HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlaska Energy Authority - Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report - Final - 20231
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund:
Impact and Evaluation Report
2023
2
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 4
Introduction 4
Report Overview 4
REF Background 4
Project Requirements 5
Project Evaluation Process 6
Current Program Status 6
Key Findings 7
Impact Models 7
Grant Funding Profile 10
Grantee Experience & Perceptions 11
Conclusions 12
Objectives and Methodology 14
Research Objectives 14
Research Methodology 14
Report Structure 16
Impact Models 17
Fuel Displacement Analysis 17
Environmental Benefits Analysis 20
Avoided Social Costs 20
Cost Savings Analysis 21
3
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Economic Benefits Analysis 22
Cost-Benefit Analysis 24
Grantee Outreach 26
Survey Results 26
Grant Recipient Profile 26
Grant Funding Overview 29
Benefits & Challenges 30
Executive Interview Summaries 33
Grantee Experience & Perceptions 33
Program Strengths & Weaknesses 34
Conclusion and Recommendations 36
Appendix A: Methodology 38
Fuel Displacement 38
Environmental Benefits Analysis 38
Cost Savings Analysis 39
Economic Benefits Analysis 39
Appendix B: Selected Inputs for the Impacts Analysis 41
4
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Introduction
Report Overview
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) commissioned BW
Research Partnership to conduct research into the
economic, community, and environmental impacts of the
state’s Renewable Energy Fund (REF). Alaska’s legislature
established the REF and the associated Renewable Energy
Grant Recommendation Program in 2008 via Chapter 31
SLA 2008. The bill included a new statute, AS 42.45.045,
which outlined the program and assigned AEA responsibility for administering the program. AEA also adopted
regulations under 3 AAC 107.600 – 695 for the purpose of implementing the program.1 In May 2023, with the signing
into law of House Bill 62, the REF was renewed in perpetuity.
REF Background
According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), the
oil and gas industries are a key part of Alaska’s economy, and the state ranks
third in the nation in terms of energy consumption per dollar of gross
domestic product. Alaska’s North Slope contains six of the 100 largest oil
fields in the U.S. and one of the 100 largest natural gas fields. In addition,
Alaska’s recoverable coal reserves rank 13th among the states, and its rivers
offer significant hydroelectric power potential. Large sections of the state’s
coastline have significant wind energy potential, and its volcanic areas offer
geothermal energy potential.
Owing to Alaska’s climate, economic structure, and population size, Alaska’s
per-capita total energy consumption is the second highest in the nation.
Natural gas fueled 42 percent of Alaska’s total electricity net generation in
2022, and hydroelectric power fueled 29 percent. In total, renewable energy
accounted for approximately 33 percent of Alaska’s total electricity
generation in 2022.2 However, a non-binding goal, set in 2010, aims to
increase this percentage to 50 percent by 2025.3
Alaska’s REF has been crucial in helping the state transition to a clean
economy. The fund is designed to produce affordable renewable power to
meet Alaskans’ energy needs.4 The REF has been an important tool in
catalyzing renewable energy growth in Alaska and will help the state to meet
its clean energy goals. In addition, the REF has helped local communities
stabilize energy prices by reducing their dependence on diesel fuel for power
generation and heating needs.
1 https://www.akleg.gov/basis/aac.asp#3.107%20article4
2 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=AK
3 http://www.launchalaska.com/blog/2023/1/18/alaskas-renewable-energy-fund-a-critical-catalyst-in-our-energy-transition
4 https://alaskarenewableenergy.org/ppf/the-renewable-energy-grant-fund/
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
5
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
The REF provides grants for development
of renewable projects across the state.5 So
far, the fund
has financed
over 100
renewable
projects, which
are primarily
wind and
hydroelectric,
with 60 more
currently in
development.
Since its
inception, the
REF program
has secured
over $317
million in state
funds,
leveraging over
$300 million in
federal and
local funds.
Project Requirements
Per Alaska’s regulatory statutes, to qualify for REF funding, eligible projects must be a new project not in operation in
2008, and must:
Operate as a
hydroelectric
facility
Directly use
renewable
energy resources
Generate electricity from
fuel cells that use hydrogen
from renewable energy
sources or natural gas
(subject to conditions)
Generate
electricity
using
renewable
energy
Natural gas applications must also benefit communities that have a population of 10,000 or less and do not have
economically viable renewable energy resources that can be developed.
5 https://alaskarenewableenergy.org/ppf/the-renewable-energy-grant-fund/
Since its inception,
the REF program
has secured over
$317 million in
state funds,
leveraging over
$300 million in
federal and local
funds.
6
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Project Evaluation Process
In selecting projects for program funding, AEA assigns the greatest weight to “projects that serve any area in which
the average cost of energy to each resident of the area exceeds the average cost to the resident of other areas of the
state.” In addition, significant weight is assigned to the availability of matching funds available to a particular project.6
AEA initially assesses applicant eligibility, including formal authorization and ownership, site control, and operation;
project eligibility; and application completeness. Subsequently, AEA’s team and the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources assess technical feasibility, including but not limited to the sustainability of current and future availability of
renewable resources, site availability and suitability, technical and environmental risks, a nd the reasonableness of the
proposed energy system; and economic feasibility, including project cost-benefit ratio, financing plans, and other
public benefits attributable to the project. The evaluation of economic feasibility and related cost-benefit analyses are
performed by third-party, competitively procured economists and reviewed by AEA. Based on these internal and
external evaluations, AEA rejects applications that are determined to lack technical and/or economic feasibility, or
which are deemed not to provide sufficient public benefit to justify support through the REF.
Eligible projects are then preliminarily ranked by AEA, taking into
consideration the following factors: cost of energy, applicant
matching funds, project feasibility, project readiness, public benefits,
sustainability, local support, regional balance, and compliance.
In the final ranking stage, AEA’s team assesses the cost of energy
burden associated with each project to determine target funding
allocations by region. Funding limits may apply depending on the
requested phase of the application and the technology type. AEA
solicits advice from the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee
(REFAC) relating to recommendations in changes to funding levels,
ranking, and/or the total amount of funding and number of projects
funded by the REF program. AEA, in conjunction with the REFAC,
forwards a final list of prioritized projects to Alaska’s legislature for
funding consideration and approval.
Once funding is approved, reimbursement is provided to grantees
on a cost-reimbursable basis based upon a predetermined schedule
outlined in the respective final grant agreements. While AEA may
authorize a percentage of grant funds as advance payment, grantees
are still obligated to document all expenditures of grant and matching funds, including advance payment, in
subsequent requests for reimbursement. AEA also withholds a percentage of the total grant subject to project
completion and submission of final documentation required by the program.
Current Program Status
In May 2023, Alaska Governor Michael Dunleavy signed into law House Bill 62 extending the REF in perpetuity.
According to Governor Dunleavy, “The Renewable Energy Fund has a successful track record of increasing energy
security for Alaskans.”7 The fund had initially been authorized for just five years but was extended in 2012 until June
6 Information regarding the project evaluation process summarized in this section was obtained from the “Round 15 (FY 2024)
Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Status Report” prepared by AEA for the Alaska State Legislature in April 2023 at:
https://www.akenergyauthority.org/Portals/0/Renewable%20Energy%20Fund/2023.04.07%20AEA%20REF%20Round%2015%20Status
%20Report%20(Final).pdf?ver=mW0S1n0vZfCcCf_g89AluQ%3d%3d.
7 https://gov.alaska.gov/governor-dunleavy-signs-bill-to-continue-renewable-energy-grant-fund/
7
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
2023.8 This recent extension has repealed any sunset dates for the program, cementing it as a permanent component
of Alaska’s energy infrastructure-development toolkit. In June 2023, the Alaska Legislature approved an appropriation
of $17 million of general funds to the REF, to fund 18 AEA-recommended REF grant projects for the 2024 fiscal year.9
This $17 million capitalization for fiscal year 2024 was the largest capital injection into the REF since the prior fiscal
year 2023, which had been the largest appropriation since fiscal year 2014.
Key Findings
Impact Models
The REF program has significantly reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and PM2.5 pollutants10 in Alaska.
The evaluation assessed the magnitude of switching from fossil fuels to renewable fuels and calculated the associated
GHG emissions and PM2.5 pollutant reductions.
8 http://www.launchalaska.com/blog/2023/1/18/alaskas-renewable-energy-fund-a-critical-catalyst-in-our-energy-transition
9 The Alaska Legislature created the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Endowment Fund under AS 42.45.070 as a separate fund of the
Alaska Energy Authority. The purpose of the PCE Endowment Fund is “to provide for a long -term, stable financing source for power
cost equalization which provides affordable levels of electric utility costs in otherwise high -cost service areas of the state.” More
information about the PCE Endowment Fund is available at: https://treasury.dor.alaska.gov/home/investments/power -cost-
equalization-endowment-fund#:~:text=The%20Alaska%20Legislature%20created%20the,of%20the%20State%20of%20Alaska.
10 PM is defined as particulate matter and can come in many sizes and shapes. PM can be made up of hundreds of different
chemicals. PM contains microscopic solid or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious heal th
problems. Of these, PM2.5, or fine inhalable particles with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller, pose the greatest
risk to human health. For more information, see https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm -basics#PM
Approximately, 85
million gallons of
diesel and
approximately 2.2
million cubic feet of
natural gas have been
displaced cumulatively
through 2022.
8
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Approximately 85 million gallons of diesel and approximately 2.2 million cubic feet of
natural gas have been displaced cumulatively through 2022.
This amount of diesel fuel is equivalent to roughly five percent of all petroleum consumed in
Alaska in 2021.11 Hydro projects account for the largest share of diesel displaced of all
technology types, as well as the largest share of natural gas displaced through the program.
(Figure 1 through Figure 4)
Approximately 1,110,424 gross metric tons of CO2 and approximately 1,063,548 net
metric tons of CO2 were mitigated cumulatively through 2022.
This is equivalent to three percent of Alaska’s total energy-related CO2 emissions in 2016.12
Diesel accounted for all CO2 mitigated for off-grid projects. For on-grid projects, natural gas
accounted for the majority of CO2 mitigated, followed by diesel. (Figure 5) The associated net
avoided social cost of carbon (SCC) is estimated at $54 million.13 (Figure 6)
The avoided cost of PM2.5 pollutant reduction through 2022 is estimated to range from
$29 million to $43 million.
These avoided costs include additional costs associated with healthcare, declines in
productivity due to illness, and other factors.
Cumulative gross energy cost savings from 2008 through 2022 reached $357 million,
while cumulative net energy cost savings reached $53 million.
These figures demonstrate the REF program has generated significant energy savings over the
course of the program, even after accounting for the costs of additional electrical
infrastructure and other renewable energy infrastructure. (Figure 7)
11 https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=AK
12 “Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions by State, 2005-2016”. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/
13 The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate of the cost, in dollars, of the damage done by each additional ton of carbon
emissions. It is also an estimate of the benefit of any action taken to reduce a ton of carbon emissions. Estimates of the SC C vary.
The Biden administration currently values the SCC at $51 per ton globally, but in November 2022, the U.S. Environmental Prote ction
Agency proposed a nearly fourfold increase, to $190. For more information, see: https://www.brookings.edu/2023/03/14/what -is-
the-social-cost-of-carbon/
9
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
The REF program has made a
significant contribution to
Alaska’s economy.
Every dollar deployed through the REF program
resulted in $2.07 in benefits returned to residents and
the economy.
Through 2022, the REF program spent roughly $245
million in funds directly, which helped catalyze $558
million in project portfolio development. The cumulative
wide range of benefits — including the SCC, the avoided
costs of energy, and the value added thr ough additional
economic activity — amounted to nearly $507 million in
total net benefits.14 This suggests that this program is
tremendously successful in providing a return on
investment to Alaska residents.
The REF program has created 2,931 new jobs,
$237 million in labor income, and $399
million in value added.
The largest share of new jobs created were in the
Construction sector (1,540), followed by
Professional & Business Services (211), Utilities
(201), Healthcare (175), Retail Trade (172), and
Manufacturing (151). (Table 1 and Figure 8)
14 This net benefit calculation incorporates the additional costs of renewable energy infrastructure and other input capital, bu t it does
not include the potential benefits of a counterfactual scenario or alternative use of REF funds.
Every dollar deployed
through the REF program
resulted in $2.07 in benefits
returned to residents and
the economy.
10
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Grant Funding Profile
The REF is a catalyst for project development.
Most grant funding has been used for project
development: 60 percent of funded grants were
primarily used to support the creation of a new
project, 24 percent was used to assess feasibility
of a project that was ultimately never built, and 11
percent was used to renovate or retrofit an
existing facility or infrastructure. (Figure 15) These
findings highlight the vital role that REF funding
played in the development of these projects.
Grantees indicated that the most common
primary goal for grants received was to reduce
fossil fuel use. The second most-common goal
was to provide reliable sources of energy for
communities in need.
Approximately 90 percent of grants were primarily
used for fuel displacement purposes, with
approximately 94 percent of grants reportedly
having achieved this goal. In addition to fossil fuel
reduction, other goals or objectives of REF grant
funding cited by grantees were: to provide reliable
sources of energy for communities in need (27
percent), to reduce GHG emissions in Alaska (16
percent), to provide economic and employment
opportunities for communities in need (15
percent), and to determine if a project or
investment would be feasible (13 percent). (Figure
16)
Wind energy projects topped the list of grants
received.
Wind energy projects accounted for 47 percent of
projects funded for surveyed grant recipients.
Biomass, landfill, and wood processing projects;
hydropower projects; and heat recovery system
projects each accounted for at least 10 percent of
the grants received. Solar energy projects, heat
pump projects, and other geothermal projects
each accounted for less than five percent of the
grants received (Figure 14).
11
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Grantee Experience & Perceptions
The REF has made a valuable contribution to
the economy of many communities.
Approximately 95 percent of grantees surveyed felt that the
grants they received supported small and rural communities in
need. Approximately 72 percent also felt that the REF grants
supported economic and employment opportunities in
underserved communities. (Figure 18)
The REF has generated significant
environmental benefits.
Approximately 77 percent of grantees surveyed felt that REF
grants supported the growth of valuable clean technologies in
Alaska, 76 percent believed that REF grants reduced the amount
of GHG emissions, and 71 percent believed that REF grants
reduced local pollution. (Figure 18)
Proper funding is critical to success. When asked about key lessons learned from working with the
REF program, the most common response (24 percent) was that
securing adequate funding is critical to project success. Other
lessons learned include lack of feasibility of a proposed project,
the critical role of the community and local workforce to project
success, and the viability of renewable energy as a means to
bringing more affordable energy to Alaskans.
There are some challenges to the grant
application process.
Approximately 38 percent of respondents cited the length of
the application and award process as a challenge, 33 percent
cited difficulty in obtaining technical support, 33 percent cited
information requirements, and 29 percent cited the complexity
of the application process as challenges. Only 10 percent of
respondents reported that they experienced no challenges in
applying for REF funding. (Figure 20)
While the selection process for funding has
become more competitive in recent years,
the process is considered fairly transparent
and often easier to access than other grants.
Some program recipients worked on obtaining grants from the
state of Alaska prior to the REF’s inception and remember it as a
less onerous process. However, others applaud the
transparency of the program regarding the type of projects
they are looking to invest in and the REF program’s
responsiveness to inquiries.
The REF program is critical to displacing
diesel generation in rural communities of
Alaska.
Several program recipients noted that there were not as many
grant opportunities targeted at creating renewable alternatives
to diesel before the REF. This means more rural communities
are seeing lower energy prices and greater access to energy
due to REF investments.
12
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
REF funds are catalytic and attract other
investors to projects in rural Alaska.
Numerous grant recipients noted that securing REF funds was
crucial in signaling credibility to other investors and bridging
gaps in funding that otherwise may have stalled a project or
forced it to be abandoned. AEA has also allowed for cost-
sharing with other grants, which gives utilities and cooperatives
more opportunities to develop rural energy infrastructure.
Approximately 52 percent of grantees surveyed indicated that
REF grants allowed them to obtain additional funding from
federal sources. (Figure 18)
Some rural communities incur significant
costs when applying for grants, including
costs associated with hiring consultants and
grant writers to compete successfully against
larger utilities with experience obtaining
grants from AEA.
While experienced program recipients indicated that the grant
application process was relatively easy, other recipients
emphasized that some small cooperatives are understaffed and
do not have the necessary experience applying for grants,
which can lead to difficulties competing for REF funding.
Conclusions
Based on the results of the
analyses, the REF program has
played a key role in supporting the
development of Alaska’s
renewable energy sector. The
evaluation concluded that the REF
program led to the displacement
of approximately 85 million
gallons of diesel and
approximately 2.2 million cubic
feet of natural gas through 2022.
The program has also led to the
avoidance of approximately 1.1
metric tons of GHG emissions
between 2008 and 2022. GHG
emissions and PM2.5 pollutants are
associated with numerous
negative human health and social
impacts. Reducing PM2.5 pollutants
and GHG emissions results in
healthier communities and lower
public health costs.
13
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Based on an investment of approximately $245 million15 in grant funding, the REF program has resulted in the
following avoided costs/monetary benefits through 2022:
Over $357 million in cumulative gross energy cost savings, and over $53 million
in cumulative net energy cost savings due to fuel switching
Approximately $54 million in net avoided Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)
Up to $43 million in avoided costs associated with PM2.5 pollutant reduction
Approximately $237 million in labor income and $399 million in value added
from 2,931 new jobs created, and the associated boost in spending for local
communities generated from those new jobs
The REF program has also helped local communities stabilize energy prices by reducing their dependence on diesel
fuel for power generation and space heating, and has supported AEA’s drive to diversify Alaska's energy portfolio
increasing resiliency, reliability, and redundancy through the sustainable deployment of viable renewable energy
sources.
Stakeholder interviews indicated that program participants believed that REF grants were successful in reducing fossil
fuel use and in attracting other investors to projects in rural Alaska, where communities face limited access to private
capital due to the small scale renewable energy projects and the perceived risks associated with private lending.
According to stakeholders, the ability to leverage REF funding has effectively lowered barriers to project financing for
grant recipients, allowing them to invest in new renewable energy projects that might not have otherwise been
feasible to pursue.
15 According to the project database, $273 million has been budgeted toward the REF, but only $245 million ha s been spent to date
as of July 2023.
14
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Research Objectives
The primary research objectives of this
study included:
1 To quantify the overall impact of the REF on local communities in Alaska, including job growth, GHG
emissions and PM2.5 pollutant reductions, fuel displacement, and cost savings.
2 To profile the types of projects and investments primarily funded by the REF by technology type,
investment use, primary goals, and benefits.
3 To understand grantee experiences and perceptions with the REF program, including overall
experience with the application process, major benefits, suggestions for improvement, and lessons
learned.
4 To offer potential recommendations or opportunities for improvement for the future of the REF
program.
Documenting the retrospective benefits of the REF program using credible and transparent methods is crucial to
demonstrating to taxpayers that REF funds were effectively spent in promoting energy savings, reducing emissions,
and fostering local economic development within Alaskan local communities.
Beyond documenting savings and attribution, however, measurement and verification of the economic benefits
generated by the REF program fosters more effective use of program resources and justifies an increased level of
investment in Alaska’s renewable energy programs in the long run.
Research Methodology
In order to assess the direct and indirect benefits generated by the REF program through 2022, BW Research
conducted a targeted review of project-specific financial, economic, and performance data compiled by AEA, which
included information on grant amounts received, project start dates, installed capacities, and goals for projects
OBJECTIVES AND
METHODOLOGY
VE SUMMARY
15
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Direct, indirect, and induced impacts for employment, Gross Regional Product (GRP or Value Added),
and labor earnings (Employee Compensation) by sector
Employment by industry or industry group for each sector
funded by the REF.16 BW Research also
synthesized available data in order to
populate missing values in the operational
project dataset, classifying operational
projects by technology type 17 and location
status (on-grid vs. off-grid)18.
For heat recovery projects lacking data on
diesel gallons displaced (DGD), BW
Research applied EIA conversion rates to
goal net heat recovery rates to calculate
DGD. For other types of projects for which
DGD data was unavailable, BW Research
calculated average DGD values by
technology type based on available data
and applied those values as a proxy for
missing data. BW Research then applied
data obtained from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to calculate GHG
emissions reductions and PM2.5 pollutant
reductions due to REF funding.
To calculate gross avoided energy costs, BW Research obtained historical data on Alaskan energy prices for 2008 to
2020 ($/MMBtu) from EIA and applied these prices to the volumes of diesel and natural gas displaced.19 Net avoided
energy costs were calculated after deducting annual biomass and on-grid electricity costs, as well as project costs.20
Then, BW Research conducted an economic benefits analysis to quantify:
16 However, it should be noted that the impacts evaluation relied heavily upon data provided by the AEA. The BW Research team ha s
not audited this data and can make no assurances regarding the reliability or the accuracy of the underlying data.
17 BW Research extrapolated project types based on an analysis of project descriptions. Classification by project type allowed g reater
precision in calculating economic impacts of the REF, as different multipliers were applied to each of the technology types funded by
the REF to quantify the levels of jobs created, and value added generated as the result of the funding of each type of project by the
REF.
18 BW Research obtained coordinates for each operational project for which location data was available, and mapped each project
against Alaska’s grid, to determine whether projects were located on- or off-grid. The determination of location status (on-grid vs.
off-grid) allowed the BW Research team to more precisely calculate GHG emissions avoided due to the REF, as on -grid projects were
assumed to emit different levels of GHG as compared to off-grid projects.
19 Gross energy savings are defined as changes in energy consumption that are directly attributable to measures installed due to
funding received from the REF program, regardless of why grantees participated in the REF program.
20 The primary difference between gross and net energy savings represents free riders (participants who would have implemented
the same or similar renewable energy projects absent REF program funding) and spillover effects (savings that result from act ions
taken due to the REF program, but which were not directly subsidized by the program).
16
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
BW Research created custom multipliers in IMPLAN, an input-output economic modeling software, leveraging
existing BW Research models, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) technical data, and NREL’s Jobs and
Economic Development Impact (JEDI) models, to calculate the economic impact of grants awarded through the REF.
Economic benefits were calculated using REF project information for select projects from Round 1 to 14, based on
AEA’s data and assumptions regarding project funding amount and type, project life, project benefit/cost ratios, fuel
prices, utility rates, and future loads, for all scenarios.
BW Research then conducted a basic cost-benefit analysis for the REF, wherein the economic impacts per million
dollars invested in funding the REF were calculated. As mentioned previously, a more complete methodology is
outlined in Appendix A on page 36. Key inputs for the impacts analysis are presented in Appendix B on page 41.
Finally, BW Research conducted surveys with current and past grant recipients, as well as executive interviews with
utility companies, energy cooperatives, and energy program managers that had knowledge of or had taken part in
the REF program, in order to understand grantee experiences and perceptions with the REF program, including overall
experience with the application process, major benefits, suggestions for improvement, and lessons learned .21
Report Structure
The preceding section provided an executive summary of the report, including a high-level overview of the findings of
the REF program evaluation. The remainder of the report is organized as described below.
Appendix A provides a more detailed description of the methodology underlying the impact analyses, while Appendix
B summarizes key inputs and assumptions used in the impact analyses.
21 While 29 grant recipients participated in the survey, grant funding information was only available from 21 of those responden ts,
which provided information for 62 individual grants in aggregate.
The Objectives and
Methodology
section provides a
high-level overview
of the research
objectives and
methodology
applied in this
report.
The Impact Models
section summarizes the
results of the impact
analyses performed to
quantify the overall
impact of the REF on
local communities in
Alaska, including job
growth, GHG emissions
reductions,
fuel displacement and
cost savings.
The Grantee Outreach
section summarizes
survey results and
anecdotal feedback
obtained from grantees,
including experience
with and perceptions of
the grant application
process, primary benefits
of the grant funding, and
challenges or
opportunities moving
forward.
The Conclusion and
Recommendations
section summarizes
the key results of
the analyses and
recommendations
based on the
results of the
evaluation.
17
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
This section describes the impact analyses conducted for the REF
program to quantify the overall impact of the REF on local
communities in Alaska, including job growth, GHG emissions
reductions, and fuel displacement and cost savings. The analyses
were based on data provided by AEA for projects funded by the
REF program.
The project database included the following information:
• Grantee name
• Project name
• Grant amount ($)
• Project stage (Construction, Feasibility, or Final Design)
• Operation start date
• Diesel gallons displaced
• Installed capacity (MW)
• Goal net heat delivery (MMBtu/yr.)
• Goal electric generation (MWh/yr.)
However, complete data was not available for all projects. Where data was unavailable, BW Research applied
assumptions to populate the missing data, as described in the following sections.
Fuel Displacement Analysis
The purpose of the fuel displacement analysis was to identify any fuel switching or elimination resulting from projects
funded by the REF program, and to calculate the cost savings or increases associated with such
switching/displacement. Fuel displacement is a crucial element in Alaska’s transition toward a clean economy, as
reducing reliance on expensive diesel -fueled electricity in favor of more cost-effective renewable generation enhances
both self-sufficiency and sustainability in Alaska’s local communities.
Figure 1 through Figure 4 summarize the results of the fuel displacement analyses by technology type. As shown in
Figure 1, approximately 85 million gallons of diesel have been displaced cumulatively by REF-funded projects through
2022. Diesel displacement ramped up robustly between 2013 and 2014 and remained elevated through 2022.
IMPACT
MODELS
18
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Figure 1. Cumulative Diesel Gallons Displaced by Technology Type, 2008-2022
As shown in Figure 2, hydro projects account for the largest share of annual diesel gallons displaced, with an
approximate 70 percent share from 2014 through 2022. Wind projects, heat recovery projects, and biomass projects
accounted for the next highest shares of annual diesel gallons displaced through 202 2. As of the end of 2022,
approximately 9.2 million gallons of diesel were displaced annually by all projects funded by the REF program.
Figure 2. Annual Diesel Gallons Displaced by Technology Type, 2008-2022
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TRANSMISSION WIND HEAT PUMPS HEAT RECOVERY SOLAR HYDRO STORAGE BIOMASS LANDFILL GAS
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TRANSMISSION WIND HEAT PUMPS HEAT RECOVERY SOLAR HYDRO STORAGE BIOMASS LANDFILL GAS
19
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
As shown in Figure 3, approximately 2.2 million cubic feet of natural gas has been displaced cumulatively by REF-
funded projects through 2022.
Figure 3. Millions of Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Cumulatively Displaced by Technology Type, 2008-2022
As shown in Figure 4, from 2012 to 2014, one landfill gas project was solely responsible for all-natural gas displaced.
Subsequently, from 2015 through 2022, hydro projects accounted for approximately two -thirds of natural gas
displaced on an annual basis, with a single landfill gas project accounting for the remaining third.22
Figure 4. Millions of Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Displaced Annually by Technology Type, 2008-2022
22 Only a few projects were identified as having displaced natural gas, and the first project that did so became operational in 2012.
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TRANSMISSION WIND HEAT PUMPS HEAT RECOVERY SOLAR HYDRO STORAGE BIOMASS LANDFILL GAS
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TRANSMISSION WIND HEAT PUMPS HEAT RECOVERY SOLAR HYDRO STORAGE BIOMASS LANDFILL GAS
20
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Environmental Benefits Analysis
The purpose of the environmental benefits analysis was to calculate GHG emissions reductions resulting from fuel
switching/displacement for projects funded by the REF. GHG emissions have been implicated in long-term damage to
agricultural productivity, human health, and other factors, so reduction of GHG emissions represents a significant
benefit of the REF program.
Figure 5 illustrates gross and net GHG emissions avoided from 2008 through 202 2. As shown, avoided GHG emissions
increased gradually from 2008 to 2013, and rose sharply in 2013 and 2014. Avoided GHG emissions remained
relatively stable between 2015 and 2019, increasing slightly in 2019 before plateauing in 2020 and remaining stable
through 2022. Approximately 1,110,424 gross metric tons of CO2 were mitigated cumulatively through 2022, and
approximately 1,063,548 net metric tons of CO2 were mitigated cumulatively through 2022.
Figure 5. Metric Tons of Gross and Net GHG Emissions Avoided, 2008-2022
Diesel accounted for all CO2 mitigated in off-grid projects. For on-grid projects, natural gas accounted for the majority
of CO2 mitigated, followed by diesel.
Avoided Social Costs
Figure 6 illustrates cumulative gross and net avoided SCC for projects funded by the REF. As shown, the cumulative
net avoided SCC was calculated at $54 million, while the cumulative gross SCC was calculated at $5 7 million.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Net GHG Emissions Avoided Gross GHG Emissions Avoided
21
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Figure 6. Cumulative Gross and Net Avoided Social Cost of Carbon ($), 2008-2022
Cost Savings Analysis
Subsequently, BW Research sought to quantify gross and net avoided energy costs for projects funded by the REF
program. BW Research applied deemed savings calculations, applying engineering algorithms to calculate energy
savings based on stipulated assumptions for various parameters.
Figure 7 illustrates gross and net energy cost savings from REF-funded projects over the period from 2008 to 2022.
Net avoided energy costs are calculated by deducting annual biomass costs, on -grid electricity costs, and project
costs from gross energy costs.23 Netting out project costs results in negative net avoided energy costs in the early
stages of a project, but as energy savings accrue over time, annual avoided energy costs turn positive.
As shown, as of 2022, total cumulative gross energy cost savings from REF-funded projects reached $357 million,
while total cumulative net energy cost savings reached $53 million.
23 Annual biomass and on-grid electricity costs are calculated by converting annual diesel and natural gas displaced to MMBtu of
biomass and electricity consumption. On-grid electric generation projects result in 0 net cost savings, while off -grid electricity costs
for hydro, solar, and wind are limited to project costs.
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Net Avoided SCC Gross Avoided SCC
22
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Figure 7. Gross and Net Energy Cost Savings ($), 2008-2022
Economic Benefits Analysis
The economic benefits analysis quantified the incremental economic activity generated by each grant, including
capital expenditures, operational expenditures, cost savings, and other impacts. In the economic benefits analysis, BW
Research calculated:
• Direct, indirect, and induced impacts for employment, Gross Regional Product (GRP or Value Added),
and labor earnings (Employee Compensation) by sector
• Employment by industry or industry group for each sector
Economic benefits were calculated using REF project information for select projects from Round 1 to 14, based on
AEA’s data and assumptions regarding project funding amount and type, project life, project benefit/cost ratios, fuel
prices, utility rates, and future loads, for all scenarios.
Table 1 and Figure 8 present the employment effects of the REF program by industry. As shown, a total of 2,931 jobs
were created due to the REF program, including 1,672 jobs created through direct effects, 555 jobs through indirect
effects, and 704 jobs through induced effects. Approximately 57 percent of jobs created were due to direct effects; 19
percent were created due to indirect effects, and 24 percent were created due to induced effects.
($40,000,000)
($30,000,000)
($20,000,000)
($10,000,000)
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Net Energy Cost Savings Gross Energy Cost Savings
23
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Table 1. Job Creation by Industry
Industry Direct Indirect Induced Total
Agriculture 28 8 2 38
Manufacturing 9 114 29 151
Mining & Extraction 0 6 0 6
Utilities 135 63 3 201
Wholesale Trade 0 21 10 31
Retail Trade 0 66 107 172
Transport 0 27 16 43
Distribution 0 5 5 10
Information 0 5 7 12
FIRE 0 40 60 99
Professional and Business Services 66 103 41 211
Education 0 0 14 14
Healthcare 0 0 175 175
Entertainment 0 3 27 29
Construction 1,432 51 57 1,540
Hospitality 0 9 73 82
Other 2 28 75 105
Government 0 8 2 10
All Industries 1,672 555 704 2,931
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 8, the Construction industry accounted for the largest share of new jobs, as 53
percent of all jobs created were in the Construction industry. The Utilities and Professional and Business Services
industries generated the second-highest levels of job growth, with each accounting for seven percent of new jobs
created; followed by the Healthcare and Retail Trade industries, which each accounted for six percent of new jobs
created.
24
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Figure 8. Job Creation by Industry
Table 2 summarizes the total economic impacts generated by the REF program. As shown, the program was
responsible for generating 2,931 new jobs, $237 million in labor income, and $399 million in value added.
Table 2. Total Economic Impacts of the REF Program
Employment Labor Income Value Added
Direct 1,672 $154,422,454 $251,188,991
Indirect 555 $41,110,106 $74,980,043
Induced 704 $41,152,349 $73,142,672
Total 2,931 $236,684,909 $399,311,706
Cost-Benefit Analysis
A cost-benefit analysis evaluates projects based on the direct cost (grant amount) and the savings and avoided costs
for the project, and typically serves as the baseline assessment of the value of a particular project. The direct cost-
benefit analysis provides crucial information on whether an investment ultimately saves more money than it costs in
the long run and is thus often the first and primary metric developed to measure a project’s success.
As shown below, BW Research calculated the economic impacts per million dollars invested, and per million dollars
invested by the REF program. As shown, 12 jobs were created per million dollars invested by the REF program . In
addition, 4,345 metric tons of net GHG emissions were avoided and $217,375 in net energy costs were avoided per
million dollars invested in the REF program.
Agriculture
1%
Manufacturing
5%Mining &
Extraction
0%
Utilities
7%
Wholesale Trade
1%Retail
Trade
6%
Transport
1%Distribution
0%
Information
0%FIRE
3%
Professional &
Business Services
7%
Education
0%
Healthcare
6%
Entertainment
1%
Construction
53%
Hospitality
3%
Other
4%
Government
0%
25
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Table 3. Economic Impacts per $Million Invested by the REF Program
Jobs Created
Direct 6.8
Indirect 2.3
Induced 2.9
Total 12.0
Table 4. Avoided GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2) per $Million Invested by the REF Program
Avoided GHG Emissions
Net 4,345
Gross 4,536
Table 5. Net and Gross Avoided Energy Costs ($) per $Million Invested by the REF Program
Avoided Energy Costs
Net $217,375
Gross $1,458,725
26
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
As part of the evaluation efforts for the REF program, the
research team conducted outreach with current and past
grant recipients. The following sections provide
quantitative survey results and anecdotal feedback from
grantees, including experience with and perceptions of the
grant application process, primary benefits of grant
funding, and challenges or opportunities moving forward.
Survey Results
Grant Recipient Profile
Approximately 96 percent of survey respondents indicated that their business has been in operation in Alaska for 20
years or more, while the remaining four percent indicated that they have been operating in the state for 10 to 19
years. None of the surveyed organizations have been conducting business in Alaska for fewer than 10 years.
As shown in Figure 9, 50 percent of survey respondents indicated that they primarily work in the utilities sector,
followed by a governmental entity, which includes tribal councils and housing authorities (43 percent), and local
government (29 percent). Approximately 18 percent of respondents indicated that they are either an Independent
Power Producer (IPP), and 18 percent indicated that they worked at a construction firm.
Figure 9. Industry Focus
As shown in Figure 10, 30 percent of firms surveyed that received REF grant funding indicated that they have 50 or
more employees, and 26 percent indicated that they have five to nine employees.
7.0%
18.0%
18.0%
29.0%
43.0%
50.0%
Other
Construction
Independent Power Producer (IPP)
Local Government
Governmental Entity (including tribal councils and housing
authorities)
Utilities
GRANTEE
OUTREACH
27
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Figure 10. Firm Size
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 11, 59 percent of survey respondents indicated that employment at their
organization has remained constant over the last three years, while 26 percent reported that employment has grown,
and 15 percent reported that employment has declined.
Figure 11. Historical Employment Growth
As shown in Figure 12, 30 percent of survey respondents reported that they expect their organization to grow in
employment over the next 12 months, and 52 percent predicted that they would have the same number of employees
in the next year. Only four percent of respondents expected a decline in employment over the next 12 months.
4.0%
30.0%
15.0%
15.0%
26.0%
11.0%
Don't know/ Refused
50 or more employees
25 to 49 employees
10 to 24 employees
5 to 9 employees
Less than 5 employees
Grown, 26.0%
Stayed the same,
59.0%
Declined,
15.0%
28
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Figure 12. Employment Growth Projections
Approximately 33 percent of survey respondents indicated that the primary challenge to growing or maintaining their
businesses/organizations is a small applicant pool or lack of qualified candidates. Approximately 26 percent reported
lack of funding is a challenge, followed by inflation or the high cost of goods (22 percent), lack of housing (seven
percent), and the COVID-19 pandemic (four percent) (Figure 13). These findings suggest that while finding funding is
a significant challenge for many, finding qualified talent is an even more common challenge. Given Alaska’s relatively
fixed labor pool, it will be important to ensure that the clean energy workforce is prepared to support Alaska’s
growing portfolio of renewable energy projects and accompanying infrastructure.
Figure 13. Business Challenges
More, 30.0%
Less , 4.0%
Same number of
employees, 52.0%
Don't
know/
Refused,
15.0%
7.0%
4.0%
7.0%
22.0%
26.0%
33.0%
Other
COVID-19 pandemic
Lack of housing
Inflation or high cost of goods
Lack of funding
Small applicant pool or lack of qualified candidates
29
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Grant Funding Overview
As shown in Figure 14, among surveyed grant recipients, the
main technology that has received funding thus far is wind
energy. Approximately 47 percent of survey respondents
reported that the primary purpose of the REF grants their
organizations have received was for a wind energy project.
Biomass, landfill, and wood processing; hydropower; and heat
recovery systems each accounted for at least 10 percent each of
the grants received.
Figure 14. Primary Technologies Funded
As shown in Figure 15, most grants supported the creation of a new project, with 60 percent of grants being used for
this purpose. Approximately 24 percent of grants were used to assess feasibility of a project that ultimately was not
built, and 11 percent of grants were used to renovate or retrofit an existing facility or infrastructure.
Figure 15. Grant Use/Reason for Funding
11.0%
2.0%
2.0%
3.0%
10.0%
13.0%
13.0%
47.0%
Other
Geothermal, excluding heat pumps
Heat pumps
Solar energy
Heat recovery systems
Hydropower
Biomass, landfill, or wood processing
Wind energy
Grant was used to
support the creation of
a new project, 60.0%
Grant was used to
assess feasibility of a
project that was
ultimately not pursued,
24.0%
Grant was used to
renovate or retrofit an
existing facility or
infrastructure, 11.0%
Other, 3.0%Don't know/
Refused, 2.0%
For the following section in Figure 14
through Figure 20, the topline data is
based on responses from 21 grant
recipients that provided information
for 62 individual grants. As such, the
data presented herein is based on
these 62 grants.
30
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
As shown in Figure 16, 90 percent of grant recipients indicated that the primary goal of grant projects was fuel
displacement, or a reduction in fossil fuel use. Other goals or objectives of these projects included providing reliable
sources of energy for communities in need (27 percent), reducing GHG emissions in Alaska (16 percent), providing
economic and employment opportunities (15 percent), and determining if a project or investment would be feasible
(13 percent).
Figure 16. Primary Goals/Objectives of Grant Projects
Benefits & Challenges
Most grant recipients indicated that their projects ultimately achieved the primary goal of fuel displacement. As
shown in Figure 17, 94 percent of grant recipients indicated that the primary benefit of REF funding was f uel
displacement. Approximately 31 percent of grant recipients indicated that the primary benefit was the provision of
reliable sources of energy for communities in need.
Figure 17. Reported Benefits Realized by Funded Projects
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 18, 95 percent of surveyed grantees felt that the grants they received supported
small and rural communities in need. Approximately 72 percent also indicated that the grants supported economic
2.0%
2.0%
13.0%
15.0%
16.0%
27.0%
90.0%
Other
Leverage additional resources from outside of Alaska
Determine if a project or investment was feasible
Provide economic and employment opportunity for
communities in need
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Alaska
Provide reliable sources of energy for communities in need
Fuel displacement (reduction in fossil fuel use)
10.0%
11.0%
13.0%
23.0%
31.0%
94.0%
Provide economic and employment opportunity for…
Determine if a project or investment was feasible
Increase employment in Alaska
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Alaska
Provide reliable sources of energy for communities in…
Fuel displacement (reduction in fossil fuel use)
31
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
and employment opportunities in underserved communities, and 52 percent also felt that the grants allowed them to
obtain additional funding from federal sources.
Additionally, 77 percent of respondents indicated that the grants supported the growth of valuable clean
technologies in Alaska, 76 percent felt that the grants reduced the amount of GHG emissions, and 71 percent felt that
the grants reduced the amount of local pollution.
Figure 18. Additional Grant Benefits
Approximately 52 percent of grant recipients indicated that they track information measuring the impact of the
project(s) that were supported through REF grant funding. However, 41 percent of grant recipients reported not
knowing the types of impacts measured, or refused to respond when asked what types of impacts were measured.
Approximately 19 percent of respondents indicated that they shared data with AEA.
As shown in Figure 19, for those respondents that provided additional information on impacts measured, 13 percent
reported measuring amounts of fuel consumption reduced, six percent reported measuring kWh of electricity
produced, and six percent reported measuring annual performance.
38.0%
57.0%
48.0%
56.0%
57.0%
67.0%
76.0%
14.0%
14.0%
24.0%
20.0%
19.0%
10.0%
19.0%
33.0%
24.0%
29.0%
12.0%
19.0%
24.0%
5.0%
10.0%
5.0%
12.0%
5.0%
The grant(s) allowed us to get additional funding from federal
sources
The grant(s) reduced the amount of local pollution
The grant(s) supported economic and employment
opportunities in underserved communities
The grant(s) supported a useful feasibility assessment of a
potential renewable energy project
The grant(s) reduced the amount of greenhouse gas
emissions in Alaska
The grant(s) supported the growth of valuable clean
technologies in Alaska
The grant(s) supported small and rural communities in need
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't know/ Refused
32
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Figure 19. Types of Impacts Measured
Grantees were also surveyed to determine perceived lessons learned from participation in the REF program. The key
lesson learned from grantees is that proper funding is critical to project success; this was the top reported lesson
learned by 24 percent of respondents. Approximately 14 percent of respondents also reported learning that
community and local workforce are critical to project success, and approximately 10 percent reported learning that
the development and operation and maintenance phases of thei r projects were critical to success.
Approximately 19 percent of respondents ultimately determined that their projects were not feasible following
assessments. Furthermore, only 10 percent of respondents indicated that their projects had met or exceeded their
expectations.
Figure 20 illustrates the primary challenges cited by respondents in working with the REF program. As shown, only 10
percent of respondents reported that they encountered no challenges in working with the REF program.
Of those grantees that indicated having faced challenges with the REF program, 38 percent cited the length of
application/award process, 33 percent cited difficulties associated with getting technical support or assistance, 33
cited information requirements, and 29 percent cited the complexity of the application process as the primary
challenges associated with the program.
Figure 20. REF Program Primary Challenges
6.0%
6.0%
13.0%
Annual performance reports
kWh production
Reduced fuel consumption
29.0%
10.0%
5.0%
29.0%
33.0%
33.0%
38.0%
Don't know/ Refused
None
Other
Complex application process
Information requirements
Getting technical support
Length of application/award process
33
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Executive Interview Summaries
The following section summarizes the findings from executive interviews with six stakeholders across utility
companies, energy cooperatives, and energy program managers that have knowledge of or have taken part in the REF
grant program. The major themes discussed by the research team during these interviews included, but were not
limited to, challenges and opportunities pertaining to the REF program, thoughts on the efficacy of the program, and
suggestions regarding the program overall.
Grantee Experience & Perceptions
The Renewable Energy Fund contributed to improving the economy and environment of many communities.
According to program recipients, their respective communities are thriving because of affordable energy rates, and
state revenues are growing due to the REF program.
Although the
program has
become more
competitive in
recent years,
program recipients
consider the process
fairly transparent
and easier to access
than other grants.
Some program
recipients have
worked on obtaining
grants from the state
of Alaska prior to the
REF’s inception and remember it as a less onerous
process. However, others applaud the transparency of the program regarding the type of projects they are looking to
invest in and their responsiveness to inquiries.
“We’ve participated in a lot
of other grant and funding
opportunities (…), and AEA’s
process by far is the best, from
start to finish.”
“AEA funds contribute to improving the
economy of our community, its safety,
prosperity, and positive impacts on the
environment.”
“The REF helps to reduce and stabilize electric
rates for the economic drivers in the
community, primarily, and that’s awesome.”
“We’ve participated in a lot of other grant and
funding opportunities (…), and AEA’s process
by far is the best, from start to finish.
Reporting is streamlined and straightforward,
reimburses you very quickly, and if you call
with questions, you get answers and some
guidance.”
“I think the REF application process is kept at
a level that is acceptable — it’s not an overly
onerous burden for the applicant to submit,
especially compared to a lot of federal
funding opportunities that are incredibly
complicated and cumbersome in time and
energy needed to put in a good application.”
34
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Program Strengths & Weaknesses
The REF program is critical to displacing diesel generation in
rural communities of Alaska. Several program recipients have
explained that there were not as many grant opportunities
targeted at creating renewable alternatives to diesel before the
REF, which is making those communities less reliant on fossil
fuel generation.
REF funds tend to attract other investors to projects in rural
Alaska. Recipients of the fund have explained that such projects
would rarely make economic sense on their own, and that being
backed by state dollars lends them credibility. AEA has also
allowed for cost-sharing with other grants, which gives utilities
and cooperatives more opportunities to develop rural energy
infrastructure.
“What has the
program done for
our community?
Saved a boatload of
diesel…
[it’s been] 10 years
and we’ve already
saved millions of
dollars in diesel fuel.”
“What has the program done for our
community? Saved a boatload of diesel . . .
REF has reduced our operations and
maintenance, increased safety of projects,
increased amount of diesel offsetting, resulted
in substantial cost saving to our customers of
every rate class . . . Just this year alone it
saved $600,000 in diesel fuel… [it’s been] 10
years and we’ve already saved millions of
dollars in diesel fuel.”
“It does help attract other investors, very few of these projects in rural Alaska make economic sense on their
own, so it’s hard to get other funding agencies to commit because they don’t see the end product, but if they
know the state has provided partial funding, it’s easier to leverage other opportunities.”
35
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Most program recipients complained about the lack of data tracking of projects that have received REF
funding. Some recipients provide metrics to the state, in order to ensure continued program funding. However,
recipients have argued that there needs to be more diligence pertaining to tracking key metrics and publishing
quantitative and qualitative measures of success for past projects, in order to keep improving project development
and funding allocation policies.
“The state providing cost share
for the other grants provided by
the federal government is very
critical because we can get
more projects in the pipeline
done – this is really critical.”
“The state providing cost share
for the other grants provided by
the federal government is very
critical because we can get
more projects in the pipeline
done — this is really critical.”
“I would like to see better metrics about the program, as a funder I would
like to see how well the program is contributing to the overall clean energy
transition in Alaska. I think it would be really interesting to see with some
sort of regularity… to know how many different types of projects have been
funded. . . .That kind of report can be used to make important policy and
funding decisions… a lot of that can be useful for determining what’s next
for that community in terms of transitioning to locally available, cleaner,
cheaper resources.”
36
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Based on the results
of the analyses, the
REF program has
played a significant
role in supporting the
development of
Alaska’s renewable
energy sector:
1 The REF has been crucial in helping Alaska transition to a clean economy and supporting grantee
efforts to produce affordable renewable power to meet local energy needs.
2 The REF has helped local communities stabilize energy prices by reducing their dependence on
diesel fuel for power generation and space heating.
3 The REF has reduced environmental pollutants, resulting in healthier communities and lower public
health costs.
4 The REF has created new local jobs, fueling local economic growth, and has generated significant
labor income and value added.
5 The REF has attracted other investors to projects in rural Alaska, effectively lowering barriers to
project funding for grant recipients. Thus, the REF has allowed grant recipients to invest in new
renewable energy projects that might not otherwise have been economically feasible.
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
37
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Moreover, the REF program has been highly successful in supporting local communities, with 95 percent of grantees
surveyed indicating that the grants they received supported small and rural communities in need and 72 percent of
respondents noting that the REF program supported economic and employment opportunities in underserved
communities. However, some challenges remain, particularly for potential first-time applicants and applicants from
smaller communities.
Based on the stakeholder interviews, BW Research developed the following recommendations for improvements to
the REF program to increase efficiency while maintaining high levels of participant satisfaction :
Reduce, simplify, or eliminate certain
requirements for the application process.
As mentioned previously, a significant proportion of grant
recipients indicated that the length of the award process was a
challenge. Streamlining application requirements could increase
both participation in, and participant satisfaction with, the REF
program.
Maintain complete project records. Numerous grant recipients indicated that they prefer a higher level
of diligence in tracking key metrics and publishing quantitative and
qualitative measures of success for past projects, to improve
project development and funding allocation policies. Maintaining
thorough project records will also support future program
evaluations.
Based on an investment of approximately $245 million in grant funding, the REF program has resulted in the
following avoided costs/monetary benefits through 2022:
• Over $357 million in cumulative gross energy cost savings, and over $53 million in cumulative net
energy cost savings due to fuel switching, as approximately 85 million gallons of diesel and 2.2
million cubic feet of natural gas were displaced as a result of REF program funding
• Approximately $54 million in net avoided SCC, as approximately 1.1 metric tons of GHG emissions
were reduced due to REF program funding
• Up to $43 million in avoided costs associated with PM2.5 pollutant reduction
• Approximately $237 million in labor income and $399 million in value added from 2,931 new jobs
created, and the associated boost in spending for local communities generated from those new jobs.
38
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Appendix A: Methodology
Fuel Displacement
The first step in the analysis included categorizing the projects in AEA ’s database as “off-grid” or “on-grid,” as
different assumptions were employed to calculate fuel displacement for projects that were on -grid versus off-grid. To
determine project location, BW Research searched for project coordinates and compared them to maps of Alaska’s
electricity grid.
Subsequently, BW Research sought to populate the missing values for annual DGD in AEA’s dataset for operational
projects.24 Key assumptions for the extrapolation process by project type are listed below:
Biomass
BW Research calculated the average DGD by grant amount based on data for the 18 biomass projects for
which annual DGD was available. For biomass projects lacking annual DGD data, BW Research applied the
average DGD by grant amount as a proxy to estimate annual DGD.
Heat Recovery
BW Research calculated annual DGD for heat recovery projects with available data by applying an U.S. EIA
conversion rate to available data on goal net heat delivered (MMBtu/year). For heat recovery projects lacking
data, BW Research applied the average ann ual DGD by grant amount as a proxy to estimate annual DGD.
Heat Pump
Similarly, BW Research calculated annual DGD for heat pump projects with available heating data by
applying an EIA conversion rate (Btu/gal Diesel) to actual goal net heat delivered. For heat pump projects
lacking data, BW Research applied the average DGD by grant amount as a proxy to estimate annual DGD.
All Other Projects (Hydroelectric, Solar, Storage, Wind, Gas, & Transmission)
BW Research calculated annual DGD for projects with available goal net electric generation data (MWh/year)
data, using EIA conversion rates (Btu/gal diesel, Btu/kWh). For projects lacking data, BW Research applied the
average goal net electric generation per installed capacity (MW) as a proxy to estimate annual DGD.
Environmental Benefits Analysis
To calculate gross annual avoided GHG emissions, BW Research multiplied U .S. EPA data on GHG emissions for diesel
and natural gas consumption by annual DGD and MCF natural gas displaced.
For on-grid renewable electric generation projects, annual fuel displacement was converted to emissions from
electricity consumption, assuming current electricity usage and generation mix from U .S. EPA’s Alaskan electricity
output emissions data.
24 BW Research was unable to extrapolate annual fuel displacement for non-operational projects included in the grant
portfolio dataset because projects were listed as “closed,” and no data existed from which extrapolations could be
made (start/end date, technology, capacity, generation, heat delivery, etc.).
39
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
To calculate net avoided emissions, BW Research subtracted emissions from biomass consumption, assuming GHG
emissions were approximately equal to fossil fuels, as per NREL’s Biomass Energy Basics.25 Renewable energy
generation (solar, wind, storage, hydro), heat recovery, and ground source heat pumps were assumed not to produce
GHG emissions during heat and electricity generation.
To calculate the avoided SCC, BW Research used annual avoided metric tons of carbon emissions, multiplied by the
current SCC, $51.2.26
To calculate the social cost of PM2.5 avoided, BW Research used annual avoided diesel gallons and MCF natural gas,
multiplied by average emissions factors calculated by the Argonne National Laboratory.27 This estimates the pounds
of PM2.5 emitted, which is then multiplied by two estimates of social cost of PM2.5 emissions, to create a low and high
estimate.28 29
Cost Savings Analysis
For the cost savings analysis, BW Research first obtained data on Alaskan energy prices for 2008 to 2020 ($/MMBtu)
from EIA. However, since data for 2021 and 2022 was unavailable, BW Research used 2020 prices as a proxy.
To calculate gross avoided energy costs, BW Research multiplied EIA prices by annual off -grid diesel gallons and MCF
natural gas displaced (converted to MMBtu), and on-grid diesel gallons and MCF natural gas displaced.
To calculate net avoided energy costs, BW Research deducted annual biomass and on -grid electricity costs. These
were calculated by converting annual diesel and natural gas displaced to MMBtu of biomass and electricity
consumption.30
BW Research then deducted project costs. Costs from projects without dates were distributed across years based on
the given annual cost distribution.31
Economic Benefits Analysis
For the economic benefits analysis, BW Research used project descriptive information to identify the technology
funded by each grant, as not all projects listed within the database listed this information. The projects were then
grouped into 10 sectors: Biomass, Energy Storage, Geothermal, Heat Pump, Heat Recovery, Hydroelectric, Solar,
Transmission, Wind, and Various. The total spending in each sector is shown in Table 6.
25 https://www.nrel.gov/research/re-
biomass.html#:~:text=Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20Reduction&text=Burning%20biomass%20releases%20about%20the,ess
entially%20%22new%22%20greenhouse%20gas.
26 Ibid.
27 https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2012/07/73844.pdf
28 https://cedmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Public-Health-Costs-of-Primary-PM2.5-and-Inorganic-PM2.5-Precursor-
Emissions-in-the-United-States.pdf
29 Note that this was a gross analysis and did not account for PM 2.5 emissions from biomass consumption.
30 On-grid electric generation projects result in net 0 cost savings, while off -grid electricity costs for hydro, solar, and wind are
estimated to be limited to project costs.
31 Netting out project costs results in negative annual avoided energy costs in early years, but as annual energy savings accumu late
over time, annual avoided energy costs turn positive.
40
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Table 6. Total Spending by Sector ($ Millions)
Technology Renewable Energy Fund
Budget Actual
Community Contributions
Budget Actual
State, Other
Actual
Federal
Actual
Total
Actual
Biomass $27,681,228 $26,917,286 $8,579,424 $8,170,574 $185,109 $0 $35,272,970
Energy
Storage $2,325,000 $0 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Geothermal $9,996,966 $9,996,966 $5,618,386 $5,835,311 $3,798 $94,001 $15,930,077
Heat Pump $7,026,473 $6,389,473 $1,266,847 $3,038,625 $1,333 $0 $9,429,431
Heat
Recovery $18,093,800 $16,193,096 $3,752,300 $3,790,241 $324,606 $0 $20,307,943
Hydroelectric $94,243,909 $81,995,267 $152,766,068 $174,482,032 $52,779,937 $221,651 $309,478,888
Solar $5,140,635 $447,385 $2,359,661 $101,190 $1,665 $0 $550,240
Transmission $9,123,521 $8,748,125 $705,236 $1,036,662 $150,446 $2,402,838 $12,338,070
Various $5,781,485 $4,296,410 $982,691 $420,621 $10,060 $0 $4,727,091
Wind $94,033,314 $89,792,948 $50,505,342 $49,982,067 $10,277,279 $0 $150,052,294
TOTAL $273,446,331 $244,776,957 $227,135,955 $246,857,324 $63,734,233 $2,718,490 $558,087,003
BW Research then created custom multipliers in IMPLAN, an input-output economic modeling software, leveraging
existing BW Research models, NREL technical data, and NREL’s JEDI models, to calculate the economic impact of
grants awarded through the REF. Sector-specific assumptions are detailed below:
• For the storage, solar, and biomass sectors, BW Research used NREL technical cost data leveraged from
previous work.
• For the heat pump and heat recovery sectors, BW Research used commercial heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning, or HVAC, spending patterns leveraged from previous work.
• For the hydroelectric, transmission, and various sectors, BW Research assumed a general split of
spending on capex/construction activities versus activities the utility would handle (siting, engineering,
operations), which BW Research leveraged from previous work splitting costs into capex/construction
versus engineering/operations and maintenance.
• For the geothermal and wind sectors, BW Research used NREL’s JEDI models for geothermal and land -
based wind, for projects in Alaska.
41
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
Appendix B: Selected Inputs for
the Impacts Analysis
Table 7. Alaska Historical Electricity Consumption (2008-2021) 32
YEAR TYPE OF PRODUCER ENERGY SOURCE
(UNITS)
CONSUMPTION for
ELECTRICITY
2008 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 497,114
2008 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,654,644
2008 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 44,153,394
2008 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 210,256
2008 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,574,120
2008 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 43,199,130
2008 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 197,436
2008 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 89,422
2008 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 7,376
2008 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 0
2008 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 73,148
2008 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 954,264
2009 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 512,959
2009 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,996,320
2009 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 38,950,168
2009 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 204,928
2009 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,907,675
2009 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 38,078,331
2009 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 226,727
2009 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 81,304
2009 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 10,525
2009 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 0
2009 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 78,120
2009 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 871,837
2010 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 496,500
32 Data obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), as re -released in March 2023.
42
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
YEAR TYPE OF PRODUCER ENERGY SOURCE
(UNITS)
CONSUMPTION for
ELECTRICITY
2010 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,622,296
2010 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 40,676,974
2010 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 188,767
2010 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,535,173
2010 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 39,731,774
2010 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 218,160
2010 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 89,573
2010 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 10,111
2010 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 4,329
2010 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 77,012
2010 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 940,871
2011 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 511,662
2011 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 42,590,510
2011 Total Electric Power Industry Other Gases (Billion Btu) 36
2011 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,613,261
2011 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 175,018
2011 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 41,737,759
2011 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,516,863
2011 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Pow Natural Gas (Mcf) 833,555
2011 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Pow Other Gases (Billion Btu) 36
2011 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Pow Petroleum (Barrels) 92,213
2011 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 230,632
2011 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Pow Coal (Short Tons) 106,012
2011 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Pow Natural Gas (Mcf) 19,196
2011 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Pow Petroleum (Barrels) 4,185
2012 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 530,213
2012 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 40,382,971
2012 Total Electric Power Industry Other Gases (Billion Btu) 42
2012 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,710,072
2012 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 606,410
2012 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Other Gases (Billion Btu) 42
2012 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 86,440
2012 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 105,118
43
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
YEAR TYPE OF PRODUCER ENERGY SOURCE
(UNITS)
CONSUMPTION for
ELECTRICITY
2012 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 18,151
2012 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 8,863
2012 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 218,715
2012 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 206,380
2012 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 39,758,410
2012 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,614,769
2013 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 729,018
2013 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 34,801,335
2013 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,385,776
2013 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 184,629
2013 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 33,943,685
2013 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,306,653
2013 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 820,797
2013 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 73,554
2013 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 210,117
2013 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Petroleum (Barrels) 0
2013 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 334,272
2013 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 36,853
2013 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 5,569
2014 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 486,750
2014 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 32,851,046
2014 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,261,465
2014 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 892,416
2014 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 89,263
2014 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 44,317
2014 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 14,630
2014 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 3,829
2014 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 212,780
2014 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Petroleum (Barrels) 0
2014 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 229,653
2014 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 31,944,000
2014 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,168,373
2015 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 555,683
44
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
YEAR TYPE OF PRODUCER ENERGY SOURCE
(UNITS)
CONSUMPTION for
ELECTRICITY
2015 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 31,139,120
2015 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,345,877
2015 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 932,522
2015 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 79,029
2015 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 43,830
2015 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 6
2015 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 7,297
2015 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 219,555
2015 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Petroleum (Barrels) 0
2015 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 292,298
2015 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 30,206,592
2015 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,259,551
2016 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 443,129
2016 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 28,498,217
2016 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,453,554
2016 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 267,317
2016 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 68,079
2016 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 36,687
2016 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 6,932
2016 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 3,202
2016 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 157,949
2016 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Petroleum (Barrels) 0
2016 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 248,493
2016 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 28,223,968
2016 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,382,273
2017 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 414,067
2017 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 29,215,559
2017 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,584,761
2017 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 260,609
2017 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 62,155
2017 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 36,223
2017 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 21,555
2017 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 5,408
45
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
YEAR TYPE OF PRODUCER ENERGY SOURCE
(UNITS)
CONSUMPTION for
ELECTRICITY
2017 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 152,073
2017 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Petroleum (Barrels) 0
2017 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 225,771
2017 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 28,933,395
2017 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,517,198
2018 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 496,101
2018 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 25,668,703
2018 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,453,797
2018 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 273,251
2018 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 59,259
2018 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 35,669
2018 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 2,554
2018 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 6,345
2018 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 148,123
2018 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Petroleum (Barrels) 0
2018 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 312,309
2018 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 25,392,898
2018 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,388,193
2019 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 555,952
2019 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 24,686,921
2019 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,608,212
2019 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 285,775
2019 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 64,665
2019 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 31,540
2019 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 140
2019 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 8,385
2019 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 154,717
2019 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Petroleum (Barrels) 0
2019 Electric Generators, Independent Power Producers Petroleum (Barrels) 4,967
2019 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 369,695
2019 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 24,401,006
2019 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,530,195
2020 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 587,878
46
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report
YEAR TYPE OF PRODUCER ENERGY SOURCE
(UNITS)
CONSUMPTION for
ELECTRICITY
2020 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 23,109,741
2020 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,783,540
2020 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 268,152
2020 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 71,882
2020 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 40,822
2020 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 263
2020 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 3,709
2020 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 157,946
2020 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Petroleum (Barrels) 0
2020 Electric Generators, Independent Power Producers Petroleum (Barrels) 4,548
2020 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 389,110
2020 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 22,841,326
2020 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,703,401
2021 Total Electric Power Industry Coal (Short Tons) 590,542
2021 Total Electric Power Industry Natural Gas (Mcf) 25,782,213
2021 Total Electric Power Industry Petroleum (Barrels) 1,593,555
2021 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 271,618
2021 Combined Heat and Power, Industrial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 65,851
2021 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Coal (Short Tons) 51,356
2021 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Natural Gas (Mcf) 305
2021 Combined Heat and Power, Commercial Power Petroleum (Barrels) 1,440
2021 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Coal (Short Tons) 146,844
2021 Combined Heat and Power, Electric Power Petroleum (Barrels) 0
2021 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Coal (Short Tons) 392,342
2021 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Natural Gas (Mcf) 25,510,290
2021 Electric Generators, Electric Utilities Petroleum (Barrels) 1,526,264
47
2023 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Impact and Evaluation Report