993 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel PCFB_DAM_HEAD_LEVEL: summaryMsg: ‘All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 9.06 Average measured: 7.4188 Standard deviation measured: 0.76116 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel PCFB_DAM_PSI_FTH20: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 8.45 Average measured: 6.1924 Standard deviation measured: 1.289 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% 31 Hg INTRODUCTION 1.4 Appendix Scan results for channel PCFB_SLC_GATE_PCTOPEN: summaryMsg: *All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 98 Average measured: 15.5498 Standard deviation measured: 22.1925 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel PWRC_H4 DEF_PCTOPEN: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 100.82 Average measured: 39.8835 Standard deviation measured: 40.7657 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel PWRC_H4_KW_RESERVE: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 1299 Average measured: 142.9552 Standard deviation measured: 220.1907 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel PWRC_H5_DEF_PCTOPEN: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 101.3 Average measured: 61.4643 Standard deviation measured: 36.8497 32 I INTRODUCTION 1.4 Appendix Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel PWRC_H5_KW_RESERVE: summaryMsg: ’All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 1267 Average measured: 112.2182 Standard deviation measured: 194.8602 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel GEN7_FUEL__CURACC: summaryMsg: "All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 0 Maximum measured: 999999.6 Average measured: 133181.1985 Standard deviation measured: 329981.308 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% Scan results for channel TIMEVEC: summaryMsg: *All tests passed.’ Minimum measured: 735130.4638 Maximum measured: 735495.4638 Average measured: 735312.9494 Standard deviation measured: 105.3764 Percentage of invalid entries: 0% 33 I INTRODUCTION REF R8: Change to Economic Evaluation Base case changes The base case is the power system that the proposed project will be replacing (in part), in rural communities the base case is generally a diesel powerhouse. All of the benefits that are counted in the economic model for proposed projects come from displacing fuel consumption in the base case system. © Operations and Maintenance (O&M) assumptions for the base case will be modified to include both fixed and variable O&M costs to more accurately reflect the impact of renewable integration on these costs in the existing system. The model currently assumes ties all O&M costs to kWhs generated, disregarding costs associated with run time which may or may not be impacted by the new project. ¢ Replacement and repair (R&R) costs will be included for the base case. R&R costs such as major overhauls and engine replacements will be programmed into the base case based on manufacturer recommendations for each system. © Standard efficiency in the base case will be separated into large (more efficient) and small (less efficient) systems. Currently all diesel systems are assumed to generate 13kwh/gallon, larger systems should be getting closer to 14-15kwh/gallon. ¢ Establish minimum genset loads for integration of wind/hydro/solar to provide a more realistic picture of potential diesel displaced. Diesel generators have varying capacity to scale back without losing efficiency, all diesel generators will lose efficiency at very low loads. © Loss of heat recovery currently in use will be assessed and integrated into evaluation of costs and benefits. The benefits counted in the model are displaced fossil fuels to the community. Railbelt base case will be upgraded based on more current information about the Railbelt system. RPSU Powerhouse information ¢ Where available RPSU powerhouse information will be used to assess the current system’s capacity to integrate renewables. In situations where the current diesel system will not allow for successful integration of renewables the applicant may be recommended for a grant conditional on upgrade of the diesel system. Installed cost assumptions will be updated (for recon and feasibility applications) ¢ Wind: update Railbelt installed cost based on existing systems ¢ Solar PV: use PV Watts estimator for cost/kWh Integration © Cost of integration and analysis of impact on existing system will be required in evaluation of construction applications. Fuel price projections ¢ The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) will supply natural gas price projections. Reporting requirements ¢ Cost of instrumentation to collect and report data that is outside the scope of the renewable generation project but required by AEA will not be included as a project cost in the economic evaluation. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round VII DRAFT Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation May 8, 2014 Overview of Review Process The purpose of this document is to provide a thorough description of how the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round VII applications were evaluated. This document, including the Appendix A, will be posted on the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) REF Round VII Applications and Analysis webpage http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE Fund Applications-7.html following review by the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee on May 13th, 2014. AEA received a total of 87 applications for REF Round VII. One application was a partial version of a more complete application submitted on the due date, and so was considered a duplicate and removed from further evaluation. As such, AEA generally states in Round VII 86 applications requesting $93 million in grant funding were reviewed. New to Round VII, was the solicitation in the RFA for standard renewable energy applications and a separate application for those related to offsetting heating costs. AEA reviewed 38 applications requesting $24 million for heat related projects (biomass, heat recovery, heat pumps, and renewables to heat). AEA reviewed 48 applications requesting $69 million for standard renewable energy projects (hydro, transmission, wind, geothermal, storage, hydrokinetic, solar PV, and biofuel). All applications were evaluated based on the same four stages as in previous Rounds I-VI. The first stage of review, conducted by AEA staff, evaluated each application for completeness, eligibility, and responsiveness to the Request for Applications (RFA). Four applications did not pass Stage 1 review based on these threshold criteria. Following the 10-day appeal period, one application was reconsidered and advanced to the next stage of review. The Stage 2 review evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of the remaining 83 proposals. In addition, Alaska Department of Natural Resources staff and private economists, under contract to AEA, reviewed each application. Stage 2 review included scoring the project in a number of categories in the effort to rank projects for recommendation to the Legislature. In Round VII, a minimum score of 40 was required for an application to advance to Stage 3 evaluation. Project specific recommendations for full, partial, or no funding, as well as recommendations for special provisions for grantable awards were made based on the Stage 2 review. Projects may have been recommended for partial funding if they were viable but: ¢ Documentation submitted with the application was not sufficient to justify full funding for more than one phase of a project. e Funding for proposed project development phases would not be used until late FY 2015 or afterwards. That is, funds would be tied up unreasonably. e AEA believed that proposed costs were excessive for the proposed scope of work. e The applicant requested AEA to manage the project and the AEA Project Manager could confidently estimate a lower cost. e The proposal included operating costs, ineligible costs, unreasonably high costs, or other costs not recommended for funding. The Stage 3 review was conducted in accordance with specific guidelines in the RFA by AEA staff. The scoring was done based on a number of matrices and pre-established weighting for each of the criteria as defined by the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) since Round V. Cost of Energy (35%) Matching Funds (15%) Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%): score from stage 2 Project Readiness (5%) Economic and Other Alaska Benefit (15%) Sustainability (5%) Local Support (5%) ary ee eS At the completion of Stage 2 and 3 reviews, AEA staff recommended no funding for 20 applications. Following the appeal period, 64 (74%) of the 86 applications evaluated were recommended for funding. Of these, 20 (31%) ranked in the top tier as being within the governor’s budget for FY15. On January 7th, presented to the REFAC for Stage 4 review, Stage four review or “Regional Spreading” determines if a region is being under represented within the REF. This is determined by a calculation that accounts for the number and rank of applications within each region, population, the cost of energy ($/kWh), and a balance of statewide funding. In the case where an energy region is under represented, AEA will propose to the REFAC to move a project up in the recommended projects rankings to evenly distribute funds across the State. Following Stage 4, the REFAC recommended 26 of the 86 evaluated applications to the legislature all of which were among the top ranked applications by AEA staff. Of these, two met the Stage 4 criteria for regional spread, four were additional heat projects to meet the needs of high-cost of energy communities, and two hydro projects were recommended for partial funding to meet the governor’s budget of $20million. If additional funding were available, the REFAC recommended full funding for all 26 applications. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 2 5/8/2014 Roles of AEA Staff and the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) AEA staff requested and received input from the REFAC regarding the application and evaluation processes and final funding recommendations. Following is a summary of Committee involvement. AEA staff and the Committee met on April 2, 2013 and on June 17, 2013 to discuss issues including the schedule and details of the Round VII RFA, progress on funded projects, possible changes to the program, and ways to expedite funding for priority heat projects and/or other projects to expedite project development. Midway through review of the applications AEA staff and the Committee met on November 12, 2013 to discuss progress on the review. AEA staff and the Committee met on January 7, 2014 following AEA evaluation of all applications, to review the AEA recommendations for Stage 4. Based on this discussion AEA finalized its recommendations. On January 29, 2014, AEA submitted to the Legislature a ranked list of applications with 26 recommended for funding in Round VII. In summary, 30% of the applications evaluated in Round VII were recommended for full or partial funding in FY15. Of these, $10.3 million are for 17 applications to displace heating costs, and $9.7 million are for 9 standard renewable energy projects with an additional $2.8 million recommended if additional funding, above the Governor’s budget of $20million is available. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 3 5/8/2014 Appendix A Guidelines for Renewable Energy Fund Application Evaluation Table of Contents RET oss ccesstoeseriis sheielieieesssesersieretioseetiet pil cielededitelhonehial to lteeSMiellie el deeetneOtEoniesehLeLasEnNAAn Stage 1 Review Process: Reviewers... Criteria... Process.... Stage 2 Review Process: Reviewers... Criteria... Process... Stage 3 Review Process: Reviewers... Criteria Process.... Funding Limitations on Recommendations (Sec 1.15 of RFA) Recommendation Guidelines... Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations Reviewers.. Process. Scoring Criteria General Scoring Criteria.. Stage 2 Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio Stage 2 Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan .........ssssssessseeseesees Stage 2 Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines . Stage 3 Criterion Match ..........00+. Stage 3 Criterion Local Support Stage 3 Criterion Project Readiness Stage 3 Criterion Public Benefit... Stage 3 Criterion Sustainability... Stage 3 Criterion Statewide Regional Balance Stage 3 Criterion Compliance with Other Awards Stage 4 Regional Spread RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 4 5/8/2014 These are the Instructions and Guidelines for Evaluation of applications received in response to the Round VII (Request for Applications) of the REF. Applications that do not comply with AS 42.45.45 and all of the material and substantial terms, conditions, and requirements of the RFA may be rejected. If an application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its application has been rejected and the basis for rejection. AEA may waive minor requirements of the RFA that do not result in a material change in the requirements of the RFA and do not give an applicant an unfair advantage in the review process. Upon submission of the final recommendations to the Legislature, AEA will make all applications available for review on the Authority's web site. General: Communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through the Grant Administrator. Once initiated, the Grant Administrator may direct applicants to communicate directly with the appropriate AEA staff member. The ED (Executive Director) is the ED of AEA; DDs (Deputy Directors) are those management personnel in AEA who have program oversight for AEA programs; PMs (Project Managers) are the subject matter technical experts; and the Grant Administrator is the person responsible for overseeing the grant process for the Authority. All applications will be reviewed using the same process and criteria established in the RFA. Decisions made in each stage of the review process will be documented in writing and made a part of the grant file. If reviewers think they may have a potential conflict of interest, (financial or personal interest, such as friend or family members) they should inform their supervisor immediately of the potential nature of the conflict. Reviewers should make notes of any questions they may have about an application. Reviewers should not contact applicants directly, instead communicate through the Grant Administrator, unless the Grant Administrator recommends direct communication with the applicant. If Reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should contact the Grant Administrator. If Reviewers have technical questions they should contact the Project Managers. Communications relating to the economic evaluations should go through or copy the AEA staff economist. If an application is rejected or not recommended the applicants will be sent a letter from the Grant Administrator explaining why their application has been rejected or not recommended. Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Administrator the reasons for why the application is being rejected. All written notes should be kept with the application file or in the active server files established for this purpose. All notes are considered public records and subject to Alaska public records act disclosure requirements. Any appeals from rejected applicants in Stage 1 or Stage 2 reviews will be directed to the Grant Administrator. The Grant Administrator will review the appeal with the ED, DD, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 5 5/8/2014 Stage 1 Review Process: All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by AEA staff to assess if the application is complete, meets the minimum submission requirements, and has adequate information to proceed to Stage 2 — Technical and Economic Evaluation. Reviewers Grant Administrator and at least one Deputy Director Criteria e Allcriteria are scored pass/fail. Failure to meet any of these criteria results in rejection of the Application. 1. The application is submitted by an Eligible Applicant (sec 1.4 of RFA). 2. The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.5). 3. A resolution or other formal authorization of the Applicant's governing body is included with the application to demonstrate the Applicant's commitment to the project and any proposed use of matching resources (sec 1.4). 4. The application provides a detailed description of the phase(s) of project proposed, i.e. reconnaissance study, conceptual design/feasibility study, final design/permitting, and/or construction (sec 2.2 - 2.6). 5. The application is complete in that the information provided is sufficiently responsive to the RFA to allow AEA to consider the application in the next stage of evaluation. 6. The Applicant demonstrates that they will take ownership of the project; own, lease, or otherwise control the site upon which the project is located; and upon completion of the project operate and maintain it for its economic life for the benefit of the public. (sec 1.4) Process e The Grant Administrator will evaluate criteria 1-3 & 6 above. e The DD will evaluate criteria 4-5 above. e If it appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional data the DD or PM may make a recommendation to the Grant Administrator for additional information. The Grant Administrator will request clarifying information from the applicant. The applicant will have a specified amount of time to provide the requested information. Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide information that completes their application will result in the application being rejected. e Applications that are determined by the Grant Administrator and DD to be incomplete or fail to meet the minimum requirements will be reviewed by the ED with the assistance of Legal or procurement staff as needed prior to being rejected at Stage 1. e Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed stage 1. e Any requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants in Stage 1 will be directed to the Grant Administrator. The Grant Administrator will review the request with the ED, DD, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 6 5/8/2014 Stage 2 Review Process: All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for technical and economic feasibility in accordance with the criteria below. Reviewers PMs — the AEA technical subject matter experts. Staff from Department of Natural Resources — technical experts providing specific review and comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and natural resource development. Economists - Contracted economist who will review cost benefit and other cost and pricing information provided for each application submitted for the purpose of providing the authority and independent assessment of the economics of the proposed project using a standardized economic evaluation across all projects. AEA staff economist — Manages, oversees and ensures equal evaluations between economists and ultimately performs a quality assurance review of economic analysis work for selected projects. DDs — Oversees the work of the Project Managers Criteria Each of the numbered criteria below will be scored with a numerical score 1-10 and weighted per the percentages below. Criteria Weight 0, 1. Project Management, Development, and Operation (Subjectively 20% Scored) a. The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in adequate detail. b. The cost estimates for project development, operation, maintenance, fuel, and other project items meet industry standards or are otherwise justified. c. The project team’s method of communicating, monitoring, and reporting development progress is described in adequate detail. d. Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and maintaining the project throughout its lifetime and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable and described in adequate detail. 2. Qualifications and Experience (Subjectively Scored) 20% a. The Applicant, partners, and/or contractors have sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully complete and operate the project. b. The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete and operate the project. c. The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation. d._The project uses local labor and trains a local labor RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 7 5/8/2014 workforce. 3. Technical Feasibility (Subjectively Scored) 20% a. The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis, and project permits and other authorizations can reasonably be obtained. b. A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system. Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable. The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as planned. e. If a demonstration project is being proposed: e Application in other areas of the state, or another specific benefit of the proposed project, is likely: e need for this project is shown (vs. the ability to use existing technology); and e the risks of the proposed system are reasonable and warrant demonstration. ao 4. Economic Feasibility (Scored by benefit-cost ratio based schedule) 25% a. The project is shown to be economically feasible (net savings in fuel, operation and maintenance, and capital costs over the life of the proposed project). In determining economic feasibility and benefits, applications will be evaluated anticipating the grantee will use cost-based rates. b. The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of | 5% the grant-funded phase and has considered options for financing subsequent phases of the project. (Subjectively Scored) c. Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated. 10% Avoided cost rates alone will not be presumed to be in the best interest of the public. (Scored according matrix) Process PMs will carefully review the proposals for their assigned technology group and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria, a funding recommendation, and draft statement regarding AEA’s funding recommendation. PMs will provide AEP (Annual Energy Production) estimates to the staff economists for applications that significantly underestimate or overestimate possible production. An economist hired by AEA will review the economic information and provide an independent analysis of cost and benefits of each project. The reviewers will consider the independent analysis when scoring the economic feasibility and benefits criteria. Reviewers will use the formula and criteria in the attached Scoring Matrix Guide - for designated criteria in Stage 2. If the PM believes they need additional information they will coordinate their request for follow-up information with the Grant Administrator. The purpose of follow-up is for clarification and to help the PM gain a sufficient understanding of the project proposed. Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Administrator to the applicant by e-mail, Bcc to project manager, requesting a response in 7 days or fewer. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 8 5/8/2014 e Applicants that fail to respond to requests for information or to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may be rejected in Stage 2. e The DDs or their designee will meet with the PMs to review the applications and discuss final Stage 2 scoring. Scoring per the Stage 2 criteria may be adjusted based on final discussions between the DDs, PMs, Economists, and ED. e Applications may be not recommended prior to generating scores for Stage 2. e A final weighted Stage 2 technical and economic feasibility score will be given for each application reviewed and will be used to calculate the Stage 3 feasibility score. e Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may not be recommended for funding or further review. e Aminimum score of 40 is required for Stage 2 in order to pass to Stage 3. This minimum score was raised by 5 points from previous rounds. e Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed Stage 2. e AEAwill develop a preliminary list of feasible applications based on the Stage 2 review with AEA recommendations on technical and economic feasibility and a recommended funding level to be considered in the Stage 3 review. Stage 3 Review Process: All applications that pass the technical review will be evaluated for the purpose of ranking applications and making recommendations to the Legislature based on the following criteria which include criteria required by 3 AAC 107.655 and AS 42.45.045. The technical and economic feasibility score from Stage 2 will be automatically weighted and scored in Stage 3. The average of the Economic and Public Benefit score of Stage 2 will be used for initial scoring of Economic and Other Public Benefit Score. This score will be reviewed by the DDs. The Grant Administrator, with staff assistance, will score the cost of energy, type and amount of matching funds, and local support, using the formulas and methods outlined in Appendix A. Two DDs or their designee and the PMs will provide scores for readiness, previous success, and sustainability. AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for the REFAC to review. The REFAC will review AEAs final Stage 3 scores and regional ranking recommendations. The REFAC may make recommendations to assist in achieving a statewide balance but will not be rescoring based on the criteria. Reviewers e Grant Administrator (Local Support and Match Criteria) e Two Deputy Directors RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 9 5/8/2014 e Project Managers e Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations) Criteria e Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted. Criteria Round VII Weight Cost of energy in the affected project area relative to | 35 other areas (From Worksheet) The type and amount of matching funds and other 15 resources an applicant will commit to the project. (See formula) Project feasibility (Score from Stage 2 weighted) 20 Project readiness. How quickly the proposed work 5 can begin and be accomplished and/or success in previous phases of project development. Public benefits including economic benefit to the 15 Alaska Public. Sustainability — the ability of the application to finance, | 5 operate and maintain the project for the life of the | project Local Support (See formula) 5 Statewide Balance of Funds (Evaluated as a pass fail if there are similar projects in the same community. Statewide Balance is done in Stage 4.) Compliance with Previous Grant Awards and progress in previous phases of project development. (Evaluated as a pass fail) Process e Reviewers will use the Scoring Matrix Guides for designated criteria in Stage 3. e Each application will be given a single weighted score. e Where more than one evaluator is scoring a given criteria the scores of all evaluators for that criteria will be averaged. e Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Administrator by e- mail, Bcc to project manager, with a response time of 7 days or less. e The evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to determine a more complete understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their application. Funding Limitations on Recommendations (Sec 1.15 of RFA) Evaluators should take these limits into account when making recommendations as the applicants were instructed that they would be responsible for any project costs beyond the grant funds available to complete the project. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 10 5/8/2014 Project Type/Phase Grant Limits Construction projects on the Railbelt $4 Million per project and SE Alaskan communities that have a low cost of power. Construction in all other areas of the $8 Million per project State not mentioned above. Recommendation Guidelines e The final recommendations will be one of the following: o Recommend — Full funding per application o Recommend - Partial funding with a recommended funding amount o Not recommend for grant funding — (basis for not recommending to be explained) e Final AEA recommendations may also suggest specific terms or conditions be imposed on the grantee to assure the project is successful and the public receives value for the funds to be expended e Multi-phase funding guidelines o Fund multiple phases: Multiple phases can be completed in 2014/15, and project is well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk. o Fund limited phases: Project construction would be 2015+, not well-defined, expensive, higher risk, or there are competing projects for which planning is desirable. ¢ Competing or interactive projects guidelines . o If AEA is aware of the potential for substantial interaction among proposed and/or other known projects, then recommend planning with appropriate level of analysis and public input before committing substantial funding to one or more alternatives. e Partial Funding Guidelines o Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are recommended. o Exception 1: If AEA believes project can be built for less, then lower figure can be recommended. AEA will provide justification for lower figure in its recommendations. o Exception 2: Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor, fuel) or non-renewable energy components (e.g. a diesel generator) not recommended for funding. o Exception 3 - If limiting funding to a maximum dollar limit for specific areas groups, or types of projects would provide the best statewide balance of funds AEA may do that. ¢ Guidelines for recommendations for bio-fuels Projects (RFA 1.14) o Bio-fuel projects where the Applicant does not intend to generate electricity or heat for sale to the public will be limited to reconnaissance and feasibility phases only. e Consideration of Resource Assessment Projects o Resource assessment associated with one or more site-specific projects is eligible for phase 2 funding. General regional or statewide assessment, not tied RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 11 5/8/2014 to particular proposed projects, is not eligible, and more appropriately done through the DNR/AEA Alaska Energy Inventory Data project. e Recommendation Guidelines will be documented and a part of the grant file. Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations All applications recommended for grants as a result the Stage 3 evaluation will be ranked in accordance with 3 AAC 107.660. To establish a statewide balance of recommended projects, AEA will provide to the REFAC a statewide and regional ranking of all applications recommended for funding in Stage 3. In consultation with the REFAC, AEA will make a final prioritized list of all recommended projects giving significant weight to providing a statewide balance for grant money, and taking into consideration the amount of money that may be available, the number and types of project within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank of each application. In its final decision on an application AEA may only recommend funding for project phases requested by the Applicant. AEA may recommend funding for only the initial phase(s) of a proposed multi-phased project. The recommended funding may be less than what the Applicant requested. Reviewers e Grant Administrator e Deputy Director e Executive Director of AEA. e Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations) Process e¢ Upon completion of scoring and specific project recommendations by AEA all applications will be grouped within geographical regions. e Each group of applications will be ranked within their geographical region based on the final Stage 3 score. e Each application will have Stage 3 score and regional rank. e¢ Adraft recommendation of projects for funding, will be presented to the REFAC for review along with the complete list of projects. e Consistent with the process established in rounds 1-6, AEA will prepare a summary of the draft recommendations by energy region that will compare potential allocations of funding by the average cost of power in each region that takes into account populations of each community in each region. e Stage 4 revised allocations in each region should be a target of at least 50% of the cumulative REF allocation based on cost of power. In order to attain this goal AEA will refer to the Stage 3 statewide ranking list, identify the next highest-ranked project in RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 12 5/8/2014 regions that do not meet the target goal, and add that recommendation to the Stage 4 list. A top tier of applications will be defined that fit within the Governor's budget and the remaining recommended applications will fall into a second tier. ¢ The REFAC may provide additional recommendations as to the funding level of individual projects, the final ranking of projects, and the total amount of funding and number of projects AEA forwards to the legislature. e The final list of recommended projects for funding will provide a reasonable statewide balance of funds taking into consideration the overall score, the cost of energy, and the rank of projects within a region. Recommendations to the Legislature The final recommendation to the legislature will include: e A\list of recommended Applications for FY 2015 funding. e A list of applications recommended if additional funds may be available. e A\list of applications not recommended for funding. e A\list of applications rejected as ineligible. The final recommendation to the legislature will also contain specific information for each project as requested by the legislature and a summary of each project. Applicants may be required to provide additional information to the Legislature upon request. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 13 5/8/2014 Scoring Criteria General Scoring Criteria e Pass/Fail scoring means either the criteria are met or they are not. e Aweighted score for each of the criteria will calculated and each complete application will be given a total score at the end of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 review process unless the application is determined not to meet the requirements of the RFA. e Reviewers should use the following weighted scoring of criteria as a guide in addition to the specific formula scoring matrices for some criteria defined in sections below. Score | Guidelines (Intent is to provide a range) 10 A+ | The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the criteria requirements and completely addresses them in a thoughtful manner. The application addresses the criteria in a manner clearly superior to other applications received. There is no need for additional follow-up with the applicant to understand how they meet the requirements of the criteria 7 B The application provides information that is generally complete and well-supported. Evaluators may still have a few questions regarding how the applicant meets the criterion but it is clear the applicant understands what is required. 5 Cc The application addresses the criteria in an adequate way and meets minimum requirements under each of the criteria. Some issues may still need to be clarified prior to awarding a grant. 3 D The application information is incomplete or fails to fully address what is needed for the project or information has errors. AEA may need more info to be able to complete the evaluation or need to resolve issues before recommending or awarding a grant. 0 F The application fails to demonstrate understanding of the criteria requirements or project proposed. Required information is poor or absent in the proposal. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 14 5/8/2014 Stage 2 Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio (Maximum Stage 2 Points: 25) AEA staff will consider the economist evaluation when scoring this criterion. They will compare the economists and any Applicant supplied B/C and determine which of the B/C ranges may be most appropriate. If there is wide discrepancy between the two B/C ratios they will use their best judgment based on their understanding of the technical aspects of the proposal to assign a score. A project will be scored at 0 if the Benefit Cost ratio value is < 0.90 or if no or insufficient information is provided by the applicant to do an economic analysis. Benefit / Cost (B/C) Ratio Value | Score | Less than 0.90 (This indicates that there is relatively low economic benefit or economic analysis cannot be conducted.) >0.90 — =<1.00 >1.00 — =<1.10 iin >1.10 — =<1.20 >1.20 — =<1.30 >1.30 — =<1.40 >1.40 - < 1.50 nar nT >1.50- < 1.60 Bret >1.60- < 1.70 egal =>1.7 10 Stage 2 Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan (Maximum Stage 2 Points: 10) The Financing plan score will be subjectively scored based on the applicant's intent and level of detail described in the application on how the applicant proposes to fund the project. Questions to be considered under these criteria: e If recommended, are funds needed to complete the work identified in the application available and adequate to complete all the work in the Grant? e If additional funds are needed does the applicant specifically identify where they will come from? e Are these additional funds secured, or are they pending future approvals? e ls there a reasonable plan for covering potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding? e What impact, if any, would the timing of availability of additional funds have on the ability to proceed with the grant? If the above questions are addressed in the application and there is an adequate plan this will be given a point score of 10. If the plan is not adequate it will be scored lower based on the likelihood of funding being available to complete the project or additional commitments that may need to be made by the applicant prior to award of a grant. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 15 5/8/2014 For example, an applicant may request construction funding above the RFA cap but does not indicate how the additional funding will be obtained. They may receive a lower score than an applicant who can demonstrate they have all the financial resources in place to complete the grant work proposed in the application. If future stages of work will be needed beyond the scope of the application, consideration should be given as to the likelihood of future funding for the future stages. Stage 2 Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines (Maximum Stage 2 points: 10) The score for this criterion will be provided by AEA reviewers during the Stage 2 evaluation. For the purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would be considered unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. i.e. decreased greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won't be considered under this category. Economists will provide a qualitative assessment of potential public benefits in their project review summary for each project they review. Economists will not provide scores for the criteria. Each category may be scored 0-2 with the maximum total public benefit weight being no more than 10 points. 0 No documented benefit 1 Some benefit / not well documented 2 Good benefit / well documented Score Will the project result in developing infrastructure such as 0-2 roads that can be used for other purposes? Will the project result in a direct long-term increase in jobs O-2 such as for operating or supplying fuel to the facility? Will the project solve other problems for the community, 0-2 such as waste disposal? Will the project generate useful information that could be 0-2 used by the public in other parts of the State? Will this project either promote or sustain long-term 0-2 commercial economic development for the community? Are there other public benefits identified by the applicant? 0-2 RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 16 5/8/2014 Stage 3 Criterion Match Total of 15 points will be calculated as follows: The scoring matrix for the total amount of match may be adjusted by the Grant Administrator after the initial review of applications based on a reasonable threshold for each level based on the applicants match in all applications. Type of Match 5 +| Percentage of | 10 + Pts Match to total | Pts Grant Request Support of any kind referenced | 1 .01% - <5% of |1 but not given a specific value i.e. Grant = housing offered to outside workers, administration of | project without compensation Previous investment towards 2 =>5% - =<10% | 2 project completion including of Grant = investments in building efficiency completed in the last 5 years if applying for a heat energy project Another grant [State] as Match 3 >10% - =<15% | 4 of Grant = Another grant (Fed) Or private 4 >15% - =<30% | 6 of Grant Loan or Local Cash or any 5 >30% - =<49% | 8 documented In-kind Match of Grant = (including energy efficiency > 49% of Grant | 10 improvements directly related to the project) (1) If there are multiple types of Match that with highest value is scored. Stage 3 Criterion Local Support Total of 5 Points Available Documented unresolved issues concerning the application: no points 0 points will be given if these exist regardless of demonstrated support Resolution from City, Village Council, or other local government entity or | 2 points each listed in Regional Energy Plan Support demonstrated by local entity other than applicant 1 point each up to 6 points Opposition demonstrated by local entity. -1 point each Letters of support from legislators do not count toward this criterion. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 17 5/8/2014 Stage 3 Criterion Project Readiness Up to ten points are available and may be assigned as follows. If evaluators believe there are other readiness criteria that should be considered they may adjust the score when awarding points for this criteria. Criteria Up to 10 points Points may be awarded in only one of the first two criteria, plus any available additional points from the other criteria. Proposed work is reconnaissance level and is consistent with specific 4 points recommendations under the Alaska Energy Pathway or Regional Energy Plan Project is currently underway with feasibility or reconnaissance work, 4 points design work related to the project, or actual construction of the project and the applicant is using their own funds or funds from another eligible source to finance the activity. Applicant has completed previous phase(s) of proposed project and desires | 2 points additional funding to complete the next phase of project. Applicant has completed required feasibility and/or design work for project | 2 points and is prepared to place an order for necessary equipment for the project; such as an item with a ‘long lead time’ to procure. Applicant has obtained all necessary permits, met all permit requirements, | 2 points and addressed all regulatory agency stipulations. Applicants for heat projects have provided evidence of investment in and 2 points commitment to thermal energy efficiency in the building(s) to be served by the heat project. Stage 3 Criterion Public Benefit This criteria will be scored using a weighted calculation from the Phase 2 Economic (4.a) and Public Benefit score (4.c). Stage 3 Criterion Sustainability This criteria will be scored from 0 to 10 with a total weighting of 5% based on the evaluators’ assessment of the 1) capability of the grantee to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and financially, to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project, 2) likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project, 3) likelihood of market for energy produced over the life of the project. For heat projects the criteria will be scored from 0 to 10 based on the variables 1 through 3 listed above plus 4) the condition of the building(s) to be served by the heat project, in particular how well the applicant has demonstrated an investment in and commitment to thermal energy efficiency. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 18 5/8/2014 Stage 3 Criterion Statewide Regional Balance Rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable (NA) Criteria If there is more than one project from the same community or area, which project has received an overall higher score during the review and/or has demonstrated that local residents are in favor of the project. Project funding will provide balance to the number and/or amount to a specific area of the State. Stage 3 Criterion Compliance with Other Awards Rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable (NA) Criteria Legislative | Alternative Energy Round I-Vil Grant Solicitation (Round 0) Has grantee provided all necessary information for grant preparation for grants awarded from previous solicitations? Is grantee making verifiable and adequate progress using previous grant funds; for this or another project? Has grantee provided all required financial and progress reports, per the terms of any previous grants? Stage 3 Criterion Cost of Energy New to Round VII, is a separation of heat applications from the rest of the renewable energy grant fund applications and a different methodology for scoring the cost of energy. For standard applications, the same methodology used in previous rounds is applied. This score is based on the residential cost of power for each community using available data, primarily the annual averages of residential rates reported in Alaska Energy Statistics, 1960-2011 workbook tables prepared by ISER for the Alaska Energy Authority December, 2013. Scores are assigned for each community using the following formula: Score = (cost of power) / 0.80 x 10, Score cannot be greater than 10. Communities with a residential cost of power above $0.80/kWh are assigned a score of 10. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 19 ‘ 5/8/2014 For heat applications, the score is based on the cost of heating fuel for each community using available data, primarily the heating fuel #1 retail price per gallon as reported in the Alaska Fuel Price Report: Current Community Conditions, July 2013 prepared by DCRA. For communities not included in the report, a recent invoice, provided by the applicant is used. Scores are assigned for each community using the following formula: Score = (cost of heat) / $8.00 x 10, Score cannot be greater than 10. Communities with a residential cost of power above $8.00/gallon are assigned a score of 10. In some instances, a standard application is displacing heating fuel and/or a heat application is displaying electricity. Under such circumstances, the cost of the displaced energy is used. For all applications, the maximum cost of energy score is 35. Communities with the highest cost of electrical energy are getting the most points for this criterion. All other applications will be scored as a percentage of the highest costs against an established matrix. In some instances, an application may address multiple communities. In such cases, the average residential rate or price of heating fuel is used. The specific cost of energy score for Renewable Energy Fund Round VII applications follows: Bristol Bay 1006 | NEA Stack Heat to Power Project Lael ee Southeast 1007 | Mendenhall Valley Library Geothermal $4.12 E HVAC System Lower Yukon- 1008 | Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recovery $6.82 Kuskokwim Railbelt 1009 | Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating $4.06 5.08 17.76 System Project Southeast 1010 | Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion | $3.80 [as | 16.63 Southeast 1011 | Sitka Centennial Hall Air Source Heat Pump | $3.59 4.49 15.71 Southeast 1012 | Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent $3.59 4.49 15.71 Heat Pump Southeast 1013 | Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat $3.59 4.49 15.71 Pump Copper 1014 | Wood Chip Boiler for The Native Village of | $4.17 5.21 18.24 River/Chugach Tazlina Southeast 1016 | Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler $4.20 5.25 18.38 Project Southeast 1017 | Southeast Island School District Wood $3.80 4.75 16.63 Boilers | Southeast ~ | 1021 | Haines Borough Municipal Buildings $4.09 5.11 17.89 Biomass Project Aleutians 1026 | Atka Dispatchable Heat | $7.65 9.56 33.47 RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 20 5/8/2014 Railbelt 1031 | Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump $5.19 6.49 22.71 Project _| Yukon-Koyukok/ 1032 | Biomass Heat for Minto Community $5.00 6.25 21.88 Upper Tanana Buildings Southeast 1033 | Sitka Sea Water Source Heat Pump Project $3.59 4.49 15.71 Southeast 1037 | Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass $3.59 4.49 15.71 Heating Project_ Northwest Arctic 1038 | Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy | $6.07 7.59 26.56 Project Bering Straits 1040 | Brevig Mission Water System Heat $5.29 6.61 23.14 Recovery | Lower Yukon- 1041 | Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat $4.30 5.38 18.81 Kuskokwim Recovery Lower Yukon- 1042 | Eek Water System Heat Recovery ~ | $3.89 4.86 17.02 Kuskokwim Lower Yukon- 1043 | St Marys Heat Recovery System $4.60 5.75 20.13 Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukok/ 1044 | Venetie Clinic Heat Recovery $8.50 ~ | 10.00 35.00 Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukok/ 1045 | Grayling Heat Recovery System $5.00 6.25 21.88 Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukok/ 1047 | Galena Community Wood Heat Project $6.02 7.53 26.34 Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukok/ 1051 | AGSD Extension of Heating Loop $3.79 4.74 16.58 Upper Tanana Lower Yukon- 1052 | Nunam Iqua Heat Recovery Project $4.38 5.48 19.16 Kuskokwim [ Southeast 1053 | Yakutat Biomass District Heating Loop $5.05 6.31 22.09 Railbelt 1055 | Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Recovery $0.11/ewn | 1.31 4.59 Project Yukon-Koyukok/ 1060 | Holy Cross Water System Heat Recovery $7.15 8.94 31.28 Upper Tanana Lower Yukon- 1061 | Emmonak Heat Recovery System $5.77 7.21 25.24 Kuskokwim af : Lower Yukon- 1071 | Kwigillingok Wind Heat Electrical Thermal | $5.95 744 26.03 Kuskokwim Storage Lower Yukon- 1073 | Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal | $6.21 7.76 27.17 Kuskokwim Storage | Lower Yukon- 1074 | Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal $6.80 8.50 29.75 Kuskokwim Storage Northwest Arctic 1076 | NWAB School District Solar Thermal $0.63/kwn Systems Railbelt 1078 | Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass $3.71 4.64 16.23 Project Lower Yukon- 1085 | Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery $6.80 8.50 29.75 Kuskokwim sil Southeast 1087 | Kake Community Energy $5.85 731 25.59 RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 21 5/8/2014 Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project $0.42 | Railbelt Southeast Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Demonstration Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase III and IV Stud; Kodiak 1004 Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System Copper River/ 1015 Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project Chugach Construction Bristol Bay 1018 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and $0.48 5.94 Permitting Southeast 1019 Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project N/A | Southeast 1020 Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility N/A and Conceptual Design Southeast 1022 SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase I | $0.10 1.28 4.47 and II Southeast 1023 Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project $0.10 1.28 4.47 Southeast | 1024 | Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibility I $0.62 Southeast 1025 Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility $0.62 7.76 27.14 Study Yukon-Koyukok/ 1027 Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project | $0.49 6.13 21.46 Upper Tanana | Railbelt 1028 Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.22 2.80 9.81 Reconnaissance Study Railbelt 1029 Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Kodiak 1030 Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane Southeast 1034 Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie $0.10 | Southeast 1035 Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet $0.65 Geothermal Resource Bristol Bay 1036 Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase | $0.69 8.65 30.26 IL Lower Yukon- 1039 Four Villages Intertie Design Kuskokwim Bristol Bay 1046 Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction | $0.68 Phase North Slope 1048 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design & Permitting | $0.15 1.88 6.56 North Slope 1049 Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and $0.15 1.88 6.56 Permitting Project Bristol Bay 1050 Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar $0.50 PV Project Lower Yukon- 1054 Multiple Alternative Energy Sources for Kuskokwim Napakiak Aleutians 1056 Adak Wind Data Collection Analysis and $0.81 Preliminary Design RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 22 5/8/2014 Lower Yukon- 1057 Mertarvik Renewable Energy Feasibility $0.80 10.00 35.00 Kuskokwim and Conceptual Design Northwest Arctic 1058 Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array $0.74 Construction Project Northwest Arctic | 1059 Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and $0.74 Permitting Aleutians 1062 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study $0.51 6.41 22.45 Bristol Bay | 1063 | Iliamna Solar Ground Mounted Energy $0.59 | | System Copper River/ 1064 Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction $0.44 Chugach Kodiak 1065 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Final 0.58 7.20 25.21 Design and Permittin; Lower Yukon- 1066 Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and $0.50 6.30 22.05 Kuskokwim Permitting Project Lower Yukon- 1067 Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and $0.54 6.80 23.80 Kuskokwim Co Design Bering Straits 1068 Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final $0.56 6.98 24.42 Design and Permitting Lower Yukon- 1069 St Marys Pitkas Point Wind Energy $0.49 6.17 21.60 Kuskokwim Construction Project Aleutians 1070 Sand Point Energy Storage Project $0.58 7.30 25.59 Bristol Bay 1072 Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and $0.80 10.00 35.00 Conceptual Design Copper River/ 1075 Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.28 3.56 12.44 Chugach Feasibility Study Yukon-Koyukok/ 1077 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.49 6.13 21.46 Upper Tanana Bristol Bay 1079 Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery | $0.50 6.31 22.09 Aleutians 1080 False Pass Wind Energy Project $0.51 6.41 22.45 Railbelt 1081 Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Study $0.15 1.94 6.78 Railbelt 1082 Stetson Creek Diversion Cooper Lake Dam | $0.15 1.94 6.78 Facilities Project Aleutians 1083 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.28 3.50 12.26 Railbelt 1084 Juniper Creek Hydroelectric $0.15. 1.89 6.61 Reconnaissance Study Stage 4 Regional Spread This score is based on local population census and the residential cost of power for each community using available data, primarily the annual averages of residential rates reported in the Alaska Energy Statistics, 1960-2011 and the workbook tables prepared by ISER for the Alaska Energy Authority December, 2013 and the Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section, http://www. labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/estimates/data/TotalPopulationPlace.xls RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 23 5/8/2014 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund - Round Vil Regional Summary FY15 Capital Budget for $22.8 million allocation - May 5, 2014 Rounds 1-6 (current as of 5/5/2014) EreryRevien | 8 Funding | Funding iewtians | (17,301,458.08] = 8% ering Srate | 2036581500] ox _| Copper Rverthugacn | 1568004200] 7% | fea | aeoineal rs Lower YokorKuskokwin | 2751159125] 12% _| Se TT eT Rortwestarcie | _9a.208362.00] 10% | a facet ——_| ress mom cr KopcaUpperTananal_11201,00.00] 5% _| — nn a TOTAL 223,456,864 100% Round 7 po Recommendation | CostofPower funding jocation cost} needed to Grant Funding po of power basis | reach target Bering Straits | st.o7az72] 5% | aay 52501370) $217,317] eristtBay dT szaszesst 1% oss s2.019,805] _-$072.714) a Kodiak gow 8.131450] $505,729 SS SE Comper Riven | szieness| os) | sara sea [ove Vk Kuskokvin | —s30405.206| 19x] ase —[ —s31.01 200] s15.104004 eee ae BE Northwest Arctic | $23,203.62] owe ose | $30,352,487] _ -$8,027,119 fSoutheast_ $54,667,180] 22% 01s | _—$8,273,110] -$50,530.621} Hukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tananal $15,065,811] 6% oo $33,663,763) [Statewide 0 ss65,.439 [om 020 st. 240.076] roray__ $26,300,608] 100% 246,300,604] | Highlighted in blue indicates that the region does not meet the goal of 50% allocation based on relative cost of power. RE-Fund Round VII Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 24 5/8/2014