HomeMy WebLinkAboutREF Status Report January 2018 round 11 print versionJanuary
2018
STATUS REPORT
RENEWABLEENERGY FUND
akenergyauthority.org
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: (907) 771-3000
Fax: (907) 771-3044
Toll Free (Alaska Only)888-300-8534
AEA’s mission: Reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: (907) 771-3000
Fax: (907) 771-3044
Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888-300-8534 Chignik Lagoon Hydro
2 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT
For the last ten years the REF has provided benefits
to Alaskans by assisting communities across the state
to both reduce and stabilize the cost of energy. The
program has also created jobs, used local energy
resources and kept money in local economies.
The REF has provided funding for the development
of qualifying and competitively selected renewable
energy projects in Alaska. The program is designed to
produce cost-effective renewable energy for both heat
and power. As the program has matured, the quality of
the proposed projects has grown, as has the knowledge
base for designing, constructing and operating
renewable energy projects in Alaska’s diverse climates
and terrain.
Operational REF projects have an overall benefits cost
ratio of 2.64 based on total known project cost, of which
State funding is only a portion. Investing in renewable
energy provides price stability that will save Alaska
communities millions of dollars for decades to come.
This status report is provided to the legislature in accordance with the program’s legislative reporting
requirements as per AS 42.45.045(d)(3). From 2008 to 2015, appropriations totaling $257 million were issued for
Renewable Energy Fund (REF) projects. That State funding was matched with hundreds of millions of dollars in
funding from local sources to develop projects designed to reduce and stabilize the cost of energy in Alaska.
In 2016 and 2017 there were no State REF appropriations and no new projects were initiated in those years. In
recognition of the State’s fiscal challenges, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), in consultation with the Renewable
Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC), made the decision to not release a solicitation for applications in these
years, which would have been Rounds X and XI. Instead, the list of projects that was evaluated and recommended
for Round IX funding in 2016 was again supplied to the legislature as recommendations for Round X in the 2017
legislative sessions. A slightly modified version of this list is now submitted for use in the 2018 legislative session;
the Governor’s proposed FY19 budget refers to this as REF Round X. There are eight projects which have been
removed from the list because funding for those projects is no longer being sought.
INTRODUCTION
CONTENTS:
This 2018 status report has two primary parts and an
online appendix:
1. A summary analysis of projects funded to date
including the performance and savings associated with
projects that were generating heat and power at the end
of calendar year 2016. (pg. 2-7)
2. A summary of AEA’s recommendations to the
Legislature for funding in FY19. The recommendations
are largely unchanged from those presented to the
legislature in the 2017 report. (pg. 8-12).
The online appendix of individual project scopes and
statuses for funded projects is available in searchable PDF
form on AEA’s website at www.akenergyauthority.org
The original evaluations including application summaries
and economic evaluations are also available on AEA’s
website.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009
Actual
2010
Actual
2011
Actual
2012
Actual
2013
Actual
2014
Actual
2015
Actual
2016
Actual
2017
Projected
2018
Projected
2019
ProjectedFuel Displaced (diesel equivalent, gallons)MillionsBiomass
Heat Pump
Heat Recovery
Hydro
Biofuel
Solar
Transmission
Wind
Wind to Heat
FUEL DISPLACED (diesel equivalent, gallons)MILLIONSFigure 1 shows continued strong
growth in energy generation and
fuel displacement.
Renewable Energy Fund projects
saved Alaska communities 30
million gallons of diesel fuel
(equivalent) in calendar year 2016,
a savings of just over $60 million.
The majority of projects that came
online in 2016 were heat projects
which now comprise ~45 percent
of all operational projects. The
largest share of fuel displacement
continues to be through wind and
hydro projects.
2010
ACTUAL
2011
ACTUAL
2012
ACTUAL
2013
ACTUAL
2015
ACTUAL
2016
ACTUAL
2017
PROJECTED
2019
PROJECTED
25
20
15
10
5
0
Wind / Heat
Wind
Transmission
Biofuel
Solar
Hydro
Heat Recovery
Heat Pumps
Biomass
JANUARY 2018 | 15
RECONNAISSANCE: A preliminary feasibility study
designed to ascertain whether a feasibility study
is warranted.
FEASIBILITY/CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: Detailed
evaluation intended to assess technical, economic,
financial, and operational viability and to narrow focus of
final design and construction. This category also includes
resource assessment and monitoring.
FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING: Project
configuration
and specifications that guide construction. Includes land
use and resource permits and leases required for
construction.
CONSTRUCTION: Completion of project construction,
commissioning, and beginning of operations. This
category also includes follow-up operations and
maintenance reporting requirements.
DIESEL EQUIVALENT GALLON: Most REF
communities are displacing diesel fuel (Diesel #2),
however some projects displace natural gas, naphtha,
propane or Diesel #1. In those instances the displaced
fuel is converted to BTUs and then expressed as diesel
equivalent gallons for
reporting purposes.
B/C: The B/C, or benefit/cost ratio is the total net present
value of savings over the life of a project divided by the
net present value of a project’s total cost. The assumed
project life is 50 years for hydro and transmission, 30
DEFINITIONS
ANSWERS TO COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS
years for solar PV and 20-25 years for all others. The B/C is
one component of the overall project score; it is possible for
a project to score
high enough in other areas (e.g. being high cost of energy)
to be recommended with a B/C of less than 1.
B/C ratios are calculated using best available data
appropriate for the project’s development phase. Early phase
projects use assumptions based on prior similar experience,
late phase projects use refined project models and are much
more certain. AEA attempts to be as realistic as possible
when using assumptions for early phase projects, while also
attempting to avoid rejecting potentially good early-phase
projects due to overly conservative assumptions.
TECHNICAL/ECONOMIC SCORE: This score is based on
a project’s technical and economic viability. The technical
score considers resource availability, maturity of the
proposed technology, the technical viability of the proposed
project, and the qualifications and experience of the
project team. The economic score is based on the projected
costs and benefits associated with the project including
consideration of the future price of fuel, current and future
local demand for energy and the ability of the applicant to
finance the project to completion.
ENERGY COST BURDEN: Household heat and electric
energy cost divided by household income.
WHAT IMPACT DO REF PROJECTS HAVE ON RATES?
It depends. Some electrical projects will lower rates
immediately and some may only stabilize rates and keep
them from increasing over time due to inflation and
changing fuel costs. Heating projects result in immediate
and direct fuel savings costs to the building owners.
DO POWER COST EQUALIZATION (PCE) COMMUNITIES BENEFIT FROM THE REF?
Yes, in a number of ways:
1. Statewide, in PCE communities, about 30 percent
of total kWhs sold are eligible for the PCE subsidy. That
means that any savings from REF projects are passed
directly to the other 70 percent of kWhs sold. Schools
and privately owned businesses benefit greatly from
reduced cost of electricity.
2. REF projects provide stability in the face of
uncertain and often volatile fuel prices.
3. 100 percent of the value created by heat projects
stays in the community.
4. REF projects create local employment opportunities
and local energy independence.
WHICH PROJECTS ARE THE BEST FIT FOR REF
FUNDING?
• Technically strong
• Economically viable
• Located in high energy cost communities
• Provides public benefit
• Matching funds provided
HOW MUCH ARE REF PROJECTS REDUCING
GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS?
2009-2016, an estimated 945,983 metric tons of CO2.2018
PROJECTED
30
2014
ACTUAL
35
The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee is
comprised of nine members, five of whom are appointed
by the governor to staggered three-year terms, with
representation from each of the following groups:
• One member from a small Alaska rural electric utility,
Meera Kohler, President and CEO of Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
• One member from a large Alaska urban electric utility,
Lee Thibert, CEO of Chugach Electric Association
• One member from an Alaska Native organization, Jodi
Mitchell, Vice Chair of Sealaska Board
• One member from businesses or organizations engaged
in the renewable energy sector, Chris Rose, Executive
Director of Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP)
• One member from the Denali Commission, Kathleen
Wasserman, Commissioner
• Four remaining members come from the
legislature:
• Two members of the House of Representatives,
appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Rep. Sam Kito III and Rep. Adam
Wool
• Two members of the Senate, appointed by the
President of the Senate, Sen. Lyman Hoffman and
Sen. Anna MacKinnon
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
In establishing the program, the REFAC worked with AEA
to define eligibility criteria for the Renewable Energy Fund
grants, to develop methods for ranking projects, and to adopt
regulations identifying criteria to evaluate the benefit and
feasibility of projects seeking legislative support. The REFAC
continues to consult with AEA, offering valuable guidance
and policy direction regarding the application and evaluation
process, and final funding recommendations.
The REFAC was involved in the evaluation and ranking of
recommended projects when they were originally forwarded
to the legislature for consideration in Round IX.
Subsequently, the REFAC met with AEA staff in June of 2016
to receive updates on operating projects and active grants
and to discuss a path forward in the absence of a legislative
appropriation .
In recognition of the State’s fiscal challenges and in an
effort to not unduly burden potential applicants the
REFAC supported the decision to not issue a request for
new applications. With the exception of projects which
were removed for various reasons, the same list of ranked
recommended projects that were provided to the legislature
for FY16 and FY17 funding consideration are again
resubmitted for FY18 funding consideration. A total of eight
recommended projects have been included in the Governor’s
budget for FY18 funding.
14 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT
$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60
Millions
JANUARY 2018 | 3
Figure 4 shows cumulative grant funding by AEA energy
region totaling to $257 million in rounds I-VIII. The three
highest recipients to date are Southeast with $60 million,
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim with $36.6 million, and Railbelt
with $28.2 million.
$0
FUNDED GRANTS BY ENERGY REGION ($ millions)
ROUNDS I-VIII
FUNDED GRANTS BY ENERGY RESOURCE ($ millions)
ROUNDS I-VIII
Figure 2 below demonstrates the wide geographic distribution of REF projects across all areas of the state.
Most funding is provided to high cost-of-energy communities.
Figure 3 shows funding by energy resource,
with wind and hydro grants making up just
less than 70 percent of total funding.
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PROJECTS
ROUNDS I-VIII
Hydro
$84.8
Biomass
$27.0
Heat
Recovery
$20.3 Heat Pumps
$16.4
Trans-
mission
$12.5
Ocean/
River
$3.9
Solar
$0.5
Other
$0.1
Wind
$91.5
Aleutians
Bering Straits
Bristol Bay
Copper River/Chugach
Kodiak
Lower Y-K
North Slope
Northwest Arctic
Railbelt
Southeast
Statewide
Y-K/Upper Tanana
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60
Meera Kohler
Senator Hoffman Senator MacKinnonRep. WoolRep. Kito III
Jodi Mitchell Kathy WassermanLee Thibert Chris Rose
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
PV Capital Cost PV Benefits$ MillionsREF CURRENTLY OPERATING PROJECTS
Biofuel Biomass Heat Pumps Heat Recovery
Hydro Solar Transmission Wind
• The present value of the capital expenditures used to
build the 68 projects that were operational by the end
of year 2016 is $603 million and the present value of
benefits is $1,589 million. Based on the present value
of capital cost and future estimated benefits, these
projects have an overall benefit-cost ratio of 2.64.
• For every dollar invested, these projects have an
estimated return of $2.64. It is important to note that
the REF invested $160 million of total project costs in
these 68 projects. The balance was invested from other
sources.
• The technology with the largest number of generating
projects continues to be wind, at 26 percent. This share
has declined each year since 2013 when wind projects
represented 40 percent of all REF projects.
• Biomass projects continue to come online and currently
account for 18 percent of all active projects. Heat
recovery projects make up an additional 21 percent
of operational projects; these projects take heat from
diesel powerhouse engines that would otherwise be
wasted and put that heat to use in buildings and water
systems, displacing thousands of gallons of costly
heating fuel.
• The large majority of both capital cost and future
benefit are from hydroelectric and wind projects. This is
because of a handful of relatively large hydro and wind
projects in more populated parts of the state including
the Railbelt, Kodiak and Sitka.
• REF projects that came online or first began reporting
performance data in calendar year 2017 include four
biomass projects, four heat recovery projects and one
hydroelectric project.
Renewable Energy Fund
Rounds I – VIII Grant and Funding Summary As of January 17, 2018
Round
I
Round
II
Round
III
Round
IV
Round
V
Round
VI
Round
VII
Round
VIII
Round
IX Totals
Applications Received 115 118 123 108 97 85 86 67 52 851
Applications Funded 80 30 25 74 19 23 26 10 - 287
Grants Currently in Place 5 2 3 11 8 10 15 9 - 63
Amount Requested1 ($M) $ 453.8 $ 293.4 $ 223.5 $ 123.1 $ 132.9 $ 122.6 $ 93.0 $ 43.8 $50.0 $ 1,536.1
AEA Recommended ($M) $ 100.0 $ 36.8 $ 65.8 $ 36.6 $ 43.2 $ 56.8 $ 59.1 $ 20.6 $36.1 $ 455.0
Appropriated ($M) $ 100.0 $ 25.0 $ 25.0 $ 26.62 $ 25.9 $ 25.0 $ 22.83 $ 11.54 - $ 261.8
Match Budgeted ($M)5 $ 31.1 $ 4.5 $ 12.4 $ 83.3 $ 9.1 $ 7.8 $ 10.7 $ .3 - $ 153.3
1. Total grant amount requested.
2. $26.6 Million was appropriated for Round IV, and an additional $10.0 million was reappropriated from rounds I, II and III for use in Round IV.
3. $20.0 Million was appropriated for Round VII, and an additional $2.8 million was reappropriated from previous rounds for use in round VII.
4. $9.5 million was reappropriated from Mt. Spurr Geothermal Project (FSSLA 2011 CH5, P137) for Round VIII and $2 million was reappropriated from previous
rounds for use in Round VIII.
5. Represents only amounts recorded in the grant document and does not capture all funding needed to complete all phase of the project.
1. Total grant amount
requested by all
applicants.
2. $26.6 million was
appropriated for round
IV, and an additional
$10 million was re-
appropriated from
previous rounds for use
in round IV.
3. $20 million was
appropriated for
round VII, and an additional
$2.8 million was re-
appropriated from previous
4 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT
PERFORMANCE & SAVINGS
REF CURRENTLY OPERATING PROJECTS - 2016
GRANT AND FUNDING SUMMARY Rounds I through IX
No new funds, applications or funding were received in Round X
rounds for use in round VII.
4. $9.5 million was re-appropriated from the Mt. Spurr geothermal project (FSSLA 2011 CH5, P137) for round VIII, and an additional
$2.0 million was re-appropriated from previous rounds for use in round VIII.
5. Represents only amounts recorded in active and completed grants, does not capture all funding needed to construct the project.
NOTES:$MILLIONSFigure 5 shows the present value (PV) of the 68
projects that are operational at end of 2016.
In 2009, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) received a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority under Round II of
the Renewable Energy Fund for the design and construction of a wind farm in the community of Shaktoolik. The project
cost $2,727,960 and resulted in the construction of two Northern Power Systems 100-kilowatt wind turbines and controls
upgrades at the existing diesel power plant. In 2011, a Round V REF grant was awarded to AVEC, working under a Memo-
randum of Understanding with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), for the installation of an electric boiler
at the Shaktoolik water treatment plant. The electric boiler serves as a secondary load and absorbs excess electricity from
the wind-diesel system. This project cost $252,905 with $240,260 provided by the grant and $12,645 as match. Both proj-
ects total $2,980,865, of which $2,705,924 was provided by grant and $274,941 provided as match.
At the time of the original AVEC application for a wind farm in Shaktoolik, wind-diesel systems were in early development
with only a handful of projects installed throughout the world. Though it was not completed in time to affect the Shaktool-
ik wind farm design, the AEA Wind Program performed analysis on earlier constructed projects in an effort to learn from
those systems and incorporate these lessons into new projects. A primary finding was the surprising amount of curtailment
being implemented by system operators to avoid issues caused from the production of excess electricity on an islanded
microgrid. While energy storage options have been, and are still being, considered, the most cost effective option to handle
excess renewable electricity is through the installation of an electric boiler that can be used to provide heat.
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND SUCCESS STORY
REF AWARDS | $2,705,924
MATCHING FUNDS | $274,941
TOTAL PROJECT COST | $2,980,865
EXPECTED PROJECT LIFE | 20 years
SHAKTOOLIK WIND PROJECT
This two-phased project has produced nearly
1.6 million kilowatt-hours and offset more than
100,000 gallons of diesel.
After the completion of this research, AVEC worked with ANTHC to iden-
tify projects in Chevak, Gambell, Mekoryuk, and Shaktoolik. Shaktoolik is
highlighted for this case study because both the wind farm and secondary
load project were funded through the REF and therefore the data neces-
sary for analysis is available. From an assessment of the wind resource the
Shaktoolik wind farm is predicted to have a 420,000 kilowatt hour annual
energy production. In the first year, the production was only 52% of this
goal. While start-up and system commissioning may have played a role in
the early low production numbers, the wind farm has, on average, produced
85% of its goal since the installation of the secondary load. In 2016 the wind
farm exceeded its production goal for the first time.
While the secondary load uses the electricity to make heat, not all of the in-
creased wind farm production goes to this use. The addition of the second-
ary load increases the capability and reliability of the overall system and this
leads to greater confidence by the system operators, resulting in less curtail-
ment. The average increase in gross wind production was 160,000-kilowatt
hours and 80,000, meaning that 54 percent of the increase was used for
non-heat uses with the remainder being used for heat. Through 2016 the
project has produced 1,580,098 kilowatt-hours and offset more than 100,000
gallons of diesel for power generation and heating oil.
JANUARY 2018 | 13
Shaktoolik Ariel View
Shaktoolik Wind Turbines
The story of developing successful biomass projects
on Prince of Wales (POW) Island is an example of how
the State can work successfully with local governments
and school districts, the federal government, local
engineering firms and American manufacturers to
advance local economic and product development.
Leveraging the experience gained from pre-REF AEA-
and US Forest Service-funded studies and projects, the
Southeast Island School District (SEISD) and the City of
Craig have been successful in turning POW’s renewable
resources into local development opportunities through
REF grants.
The REF has assisted POW communities to perform
feasibility, design, and construction in seven
communities—Craig, Thorne Bay, Hollis, Coffman
Cove, Naukati Bay, Whale Pass, and Hydaburg. While
the biomass projects have reduced local consumption
of heating oil (15,000 gallons a year in the Thorne Bay
School alone), this reduction is a small part of the local
benefit. Local sawmills and firewood cutters have new
customers for their products, with the money paid to
heat buildings staying on the island.
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND SUCCESS STORY
JANUARY 2018 | 5
REF AWARDS | $1.6 million
MATCHING FUNDS | $459,704
TOTAL PROJECT COST | $2.1 million
EXPECTED PROJECT LIFE | 20 + years
PRINCE OF WALES BIOMASS PROJECT
The project has assisted in the development
and construction of biomass boilers in seven
schools displacing heating fuel, providing local
jobs and supporting local food production.
The REF-funded Thorne Bay School wood-fired boiler
project has led to six part-time jobs at the school to
support the biomass boiler.
The REF has also assisted the SEISD in realizing its
vision of being able to convert firewood into local,
healthy vegetables for their schools. Six SEISD
schools have installed or plan to install greenhouses.
The greenhouses have been productive enough
to provide vegetables for the school cafeteria and
for sale in the community. The success of the POW
biomass systems cannot be separated from the
vegetables grown in the schools’ biomass-heated
greenhouses.
The REF projects on POW have led to improved
products to meet the needs and conditions seen in
rural Alaska. Working with GARN, a Minnesota-based
wood boiler manufacturer, AEA helped to develop
a “boiler-in-a-box” module which allows for simple
installation, only requiring that piping and electrical
connection be made on site.
The reduction in the complexity and soft-costs of
biomass projects that AEA has promoted will make
it easier and cheaper for future communities to use
their renewable resources.
In addition to providing the benefits associated
with demand-side projects, the REF also assisted the
City of Craig in turning some of the 13,000 tons of
wood waste produced at a local sawmill into fuel for
biomass boilers, reducing waste and keeping more
money and jobs in the community.
Thorne Bay students show off greenhouse produce
Project Name Applicant
Energy
Source
B/C
Ratio
State-
wide
Rank
Project Cost
Through
Construction
Applicant
Grant
Requested
Applicant
Match Offered Phase(s)
Recomnd
Funding
Elfin Cove Hydroelectric
Permitting
Elfin Cove Utility
Commission Hydro 1.22 9 $3,705,000 $88,000 $22,000 Design $88,000
Shungnak Wind-Diesel
Conceptual Design
Native Village of
Shungnak Wind 1.04 10 $5,598,500 $135,000 $39,000 Feas $135,000
Bethel Power Plant Heat
Recovery Module
Alaska Village
Electric Coop
Heat
Rec.2.16 11 $8,233,369 $2,555,489 $283,943 Constr $2,555,489
Old Harbor Hydro Geotech
& Final Design
Alaska Village
Electric Coop Hydro 1.38 13 $9,317,500 $1,092,500 $57,500 Design $792,500
Indian River Hydroelectric
Project - Construction
Tenakee Springs
Electric Hydro 0.94* 15 $5,473,280 $809,000 $1,115,280 Constr $809,000
Cosmos Hills Hydro Design
& Permitting
NANA Regional
Corporation Hydro 1.08 16 $50,797,871 $341,335 $37,200 Design $341,335
Sitka Wastewater Plant
Effluent Heat Pump
City and Borough
of Sitka
Heat
Pump 1.13 19 $826,067 $667,000 $113,000
Design,
Constr $667,000
Yerrick Creek Hydro
Construction
Upper Tanana
Energy Hydro 1.23 20 $20,744,264 $4,000,000 $15,000,000 Constr $3,925,000
Scammon Bay Hydroelectric
Project
City of Scammon
Bay Hydro 1.25 23 $4,283,056 $305,000 $3,050 Feas $90,000
Huslia Water & Clinic
Biomass Boiler City of Huslia Biomass 0.72* 24 $496,526 $491,610 $4,916 Design $53,116
False Pass Hydro Feasibility
& Conceptual Design City of False Pass Hydro 1.87 25 $4,380,000 $187,000 $33,000 Feas $187,000
St. Paul Island 80%
Renewable Energy
Feasibility
TDX Power, Inc.Other,
Wind 1.66 26 $5,731,500 $265,200 $66,300
Recon,
Feas $265,200
Ambler Washeteria and City
Office Biomass Heating City of Ambler Biomass 1.06 27 $484,691 $429,892 $54,799
Design,
Constr $429,892
Atqasuk Transmission Line
Design and Permitting
North Slope
Borough
Trans,
Other 2.02 28 $32,840,509 $2,017,818 $201,782 Design $2,017,818
Saxman Low-Rent
Multifamily Air Source Heat
Pump
Tlingit-Haida RHA Heat
Pump 0.93* 29 $438,341 $296,038 $213,193
Design,
Constr $296,038
Unalaska Water Treatment
Inline Micro Turbines City of Unalaska Hydro 1.24 30 $1,340,000 $1,100,000 $240,000
Feas,
Design $144,000
Ketchikan High School
Biomass Boiler
Ketchikan
Gateway Borough Biomass 1.33 31 $1,365,890 $1,251,000 $0 Constr $1,251,000
Klawock School Biomass
Fuel Boiler Project
Klawock City
School District Biomass 1.38 32 $858,556 $833,556 $25,000 Design $111,986
Crater Lake Power and Water
Project
Cordova Electric
Cooperative
Hydro,
Storage 0.91* 33 $17,306,696 $1,227,000 $420,680 Design $1,227,000
Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project Kenai Hydro LLC Hydro 1.10 35 $58,936,366 $4,000,000 $875,528 Design $4,000,000
Ouzinkie Hydroelectric
Power Project City of Ouzinkie Hydro 0.73* 36 $4,603,385 $397,427 $4,014
Design,
Constr $397,427
Kaktovik Wind Diesel
Design
North Slope
Borough Wind 0.79* 38 $7,606,795 $440,000 $44,000 Design $440,000
Ketchikan Schools
Recreation Heating Plant
Ketchikan
Gateway Borough Biomass N/A†39 $2,600,000 $220,000 $0 Feas $40,000
Project Cost Recommendation
Blue cells indicate a standard electric generation application
Orange cells indicate a heat project application
12 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT
Students help split wood for biomass boiler in Thorne Bay
REF RECOMMENDED PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE FY19 GOVERNOR’S BUDGET
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Final Recommended Applications and Funding
CountEnergy Region ID Project Name Applicant Energy Source B/C Ratio Impacted Pop.
Household Energy
Cost
Tech/
Econ
Score
State-
wide
Rank
Project Cost
Through
Construction
Applicant Grant
Requested
Applicant Match
Offered
Recommended
Phase(s) AEA Recomnd Recommended Funding Funding in Gov. Budget
1 Copper River/Chugach 1226 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI) Hydro 1.71 116 $12,269 75.67 1 $6,589,090 $3,400,000 $2,600,000 Constr Full $3,400,000 $3,400,000
2 Bering Straits 1234 Wales Water System Heat Recovery City of Wales Heat Recovery 1.44 146 $17,269 72.50 3 $653,277 $650,047 $6,566 Design, Constr Full $650,047 $650,047
3 Aleutians 1245 Adak Hydro Power Generator TDX Adak Generating, TDX Hydro 1.75 247 $14,961 59.50 4 $1,750,000 $294,102 $126,044 Feas Partial $19,600 $19,600
4 Bering Straits 1238 Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery City of Koyuk Heat Recovery 1.06 321 $18,742 61.50 8 $695,269 $688,386 $6,884 Design Partial $90,922 $90,922
5 Bering Straits 1223 Shishmaref Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design Alaska Village Electric Coop Wind 0.93* 607 $15,812 52.50 18 $2,529,400 $152,000 $8,000 Feas Full SP $152,000 $152,000
6 Railbelt 1242 Heat Pump System for City of Seward City of Seward Heat Pump 1.97 2,768 $9,005 83.17 5 $955,458 $725,000 $125,000 Design, Constr Full $725,000 $725,000
7 Southeast 1244 IPEC Gunnuk Creek Hydro Rehab in Kake Inside Passage Electric Coop Hydro 2.23 1,913 $10,561 73.00 6 $5,715,000 $3,920,000 $1,545,000 Constr Full SP $3,920,000 $3,920,000
8 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1224 Mountain Village-St. Mary's Wind Intertie Alaska Village Electric Coop Trans, Wind 1.00 1,524 $12,362 66.00 7 $6,196,000 $3,196,000 $3,000,000 Design, Constr Full SP $3,196,000 $2,042,431
8 Sub Totals, Recommended Projects in Governor's Budget $25,083,494 $13,025,535 $7,417,494 $12,153,569 $11,000,000
Recommended Projects Project Cost Recommendation
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS - GOVERNOR’S FY19 BUDGET
Fivemile Creek hydro is a 300 kW run-of-river project annually displacing more than 500 MWhs of diesel electrici-
ty generation and an additional 18,000 gallons of heating oil. The project is estimated to displace 3.5 million gallons
of petroleum fuel over its 50 year life.
Wales heat recovery will capture heat that is generated by diesel power generation and send that heat to the water
treatment plant and community washeteria. The project will displace more than 9,700 gallons of heating fuel annu-
ally with lifetime savings estimated at nearly 200,000 gallons over its 20 year life.
Adak hydro feasibility project will evaluate the potential for a 75-90 kW power recovery turbine in a community
water supply line. If feasible the project would generate 330-760 MWhs of power, displacing just under 26,000 gal-
lons of diesel annually and an estimated 1.3 million gallons over its 50 year life.
Koyuk heat recovery will capture heat that is generated by diesel power generation and send that heat to the water
treatment plant and the community washeteria. The project will displace nearly 12,000 gallons of heating fuel an-
nually and nearly 240,000 gallons over its 20 year life.
Shishmaref wind feasibility project will evaluate the potential for a 200 kW wind project. Preliminary estimates
for a project this size in this community are displacement of roughly 40,000 gallons of diesel annually and nearly
800,000 over it’s 20 year life.
Seward seawater heat pump project will use a ground source heat pump in the tidal zone to capture the warm sub-
surface ocean water that inundates the gravel. The heat pump will serve a district loop providing heat to five public
buildings, displacing an estimated 20,020 gallons of diesel annually and more than 1 million gallons over its 50 year
life.
Gunnuk Creek is a 500 kW hydro project that will expand and rehabilitate an existing 7 kW hydro project that
makes use of the water supply dam and hatchery facilities in the community of Kake. The project has estimated
displacement of more than 110,000 gallons of diesel annually with lifetime displacement of more than 5.5 million
gallons of diesel.
Mt. Village - St. Mary’s is an intertie project connecting the community of Mt. Village to St. Mary’s renewable wind
energy. The project is estimated to displace roughly 60,000 gallons of diesel annually and more than 1.2 million
gallons over its 20 year life.
Blue cells indicate a standard electric generation application
Orange cells indicate a heat project application
6 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT JANUARY 2018 | 11
2 3 4 5 14 15 16 17
Technology
Type
Fuel
Displaced Grantee Project Name
Start
date
Electrical
(MWh)
Thermal
(MMBtu)
Diesel (Gal x
1000)
Value
($ x 1000)
Electrical
(MWh)
Thermal
(MMBtu)
Diesel (Gal x
1000)
Value
($ x 1000)
Electrical
(MWh)
Thermal
(MMBtu)
Diesel (Gal x
1000)
Value
($ x 1000)
1 Hydro Natural Gas Chugach Electric Association, Inc.Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake 08/15 2,994 ‐ 401 186 6,020 ‐ 806 253 9,014 ‐ 1,207 439
2 Hydro Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co‐op Gartina Falls ‐ Hoonah 07/15 568 ‐ 38 124 1,188 ‐ 80 171 1,756 ‐ 119 294
3 Hydro Diesel Chignik Lagoon Power Utility Packers Creek 03/15 562 ‐ 52 235 645 ‐ 60 218 1,207 ‐ 112 453
4 Hydro Diesel City of Akutan Akutan Hydro 12/14 11 ‐ 1 5 110 ‐ 13 43 121 ‐ 14 48
5 Hydro Diesel City and Borough of Sitka Blue Lake Expansion 11/14 59,272 ‐ 4,559 14,594 69,041 ‐ 5,311 12,852 137,068 ‐ 10,544 29,601
6 Hydro Diesel City of Ketchikan Whitman Lake 10/14 8,762 ‐ 674 2,851 7,650 ‐ 588 1,521 18,899 ‐ 1,454 5,181
7 Hydro Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Terror Lake 01/14 118,044 ‐ 8,432 34,233 124,484 ‐ 8,892 25,430 251,833 ‐ 17,944 62,424
8 Hydro Diesel Cordova Electric Co‐op Humpback Creek 07/11 3,074 ‐ 236 586 3,731 ‐ 287 546 18,200 ‐ 1,395 4,319
9 Hydro Diesel Gustavus Electric Falls Creek 07/09 2,149 ‐ 165 515 2,237 ‐ 172 572 14,289 ‐ 1,064 3,790
10 Hydro Diesel City of Atka Chuniixsax Creek 12/12 381 ‐ 29 153 321 ‐ 25 114 1,378 ‐ 106 550
11 Hydro Diesel INNEC Tazimina Hydroelectric Project 01/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,540 ‐ 264 1,236 3,540 ‐ 264 1,236
12 Hydro Diesel Copper Valley Electric Association Allison Lake Hydro 09/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 881 ‐ 71 187 881 ‐ 71 187
13 Landfill Gas Nat Gas Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage Landfill Gas 08/12 50,032 ‐ 4,783 1,079 42,517 ‐ 4,065 764 195,430 ‐ 18,651 8,309
14 Solar PV Diesel Alaska Power Company Eagle Solar Array Project 01/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 ‐ 2 4 20 ‐ 2 4
15 Solar PV Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Kaltag Solar 10/12 8 ‐ 1 2 9 ‐ 1 2 34 ‐ 3 9
16 Transmission Diesel AK Electric Light & Power Snettisham ‐ Juneau 01/14 936 ‐ 72 112 936 ‐ 72 157 2,807 ‐ 216 381
17 Transmission Diesel Alaska Power & Telephon North Prince of Wales Intertie 09/11 1,352 ‐ 104 289 1,222 ‐ 94 194 5,745 ‐ 406 1,243
18 Transmission Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Wind Transmission 10/10 1,650 ‐ 102 307 982 ‐ 60 151 8,130 ‐ 488 1,490
19 Wind Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Peak Wind Expansion 08/13 1,642 ‐ 100 304 1,573 ‐ 96 240 5,110 ‐ 312 932
20 Wind Diesel Northwest Arctic Borough Buckland, Deering, Noorvik Wind Farm 01/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 166 ‐ 13 45 166 ‐ 13 45
21 Wind Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.Eva Creek 10/12 72,639 ‐ 5,115 8,324 77,320 ‐ 5,445 7,319 306,439 ‐ 21,580 43,992
22 Wind Diesel Kotzebue Electric Association Kotz Wind‐Battery‐Diesel 05/12 2,511 ‐ 171 542 3,179 ‐ 216 587 13,087 ‐ 890 2,936
23 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Shaktoolik Wind 04/12 283 ‐ 22 84 329 ‐ 25 79 1,263 ‐ 97 363
24 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind 09/11 327 ‐ 23 84 698 ‐ 49 162 2,584 ‐ 183 681
25 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Quinhagak Wind Farm 11/10 403 ‐ 31 115 690 ‐ 53 170 3,028 ‐ 228 858
26 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Mekoryuk Wind Farm 11/10 180 ‐ 13 48 118 ‐ 8 29 1,058 ‐ 72 268
27 Wind Naphtha Alaska Environmental Power Delta Area Wind Turbines 09/10 2,013 ‐ 130 351 1,682 ‐ 109 271 10,727 ‐ 674 1,726
28 Wind Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Pillar Mountain Wind 09/10 29,107 ‐ 2,050 5,417 29,314 ‐ 2,064 3,728 153,999 ‐ 10,839 31,810
29 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Toksook Wind Farm 08/09 168 ‐ 12 46 668 ‐ 49 175 1,827 ‐ 131 479
ELECTRICAL PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 359,069 ‐ 27,317 70,583 381,268 ‐ 28,989 57,221 1,169,639 ‐ 89,077 204,046
30 Hydro Diesel City of Pelican Pelican Hydro Upgrade 03/13 1,298 ‐ 93 415 1,140 ‐ 81 168 4,151 431 301 1,152
31 Biomass Diesel AK Gateway School District Tok Wood Heating 10/10 306 6,136 59 152 170 7,171 69 200 745 32,593 308 892
32 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Unalaska Unalaska Heat Recovery 09/14 470 ‐ 36 80 569 ‐ 44 76 1,119 ‐ 86 177
33 Wind/Heat Diesel Tuntutuliak Comm Svs Assoc.Tunt Wind‐Diesel Smart Grid 01/13 215 128 17 64 162 347 13 37 727 1,044 56 216
34 Wind/Heat Diesel Kwigillingok Power Company Kwig Wind‐Diesel Smart Grid 02/12 464 238 38 126 379 200 31 92 1,102 743 90 309
35 Wind/Heat Diesel Aleutian Wind Energy Sand Point Wind 08/11 974 360 72 326 736 ‐ 54 246 4,574 773 336 1,537
36 Wind/Heat Diesel Puvurnaq Power Company Kong Wind‐Diesel Smart Grid 12/10 330 435 29 96 263 441 24 72 1,502 2,053 134 495
37 Wind/Heat Diesel Unalakleet Valley Electric Co Unalakleet Wind Farm 12/09 972 228 72 273 877 ‐ 63 189 6,513 779 468 1,631
ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 5,029 7,525 416 1,532 4,295 8,159 379 1,081 20,433 38,416 1,778 6,409
38 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Chevak Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 ‐ 121 1 6 ‐ 73 1 4 ‐ 195 2 10
39 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Gambell Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 ‐ 174 2 6 ‐ 85 1 4 ‐ 294 3 11
40 Biomass Diesel Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass Heat 08/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 690 6 4 ‐ 690 6 4
42 Biomass Diesel City of Kobuk Upper Kobuk River Biomass 01/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 380 4 24 ‐ 380 4 24
43 Biomass Diesel Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Pen Wood Boilers 01/15 ‐ 45 0 2 ‐ 54 1 3 ‐ 100 1 5
44 Biomass Diesel IRHA Wood Heating Interior Commmunities 01/15 ‐ 272 3 10 ‐ 1,560 14 73 ‐ 1,832 17 83
45 Biomass Diesel Mentasta Traditional Council Mentasta Community Facility Heat 10/14 ‐ 542 5 22 ‐ 1,084 10 18 ‐ 1,626 15 39
46 Biomass Diesel City of Tanana Tanana City‐Tribe Biomass 01/14 ‐ 1,360 12 61 ‐ 920 8 38 ‐ 4,252 38 146
47 Biomass Diesel Southeast Island School District Thorne Bay School Biomass 01/13 ‐ 2,121 19 78 ‐ 1,128 10 14 ‐ 4,882 44 128
48 Biomass Diesel Native Village of Eyak Cordova Wood Processing 12/11 ‐ 840 7 28 ‐ 1,066 8 22 ‐ 5,986 48 170
49 Biomass Diesel Chilkoot Indian Association Haines Central Wood Heating 10/11 ‐ 141 2 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 852 8 19
50 Biomass Diesel Delta/Greely School District Delta Wood Chip Heating 09/11 ‐ 3,339 32 105 ‐ 1,828 18 29 ‐ 16,865 162 501
51 Biomass Diesel Gulkana Village Council Gulkana Central Wood Heating 10/10 ‐ 198 2 6 ‐ 609 6 2 ‐ 4,607 43 125
52 Heat Pumps Diesel Cook Inlet Housing Authority Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump 01/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 297 3 4 ‐ 297 3 4
53 Heat Pumps Diesel City of Seward Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pump 11/11 ‐ 4,179 40 105 ‐ 3,446 33 28 ‐ 17,955 173 401
54 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Airport Ground Source Heat Pump 05/11 ‐ 6,400 46 153 ‐ 6,400 46 145 ‐ 36,117 266 899
55 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Aquatic Cntr Ground Source Heat Pump 04/11 ‐ 4,621 39 68 ‐ 3,224 27 35 ‐ 18,189 154 355
41 Heat Recovery Diesel Venetie Village Council Venetie District Heating 02/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 435 5 38 ‐ 435 5 38
56 Heat Recovery Diesel Native Village of Quinhagak Heat Recovery Water Plant & Washeteria 12/15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 988 9 44 ‐ 988 9 44
57 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Marshall Heat Recovery ‐ Marshall Water Plant & Store 09/15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,703 15 80 ‐ 1,703 15 80
58 Heat Recovery Diesel Atmautluak Traditional Council Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery 08/15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 134 1 8 ‐ 134 1 8
59 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Saint Paul Electric Utility Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade 02/15 ‐ 5,680 51 265 ‐ 4,800 43 157 ‐ 10,480 95 422
60 Heat Recovery Diesel Sleetmute Traditional Council Heat Recovery to Water Plant 11/14 ‐ 176 2 9 ‐ 399 4 19 ‐ 575 5 29
61 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Savoonga Savoonga Heat Recovery ‐ Water Plant 10/14 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,214 9 46 ‐ 1,214 9 46
62 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Ambler Ambler Heat Recovery 10/13 ‐ 494 5 26 ‐ 456 5 26 ‐ 1,466 15 111
63 Heat Recovery Diesel North Slope Borough Point Lay Heat Recovery 08/13 ‐ 1,555 15 21 ‐ 1,104 10 18 ‐ 4,812 45 137
64 Heat Recovery Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co‐op Hoonah Heat Recovery Project 08/12 ‐ 4,099 39 167 ‐ 20,279 195 565 ‐ 35,084 337 1,172
65 Heat Recovery Diesel City and Borough of Wrangell Wrangell Hydro Electric Boilers 02/11 ‐ 7,588 78 25 ‐ 2,494 26 82 ‐ 40,172 409 747
66 Heat Recovery Diesel McGrath Light & Power McGrath Heat Recovery 05/10 ‐ 2,390 23 173 ‐ 2,348 23 168 ‐ 16,340 153 995
67 Heat Recovery Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.North Pole Heat Recovery 11/09 ‐ 2,040 23 93 ‐ 3,034 34 78 ‐ 18,246 298 829
68 Solar Thermal Propane Golden Valley Electric Assoc.McKinley Village Solar Thermal 06/10 ‐ 120 1 11 ‐ 101 1 3 ‐ 762 8 46
HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL ‐ 48,495 447 1,444 ‐ 62,333 574 1,780 ‐ 247,530 2,390 7,629
GRAND TOTAL 364,098 56,020 28,179 73,559 385,562 70,492 29,942 60,081 1,190,072 285,946 93,245 218,083
Cumulative Total (2009 ‐ 2016)2015
Energy Production Fuel Displaced Energy Production Fuel Displaced
2016
Energy Production Fuel Displaced
ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS
HEAT PROJECTS
ELECTRICAL PROJECTS
10 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Final Recommended Applications and Funding
CountEnergy Region ID Project Name Applicant Energy Source B/C Ratio Impacted Pop.
Household Energy
Cost
Tech/
Econ
Score
State-
wide
Rank
Project Cost
Through
Construction
Applicant Grant
Requested
Applicant Match
Offered
Recommended
Phase(s) AEA Recomnd Recommended Funding Funding in Gov. Budget
1 Copper River/Chugach 1226 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI) Hydro 1.71 116 $12,269 75.67 1 $6,589,090 $3,400,000 $2,600,000 Constr Full $3,400,000 $3,400,000
2 Bering Straits 1234 Wales Water System Heat Recovery City of Wales Heat Recovery 1.44 146 $17,269 72.50 3 $653,277 $650,047 $6,566 Design, Constr Full $650,047 $650,047
3 Aleutians 1245 Adak Hydro Power Generator TDX Adak Generating, TDX Hydro 1.75 247 $14,961 59.50 4 $1,750,000 $294,102 $126,044 Feas Partial $19,600 $19,600
4 Bering Straits 1238 Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery City of Koyuk Heat Recovery 1.06 321 $18,742 61.50 8 $695,269 $688,386 $6,884 Design Partial $90,922 $90,922
5 Bering Straits 1223 Shishmaref Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design Alaska Village Electric Coop Wind 0.93* 607 $15,812 52.50 18 $2,529,400 $152,000 $8,000 Feas Full SP $152,000 $152,000
6 Railbelt 1242 Heat Pump System for City of Seward City of Seward Heat Pump 1.97 2,768 $9,005 83.17 5 $955,458 $725,000 $125,000 Design, Constr Full $725,000 $725,000
7 Southeast 1244 IPEC Gunnuk Creek Hydro Rehab in Kake Inside Passage Electric Coop Hydro 2.23 1,913 $10,561 73.00 6 $5,715,000 $3,920,000 $1,545,000 Constr Full SP $3,920,000 $3,920,000
8 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1224 Mountain Village-St. Mary's Wind Intertie Alaska Village Electric Coop Trans, Wind 1.00 1,524 $12,362 66.00 7 $6,196,000 $3,196,000 $3,000,000 Design, Constr Full SP $3,196,000 $2,042,431
8 Sub Totals, Recommended Projects in Governor's Budget $25,083,494 $13,025,535 $7,417,494 $12,153,569 $11,000,000
Recommended Projects Project Cost Recommendation
Notes:
B/C = AEA Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project.
* The benefit/cost (B/C) ratio is an estimate of a project’s life-cycle present value (benefits) divided by the present value of
lifetime capital and O&M costs. A ratio of 1.0 is generally considered the break-even point where the benefits equal the costs,
however, this economic metric is only an estimate. Benefits counted in the REF economic evaluation mostly take the form of
displaced diesel fuel and accordingly this value will fluctuate as it follows the global price of oil. The B/C ratios become more
reliable as projects move to later phases of development because more comprehensive cost and benefit information is available
and there is less time for circumstances to change before operation. By design in statute and regulations, the B/C ratio is only
one portion of the overall project score.
SP = Special Provision
The rows that appear in bold font are those projects in underserved regions. Applications 1234, 1238 and 1223 were moved up
the list during stage four regional distribution.
Impacted population includes the population of a community(s) or utility service area(s) which a project is located in or may
impact.
The Household Energy Cost is a measure of the annual heating and electricity costs for a typical household in a given region/
community.
The technical and economic score is the total stage 2 score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to
pass stage 2.
Match offered is applicant’s offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting efficiency work and wood harvest value
where applicable. If the awarded funding amount is reduced from the requested amount, the required match is also reduced.
1245 Adak hydro: Application requested funding for feasibility, design and construction. AEA recommends partial funding to
complete only the feasibility study portion of the project.
1238: Koyuk water heat recovery: Application requested funding for final design and construction. AEA recommends limiting
funding to final design to evaluate the potential to find savings, to improve project economics and better assess value.
1223 Shishmaref wind: The applicant requested funding for the feasibility stage. The B/C ratio could potentially increase based
on site-specific meteorological data once it is available for analysis. The statewide wind model often under-predicts the wind
resource on the west coast of Alaska. Wind measurement at the specific targeted site through the requested feasibility study
will increase the confidence of the project economics.
REF RECOMMENDED PROJECTS IN THE FY19 GOVERNOR’S BUDGET
JANUARY 2018 | 7
2 3 4 5 14 15 16 17
Technology
Type
Fuel
Displaced Grantee Project Name
Start
date
Electrical
(MWh)
Thermal
(MMBtu)
Diesel (Gal x
1000)
Value
($ x 1000)
Electrical
(MWh)
Thermal
(MMBtu)
Diesel (Gal x
1000)
Value
($ x 1000)
Electrical
(MWh)
Thermal
(MMBtu)
Diesel (Gal x
1000)
Value
($ x 1000)
1 Hydro Natural Gas Chugach Electric Association, Inc.Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake 08/15 2,994 ‐ 401 186 6,020 ‐ 806 253 9,014 ‐ 1,207 439
2 Hydro Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co‐op Gartina Falls ‐ Hoonah 07/15 568 ‐ 38 124 1,188 ‐ 80 171 1,756 ‐ 119 294
3 Hydro Diesel Chignik Lagoon Power Utility Packers Creek 03/15 562 ‐ 52 235 645 ‐ 60 218 1,207 ‐ 112 453
4 Hydro Diesel City of Akutan Akutan Hydro 12/14 11 ‐ 1 5 110 ‐ 13 43 121 ‐ 14 48
5 Hydro Diesel City and Borough of Sitka Blue Lake Expansion 11/14 59,272 ‐ 4,559 14,594 69,041 ‐ 5,311 12,852 137,068 ‐ 10,544 29,601
6 Hydro Diesel City of Ketchikan Whitman Lake 10/14 8,762 ‐ 674 2,851 7,650 ‐ 588 1,521 18,899 ‐ 1,454 5,181
7 Hydro Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Terror Lake 01/14 118,044 ‐ 8,432 34,233 124,484 ‐ 8,892 25,430 251,833 ‐ 17,944 62,424
8 Hydro Diesel Cordova Electric Co‐op Humpback Creek 07/11 3,074 ‐ 236 586 3,731 ‐ 287 546 18,200 ‐ 1,395 4,319
9 Hydro Diesel Gustavus Electric Falls Creek 07/09 2,149 ‐ 165 515 2,237 ‐ 172 572 14,289 ‐ 1,064 3,790
10 Hydro Diesel City of Atka Chuniixsax Creek 12/12 381 ‐ 29 153 321 ‐ 25 114 1,378 ‐ 106 550
11 Hydro Diesel INNEC Tazimina Hydroelectric Project 01/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,540 ‐ 264 1,236 3,540 ‐ 264 1,236
12 Hydro Diesel Copper Valley Electric Association Allison Lake Hydro 09/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 881 ‐ 71 187 881 ‐ 71 187
13 Landfill Gas Nat Gas Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage Landfill Gas 08/12 50,032 ‐ 4,783 1,079 42,517 ‐ 4,065 764 195,430 ‐ 18,651 8,309
14 Solar PV Diesel Alaska Power Company Eagle Solar Array Project 01/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 ‐ 2 4 20 ‐ 2 4
15 Solar PV Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Kaltag Solar 10/12 8 ‐ 1 2 9 ‐ 1 2 34 ‐ 3 9
16 Transmission Diesel AK Electric Light & Power Snettisham ‐ Juneau 01/14 936 ‐ 72 112 936 ‐ 72 157 2,807 ‐ 216 381
17 Transmission Diesel Alaska Power & Telephon North Prince of Wales Intertie 09/11 1,352 ‐ 104 289 1,222 ‐ 94 194 5,745 ‐ 406 1,243
18 Transmission Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Wind Transmission 10/10 1,650 ‐ 102 307 982 ‐ 60 151 8,130 ‐ 488 1,490
19 Wind Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Peak Wind Expansion 08/13 1,642 ‐ 100 304 1,573 ‐ 96 240 5,110 ‐ 312 932
20 Wind Diesel Northwest Arctic Borough Buckland, Deering, Noorvik Wind Farm 01/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 166 ‐ 13 45 166 ‐ 13 45
21 Wind Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.Eva Creek 10/12 72,639 ‐ 5,115 8,324 77,320 ‐ 5,445 7,319 306,439 ‐ 21,580 43,992
22 Wind Diesel Kotzebue Electric Association Kotz Wind‐Battery‐Diesel 05/12 2,511 ‐ 171 542 3,179 ‐ 216 587 13,087 ‐ 890 2,936
23 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Shaktoolik Wind 04/12 283 ‐ 22 84 329 ‐ 25 79 1,263 ‐ 97 363
24 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind 09/11 327 ‐ 23 84 698 ‐ 49 162 2,584 ‐ 183 681
25 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Quinhagak Wind Farm 11/10 403 ‐ 31 115 690 ‐ 53 170 3,028 ‐ 228 858
26 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Mekoryuk Wind Farm 11/10 180 ‐ 13 48 118 ‐ 8 29 1,058 ‐ 72 268
27 Wind Naphtha Alaska Environmental Power Delta Area Wind Turbines 09/10 2,013 ‐ 130 351 1,682 ‐ 109 271 10,727 ‐ 674 1,726
28 Wind Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Pillar Mountain Wind 09/10 29,107 ‐ 2,050 5,417 29,314 ‐ 2,064 3,728 153,999 ‐ 10,839 31,810
29 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Toksook Wind Farm 08/09 168 ‐ 12 46 668 ‐ 49 175 1,827 ‐ 131 479
ELECTRICAL PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 359,069 ‐ 27,317 70,583 381,268 ‐ 28,989 57,221 1,169,639 ‐ 89,077 204,046
30 Hydro Diesel City of Pelican Pelican Hydro Upgrade 03/13 1,298 ‐ 93 415 1,140 ‐ 81 168 4,151 431 301 1,152
31 Biomass Diesel AK Gateway School District Tok Wood Heating 10/10 306 6,136 59 152 170 7,171 69 200 745 32,593 308 892
32 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Unalaska Unalaska Heat Recovery 09/14 470 ‐ 36 80 569 ‐ 44 76 1,119 ‐ 86 177
33 Wind/Heat Diesel Tuntutuliak Comm Svs Assoc.Tunt Wind‐Diesel Smart Grid 01/13 215 128 17 64 162 347 13 37 727 1,044 56 216
34 Wind/Heat Diesel Kwigillingok Power Company Kwig Wind‐Diesel Smart Grid 02/12 464 238 38 126 379 200 31 92 1,102 743 90 309
35 Wind/Heat Diesel Aleutian Wind Energy Sand Point Wind 08/11 974 360 72 326 736 ‐ 54 246 4,574 773 336 1,537
36 Wind/Heat Diesel Puvurnaq Power Company Kong Wind‐Diesel Smart Grid 12/10 330 435 29 96 263 441 24 72 1,502 2,053 134 495
37 Wind/Heat Diesel Unalakleet Valley Electric Co Unalakleet Wind Farm 12/09 972 228 72 273 877 ‐ 63 189 6,513 779 468 1,631
ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 5,029 7,525 416 1,532 4,295 8,159 379 1,081 20,433 38,416 1,778 6,409
38 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Chevak Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 ‐ 121 1 6 ‐ 73 1 4 ‐ 195 2 10
39 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co‐op Gambell Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 ‐ 174 2 6 ‐ 85 1 4 ‐ 294 3 11
40 Biomass Diesel Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass Heat 08/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 690 6 4 ‐ 690 6 4
42 Biomass Diesel City of Kobuk Upper Kobuk River Biomass 01/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 380 4 24 ‐ 380 4 24
43 Biomass Diesel Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Pen Wood Boilers 01/15 ‐ 45 0 2 ‐ 54 1 3 ‐ 100 1 5
44 Biomass Diesel IRHA Wood Heating Interior Commmunities 01/15 ‐ 272 3 10 ‐ 1,560 14 73 ‐ 1,832 17 83
45 Biomass Diesel Mentasta Traditional Council Mentasta Community Facility Heat 10/14 ‐ 542 5 22 ‐ 1,084 10 18 ‐ 1,626 15 39
46 Biomass Diesel City of Tanana Tanana City‐Tribe Biomass 01/14 ‐ 1,360 12 61 ‐ 920 8 38 ‐ 4,252 38 146
47 Biomass Diesel Southeast Island School District Thorne Bay School Biomass 01/13 ‐ 2,121 19 78 ‐ 1,128 10 14 ‐ 4,882 44 128
48 Biomass Diesel Native Village of Eyak Cordova Wood Processing 12/11 ‐ 840 7 28 ‐ 1,066 8 22 ‐ 5,986 48 170
49 Biomass Diesel Chilkoot Indian Association Haines Central Wood Heating 10/11 ‐ 141 2 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 852 8 19
50 Biomass Diesel Delta/Greely School District Delta Wood Chip Heating 09/11 ‐ 3,339 32 105 ‐ 1,828 18 29 ‐ 16,865 162 501
51 Biomass Diesel Gulkana Village Council Gulkana Central Wood Heating 10/10 ‐ 198 2 6 ‐ 609 6 2 ‐ 4,607 43 125
52 Heat Pumps Diesel Cook Inlet Housing Authority Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump 01/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 297 3 4 ‐ 297 3 4
53 Heat Pumps Diesel City of Seward Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pump 11/11 ‐ 4,179 40 105 ‐ 3,446 33 28 ‐ 17,955 173 401
54 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Airport Ground Source Heat Pump 05/11 ‐ 6,400 46 153 ‐ 6,400 46 145 ‐ 36,117 266 899
55 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Aquatic Cntr Ground Source Heat Pump 04/11 ‐ 4,621 39 68 ‐ 3,224 27 35 ‐ 18,189 154 355
41 Heat Recovery Diesel Venetie Village Council Venetie District Heating 02/16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 435 5 38 ‐ 435 5 38
56 Heat Recovery Diesel Native Village of Quinhagak Heat Recovery Water Plant & Washeteria 12/15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 988 9 44 ‐ 988 9 44
57 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Marshall Heat Recovery ‐ Marshall Water Plant & Store 09/15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,703 15 80 ‐ 1,703 15 80
58 Heat Recovery Diesel Atmautluak Traditional Council Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery 08/15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 134 1 8 ‐ 134 1 8
59 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Saint Paul Electric Utility Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade 02/15 ‐ 5,680 51 265 ‐ 4,800 43 157 ‐ 10,480 95 422
60 Heat Recovery Diesel Sleetmute Traditional Council Heat Recovery to Water Plant 11/14 ‐ 176 2 9 ‐ 399 4 19 ‐ 575 5 29
61 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Savoonga Savoonga Heat Recovery ‐ Water Plant 10/14 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,214 9 46 ‐ 1,214 9 46
62 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Ambler Ambler Heat Recovery 10/13 ‐ 494 5 26 ‐ 456 5 26 ‐ 1,466 15 111
63 Heat Recovery Diesel North Slope Borough Point Lay Heat Recovery 08/13 ‐ 1,555 15 21 ‐ 1,104 10 18 ‐ 4,812 45 137
64 Heat Recovery Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co‐op Hoonah Heat Recovery Project 08/12 ‐ 4,099 39 167 ‐ 20,279 195 565 ‐ 35,084 337 1,172
65 Heat Recovery Diesel City and Borough of Wrangell Wrangell Hydro Electric Boilers 02/11 ‐ 7,588 78 25 ‐ 2,494 26 82 ‐ 40,172 409 747
66 Heat Recovery Diesel McGrath Light & Power McGrath Heat Recovery 05/10 ‐ 2,390 23 173 ‐ 2,348 23 168 ‐ 16,340 153 995
67 Heat Recovery Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.North Pole Heat Recovery 11/09 ‐ 2,040 23 93 ‐ 3,034 34 78 ‐ 18,246 298 829
68 Solar Thermal Propane Golden Valley Electric Assoc.McKinley Village Solar Thermal 06/10 ‐ 120 1 11 ‐ 101 1 3 ‐ 762 8 46
HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL ‐ 48,495 447 1,444 ‐ 62,333 574 1,780 ‐ 247,530 2,390 7,629
GRAND TOTAL 364,098 56,020 28,179 73,559 385,562 70,492 29,942 60,081 1,190,072 285,946 93,245 218,083
Cumulative Total (2009 ‐ 2016)2015
Energy Production Fuel Displaced Energy Production Fuel Displaced
2016
Energy Production Fuel Displaced
ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS
HEAT PROJECTS
ELECTRICAL PROJECTS In calendar year 2016 REF projects
saved nearly 30 million diesel
equivalent gallons of fuel, saving
Alaska communities over $60 million.
In the eight years 2009 to 2016
cumulative savings are in excess of
$218 million.
The power and heat generation presented
in this table is the annual amount pro-
duced by projects that have received REF
investment. In certain cases the interac-
tions between REF funded and previously
existing or subsequently build projects are
not separable. These cases are noted and
total renewable generation is provided.
Project specific notes:
Row 5 - Blue Lake Expansion: Production
numbers show are for the whole system.
Row 7: Terror Lake Hydro: REF funded
the installation of turbine there at Terror
Lake. The production numbers show are
for the whole hydro system. Years prior to
2015 reported modeled estimates of tur-
bine three contributions. The cumulative
total is the sum of all years as reported.
Row 16 - Snettisham Transmission Line
Avalanche Mitigation: actual production
values are not available, the figures report-
ed are modeled.
Rows 27 and 29 - Delta and Toksook wind
performance values are for REF funded
turbines only, not the whole wind farm.
Row 54 - Juneau Ground-source Heat-
pump: the project does not have metering.
Values reported are estimates based on
grantee information.
Values for projects that are no longer
required to provide performance reporting
are estimated based on prior performance
and engineer’s estimates when community
provided information is unavailable.
8 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT JANUARY 2018 | 9
The recommendations for funding in FY19 have been pulled from the list of projects recommended in 2016 for Round IX
of the REF program. The solicitation for applications in Round IX resulted in 52 applications for projects to serve 95 com-
munities, of which 38 projects were recommended for funding. Eight of these projects were removed from the list prior to
resubmitting the list for consideration in the FY19 budget process due to changed circumstances since 2015 that rendered
funding at this time unnecessary. The remaining 30 projects are still pursuing project funds with a cumulative request of
$36.9 million from the REF. Of this, AEA recommended $32.4 million.
The Governor’s FY19 budget proposes funding the top eight projects off of this slightly revised project list; the last (eighth)
project on the list would receive partial funding to fit into the $11 million proposed budget. The projects in the Governor’s
budget are described in the pages that follow.
REVIEW PROCESS
The projects being recommended for FY19 funding went through three stages of review and scoring and a fourth stage
where regional distribution was applied. The first three stages evaluate and score: eligibility, technical and economic feasi-
bility, cost of energy, experience and qualifications, and ranking based on criteria established in statute and regulation.
The technical and economic evaluation is a thorough vetting process conducted by a team of AEA technical reviewers,
independent economists, and staff at the Department of Natural Resources. Following the third stage of evaluation in this
process, AEA presents to the REFAC a ranked list of recommended projects, a list of not recommended projects, and a
regional distribution recommendation to ensure that there is cumulative regional equity across all funding rounds.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE/REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION
The statute that created the Renewable Energy Fund required that AEA develop a process for evaluation and ranking that
includes “….significant weight being given to a statewide balance of grant funds…” AEA and the REFAC take the follow-
ing approach to ensuring this statutorily required regional distribution of REF dollars:
Calculate regional funding target by using 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 regionally appropriate average
annual residential heating equivalent consumption, 6,000 annual electric consumption and regional household income.
A regional population weighted burden of energy cost is calculated for the 11 energy regions in the state:
Burden of energy cost = (HH cost of electric + heat)/HH income
The burden number is then used to calculate a target funding level for each region, such that regions with high
energy cost burden are eligible to receive more funding cumulatively across all years of REF funding.
Underserved: In order for a region to be classified as underserved it must have received less than 50 percent of the cal-
culated target. Projects in underserved regions can then be moved up on the list (if the project they are replacing is in an
adequately or overserved region). The two underserved regions based on round I-VIII funding were Yukon-Koyukuk/Up-
per Tanana and Bering Straits region. During the regional balancing stage of the Round IX evaluation three projects were
moved up the list for this reason.
Overserved: For a region to be considered overserved, it must have received more than two times their calculated target.
To achieve better balance of funding across the state, regions that are determined to be overserved will be capped such that
their share of the overall funding cannot grow.
AEA RECOMMENDATIONS
The REFAC met in June 2016 to offer support for resubmitting the Round IX list, initially solicited in fall 2015, as the list
of recommendations to the legislature for Round X funding in the 2017 legislative budget process. This decision was based
on a desire to avoid any unnecessary burden on communities that would come from soliciting complex and costly applica-
tions with little certainty of funding availability.
In July 2017, the Alaska Department of Revenue calculated earnings on the PCE endowment fund as the Department does
every July. Those findings suggested that, because of the impact of 2015’s SB 196 relating to a reallocation of excess Power
Cost Equalization (PCE) earnings for non-PCE programs, funds were available that could be used for REF projects. AEA
surveyed applicants from the Round IX solicitation, revised the list accordingly based on applicant feedback, and provided
the updated list of projects recommended for REF funding to the Governor for consideration. Eight of those are included
in the Governor’s proposed FY19 budget.
Railbelt
North Slope
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana
SoutheastBristol Bay
Northwest Arctic
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Bering Straits
Copper River/
Chugach
Aleutians
Kodiak
The Aleut Corp
Calista Corp
Doyon Ltd
Arctic Slope Regional Corp
Sealaska Corp
Koniag Inc
Ahtna Inc
Bering Straits Native Corp
Bristol Bay Native Corp
Cook Inlet
Region Inc
N.A.N.A. Regional Corp
Chugach Alaska Corp
Energy Regions and ANCSA Boundaries
ANCSA Boundaries
Aleutians
Bering Straits
Bristol Bay
Copper River/Chugach
Kodiak
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
North Slope
Northwest Arctic
Railbelt
Southeast
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana0200Miles
Alaska Regional Energy Planning
REF FY19 RECOMMENDED APPLICATIONS
AEA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT REGIONS
1. Aleutians
2. Bering Straits
3. Bristol Bay
4. Copper River/Chugach
5. Kodiak
6. Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
7. North Slope
8. Northwest Arctic
9. Railbelt
10. Southeast
11. Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana.