HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting agenda minutes and docs 11-9-2010Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting
November 9, 2010 — AEA Boardroom
1:00 pm to 4:00pm
MINUTES
1. Call to Order
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee convened at 1:05 p.m. Chairman Vince Beltrami
presided over the meeting and stated he would be leaving the meeting at 2:00 pm. Ms. Hall will represent
him for the remainder of the meeting.
2. Roll Call:
Committee Members AEA Staff Other Participants
Chair Vince Beltrami Mike Harper Jodi Fondy, Denali Commission
Jodi Mitchell Sara Fisher-Goad Joelle Hall, AFLCIO
Sen. Lyman Hoffman (phone) James Strandberg Bob Baldwin, Kenai River Watershed Foundation
Brad Reeve Peter Crimp Wyn Menefee, ADNR Division of Water
Hannah Gustafson (for Mr. Rose) Butch White Mike Nave, Department of Law
Jim Posey (phone) Douglas Ott Rep. Paul Seaton/Homer (phone)
Emily Binnian Kaarle Strailey, AK. Center for the Environment (phone)
May Clark Pat Walker, Sen. Hoffman’s Ofc (phone)
3. Public Comments
Kaarle Strailey, Alaska Center for the Environment, stated they are a local non-profit environmental
education and advocacy organization whose mission is to enhance Alaskans’ quality of life by protecting
wild places, fostering sustainable communities and promoting recreational opportunities. ACE advocates
for sustainable policy on behalf of over 6,000 Alaskan members. Referencing Agenda Item 6A and
ACE’s 8/23/2010 Valerie Connor letter to AEA regarding the REF evaluation guidelines, he reiterated
their main concerns were that levels of community and public support should carry a greater weight in the
grant application review process and more extensive environmental review impacts should be done
before awarding grants. He said he would remain on line during the meeting to answer any questions.
4. Agenda Comments
There were no agenda comments.
5. Approval of Meeting Minutes — June 8 and August 13, 2010
The meeting minutes of June 8, 2010 was approved unanimously with minor typographical corrections.
MOTION: Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the meeting minutes from the June 8, 2010 Renewable
Energy Fund Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeve. The
minutes were unanimously approved as presented, with minor typographical errors to
be corrected.
The minutes from the August 13, 2010 meeting were unanimously approved with minor typographical
corrections.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting November 9, 2010
Page 1 of 6
MOTION: Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the meeting minutes from the August 13, 2010
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Reeve. The minutes were unanimously approved as presented, with minor typographical errors to be corrected. =
6. Round 4 Review Progress & Issues Needing REFAC Input
Mr. Crimp announced that the “Go to Meeting” on line session will not occur for this meeting as previously
planned. AEA received 108 proposals in mid-September and Stage 2 review (eligibility and basic review)
was completed later that month. Two proposers dropped out. AEA hired five economic firms and ISER
updated fuel price projections and revised the economic analysis template, and they were posted on
AEA’s website. The economic firms are selected through a competitive process and ISER is coordinating
the review, quality control, providing assumptions for the economists and reviewing their work. To date
they have delivered approximately three fourths of the economic review. Under agreement with AEA,
DNR Division of Lands, Water Management and Forestry, GGGS provided comments on resource
availability and resource management considerations for the proposals. All of that information was
entered into our database. AEA has 10 staff involved in reviewing applications and are about one-fourth
of the way complete and are making good progress with no problems.
Ms. Mitchell asked if there was a preliminary list of the Round 4 applicants available. Mr. Crimp said they
were posted on our website and he would provide the REFAC with the Excel version.
6a) Alaska Center for the Environment Issue
Mr. Crimp said Mr. Strailey of ACE summarized the concerns of the letter and noted the ACE reply was
the only one received in response to our request for public input when the RFA’s were sent out.
Mr. Menefee reviewed the points brought up in the ACE letter. 1) ACE is concerned that the AEA project
review does not provide adequate environmental review nor does it provide significant evaluation of local
support. 2) ACE feels there’s inappropriate weighting of environmental review on local support in the
ranking. 3) ACE feels there should be adequate funding of ADF&G, DNR and ADEC to supply
professional review of these projects. 4) ACE suggests we should not fund hydroelectric projects in the
Kenai River watershed. AEA has drafted a response letter and agreed to bring the discussion to the
REFAC. DNR provides basic environmental and social concern reviews of what is known during the
Stage 2 review. Although it’s not in depth as in permitting, it’s a high level review to find out if there are
major concerns or major environmental hurdles in a project. AEA believes the ranking is appropriate with
criteria discussed at previous REFAC meetings. AEA believes they've put both the appropriate amount of
weight for both the environmental review and the local support. Although there are issues identified by
DNR and/or by the project review committee when they are looking at these projects, unless there’s an
irreconcilable problem, the project still deserves consideration and ranking. There’s an assertion in the
ACE letter that if there’s any sort of environmental problem or concern then the project is taken off the
table. We believe there should be a consideration because the role of permitting is to go through and find
out if issues can be mitigated as they arise. It may rank lower because of the issues, but that doesn’t
eliminate deserving full consideration. We shouldn't preclude one type of project for an area of the state
just because someone thinks it’s inappropriate, but it should be evaluated along with everything else. In
depth review is done in the permitting process of both environmental and social concerns, because as the
resource agencies go through permitting, it's done through a public process with a comment and appeal
period. AEA doesn’t wish to make a duplicative or replacement permitting process to resource agencies
and can’t afford the time nor the cost for a full environmental review / full permitting process before
ranking. Part of the funding is the feasibility to identify whether the project will work or not and that may
mean going through the permitting stage. Phasing implanted in project funding also prevents too much
funding being allocated to a project before knowing what the costs are. We may invest in the feasibility of
a project, but during the initial process stage of a project you will know if it’s going to work or not. Funding
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting November 9, 2010
e Page 2 of 6
won't be granted thereafter if it’s not going to work, so feasibility is an important stage when considering
funding. The resource agencies need to be funded to absorb the additional workload, but the appropriate
funding is not necessarily through project review, because DNR is being funded by AEA for project
reviews. The resources agencies haven't received funding for actually doing the permitting review of the
projects, but we agree with ACE that they should be funded for that.
Ms. Mitchell agrees that we are doing what we can and has empathy for ACE, but said that’s not really
our purview.
Mr. Crimp said when AEA scores the proposals if there is clear fatal flaw for a project and we know the
project will not be permitted, we have the option of scoring it or not; then the project is scored for technical
and permitting risk, based on DNR input and also what we know. In some cases it’s possible we would
not recommend the project to proceed. There are other risks for project development even if we're just
looking at feasibility, final design and permitting that we would need to approve before it proceeds to the
next stage.
Regarding the Kenai Hydro projects, Mr. Ott said four applications were originally submitted in the Moose
Pass area that were funded for preliminary study and after the preliminary studies the applicant ended up
considering no further action on two of the sites. Two of the other sites were combined into a single
project moving forward. They later dropped one of the two sources they were combining, resulting in the
Grant Lake project.
Mr. Menefee commented on the ACE request that we not fund any hydro projects in the Kenai area; he
said we understand there are good and bad projects, but the newer hydro projects have gone through
more sensitive permitting with an increase in salmon habitat returning to those areas after the project. It
can be done well with appropriate permitting.
Mr. Crimp stated there are many feasibility and reconnaissance analyses funded and most of them may
not pan out, but we are going ahead with direction from the REFAC, allocating most funding towards
construction; but realizing that the smaller amount of dollars that we fund for reconnaissance and
feasibility tell us also not what to do. We can just not spend any more state funds on developing projects
that will not proceed.
In response to Mr. Reeve’s question as to why the sponsors withdrew on the projects mentioned above,
Mr. Ott said some reasons given were: less economics involved with two of the projects; significant fish
habitat issues involved, and local opposition concerns.
Mr. Crimp stated AEA will respond to the ACE letter consistent to what was discussed.
Mr. Reeve asked if everyone received a letter from Becky Long regarding concerns on funding biomass in
the Mat Su Borough. He gave the letter to staff to be placed on the next meeting agenda.
Mr. Ott said at meeting today on a hydropower project, DNR announced there may be a new fee
schedule established to charge projects for the state permitting services.
6b) How to address letters from legislators in local support score
Mr. Crimp stated letters from legislators were received in support of projects that will figure into the project
scoring so REFAC direction is needed on this. Mr. White said a resolution received from a board, etc. for
local support is given two points. An entity letter of support is given up to 3 more points. Up to five points
are given for local support and the points are not cumulative. In Round 4, five projects (3 Peninsula, 1
Juneau, 1 Sitka) were received with letters of support from a local legislator, so the approach was taken
that a legislator was counted as an entity. REFAC direction was asked on this matter. Mr. Reeve stated
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting November 9, 2010
Page 3 of 6
we like to see local support from the communities. Senator Hoffman said legislators should not be
counted as an entity and this was agreed to by the committee.
6c) How to address consistency with Energy Pathway in scoring
Mr. Crimp stated the REFAC had previously decided to favorably score the projects that were consistent
with the Energy Pathway. A proposal was received for reconnaissance feasibility biomass development
and exactly corresponded to the Pathway. In the existing evaluation guidelines there is nothing to provide
a higher score for that so he wanted to bring up the possibility for a project readiness score of 10, as a
modification to the evaluation guidelines. Four points for recon project consistent with the Energy
Pathway; four points for work completed (a feasibility analysis is proposed and they have completed
reconnaissance analysis); two points for a project ready to order a long lead time item, such as a turbine);
two points for a project ready to move into construction.
(A ten minute break was taken and the gavel was turned over to Mr. Reeve)
The entire evaluation guidelines dated January 21, 2010 were provided to the committee and reviewed.
An additional line would be added, “Although no work has been done on the project, they are proposing
reconnaissance work and that work is consistent with the Energy Pathway.” 10 points maximum will be
given. Mr. Reeve stated the Pathway is tying into existing state energy planning and has had local review
by the communities to find an energy pathway that makes sense for them and will bring community
involvement back into the process. Senator Hoffman stressed regional balance needs to be addressed
again and shown in the allocation. Mr. Crimp stated the Stage 4 review on statewide regional ranking (on
Page 8 of the guidelines) will still be followed for geographic balance and nothing will be changed from
the protocols established previously. Another REFAC meeting will be held in early January to discuss the
results of the scoring before Legislative session begins on January 18". Ms. Mitchell said the AFN
passed a resolution supporting the Energy Pathway.
Ts Round 1-3 Construction Project Schedule Review
The handouts for the meeting were distributed. Mr. Crimp said we have seen a bit of slippage for some
projects, however, most are progressing and the published construction schedule is our best estimate.
The projects are on track and a few will not be completed until next year. The Juneau geothermal aquatic
center won't occur until late winter. The heat pump project at the Sealife Center will occur next year. A
few are not yet determined. Ft. Yukon district wood heat project needs organization. 80 percent of
funding has gone into construction in the amount of $118.3 M. Much of the reconnaissance and
feasibility of $18.4 M is for geothermal assessment data collection and physical activity. Estimated
cumulative annual fuel savings for Rounds 1 through 3 was reviewed and the chart showed for projects
that are constructed the fuel savings (in million gallons) are realized the calendar year after project
completion and are broken out by resource. 10 million gallons of fuel per year are displaced by the
projects following completion. The biomass fuel savings jumps in 2012 due to the Anchorage Landfill gas
project being completed. Mr. Posey asked if negotiations were completed on the project. Mr. Crimp stated
the Municipality came to AEA with a contractor, Doyon, that had proposed to make power in reciprocating
generators and purchased landfill gas from the Muni (they will pay the Muni). AEA believes it’s an
excellent project that brings good benefit to the Municipality and they are proceeding. Senator Hoffman
said the chart was excellent, but needs to be looked at from a regional standpoint as well, emphasizing
rural Alaska. Mr. Crimp said a regional breakdown will be made and provided at the next meeting.
Senator Hoffman said we need to look at how this program can assist in reducing costs with alternative
energy for heating homes. Mr. Crimp said a similar chart can be prepared showing heating vs. electrical
fuel displacement, and that the heat recovery and biomass projects are generally where we are seeing
the heating fuel displacement in wood and heat recovery. He mentioned that perhaps Devany Plentovich,
AEA's Biomass & Heat Recovery Program Manager could address the committee on program strategy,
as there’s a lot going on in program development. Mr. Posey wanted to know how much funds were for
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting November 9, 2010
Page 4 of 6
heat recovery and biomass and a chart would be helpful showing those. Mr. Crimp said those figures can
be prepared. Ms. Mitchell commented that the graphs are useful to defend the program, but would like to
see PCE savings shown. Mr. Crimp agreed.
8. Update on Existing Grant progress
Mr. White referred to the handouts and said in Round |, 78 projects were selected and all but four are in
place due to grantee issues. In Round Il, all projects are in place. In Round Ill, we are halfway through
and are making progress in getting the grants in place. The money is being disbursed, and finance’s goal
is a two-week turnaround. Some projects were given up for various reasons, including meeting all of the
requirements and everything is on track, although the money may not be moving out as fast as some
would like. Mr. Reeve agreed these projects take time and must be done right and the Committee needs
to remind folks of what it takes to make successful projects. Ms. Gustafson asked what the reallocation
procedure is for the $2 M accumulated from all of the rounds. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated the LB&A had
directed AEA in Round | to have the money go to Takatz Lake and that project is nearly fully funded.
Funds left over from canceled projects are reported to the OMB and legislature. In Round 4 there is
recommended funding of $50 M, but there’s money in the fund for projects not moving forward. We
cannot divert unallocated funds to a project. Mr. Crimp said AEA realizes some projects are not
progressing and we will need to take action to have those funds returned and reallocated. Ms. Fisher-
Goad corrected by saying we are not going to be seeking money back, we never gave them the money.
There’s two types of projects, ones where grants are issued, which we can move to cancel the grant if
they are not making progress; and grants not in place are easier to de-fund — money is obligated, but the
grant is not in place. In Round IV we stated in the RFA’s that if a grant is not in place in a year, it’s
presumed that we will reallocate the money — that was not explained in the earlier rounds. AEA desires
to give the grantee the benefit of the doubt in these situations. Reallocation was discussed internally and
the difficulty is that projects become stale and to reevaluate an old project would not work. So the most
appropriate way to do it is to put the money forward to current projects. Our goal is to have the
appropriations people understand what's available. Round IV projects total $60 M, with $50 M available.
In Round II there weren’t enough projects for AEA to recommend more than $36.8 M. The REFAC needs
to think about how this will work.
9. Frequency of progress reporting
Mr. Reeve pointed out that, for example, the NWAB is spending a lot of time on the monthly reports, but
aren't at a point where the project has progressed at all. AEA needs to decide if they want to do quarterly
or monthly reporting. Quarterly is typical, but AEA staff desires adequate control for the amount of money
going out. The REFAC needs to look at different reporting triggers, especially for the smaller communities
with minimal staff. Mr. Crimp said it was just the construction projects where money can be flying out the
door very quickly — a big concern for AEA is that even though it’s on a reimbursement basis, once
somebody has bought something, the decision has been made and if AEA finds the grantee hasn't
fulfilled a milestone, it’s a problem.
Mr. Strandberg said even though a monthly report or email stating there’s been no activity is helpful to
keep things under control as there’s more projects than project managers. We need to know what's
going on, but we also don’t want a detailed and rigorous reporting process for projects with no activity.
Usually the grantee makes the expenditure then seeks reimbursement, AEA makes sure it’s within the
scope of work for the project. We have the responsibility to make sure we have successful projects.
There is that rational middle ground in having the grantee report to and keep in touch with us so we can
keep our fingers on what is happening. We need to know there is no monthly activity.
Mr. Crimp said a project trigger could be final design and permitting. A monthly report is not going to be
necessary if there’s not much money being spent. Before the REF, we required monthly reporting for
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting November 9, 2010
Page 5 of 6
construction projects. Mr. Reeve said the trigger idea could be based on milestones on large
reimbursements, etc. to keep reporting down.
Mr. Strandberg said on the larger more complex projects we are requiring a schedule of values and
monthly reporting on each component's percent complete link to the requested reimbursement so we can
track the amount of money being spent is equivalent to the percent complete. If there is no activity or the
level of activity is small we might be able to trigger into a lesser reporting requirement by email. Mr.
Reeve agreed and stated the smaller projects need to have more meaningful reporting — quarterly or
based on a trigger. Mr. Posey felt quarterly would work and incremented grant percentages could also
trigger another report. Mr. Crimp said that would be good for some grantees but not for others. He said
he would discuss this with the project managers and will look at making sure we are only requesting
reporting to minimize the amount of paperwork. Ms. Mitchell said for larger purchases or large contact in
the RUS program, they give finance an estimate of what will be spent for the month, and have always
come under cost. Mr. Strandberg said AEA has been flexible for equipment purchases, either an
advance is made or an arrangement made on a purchase order the bill has been sent directly to AEA,
although AEA doesn’t necessarily like to pay bills directly, there are ways to do it. Mr. White agreed that
we will work with grantees and some have reported by email that there is no activity for a period and the
PM's are fine with that. Mr. Reeve said we can come back and respond to Mr. Posey’s questions on
those, to see if there’s ways to get meaningful reports to give you the tracking ability you are looking for to
make it as easy on the grantees as possible. We've already judged their projects in a sense and said they
are capable of doing this and trust them to do it right. We could report on this for the Jan meeting.
10. Performance driven / Strategic grant making
Mr. Crimp had nothing to report. He said Chris Rose suggested having staff come up with proposals or
some ideas for performance driven grants. We haven't had enough time to do that. AEA alternative
energy and energy efficiency staff are preparing program plans that show our overall goals and objectives
and how we would approach hydrokinetic wind, geothermal projects, etc. When the proposal review
process is completed in January or February, that might be a good time to consider program strategy.
Heating projects need to be discussed further. Mr. Reeve agreed and noted that in many of the villages,
heating expenses are often more expensive than electrical. Mr. Posey asked staff if we expect another
$40 M or $50 M in legislative funding and we need to look at what the next two or three years looks like if
so. Also, are we getting projects that fall within the 80/20 legislative mandate split. We should consider
caps coming off if there are viable projects that could make a meaningful difference in the Railbelt.
Mr. Crimp said at the next meeting we will have a better idea of the quality of proposals and the amount
of construction funding to go out, the impact of the Governor’s veto last time around and the possibility of
increasing the caps could also be discussed.
Tasks as a result of this meeting: 1) Geographical report to see how grants stand regionally; 2) Report
on electrical versus heating grants; 3) Progress reporting; 4) Report on how grants are impacting the PCE
Program; 5) Respond to Becky Long letter regarding funding biomass in Mat-Su; 6) distribute list of
Round IV applications to REFAC; 7) Review Round IV grants at the next meeting; 8) Look at the
performance driven/strategic grant making topic at a later date; 9) Respond to ACE letter; 10) Look at
community “pooling” — see if we can pool communities together to combine them with expertise to get
them to apply for grants at lower costs; and 11) Future legislative funding and capping of projects.
11. Next meeting date: January 7, 2011.
12. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting November 9, 2010
Page 6 of 6
/= ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
AEA Boardroom
1:00 pm to 4:00 pm
AGENDA
1. Call to Order Beltrami
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comments (limit of 2 minutes)
4. Agenda Comments (changes/additions/deletions)
5. Approval of Meeting Minutes — June 8 and August 13, 2010
6. Round 4 Review Progress and Issues Needing REFAC Input Crimp
a. Need for resource agency review and local support (refer to AK Ctr Env letter)
b. How to address letters from Legislators in local support score
c. How to address consistency with Energy Pathway in scoring
7. Round 1-3 Construction Project Schedule Review Crimp
8. Update on Existing Grant progress White
9. Frequency of progress reporting Reeve
10. Performance Driven / Strategic Grant Making Crimp
11.Next Meeting Date Beltrami
12. Adjournment Beltrami
Cg ALASKA CENTER for the ENVIRONMENT
807 G Street, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501
907-274-3632 valerie@akcenter.org www.akcenter.org
Butch White, Grants Administrator
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
bwhite@aidea.org
Dear Mr. White, August 23, 2010
Thank you for accepting comments regarding your evaluation guidelines for the Renewable
Energy Grant Fund. | am writing on behalf of The Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE).
We are a local non-profit environmental education and advocacy organization, whose mission is
to enhance Alaskans’ quality of life by protecting wild places, fostering sustainable communities
and promoting recreational opportunities. ACE advocates for sustainable policy on behalf of
over 6,000 Alaskan members.
We, along with the support of the Alaskan conservation community, promoted the passage of
the Renewable Energy Fund, and we look forward to seeing the development of new projects
throughout the state, especially those that take advantage of Alaska’s abundant tidal, wind and
geothermal resources. We believe that Alaska can provide a good example in the development
and production of renewable energy technology and electrical generation while also protecting
the environment, our fisheries, wildlife, outdoor recreation and tourism-based local economies.
We are proud to be a part of this national movement towards a cleaner energy future.
vec @ROUING & REQ UEST nd were quite surprised to see that projects Please...
yn during the review stages. The only time L_] Read a ~ To: natural resources is during stage 2 where (J Handle PD)
And... OY9 technical experts providing specific review
S| Forward issues related to permitting and natural
(J Return
O Keep or Recycle
[J Review with Me From:
(—posrne reeaeam 1955) ate:
Specifically, we are concerned that hydroelectric projects are not receiving professional scrutiny
by ADF&G biologists with regards to potential impacts to resident and anadromous fish.
Further, it would seem critical that ADF&G, DNR, ADEC, and possibly other agencies, should be
funded by the Legislature at levels that will fully support professional review of renewable
energy project proposals.
Economics of the project are given a most thorough review, and while we agree that economics
is a vitally important variable, we believe that every project, before being funded should have
some environmental and social scrutiny. In all cases, environmental, social and economic
impacts must be justified by appreciable new energy production.
For example, in the case of Kenai Hydro, LLC which AEA funded to study the feasibility of four
hydroelectric sites on the Kenai Peninsula, AEA failed to address the fact that all of these sites
are located in popular recreational sites and all are within the Kenai River watershed, one of the
most productive salmon rivers in the world. Does it make sense for the state to subsidize dams
that will invariably impact our fisheries and the economies of local communities that rely
almost completely on sport fishing and outdoor recreation related tourism? Will we trade one
resource or economy for another? AEA should at least address these questions in an open and
transparent way, so that the public not only has an opportunity to weigh in, but a bona fide
opportunity to influence the distribution of public funds for the development of projects.
Two of the Kenai Hydro, LLC projects were surrendered shortly after receiving funding to study
them, leaving us to question why they received funding in the first place. Anyone from the area
could have told AEA that these sites were not appropriate for dams or diversions. Additionally,
the guidelines indicate that 5% of the weight is put on local support, and yet no one from any of
the nearby communities that we have talked to knows of a single person who was contacted to
test the theory of local support. If it is going to be a part of the decision, (and we fully support
that), then it should be apparent to the local residents that AEA is doing a formal survey to
determine the level of support for the proposed projects.
We also suggest that levels of community and public support for a project carry a much greater
weight in the review process. When Cook Inlet Region Inc, separated from the Kenai Hydro, LLC
partnership, it announced publicly that it had two reasons for not continuing with the projects;
CIRI believed the projects were not economically feasible or publicly acceptable. For CIRI, public
support ranked much higher on the project merit scale than 5% - and we believe the state
should consider amending this in its review process.
Alaska is blessed with an abundance of renewable energy potential, and we hope that as you
move forward with Round IV applications, that you will take into consideration the possible
negative impacts that hydropower has had on fisheries, watersheds and communities in the
lower 48, and make every effort to not repeat those same mistakes.
Alaska Center for the Environment does not support any further funding to Kenai Hydro, LLC for
their proposed hydroelectric projects in the Kenai River Watershed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Valerie Connor
Conservation Director
Alaska Center for the Environment
807 G Street, Suite 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907)274-3632
valerie@akcenter.org
[
Renewable Energy Fund Grants .BARROW 2 Gulkana Village Council, Boiler 105 North Pole GVEA HR Expansion
Projects in Construction Phase 9 Wrangell Excess Hydro to Heat 107 Kwigillingok Power Company 450KW 10. Falls Creek Hydro / Gustavus 108 McKinley Village Solar Thermal
15 Chistochina Central Wood Heat 110 Kongiganak Wind, Puvurnaq Power Co.
21,407 Cordova Humpback Creek Hydro 111 Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump,
22 Cordova Electric Heat to Power Aquatic Ctr 23. North Prince of Wales Hydro Intertie 112 Delta/Greeley School Dist. Wood 26 Native Village of Eyak, Wood 122 Bethel Wind Project Times 4 33. Haines/Chilkoot, District Heat 211 Thorne Bay School, Wood Heat
47 Banner Peak Wind Transmission 235 Kotzebue HR and Ammonia Power Cycle
ep. (Nome) 265 Kvichak River RISEC Iguigig
a 49 Tok, Gateway School, Boiler 271 Unalaska Heat Recovery
50 Unalakleet Wind 273 Tuntutuliak High Penetration wind/diesel
52 Nome, Newton Peak Wind Farm 302 Emmonak & Alakanuk Wind and
4 53 Chena Power, Biomass/ORC ‘Transmission
te 56 NW Arctic Borough Wind Farm 303 Shaktoolik Wind
3 a (Buckland, Deering, Noorvik) 307 City of Ambler Heat Recovery z 56 e: a Eee, de : ist 58 Atka, Chuniisax Creek Hydro 317 Sand Point Wind @ sack ee ee a eg: 61 McGrath Light & Power HE Expansion ¢ F th 68 Anchorage Muni Landfill Gas 438 Yerrick Creek Hydro / Tok (AP&T) c : ¢ 70 Quinhagak Wind, AVEC 300 KW 445 Ft Yukon District Wood Heating Project Type Be, 71 Toksook Bay Wind, AVEC 100 KW 448 St Paul Heat Recovery
i 72 Mekoryuk Wind Turbine/Controls, 453 Alaska Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pump AVEC 469 Akutan Hyddro Repair & Upgrade
Biofuel 75 Ambler Solar PV - (project no go) 476 Tanana Biomass @ lorue: | 84 Ruby Hydrokinetic, YRI-CWC 486 Pilot Point Wind Power and Heat Biomass 85,518 Kotzebue Electric Turbines/Battery 503 St Paul Wind Diesel
; 87 Fishhook Creek Hydro @ — Geothermal 89 Nikolski IRA Wind, Umnak Power 519 Atka Hydro Dispatch Excess Power
90 St. George Wind Farm - Ground Sot Heat Pum @ Heat Recovery ria = "
98,222 Nikiski, Kenai Winds Project -- Manley Hot Springs Geothermal, TDX @ Hydro 102 Delta Junction Wind, AEP 2MW s 103 Kodiak Pillar Mountain Wind oO “Solar (PV/Thermal) een een ce
@ Transmission
@ Wind
OQ _Ocean/
River Alaska Energy Regions
(NM Ateutians: - North Slope
503__ 448 9 Bering Straits ies
QD HE Raitbert
en
- % 271 > bo & 0 : 50 100 200 Miles 200 Miles | f= ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
Prepared by Lauren Fas, Energy Osta GS item #192018. Updated 11.05.2010
Renewable Energy Fund Grants BARROW i gli ary acter
Ph 24 43 1 — Borough Renewable 243 Wainwright Heat Recovery ‘ee
i 2 Energy Study 244 Point Lay Heat Recovery (North Slope Projects in Pre: Ae aes Bee 8 en a pe ee
i 20 Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Design 245 Barrow-Atqasuk Transmission Study Reconnaisance, Feasibility, and Final Design 944 414 27 Allison Lake Hydro Feasibility (CVEA) 246 Hot ee Valley Geothermal Recon
29 Kake-Petersburg Inertie Design (Akutan) 412 30 McGrath Wood Heat 248 Loud Creek Hydro Study (Akutan) 31 Fort Yukon District Wood Heat 249 Town Creek Hydro Design (Akutan) 41 3 Design 260 Yukon-Koyukuk School District
@ fa nd “a 34 Grant Lake Hydro Study / Kenai Biomass Study
aj a . Peninsula 287 Tok Wind Resource Study
id 6 35 Hooper Bay Wind Study 292 Chalkyitsik Biomass Study
37 Whitman Lake Recon (Ketchikan) 293 Venetie Biomass Study
38 Ruth Lake Hydro Reconnaissance 297 Teller Wind Study
40 Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility 314 McGrath Biomass Study
(Chignik) 315 Adak Diesel Hybrid
41 Haines Borough Wood Heat Study 316 Tatitlek Wind-Hydro Study
42 Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility 401 Terror Lake Hydro Unit 3 Study
(Skagway) 412 Point Lay Wind Study
46 Kenny Lake School Wood Heat 413 Point Hope Wind Study
Design 414 Wainwright Wind Study 48 Whittier Creek Hydro Feasibility 436 Port Alsworth Hydro Study
59 Kobuk River Valley Biomass Study 440 Neck Lake Hydro Design
si 60 Yakutat Biomass Study 455 Chenega Bay Hydro/Design & Project Type 62. Chignik Lake Wind & Hydro Design Permitting 63 Lake & Peninsula Wood Heat Design 462 Hoonah-IPEC Hydro Design
64 Lake & Peninsula Borough Wind 466 Pilgrim Hot Springs Study
; Study 470 Hot Springs Valley Geothermal Recon Biofuels 66 Delta Junction Wind Study (AWD) (Akutan)
@ Bi 73 Old Harbor Hydro Design 477 Mount Spurr Geothermal Study/Ormat lomass 74 Cosmos Hills Hydro Feasibility Nevada
(Upper Kobuk) 512 Kivalina Wind Study @ Geothermal 78. California Creek Hydro Feasibility 515 New Stuyahok Wind Study
86 Fourth of July Creek Hydro Feasibility --- Falls Creek Hydro Recon / Kenai
oO Heat Recovery 88 Statewide Hydrokinetic Study Peninsula
97 Nenana Hydrokinetic --- Grant Lake Hydro Recon / Kenai
109 Eva Creek Wind Study (GVEA) Peninsula @ = Hydro 210 Kiseralik / Chikuminuk Hydro Study —- Crescent LakeHydro Recon / Kenai a (Bethel) Peninsula e * 215 Terror Lake Hydro Unit 3 Study --- Ptarmigan Lake Hydro Recon / Kenai _ Other 223 Neck Lake Hydro Study Peas
O Solar (PV/Thermal) | “>
@ = Transmission “yr
@ Wind
@ Ocean/River
North Slope
Bering Straits | Northwest Arctic ee Bristol Bay HE Raibert (HM Copper RiverChugech IN Southeast
S TD Kodiak ~ Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
7) Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Fs
100 200 Miles / = ALASKA
‘Prepared by Lauren Fiz, Energy Osta GIS Irtem 8-13-2020. Updated 11-09-2010 0 50 100 200 Miles
Renewable Energy Fund = ALASKA
Advisory Committee Meeting
Program Update
November 9, 2010
Current Status
e Round 1-4 Grant and Funding Summary
Lol are | tele rare mI
Applications Received 112 118 123 108 461
Projects Funded 73° 30’ 25 TBD 133
Grants in Place 74° 29 12 TBD 115
Grants Cancelled 3¢ 2° 0 N/A 4
Amount Requested ($M) $453.8 $293.4 $223.7 $123.1 $1,094
AEA Recommended ($M) $100.0 $36.8 $65.8 TBD $202.6
Appropriated ($M) $100.0 $25.0 $25.0 TBD $150.0
Cash Disbursed ($M) $34.8 $4.7 $o $0 $39.5
Available for reallocation ($M) $1.1° $0.9° $o $o $2.0 1- Includes eleven projects from an earlier solicitation issued by AEA.
2- Nikolaevsk Wind Farm, Southfork Hydro, and Galena Wood Heating project.
3- Angoon Heat Recovery project - completed with other funds.
4- Balance of Southfork Hydro, Haines Central Wood, and Cordova Wood Processor projects.
5- Angoon grant balance + balance after grant amounts adjusted.
6- Four projects (Fish Hook Hydro, Reynolds Creek Hydro, St. George Wind and Bethel Wind) remain unexecuted. For
all four, the grantee is responsible for the delay in getting the grant executed.
7- Kenai Winds grant combined with Round | grant for same project.
Outlook
Construction
SBE: ee
Geothermal
Assessment
$6.0M
Other $12.4
e Estimated Cumulative
Annual Fuel Savings
Round 1 - 3 Construction
Total Grant = $101.8 million
Does not include 8 projects
that are not yet scheduled
(Total grant =$14.8 million,
annual fuel savings = 3.1
million gallons/yr)
Million Gallons (equiv) RE Fund Rounds 1 - 3
Estimated Cumulative Annual Fuel Savings
a
2010 2011 2012
Year
2013
O Wind
O Solar
0 Ocean/River
B Hydro
G Heat Recovery
@ Biomass
@ Geothermal
Renewable Energy Fund urants
Projects in Construction Phase
»BARROW 2 Gulkana Village Council, Boiler
9 Wrangell Excess Hydro to Heat 10. Falls Creek Hydro / Gustavus
15 Chistochina Central Wood Heat 21, 407 Cordova Humpback Creek Hydro
Cordova Electric Heat to Power
North Prince of Wales Hydro Intertie
Native Village of Eyak, Wood
Haines/Chilkoot, District Heat
Banner Peak Wind Transmission
(Nome)
Tok, Gateway School, Boiler
Unalakleet Wind
Nome, Newton Peak Wind Farm
Chena Power, Biomass/ORC NW Arctic Borough Wind Farm
(Buckland, Deering, Noorvik)
Atka, Chuniisax Creek Hydro
McGrath Light & Power HE Expansion
Anchorage Muni Landfill Gas
Quinhagak Wind, AVEC 300 KW
Toksook Bay Wind, AVEC 100 KW
Mekoryuk Wind Turbine/Controls,
AVEC
75 Ambler Solar PV - (project no go) 84 Ruby Hydrokinetic, YRIL-CWC
85, 518 Kotzebue Electric Turbines/Battery 87 Fishhook Creek Hydro
89 Nikolski IRA Wind, Umnak Power 90. St. George Wind Farm
22
23
26
33
47
ee 49
50
52
53
56
Pd 58 i 61 pak 68 ae rs 70 bey 71 : 72
Project Type
Biofuels:
Biomass
Geothermal
Heat Recovery
98, 222 Nikiski, Kenai Winds Project
102 Delta Junction Wind, AEP 2MW
103 Kodiak Pillar Mountain Wind
104 Reynolds Creek Hydro, Haida/AP&T
_ Hydro
“Solar (PV/Thermal)
Transmission
Wind 0@®@@0 8 8 CO @ Ocean/
River Alaska Energy Regions 1) Aleutians North Slope
Bering Straits 503 o's aa
e
271 bo oe 100 50 100 200 Miles
105 North Pole GVEA HR Expansion
107 Kwigillingok Power Company 450KW
108 McKinley Village Solar Thermal
110 Kongiganak Wind, Puvurnaq Power Co.
111 Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump,
Aquatic Ctr
112 Delta/Greeley School Dist. Wood
122 Bethel Wind Project Times 4
211 Thorne Bay School, Wood Heat
235 Kotzebue HR and Ammonia Power Cycle 265 Kvichak River RISEC Iguigig
271 Unalaska Heat Recovery
273 Tuntutuliak High Penetration wind/diesel
302 Emmonak & Alakanuk Wind and
Transmission
303 Shaktoolik Wind
307 City of Ambler Heat Recovery
317 Sand Point Wind
438 Yerrick Creek Hydro / Tok (AP&T)
445 Ft Yukon District Wood Heating
448 St Paul Heat Recovery
453 Alaska Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pump
469 Akutan Hyddro Repair & Upgrade
476 Tanana Biomass
486 Pilot Point Wind Power and Heat
503 St Paul Wind Diesel
519 Atka Hydro Dispatch Excess Power
-- Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump,
Airport
-- Manley Hot Springs Geothermal, TDX
200 Miles LE AASKA
Prepared by Lauren Fe, Energy Data GS Inem 813-2010. Updated 11-05-2010
Renewable Energy Fund Grants .BARROW 6.435 ake Ea Nisha Ae yo 236 Fe le Crk Ho Sey Cin)
. 2 s 2. 43 c 11 Aleutians East Borough Renewable 243 Wainwright Heat Recovery Projects in Pre-construction Phase: 8 245 b Energy Study 244 Point Lay Heat Recovery (North Slope : Pada 2 i e 14 Chignik Lagoon Hydro Final Design Borough) Reconnaisance, Feasibility, and Final Design 244 414 20 Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Design 245. Barrow-Atqasuk Transmission Study
27 Allison Lake Hydro Feasibility (CVEA) 246 Hot Springs Valley Geothermal Recon
8 29 Kake-Petersburg Inertie Design (Akutan) 412 30 McGrath Wood Heat 248 Loud Creek Hydro Study (Akutan) 31 Fort Yukon District Wood Heat 249 Town Creek Hydro Design (Akutan)
41 3 Design 260 Yukon-Koyukuk School District @ 34 Grant Lake Hydro Study / Kenai Biomass Study Peninsula 287 Tok Wind Resource Study
51 ay 35 Hooper Bay Wind Study 292 Chalkyitsik Biomass Study
@ 37 Whitman Lake Recon (Ketchikan) 293 Venetie Biomass Study
38 Ruth Lake Hydro Reconnaissance 297 Teller Wind Study
40 Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility 314 McGrath Biomass Study (Chignik) 315. Adak Diesel Hybrid
~ 41 Haines Borough Wood Heat Study 316 Tatitlek Wind-Hydro Study
42 Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility 401 Terror Lake Hydro Unit 3 Study (Skagway) 412 Point Lay Wind Study
, 46 Kenny Lake School Wood Heat 413 Point Hope Wind Study ® Design 414 Wainwright Wind Study 48 Whittier Creek Hydro Feasibility 436 Port Alsworth Hydro Study
i 59 Kobuk River Valley Biomass Study 440 Neck Lake Hydro Design : 60 Yakutat Biomass Study 455. Chenega Bay Hydro/Design & Project Type 62 Chignik Lake Wind & Hydro Design ‘Permitting . 63 Lake & Peninsula Wood Heat Design 462 Hoonah-IPEC Hydro Design
64 Lake & Peninsula Borough Wind 466 Pilgrim Hot Springs Study
= Study 470 Hot Springs Valley Geothermal Recon Biofuels 66 Delta Junction Wind Study (AWP) (Akutan)
@ Biomass 73 Old Harbor Hydro Design 477 Mount Spurr Geothermal Study/Ormat 74 Cosmos Hills Hydro Feasibility Nevada
(Upper Kobuk) 512 Kivalina Wind Study @ — Geothermal 78 California Creek Hydro Feasibility 515 New Stuyahok Wind Study
86 Fourth of July Creek Hydro Feasibility --- Falls Creek Hydro Recon / Kenai @ __ Heat Recovery 88 Statewide Hydrokinetic Study Peninsula
97 Nenana Hydrokinetic --- Grant Lake Hydro Recon / Kenai
@ Hyd 109 Eva Creek Wind Study (GVEA) Peninsula yaro 210 Kiseralik / Chikuminuk Hydro Study —- Crescent LakeHydro Recon / Kenai é s 3 ° d ary Pte | (Bethel) Peninsula
@ Other Wess a i 26 215 Terror Lake Hydro Unit 3 Study Ptarmigan Lake Hydro Recon / Kenai 5 po: sae ; 223 Neck Lake Hydro Study Peninsula
O Solar (PV/Thermal)_
@ = Transmission
@ Wind
SS Alaska Energy Regions
9) Ateutians North Slope
/ Bering Straits ) Northwest Arctic
# Bristol Bay Railbelt
1) Copper River/Chugach NE southeast
) Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
a 23
100 200 Miles I=ALASKA
‘Prepare by Lauren Fritz, Energy Data Gis tern 6-13-2020 Upcated 11-08-2010 0 50 100 200 Miles
Rer.-..able Energy Fund Construction Schedule (11/05 10
Renewable Energy Fund Construction Projects
2010 1 2011 2012 ! Navision Total Project | Total REF !
Type Round| ID Grant# Cost Grant mu Julrimialmis|slalsiotn|olule|mialm{s|slals/oiniofulrimialm|s|slalsiol|n|o Notes Biomass /
BioFuel 1 53 2195358 |Chena Power, Biomass/ORC $4,612,900] $ 2,000,000 |_ PC
1 33 2195373 |Haines/Chilkoot, District Heat $ 225,120 | $ 188,620 OP
1 iz 2195381 |Gulkana Village Council, Boiler $ 500,000 | $ 500,000 RB
1 26 2195399 | Native Village of Eyak, Wood $ 137,760 | $ 137,760 BT sed 1 49 2195417 |Tok, Gateway School, Boiler $ 3,260,349 | $ 3,245,349 RB
1 112 __| 2195395 |Delta/Greeley School Dist. Wood $ 2,868,000 | $ 2,000,000 RB
1 15 2195380 |Chistochina Central Wood Heat $ 512,000 | $ 500,000 RB
1 68 2195430 |Anchorage Muni Landfill Gas $ 7,395,200 | $ 2,000,000 OP
2 211 2195469 |Thorne Bay School, Wood Heat $ 220,179 | $ 178,179 OP
3 476 _| 7030022 |Tanana Biomass $ 492,652 | $ 412,642 RB 3 | 445 ta___|Ft Yukon District Wood Heatin; $3,606,255 [$2,318,255 [AF Eile eesti OOH ES not yet determined ATE | | ay {EES in
Geothermal t 1 - 2195359 |Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump, Airport $ 1,026,000 | $ 513,000 | NMc sed 1 111 2195393 |Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump, Aquatic Ctr $ 1,950,000 | $ 1,450,000 | NMc
1 - 2195421 |Manley Hot Springs Geothermal, TDX $ 1,645,000 | $ 215,000 |_NMc
3 453 _| 7030017 [Alaska Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pum, $ 286,580 | $ 286,580 | NMc
1 Heat Recove! I
1 105__| 2195391 |North Pole GVEA HR Expansion $ 1,050,000 | $ 840,000 OP
1 22 2195407 |Cordova Electric Heat to Power $ 3,770,000 | $ 1,780,000 OP.
1 61 2195416 |McGrath Light & Power HE insion $ 954,225 | $ 712,415 KN
1 9 2195423 |Wrangell Excess Hydro to Heat $ 2,082,000 | $ 2,000,000 OP.
2 235 __| 2195454 |Kotzebue HR and Ammonia Power Cycle $ 1,215,627 | $ 915,627 | DP
2 307 __| 2195453 |City of Ambler Heat Recover: $ 500,000 | $ 435,000 OP.
2 271 2195449 |Unalaska Heat Recovei $ 1,919,807 | $ 1,300,000 OP.
3 519 | 7030001 |Atka Hydro Dispatch Excess Power $ 350,000 | $ 80,000 | AA
3 448 nla St Paul Heat Recovery $ 615,591 | $ 98,149 JJ 4 not yet ‘notin. dro +
1 10 2195387 |Falls Creek Hydro / Gustavus $10,178,000 | $ 750,000 DL__JCOMPLETED IN 2009) losed 2195386,
1,3 _| 21, 407 | 7030009 |Cordova Humpback Creek Hydro $17,031,000 | $ 8,000,000 DO
1 87 2195435 |Fishhook Creek Hydro $ 4,412,961 | $ 2,000,000 |_DO 2: ft extension, Assume completed 2012 1 23 2195360 |North Prince of Wales Hydro Intertie $ 6,155,019 | $ 3,752,181 RG
1 58 2195376 |Atka, Chuniisax Creek Hydro $ 2,914,891 | $ 996,000 | AA 1 104 | 2195440 |Reynolds Creek Hydro, Haida/AP&T $17,000,000 | $ 2,000,000 JS ift Interim 3 469 n/a___|Akutan Hydro Repair & Upgrade $ 1,491,000 | $ 1,391,000 | AA rant not in place 3 438 na___|Yerrick Creek Hydro / Tok (AP&T) $14,500,000 | $ 4,000,000 |_ AA aa | i t 4 ‘Schedule not yet determined _ | ‘in
Ocean/River t
1 84 2195402 | Rul drokinetic, YRI-CWC. $ 461,950 | $ 446,950 | NMc
1 265 __| 2195466 |Kvichak River RISEC, Iguigi; $ 683,175 | $ 718,175 | AF
‘Solar i 1 108 | 2195394 |McKinley Village Solar Thermal $ 193,600 | $ 190,000 |_ RG _ JCOMPLETED IN 2009 I losed. 1 7 2195412 |Ambler Solar PV $ 605,000 | $ 550,000 OP. I no-go based on study Pending close 1 Wind =|
if] 103 2195371 |Kodiak Pillar Mountain Wind $23,319,539 | $ 4,000,000 JJ__ COMPLETED IN 2009 cE losed 1 50 2195401 |Unalakleet Wind $ 4,164,340 | $ 4,000,000 JJ__JCOMPLETED IN 2009, T 1 122 __| 2195432 |Bethel Wind Project Times 4 $ 3,197,986 | $ 2,598,320 JJ 2 rant not in. waiting for grantee on sched. 1 102__| 2195370 |Delta Junction Wind, AEP 2MW. $ 2,350,000 | $ 2,000,000 JJ 1 70 2195383 |Quinhagak Wind, AVEC 300 KW $ 4,838,603 | $ 3,882,243 JJ [Control Mod. Damaged in shipping causing dela; 1 71 2195385 |Toksook Bay Wind, AVEC 100 KW. $ 1,253,056 | $ 1,037,750 JJ 1 72__| 2195384 |Mekoryuk Wind Turbine/Controls, AVEC $4,031,406 $ 3,155,765] JJ [Control Mod. Damaged in shipping causing dela 1 107__| 2195410 |Kwigillingok Power Company 450KW_ $ 3,200,000 | $ 1,600,000 RS
1 110 | 2195411 |Kongiganak Wind, Puvurnag Power Co. $ 2,892,850 | $ 1,700,000 RS
1 89 2195375 |Nikolski IRA Wind, Umnak Power $ 450,930 | $ 409,430 JJ
1,3 | 85,518 | 2195427 |Kotzebue Electric Turbines/Battery/Diesel $10,755,497 | $___ 8,000,000 JJ '1_- Kotzebue Wind Farm Exp Const. 1 47 2195444 |Banner Peak Wind Transmission (Nome) $ 890,000 | $ 801,000 RS__JCOMPLETED IN 2009) I losed 1 52__| 2195438 |Nome, Newton Peak Wind Farm $4,444,444] $ 4,000,000] RS v |Go/no-go following design 1 90 2195398 |St. George Wind Farm $ 3,000,000 | $ 1,500,000 JJ ft extension 1 56 2195377 |NW Arctic Borough Wind Farm Buckland, Deering, Noorvik) $10,921,428] $ 10,758,928 JJ ing and Buckland may be completed in 2011 1,2 | 98, 222| 2195433 |Nikiski, Kenai Winds Project $21,000,000 | $ 2,080,000 | RS it wer sales agreement not in place 2 273 | 2195457 |Tuntutuliak High Penetration wind/diesel $ 3,360,000 | $ 1,760,000 |_ RS
2 317__| 2195446 |Sand Point Wind $ 1,077,706 | $ 639,806 JJ
2 302__| 2195468 |Emmonak & Alakanuk Wind and Transmission $ 8,888,889 | $ 8,000,000 |_RS
2 303__| 2195463 |Shaktoolik Wind $ 2,727,960 | $ 2,465,664 RS 3 486 n/a__|Pilot Point Wind Power and Heat $1,571,240] $ 1,421,240] RS et en a oh a Z Ea See Bie dees Ea slo eet 3 503 nla St Paul Wind Diesel $ 2,100,000 | $ 1,900,000 JJ Adee 1a eae a Pople: [se ad elas Se S| A fas a Ye
i
Pre-construction| Construction/Equipment Installation] Commissiong/Project Completion|
Final Design,Contracts, Procurement)
Revised 11/09/2010 EFB S:\AEEE Shared Files\Renewable Energy Fund\REFund Status Nov 2010 v2.xIsx 11/9/20108:40 AM
Renewable Energy Fund Reconnaisance, Feasibility, and Final Design Projects
11/9/2010
Total
Project Total REF
Type Round _ID Cost Grant PM Biomass / 1 30__|McGrath Wood Heat $370,000 | $ 322,000 DP BioFuel 2 McGrath Biomass Study $43,940 | $34,740 DP 1 Fort Yukon District Wood Heat Design $350,656 | $ 210,000 AF {1 46_|Kenny Lake School Wood Heat Design $170,000 | $ 120,000 RB 1 59__|Kobuk River Valley Biomass Study $_ 531,712 | $ 249,500 DP. 1 a Haines Borough Wood Heat Study $140,500 | $ 120,500] DP il Lake & Peninsula Wood Heat Design $__ 95,000 | $__77,000 DP 4 ao [Vaiss Boma Sa 1 $e eo | Soa DP. 2 292 _|Chalkyitsik Biomass Study $ 22, 500 | $32, "500 OP 2 293 |Venetie Biomass Study $42,500 | $ 32,500 DP 2 260_|Yukon-Koyukuk School District Biomass Study $19,050 | $16,550 DP
Geothermal
2 | 246 [Hot Springs Valley Geothermal Recon (Akutan) $2,595,000 | $2,595,000 NMc 3 Hot Springs Valley Geothermal Recon (Akutan) $2,870,000 | $ 173,792 NMc 3 | 466 [Pilgrim Hot Springs Study $6,356,222 | $ 613,174] NMc
3 477 _|Mount Spurr Geothermal Study /Ormat Nevada $4,152,805 | $1,993,158 NMc
) Heat Recovery
2__ | 244 [Point Lay Heat Recovery (North Slope Borough) $ 395,912 | $ 395,912 DP
2 243 _|Wainwright Heat Recovery $ 350,000 | $ 300,000] DP | Hydro |
1,3 | 6, 435 |Lake Elva / Nushagak Area Hydro $ 700,000 | $ 700,000] DO
3 Port Alsworth Hydro Study $150,000 | $ 150,000 DO
3 | 455 [Chenega Bay Hydro/Design & Permitting $ 950,500 | $ 252,000 AA 2_| 215 [Terror Lake Hydro Unit3Study $1,000,000 | $500,000 | DO 3 401_|Terror Lake Hydro Unit 3 Study $_ 248,160 | $ 248,160 BO
3 462_|Hoonah-IPEC Hydro Design $850,000 | $ 850,000 DO
1 999 |Falls Creek Hydro Recon / Kenai Peninsula $ 125,000 | $ 50,000 DO
1 999 |Grant Lake Hydro Recon / Kenai Peninsula $ 125,000 | $ 50,000 DO
[zea 999 |Crescent LakeHydro Recon / Kenai Peninsula ; $23,273 DO
1 999 |Ptarmigan Lake Hydro Recon / Kenai Peninsula $68,355] $ 4,684 DO
A 14 __|Chignik Lagoon Hydro Final Design $150,000 | $ 150,000 AA
1 40__||Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility (Chignik) $207,500 | $ 207,500 AA
1 27__|Allison Lake Hydro Feasibility (CVEA) $2,860,000 | $2,288,000 DBO
1 48 _|Whittier Creek Hydro Feasibilit $ 200,000] $ 85,000 DBO 1 Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility (Skagwa $ _48,000| DO
1 74 __|Cosmos Hills Hydro Feasibility (Upper Kobuk) $1,075,625 | $1,025,000 AA
fl 38 dro Reconnaissance $ 202,529 | $ 157,972 DO
if 1___|Takatz Lake Hydro Feasibility $1,383,902 | $1,152,134 DO
1 86 __|Fourth of July Creek Hydro Feasibility $40,000 | $ 20,000 BO
1 78 _|California Creek Hydro Feasibility $52,450 | $ 47,625 | AA
1 34__|Grant Lake Hydro Study / Kenai Peninsula $1,020,000 | $ 816,000 BO 1 73
1 37__|Whitman Lake Recon (Ketchikan) $1,620,000 | $1,300,000 BO
2 210 _|Kiseralik / Chikuminuk Hydro Study (Bethel) $ 400,000 | $ 250,000 AA
2 223 _|Neck Lake Hydro Study $108,000 | $ 108,000 AA
3 440_|Neck Lake Hydro Design $90,000 | $ 90,000 AA
2 236_|Five Mile Creek H $ 303,000 | $ 303,000 AF
2 226 _|Carlson Creek Hydro Study (Slana) $50,000 | $ 40,000 AA
2 248 |Loud Creek Hydro Study (Akutan) $ 237,772 | $ 237,772 AA
2 249 |Town Creek Hydro Design (Akutan) $ 162,000 | $ 162,000 AA
Ocean/River |
1 88 __|Statewide H) $ 565,439 | $ 565,439 | NMc
1 Nenana Hydrokinetic $ 450,000 | $ 450,000 NMc | ' Other |
2 315 _|Adak Diesel Hybrid $92,305 | $ 85,835 DP.
1 11_|Aleutians East Borough Renewable Energy Study [$40,000] $ 25,000 RG
| Transmission
1_| 29 |Kake-Petersburg InertieDesign $5,490,000 | $2,990,000 | JS 1__| 20 |Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Design $_ 980,833 | $ 820,000 JS
2 245 _|Barrow-Atqasuk Transmission Study $ 225,000 | $ 175,000 DP
Wind
1 109 _|Eva Creek Wind Study (GVEA) $2,300,000 | $2,000,000 RS 1 64 [Lake & Peninsula Borough Wind Study $224,000 JJ
1 62 _|Chignik Lake Wind & Hydro Design $_ 471,000 | $375,000 JJ
1 66_|Delta Junction Wind Study (AWP) $ 500,000 | $ 105,000 JJ
1 35__|Hooper Bay Wind Study $80,000 | $ i JJ
2 316 _|Tatitlek Wind-Hydro Stud $146,240 | $ 138,210 RS
2 297 _|Teller Wind Stud: $_ 123,800 | $ 117,610 RS
1 287 _|Tok Wind Resource Stud $ 130,000 | $ 130,000 JJ
3 515_|New Stuyahok Wind Study $_ 142,500 | $ 142,500 RS
j 3 413 _|Point Hope Wind Study $ 132,000 | $ 132,000 RS 3__[ 414 [Wainwright Wind Study $_ 132,000 | $ 132,000 [RS
3 412 _|Point Lay Wind Study $ 132,000 | $ 132,000] RS
3 512 _|Kivalina Wind Study $183,350 | $ 183,350[ RS
S:\AEEE Shared Files\Renewable Energy Fund\REFund Status Nov 2010 v2.xlsxREFund Status Nov 2010 v2.xlsxPreconstruction
11/9/20108:45 AM
Renewable Energy Fund Reconnaisance, Feasibility, and Final Design Projects
11/9/2010
Type
Biomass /
BioFuel
Geothermal
Heat Recovery
Hydro
Ocean/River
Other
Transmission
Wind
Total
Project Total REF
Round ID Cost Grant PM
1 30__|McGrath Wood Heat $ 370,000 | $ 322,000 DP ‘]
2 314 |McGrath Biomass Study $43,940 | $ 34,740 DP.
1 31__|Fort Yukon District Wood Heat Design $350,656 | $_ 210,000 AF
1 46__|Kenny Lake School Wood Heat Design $170,000 | $ 120,000 RB
1 59 _|Kobuk River Valley Biomass Study $_ 531,712 | $ 249,500 DP.
1 41__|Haines Borough Wood Heat Study $_ 140,500 | $ 120,500 DP
1 63 __|Lake & Peninsula Wood Heat Design $ 95,000 | $ 77,000 DP
1 60__|Yakutat Biomass Study $ 267,252 | $ 249,600 DP
2 292 _|Chalkyitsik Biomass Study $ 42,500 i 32,500 DP
2 293 _|Venetie Biomass Study $42,500 | $ 32,500 OP
2 260_|Yukon-Koyukuk School District Biomass Study $19,050 | $ 16,550 DP.
2 246_|Hot Springs Valley Geothermal Recon (Akutan) $2,595,000 | $2,595,000 |_NMc
3 470 _|Hot Springs Valley Geothermal Recon (Akutan) $2,870,000 | $ 173,792 NMc
3__ | 466_| Pilgrim Hot Springs Study $6,356,222 | $ 613,174 NMc
3 477_|Mount Spurr Geothermal Study /Ormat Nevada $4,152,805 | $1,993,158 NMc
2 244 |Point Lay Heat Recovery (North Slope Borough) $_ 395,912 | $ 395,912 DP
2 243 _|Wainwright Heat Recovery $ 350,000 | $ 300,000 DP
1,3 | 6, 435 |Lake Elva / Nushagak Area Hydro $ 700,000 | $ 700,000 DO
3 436 _|Port Alsworth Hydro Study $150,000 | $ 150,000 DO
3 455 _|Chenega Bay Hydro/Design & Permittin $ 950,500 | $ 252,000 AA
2 215 |Terror Lake Hydro Unit 3 Study $1,000,000 | $ 500,000 DO
3 401_| Terror Lake an Unit 3 Study $ 248,160 | $ 248,160 DO
3 462_|Hoonah-IPEC Hydro Design $ 850,000 | $ 850,000 DO
1 999 _|Falls Creek Hydro Recon / Kenai Peninsula $125,000 | $ 50,000 DBO
1 999 |Grant Lake Hydro Recon / Kenai Peninsula $125,000 | $ 50,000 DO
1 999 |Crescent LakeHydro Recon / Kenai Peninsula $66,591 | $ 23,273 DBO
1 999 _|Ptarmigan Lake Hydro Recon / Kenai Peninsula $68,355 | $ 4,684 BO
1 14__|Chignik Lagoon Hydro Final Design $150,000 | $ 150,000 AA
1 40__|Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility (Chignik) $ 207,500 | $ 207,500 AA
1 27_|Allison Lake Hydro Feasibility (CVEA) $2,860,000 | $2,288,000 DO
a 48 |Whittier Creek Hydro Feasibility $200,000 | $ 85,000 BO
41 42__|Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility (Skagway) $ 60,000 | $ 48,000 DO
1 74__ [Cosmos Hills Hydro Feasibility (Upper Kobuk) _ $1,075,625 | $1,025,000 AA
1 38__|Ruth Lake Hydro Reconnaissance $ 202,529 | $ 157,972 DO
1 1__|Takatz Lake Hydro Feasibility _ $1,383,902 | $1,152,134 BO
1 86_|Fourth of July Creek Hydro Feasibility $ 40,000 | $ 20,000 BO
1 78 __|California Creek Hydro Feasibility $52,450] $ 47,625 AA ‘|
1 34 __|Grant Lake Hydro Study / Kenai Peninsula $1,020,000 | $_ 816,000 BO
4 73__|Old Harbor Hydro Design $_ 250,000 | $ 225,000 AA
1 37__|Whitman Lake Recon (Ketchikan) $1,620,000 | $1,300,000 DO
2 210 _|Kiseralik / Chikuminuk Hydro Study (Bethel) $ 400,000 | $ 250,000 AA
2 223 _|Neck Lake Hydro Study $ 108,000 | $ 108,000 AA
3 440_|Neck Lake Hydro Design $ 90,000 | $ 90,000 AA
2 236_|Five Mile Creek Hydro Study (Chitina $ 303,000 | $ 303,000 AF
2 226 _|Carlson Creek Hydro Study (Slana) $50,000 | $__ 40,000 AA
2 248 _|Loud Creek Hydro Study (Akutan) $ 237,772 | $ 237,772 AA
2 249 _|Town Creek Hydro Design (Akutan) $ 162,000 | $ 162,000 AA
1 88 __| Statewide Hydrokinetic Study $ 565,439 | $ 565,439 NMc.
1 97__|Nenana Hydrokinetic $_450,000 | $ 450,000 | _NMc
2 315 _|Adak Diesel Hybrid $ 92,305] $ 85,835 DP
1 11__|Aleutians East Borough Renewable Energy Study $ 40,000 | $ 25,000 RG
29 _|Kake-Petersburg Inertie Design $5,490,000 | $2,990,000 JS
1 20__|Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Design $_ 980,833 | $ 820,000 JS
2 245 _|Barrow-Atqasuk Transmission Study $225,000 | $ 175,000 DP
1 109 _|Eva Creek Wind Study (GVEA) $2,300,000 | $2,000,000 RS
1 64__|Lake & Peninsula Borough Wind Study $_ 224,000 | $ 184,000 JJ
1 62__|Chignik Lake Wind & Hydro Design | $ 471,000 | $ 375,000 JJ
1 66__|Delta Junction Wind Study (AWP) $ 500,000 | $ 105,000 JJ
1 35__|Hooper Bay Wind Study $80,000 | $ 80,000 JJ
i2 316 _|Tatitlek Wind-Hydro Study $146,240 | $ 138,210 RS
2 297_|Teller Wind Study $123,800 | $_ 117,610 RS
1 287 _|Tok Wind Resource Study $ 130,000 | $ 130,000 JJ
3 515_|New Stuyahok Wind Study $ 142,500 | $ 142,500 RS
3 413 _|Point Hope Wind Study $132,000 | $ 132,000 RS
3 414 |Wainwright Wind Study $_ 132,000 | $ 132,000 RS
3 412 _|Point Lay Wind Study $ 132,000 | $ 132,000 RS
3 512_|Kivalina Wind Study $ 183,350 | $ 183,350 RS
S:\AEEE Shared Files\Renewable Energy Fund\REFund Status Nov 2010 v2.xlsxREFund Status Nov 2010 v2.xlsxPreconstruction
11/9/20108:45 AM
Renewable Energy Fund Construction Schedule (11/09/2010
Renewable Energy Fund Construction Projects _ 2010 ie I 2011 2012 | 1 Navision Total Project | Total REF ! | Type Round| 1D Grant# Cost Grant eu Pulrimialmis|slals|oln|olulrelmjalm|s|slalsioln/ofuleimiaimi yi ylalsiolnio Notes
Biomass / a
BioFuel 1 53 2195358 |Chena Power, Biomass/ORC $ 4,612,900 | $ 2,000,000 PC 1 33 2195373 |Haines/Chilkoot, District Heat $ 225,120 | $ 188,620] DP = 1 2 2195381 |Gulkana Village Council, Boiler $ 500,000 | $ 500,000 RB 1 26 2195399 [Native Village of Eyak, Wood $ 137,760 | $ 137,760 BT = sed. 1 49 2195417 |Tok, Gateway School, Boiler $ 3,260,349 | $ 3,245,349 RB
1 112 __| 2195395 |Delta/Greeley School Dist. Wood $ 2,868,000 | $ 2,000,000 RB
1 15 2195380 |Chistochina Central Wood Heat $ 512,000 | $ 500,000 RB 4 68 __| 2195430 |Anchorage Muni Landfill Gas $___ 7,395,200 | $__ 2,000,000 |_ DP. 2 211 2195469 |Thorne Bay School, Wood Heat $ 220,179 | $ 178,179 OP
3 476 _| 7030022 |Tanana Biomass $ 492,652 | $ 412,642 RB
3 445 n/a Ft Yukon District Wood Heating _ $ 3,606,255 | $ 2,318,255 | AF : . eos | + Ss : i not yet S 4 | not
(Geothermal t
1 - 2195359 |Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump, Airport $ 1,026,000 | $ 513,000 | _NMc losed. _ 1 111 2195393 |Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump, Aquatic Ctr $ 1,950,000 | $ 1,450,000 | NMc = 1 - 2195421 |Manley Hot Springs Geothermal, TDX $ 1,645,000 | $ 215,000 | NMc
3 453 _| 7030017 [Alaska Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pump $ 286,580 | $ 286,580 | NMc
Heat Recover = ;
1 105 __| 2195391 |North Pole GVEA HR Expansion $ 1,050,000 | $ 840,000 | DP. = | 1 22 2195407 |Cordova Electric Heat to Power $ 3,770,000 | $ 1,780,000 OP.
_ 1 61 2195416 |McGrath Light & Power HE Expansion $ 954,225 | $ 712,415 KN
} ff 9 2195423 |Wrangell Excess Hydro to Heat $ 2,082,000 | $ 2,000,000 |__DP _ = 2 235 __| 2195454 |Kotzebue HR and Ammonia Power Cycle $ 1,215,627 | $ 915,627 | DP. = _ 2 307__| 2195453 |City of Ambler Heat Recovery $ 500,000 | $ 435,000 | DP
2 271 2195449 |Unalaska Heat Recovery $ 1,919,807 | $ 1,300,000 |_ DP.
3 519 | 7030001 [Atka Hydro Dispatch Excess Power $ 350,000 | $ 80,000 | AA _ 3 448 n/a__|St Paul Heat Recovery $ 615,591 | $ 98,149 | JJ [ 1 ‘Schedule not yet determined I not in
[Hydro it 1 10 2195387 |Falls Creek Hydro / Gustavus $10,178,000 | $ 750,000 DL__JCOMPLETED IN 2009) josed. 2195386,
1,3 | 21, 407 | 7030009 |Cordova Humpback Creek Hydro $17,031,000 | $ 8,000,000 |_ DO
1 87 2195435 |Fishhook Creek Hydro $ 4,412,961 | $ 2,000,000 DBO ? ft extension, Assume completed 2012 1 23 2195360 |North Prince of Wales Hydro Intertie $ 6,155,019 | $ 3,752,181 RG
1 58 2195376 |Atka, Chuniisax Creek Hydro $ 2,914,891 | $ 996,000 AA
1 104__| 2195440 |Reynolds Creek Hydro, Haida/AP&T $17,000,000 | $ 2,000,000 JS ft Interim, 3 469 n/a__|Akutan Hydro Repair & Upgrade $1,491,000] $ 1,391,000 | _ AA nt not in 3 438 nla Yerrick Creek Hydro / Tok (AP&T) $14,500,000 | $ 4,000,000 | AA eee Schedule not yet determined hot in,
Ocean/River +
1 84 2195402 [Ruby Hydrokinetic, YRI-CWC $ 461,950 | $ 446,950 | NMc
1 265 2195466 |Kvichak River RISEC, Iguigig $ 683,175 | $ 718,175 AF
ey Solar 1
1 108 __| 2195394 |McKinley Village Solar Thermal $ 193,600 | $ 190,000 | RG OMPLETED IN 2009 __ I _ losed 1 75 2195412 [Ambler Solar PV $ 605,000 | $ 550,000 | _DP. _| I = no-go based on study Pending close 1 = 1
1 103__| 2195371 |Kodiak Pillar Mountain Wind $23,319,539 | $ 4,000,000 JJ OMPLETED IN 2009) _ J | josed_ 1 50 2195401 |Unalakleet Wind $ 4,164,340 | $ 4,000,000 JJ__ COMPLETED IN 2009) ja |
1 122__| 2195432 |Bethel Wind Project Times 4 $ 3,197,986 | $ 2,598,320 JJ 2 [Grant not in place waiting for grantee on sched. al 102 | 2195370 |Delta Junction Wind, AEP 2MW. $ 2,350,000 | $ 2,000,000 JJ
1 70 2195383 |Quinhagak Wind, AVEC 300 KW. $ 4,838,603 | $ 3,882,243 JJ Control Mod. Damaged in shipping causing dela} 1 71 2195385 |Toksook Bay Wind, AVEC 100 KW $ 1,253,056 | $ 1,037,750 JJ
1 72 2195384 |Mekoryuk Wind Turbine/Controls, AVEC $ 4,031,406 | $ 3,155,765 JJ Control Mod. Damaged in shipping causing dela) 1 107__| 2195410 |Kwigillingok Power Company 450KW. $ 3,200,000 | $ 1,600,000 | RS 1 110 | 2195417 [Kongiganak Wind, Puvurnag Power Co. $2,892,850] $ 1,700,000 [_RS
1 89 2195375 |Nikolski IRA Wind, Umnak Power $ 450,930 | $ 409,430 JJ
1,3 _| 85,518 | 2195427 |Kotzebue Electric Turbines/Battery/Diesel $ 10,755,497 | $ 8,000,000 JJ 1_- Kotzebue Wind Farm Exp Const.
_ 1 47 2195444 |Banner Peak Wind Transmission (Nome) I $ 890,000 | $ 801,000 RS__JCOMPLETED IN 2009) I Closed
; 1 52 2195438 |Nome, Newton Peak Wind Farm $ 4,444,444 | $ 4,000,000 RS 2 |Go/no-go following design | 1 90 | 2195398 |St. George Wind Farm $ _3,000,000[ $ 1,500,000] JJ it extension
1 56 2195377 [NW Arctic Borough Wind Farm Buckland, Deering, Noorvik) $10,921,428 | $ 10,758,928 JJ Deering and Buckland may be completed in 2011 _ 1,2 | 98, 222] 2195433 |Nikiski, Kenai Winds Project $__21,000,000 | $ 2,080,000 | RS ? | Power sales agreement not in place
2 273 _| 2195457 |Tuntutuliak High Penetration wind/diesel $ 3,360,000 | $ 1,760,000 | RS
2 317 __| 2195446 |Sand Point Wind $ 1,077,706 | $ 639,806 JJ
2 302__| 2195468 |Emmonak & Alakanuk Wind and Transmission $ 8,888,889 | $ 8,000,000 |_RS
2 303__| 2195463 |Shaktoolik Wind $ 2,727,960 | $ 2,465,664 | RS
3 486 n/a Pilot Point Wind Power and Heat $ 1,571,240 | $ 1,421,240 | RS eset dd aul. a 4 x
| 3 503 na St Paul Wind Diesel $ 2,100,000 | $ 1,900,000 JJ = Ls ee x = A ene Gaon: a + woh es ea dS) Ss 2%
u 1 Pre-construction| Construction/Equipment Installation] Commissiong/Project Completion| |
Final Design,Contracts, Procurement)
Revised 11/09/2010 EFB S:MAEEE Shared Files\Renewable Ene 1d\REFund Status Nov 2010 v2.xIsx 11/9/20108:40 AM
he se “AIDES. [ALASKA * Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation
January 21, 2010
Overview of Review Process
Renewable Energy Fund applications were evaluated in four stages. For more detail please refer
to Evaluation Guidelines in the appendices and to documents posted on the Renewable Energy
Fund webpage http://www. akenergyauthority.org/RE Fund.html.
Conducted by Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) staff, the first stage of review evaluated each
application for completeness, eligibility, and responsiveness to the request for applications
(RFA). AEA rejected eight proposals that did not meet these threshold criteria.
The second stage evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of the proposed projects. In
addition to numerical scores, the second stage resulted in project-specific recommendations for
full, partial, or no funding, as well as recommendations for special provisions for grant awards
should the Legislature approve funding. The second stage was conducted by AEA staff with the
assistance of Alaska Department of Natural Resources staff, Institute of Social Economic
Research (ISER) staff, and private economists under contract to AEA under the coordination of
ISER. Projects may have been recommended for partial or no funding if they were viable but:
e 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 fy2011
or afterwards. That is, funds would be tied up unreasonably.
e There were competing projects for which planning is desirable
e The applicant requested AEA to manage the project and the AEA program 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.
AEA recommended no funding for 27 projects following stage 2 review.
The third stage was a final scoring based on the specific guidelines in the RFA that was
conducted by AEA staff. The scoring was done based on a number of matrices and pre-
established weighting for each of the criteria.
Cost of Energy (25%):
Matching Funds (20%)
Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%): score from stage 2
Project Readiness (10%) ee ae 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard ¢ Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2495
www.aidea.org e 907/771-3000 @ FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888/300-8534 e www.akenergyauthority.org
5. Economic and Other Alaska Benefit (15%)
6. Sustainability (5%)
7. Local Support (5%)
In the fourth stage all applications were ranked by region with the final funding
recommendation being made based on the number and rank of applications with each region,
the cost of energy, and a balance of statewide funding.
Where AEA recommended less than the requested amount and the Legislature funds the
project, AEA will work with grantees to assure that the revised scope of the final grant award is
consistent with the grantee’s proposal and meets the public purposes of the program.
Roles of AEA Staff and the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee
AEA staff requested and received input from the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee
regarding the process and final funding recommendations. Following is a summary of
Committee involvement.
AEA staff and the Committee met on August 21, 2009 to discuss results of public review of the
draft Fund regulations, public review the schedule of the upcoming RFA and major issues, such
as funding caps, milestone achievement and payment to grantees, and requirements for
independent power producers to use cost-based rates as a basis for AEA-approved power
purchase agreements.
Midway through review of the applications AEA staff and the Committee met on 12/14 to
discuss the economic firms and AEA, DNR and ISER staff involved with the proposal evaluation,
progress on review and revised weighting of evaluation criteria, and how AEA proposed to
handle specific issues, including multiple applications for different components of the same
project and applications from round 1 and 2 proposers for projects that were capped.
Following AEA evaluation of all applications, AEA staff and the Committee met on 1/13 and 14
to address requirements for achieving a statewide balance of funds. Based on this discussion
AEA finalized its recommendations.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 2 of 2 12/9/0
Ww Ky a >
@@® ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Industrial Development ~
We a Export Authority
Appendix A
Guidelines for Renewable Energy Fund Application Evaluation
Table of Contents
Stage 1 Review Process:.
Reviewers -..
Criteria...
Process...
Stage 2 Review Process: .rscsssssssssssessseessssessssseessseessssesssseesssssesssneessssesssssessssneesssseesssessessvessssnessssseasseesssaseesses 3
Reviewers -..
Criteria...
Process...
Stage 3 Review Process:.
Reviewers -.
Criteria...
Process...
$$ Limitations on Recommendations Sec 1.14
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 Benefit Ratio.
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (b) Financing PLAN... csssssssseesssscessssssseeesee
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines...
Stage 3 Criteria — Match.......
Stage 3 Criteria Local Support...
Stage 3 Criteria Project Readiness.
Stage 3 Criteria Public Benefit...........
Stage 3 Criteria Statewide Regional Balance.......
Stage 3 Criteria Compliance with Other Awards.
Stage 3 Criteria Cost of Energy
These are the Evaluation Guidelines and instructions for Evaluation of The Round 3 RFA for
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Projects
e 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.
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard e Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2495
www.aidea.org e 907/771-3000 e FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888/300-8534 e www.akenergyauthority.org
If an application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its application
has been rejected and the basis for rejection.
The Authority 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 the Authority will
make all applications available for review on the Authority’s web site.
General:
All communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through the
Grant Administrator.
The Executive Director is the Executive Director of AEA, Program Managers are those
Management Personal in AEA who have program oversight for AEA programs, Project
Managers are the subject matter technical experts, and the Grant Manager 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.
lf reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should contact
the Grant Administrator. If reviewers have technical questions they should contact the
Program Managers.
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
Notes should be made directly into the database on line. All written notes should be
kept with the application file.
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
Executive Director, Program Manager, and Legal staff as required to determine an
appropriate course of action.
Stage 1 Review Process:
All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by the Authority staff to assess
if the application is complete, meets the minimum submission requirements, and has adequate
information to proceed to Stage 2 — Technical Evaluation.
Reviewers —
Grant Administrator and at least one Program Manager
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 2 of 21 1/21/2010
Criteria
All criteria 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 1.2).
2. The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.3).
3. Arresolution 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 1.2).
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 2.1).
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 1.2)
Process
The Grant Administrator will evaluate criteria 1-3 & 6 above.
The Program Managers will evaluate criteria 4-5 above.
If it appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional
data the Program Managers (PM) may make a recommendation to the Grant Manager
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.
Applications that are determined by the Grant Administrator and Program Managers and
determined to be incomplete or fail to meet the minimum requirements will be reviewed
by the Executive Director with the assistance of Legal or procurement staff prior to being
rejected at Stage 1.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application
failed stage 1.
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
Executive Director, Program Manager, and Legal staff as required to determine an
appropriate course of action.
Stage 2 Review Process:
All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for feasibility in accordance with the criteria
below.
Reviewers —
Project Managers — the AEA technical subject matter experts.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 3 of 21 1/21/2010
e 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.
e 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.
e ISER - University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research — is providing
coordination and Quality Assurance review of Economic Analysis work for selected
projects.
e Program Managers — Overseers of the work of the Project Managers
Criteria
e Each of the numbered criteria below will be scored with a numerical score 1-10 and
weighted per the percentages below.
Criteria Weight
1. Project Management, Development, and Operation 20%
a. The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in
adequate detail.
b. The cost savings estimates for project development,
operation, maintenance, fuel, and other project items are
realistic,
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 selling energy from the completed project are reasonable
and described in adequate detail.
2. Qualifications and Experience 20%
a. The Applicant, partners, and 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
workforce.
3. Technical Feasibility 20%
a. The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable
basis, and project permits and other authorizations can
reasonably be obtained.
b. Asite 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 ademonstration project is being proposed:
e Application in other areas of the state, or another specific
benefit of the proposed project, is likely: 209 RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 4 of 21 1/21/2010
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.
4. Economic Feasibility 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 a 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.
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.
Process
. Project Managers will carefully review the proposals for their assigned technology group
and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria and a funding recommendation.
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 Project Manager 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 Project Manager 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, with a response time of 7 days or less.
Applicants that fail to respond to requests for information or to adequately address the
criteria in the technical review will be rejected in Stage 2.
The Program Managers will meet with the project managers 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 Project Manager, Program Managers,
Economists, and Executive Director.
A final weighted “feasibility” score will be given for each application reviewed and will be
used to calculate the Phase 3 feasibility score.
Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may not
be recommended for funding or further review.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application
failed Stage 2.
The Authority will 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.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 5 of 21 1/21/2010
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 Feasibility score from Stage 2 will be automatically weighted and scored in Stage three.
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 Program
Managers.
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 Program Managers will review the scoring of the Project Managers and Grant Manager and
provide a score for readiness and previous success, and sustainability.
AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for the
Advisory committee to review.
The Advisory Committee will review the final Stage 3 scores regional ranking recommendations
of the Authority. The Committee 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 Program Managers
e Executive Director of AEA.
e Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations)
Criteria
e Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted.
Criteria Round 3
Weight
Cost of energy per resident in the affected project 25
area relative to other areas (From Worksheet)
The type and amount of matching funds and other 20
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 10
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.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 6 of 21 1/21/2010
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 2.
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 1.14
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.
Project Type/Phase Grant Limits
Construction projects on the Railbelt $2. Million per project
and SE Alaskan communities that have
a low cost of power.
Construction in all other areas of the $4. 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 Donot 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 2010/11, and project
is well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk.
o Fund limited phases: Project construction would be 2011+, not well-defined,
expensive, higher risk, or there are competing projects for which planning is
desirable.
e¢ 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
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 7 of 21 1/21/2010
o Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are
recommended.
o Exception 1: If proposal asks AEA to manage the project, and AEA thinks project
can be built for less, then lower figure can be recommended.
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.
e 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 Resources 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
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
r 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, the Authority will provide to the
advisory committee a statewide and regional ranking of all applications recommended for grants
in Stage 3.
, In:consultation with the advisory committee the Authority 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 the Authority may recommend a grant in an amount for the
project phases different from what the Applicant requested. In recommending a grant for
phases different from what the Applicant requested, the authority may limit its recommendation
to a grant for one or more preliminary project phases before recommending a grant for project
construction.
Reviewers —
e Grant Administrator
e Program Manager
e Executive Director of AEA. .
-e Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations)
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 8 of 21 1/21/2010
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 three score.
e Each application will have stage three score and regional rank.
e Adraft recommendation of projects for funding, (based on available funds) will be
presented to the Advisory Committee for Review along with the complete list of all
projects.
¢ Consistent with the process established in rounds 1 and 2, AEA will prepare a summary
of the draft recommendations by energy region that will compare potential allocations of
funding by 1) population, 2) an even split for each region, and 3) 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 at least 50% of the allocation based
on 3) 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 regions that do not meet the 50%
goal, and add that recommendation to the stage 4 list. In order to meet total funding
limits AEA will refer to the stage 3 statewide ranking list and remove the lowest-ranked
recommendation.
e The Advisory committee 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 project AEA forward 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, 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 based on 2009 funding
e A\list of recommended Applications for 2010 funding.
e Alist 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-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 9 of 21 1/21/2010
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 Appendix A of these
procedures.
Score | Guidelines (Intent is to provide a range)
10 A+ | The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the criteria
requirements and completely addresses them 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. 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. The Authority 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-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 10 of 21 1/21/2010
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio
(Maximum Stage Two points 25) :
AEA staff will consider the economist evaluation when scoring this criterion. They will compare
the economists and any Applicant proposed 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 0
(This indicates that there is relatively
low economic benefit or economic
analysis cannot be conducted.)
>0.90 — =<1.00 al
>1.00 — =<1.10 3
>1.10 — =<1.20 4
>1.20 — =<1.30 5 [21.30 =<1.40 6
>1.40- < 1.50 7
>1.50- <1.60 8
>1.60 - < 1.70 9
=>1.7 10
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan
(Maximum Stage Two points 5)
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 appli¢ation and there is an adequate plan this will
be given a point score of 5. 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-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 11 of 21 1/21/2010
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.
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines
(Maximum Stage two 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.
Project review 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 0-2
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
Stage 3 Criterion — Match
Total of 20 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 +| Total Amount | 5
Pts Match to total | Pts of Match (1) Pts
Grant
Request
Support of any kind referenced 1 .01% -<5% of | 1 >$1-<$15K |1
but not given a specific value IE Grant =
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 12 of 21 1/21/2010
housing offered to outside
workers, administration of
project without compensation
Previous investment towards =>5% - =<10% | 2 $15K - <$100K
project completion of Grant =
Another grant [State] as Match >10% - =<15% | 4 $100K <$1 mil
of Grant =
Other (Grant Fed) Or private >15% - =<30% | 6 $1 mil - <$6
of Grant mil
Loan or Local Cash or any >30% - =<49% | 8 > $6 mil
documented In-kind Match of Grant =
> 49% of Grant | 10
(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 or village council 2 points
Support demonstrated by local entity other than applicant 3 points
Support demonstrated by two local entities other than the applicant 4 points
Support demonstrated by three or more local entities other than the 5 points
applicant
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 that when awarding
points for this criteria
Criteria Up to 10 points
: available
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
and is prepared to place an order for necessary equipment for the project;
such as an item with a ‘long lead time’ to procure.
2 points
Applicant has obtained all necessary permits, met all permit requirements,
and addressed all regulatory agency stipulations.
2 points
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 13 of 21 1/21/2010
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.b).
Stage 3 Sustainability
This criteria will be scored from 0 to 5 based on the evaluators’ assessment of the 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.
Stage 3 Criteria 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 Criteria Compliance with Other Awards
Rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable (NA
Criteria Legislative | Alternative Energy Round | or
Grant Solicitation (Round Round Il
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
This score is based on the residential cost power for each community using available data from
2009. Scores are assigned for each community using the following formula:
Score = (cost of power) / 0.80 x 10, Score cannot be greater than 10.
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 14 of 21 1/21/2010
Communities with a residential cost of power above $0.80/kWh are assigned a score of 10.
Communities are with the highest cost of electrical energy getting the most points for this
criterion. All other applications will be scored as a percentage of the highest costs against an
established matrix.
Cost of
Power
Community Utility ($/kWh)
Adak City of Adak 0.713
Afognak Kodiak Electric Association 0.153
Akiachak Native Community
Akiachak Electric Co 0.630
Akiak City of Akiak 0.630
Akutan Akutan Electric Utility 0.323
Alakanuk AVEC 0.635
Alatna Alaska Power Company 0.667
Aleknagik Nushagak Electric Coop 0.463
Allakaket Alaska Power Company 0.667
Ambler AVEC 0.796
Anaktuvuk Pass North Slope Borough 0.150
Anchor Point (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198
Anchorage, Municipality of | Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.126
Municipal Light & Power
Department d/b/a Municipality of
Anchorage, Municipality of | Anchorage 0.176
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Anderson Inc. — 0.168
Andreafsky AVEC 0.594
Inside Passage Electric
Angoon Cooperative, Inc. 0.422
Aniak Aniak Light & Power Company 0.761
Anvik AVEC 0.656
Atka Andreanof Electric Corporation 0.767
Atmautluak Atmautluak Joint Utilities 0.774
Atqasuk North Slope Borough 0.150
Barrow Barrow Utilities & Electric Coop 0.132
Beaver Beaver Joint Utilities 0.550
Bethel Bethel Utilities Corporation, Inc. 0.537
Bettles Alaska Power Company 0.584
Matanuska Electric Association,
Big Lake Inc. 0.169
Brevig Mission AVEC 0.603
Buckland City of Buckland 0.519
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Cantwell Inc. 0.168
Central Central Electric, Inc. 0.509
Chalkyitsik Chalkyitsik Village Energy System 0.950
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines Page 15 of 21
1/21/2010
Chuathbaluk
Chefornak
Chenega Bay
Chevak
Chickaloon
Chignik
Chignik Lagoon
Chignik Lake
Chilkat Valley
Chiniak
Chistochina
Chitina
Chugiak
Circle Hot Springs (Central)
Clam Gulch (HEA 1)
Coffman Cove
Cold Bay
College
Cooper Landing
Copper Center
Copperville
Cordova
Craig
Crooked Creek
Deadhorse
Deering
Delta Junction
Dillingham
Diomede (Little Diomede)
Dot Lake
Douglas
Eagle
Eagle River
Eagle Village
Eek
Egegik
Eklutna
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines
Middle Kuskokwim Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
Naterkaq Light Plant
Chenega Bay IRA Village Council
AVEC
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Chignik Electric
Chignik Lagoon Power Utility
Chignik Lake Electric Utility, Inc.
Inside Passage Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
Kodiak Electric Association
Alaska Power Company
Chitina Electric Inc.
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Central Electric, Inc.
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Alaska Power Company
G &K, Inc.
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Inc.
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Cordova Electric Cooperative Inc.
Alaska Power Company
Middle Kuskokwim Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
TDX North Slope Generating, Inc.
Ipnatchiaq Electric Company
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Inc.
Nushagak Electric Coop
Diomede Joint Utilities
Alaska Power Company
Alaska Electric Light & Power
Alaska Power Company
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Alaska Power Company
AVEC
Egegik Light & Power Company
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Page 16 of 21
0.343
0.650
0.435
0.665
0.169
0.510
0.500
0.582
0.422
0.153
0.459
0.530
0.169
0.670
0.198
0.343
0.644
0.168
0.176
0.198
0.198
0.331
0.197
0.987
0.277
0.774
0.168
0.463
0.600
0.295
0.111
0.643
0.169
0.702
0.702
0.886
0.169
4.28
8.13
5.44
8.31
2.12
6.38
6.25
7.27
5.27
1.91
5.74
6.63
2.12
8.38
2.47, 4.28 8.05,
2.10 igen 2.48 2.48
4.14.
2.46
10.00
3.46.
9.67
2.10
5.79
7.50.
3.69.
1.39"
8.04
2.12. 8.78.
Lh
10.00
R22,
1/21/2010
Ekwok
Elfin Cove
Elim
Emmonak
Evansville
Eyak
Fairbanks
False Pass
Fort Greely
Fort Wainwright
Fort Yukon
Fox
Gakona
Galena
Gambell
Glennallen
Golovin
Goodnews Bay
Grayling
Gulkana
Gustavus
Haines
Halibut Cove (HEA 2)
Healy
Healy Lake
Hollis
Holy Cross
Homer (HEA 1)
Hoonah
Hooper Bay
Hope
Houston
Hughes
Huslia
Hydaburg
Hyder/Stewart B.C.
Igiugig
lliamna
Juneau, City & Borough of
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines
Ekwok Electric
Elfin Cove Utility Commission
AVEC
AVEC
Alaska Power Company
Cordova Electric Cooperative Inc.
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Inc.
False Pass Electric Assoc
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Inc.
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Inc.
Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Inc.
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
City of Galena
AVEC
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Golovin Power Utilities
AVEC
AVEC
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Gustavus Electric Company, Inc.
Alaska Power Company
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Inc.
Alaska Power Company
Alaska Power Company
AVEC
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Inside Passage Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
AVEC
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Hughes Light & Power
AVEC
Alaska Power Company
BC Hydro
Igiugig Electric Company
I-N-N Electric Coop
Alaska Electric Light & Power
Page 17 of 21
0.500
0.523
0.598
0.648
0.584
0.331
0.168
0.520
0.168
0.168
0.536
0.168
0.198
0.563
0.620
0.198
0.700
0.663
0.732
0.198
0.428
0.212
0.201
0.168
0.609
0.197
0.681
0.198
0.422
0.611
0.176
0.169
0.710
0.647
0.197
0.087
0.803
0.513
0.111
1/21/2010
Kachemak (HEA 1)
Kake
Kaktovik
Kalifornsky (HEA 1)
Kaltag
Karluk
Kasaan
Kasigluk
Kasilof (HEA 1)
Kenai (HEA 1)
Kenny Lake
Ketchikan
Kiana
King Cove
King Salmon
Kipnuk
Kivalina
Klawock
Klukwan
Knik-Fairview
Kobuk
Kodiak
Kodiak Station
Kokhanok
Koliganek
Kongiganak
Kotlik
Kotzebue
Koyuk
Koyukuk
Kwethluk
Kwigillingok
Larsen Bay
Levelock
Lime Village
Lower Kalskag
Manley Hot Springs
Manokotak
Marshall
McGrath
McKinley Park
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Inside Passage Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
North Slope Borough
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
AVEC
Alutiiq Power Company
Alaska Power Company
AVEC
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Ketchikan Public Utilities
AVEC
City of King Cove
Naknek Electric Assn
Kipnuk Light Plant
AVEC
Alaska Power Company
Inside Passage Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Kobuk Valley Elect Coop
Kodiak Electric Association
Kodiak Electric Association
Kokhanok Village Council
New Koliganek Village Council
Puvurnaq Power Company
AVEC
Kotzebue Electric Assn
AVEC
City of Koyukuk
Kwethluk Inc
Kwig Power Company
Larsen Bay Utility Company
Levelock Electric Coop
Lime Village Traditional Council
AVEC
Manley Utility Company, Inc.
Manokotak Power Company
AVEC
McGrath Light & Power Company
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Inc.
Page 18 of 21
0.198
0.422
0.150
0.198
0.630
0.600
0.197
0.526
0.198
0.198
0.198
0.096
0.687
0.240
0.416
0.653
0.725
0.197
0.422
0.169
0.870
0.153
0.153
0.900
0.500
0.550
0.592
0.464
0.631
0.450
0.520
0.500
0.440
0.700
1.170
0.597
0.998
0.450
0.625
0.608
0.168
2.47
5.27
1.88
2.47
7.87
7.50
2.46
6.57
2.47
2.47
2.48
1.20
8.59
3.00
5.20
8.16
9.06
2.46 2.10
1/21/2010
Mekoryuk
Mendeltna
Mentasta
Metlakatla
Minto
Moose Pass
Mountain Village
Naknek
Nanwalek (HEA 2)
Napakiak
Napaskiak
Naukati Bay
Nelchina
Nelson Lagoon
Nenana
New Stuyahok
Newhalen
Newtok
Nightmute
Nikiski (HEA 1)
Nikolai
Nikolski
Ninilchik (HEA 1)
Noatak
Nome
Nondalton
Noorvik
North Pole
Northway
Northway Village
Nuiqsut
Nulato
Nunam Iqua (Sheldon
Point)
Nunapitchuk
Old Harbor
Oscarville
Ouzinkie
Palmer
Pedro Bay
Pelican
Perryville
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines
AVEC
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Alaska Power Company
Metlakatla Power & Light
AVEC
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
AVEC
Naknek Electric Assn
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company
Napaskiak Electric Utility
Alaska Power Company
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Nelson Lagoon Electric Coop
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Inc.
AVEC
I-N-N Electric Coop
Ungusrag Power Company
AVEC
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Nikolai Light & Power Utility
Umnak Power Company
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
AVEC
Nome Joint Utility Systems
I-N-N Electric Coop
AVEC
Golden Valley Electric Association,
Inc.
Alaska Power Company
Alaska Power Company
North Slope Borough
AVEC
Nunam Iqua Electric Co.
AVEC
AVEC
Bethel Utilities Corporation, Inc.
City of Ouzinkie
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Pedro Bay Village Council
Kake Tribal Corporation
Native Village of Perryville
Page 19 of 21
0.646
0.198
0.478
0.092
0.614
0.176
0.606
0.416
0.201
1.080
0.600
0.370
. 0.198
0.740
0.168
0.630
0.513
0.800
0.531
0.198
0.804
0.600
0.198
0.726
0.368
0.513
0.714
0.168
0.424
0.424
0.150
0.631
0.530
0.526
0.624
0.537
0.365
0.169
0.910
0.434
0.600
1/21/2010
Petersburg
Pilot Point
Pilot Station
Pitkas Point
Platinum
Point Hope
Point Lay
Port Alsworth
Port Graham (HEA 2)
Port Heiden (Meshik)
Port Lions
Quinhagak
Red Devil
Ruby
Russian Mission
Saint Mary's
Saint Michael
Saint Paul
Salamatof (HEA 1)
Sand Point
Savoonga
Saxman
Scammon Bay
Selawik
Seldovia (HEA 2)
Seward
Shageluk
Shaktoolik
Shishmaref
Shungnak
Silver Springs
Sitka (Mt. Edgecumbe)
Skagway
Slana
Sleetmute
Soldotna (HEA 1)
South Naknek
Stebbins
Sterling (HEA 1)
Stevens Village
Stony River
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines
Petersburg Municipal Power &
Light
Pilot Point Electrical Utility
AVEC
AVEC
City of Platinum
North Slope Borough
North Slope Borough
Tanalian Electric Coop
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Port Heiden Utilities
Kodiak Electric Association
AVEC
Middle Kuskokwim Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
City of Ruby
AVEC
AVEC
AVEC
St. Paul Municipal Electric Utility
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
TDX Sand Point Generating, Inc.
AVEC
Ketchikan Public Utilities
AVEC
AVEC
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Seward Electric System
AVEC
AVEC
AVEC
AVEC
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Sitka Electric Department
Alaska Power Company
Alaska Power Company
Middle Kuskokwim Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Naknek Electric Assn
AVEC
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
Stevens Village Energy Systems
Middle Kuskokwim Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
Page 20 of 21
0.135
0.500
0.632
0.594
0.500
0.150
0.150
0.638
0.201
0.570
0.153
0.668
0.987
0.980
0.637
0.594
0.632
0.460
0.198
0.521
0.614
0.096
0.621
0.655
0.201
0.126
0.769
0.602
0.568
0.732
0.198
0.092
0.212
0.522
0.987
0.198
0.416
0.609
0.198
1.070
0.987
1.68
6.25
7.90
7.43
6.25
1.88,
1.88
7.97
2.51
7.13
1.91
8.36
10.00
10.00
7.97
7.43
7.90
5.75
2.47
6.51 |
7.67
1,20,
7.77
8.18
2.51
1.58
9.61
7.53 7.10
9,15)
2.48
1.15
72.65). 6.52.
10.00
2.47
5.20.
7.61
2.47
10.00
10.00
1/21/2010
Sutton-Alpine
Takotna
Talkeetna
Tanacross
Tanana PCE
Tatitlek PCE
Tazlina
Teller
Teller
Tenakee Springs
Tetlin
Thorne Bay
Togiak (Twin Hills)
Tok
Toksook Bay
Tolsona
Tonsina
Tuluksak
Tuntutuliak
Tununak
Twin Hills
Tyonek
Unalakleet
Unalaska (Dutch Harbor)
Upper Kalskag
Valdez
Venetie
Wainwright
Wales
Wasilla
Whale Pass
White Mountain
Whittier
Willow
Women’s Bay
Wrangell
Yakutat
RE-Fund Round-3
Evaluation Guidelines
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Takotna Community Assoc.
Utilities
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Alaska Power Company
Tanana Power Company, Inc.
Tatitlek Electric Utility
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
AVEC
AVEC
City of Tenakee Springs
Alaska Power Company
Alaska Power Company
AVEC
Alaska Power Company
AVEC
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Tuluksak Traditional Power Utility
Tuntutuliak Community Service
Assoc
AVEC
Twin Hills Village Council
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Unalaska Electric Utility
AVEC
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
Venetie Village Electric
North Slope Borough
AVEC
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Alaska Power Company
White Mountain Utilities
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
Matanuska Electric Association,
Inc.
Kodiak Electric Association
Wrangell Municipal Light & Power
Yakutat Power
Page 21 of 21
0.169
1.250
0.169
0.531
0.664
0.760
0.198
0.640
0.715
0.295
0.197
0.594
0.295
0.531
0.600
0.198
0.198
0.650
0.531
0.550
0.492
0.176
0.264
0.597
0.597
0.198
0.750
0.150
0.648
0.169
0.435
1.080
0.176
0.169
0.153
0.132
0.347
1/21/2010