Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFAC Meeting agenda and docs 1-28-2015/= ALASKA @@mm> ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Two locations via video conference: Alaska Energy Authority Board Room Anchorage, Alaska Legislative Information Office Terry Miller Conference Room 129 6th Street Juneau, Alaska Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:00 pm — 5:00 pm Teleconference: 1-888-585-9008, code 683-021-989# AGENDA Call to Order “ Roll Call (committee members, staff, public) \/ Agenda Approval Y Jf! Public Comments REF Regional Distribution Following REFAG ocommendaions 1/9/1 2 els Kone Next Meeting Date - May 14, 2015 10a-2p“ M4y |> fESISLE“ na Committee Member Comments “ - SoUTHRT Vogt r# COST (Sou. Ma Hw Adjournment -bVet7- von) Con Oo Cul ea COINS a 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044 Renewable Energy Fund Regional Distribution Approach January 28, 2015 At the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) meeting on January 9, 2015, the committee advised the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to consider a new approach to the regional distribution of Renewable Energy Fund (REF) projects. Below is the three-step approach developed by AEA to respond to the committee’s advice. 1. Use a regional population weighted “burden of energy cost” metric to establish regional funding bands. The burden of energy cost for a household is calculated based on: a. Residential electric costs assuming 500 kWh/month use b. Heating fuel cost for a community assuming regional consumption from CCHRC’s recent housing assessment. Consumption levels vary based on a number of factors, most importantly temperature and house size. c. Household income (Census: American Community Survey 3 year average) Burden of energy cost = (HH cost of electric + heat energy) / HH income This burden of energy cost is calculated for each community and then weighted by population to generate a regional burden of energy number. This burden of energy cost is used to calculate the range of funding that each region should receive, such that regions with high energy cost burden are eligible to receive more funding cumulatively across all years of the REF. The results indicate that Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana is considered “under-served”. 2. Cap all individual projects at $1.5 million (10% of Governor’s budget). 3. To achieve a better balance of funding across the state, regions that exceed the target funding band will be capped so their share of the overall fund cannot grow. This rule affects the Southeast region in this round. Therefore Southeast projects in the top funding tier are limited to recommended projects that are in communities with the highest burden of energy cost. Once the region’s funding equals 22.15% of recommended funding, the remaining projects will be identified as recommended projects, but in a group outside the top tier of $15M of Round 8 projects. Page 1 of 2 The following table identifies by energy region: REF funding to date, the burden of energy cost, and Round 8 funding before and after the REFAC-advised criteria are applied. Burden of Round & Energy Cost Funding (HH energy proposed at Round 8 Funding Total Rounds | % of Total 1/9/15 REFAC based on REFAC 1-7 Funding meeting recommendations Energy Region $17,491,232 $697,120 $2,197,120 Bering Straits $21,429,215 9% | _—34.98% $0 $100,000 Bristol Ba $13,647,042 $859,696 $1,305,000 $21,630,131 9% 15.73% | $500,000 $770,807 Kodiak $19,499,319 8% 15.58% $400,000 $488,400 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $27,822,831 26.51% $4,857,040 $2,185,342 1% 2.44% $0 North Slope ; Northwest Arctic $23,203,362 9% 24.57% $579,583 $90,106,142 | 12% 7.03% $0 uk $2,148,500 $1,916,584 $694,583 $408,000 Rai 22% 10.64% $7,106,561 eT ime a Tanana $15,093,379 6% $565,439 0% 9.36% $0 $0 $247,503,905 215% $15,000,000 $15,000,000 Notes for recommendations lists: 1. * Funding for Lepquinum Center Ground Source Heat Pump project was reduced to the $1.5 million cap on all individual projects plus an additional $18,473 due to regional spreading in stage 4 2. ** Funding for these projects was reduced to the $1.5 million cap on all individual projects 3. Projects in bold are in underserved regions of the state 4. Shading key Heat project within $15M budget Standard project within $15M budget ____| Heat project outside $15M budget Standard project outside $15M budget Page 2 of 2 ‘Teac Ca MA ace) Energy Region ey ea Angoon Low-Income Housing Pellet District Heat Southeast Island School District Wood Boilers Hoonah Biomass District Heating Loop Bethel Heat Recovery Assessment & Conceptual Design and Point Excess Wind Utilization Crater Lake Power and Water Project Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project Old Harbor Hydro — Geotechnical Study & Design Adak Hydro Feasibility Phase II Lepquinum Center Ground Source Heat Pump Kodiak a cl ZTeyT 2 ES) 2) 9) F181 2) 21 2 2 Shor eclsiSisis a. SPeisicis| as] = 2 a1e@iani*1a;1oe1o 5 SPS) <]e les a SRP lst a] 4] 4 & x a 3 ey, afin Q z| |2 5 & x a x ef z s QO n ° 2 a Ss @ 2 wo a << 2 5 a Kotzebue Paper & Wood Waste to Energy Ambler Washeteria & City Office Biomass Z]Zle a] 8/8 oie |e 2} 2] g1ai4 PLS aig B12. Scammon Bay Community Facilities Heat Recovery el o10o 2 | 2 a): “|< cic rin Oo1°0 aa ALA an rin Oo10° rin Ki 3] 5 Klawock Low-Income Housing Pellet ° é g < fe e 8 7 wz & B 8 r z 3 a ° § a 2 2 a Bristol Bay Koyukuk/Upper Tanana n-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Huslia Water System & Clinic Biomass Boiler Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project Wood Boiler for the Native Village of Tazlina Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery ° 5 < c r ° ? aw z ° o = 3 4) 2) 2/2) 2 a)SIS/FlF S1a)51819 212) 5 T ei 2/2 elas 6 > co 8 5 > Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project Wales Water System Heat Recovery Eek Water System Heat Recovery n-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana |Grayling Water System Heat Recovery Shungnak Wind-Diesel Design St. Mary’s-Pitka’s Point Wind Chignik Hydro Design & Permitting Atqasuk Transmission Line Design & Permitting Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project 3 i ° 8 4 5 2 5 9 oo : g Oo 3 ” i 3% a Z 8 Northwest Arctic 100 Kilowatt Solar Array for Kotzebue Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project Alz)=l2l2] <ls12 3/212) 2) 815] 2] 2 S BIEIS| Sia 21 a|il<i¢ $ &| 3. ola a1 3| 2 a| Fa a x 3 2 8 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project IRHA Facility Biomass Feasibility Study Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design North Slope STM REI MB Creo Bae eR SER r tog Applicant Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority Southeast Island School District Hoonah Indian Association Alaska Village TDX Power, Sand Point Generating Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc. Hydaburg City School District Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. TDX Power, Metlakatla Indian Community Inc. City of Kotzebue City of Ambler cr Sy) ol < a cy] 2) my) ei) @ rye oe eel elatele|2)2)2/ele12/slel2lé e)s|2| 2) ale a1" 18 2 ole 12/15 |° alel ele? i 9 3 3 3 g 4 4 me eo City of Scammon Bay Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. City of Chignik City of Huslia ‘Upper Tanana Energy, LLC (UTE) Native Village of Tazlina City of Koyuk North Slope Borough City of Scammon Bay City of Wales City of Eek City of Grayling Native Village of Shungnak City of King Cove Alaska Power Company Kotzebue Electric Association Inc. City of Ouzinkie Kenai Hydro LLC Interior Regional Housing Authority North Slope Borough BIC 1.09 o 9] ce State- Pl Celis aon Lore) ae ele ce let Lay eal e Bleed Construction $292,184 $872,635 eh] re Se my poem ro. ro. 26.5% 2. rr ro. 15.6% | [12.196 ‘Partial* i $200,000 a Full SP $379,583 5% . $123,500 102,275 $1,500,000 $1,305,000 $58,000 $1,500,000 $270,807 rt Tue) Et) Design/Const |Full SP Full Full ENaC lg Requested $240,592 $832,635 $45,000 $645,613 $307,120 $500,000 $620,977 $1,092,500 $85, $3,445,040 $2,495,189 $379,583 $756,335 Applicant LET Reese) $266,592 $124,708 Cumulative TT LLAT*] $240,592 $1,073,227 $1,118,227 $1,443,227 $1,750,347 $2,250,347 $2,871,324 $3,271,324 $3,661,324 $5,142,851 $5,342,851 $5,722,434 $5,782,434 $5,905,934 $6,008,209 $7,508,209 $8,813,209 $8,871,209 $10,371,209 $10,642,016 $10,692,016 $12,1 $ re ule| Funding $240,592 $832,635 $45,000 $325,000 $307,120 $500,000 $620,977 $400,000 $390,000 $1,481,527 ~ uw oo Biomass Biomass Construction Biomass ~I] ao} 0 oO] & g $33,980) $76,780 HeatRecovery HeatWind ydro, Storage $9,000,000 $383,900 $10,000,000 $660,977 $9,200,000 $1,400,000 $3,479,490 $2,692,700 $433,379 $763,898 Partial Design/Const |Full $350,000]Feas, Design |Full SP $40,000] Design/Const |Full $20,000] Design Partial 2 Feasibility ~ ui a” a aD i | I Oo 2 2 o = a E 177 “ o = ° 3S =) Gs) o 2 2. ee <2 wo 1omass x ies} Es a Les} a B & Si nL oo Nie a olLu e a + $34,450] Design/Const $250,000] Design $13,796] Design $7,563 $6,500: Full $314,381]|Design/Const |Full SP $537,460]Construction {Partial ** Full SP Partial Biomass an + Ww ~ S 3 Fy a pe NI a te 2 a ~~ » R uw +” & a“ = a o rs 3 Feasibility yD $102,275 $102,275 $4,348,540 iomass % 22.9% 33.0% 33.0% y D $6,610,000 8 > og 2 a ur > S ~~ Haiul wv Ql a olo to NI] bd] ty = re) S S o B $8,000, $270,807 $16,000,001 $54,000 etd nA $2 . Ol Go os) o uv 3|8 3 3 Oo Oo > = " 2 + ro S & & R=) 3} 3/8 s S o 2! S wis Ss s S $ & s Ss ° s Ss truction Oo ° eB a a @ x Design/Const |Full alan SI} OG 2] tS Oo] & alo o1° oj[~s “ “NI » © aD So Ss + © we N x a 0 2 2 o a we & ” go S ° Ss Ss Ty Partial Transmission $201 ,782|Design $3,050 $7,538]Design $90, 0 a 8 ¥ SMUNLLbMbbocb eB vy s a yu ie £ ann yI 8] 2) 8) 8 ARE Ole 8 Recon = N yD ao tN So = an ” | $706,701 $ $296,786 wo Tk | S] © wo] @liv + Gt oT &] &] LI tot “ wl wD HTD dps orn QT bo o1Ts yilo ain HeatRecovery alan =| Vp wo] & Col Yh o1o aL ~ vu + HeatRecovery a S7 © Ne} ” ° _ io a co Ss) my x wo 2 & ,000,0 $5,461, $15,922, $449,178 7 $5,541, a7 | 4 $59,067,808) p39 | $525, $1,800, $95, 1,500, $40, $20, wn uo o ss S an 6 an wn = AlLeRIio wn olol- > SO] aa N -| oO] @ ss a = SRRBEE n Q a So So we x s $27,036 $1,061,000 Feasibility Construction |Partial** Feasibilii $64,448] Feasibility $8,840] Feasibility = N ur nN ™“ $12, $14,027, $14,067, $14,087, $14,175, $14,533, ° = a bo xs > 3 is 8 an an Q eo > “ Y So wn nN un = an we oo un Partial SP . 5 $4,000, | SL oes >] eS] eT SF -lololo SI] @] A] to upni nin BIL ol olo Sielete HID AIA $358, ° S = + ul Bw o@ > ry a E ei FT o ” y S 2 Ss Ss iomass 56.0 $50,000 , $19,338] Feasibility Full awa] a0 | s45e5 200) s0.000) $44, 000[Deign [Rls | 3.0% | $207,047,704 $40,727,065 $20,123,335 nn UI S 5 = im uy) oo ww > = a $416,584) $15,000,000 $15,000,000 : z g g a ur as = uw rs ‘oO North Slope Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design North Slope Borough $440,000 $44,000 Full SP $15,023,416 The remainder of the list of recommended projects (below) are those that were not recommended for funding within the $15 million budget as a result of REFAC 1/9/15 recommendations regarding Stage 4 regional spreading. Commur Southeast Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion Craig City School District Southeast Neck Lake Hydropower Project Southeast Sitka: Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump Gateway Borough Rec & Schools Central Heating SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Southeast Southeast Southeast Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler BUC MPIB Creston em ecole) Alaska Power Company City & Borough of Sitka Public Works Dept. Ketchikan Gateway Borough The Southeast Alaska Power Agency Ketchikan Gateway Borough 38 bo cost burden Biomas | 825] 3 | S673. 950) $493.00] $186850]DedgniCont ral [iss] $493,100] $15,516,516 vse | 3] _13 | s3.011473] $991,200] $97.900)Few, Den Pal |132%[ $99,200] $15,907.714 : f $627,000 $168,278]|Design/Const |Full $627,000] $16,534,716 $220,000] $16,754,716 11.0% $88,742] $16,843,458 11.0%] $1,288,018] $18,131,476 $18,131,476 Full Full Full Feas, Design $81,842]Recon, Feas $1,288,018 Construction $215,258,620 $43,835,125 $20,658,105 | “ mw) co} alo ss] Oo +1 S ILS