Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AEA Board Meeting Feb 26 2009
Ww rss A)"AIDEN.ALASKAte1ENERGYAUTHORITY Alasha Industrial DevelopmentandExportAuthority 10. 11. AGENDA Alaska Energy Authority Board of Directors FEBRUARY 26,2009 Anchorage,Alaska CALL TO ORDER BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROLL CALL AGENDA APPROVAL PUBLIC ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS PRIOR MINUTES -January 15,2009 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A.-Resolution No.2009-02 TDX North Slope Generating,Inc.,PPF Loan DIRECTOR COMMENTS A.Director's Status Report of AEA Programs and Projects B.Next Board Meeting Thu.April 2,2009 BOARD COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT 813 West Northern Lights Boulevarde Anchorage.Alaska 99503-2495www.aidea.org e 907/771-3000e FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 «www.akenergyauthority.org A lg /=ALASKAKK*sy MOISte)?>wt @)ENERGY AUTHORITY+k xk Alaska Industrial DevelopmentandExportAuthority Alaska Energy Authority BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 26,2009 Anchorage,Alaska 1.CALL TO ORDER Chairman Pat Galvin called the meeting of the Alaska Energy Authority to order on February 26, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. 2.BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROLL CALL A quorum was established. Members present in Anchorage:Chairman Pat Galvin (Commissioner,Department of Revenue); Vice Chair John Winther (Public Member);Commissioner Emil Notti (Department of Commerce, Community &Economic Development);and Commissioner Leo von Scheben (Department of Transportation &Public Facilities).Absent:John Kelsey (Public Member). Chairman Galvin confirmed that public notice requirements had been met. 3.AGENDA APPROVAL The agenda was approved as presented. 4.PUBLIC ROLL CALL Staff present in Anchorage:Steve Haagenson (AEA Executive Director);Chris Anderson (Deputy Director-Credit);Mike Harper (Deputy Director-Rural Energy);James Hemsath (Deputy Director-Development);Valorie Walker (Deputy Director-Finance);Bruce Chertkow (Loan Officer);Karsten Rodvik (Project Manager-External Affairs);Mark Schimscheimer (Project Manager);Brenda Fuglestad (Administrative Manager);and Sherrie M.Siverson (Administrative Assistant). Others present in Anchorage:Brian Bjorkquist and Mike Mitchell (Department of Law);Ken Vassar (Birch,Horton,Bittner and Cherot);Bruce Levy and Nicholas Goodman (TDX North Slope Generating,Inc.);Tim Leach (MEA Ratepayers Alliance);and Pat Lavin (National Wildlife Federation). 5.PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 6.PRIOR MINUTES -January 15,2008 The minutes were approved as presented. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard *Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495www.aidea.org *907/771-3000 *FAX 907/771-3044 ®Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 ©www.akenergyauthority.org AEA Board Meeting February 26,2009 Meeting Minutes Page 2 7.OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 8.NEW BUSINESS 8A.Resolution No.2009-02 TDX North Slope Generating,Inc.,Power Project Fund Loan Mr.Haagenson said TDX North Slope Generating Inc.is requesting a Power Project Fund (PPF)20-year loan in the amount of $2,500,000 for the acquisition and installation of a 5 MW Solar Combustion Turbine and associated distribution cables. Credit committee recommended approval of this loan. Mr.Mitchell outlined the changes made in the replacement resolution stating Section 1 Is a technical change which states that the Authority finds the standards in 3 AAC 106.110 for this loan as described in the Memorandum were met. Ms.Anderson provided an overview of the transaction.It is for the acquisition and installation of a SMW Solar Combustion Turbine in the company's Deadhorse north power plant,to include distribution cable.The loan will be secured by a purchase money security interest in the 5MW Solar Combustion Turbine being acquired with the loan proceeds. Funding of this loan will increase total outstanding debt to the Authority owed by TDX (including undisbursed related debt)from $4,251,484 to $6,751,484. TDX North Slope Generating,Inc.was formed in January 2002 as an Alaska electric utility serving Deadhorse and Prudhoe Bay.Management of TDX is quite strong and is described in the Memorandum and organization chart in the board packet.TDX Power,Inc.is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX,Inc.)a village corporation. Approval of this credit will increase TDX (companies)liability to AEA from 15.51%to 25.21%of AEA's total PPF loan portfolio (outstanding plus unfunded commitments)and from 10.63%to 17.28%of AEA's total PPF (total fund dollars). Staff recommended approval with the condition that the borrower pays no management fees, cash,dividends or profits,or makes distribution of assets to TDX Power,Inc.,or Tanadgusix Corporation,unless EBITDA (earnings before interest,taxes,depreciation,and amortization) services the debt at a minimum of 1.10:1.All of these companies are quite healthy financially and this debt is affordable to them. A discussion ensued comparing use of a diesel turbine versus a gas turbine and how cost savings were determined in the Northern Economics Report.Mr.Lévy discussed load growth averaging 30%a year over the past few years and said they are out of spinning reserve and out of capacity to handle a catastrophic loss of any of their 7 or 8 turbines.New service ° connections during the coming construction season will add 4MW to the current system.Rapid growth is making it difficult to keep up with not only the peak demand,but the average demand. AEA Board Meeting February 26,2009 Meeting Minutes Page 3 A variety of components from regulatory to technology to load growth are currently being addressed.The load is directly related to temperature and weather as it affects the housing. The 400-room Aurora Hotel under construction in Deadhorse is already 66%booked by BP. Electrical use by the Baker-Hughes warehouse is predicted to peak at 2.2MW.The two drivers are the price of oil and an increased focus on maintenance. Under normal operations the utility has 12MW of power,9MW of peak and 7MW of average. Loss of a turbine or the 3MW gas-fired Caterpillar reciprocating engine would blackout the town. They are addressing not only the load growth but the constant possibility of catastrophic failure in one of the major units.The turbine,subject to approval of the loan,is ready to be shipped and is scheduled for start up in late August 2009. MOTION:Mr.Winther moved to approve Resolution 2009-02.Seconded by CommissionerNotti.There being no discussion,the question was called.A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. AYES:Notti,von Scheben,Winther,Galvin NAYS:None ABSENT:One 9.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS Renewable Energy Fund The Legislative Budget and Audit committee met last Tuesday and approved 77 Renewable Energy Projects totaling $100 million for FYO9.The Board was referred to their packets for the evaluation method and a complete list of projects. Mr.Haagenson said he is on the record with a zero acceptable failure rate for projects.Staff is currently conducting a review of projects,identifying scopes of work,kill points and grant agreement conditions.The review for submittal of the Round Il list is behind schedule,but staff will provide a list to the Legislature as soon as possible Round II funding has not been appropriated and requires appropriation by the full Legislature. In response to questions from the Board,Mr.Haagenson explained the funding caps.During the review,the most weight was given to high-cost-of-energy areas,then to match,and then regional spreading.There is a $2 million dollar cap for areas in Southeast affecting 6 or 7 projects.There is a $4 million dollar cap for rural projects,anything outside the Railbelt or Southeast. AEA has already gone back to the applicants and asked "If you only get half of the money,what is your plan?They can either say "We are not going to go forward because we can't find the money.”"We can find more money.”or "We can reduce our scope.”They have three options ahead of them.They can accept it or not.Some of them were reduced because the projects were not ready.If they asked for money for feasibility,design and construction,we said you need to build a foundation so we are not going to give you all the money for the whole thing AEA Board Meeting February 26,2009 Meeting Minutes Page 4 we're only going to give you money for feasibility.At that point we reduced the scope and the funding. Alaska Energy:A first step toward energy independence The Alaska Energy Plan has been out for approximately one week.Staff is currently working with native corporations and utilities to apply the document and database.They are also working on regional rolls based on the data,and will be going out into the regions to engage Alaskans in the solution and obtain their recommendations. Railbelt Electric Grid Authority AEA has been investigating opportunities to consolidate the Railbelt Electric utilities for the past two years. The infrastructure is aging and will require significant money to build new generation.Together the utilities can finance projects which they could not do separately. AEA will be contracting for a Railbelt Integrated Resource Plan this week to evaluate and size the energy and delivery options for the Railbelt.The contracted consultant will look at Susitna, Chakachamna,Fire Island,FT plants,Chuitna coal,Nenana gas,new Cook Inlet gas,Bullet lines and trucking LNG from the North Slope. Legislation will soon be introduced to form an entity that provides a vehicle to consolidate the Railbelt electric generation and transmission operations and assets. Emergency Response Mr.Harper provided an update on situations in Kipnuk,Chignik,and Pilot Point.AEA provides emergency services for small villages with single site utilities that typically are underfunded, understaffed,and dealing with old equipment. In Kipnuk,a community of 700 near Bethel,one of the generators threw a rod through the block and is down.They need to run two parallel to provide adequate power for the community.AEA rural electrical utility workers are going to transport a generator from the Anchorage warehouse to Kipnuk in two trips,reassembled it and have it running by this weekend.Hopefully this will provide adequate service to carry the load through the rest of the winter. In Chignik,a community of 95 in the Bristol Bay Region,one of the two power plants burned down two nights ago.AEA staff at working with them to get the power back up on the East Bay. Supplies are going out today and hope to have short-term power back up by tonight.Staff plans to transport more equipment and work on a long-term solution. This morning AEA staff received a message that Pilot Point,also in the Bristol Bay area,had no power and no immediate solution to fix the problem.They anticipated running out of battery power,but staff received a phone call just before the meeting that the problem was fixed temporarily.AEA will work with the community on a long-term solution. AEA Board Meeting February 26,2009MeetingMinutesPage5 The good news is AEA staff has the situations under control and will get power back to these rural communities shortly. Budget Sub-Committees Mr.Haagenson shared an overview of 19 AEA programs. Alaska Energy Plan/Policy Renewable Energy Fund Power Cost Equalization Bulk Fuel Loans Circuit Rider Power Project Fund Training -Power Plant and Bulk Fuel Tank Emergency Response Rural Power System Upgrades 10.Bulk Fuel Upgrades 11.End-Use Efficiency Program 12.Denali Commission Energy Program 13.Alaska Intertie 14.Bradley Lake 15.Susitna Review 16.Railbelt Electrical Grid Authority (REGA) 17.Organizational Structure 18.Strategic Planning 19.Stimulus Plan-Energy fundsOONAARWN>The next board meeting will be April 2,2009. 10.BOARD COMMENTS Chairman Galvin thanked Jim Strandberg and Brian Bjorkquist for all their work on the REGA project over the past few weeks.The Chairman said they are also working on a bill for the Greater Railbelt Energy and Transmission Corporation (GRETC). 11.ADJOURNMENT There being no objection and no further business of the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. LEE Steve Haagénson,Executive Director/Secretary Alaska Energy Authority Alaska Energy Authority BOARD MEETING MINUTES Thursday,January 15,2009 Anchorage,Alaska 1.CALL TO ORDER Chairman Pat Galvin called the meeting of the Alaska Energy Aunonty to order on January 15,2009at1:19 p.m.os 2.BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROLL CALL A quorum was established. 1 7MemberspresentinAnchorage:Chairman Pat Galvin (Commissioner,Department of Revenue);Vice Chair John Winther (Public Member);John Kelsey (Public Member);Commissioner Emil Notti(Department of Commerce,Community &Economic Development)and Commissioner Leo vonScheben(Department of Transportation &Public Facilities).7 Chairman Galvin confirmed that public notice requirements had been met. 3.AGENDA APPROVAL,"he hy OEMOTION:Commissioner:vonn Scheben moved to approve 'the agenda as presented.SecondedbyMr.Kelsey.There being no discussion,the question was Called.A roll call vote was takenandthemotionpassed.':: a ey :hy aft Hal4..PUBLIC ROLL CALLStaffpresent.in Anchorage:Steve.Haagenson (AEA |Executive Director);Chris Anderson (DeputyDirector-Credit);Mike Harper (Deputy Director-Rural Energy);James Hemsath (Deputy Director- Development);Valorie Walker (Deputy Director-Finance);Bruce Chertkow (Loan Officer);KarstenRodvik(Project:.Manager-External Affairs);Chris Rutz (Procurement Manager);MarkSchimscheimer(Project Manager);Brenda Fuglestad (Administrative Manager);and Sherrie M.Siverson (Administrative Assistant).au aha,ae ie iOtherspresentinAnchorage:Brian Bjorkquist (Department of Law);Charlie Cole (Attorney). Participating via teleconference:Glen Martin,Robert Grimm,and Chad Haggar (Alaska Power and Telephone Company). 5.PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 6.PRIOR MINUTES -December 11,2008 The minutes were approved as presented. AEA Board Meeting January 15,2009 Meeting Minutes Page 2 MOTION:Mr.Kelsey moved to approve the minutes as presented.Seconded by Mr.Winther. There being no discussion,the question was called.A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed. 7.OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 8.NEW BUSINESS Resolution No.2009-01 Alaska Power and Telephone Company,Power Project Fund Loan Alaska Power &Telephone Company (AP&T)has requesteda Power Project Fund loan in theamountof$3,596,768.This 30-year loan is for construction of a transmission line from Coffman Cove to Naukati on Prince of Wales Island.The credit committee reviewed and approved the loan. Per regulations,Resolution 2009-01 requires approval by the Board..,In response to a question by Chairman Galvin,Mr.'Chertkow said that PPF loans are typicallysecuredbytheprojectitselfandconfirmedthatthenetassetsofAP&T substantially exceed theamountofloansandliensdescribedinthememototheboard.In response to questions from the board,Mr.Grimm'said the northern intertie to Naukati and Coffman Cove would reduce community retail rates by 57%...Diesel heat would not be eliminated,but dramatically reduced.A tariff will apply to all customers on the island and the revenue will be used for repayment of the debt.Construction is anticipated to begin this spring on Department ofTransportationRight-aii land and will require a U.S.'Forest Service Special Use Permit.tio ige:iitheMOTION:Commissioner.Notti.,moved to!approve "Resolution 2009-01.Seconded byCommissionervonScheben.There being no.discussion,the question was called.A roll callvotewastakenandthemotionpassed5-0.nay i ss,.thal bbe authitans.Tay,faba!:ityAYES:Kelsey,Notti,von Scheben,n,Winther,GalvinNAYS:None as Hoy 9.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS Communication Training A recommendation from Crossroads Leadership Institute was to create an open,trusting and transparent environment;provide training in communication,conflict resolution,team building,and trust building with the purpose of increasing trust and transparency in the work environment.Jim Hemsath will facilitate a book club beginning with Crucial Conversations:Tools for Talking When Stakes are High.Beginning next week staff will meet for approximately 17%hours over a three- week period to discuss the book. Renewable Energy Fund On January 12,2009,AEA staff met with the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee to review the methodology for grant recommendations.AEA is finalizing the Round 1 package for the Governor's office and the Office of Management &Budget (OMB),who will then submit them to the Legislative Budget &Audit Committee (LB&A).The ranked list will be presented at the next Board meeting. AEA Board Meeting January 15,2009 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Because the Round 2 review is only 25%complete,AEA is unable to forward detailed recommendations to the Legislature within 10 days of the start of the Legislative session as required in HB152.Mr.Haagenson will write a letter to Legislative leadership to request a 30-day delay,until March 1,2009,to ensure time for a high quality evaluation.There are 79 projects spread across Alaska totaling $100,000,000. $100 million in funds were appropriated for Round 1 and HB152 requires approval from LB&A before awarding grants to successful applicants.Funding for Round 2 requires appropriation by the full Legislature. Alaska Energy:A First Step Toward Energy IndependenceThenarrativeinthisreportisdesignedtoprovideinformation to engage Alaskans who have a passion to provide energy solutions,stimulate the Alaskan economy,and provide leadership forthebenefitofallAlaskans.; Mr.Haagenson distributed copies of the report to Board members.Chairman Galvin said the report is not the Governor's energy plan,but is a primary component for areas outside the railbelt. Mr.Haagenson provided a brief explanation of the°'meter concept”on page 14.A CD included withthereportcontainscommunityenergymodelssortedbyCommunityName,'Alaska Legislative Senate Districts,Alaska Legislative House Districts,and Alaska Native Corporations.A pdf of thereportandthecommunity''models:are 'available on the web athttp://www.akenergyauthority.org/alaska |eneray.html Sh cpitieeRailbeltIntegratedResource Plan Project (RIRP)Proposals for development of a 50-year Regional Integrated Resource Plan (RIRP)are beingevaluated.The long range plan will identify combinations of generation and transmission (G&T)capital improvement projects.in the Railbelt Region oof Alaska.The final report is expected latesummer2009.|:ai yelg:ay :NyThenextboardmeetingwillbeFebruary26,2009.”"te msHy.air :10.BOARD COMMENTS'nh |The Board commended Steve and the staff for doing a great job.berah11.ADJOURNMENT.og! There being no objection and no further business of the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 1:53 p.m. Steve Haagenson,Executive Director/Secretary Alaska Energy Authority [=ALASKA_-Ga)ENERGY AUTHORITY*KAAlaska industrial DevelopmentindExportAuthority EXHIBIT "A” MEMORANDUM TO:Board of Directors Alaska Energy Authority FROM:Steve Haagenson Executive Director DATE:February 26,2009 SUBJECT:Power Project Fund Loan Summary TDX North Slope Generating,Inc. Resolution No.2009-02 Borrower TDX North Slope Generating,Inc. Guarantors -TDX Power,Inc. Tanadgusix Corporation Loan Request TDX North Slope Generating,Inc.requests a $2,500,000 20-year loan. Use of Proceeds Acquisition and installation of a new (additional)SMW Solar Combustion Turbine installed in the company's Deadhorse north power plant,to include distribution cable. Collateral and Value This loan will be secured by a purchase money security interest in the 5MW Solar Combustion Turbine being acquired with the loan proceeds. Related DebtTDXNorthSlope Generating,Inc.has three PPF loans outstanding that date back to April 2004. Two of the loans were used to replace diesel engines with natural gas engines and one funded the partial replacement of the distribution system at its Deadhorse facility.The combined principal balances total $2,920,304;all loans pay as agreed. TDX Sand Point Generating,Inc.has two PPF loans outstanding that originated in February 2002 and January 2005 respectively.The combined principal outstanding is $340,542;these loans have paid as agreed. Additionally,TDX Power guarantees a PPF loan for its subsidiary,Aleutian Wind Energy for the construction of two wind-turbines in Sand Point.This loan,which originated in March 2007,has an outstanding balance of $790,275 and has $200,363 yet to be disbursed.This loan is alsobeingpaidasagreed. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard *Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495www.aidea.org ©907/771-3000 *FAX 907/771-3044 ®Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 ©www.akenergyauthority.org Board of Directors Page 2 February 26,2009 Funding of this loan will increase total outstanding debt to the Authority owed by TDX (including undisbursed related debt)from $4,251,484 to $6,751,484. Background TDX North Slope Generating,Inc.was formed in January 2002 and holds RCA certificate number 227 as an Alaska electric utility.The company is the electric utility that serves Deadhorse and Prudhoe Bay. TDX North Slope Generating Inc.purchased Arctic Utilities,Inc.in 2002.As part of the purchase,TDX North Slope Generating began a series of infrastructure upgrades (estimated at $9 million over the years)to its generating equipment,its transmission and distribution lines, and its power plant facilities,which included the construction of an additional powerhouse located at the opposite (north end)of town.Proceeds of this loan will purchase and install a second generator for this powerhouse. TDX North Slope Generating is a wholly owned subsidiary of TDX Power,Inc.TDX Power is comprised of four companies:TDX North Slope Generating,Inc.,TDX Sand Point Generating, Inc.,TDX Sand Point Services,Inc.,and TDX Aleutian Wind Energy,the latter being a producer of wind-energy,which is under construction. TDX Power,Inc.is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX,Inc.)a village corporation that was incorporated according to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Please see company flow chart. Management Bruce Levy,President,is a 25 year energy industry veteran.A founder of TDX Power and a well known industry executive,Bruce has implemented over 40 utility-scale fossil fueled,and renewable energy projects worldwide in association with many of the industry's leading companies and financial institutions.He provides the Company's strategic direction and focuses primarily on new business development,acquisitions and acquisition finance.Mr.Levy started his career at the O'Brien Machinery Company where he helped establish the firms' reputation as an industry leader in power generation equipment configuration,sales and service.Mr.Levy also helped found O'Brien Energy Services,the country's first established developer of independent power plants.In 1991,Mr.Levy joined The New World Power Corporation as the head of the village power division.Working in some of the most remote locations on six continents,this group designed,constructed and operated critical,high- reliability power plants utilizing both renewable and fossil fuel based technologies.In 1997,Mr. Levy established BPG,Inc.,a power generation development and consulting firm.In 1999,after this company completed the design and installation of the unique hybrid power project for Tanadgusix Corp on Saint Paul Island,TDX Power was formed through the acquisition of BPG Inc. Robert Guarini,PE,has over 30 years experience in the design,construction and operation of utility scale power plants.Widely recognized as an industry leader in the design of electrical systems and controls,Mr.Guarini oversees all equipment design and installation functions for TDX Power. Board of Directors Page 3 February 26,2009 Fred Mayer,Operations Manager,has over 30 years experience in the power generation industry.Mr.Mayer spent the first half of his professional career at Coopers and Lybrand, where he earned the title of Managing Partner in the Philadelphia Office.Mr.Mayer then joined The O'Brien Energy Company where he provided operational oversight for the company's rental fleet which was the largest of its type in the world.Mr.Mayer also has experience with power project development in both renewable and fossil fueled arenas and has been in charge of TDX North Slope Generating's Operations for the past two years. Paul Wiltse,Chief Financial Officer,is a seasoned veteran of the government contracting arena and the associated financial components.Prior to joining TDX,Paul spent many years with Lockheed Martin and L-3 Communications,overseeing financial management and acquisitions. Paul is the chief architect of TDX Corp.'s shared services model and is responsible for all accounting and financial functions for the company. Financial Information Confidential financial information is provided under separate cover. Portfolio Diversification Approval of this credit will increase TDX (companies)liability to AEA from 15.51%to 25.21%of AEA's total PPF !oan portfolio (outstanding plus unfunded commitments)and from 10.63%to 17.28%of AEA's total PPF (total fund dollars). Loan Covenants None Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this loan subject to: i.Borrower shall pay no management fees,cash,dividends or profits,or make distribution of assets to TDX Power,Inc.,or Tanadugusix Corporation,unless EBITDA (earnings before interest,taxes,depreciation,and amortization)services annualized debt (principal plus interest,and including lease obligations),at a minimum of 1.10:1 Debt Service Coverage at fiscal year end. AM ceese and alatewtbI50!Base. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO.2009-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY REGARDING A LOAN BY THE AUTHORITY TO TDX NORTH SLOPE GENERATING,INC.FOR'THE ACQUISITION OF A SOLAR COMBUSTION TURBINE IN DEADHORSE,ALASKA. WHEREAS,TDX North Slope Generating ,Inc.has applied to the Alaska Energy Authority (the "Authority”)for a loan in the amount of $2,500,000 with a term of 20 years under the Authority's power project fund program (AS 42.45.010)at the interest rate established under AS 42.45.010(f)(2)(A)(the "Loan'); WHEREAS,the nature,purpose and terms of the Loan are described in the memorandum from Authority staff attached as Exhibit "A”hereto (the "Memorandum'); WHEREAS,staff of the Authority has recommended that the Authority make the Loan,subject to certain conditions,as described in the Memorandum; WHEREAS,the Loan is consistent with all requirements in AS 42.45.010 and the applicable regulations of the Authority related to such loans (3 AAC 106.100 -.140); WHEREAS,3 AAC 106.110(d)requires that a loan from the power project fund be approved by the Authority's board if the subject loan will exceed $2,000,000;and WHEREAS,it is in the best interest of the Authority that the Authority make the Loan,subject to conditions recommended by staff as described in the Memorandum. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.The Authority finds the standards in 3 AAC 106.110 for the Authority's Loan to TDX North Slope Generating Inc.as described in the Memorandum are met. Section 2.The Authority's Loan to TDX North Slope Generating Inc.as described in the Memorandum is approved,subject to the conditions recommended by staff as set forth in the Memorandum. Section 3.The Executive Director of the Authority and the Deputy Director-Credit of the Authority are authorized to take such actions as may be necessary or convenient to consummate the Loan including,without limitation,issuing a commitment with respect to the Loan.The Executive Director is authorized to approve non-material changes in the terms and conditions of the Loan as the Executive Director,in his discretion,determines appropriate. DATED at Anchorage,Alaska on this 26th day of February,2009. Chair (SEAL) ATTEST Secretary AEA Resolution No.2009-01 °Page 2 of 2 /Z ALASKA@=_>ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Summary of Methodology for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation January 20,2009 Overview of Review Process Renewable Energy Fund applications were evaluated in three stages.For more detail please refer to Evaluation Guidelines in the appendices and to documents posted on the Renewable Energy Fund webpage http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE Fund.html. In the first stage each application was evaluated for completeness,eligibility,and responsiveness to the request for applications (RFA).This evaluation was conducted by Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)staff. The second stage evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of the proposed projects.This stage was conducted by AEA staff with the assistance of DNR staff, outside economists,and other consultants. The third stage was a final scoring based on the specific guidelines in the RFA that was conducted by AEA staff.The scoring was done based on a number of matrices and pre-established weighting for each of the criteria. Cost of Energy (30%): Matching Funds (25%) Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%):score from stage 2 Project Readiness (5%) Economic and Other Alaska Benefit (10%) Sustainability (5%) Local Support (5%)NOORWN>Upon completion of the evaluation all applications were ranked by region with the final funding recommendation being made:based on the number and rank of applications with each region,the cost of energy,and a balance of statewide funding. Projects may have been recommended for partial funding if they were viable but: e Documentation submitted with the application was not sufficient to justify full funding for more than one phase of a project. e Project construction was scheduled for 2010 or later,the project was expensive or higher risk,or there were competing projects for which planning is desirable e The applicant requested AEA to manage the project and the AEA program manager could confidently estimate a lower cost. e The proposal included operating costs or other costs not recommended for funding. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 1 In addition AEA adopted a maximum funding cap to provide for the ability to award more projects. Where AEA offers less than the requested amount,AEA will work with grantees to assure that the revised scope of the final grant award is consistent with the grantee's proposal and meets the public purposes of the program. Roles of AEA Staff and the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee AEA staff requested and received input from the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee regarding the process and final funding recommendations.Following is a summary of Committee involvement. AEA staff prepared a draft RFA package including the RFA,application form, worksheet form,and a sample grant agreement in summer 2008.The Advisory Committee met on 8/22 and 8/25 to discuss the RFA package.AEA staff revised the draft and issued the finalized RFA on 9/3 taking into account the Committee's comments. Midway through the AEA staff review of the Round 1 applications AEA met with the Committee on 11/21 to brief them on the process and how AEA was handling specific issues.Issues addressed included ensuring that grant funding to independent power producers would benefit the public appropriately,protocols for offering partial or multi- phase funding,handling competing and interacting projects,eligibility of biofuel projects,and eligibility of statewide resource assessment projects. On 12/18 during the last stages of AEA Round 1 review,AEA briefed the Committee on how AEA was addressing issues discussed in the November meeting,the draft evaluation guidelines,and schedule. Following AEA evaluation of all Round 1 applications,AEA staff and the Committee met on 1/12 to establish how to address the HB152 requirement for a statewide balance of matching funds.Based on this discussion AEA has finalized its recommendations. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 2 APPENDIX A Evaluation Guidelines and Instructions for Evaluation of RFA for Renewable Energy Fund Grant Projects General: Applications that do not comply with AS 42.45.45 and all of the material and substantial terms,conditions,and requirements of the RFA may be rejected. If an application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its application has been rejected and the basis for rejection. The Authority may waive minor requirements of the RFA that do not result ina material change in the requirements of the RFA and do not give an applicant an unfair advantage in the review process. Upon submission of the final recommendations to the Legislature the Authority will make all applications available for review on the Authority's web site. All communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through the Grant Manager. The Executive Director is the Executive Director of AEA,Program Managers are staff at AEA who have oversight for AEA programs (e.g.biomass,hydroelectric, wind energy,geothermal,etc.).Program Managers are the subject matter technical experts,and the Grant Manager is the person responsible for overseeing the grant process for the Authority. All applications will be reviewed using the same process and criteria established in the RFA.: Decisions made in each stage ofthe review process will be documented in writing and made a part of the grant file. If reviewers think they may have a potential conflict of interest,(financial or personal interest,such as friend or family members)they should inform their supervisor immediately of the potential nature of the conflict. Reviewers should make notes of any questions they may have about an application. Reviewers should not contact applicants directly. If reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should contact the Grant Manager.If reviewers have technical questions they should contact the Program Managers. If an application is rejected or not recommended the applicants will be sent a letter from the Grant manager explaining why their application has been rejected or not recommended.Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Manager the reasons for why the application is being rejected Notes should be made directly into the database on line.All written notes should be kept with the application file. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 3 e All notes are considered public records and subject to Alaska public records act disclosure requirements. e Any appeals from rejected applicants in Stage 1 or Stage 2 reviews will be directed to the Grant Manager.The Grant Manager will review the appeal with the Executive Director,Senior Program Manager,and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action. Stage 1 Review Process: All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by the Authority staff to assess if the application is complete,meets the minimum submission requirements,and has adequate information to proceed to Stage 2 -Technical Evaluation. Reviewers - Grant Manager and two Senior Program Managers Criteria e Allcriteria are scored pass/fail.Failure to meet any of these criteria results in rejection of the Application. 1.The application is submitted by an Eligible Applicant (sec 1.4). 2.The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.5). 3.A resolution or other formal authorization of the applicant's governing body is included with the application to demonstrate the applicant's commitment to the project (sec 1.4). 4.The application provides a detailed description of the phase(s)of project proposed-i.e.reconnaissance,feasibility analysis/conceptual design,final design/permitting,and/or construction (sec 2.2). 5.The application is complete in that the information provided is sufficiently .responsive to the RFP to allow AEA to consider the application in the next stage of evaluation. 6.The applicant provides evidence of having the minimum technical, financial,and management capability to complete the work as proposed in the grant or a reasonable plan to obtain it. Process e The Grant Manager will evaluate criteria 1-3 above. e The Senior Program Managers or Program Managers will evaluate criteria 4-6 above. e [fit appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional data the Program Managers may make a recommendation to the Grant Manager for additional information.The Grant manager will request clarifying Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 4 information from the applicant.The applicant will have a specified amount of time to provide the requested information.Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide information that completes their application will result in the application being rejected. Applications that are determined by the Grant Manager and Program Managers and determined to be incomplete or fail to meet the minimum requirements will be reviewed by the Executive Director with the assistance of Legal or procurement staff prior to being rejected at Stage 1. Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed stage 1. Any requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants in Stage 1 will be directed to the Grant Manager.The Grant Manager will review the request with the Executive Director,Senior Program Manager,and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action. Stage 2 Review Process: All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for feasibility in accordance with the criteria below. Reviewers - Program Managers -the AEA technical subject matter experts. Staff from Department of Natural Resources -technical experts providing specific review and comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and natural resource development. Economists -Contracted economist who will review cost benefit and other cost and pricing information provided for each application submitted for the purpose of providing the authority and independent assessment of the economics ofthe proposed project. ISER -University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research -is providing Quality Assurance review of Economic Analysis work. Senior Program Manager -Overseer of the work of the Program Managers Criteria Each of the numbered criteria below will be scored with a numerical score 1-10 and weighted per the percentages below. Criteria Weight 1.Project Management,Development,and Operation 20% a.The proposed schedule is clear,realistic,and described in Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 5 adequate detail. b.Project development,operation,maintenance,fuel,and other cost and savings estimates are realistic. c.The project team's method of communicating,monitoring,and reporting development progress is described in adequate detail. d.Logistical,business,and financial arrangements for operating and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable and described in adequate detail. 2.Qualifications and Experience a.The applicant,partners,and contractors have sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully complete,and operate the project b.The project team has staffing,time,and other resources to successfully complete and operate the project. c.The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic,and environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation. d.Use of local labor and training of local labor workforce. 20% 3.Technical Feasibility a.The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis and project permits and other authorizations can reasonably be obtained. b.A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system. c.Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable. d.The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as planned. e.If a demonstration project is being proposed: e -specific benefits of proposed technology are likely (such as application in other areas of the State); .©need for this project is shown;(and e risks of the proposed system are reasonable and warrant demonstration. 20% 4.Economic Feasibility a.The project is shown to be economically feasible b.The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of the grant-funded phase and has considered options for funding © subsequent phases of the project. 20% 5.Benefits 20% Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated. Process e Program Managers will carefully review the proposals for their assigned technology group and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria anda funding recommendation. e Aneconomist hired by AEA will review the performance and economic information and provide an independent analysis of cost and benefits of each project.The Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 6 reviewers will consider the independent analysis when scoring the economic feasibility and benefits criteria. e Reviewers will use the formula and criteria in the Scoring Matrix Guide (see below) for designated criteria in Stage 2. e Ifthe Program Manager believes they need additional information they will coordinate their request for follow-up information with the Grant Manager.The purpose of follow-up is for clarification and to help the Project Manager gain sufficient understanding of the project proposed. e Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Manager to the applicant by e-mail,Bcc to Program Manager,with a response time of 7 days or less. e Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide an adequate clarification as requested will result in the application being rejected in Stage 2. e The Senior Program Managers will meet with the Program Managers to review the applications and discuss final stage 2 scoring.Scoring per the stage 2 criteria may be adjusted based on final discussions between the Program Manager,Senior Program Managers,Economists,and Executive Director. e A final weighted "feasibility”score will be given for each application reviewed. e Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may not be recommended for funding or further review. e Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed stage 2.- e The Authority will develop a preliminary list of feasible applications based on the Stage 2 review with AEA recommendations on technical and economic feasibility and a recommended funding level to be considered in the Stage 3 review. Stage 3 Review Process: The third stage of evaluation will resultin the final score,ranking by region,andrecommendationofprojectsforgrantfunding. The Feasibility score from Stage 2 will be automatically weighted and scored in Stage three. The average of the Economic and Public Benefit score of stage 2 will be used for initial scoring of Economic and Other Public Benefit Score.This score will be reviewed by the Program Managers. The Grant Manager,with staff assistance,will score the cost of energy,type and amount of matching funds,and local support,using the formulas and methods outlined in the Scoring Matrix Guide (Appendix B). Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 7 Two Senior Program Managers will review the scoring of the Program Managers and Grant Manager and provide a score for readiness and previous success,and sustainability. AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for the Advisory committeeto review. The Advisory Committee will review the final Stage 3 scores regional ranking recommendations ofthe Authority.The Committee may make recommendations to assist in achieving a statewide balance but will not be rescoring based on the criteria. Reviewers - Grant Manager (Local Support and Match Criteria)) Program Managers (i.e.specialists in hydro,wind,biomass,geothermal, ocean/river,biofuels)- Two Senior Program Managers Executive Director of AEA. Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations} Criteria Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted. Criteria Weight Cost of energy per resident in the affected project area 30 relative to other areas (From Worksheet) The type and amount of matching funds and other 25 resources an applicant will commit to the project.(See formula) Project feasibility (Score from Stage 2 weighted)20 Project readiness.How quickly the proposed work can 5 begin and be accomplished and/or success in previous phases of project development. Economic &Other Alaska Public Benefit (such as ability to |10 use technology in other parts of Alaska). Sustainability -Operations and Maintenance Local Support (See formula)oanProcess Each application will be given a single weighted score. Where more than one evaluator is scoring a specific criterion the scores of all evaluators for that criterion will be averaged. Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Manager by e- mail,Bcc to Program Manager,with a response time of 7 days or less. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 8 e The evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to determine a more complete understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their application. (Refer to RFA Section 4 Stage 3 Review.)However given the time constraints this is not likely for this round of applications. Recommendation Guidelines e The final recommendations will be one of the following: o Recommend -Full funding per application o Recommend -Partial funding with a recommended funding amount o Donotrecommend for grant funding -(basis for not recommending to be explained) e Final AEA recommendations may also suggest specific terms or conditions be imposed on the grantee to assure the project is successful and the public receives proper benefit for the funds to be expended e Multi-phase funding guidelines o Fundall phases:Project can be constructed in 2009,and is well-defined, relatively inexpensive,and low-risk. o Fund fewer than all phases:Project construction in 2010+,not well-defined, expensive,higher risk,or there are competing projects for which planning is desirable. e Competing or interactive projects guidelines o If AEA is aware ofthe potential for substantial interaction among proposed and/or other known projects,then recommend planning with appropriate level of analysis and public input before committing substantial funding to one or more alternatives. o Railbelt:Ifinstalled capacity >10 MW or system transmission constraints are likely,then construction funding not recommended until after Railbelt integrated resource plan (IRP)consideration.| e Partial Funding Guidelines o Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are recommended. _o Exception 1:If proposal asks AEA to manage the project,and AEA thinks project can be built for less,then lower figure can be recommended. o Exception 2:Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor,fuel) not recommended for funding. o Exception 3 -AEA proposes to limit funding to a maximum dollar limit for specific areas,groups,or types of projects in order to increase the total number of projects that may be awarded and address the statewide balance of funds. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 9 e Guidelines for recommendations for biofuel projects for Private vs Governmental entities o Government projects eligible for construction/equipment funding o Non-government:limited to funding recommended preconstruction activities e Consideration of Resources Assessment Projects o Resource assessment associated with one or more site-specific projects is eligible for phase 2 funding.General regional or statewide assessment,not tied to particular proposed projects,is not eligible,and more appropriately done through the DNR/AEA Alaska Energy Inventory Data project. ¢Recommendation Guidelines will be documented and a part ofthe grant file. Ranking of Applications and Funding Recommendations e Upon completion of scoring and specific project recommendations by AEA all applications will be grouped within geographical regions, o See Map Delineating regions http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE Fund map.html e Each group of applications will be ranked within their geographical region based on the final stage three score. e Each application under consideration for funding will have stage three score and regional rank. e A draft recommendation ofprojects for funding (based on available funds)will be presented to the Advisory Committee for Review along with the complete list of all projects. ¢To be able to provide support for a maximum number of projects the maximum recommended funding per grant will be limited to: 1..$2,000,000 for Railbelt and Southeast where the Cost of Energy score is19 or less , 2.$4,000,000 for all other regions and Southeast communities with Cost of Energy score 20orgreater ¢The final list of recommended projects for funding will provide a reasonable statewide balance of funds taking into consideration the overall score,the cost of energy,the rank of projects within a region. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 10 Recommendations to the Legislature The final recommendation to the legislature will include:) A list of recommended grants to applications based on 09 funding A list of recommended grants to applications based on 10 funding. A list of applications recommended if additional funds may be available. A list of applications not recommended for funding. A list of applications rejected as ineligible. The Final recommendation to the legislature will also contain specific information for each project as requested by the legislature and a summary of each project. Applicants may be required to provide additional information to the Legislature upon request (RFA Section 1.21). Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 11 APPENDIX B Scoring Matrix Guide General Scoring Criteria e Pass/Fail scoring means either the criteria are met or they are not. e A weighted score for each of the criteria will calculated and each complete application will be given a total score at the end ofthe Stage 2 and Stage 3 review process unless the application is determined not to meet the requirements of the RFA. e Reviewers should use the following weighted scoring of criteria as a guide in addition to the specific formula scoring matrices for some criteria defined in Appendix A of these procedures. Score |Guidelines (Intent to provide a range 10 A+|The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the criteria requirements and completely addresses them thoughtful manner.The application addresses the criteria in a manner clearly superior to other applications received.There is no need for additional follow-up with the applicant to understand how they meet the requirements of the criteria 7 B The application provides information that is generally complete and well-supported.Evaluators may still have a few questions regarding how the.applicant meets the criteria butitis clear the applicant understands what is required. 5 C The application addresses the criteria in an adequate way.Meets minimum requirements under each of the criteria.Some issues may still need to be clarified prior to awarding a grant. 3 D The application information is incomplete or fails to fully address what is needed for the project or information has errors.The Authority may need more info to be able to complete the evaluation or need to resolve issues before recommending or awarding a prant. 0 F The application fails to demonstrate understanding of the criteria requirements or project proposed.Required information is poor or absent in the proposal. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 12 Stage 2,Criterion 4 Economic Benefit Review Guideline Compare AEA and Applicant B/C and determine which |Benefit /Cost (B/C)Score of the B/C ranges below are appropriate.If there is Ratio Value wide discrepancy between the two B/C ratios use Less than 0.80 0 judgment to assign a score.Reduce the score to the =>0.80 -=<0.90 3 extent that you judge that the project does not show 50.90-=<1.00 Athatithasanadequatefinancingplanforcompletionof .:>1.00 -=<1.10 5thegrant-funded phase or has not considered options honedforfundingsubsequentphasesoftheproject.Scores 71.10 =<1.50 6 must be >=0.>1.50-=<1.60 7 >1.60 -=<1.80 8 >1.80-<2.00 9 =>2.0 10 Stage 3 Criteria -Match Total of 25 points will be calculated as follows Type of Match 5 +|Percentage of 15 +|Total Amount of |5 Pts Match to total Pts Match (1)Pts Grant Request 'Support of any kind referenced but 1 01%-<5%of 4 >$1 -<$15K 1 not given a specific value IE housing Grant = offered to outside workers, administration of project without compensation Previous investment towards project 2 =>5%-=<10%of |6 $15K-<$100K 2 completion Grant= Anothergrant[State]as Match 3 >10%-=<15%of |8 $100K <$1 mil 3 Grant= Other (Grant Fed)Or private 4 >15%-=<30%of |11 $1 mil -<$6 mil 4 Grant Loan or Local Cash or any 5 >30%-=<49%of |13 >$6 mil 5. documented In-kind Match Grant = >49%of Grant 15 (1)If there are multiple types of Match that with highest value is scored. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 13 Stage 3 Criteria Local Support Total of 5 Points Available Documented unresolved issues concerning the application no points |0 points will be given if these exist regardless of demonstrated support Resolution from city or village council 2 pointsSupportdemonstratedbylocalentityotherthanapplicant3points -Support demonstrated by two local entities other than the applicant |4 points Support demonstrated by three or more local entities other than the |5 points applicant Stage 3 Criteria Cost of Energy Based on Cost of Power by Community Location Raw | RCA Utility Last RE Total Reported Usefor Fund Res Residential RE Score Posting Description Rate Rate Fund (1-10) Anchorage 0.0893 0.0893 1.12 Juneau 0.1103 0.1103 1.38 Anchorage 0.1171 0.1171 1.46 Matanuska Valley 0.1271 0.1271 1.59 Homer-North Kachemak Bay 0.1387 0.1387 1.73 Homer-South Kachemak Bay 0.1423 0.1423 1.78 Fairbanks 0.1729 0.1729 2.16 North Slope 0.1781 0.1781 2.23 Dillingham/Aleknagik PCE 0.2278 0.2278 2.85 Haines/Covenant Life PCE 0.2304 0.2302 0.2302 2.88 Skagway PCE 0.2304 0.2302 0.2302 2.88 King Cove PCE 0.2400 0.2400 3.00 Craig PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Hollis PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Hydaburg PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Klawock/Kassan PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Thorne Bay/Kasaan PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Nome PCE 0.3169 0.3169 3,96 _Cordova PCE 0.3183 0.3183 3.98 Kipnuk PCE 0.5094 0.3200 0.3200 4.00 Akutan PCE 0.3230 0.3230 4.04 e404 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 14 Unalakleet PCE Ouzinkie PCE | Naknek/S.Naknek/Kng Simn_ PCE Kotzebue PCE Toksook Bay PCE Tununak PCE Galena PCE Larsen Bay PCE Buckland PCE Kasigluk PCE Nunapitchuk PCE Elfin Cove PCE Chenega Bay PCE Kwethluk PCE Koyukuk PCE Manokotak PCE Shishmaref PCE Fort Yukon PCE Minto PCE Old Harbor PCE Lower Kalskag PCE Upper Kalsag PCE Togiak PCE Mt.Village PCE St.Michael PCE Shaktoolik PCE Emmonak PCE Hooper Bay PCE Elim PCE Koyuk PCE Marshall PCE Pitkas Point PCE St.Mary's/Andreafsky PCE Mekoryuk PCE Russian Mission PCE Brevig Mission PCE Chevak PCE Dot Lake/Dot Lake Village PCE 0.4708 Tetlin PCE 0.4708 0.3900 1.0406 0.3368 - 0.3400 0.3562 0.3605 0.3889 0.3889 0.3980 0.4000 0.4036 0.4165 0.4165 0.4200 0.4350 0.4400 0.4500 0.4500 0.4519 0.4529 0.4553 0.4606 0.4621 0.4621 0.4644 0.4666 0.4672 0.4709 0.4739 0.4761 0.4766 0.4815 0.4818 0.4820 0.4820 0.4821 0.4830 0.4878 0.4888 0.4925 0.4925 0.3368 4.21 4.21 0.3400 4.25 4.25 0.3562 4.45 4.45 0.3605 4.51 4.51 0.3889 4.86 4.86 0.3889 4.86 4.86 0.3980 4.98 4.98 0.4000 --5.00 5.00 0.4036 5.05 5.05 0.4165 5.21 5.21 0.4165 5,21 5.21 0.4200 5.25 .5.25 0.4350 5.44 5.44 0.4400 5.50 5.50 0.4500 5.63 5.63 0.4500 5.63 5.63 0.4519 5.65 -5.65 0.4529 =5.66 5.66 0.4553 5.69 5.69 0.4606 5.76 5.76 0.4621 5.78 5.78 0.4621 5.78 5.78 0.4644 5.81 5.81 0.4666 5.83 5.83 0.4672 5.84 5.84 0.4709 --5.89 5.89 0.4739 5.92 5.92 0.4761 5.95 5.95 0.4766 5.96 5.96 0.4815 6.02 :6.02 0.4818 6.02 6.02 0.4820 6.03 6.03 0.4820 6.03 6.03 0.4821 6.03 6.03- 0.4830 604 6.04 0.4878 6.10 6.10 0.4888 6.11 6.11 0.4925 616 -6.16 0.4925 6.16 6.16 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 15 Tok/Tanacross PCE Wales PCE Alakanuk PCE Eek PCE Quinhagak PCE Stebbins PCE Ekwok PCE Kwigillingok PCE Levelock PCE Koliganek PCE Nikolai PCE Platinum PCE Pilot Station PCE Savoonga PCE Nightmute PCE Kaltag PCE Central PCE Goodnews Bay PCE Selawik PCE New Stuyahok PCE Chignik Lagoon PCE Gambell PCE Nelson Lagoon PCE Tuntutuliak PCE Holy Cross PCE Huslia PCE Grayling PCE Nunam tqua PCE Yakutat PCE Noorvik PCE Kivalina PCE Scammon Bay PCE Golovin PCE Tenakee Springs PCE Kiana PCE Nulato PCE 'Unalaska PCE Beaver PCE Chefornak PCE Kongiganak PCE Twin Hills PCE 0.4708 0.7399 0.4925 0.4925 0.4963 0.4987 0.4989 0.4995 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5004 0.5010 0.5041 0.5067 0.5089 0.5106 0.5114 0.5145 0.5159 0.5177 0.5200 0.5200 0.5236 0.5260 0.5283 0.5300 0.5318 0.5333 0.5368 0.5392 0.5400 0.5400 0.5413 0.5424 0.5433 0.5500 0.5500 0.5500 0.5500 0.4925 0.4925 0.4963 0.4987 0.4989 0.4995 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5004 0.5010 0.5041 0.5067 0.5089 0.5106 0.5114 0.5145 0.5159 0.5177 0.5200 0.5200 0.5236 0.5260 0.5283 0.5300 0.5318 0.5333 0.5368 0.5392 0.5400 0.5400 0.5413 0.5424 0.5433 0.5500 0.5500 0.5500 0.5500 6.16 6.16 6.20 6.23 6.24 6.24 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.26 6.26 6.30 6,33 6.36 6.38 6.39 6.43 6.45 6.47 6,50 6.50 6.55 6.58 .6.60 6.63 6.65 6.67 6.71 6.74 6.75 6.75 © 6.77 6.78 6.79 6.88 6.88 6.88 6.88 6.16. 6.16 6.20 6.23 6.24 6.24 6.25 6.25 6.25. 6.25 6.25, 6.256.26 6.266:30 : 6.33 6.36 6.38 6.39 6.43 6.45 6.47 6.50 6.50 6.55 6.58 6.60 6.63 6.65 6.67 6.71- 6.74 6.75 6.75.. 6.77" 6.78-6.796.83 6,88 6.88 6.88- Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 16 Atka PCE Anvik PCE Teller PCE Tanana PCE Kotlik PCE Takotna PCE Shageluk PCE Chitina PCE Bethel/Oscarville PCE Naukati PCE Akiak PCE Akiachak PCE Karluk PCE Diomede PCE Napaskiak PCE Pedro Bay PCE . Tuluksak PCE Nikolski PCE White Mountain PCE Manley Hot Springs PCE lliamna/Newhalen/Nondalton PCE Igiugig PCE Coffman Cove PCE McGrath PCE Sand Point PCE Hughes PCE . Angoon PCE Chilkat Valley PCE Hoonah PCE Kake PCE Klukwan PCE Deering PCE Chignik PCE Atmautluak PCE St.Paul PCE Eagle/Eagle Village PCE Whale Pass PCE Napakiak PCE Circle PCE Chistochina PCE 0.5962 0.5251 0.5407 0.9017 0.5471 0.5216 © 0.6008 0.8354 0.8354 0.8354 0.8354 0.8354 0.5816 0.5891 0.5572 0.6601 0.6552 0.5520 0.5603 0.5614 0.5693 0.5712 0.5810 0.5813 0.5850 0.5972 0.5995 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6010 0.6024 0.6030 0.6045 0.6078 0.6091 0.6100 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6215 0.6270 0.6400 0.6400 0.6453 0.6578 0.6601 0.6700 0.6856 0.5520 0.5603 0.5614 0.5693 0.5712 0.5810 0.5813 0.5850 0.5972 0.5995 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6010 0.6024 0.6030 0.6045 0.6078 0.6091 0.6100 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6215 0.6270 0.6400 0.6400 0.6453 0.6578 0.6601 0.6700 0.6856 6.90 7.00 7.02 7.12 7.14 7.26 7.27 7.31 7.47 7.49 7.50 . 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.51 7.53 7.54 7.56 7.60 7.61 7.63 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.77 7.84 8.00 8.00 8.07 8.22 8.25 8.38 8.57 . 6.90 7.00 7.02 7.12 7.14 7.26 7.27 7.31 7.47 7.49 .7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.51 7.53 7.54 7.56 7.60 -7.61 7.63 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 Loe 7.84 8.00 8.00 8.07 8.22 8.25 8.38 8.57 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 17 Kokhanok Bay PCE Northway/Northway Village PCE Bettles/Evansville PCE Port Alsworth PCE Cold Bay PCE Newtok PCE Shungnak PCE Slana PCE Noatak PCE Tatitlek PCE Gustavus PCE Chuathbaluk PCE Crooked Creek PCE Red Devil PCE Sleetmute PCE Stony River PCE Mentasta PCE Allakaket/Alatna PCE Aniak PCE Healy Lake PCE Ambler PCE Ruby PCE Egegik PCE Stevens Village PCE Lime Village PCE 0.6261 0.6213 0.9850 0.6082 1.2277 0.8191 0.8191 0.8191 0.8191 0.8191 0.7178 0.7166 0.6934 0.7541 1.5128 1.5156 0.6900 0.6915 0.6921 0.7022 0.7024 0.7200 0.7364 0.7452 0.7572 0.7600 0.7669 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7750 0.7805 0.8013 0.8090 0.8259 0.9800 0.9841 1.0700: 1.1700 0.6900 0.6915 0.6921 0.7022 0.7024 0.7200 0.7364 0.7452 0.7572 0.7600 0.7669 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7750 0.7805 0.8013 0.8090 0.8259 0.9800 0.9841 1.0700 1.1700 8.63 8.64 8.65 8.78 8.78 9.00 9.21 9.32 9.47 9.50 9.59 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.76 10.02 10.11 10.32 12.25 12,30 13.38 . 14.63 8.63 8.64 | 8.65 8.788.78 9.00 921» 9.32)9,47 9.50. 9:59 9.69: 9.69 9.69 © 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.76 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal!Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 18 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Summary of Ranking and Proposed Grant Allocation Round 1 January 14,2009 Recommendation Population Cost of Power Even Split %of Weighted Grant Total RE Average |Prorated Requested |Grant/ Energy Region Funding Fund j Population;%Total |($/kWh)'%Total Funding |Request Aleutians 2,930,430 3%8,131 1%0.54 14%9%6,155,930 |48% Bering Straits 8,801,000 9%9,075 1%0.42 11%9%27,652,406 32% Bristol Bay 5,000,000 5%18,146 3%0.35 10%9%26,173,500 |19% Copper River/Chugach 9,335,720 9%10,082 2%0.24 7%9%12,857,225 |73% Kodiak 4,225,000 4%9,922 2%0.20 6%9%9,875,000 ;43% Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 14,054,078 14%23,132 4%0.54 15%9%23,401,233 |60% North Slope --7,367 1%0.15 4%9%- Northwest Arctic 16,583,428 17%6,516 1%0.49 13%9%29,053,362 ,57% Railbelt 16,528,909 17%446,786 72%0.12 3%9%190,387,543 9% Southeast 16,441,503 16%71,354 12%0.15 4%9%101,373,999 |16% Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 5,534,493 6%9,090 1%0.49 13%9%24,377 884 23% Statewide 565,439 1%2,446,588 |23% TOTAL 100,000,000 ;100%619,601 100%0.17 100%100%453,754,671 22% Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Ranking and Proposed Grant Allocation Round 1 January 23,2009 Stage 3 Review Scores Fund Allocation by DevelopmentProjectBenofit/Cost Cost and Request Fund Allocation(max)__Stage Request for 4.Cont of 2 3.Tach'&4.5.6.Local [7.Sustain]Total Statewide Approved LB&A Total Applicant Energy |Maich |Econ Feas }Resdiness |Seneflis |Suoport {ability Rank Grant by LB&A =ApprovaitJan Requested and|Reconn/ Energy Region 10 |Project Name Appilcant Type Project Type AEA |Applicant {(30)(25)(20)(5)(0)(5)45)(100)(99)Project Cost Request Match Offered 2008 og Approved Feasibtiity [Final Design}Construction Aleutians 58 Chunisax Creek Hydroelectric City of Alka Utiaty Hydro 441 59 2t 23 8 6 10 2 5 83 2 2,440,000 996,000 1,344,000 996,000 996,000 996,000 9 [SOK Wind iniograion LumnakPower Niko \covernment Wind 12 28 23 45 15 5 8 '3 72 15 451,030 409,430 41,600 409,430 409.430 409,430 0 [St George Wind Farm eee cite Icovamment [wind 17 19 14 2 16 4 a 3 3 7)7 3,000,000 |-_,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 1,500,000 49544]271,038 4.179.418 1 |Apuians Eas!Borough °East Borough otner 00 00 2 2 at 5 2 2 4 66 at 40,000 25,000 15,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 95 Suy Geothermal Feastoity Companys Lie.Land hep ao at 20 i 12 'a a 'a Ba 250,000,000 |3.225.500 .. TOTAL 255,934,030 |6,155,930 2,900,600 :2,930,430 2,930,430 T4544]271,038 2,584,848 Bering Straits |52 |Nome/Newion Peak Wind Farm Stay System Nome |tay Wind 24 13 12 "7 16 5 7 5 5 67 27 15,534,309}13,951,326 4:582,083 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 50 |Lnalahiest Wind Farm Unatakieet votey(weg)jtaity Wing 24 4 13 12 16 5 7 5 5 62 4 8.996.632}8,774,080 222,752 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ar NomeBannar Peak Wind Farm cay one peti Utéity Transmission |1.9 22 12 15 1§5 8 2 5 62 55 890,000 601,000 88,000 804,000 801,000 801,000 106 |Home!Banne;Peak Wind FMM Jeanne:wind,LLC IPP Wind 16 19 12 20 13 2 7 5 2 60 58 5,187,000}4,126,000 1,031,000 . Tora 30,578,141 |27,652,406 2,925,735 :8,801,000 8,801,000 ::8,801,000 Bristol Bay 64 fonebaty nl Wad besuan Peninsula Government |wind WwW 15 26 18 16 5 8 2 4 7 7 8,000,000 184,000 40,000 484,000 184,000]184,000 erence Area Wind-Hydro Beccuane Peninsula [Goverment |Wind 18 rs)24 48 43 4 8 z 4 rR 16 +8,480,000 378,000 96,000 378,000 375,000}378,000 63 heninetnal beg bercuyn Peninsula Govemment [Biomass a7 07 24 18 13 5 4 :4 cr)24 4.265,000 77,000 18,000 77,000 77,000 77,000 40 ies Creek Hydro Feasibbity Cay OF Chignik {Government |Hydro 44 44 24 °18 4 ie 3 5 65 3 207,500 207,500 207,500 207,500 207,500 é LakeEva Hysropower ecma ve,jutiaty Hydro 18 18 9 25 "4 8 ?4 62 s1 22,000,000 |10,000,000 12,000,000 4,006,500 4,006,500 {300,000 3,708,00 "Cranseueon Hydrosiectne hansipo Power |Uuy tyctro 34 34 19 [')18 5 8 '4 3?85 1,900,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 18 pe RedgeGeothermal Final |Naknek Electric tity |Geothermal 0.0 15.8 13 Fr)6 0 8 v ®r)a0 10,020,000}5,000,000 5,000,000 :- 1 Ronenee Fish Waste |Naknek Electric Utay Biofuels 100,000 80,000 20,000 .. 55 conciweten (wii)Conmeten Meek [Goverment |Wind 13,100,000 |40,100,000 2,800,000 -. TOTAL 64,742,500 |26,173,500 19,974,000 .5,000,000 5,000,000 |1,216,500 77,000 3,706,500 Copper River!|2!Cone ieaheaaiaiaes several eaey Hydro 45 4s 12 25 19 5 9 '5 79 4 41,600,000 |§,500,000 6,100,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Chugach 22 [Cordova Heat Recovery Cordova Electric lUumty Heat Recovery|23 |23 12 |2 18 4 10 5 5 n 8 8,260,000 }1,780,000 3,480,000 4,780,000 1,780,000 320,000}1,460,000 2g [Contova Wood Processing PIN!Inouye vuage of Eyak -[Government [Biomass 23 |199 wz |2 16 4 9 5 2 n 20 628,825 364,225 264,800 "347,720 147,720 147,720 7 Alon Lake Haro Fessbity [Copperaren uty Hydro 48 48 6 19 19 5 10 2 5 66 32 45,058,000 |2,288,000 672,000 2,288,000 2,288,000 1,000,000}4,288,000 15 Neste Go Central Wood Chesshina Tribal Counc [Goverment |Biomass 0s o4 26 40 15 5 4 i)5 €5 36 839,000 827,000 12,000 500,000 500,000 64,000 438,000 4g [Renny Lake Wood Heating popper River School coverment [Biomass 07 07 6 10 "5 5 3 6 48 78 1,200,000 |4,200,000 120,000 420,000 48,000 75,000 2 [Guiana Central Wood Heating Icukena viage Counct [Goverment |Biomass 06 06 6 0 4 5 4 2 5 7 90 898,000 898,000 .°500,000"500,000 500,000 Tora!65,463,825 |12,857,225 10,428,800 :9,335,720 9,335,720 |1,045,000 |1,747,000 6,543,720 Page 1ci6 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Ranking and Pr d Granta ion Round 4 January 23,2009 Project Benefit /Cost Stage 3 Review Scores Cost and Request Fund Allocation Fund ae eat tae Development Requeat for 1.Costof{2.3.Tech &4 $.6.Local |7.Sustain]Total Statewide Approved LB&a Total Applicant Energy |Match |Econ Feas |Readiness |Benefils |Suppor |ability Rank Grant by LB&A =Approval Jan Requested and|Reconn/ Energy Region 1 {Project Name Applicant Type Project Type Applicant (30)(25)(20)[ty](10){5}{5}(700)(99)Project Cost Request Match Offered 2008 09 Approved Feasibility |Final Design Construction Kodiak 103 PaarMountain Wind Farm Kodiak eect Utaity wind 398 46 ?20 19 6 8 2 5 66 33 29,319,539 |9,650,000 2,000,000 |7,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 a Design Hydroslecinc Final Coope Vilage Electric tty Hydra 16 46 7 15 45 6 6 0 4 63 48 4,100,000 225,000 25,000 228,000 228,000}-225,000 oral 27,419,539 |9,875,000 2,025,000 |1,000,000 3,225,000 4,226,000}225,000 :4,000,000 Lower Yukon!|'22\tmesd [chy of Bethet Governmant |wand +8 18 22 19 16 3 8 a 4 1 +0 3.197.986 |2,598,320 890,666 2,598,320 2,598,320 2,598,320 Kuskokwi walk Wind Farm Finan Power uvity Wind rr)18 2 22 15 5 8 0 '™12 3,200,000 {1,700,000 £,800,000 4,700,000 1.700,000 1,700,000 107 fosatingok Wind Farm Compand Power unity Wied 16 14 19 22 45 5 7 2 4 3 14 3,200,000 |1,600,000 4,600,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 4,600,000 67 ONG tansy Farm Construction |iweoe wind Power,LLG |IPP Wind 39 43 22 20 Fry 2 a 0 3 69 25 8,710,000 |6,960,000 1,750,000 .: 70 [Quiohagak Wind Farm Alsska Vilage Elecinc [Ut Wind 08 07 19 16 13 4 4 3 4 63 a7 4.313.603}3,862,243 431,360 3,882,263 3,882,243 189.000 3,692,243 72 [Mekorn&Wind Fam Alaska Vilage Eleclic Nueyty Wied 07 07 18 16 14 5 4 0 5 62 62 3.506.406 |3,155,765 350,641 3,155,785 3,158,765 3,155,765 91 |Naparnute Solar PV Native Vilage of IGovemment |Sotar 20 4 8 3 4 2 2 58 59 129,494 109,474 14.023 .: cA ese ale Farm Alaska Vilage Elecinc tauaty Wind 1.0 07 45 16 14 5 4 e 5 58 62 1.153,056 |1,037,750 115,308 1,037,750 1,037,750 26,350 4,009,400 a5 [Hooper Bay Wind Farm Cky of Hooper Bay Goverment (Wind 05 05 18 o 1"2 4 2 4 a 85 2.220.141 |2,220,144 :80,000 80,000 80,000 13 |gere Wind Farm Feasibaty ey of Neg Utility (@tect)4 ary Wind 14 0.0 23 0 8 1 6 8 2 38 87 ; :. 96 Eerny ee eeeuy crooked Croek Tradieenal coyemment |Oinar 478,000 137,543 58,000 .: TOTAL 29,802,686 |23,401,233 6,418,996 +14,054,078 44,054,078 ao,ooo0|247,350}13,756,728 Northwest 59 Somaee Feactatybuy any Inupiat HOUBING|covernment |Biomans 06 14 Pay 23 3 5 '5 3 W 8 7,500,000 249,500 248,980 249,500 249500]249,500 Arctic 75 [Ambler Solar PV C:Alaska Vilage Elecine {sity Solar 02 05 30 15 12 8 2 o '68 26 605,000 550,000 85.000 580,000 559.000 50,000 500,000 76 |Noatak Solar PV Gonsiruction [Maske Viage Elecinc Nyy,Soler aa or ze |45 2 5 2 Q 4 87 28 605,000}$50,000 55,000 . 77 |Shungnak Sotar PV Gonstruction |V2SK#Vltage Electric |igyy Sotsr 03 |08 23 |45 2 5 2 5)'86 34 695,000}550,000 35,000 . "85 Wind Fann HKowabue Elecine tay Wind 13 18 "4 19 14 3 ?2 5 63 44 44,807,535 |12,075,535 2,800,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 6 [Bucher We Arctic Borough Wing 10 09 19 2 14 '6 3 4 63 45 10,921,428 |90,758,928 $62,500 10,758,928 10,758,928 10,758,928 74 [Ueber Hobuk Foe ay Alaska Vikage Eleciic tesuuty Hydeo 00 00 23 13 10 4 '0 3 8?68 1,500,000 |1,025,000 50,625 1,028,000 1,025,000 |_1,025.000 03 Fete SivneRed-Ox [Kotzebue Electric Utiny Wing 07 18 "19 9 5 3 3 '55 69 3,930,399]3,144,399 786,000 :. 42a [Ambler Solar and Wind Power cay of ambier Government |Other o.4 09 30 0 8 3 2 a 3 48 76 150,000 150,000 .. TOTAL 40,624,362 |29,053,362 4,213,105 -.16,503,428 16,583,428]1,274,500 50,000}15,258,928 Page 20S Alaska Renewable Energy Fund g and P.d Grant Allocation Round 1 January 23,2009 Project Benefit /Cost Stage 3 Review Scores Cost and Request Fund Allocation Fund Allocation by Developmentmax}Stage Request for 1,Cost off =2.3.Tech'4 8.6.Local |7.Sustain}Total Statewide Approved LB&A TotalApplicantEnergy[|Match |Econ Feas |Readiness |Benefiis |Support |ability Rank Grant by LB&A Approval Jan Requested snd}Reconn/ Energy Region 10 [Project Name Applicant Type Project Type Applicant |(30)(25)(20)fe)(19)is)(5)(190)(99)Project Cost Request Match Offered 2008 o9 Approved |Feasibility |Finai Design|Gonatruction Railbelt 59 [Anchorage Landté Gas Municipaltyof Anchorage.|vemment [Bictuels a5 36 8 2 18 5 to 2 3 70 2ibe!y C Sokd Wasie Services E 7,400,000 |3,700,000 3,700,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 [South Fork Hydroelectric87|eonsl South Fork Hydro,LLG IPP Hydro 54 5.4 5 24 18 4 9 Q E 66 x»3,087,000 |1,000,000 2,087,000 4,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Nikolaevsk Wind Fann Final Alaska Wind Energy,LLC,4 Ioasign ofa Wind Energy Alaska |'PP Wind 13 of 5 28 16 '4 ?3 5 65 35 21,923,000 |4,334,600 47,588,400 180,800 180,600 180,600 Eva Creek Wind F:Golden Valley Electric ,10a [Eve 'arm n Valley E tity Wind 27 19 8 a wv 4 8 2 5 85 37 93,341,555 {70,340,322 14,001,233 2,000,000 2,000,000 |2,000,000 Noah Pole 6:,53 oat Con Chane Power Utility,LLC |utimy Buoduets 16 25 8 24 15 5 ®0 4 65 3B 4.007.900 |2.000.000 2.007.900 |1.000.000 1,000,000 2.000.000 2.000.000 [Anchorage Landfall Gas Alaska Wind Enemgy.LLC, _- 93 Frral Design dave Weed Energy Alaska ||PP Bioluats a4 34 4 25 7 3 10 a 8 64 a 8,257,850 |2,100,000 6,157,850 - Feshhook Hydrosleciric Fannook Renewable IPP87|onstructon Energy,LUC Hydro 44 4.5 26 18 4 8 0 FE 83 «6 4.595.922 |2,142,964 2,412,961 |453.071 1,548,929 2,000,000 50,000 4,950,000 (Grant Lake/F ats Creek Hydro .IPP34|easily Study Kenai Hydro,LLC Hydro 25 30 5 19 7 5 9 2 E)61 87 26,924,120 816,000 204,000 816,000 816,000 816,000 North Pole Heal Recovery Golden Vatey Electric ,105 |Construction utility Heat Recovery]3.4 42 6 18 4 Fy 6 2 $Er 80 1,050,000 840,000 210,000 640,000 840,000 840,000 Coal Mine Road Wind Farm66|Fal Design Alaske Wind Power,LLC IPP Wind 36 28 8 18 16 '4 9 0 4 39 61 96,000.000 105,000 26,250 108,000 105,000 105,000 Daka Junction Wind Farm Alaska Enveonmenialv02|0 Power Lic IPP Wind 08 12 8 24 13 4 5 [)4 58 64 8.263.886 |6 269.750 2.094.136 |801,500 1,198,500 2,000,000 2,000,000 98 |Niuski Wind Farm Constructon {Kena Winds,LLC IPP Wing 14 i3 5 25 13 3 6 0 8 87 87 46,800,000 |11,700,000 38,100,000 89,000 80,000 80,000 (Girdwood Gas CHPiHydraWind {Aiaska Green Energy,7 |sour htc Pe Other 15 15 5 28 "3 6 3 2 34 bal 12,231,750 |§.231,750 7,000,000 47,625 47.625 47.625 ag |Whiber Creak Hydroeiectne cigs or woiktior ]Govemment_|Hydro 10 1.0 5 23 "5 5 2 a 52 3 *3,000,000 85,000 115,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 Fourth of July Creek independence Power,6 tte IPP Hydro 33 33 3 28 14 i)8 Q 2 82 7 15,675,000 |7.837.500 7,837,500 20,000 20,000 20,000 Nenana Hydrokinetic Uruversky of Alaskaa7{o Faybanks,Otics of oO.0.4 03 8 ?4 5 5 3 4 "6 79 4,937,072 |1,854,026 83,046 450,000 450,000 450,000 Deka Junchon Wood Chip Deta/Greely School132|seating Feasittzy Study Destnct |Govermant |@iomess 08 08 8 0 16 5 8 5 5 "4 a 2,868,000 |2,866,000 :2,704 684 2.704.684 79.500 2,625,184 McKinley Vitage Sotar Thermal |Gotden Valey Elecinc .108 |ley Vitage Uuaty Solar a4 0?8 10 10 5 3 5 4 a3 62 190,000 180.000 3,600 - Anchorage Geothermal District Iceland America Energy,8 |ealing Feasinuty Study ine.IPP Geothermal '4 24 6 3 4 3 2 a 83 4,070,000,000 |4,047,230 4,295,580 : Anchorage Wasle Gasification [Alaska Racyciing Energy,3 Feasibity Study Luc (PP Brotvets 0.0 0.0 3 14 8 4 3 °3 3S ET)200,000,000 1,100,000 100,000 - [Detts Junction BarleyWood State of AK,Dept of39PetetCantralHeatingNaturalReeources,Gavernment |Biomass 04 01 a 1 10 4 2 L']4 Bs]93 834.203 834,203 . Fairbanks W.ification Alaska Recycling Enargy,5 |resbaty StyGas Le re Ene:lipp Biofuels 00 oo 6 0 8 '3 0 3 24 94 100,000,000 775,000 .. Paimer Waste Gasificabon Maska Racycing Energy,4 Trensbaty Study hic IPP Baotuots oo oo 5 a 8 4 3 °3 22 85 60,000,000 650,000 :. 16 |Redouo una Spur Cook Iniet Power IPP 00 00 '4 0 2 4 1 0 0 8 98 98,150,000 950,000 27,200,000 : [Jack River Hydrosiectnc17TeeasioiyStudy Native Vikage of Cantwell [Government [Hydro 200,000 194,540 5,460 . 43 |Paimer Gas CHP Construction [Alpine Energy,LLC IPP Gas 15,000,000 7,500,000 7,500,000 . 44 |Whitier Gas CHP Construction |Alpine Energy,LLC IPP Gas 15,000,000 |7,500,000 7,500,000 . as ang Nienon ConeProcessing EarthRun Energy IPP Biomass 300,000 300,000 : Mt.Alice Harbor IMA.Aca D51energyCIn.Government [Other 140,229,650 |14,673,250 - Palmer Coal Bed Methane CHP |Alaska Green Enargy.79 Pi lic IPP Other 20,824,011 |49,401.411 1,422,600 - 92 [Deke Creek Hydro Construction |HPML,LLC PP Hycro 00,000 50,000 .. Homer Electric=|Kenal Hydro Recon Assessment lAssocitation thay Hydro 200,000 .200,000 200,000 TOTAL 2,078,747,919 |190,387,543 218,652,516 |2,454,571 |14,074,338 16,528,909 |3,273,625 390,100 12,865,184 Page 3.01 5 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund and Pi d Grant A ion Round 1 January 23,2009 Project Benefit /Cost Stage 3 Review Scores Cost and Request Fund Allocation Fund Allocation by Development max Stage Request for1.Costof]2.|3.Techs '5 6 Local |7.Sustein]Total |Statewide Approved LBsA Total Appticant Energy |Match Readiness |Benefits |Suppor |ability Rank Grant by LB&A =ApprovalJan Requesied and}Reconn/ Energy Region D_[Project Name Applicant Type Project Type Applicant |(30)(25)(20){s)(10)(5)(5)(100)(99)Project Cost Request Match Offered 2008 os Approved Feasibility [Final Design|C:Cottman Cove-Naukali inere |Alaska Power &untySoutheast23fcTeteoty Transmission 34 34 23 24 8 5 10 0 5 85 1 8.155.019 3,752,181 2,402,838 3,752,184 3.752.161 3,752,181 Kake-Petersburg inlerte Final =|Kwaan Electric Fi2°Ipesign "J 'ntertie tity Transmission |0.6 08 23 23 13 4 4 5 4 76 8 40,000,000 |2,890,000 2,500,000 2,900,000 2,990,000 2,990,000 Fats Creek Hydroelectric |Guslavus Electric.WI,Company tiny Hydro.22.4 22.4 2 1 20 ES 40 2 Ey 72 1B 10,153,000 750,000 -750,000 750,000 750,000 {Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric104|Ooatruction Haida Power,Inc.Utiiny Hydro a3 33 10 21 18 4 8 5 4 69 23 17,145,000 |10,500,000 6,645,000 |4,000,000 1,000,000 2.000.000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Juneau Ground Source Heal441BumpConstruction(Aquatic Cy&Borough of Juneau 54 4s 4 a 18 5 Q 2 5 64 «0 1,950,000 1,450,000 500,000 1,450,000 4,450,000 64,398 1,385,602 Whitman Lake Hydro Ketchikan Public Utitlas-a7 |8 Hyd cercnkan Puss Utity Hydro 83 8.3 4 19 20 5 10 2 $64 42 17,750,000 |_1,300,000 320,000 1,300,000 4,300,000 |1,300,000 Haines Cenual Wood Healing (Chakoot Indian33SystemC{Low As Government |Biomass 36 42 9 4S 19 5 9 2 5 64 43 441,228 288,222 28,446 288,222 288,222 47,444 240,778 Yakutat Gasificalon60YakutaBiomassGasi Vakulat Power tity Brotvets 19 28 20 14 13 2 8 Ey 2 63 49 3,633,600 |3.393.600 240,000 249,600 249,600 248,600 Ruth Laka Hydro.City of Petersburg dt/a ,Kod a Hiya Petersburg Municipal 8 |UtMY Hydro.40 40 5 18 19 5 8 2 5 63 50 109,975,000 160,000 45,000 160,000 160,000 460,000 Gurro Creek Hydro Feasibility Burro Creek Holdings,42 I Sway tic IPP Hydro 24 24 9 Ww 15 5 8 4 4 62 53 60,000 48,000 12,900 48,000 48,000 48,000 Hoonah -Hawk Inlet intertie Kwaan Electric 'a28le:Tatertio nitty Transmission |4.1 42 2a 12 12 1 5 8 4 62 56 37,459,970 |36,709,870 750,000 .. intertie (ndian ,20 |.c . Government |Transmission 23 6.2 4 13 19 5 9 3 5 58 63 7,652,000 7,152,000 300.000 820,000 820,000 620,000 Hi Ceniral Wood Heat41|eeaan y Study (Ci ean Hanes Borough Government |Biomess 06 08 iJ 18 14 5 5 4 §57 68 2,090.500 120,500 20.000 420,500 120.500 120,500. 65 |pie River Hydrmelecine Cay of Tenakee Springs |Lumay Hyco 10 |40 20 |48 12 2 5 o 4 54 70 *2,800,000 |-2.400,000 100,000 :: Wrangell Hydro Based Electric [City and Borough of9BowersCWrangell Government |Other 18 1.8 4 12 18 4 c)2 4 53 72 3,260,000 3,260,000 123.006 2,000,000 2,000.000 240,000 1,760,000 Gustavus/Angoon/WrangeWNikis |Alaska Tidal Energy18|Tidal Feastoity Study Company HPP OcearvRiver 15 19 6 3 2 2 1 43 7 4,940,000 515,000 .. a [tanaing Hydroalectric Icy &Borough of Sika [Government [Hydro it ra)4 2 5 5 7 2 5 40 86 225,000,000}2,000,000 . |Ketchikan Biomass Gasification |Diesel Brewing Company,111."LUC dba Diesel Br:of 1PP Biofuels o8 25 4 20 7 2 4 o 1 38 a9 25.625.000 20,500,000 5,125,000 -- Juneau Waste Gasification Alaska Recycling Energy,12 Study LLC Pe Biofuels 0.0 00 4 0 5 4 3 o 3 19 96 95,000 -. 1g [Ketchikan Wasie a Masha Recyctog Ene'¥.|ipp Biotuels oo |oo 4 0 6 '3 o 3 18 97 105,620 .a Haines Ground Source Heal Haines Assisted Living,'25 |pump Construction Ine La Geothermal 2,379,007 |1,432,906 946,101 :. Juneau Ground Source Heat oe leump ¢ion ()Cay &Borough of Juneau 1.8 1,076,000 4,026,000 $13,000 $13,000 =oa 513,000 543,000 TOTAL 514,305,325 |101,373,999 21,285,385 |1,513,000 -44,928,503 16,441,503 |1,468,500}5,571,442 9,401,564 Page dai 5 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund 'ing and Pi d Grant A Round 1 January 23,2009 Project Benefit /Cost Stage 3 Review Scores Cost and Request Fund Allocation Fund Allocation by Development max)_Stage Request for 1.Costet]2.3.Techs 4 5.6.Local /7.Sustsin]Total Statewide Approved LB&A Totai|Appticant Energy |Maich |Econ Fees |Readiness |Benafis |Support |ability Rank Grant by LB&A Approval Jan Requested and|Reconn/ Energy Region 10 [Project Name Applicant 'Type Project Type |AEA |Applicant |(30)|(25)(20)fe (59)(5)fe {100)(29)Project Cost Request|Match Offered |2008 09 Approved _|Feasibility |Final Design Yukon-61 MeGraiteal Recovery McGrath Light &Power,{ay Heat Recovery|2.4 18 23 9 19 8 i)3 6 82 3 901,815 824,815 167,000 112,415 712.415 12415 Koyukuk/Upper Tanana |54 |conenes ene etherty RIA)Housing |covamment [Biomass 26 20 15 Fz)20 5 0 0 6 78 5 382,779 382,779 4,659,760 382,779 362,778 382,779 84 [Ruby Hydrokinetic Construction [Yukon Réerlnler tral pps Hydro 03 18 30 10 1"5 5 5 5 ™"1 461,950 446,950 10,555 446,950 446,950)154,500 10,000 282,450 48 {Tok Wood Heating Consinscion {Alaska Gateway School Ncovemment [Biomass 09 08 18 rT)16 5 6 4 $7a a 3,805,349 |3,245,349 560,000 3,245,349 3,245,349 20,000]231,211 2,994,138 YYemek Creek Hydroelectnc Alasks Powar &24 lc.Tete,C ai Hydro 28 28 18 20 17 2 ::])8 Ft ww 14,500,000 11,600,000 2,900,000 -. 30 McGratn Centra Wood Heating taycrain Power and Light |utiay Biomass 00 ot 23 23 "1 3 4 4 3 69 22 4,005,000 |3.052.000 953,000 322,000 322,000 322,000 Fort Yukon Ceniral Wood (Gwntchyae Zhee Dilly "3t eaing company luniiny Bomsss ch]09 ”2 3 3 6 3 4 67 20 4,285,161}2,945,991 1,200,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 [Manley Fol Springs Geothermal 15x power thy Geothermal re)1,880,000 |1,880,000 1,685,000 |215,000 .215,000 245,000 TOTAL 30,312,084 |24,377,884 12,118,315]295,000 4,319,493 5534,403|174,800|988,214 4,371,782 kinalic Feasibidy|Thomas Ravens,Ph.D.Statewide 88 Sun Hydro!See ary Myiee Medea,joovernmens,|OcearvRwver 15 1 "&5 '5 «9 75 $65,429 565.439 .565,439 505.430]565,439 ag |Siblewe ven perect Precision Power.Lic IPP Heat Recovery}0.0 00 45 15 5 1 4 Q i 38 88 7,000,000 300,000 80,000 :: Juneau Based Statewide Alaska Eleciiic Ligh!&72|yarevammonia Elscrncty pose iuiiay Other 4 0 "4 4 5 2 5 3a 92 800,000 800,000 . |Slalewide Biomass University of Alaska,2 Study Fairbanks Buotueis 286,149 286,149 :. Statewide Heat81|RecoveryfEtzetic Demonstiation {OS Nevade inc.PP Heat Recovery 28,000,000 495,000 ... TOTAL 36,651,588 |2,446,588 60,000 .565,439 565,439 |565,439 .. TOTAL 3,174,598,969 |453,754,671 300,999,252 |5,182,573 94,817,429 100,000,000 {9,397,608 |9,342,144}81,290,254 Page Sof 5 /SALASKA@=-ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Summary of Methodology for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation January 20,2009 Overview of Review Process Renewable Energy Fund applications were evaluated in three stages.For more detail please refer to Evaluation Guidelines in the appendices and to documents posted on the Renewable Energy Fund webpage http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund.html. In the first stage each application was evaluated for completeness,eligibility,and responsiveness to the request for applications (RFA).This evaluation was conducted by Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)staff. The second stage evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of the proposed projects.This stage was conducted by AEA staff with the assistance of DNR staff, outside economists,and other consultants. The third stage was a final scoring based on the specific guidelines in the RFA that was conducted by AEA staff.The scoring was done based on a number of matrices and pre-established weighting for each of the criteria. Cost of Energy (30%): Matching Funds (25%) Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%):score from stage 2 Project Readiness (5%) Economic and Other Alaska Benefit (10%) Sustainability (5%) Local Support (5%)NOORON>Upon completion of the evaluation all applications were ranked by region with the final funding recommendation being made based on the number and rank of applications with each region,the cost of energy,and a balance of statewide funding. Projects may have been recommended for partial funding if they were viable but: «Documentation submitted with the application was not sufficient to justify full funding for more than one phase of a project. e Project construction was scheduled for 2010 or later,the project was expensive or higher risk,or there were competing projects for which planning is desirable e The applicant requested AEA to manage the project and the AEA program manager could confidently estimate a lower cost. e The proposal included operating costs or other costs not recommended for funding. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 1 In addition AEA adopted a maximum funding cap to provide for the ability to award more projects. Where AEA offers less than the requested amount,AEA will work with grantees to assure that the revised scope of the final grant award is consistent with the grantee's proposal and meets the public purposes of the program. Roles of AEA Staff and the Renewable Enerqy Fund Advisory Committee AEA staff requested and received input from the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee regarding the process and final funding recommendations.Following is a summary of Committee involvement. AEA staff prepared a draft RFA package including the RFA,application form, worksheet form,and a sample grant agreement in summer 2008.The Advisory Committee met on 8/22 and 8/25 to discuss the RFA package.AEA staff revised the draft and issued the finalized RFA on 9/3 taking into account the Committee's comments. Midway through the AEA staff review of the Round 1 applications AEA met with the Committee on 11/21 to brief them on the process and how AEA was handling specific issues.Issues addressed included ensuring that grant funding to independent power producers would benefit the public appropriately,protocols for offering partial or multi- phase funding,handling competing and interacting projects,eligibility of biofuel projects,and eligibility of statewide resource assessment projects. On 12/18 during the last stages of AEA Round 1 review,AEA briefed the Committee on how AEA was addressing issues discussed in the November meeting,the draft evaluation guidelines,and schedule. Following AEA evaluation of all Round 1 applications,AEA staff and the Committee met on 1/12 to establish how to address the HB152 requirement for a statewide balance of matching funds.Based on this discussion AEA has finalized its recommendations. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 2 APPENDIX A Evaluation Guidelines and Instructions for Evaluation of RFA for Renewable Energy Fund Grant Projects General: Applications that do not comply with AS 42.45.45 and all of the material and substantial terms,conditions,and requirements of the RFA may be rejected. If an application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its application has been rejected and the basis for rejection. The Authority may waive minor requirements of the RFA that do not result ina material change in the requirements of the RFA and do not give an applicant an unfair advantage in the review process. Upon submission of the final recommendations to the Legislature the Authority will make all applications available for review on the Authority's web site. All communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through the Grant Manager. The Executive Director is the Executive Director of AEA,Program Managers are staff at AEA who have oversight for AEA programs (e.g.biomass,hydroelectric, wind energy,geothermal,etc.).Program Managers are the subject matter technical experts,and the Grant Manager is the person responsible for overseeing the grant process for the Authority. All applications will be reviewed using the same process and criteria established in the RFA. Decisions madein each stage of the review process will be documentedin writingandmadeapartofthegrantfile.If reviewers think they may have a potential conflict of interest,(financial or personal interest,such as friend or family members)they should inform their supervisor immediately of the potential nature of the conflict. Reviewers should make notes of any questions they may have about an application. Reviewers should not contact applicants directly. If reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should contact the Grant Manager.If reviewers have technical questions they should contact the Program Managers. If an application is rejected or not recommended the applicants will be sent a letter from the Grant manager explaining why their application has been rejected or not recommended.Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Manager the reasons for why the application is being rejected Notes should be made directly into the database on line.All written notes should be kept with the application file. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 3 e All notes are considered public records and subject to Alaska public records act disclosure requirements. e Any appeals from rejected applicants in Stage 1 or Stage 2 reviews will be directed to the Grant Manager.The Grant Manager will review the appeal with the Executive Director,Senior Program Manager,and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action. Stage 1 Review Process: -All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by the Authority staff to assess if the application is complete,meets the minimum submission requirements,and has adequate information to proceed to Stage 2 -Technical Evaluation. Reviewers - Grant Manager and two Senior Program Managers Criteria e Allcriteria are scored pass/fail.Failure to meet any of these criteria results in rejection of the Application. 1. 2. 3. The application is submitted by an Eligible Applicant (sec 1.4). The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.5). A resolution or other formal authorization of the applicant's governing body is included with the application to demonstrate the applicant's commitment to the project (sec 1.4). The application provides a detailed description of the phase(s)of project proposed-i.e.reconnaissance,feasibility analysis/conceptual design,final design/permitting,and/or construction (sec 2.2). The application is complete in that the information provided is sufficiently .responsive to the RFP to allow AEA to consider the application in the next stage of evaluation. The applicant provides evidence of having the minimum technical, financial,and management capability to complete the work as proposed in the grant or a reasonable plan to obtain it. Process °The Grant Manager will evaluate criteria 1-3 above. e The Senior Program Managers or Program Managers will evaluate criteria 4-6 above. e Ifit appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional data the Program Managers may make a recommendation to the Grant Manager for additional information.The Grant manager will request clarifying Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 4 information from the applicant.The applicant will have a specified amount of time to provide the requested information.Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide information that completes their application will result in the application being rejected. Applications that are determined by the Grant Manager and Program Managers and determined to be incomplete or fail to meet the minimum requirements will be reviewed by the Executive Director with the assistance of Legal or procurement staff prior to being rejected at Stage 1. Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed stage 1. Any requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants in Stage 1 will be directed to the Grant Manager.The Grant Manager will review the request with the Executive Director,Senior Program Manager,and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action. Stage 2 Review Process: All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for feasibility in accordance with the criteria below. Reviewers - Program Managers -the AEA technical subject matter experts. Staff from Department of Natural Resources -technical experts providing specific review and comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and natural resource development. Economists -Contracted economist who will review cost benefit and other cost and pricing information provided for each application submitted for the purpose of providing the authority and independent assessment of the economics ofthe proposed project. ISER -University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research -is providing Quality Assurance review of Economic Analysis work. Senior Program Manager -Overseer of the work of the Program Managers Criteria Each of the numbered criteria below will be scored with a numerical score 1-10 and weighted per the percentages below. Criteria Weight 1.Project Management,Development,and Operation 20% a.The proposed schedule is clear,realistic,and described in Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 5 adequate detail. b.Project development,operation,maintenance,fuel,and other cost and savings estimates are realistic. c.The project team's method of communicating,monitoring,and reporting development progress is described in adequate detail. d.Logistical,business,and financial arrangements for operating and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable and described in adequate detail. 2.Qualifications and Experience 20% a.The applicant,partners,and contractors have sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully complete,and operate the project b.The project team has staffing,time,and other resources to successfully complete and operate the project. c.The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic,and environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation. d.Use of local labor and training of local labor workforce. 3.Technical Feasibility 20% a.The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis and project permits and other authorizations can reasonably be obtained. b.A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system. c.Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable. d.The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as planned. e.If a demonstration project is being proposed: e specific benefits of proposed technology are likely (such as application in other areas of the State); ©need for this project is shown;(and e risks of the proposed system are reasonable and warrant demonstration. 4,Economic Feasibility 20% a.The project is shown to be economically feasible b.The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of the grant-funded phase and has considered options for funding © subsequent phases of the project. 5.Benefits 20% Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated. Process e Program Managers will carefully review the proposals for their assigned technology group and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria anda funding recommendation.. e Aneconomist hired by AEA will review the performance and economic information and provide an independent analysis of cost and benefits of each project.The Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 6 reviewers will consider the independent analysis when scoring the economic feasibility and benefits criteria. e Reviewers will use the formula and criteria in the Scoring Matrix Guide (see below) for designated criteria in Stage 2. e Ifthe Program Manager believes they need additional information they will coordinate their request for follow-up information with the Grant Manager.The purpose of follow-up is for clarification and to help the Project Manager gain sufficient understanding of the project proposed. e Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Manager to the applicant by e-mail,Bcc to Program Manager,with a response time of 7 days or less. e Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide an adequate clarification as requested will result in the application being rejected in Stage 2. e The Senior Program Managers will meet with the Program Managers to review the applications and discuss final stage 2 scoring.Scoring per the stage 2 criteria may be adjusted based on final discussions between the Program Manager,Senior Program Managers,Economists,and Executive Director. e A final weighted "feasibility”score will be given for each application reviewed. e Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may not be recommended for funding or further review. e Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed stage 2. e The Authority will develop a preliminary list of feasible applications based on the Stage 2 review with AEA recommendations on technical and economic feasibility and a recommended funding level to be considered in the Stage 3 review. Stage 3 Review Process: The third stage of evaluation will resultin the final score,ranking by region,andrecommendationofprojectsforgrantfunding. The Feasibility score from Stage 2 will be automatically weighted and scored in Stage three. The average of the Economic and Public Benefit score of stage 2 will be used for initial scoring of Economic and Other Public Benefit Score.This score will be reviewed by the Program Managers. The Grant Manager,with staff assistance,will score the cost of energy,type and amount of matching funds,and local support,using the formulas and methods outlined in the Scoring Matrix Guide (Appendix B). Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 7 Two Senior Program Managers will review the scoring of the Program Managers and Grant Manager and provide a score for readiness and previous success,and sustainability. AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for the Advisory committeeto review. The Advisory Committee will review the final Stage 3 scores regional ranking recommendations of the Authority.The Committee may make recommendations to assist in achieving a statewide balance but will not be rescoring based on the criteria. Reviewers - e Grant Manager (Local Support and Match Criteria) e Program Managers (i.e.specialists in hydro,wind,biomass,geothermal, ocean/river,biofuels)- e Two Senior Program Managers e Executive Director of AEA. e Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations) Criteria e Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted. Criteria Weight Cost of energy per resident in the affected project area 30 relative to other areas (From Worksheet) The type and amount of matching funds and other 25 resources an applicant will commit to the project.(See formula) Project feasibility (Score from Stage 2 weighted)20 Project readiness.How quickly the proposed work can 5 begin and be accomplished and/or success in previous phases of project development. Economic &Other Alaska Public Benefit (such as ability to |10 use technology in other parts of Alaska). Sustainability -Operations and Maintenance Local Support (See formula)ooProcess e Each application will be given a single weighted score. e Where more than one evaluator is scoring a specific criterion the scores of all evaluators for that criterion will be averaged. e Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Manager by e- mail,Bcc to Program Manager,with a response time of 7 days or less. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 8 e The evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to determine a more complete understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their application. (Refer to RFA Section 4 Stage 3 Review.)However given the time constraints this is not likely for this round of applications. Recommendation Guidelines e The final recommendations will be one of the following: o Recommend -Full funding per application o Recommend -Partial funding witha recommended funding amount o Donot recommend for grant funding -(basis for not recommending to be explained) e Final AEA recommendations may also suggest specific terms or conditions be imposed on the grantee to assure the project is successful and the public receives proper benefit for the funds to be expended e Multi-phase funding guidelines o Fundall phases:Project can be constructed in 2009,and is well-defined, relatively inexpensive,and low-risk. o Fund fewer than all phases:Project construction in 2010+,not well-defined, expensive,higher risk,or there are competing projects for which planning is desirable. e Competing or interactive projects guidelines o If AEA is aware of the potential for substantial interaction among proposed and/or other known projects,then recommend planning with appropriate level of analysis and public input before committing substantial funding to one or more alternatives. o Railbelt:Ifinstalled capacity >10 MW or system transmission constraints are likely,then construction funding not recommended until after Railbelt integrated resource plan (IRP)consideration.° e Partial Funding Guidelines o Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are recommended. o Exception 1:If proposal asks AEA to manage the project,and AEA thinks project can be built for less,then lower figure can be recommended. o Exception 2:Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor,fuel) not recommended for funding. o Exception 3 -AEA proposes to limit funding to a maximum dollar limit for specific areas,groups,or types of projects in order to increase the total number of projects that may be awarded and address the statewide balance of funds. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 9 e Guidelines for recommendations for biofuel projects for Private vs Governmental entities o Government projects eligible for construction/equipment funding o Non-government:limited to funding recommended preconstruction activities e Consideration of Resources Assessment Projects o Resource assessment associated with one or more site-specific projects is eligible for phase 2 funding.General regional or statewide assessment,not tied to particular proposed projects,is not eligible,and more appropriately done through the DNR/AEA Alaska Energy Inventory Data project. e Recommendation Guidelines will be documented and a part of the grant file. Ranking of Applications and Funding Recommendations e Upon completion of scoring and specific project recommendations by AEA all applications will be grouped within geographical regions, o See Map Delineating regions http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE Fund map.html e ach group of applications will be ranked within their geographical region based on the final stage three score. e Each application under consideration for funding will have stage three score and regional rank. e A draft recommendation ofprojects for funding (based on available funds)will be presented to the Advisory Committee for Review along with the complete list of all projects. e To be able to provide support for a maximum number ofprojects the maximum recommended funding per grant will be limited to: 1.$2,000,000 for Railbelt and Southeast where the Cost of Energy score is19 or less 2.$4,000,000 for all other regions and Southeast communities with Cost of Energy score 20orgreater e The final list of recommended projects for funding will provide a reasonable statewide balance of funds taking into consideration the overall score,the cost of energy,the rank of projects within a region. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 10 Recommendations to the Legislature The final recommendation to the legislature will include:) A list of recommended grants to applications based on 09 funding A list of recommended grants to applications based on 10 funding. A list of applications recommended if additional funds may be available. A list of applications not recommended for funding. A list of applications rejected as ineligible. The Final recommendation to the legislature will also contain specific information for each project as requested by the legislature and a summary of each project. Applicants may be required to provide additional information to the Legislature upon request (RFA Section 1.21). Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 11 APPENDIX B Scoring Matrix Guide General Scoring Criteria e Pass/Fail scoring means either the criteria are met or they are not. e A weighted score for each of the criteria will calculated and each complete application will be given a total score at the end of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 review process unless the application is determined not to meet the requirements of the RFA. e Reviewers should use the following weighted scoring of criteria as a guide in addition to the specific formula scoring matrices for some criteria defined in Appendix A of these procedures. Score |Guidelines (Intent to provide a range 10 A+|The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the criteria requirements and completely addresses them thoughtful manner.The application addresses the criteria in a manner clearly superior to other applications received.There is no need for additional follow-up with the applicant to understand how they meet the requirements of the criteria 7 B The application provides information that is generally complete and well-supported.Evaluators may still have a few questions regarding how the applicant meets the criteria but itis clear the applicant understands what is required. 5 C The application addresses the criteria in an adequate way.Meets minimum requirements under each of the criteria.Some issues may still need to be clarified prior to awarding a grant. 3 D The application information is incomplete or fails to fully address what is needed for the project or information has errors.The Authority may need more info to be able to complete the evaluation or need to resolve issues before recommending or awarding a grant. 0 F The application fails to demonstrate understanding of the criteria requirements or project proposed.Required information is poor or absent in the proposal. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 12 Stage 2,Criterion 4 Economic Benefit Review Guideline Compare AEA and Applicant B/C and determine which |Benefit /Cost (B/C)Score of the B/C ranges below are appropriate.If there is Ratio Value wide discrepancy between the two B/C ratios use Less than 0.80 0 judgment to assign a score.Reduce the score to the =>0.80 -=<0.90 3 extent that you judge that the project does not show 50.90 -=<1.00 Athatithasanadequatefinancingplanforcompletionof51.00 - 21.10 5thegrant-funded phase or has not considered options 110 --for funding subsequent phases of the project.Scores 71.10 -=<1.50 6 must be >=0.51.50 -=<1.60 7 >1.60 -=<1.80 8 >1.80-<2.00 9 =>2.0 10 Stage 3 Criteria -Match Total of 25 points will be calculated as follows Type of Match 5 +|Percentage of 15 +|Total Amount of |5 Pts Match to total Pts Match (1)Pts Grant Request Support of any kind referenced but 1 .01%-<5%of 4 >$1 -<$15K 1 not given a specific value IE housing Grant = offered to outside workers, administration ofproject without compensation Previous investment towards project 2 =>5%-=<10%of |©$15K -<$100K 2 completion Grant = Another grant [State]as Match 3 >10%-=<15%of |8 $100K <$1 mil 3 Grant = Other (Grant Fed)Or private 4 >15%-=<30%of |11 $1 mil -<$6 mil 4 Grant Loan or Local Cash or any 5 >30%-=<49%of |13 >$6 mil 5 documented In-kind Match Grant = >49%of Grant 15 (1)If there are multiple types of Match that with highest value is scored. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 13 Stage 3 Criteria Local Support Total of 5 Points Available Documented unresolved issues concerning the application no points |0 points will be given if these exist regardless of demonstrated supportResolutionfromcityorvillagecouncil 2 pointsSupportdemonstratedbylocalentityotherthanapplicant3points -Support demonstrated by two local entities other than the applicant |4 points Support demonstrated by three or more local entities other than the |5 points applicant Stage 3 Criteria Cost of Energy Based on Cost of Power by Community Location Raw RCA Utility Last RE Total Reported Usefor Fund Res Residential RE Score Posting Description Rate Rate Fund (1-10) Anchorage 0.0893 0.0893 1.12 Juneau 0.1103 0.1103 1.38 Anchorage 0.1171 0.1171 1.46 Matanuska Valley 0.1271 0.1271 1.59 Homer-North Kachemak Bay 0.1387 0.1387 1.73 Homer-South Kachemak Bay 0.1423 0.1423 1.78 Fairbanks 0.1729 0.1729 2.16 North Slope 0.1781 0.1781 2.23 Dillingham/Aleknagik PCE 0.2278 0.2278 2.85 Haines/Covenant Life PCE 0.2304 0.2302 0.2302 2.88 Skagway PCE 0.2304 0.2302 0.2302 2.88 King Cove PCE 0.2400 0.2400 3.00 Craig PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Hollis PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Hydaburg PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Klawock/Kassan PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Thorne Bay/Kasaan PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 Nome PCE 0.3169 0.3169 3.96 .Cordova PCE 0.3183 0.3183 3.98 Kipnuk PCE 0.5094 0.3200 0.3200 4.00 Akutan PCE 0.3230 0.3230 4.04AlaskaRenewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 14 Unalakleet PCE Ouzinkie PCE | Naknek/S.Naknek/Kng Slmn_ PCE Kotzebue PCE Toksook Bay PCE Tununak PCE Galena PCE Larsen Bay PCE Buckland PCE Kasigluk PCE Nunapitchuk PCE Elfin Cove PCE Chenega Bay PCE Kwethluk PCE Koyukuk PCE Manokotak PCE Shishmaref PCE Fort Yukon PCE Minto PCE Old Harbor PCE Lower Kalskag PCE Upper Kalsag PCE | Togiak PCE Mt.Village PCE St.Michael PCE Shaktoolik PCE Emmonak PCE Hooper Bay PCE Elim PCE Koyuk PCE Marshall PCE Pitkas Point PCE St.Mary's/Andreafsky PCE Mekoryuk PCE Russian Mission PCE Brevig Mission PCE Chevak PCE Dot Lake/Dot Lake Village PCE 0.4708 Tetlin PCE 0.4708 0.3900 1.0406 0.3368 0.3400 0.3562 0.3605 0.3889 0.3889 0.3980 0.4000 0.4036 0.4165 0.4165 0.4200 0.4350 0.4400 0.4500 0.4500 0.4519 0.4529 0.4553 0.4606 0.4621 0.4621 0.4644 0.4666 0.4672 0.4709 0.4739 0.4761 0.4766 0.4815 0.4818 0.4820 0.4820 0.4821 0.4830 0.4878 0.4888 0.4925 0.4925 0.3368 4.21 4.21 0.3400 4.25 4.25 0.3562 4.45 4.45 0.3605 4.51 4.51 0.3889 4.86 4.86 0.3889 4.86 4.86 0.3980 4.98 4.98 0.4000 _-+5.00 5.00 0.4036 -+5.05 5.05 0.4165 5.21 5.21 0.4165 5.21 5.21 0.4200 5.25 5.25 0.4350 =5.44 5.44 0.4400 -si5.50 5.50 0.4500 5.63 5.63 0.4500 5.63 5.63 0.4519 5.65 -5.65 0.4529 5.66 5.66 0.4553 5.69 5.69 0.4606 5.76 5.76 0.4621 5.78 5.78 0.4621 5.78 5.78 0.4644 5.81 5.81 0.4666 5.83 5.83 0.4672 5.84 5.84 0.4709 5.89 5.89 0.4739 5.92 5.92 0.4761 5.95 5.95 0.4766 5.96 5.96 0.4815 6.02 6.02 0.4818 6.02 6.02 0.4820 =6.03 6.03 0.4820 -6.03 6.03 0.4821 6.03 6.03 0.4830 6.04 6.04 0.4878 6.10 6.10 0.4888 6.11 6.11 0.4925 6.16 6.16 0.4925 6.16 6.16 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 15 Tok/Tanacross PCE 0.4708 0.4925 0.4925 6.16 6.16 Wales PCE 0.4925 0.4925 6.16 6.16 Alakanuk PCE 0.4963 0.4963 620°6.20 Eek PCE 0.4987 0.4987 6.23 6.23 Quinhagak PCE 0.4989 0.4989 624 6.24 Stebbins PCE 0.4995 04995 624 =6.24 Ekwok PCE |°0.5000 0.5000 625 °.625° Kwigillingok PCE 0.5000 0.5000 6.25 6.25 Levelock PCE 0.5000 0.5000 6.25 6.257 Koliganek PCE 0.5000 0.5000 6.25 6.25 Nikolai PCE 0.5000 0.5000 6.25 6.25° Platinum PCE 0.5000 0.5000 625 6,25! Pilot Station PCE 0.5004 0.5004 6.26 6.26 © Savoonga PCE 0.5010 0.5010 6.26 o 6.26 . Nightmute PCE 0.5041 0.5041 6.30 6.30 Kaltag PCE 0.5067 0.5067 =-«6.33 6.33: Central PCE 0.7399 0.5089 0.5089 6.36 6.36 Goodnews Bay PCE .0.5106 0.5106 6.38 6.38 Selawik PCE 0.5114 0.5114 6.39 6.39 New Stuyahok PCE 0.5145 0.5145 6.43 6.43 Chignik Lagoon PCE 0.5159 0.5159.645 .6.45 Gambell PCE 0.5177 0.5177.6.47 6.47 Nelson Lagoon PCE 0.5200 0.5200 6.50 6.50 Tuntutuliak PCE 0.5200 0.5200 6.50 6.50 Holy Cross PCE 0.5236 0.5236 6.55 6.55 Huslia PCE 0.5260 0.5260 6.58 6.58 Grayling PCE 0.5283 0.5283 .6.60 6.60 Nunam Iqua PCE 0.5300 0.5300 6.63 6.63 Yakutat PCE 0.5318 0.5318 6.65 6.65 Noorvik PCE 0.5333 0.5333 667.6.67 Kivalina PCE 0.5368 0.5368 6.71.671 Scammon Bay PCE 0.5392 0.5392 6.74 6.74: Golovin PCE 0.5400 0.5400 6.75 6.755 Tenakee Springs PCE 0.5400 0.5400 6.75 °°675° Kiana PCE:0.5413 0.5413 6.77 6.77" Nulato PCE 0.5424 0.5424 6.78 ©"'6.78: 'Unalaska PCE 0.5433 0.5433 6.79 ©"6.79: Beaver PCE 0.5500 0.5500 6.88 6.88 - Chefornak PCE 0.5500 0.5500 6.88 ©©"6.88" Kongiganak PCE 0.5500 0.5500 6.88 6.88 Twin Hills PCE 0.5500 0.5500 688 6.88° Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 16 Atka PCE Anvik PCE Teller PCE Tanana PCE Kotlik PCE Takotna PCE Shageluk PCE Chitina PCE Bethel/Oscarville PCE Naukati PCE Akiak PCE Akiachak PCE Karluk PCE Diomede PCE Napaskiak PCE Pedro Bay PCE Tuluksak PCE Nikolski PCE White Mountain PCE Manley Hot Springs PCE lliamna/Newhalen/Nondalton PCE Igiugig PCE Coffman Cove PCE McGrath PCE Sand Point PCE Hughes PCE Angoon PCE Chilkat Valley PCE Hoonah PCE Kake PCE Klukwan PCE Deering PCE Chignik PCE Atmautluak PCE St.Paul PCE Eagle/Eagle Village PCE Whale Pass PCE Napakiak PCE Circle PCE Chistochina PCE 0.5962 0.5251 0.5407 0.9017 0.5471 0.5216 © 0.6008 0.8354 0.8354 0.8354 0.8354 0.8354 0.5816 0.5891 0.5572 0.6601 0.6552 0.5520 0.5603 0.5614 0.5693 0.5712 0.5810 0.5813 0.5850 0.5972 0.5995 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6010 0.6024 0.6030 0.6045 0.6078 0.6091 0.6100 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6215 0.6270 0.6400 0.6400 0.6453 0.6578 0.6601 0.6700 0.6856 0.5520 0.5603 0.5614 0.5693 0.5712 0.5810 0.5813 0.5850 0.5972 0.5995 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6010 0.6024 0.6030 0.6045 0.6078 0.6091 0.6100 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6126 0.6215 0.6270 0.6400 0.6400 0.6453 0.6578 0.6601 0.6700 0.6856 6.90 7.00 7.02 7.12 7.14 7.26 7.27 7.31 7.47 7.49 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.51 7.53 7.54 7.56 7.60 7.61 7.63 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.77 7.84 8.00 8.00 8.07 8.22 8.25 8.38 8.57 6.90 7.00 7.02 7.12 7.14 7.26 7.27 7.31 7.47 7.49 -7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.51 7.53 7.54 7.56 7.60 -7.61 7.63 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 777 7.84 8.00 8.00 8.07 8.22 8.25 8.38 8.57 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 17 Kokhanok Bay PCE Northway/Northway Village PCE Bettles/Evansville PCE Port Alsworth PCE Cold Bay PCE Newtok PCE Shungnak PCE Slana PCE Noatak PCE Tatitlek PCE Gustavus PCE Chuathbaluk PCE Crooked Creek PCE Red Devil PCE Sleetmute PCE Stony River PCE Mentasta PCE Allakaket/Alatna PCE Aniak PCE Healy Lake PCE Ambler PCE Ruby PCE Egegik PCE Stevens Village PCE Lime Village PCE 0.6261 0.6213 0.9850 0.6082 1.2277 0.8191 0.8191 0.8191 0.8191 0.8191 0.7178 0.7166 0.6934 0.7541 1.5128 1.5156 0.6900 0.6915 0.6921 0.7022 0.7024 0.7200 0.7364 0.7452 0.7572 0.7600 0.7669 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7750 0.7805 0.8013 0.8090 0.8259 0.9800 0.9841 1.0700: 1.1700 0.6900 0.6915 0.6921 0.7022 0.7024 0.7200 0.7364 0.7452 0.7572 0.7600 0.7669 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7749 0.7750 0.7805 0.8013 0.8090 0.8259 0.9800 0.9841 1.0700 1.1700 8.63 8.64 8.65 8.78 8.78 9.00 9.21 9.32 9.47 9.50 9.59 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.76 10.02 10.11 10.32 12.25 12.30 13.38 . 14.63 8.63 8.64 © 8.65 8.78- 8.78 9.00. 9.21. 9.47 9.50: 9.59 9.69- 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.76 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Proposal Evaluation Guide Jan 20,2009 Page 18 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Summary of Ranking and Proposed Grant Allocation Round 1 January 14,2009 Recommendation Population Cost of Power Even Split %of Weighted Grant Total RE Average |Prorated Requested |Grant/ Energy Region Funding Fund |Population;%Total |($/kWh)%%Total Funding |Request Aleutians 2,930,430 3%8,131 1%0.51 14%9%6,155,930 |48% Bering Straits 8,801,000 9%9,075 1%0.42 11%9%27,652,406 |32% Bristol Bay 5,000,000 5%18,146 3%0.35 10%9%26,173,500 |19% Copper River/Chugach 9,335,720 9%10,082 2%0.24 7%9%12,857,225 13% Kodiak 4,225,000 4%9,922 2%0.20 6%9%9,875,000 |43% Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 14,054,078 14%23,132 4%0.54 15%9%23,401,233 |60% North Slope --7,367 1%0.15 4%9%- Northwest Arctic 16,583,428 17%6,516 1%0.49 13%9%29,053,362 |57% Railbelt 16,528,909 17%446,786 72%0.12 3%9%190,387,543 9% Southeast 16,441,503 16%71,354 12%0.15 4%9%101,373,999 |16% Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 5,934,493 6%9,090 1%0.49 13%9%24,377,884 |23% Statewide 565,439 1%2,446,588 |23% TOTAL 100,000,000 |100%619,601 100%0.17 100%100%453,754,671 22% .Alaska Renewable Energy Fund .Ranking and Proposed Grant Allocation Round 1 January 23,2009 a Project Benefit /Cost Stage 3 Review Scores Cost and Request Fund Allocation Fund Allocation by Development | (max)Stage Request for 1.Cost of 2.3.Tech &4.5.6.i.ocal {7.Sustain}Total Statewide Approved .LB&A Total Applicant Energy |Match |Econ Feas |Readiness |Benefits |Suoport |ability Rank Grant byLB&A Approval Jan Requested and|Reconn/ Energy Region ID Project Name Applicant Type Project Type AEA Applicant (30)(25)(20){5)(10){5)(5)(100)(99)Project Cost Request Match Offered 2008 09 Approved Feasibility (Final Design|Construction Aleutians 5 |cpumisax Creek Hydroeiectc Icy of Alka Utility Hydro 44 5.9 24 23 18 5 40 2 5 83 2 2,440,000 996,000 4,344,000 996,000 996,000 996,000 ag |NimoWind Integration yamnak Power /NIKOISK'Government |Wind 12 28 23 15 15 5 8 4 3 72 15 451,030 409,430 41,600 409,430 409,430 409,430 90 at George Wind Farm Goongo Muniiod Electric Government |Wind 17 1.9 14 24 16 4 8 3 3 72 17 3,000,000 |1,500,000 4,500,000 1,500,000 4,500,000 49,544 271,038 4.179.418 14 Renewable Energy Aleutians East Borough =|Government |Other 0.0 0.0 21 21 W 5 2 2 4 66 31 40,000 25,000 15,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 95 Sag Geothermal Feasibility Coonpeny.tLe.Land |ipp Geothermal 8.0 8.1 20 1 12 1 B 4 1 rT B4 250,000,000]3,225,500 .. TOTAL 255,931,030 |6,155,930 2,900,600 -2,930,430 2,930,430 74,544 271,038 2,584,848 Bering Straits |52 |Nome/Newlon Peak Wind Farm Sant Utity System Nome |uritty Wind 24 13 12 17 16 5 7 5 5 87 27 15,534,309 |13,951,326 4,582,983 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 50 coaaneet Wind Farm Cocperative.Ine,(UvEC)Utility Wind 24 1 13 42 46 5 7 5 5 62 54 8,996,832}8,774,080 222,752 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 47 mame Banner peak Wing Farm Tort utitice Sybia Nome Utility Transmission |1.9 22 42 15 15 5 8 2 5 62 55 890,000 807,000 89,000 804,000 801,000 801,000 406 Nome/Banner Peak Wind Farm |e anner Wind,LLC IPP Wind 16 4.9 12 20 13 2 7 5 2 60 58 5,157,000 |4,126,000 1,031,000 . TOTAL 30,578,144 |27,652,406 2,925,735 .8,801,000 8,801,000 --8,801,000 Bristol Bay 64 Feseibitty Study.wind Borouah Peninsula Government |Wind 17 1.5 26 18 16 5 8 2 4 77 7 8,000,000 184,000 40,000 184,000 484,000 |184,000 62 Fret Design Area Wind-Hydro Borough Peninsula Government |Wind 1.6 11 24 18 13 4 8 2 4 72 16 8,150,000 375,000 96,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 63 hosting tins!Dest Borough Peninsula Government {Biomass 0.7 07 24 18 13 5 4 :4 69 24 4,265,000 77,000 18,000 77,000 77,000 77,000 40 study Creek Hydro Feasibility [oi oF Chignik Government {Hydro 44 44 24 0 18 4 10 5 5 65 39 207,500 207,500 .207,500 207,500!207,500 6 cake EWa Hycropower relophane Cooperative,Utility Hydro 1.8 18 9 25 4 4 8 ?4 62 51 22,000,000 |10,000,000 12,000,000 4,006,500 4,006,500 300,000 3,706,500 14 Fie Hydroelectric Ot (CLP)Power |utiity Hydro 34 34 19 0 18 5 9 2 4 57 65 4,900,000 450,000 150,000 450,000 450,000 18 Desen Geothermal Final Raknek Blecinc Utility Geothermal 0.0 15.8 13 24 6 0 0 0 0 44 80 10,020,000!-5,000,000 5,000,000 -. 1 Naknei/King Salmon Fish Waste Naknek Electric Utility BiofuelsFeasibilityStudyAssociation 100,000 80,000 20,000 -- 55 Snake Mountain Wind Farm Bristol Bay Area Health Government |WindConstruction(Withdrawn)Corporation 13,100,000 |10,100,000 2,800,000 -- TOTAL 64,742,500 |26,173,500 19,974,000 .3 5,000,000 5,000,000}1,246,500 77,000 3,706,500 Copper River |2!Ho eee ire ce eo emerative Utity Hydro 45 45 12 |25 19 5 9 Z 5 79 4 11,600,000]5,500,000 6,100,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Chugach 22 cove meat Recovery Cooperative Utility Heal Recovery|2.3 23 12 24 18 4 40 5 5 77 6 5,260,000}1,780,000 3,480,000 4,780,000 4,780,000 320,000 4,460,000 26 Gordova Wood Processing Plant Native Village of Eyak Government |Biomass 20.3 19.9 12 23 16 4 9 5 2 71 20 628,825 364,225 264,600 447,720 447,720 447,720 27 Study,Lake Hydro Feasibility Rovecintion.Ino (CVEA)Utility Hydro 48 48 6 19 19 5 10 z 5 66 32 45,058,000 |2,288,000 572,000 *2,288,000 2,288,000]1,000,000}4,288,000 45 Ioating Construction Cheesh'na Tribal Council [Government |Biomass 0.5 04 26 40 45 5 4 9 5 65 36 839,000 827,000 42,000 -500,000 500,000 64,000 436,000 46 Concvuation reaing Detect Fer Schoo Government /Biomass 0.7 07 8 10 14 5 5 3 5 48 78 1,200,000 |1,200,000 ae 120,000 420,000 45,000 75,000 2 Culkana Central Wood Heating Gulkana Village Council |Government |Biomass 06 06 6 0 14 5 4 é 5 37 90 898,000 898,000 .500,000 500,000 500,000 TOTAL 65,483,825 |12,857,225 10,428,600 :9,335,720 9,335,720]1,045,000 |4,747,000 6,543,720 Page 1075 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Ranking and Proposed Grant Allocation Round 1 January 23,2009 Stage 3 Review ScoresProjectBenefit/Cost Cost and Request Fund Allocation Fund Allocation by Development(max)_Stage Request for Applicant "energy 'Match Econ reas Readiness Benefits cuopent ety Total aneank Grant ibaa rover vtee Energy Region ID |Project Name Applicant Type Project Type AEA Applicant (30)(25)(20}(5)(10)(5)(5)(100)(39)Project Cost Request Match Offered O08 aa van ee aeproved resciuiity Final Design|Construction Kodiak 103 Cos ountain Wind Farm RodiakBleck Utility Wind 3.9 46 7 20 19 5 9 2 5 66 33 23,319,539 |9,650,000 2,000,000 |1,000,000 --3,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 73 Design Hydroelectric Final Cooperative.Electric |utility Hydro 1.6 1.6 47 45 45 5 6 0 4 63 48 4,100,000 225,000 25,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 TOTAL 27,419,539 9,875,000 2,025,000 |1,000,000 3,225,000 4,225,000 225,000 -4,000,000 Lower Yukon/|122 peinel Wind Power Project City of Bethel Government {Wind 4.8 1.8 22 19 16 3 8 2 4 74 40 3,197,986 |2,598,320 599,666 2,598,320 2,598,320 2,598,320 Kuskokwim 110 [Konaiganak Wind Farm Company Power Utility Wind 14 15 21 22 15 5 8 )4 74 12 3,200,000 |1,700,000 4,500,000 4,700,000 4,700,000 1,700,000 107 |Conatuetion Company Power Utility Wind 16 1.4 19 22 15 5 7 2 4 73 14 3,200,000 |1,600,000 4,600,000 4,600,000 4,600,000 1,600,000 67 (ENC land).Farm Construction "|ji1.9¢Wind Power,LLC [IPP Wind 3.9 43 22 20 13 2 8 0 3 69 25 8,710,000}6,960,000 4,750,000 .. 70 |Quinnagak Wind Farm Cooperative Electric Utility Wind 08 07 19 16 13 4 4 3 4 63 47 4,313,603 |3,882,243 431,360 3,882,243 3,882,243 189,000 3,693,243 72 Mekoryul Wind Farm Cooneratve Electric |utility Wind 0.7 0.7 18 16 14 5 4 0 5 62 52 3,506,406 |3,155,765 350,641 3,155,765 3,155,765 3,155,765 91 Napaimure Solar Pv Napeinute of Government |Solar 29 14 8 3 1 2 2 59 59 123,494 109,471 14,023 °- 74 cepansion Construction Cooperative.Electric tility Wind 1.0 07 45 46 14 5 4 Q 5 58 62 1,153,056 |1,037,750 115,306 4,037,750 1,037,750 28,350 1,009,400 35 pooper Bay Wind Farm City of Hooper Bay Government {Wind 0.5 0.5 18 0 1 2 4 2 4 41 85 2,220,141 |2,220,141 :80,000 80,000 80,000 413 suey Wind Farm Feasibility Ctvaf Napaskigk |Utility Wind 14 00 23 0 8 6 4 2 38 87 ;; 96 Crooked Creek Renewabie Crooked Creek Traditional Government [OtherEnergyReconnaissanceStudy{Council 178,600 137,543 58,000 -° TOTAL 29,802,686 |23,401,233 6,418,996 -14,054,078 14,054,078 80,000 217,350 13,756 Northwest 59 Bvnacs Poasibity Std athorty.Inupial Housing |6 vernment [Biomass 06 14 24 23 13 5 4 5 3 7 8 7,500,000 249,500 248,986 249,500 249,500 |249.500 Arctic 75 |Ambler Solar PV Construction Cooperative.Electric |tilty Solar 0.2 0.5 30 15 12 5 2 0 4 68 26 605,000 550,000 55,000 550,000 550,000 50,000 500,000 76 |Noatak Solar PV Construction Cooperative.Electric |Utiity Solar 0.4 07 28 15 12 5 2 )4 87 28 605,000 550,000 55,000 - 77 |Shungnak Solar PV Construction Cooperative.Electric |utility Solar 0.3 0.6 28 15 42 5 2 0 4 86 34 605,000 550,000 55,000 : 85 couebue wind Farm Expansion olzebue Electric Utility Wind 1.3 1.6 44 19 14 3 7 2 5 63 44 14,807,535 |12,075,535 2,800,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 56 puckiane/Deoring/Noowik Wind INorthwest Arctic Borough |Government |Wind 4.0 0.9 19 12 44 4 6 5 4 63 45 40,921,428 |10,758,928 162,500 10,758,928 10,758,928 40,758,928 74 Haroelectrc Region y Cooperative.Electric |Utiity Hydro 0.0 0.0 23 13 40 4 4 Q 3 57 66 4,500,000 1,025,000 50,625 4,025,000 4,025,000 |1,025,000 83 som Battery Storage Red-Ox Rotzebve Electric Utility Wind 07 1.8 44 49 9 5 3 3 4 55 69 3,930,399 |3,144,399 786,000 -. 121 empl Solar and Wind Power City of Ambler Government |Other 0.1 0.9 30 0 8 3 2 3 3 48 76 150,000 450,000 .. TOTAL 40,624,362 |29,053,362 4,213,105 .16,583,428 16,583,428 |1,274,500 50,000|15,258,928 Page 20f5 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Ranking and Proposed Grant Allocation Round 1 January 23,2009 Stage 3 Review Scores Fund Allocation by Development |Project Benefit /Cost Cost and Request Fund Allocation(max)Stage Request for 1.Cost of 2.3.Tech &4.5.6.Locat ]7.Sustain|Total Statewide Approved LB&A Total Applicant ; Energy |Match |Econ Feas |Readiness |Benefits |Support abllity Rank Grant byLB&A Approval Jan Requested and}Reconn/ Energy Region ID_|Project Name Applicant Type Project Type AEA |Applicant (30)(25)(20)(5)(10)(5)(5)(100)(99)Project Cost Request Match Offered 2008 09 Approved Feasibility |Final Design|Construction Railbelt 68 Electichs Conctruction|MunicipallyovAnche"9°Government [Biofuels 3.5 3.5 5 24 19 5 10 2 5 70 21 7,400,000 |3,700,000 3,700,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 57 coun Fork Hydroelectric South Fork Hydro,LLC |iPP Hydro 5.4 5.4 5 24 19 4 9 0 5 66 30 3,087,000 1,000,000 2,087,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 94 Design Wind Farm Final din Wind Energy Maske IPP Wind 43 '4 5 25 16 4 ?3 5 65 35 21,923,000 |4,334,600 17,588,400 180,600 180,600 180,600 109 [Eva Creek Wind Farm owen Valley Electric lutity Wind 27 1.9 8 21 17 4 8 2 5 65 37 93,341,555 |79,340,322 44,001,233 2,000,000 2,000,000 |2,000,000 53 Nestrchyivest CConstruction Chena Power Utility,LLC [Utility Biofuels 16 2.5 8 24 15 5 9 0 4 65 38 4,007,900 2,000,000 2,007,900 }1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 93 Becta Final Design:dion Wind Energy Maske iPP Biofuels 3.4 3.4 4 25 47 3 10 0 5 64 44 8,257,850}2,100,000 6,157,850 - 87 Fishhook hydroslecinc Ener tle IPP Hydro 44 44 5 24 18 4 8 0 5 63 46 4,555,922}2,142,964 2.412.961}453,071 1,546,929 2,000,000 50,000 4,950,000 34 Feasbiity lady Creek Hydro |Kenai Hydro,LLC IpP Hydro 25 3.0 5 19 17 5 9 2 5 61 57 26,924,120 816,000 204,000 816,000 816,000]846,000 105 Non Pole Heat Recovery rowan waley Electric ttiity Heat Recovery]3.4 4.2 8 49 14 5 6 2 5 59 60 4,050,000 840,000 210,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 66 |oo2!ban Wind Farm twiaska Wind Power,LLC |IPP Wind 3.6 2.8 8 48 16 4 9 )4 59 61 96,000,000 105,000 26,250 405,000 105,000]105,000 102 ooneoumelion Wind Farm maska Lagronmental 1PP Wind 0.9 4.2 8 24 13 4 5 0 4 58 64 8,363,886 |6,269,750 2,094,136 |801,500 --1,198,500 2,000,000 2,000,000 98 |Nikiski Wind Farm Construction {Kenai Winds,LLC IPP Wind 4.4 43 5 25 13 3 6 0 5 57 67 46,800,000 |11,700,000 38,100,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 78 Girdwood Gas CHP!HydroWind neste Green Energy,Jip Other 15 15 5 25 4 3 6 3 2 54 71 42,231,750 |5,234,750 7,000,000 47,625 47,625 47,625 48 Runttier Greek Hycrociecine City of Whittier Government Hydro 1.0 1.0 5 23 4 5 5 2 3 52 73 3,000,000 85,000 415,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 86 Hydroclecine Reconnaissance regpendence Power,lipp Hydro 3.3 3.3 3 25 44 '3 0 2 52 74 45,675,000 |7,837,500 7,837,500 20,000 20,000 20,000 97 Nenana tyorokinetic Porte ke Otice at Government |Ocean/River 0.4 0.3 8 7 44 5 5 3 4 46 79 1,937,072 |1,854,026 83,046 450,000 450,000 450,000 112 Heaung Penabilty Study ianreel School Government [Biomass 0.8 0.8 8 0 16 5 6 5 5 44 81 2,868,000 |2,868,000 -2,704,684 2,704,684 79,500 2,625,184 108 Mekiney village Solar Thermal palgen Naley Electric tity Solar 04 07 8 40 10 5 3 5 4 43 82 490,000 190,000 3,600 : 8 Heating cesetbity Stady reelane America Energy.|p Geothermal 4 24 6 3 4 3 2 42 83 1,070,000,000 |4,047,230 4,295,580 - 3 rosebilty Study.Gasification nese Recycling Energy,|p Biofuels 0.0 0.0 3 14 8 4 3 0 3 35 at 200,000,000}1,100,000 400,000 - 39 Pon Cont Hest pate or sues Government |Biomass 0.4 of 8 1 10 4 2 0 4 29 93 831,203 831,203 .. 5 Foasibity Study Gasification neste Recycling Energy,|ipp Biofuels 0.0 0.0 6 0 8 4 3 0 3 24 94 100,000,000 775,000 -. 4 Fosatbity Stasoe Haska Recycling Energy,lipp Biofuels 0.0 0.0 5 0 8 4 3 0 3 22 95 60,000,000 650,000 .. 16 Be ae oA SP on Cook Inlet Power IPP Geothermal 0.0 0.0 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 8 98 98,150,000 950,000 97,200,000 . 7 Pauly study Native Village of Cantwell |Government [Hydro 200,000 194,540 5,460 - 43 |Palmer Gas CHP Construction [Alpine Energy,LLC IPP Gas 15,000,000 7,500,000 7,500,000 - 44 |Whittier Gas CHP Construction [Alpine Energy,LLC IPP Gas 15,000,000 7,500,000 7,500,000 - 45 ae Necneg Construction EarthRun Energy IpP Biomass 300,000 300,000 . 51 Cheay Corctuction Me Awe Development,Government [Other 440,229,650 14,673,250 . 79 Fame coal Bed Methane CHP neste Green Energy,IPP Other 20,824,011 19.401,411 1,422,600 . 92 |Delia Creek Hydro Construction |HPML,LLC IPP Hydro 600,000 50,000 .- --|Kenai Hydro Recon Assessment omer erecine Utility Hydro 200,000 oo.200,000 200,000 TOTAL 2,078,747,919 |190,387,543 218,652,516 |2,454,571 14,074,338 =16,528,909]3,273,625 390,100 |12,865,..__| Page 3 of 5 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Ranking and Proposed Grant Allocation Round 1 January 23,2009 Stage 3 Review ScoresProjectBenefit/Cost (Cost and Request Fund Allocation Fund Allocation by Developmentmax)Stage Request for Appli ' 1.Cost of 2.3.Tech &4.5.6.Local |7.Sustain}Total Statewide Approved LB&A Total pplican Energy |Match |Econ Feas |Readiness |Benefits |Support ability Rank Grant by LB&A A .F . I R Energy Region 1D |Project Name Applicant Type Project Type AEA Applicant (30)(25)(20)(5)(10)(5)(5)(100)(99)Project Cost Request Match Offered y 008 Pere Jan oauested and peconn ;;fi Southeast 23 Coffman Cove-Naukati intertie |Alaska Power&Utility Transmissi 34 34 23 PP easibllity |Final Design]Construction a Construction Telephone Company ransmission :.24 19 5 10 9 5 85 1 6,155,019 3,752,184 2,402,838 3,752,181 3,752,181 3,752,181 Kake-Petersburg Intertie Final Kwaan Electric an29DesignTransmissionIntertieUtilityTransmission 0.6 0.8 23 23 13 4 4 5 4 76 9 40,000,000 2,990,000 2,500,000 2,990,000 2,990,000 2.990,000 Falls Creek Hydroelectric Gustavus Electric .10 Construction Company Utility Hydro 22.1 22.4 29 1 20 5 10 2 5 72 18 10,153,000 750,000 -750,000 750,000 750,000 Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric .a104ConstructionHaidaPower,Inc.Utility Hydro 3.3 3.3 10 21 18 4 8 5 4 69 23 17,145,000 10,500,000 6,645,000 |1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Juneau Ground Source Heal411PumpConstruction(Aquatic City &Borough of Juneau |Government {Geothermal 5.14 49 4 21 18 5 9 2 5 64 40 1,950,000 1,450,000 500,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 64,398 1,385,602 Whitman Lake Hydro Ketchikan Public Utilities-a:37 Construction Electic Division Utility Hydro 8.3 8.3 4 19 20 5 10 2 5 64 42 17,750,000 1,300,000 320,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 Haines Central Wood Heating Chilkoot Indian . _ 33 |System Construction (Low Association Government |Biomass 3.5 42 9 15 19 5 9 2 5 64 43 441,229 288,222 28,446 288,222 288,222 47,444 240,778 Yakutat Biomass Gasification a .60 Construction Yakutat Power Utility Biofuels 1.9 2.8 20 14 13 2 8 5 2 63 49 3,633,600 3,393,600 240,000 249,600 249,600 249,600 Ruth Lake Hydro City of Petersburg d/b/a o38|Reconnaissance Petersburg Municipal &Utility Hydro 4.0 4.0 5 18 19 5 9 2 5 63 50 109,975,000 160,000 45,000 460,000 160,000 160,000 Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility Burro Creek Holdings, : 42 Study Luc {PP Hydro 2.4 2.4 9 17 15 5 8 4 4 62 §3 60,000 48,000 12,000 48,000 48,000 48.000 2g [Hoonah -Hawk Iniet Intertie Kwaan Electric Util qT i : Construction Transmission intertie ility transmission V4 1.2 23 12 12 1 5 5 4 62 56 37,459,970 36,709,970 750,000 -- 20 Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Metiakatla indian Government 'T a 23 62ConstructionCommunity°ent |Transmission .:4 13 19 5 9 3 5 58 63 7,652,000 7,152,000 500,000 820,000 820,000 820,000 At Haines Central Wood Heating Hai B h G t IBFeasibillyStudy(Community aines Boroug overnmen'iomass 0.6 0.6 9 15 14 5 5 4 ie)57 68 2,090,500 120,500 20,000 420,500 120,500 120,500 Indian River Hydroelectric _...65 Construction City of Tenakee Springs =|Utility Hydro 1.0 4.0 20 11 12 2 5 0 4 54 70 2,500,000 2,400,000 100,000 .- Wrangell Hydro Based Electric |City and Borough of9BoilersConstructionWrangell Government |Other 1.9 1.9 4 12 18 4 8 2 4 53 72 3,260,000 3,260,000 123,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 240,000 1,7¢ Gustavus/Angoon/Wrangeli/Nikis |Alaska Tidal Energy . 19 |i Tidal Feasibility Study Company IPP Ocean/River 15 19 6 3 2 2 1 48 77 4,940,000 515,000 -- Takatz Lake Hydroelectric ,, : 1 Feasibility City &Borough of Sitka Government |Hydro 1.1 14 4 2 15 5 7 2 §40 86 225,000,000 2,000,000 . Ketchikan Biomass Gasification |Diesel Brewing Company,.101 Construction LLC dba Diesel Brewing of IPP Biofuels 0.8 2.5 4 20 7 2 4 0 4 38 89 25,625,000 20,500,000 5,125,000 .. Juneau Waste Gasification Alaska Recycling Energy,. 12 |Reconnaissance Study LLC 1PP Biofuels 0.0 9.0 4 0 5 4 3 0 3 19 96 95,000 -. Ketchikan Waste Gasification Alaska Recycling Energy,:13 |Reconnaissance Study LLC IPP Biofuels 0.0 0.0 4 0 6 4 3 0 3 18 97 405,620 -. Haines Ground Source Heat Haines Assisted Living,25 Pump Construction Inc IPP Geothermal 2,379,007 1,432,906 946,101 - Juneau Ground Source Heat ., |pump Construction (Airport)City &Borough of Juneau |Government |Geothermal 1.8 1,076,000 1,026,000 513,000 513,000.x -513,000 513.000 TOTAL :514,305,325 |101,373,999 24,285,385 |1,513,000 14,928,503 16,441,503 1,468,500 5,571,442 9,401,561 Page 4 of 5 Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Ranking and Proposed Grant Allocation Round 1 January 23,2009 Project Benefit /Cost Stage 3 Review Scores Cost and Request Fund Allocation Fund Allocation by Development(max)Stage Request for ; 1.Cost of 2.3.Tech &4.5.6.Local |7.Sustain}Total Statewide Approved LB&A TotalApplicant ;Energy |Match |Econ Feas |Readiness |Benefits |Support ability Rank Grant byLB&A Approval Jan Requested and|Reconn/ Energy Region ID_{Project Name Applicant Type Project Type AEA |Applicant (30)(25)(20)(5)(10)(5)(5)(100)(99)Project Cost Request Match Offered 2008 09 Approved Feasibility |Final Design|Construction .McGrath Heat Recovery McGrath Light &Power,a:nYuko 81 |construction Co.Utility Heat Recovery|2.1 1.8 23 19 19 5 9 3 5 82 3 991,815 824,815 467,000 712,415 712,416 712,415Koyukuk/Galena Wood Heating Interior Regional HousingUpperTanana54ConstructionAuthority(IRHA)Government |Biomass 2.6 29 is 24 20 5 10 0 5 78 5 382,779 382,779 4,659,760 382,779 382,779 382,779 oo..Yukon River Inter-Tribal84|Ruby Hydrokinetic Construction Watershed Council IPP Hydro 0.3 18 30 10 44 5 5 5 5 74 11 461,950 446,950 10,555 446,950 446,950 154,500 10,000 282,450 .F Alaska Gateway School :49 |Tok Wood Heating Construction District Government |Biomass 0.9 0.8 18 19 16 §6 4 5 73 13 3,805,349 3,245,349 560,000 3,245,349 3,245,349 20,000 234,211 2,994,138 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Alaska Power &Pe24ConstructionTelephoneCompanyUtility Hydro 2.8 2.8 18 20 17 2 9 0 5 71 419 14,500,000 11,600,000 2,900,000 »- McGrath Central Wood Heating .a . : 30 Construction McGrath Power and Light |Utility Biomass 0.0 0.1 23 23 41 3 4 4 3 69 22 4,005,000 3,052,000 953,000 322,000 322,000 322,000 Fort Yukon Central Wood Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility _F31HealingConstructionCompanyUtilityBiomass 1.1 0.9 17 22 13 3 6 3 4 67 29 4,285,161 2,945,994 4,200,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 Maniey Hot Springs Geothermal "|Construction TDX Power Utility Geothermal 1.1 1,880,000 1,880,000 4,665,000 245,000 .215,000 215,000 TOTAL 30,312,054 |24,377,884 12,115,315 |215,000 5,319,493 5,534,493 174,500 988,211 4,371,782 .Statewide Hydrokinetic Feasibility}Thomas Ravens,Ph.D..Statewide 88 Study and Myree McDonald,Government |Ocean/River 15 1 14 5 5 4 5 49 75 565,439 565,439 -565,439 565,439 565,439 Statewide Heat Recovery 736DemonstrationProjectPrecision Power,LLC IPP Heat Recovery 0.0 0.0 15 15 i}i 1 0 1 38 88 7,000,000 300,000 60,000 -- Juneau Based Statewide Alaska Electric Light &-82 Hydro/Ammonia Electricity Power Utility Other 4 0 14 4 5 2 5 33 92 800,000 800,000 -. Statewide Biomass University of Alaska,.32 |Reconnaissance Study Fairbanks Government Biofuels 286,149 286,149 --. Statewide Heat81Recovery/Electric Demonstration Ormat Nevada Inc.IPP Heat Recovery 28,000,000 495,000 ... TOTAL 36,651,588 2,446,588 60,000 -565,439 565,439 565,439 - TOTAL 3,174,598,969 |453,754,674 300,999,252 |5,182,571 94,817,429 100,000,000 |9,397,608 |9,312,144 81,290,251 oN _ Page fof ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Loan Programs Power Project Fund (PPF) Number of loans:45 Outstanding portfolio balance:$24,484,597 Committed &un-disbursed funds:S$1,278,305 Uncommitted funds:$11,826,238 As of 1/31/09,there was 1 loan past due 90 days or more in the amount of $215,000;which was .88%of the outstanding portfolio balance. Program Background:The PPF program provides loans to local utilities,local governments or independent power producers for the development or upgrade of electric power facilities, including conservation,bulk fuel storage,and waste energy conservation.The loan term is related to the productive life of the project,but cannot exceed 50 years.Interest rates vary between tax-exempt rates at the high end and zero on the low end.This rate is equal to the percentage that is the average weekly yield of municipal bonds for the 12 months preceding the date of the loan commitment. Bulk Fuel Revolving Loan Fund (BFRLF) Number of loans:50 Outstanding portfolio balance:$6,047,757 Committed &un-disbursed funds:S 726,702 Uncommitted funds:$8,425,212 As of 1/31/09,there was 1 loan past due 90 days or more in the amount of $43,731;which was .72%of the outstanding portfolio balance. Program Background:The purpose of the BFRLF program is to assist communities,utilities or fuel retailers in small rural communities in purchasing emergency,semi-annual or annual bulk fuel supplies.Loans are for the purchase of new fuel.Loans are not provided for fuel already purchased,in the process of being used or already consumed.The Alaska State Legislature appropriated an additional $5.5 million to this revolving loan fund in August 2008. Revised 2/2009 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Bulk Fuel Program Current Status In 2008,bulk fuel upgrades were completed in the communities of Tyonek,Ruby,and Pilot Point.The pipeline project in Newtok was started and will be completed in spring 2009.Nine communities are in the design process. Program Description The goal of Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA)Bulk Fuel program is to upgrade non-compliant bulk fuel facilities in communities that meet program criteria.Upgrading bulk fuel facilities reduces the cost of energy by reducing or eliminating fuel loss from leaks and spills.In addition,by providing enough capacity for current and planned needs,communities may purchase fuel in larger quantities at a lower cost per gallon. Alaskan remote communities rely on diesel fue!storage for heating and power generation.Many of the bulk fuel storage facilities were constructed in the 1970's or earlier.Many of these facilities are at the end of their design life and do not comply with state and federal codes and regulations.Some have tanks,pipes and other equipment that leak fuel.Regulatory agencies may prohibit fuel deliveries to these facilities.Communities often do not have funds for replacing these storage facilities. Since 2000,the Denali Commission has provided funding to replace community bulk fuel facilities.Due diligence is carried out to ensure that project participants meet Denali Commission and AEA sustainability standards.Participants sign a Business Operating Plan.The Business Operating Plan lays out the existing fuel facility organizational structure,the qualifications of responsible people,AEA required training,estimated operation and maintenance costs,and the establishment of a repair and replacement fund,so that when equipment fails the community will have the resources and savings to repair or replace it. Program Progress The bulk fuel program receives most of its funding through the Denali Commission.A total of 21 tank farm projects were completed in years previous to 2000.In 2000,funding increased substantially when the Denali Commission started to fund bulk fuel projects.As of December 2008,an additional 65 communities have been completed for a total of 86.Approximately 32 communities have not received upgrades.Depending on funding,three to six communities are receiving upgrades per year. Revised 2/2009 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Circuit Rider Program Current Status FYO9 Circuit Rider Program Participation forms where faxed to 74 rural electric utilities October 31, 2008.35 utilities responded.The returned applications are currently being evaluated. Program Description The Circuit Rider Program provides technical assistance to help rural utilities with the operation and maintenance of their electrical generation and distribution system.The Circuit Rider Program is administered by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)and is available to all eligible electric utilities.Electric utilities participating in this program will receive support services from AEA depending on the availability of funding._The purpose of the circuit rider maintenance program under 3 AAC 108.200 -3 AAC 108.220 is to assist eligible utilities to improve the efficiency,safety,and reliability of power systems and reduce the risk and severity of emergency conditions or emergency disruptions in the operation of community power systems,by providing training,consultation,on-site assistance with maintenance and minor repairs,and other related technical assistance. e The CRM program runs ona fiscal year from July 1 to June 30. e Allapplications will be evaluated and placed on priority list. e AEA will make one or more visits to eligible electric utilities over the course of the fiscal year to provide training and provide recommendations concerning operations and routine maintenance activities.There will be no charge to the utility for these services. e Participating utilities are responsible for the purchase of all supplies,parts and equipment used for routine maintenance and minor repairs that are made during Circuit Rider visits.These items must be available at the utility's workplace prior to the arrival of AEA staff. e The Circuit Rider program does not provide funding for major repairs or reconstruction of electrical systems. e The participating utility's power plant operator and/or other utility staff must be available for training and consultation during the time of the Circuit Rider staff visit.Power plant operators will be required to maintain written performance logs in between Circuit Rider visits. e Utilities participating in the Circuit Rider program will be required to sign a letter acknowledging their understanding of the terms and conditions of the services provided by the program,prior to the first visit. Program Progress Services under the Circuit Rider program are limited to village electric utilities with a demonstrated need for assistance with preventative operations and maintenance activities,utility training and emergency prevention.The program is not intended to serve electric utilities that have sufficient financial and technical resources to perform routine operations and maintenance activities. Reviewed 2/2009 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Emergency Response Program Current Status In 2007/2008,20 communities where assisted.Major responses included Beaver when their powerhouse burned to the ground,Diomede with unexpected major equipment failures and Tuluksak engine failures. Program Description The Emergency Response program provides on-call,as-needed emergency action response to mitigate extended power outages and electrical hazards that present eminent threat to life or property. 'This program is designed to respond to an emergency or potential emergency situation before disaster or major loss occurs.It provides funding for continuance of government activities.It allows for procurement of manpower,materials and equipment for emergency response to electrical generation and distribution system emergencies and disasters in Alaska. Program Progress Emergency response is provided on an as-needed basis only.Well-managed utilities with adequate technical and financial resources are not candidates for these services.Besides helping rural communities,AEA works with State and Federal agencies on an as-needed case by case basis to resolve electrical generation and distribution system emergencies throughout Alaska. Revised 2/2009 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Power Cost Equalization Program Current Status The original FYO8 PCE appropriation was $26,760,000.00 which was further capitalized by a $1.2 million dollar supplemental appropriation,increasing the total funding to $27,960,000.00.FYO8 budget funding levels remained at the 100%level for the entire fiscal year.This caused the program to go over budget by what is currently $486,484.21.The legislature approved a $600,000 supplemental appropriation for PCE's FYO8 expenditures. Effective October 1,2008,the power cost for which PCE is paid (the "ceiling”)will be raised from $.525 to $1.00 for the remainder of the FY 2009.The PCE Program has been provided an open ended General Fund Appropriation estimated to be $23 million. Program Description The goal of Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA)Power Cost Equalization program is to provide economic assistance to customers in rural areas of Alaska where the kilowatt-hour charge for electricity can be three to five times higher than the charge in more urban areas of the state.PCE only pays a portion of approximately 30%of all kWh's sold by the participating utilities. PCE fundamentally improves Alaska's standard of living by helping small rural areas maintain the availability of communications and the operation of basic infrastructure and systems,including water and sewer,incinerators,heat and light.PCE is a core element underlying the financial viability of centralized power generation in rural communities. The Legislature established different functions for AEA and the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) under Alaska Statutes 42.45.100-170,which govern PCE program responsibilities. AEA determines eligibility of community facilities and residential customers and authorizes payment to the electric utility.Commercial customers are not eligible to receive PCE credit.Participating utilities are required to reduce each eligible customer's bill by the amount that the State pays for PCE. RCA determines if a utility is eligible to participate in the program and calculates the amount of PCE per kWh payable to the utility.More information about the RCA may be found at www.state.ak.us/rca PCE Endowment Fund The PCE Endowment Fund was created and capitalized in FY 2001 with Funds from the Constitutional Budget Reserve and the Four Dam Pool Project sale proceeds.The PCE Endowment Fund is an Alaska Energy Authority Fund managed by the Department of Revenue;it is invested to earn at least 7%over time.$182.7 million was appropriated to the fund in FY 2007.The deposit occurred in October 2006. AS 42.45.085 provides that 7%of the PCE Endowment Fund's 3 year monthly average market value may be appropriated to the PCE Rural Electric Capitalization Fund for annual PCE program costs.After the FY 2007 capitalization,7%of the market value equals the estimated full funding amount for the program. Revised 02/2009 PCE Utility Clerk Training -Regional In September 2008 the Alaska Energy Authority was approached by the Tanana Chiefs Conference and was asked to conduct a PCE Utility Clerk Training Workshop;a workshop that the AEA host annually in the spring.The Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC)is a regional native organization representing 34 tribes; most of which are Athabascan.The AEA assisted in planning the workshop but all expenses were met by the Tanana Chiefs Conference. What started out as a regional workshop quickly became a statewide effort to include any communities interested in learning more about the PCE Program and how it benefits rural Alaska.The three (3)day utility clerk training session was held at the Alpine Lodge in Fairbanks,Alaska.Attendees included representatives from the electric utilities in Arctic Village,Chalkyitsik,City of Ruby and Venetie as well as staff with the Tanana Chiefs Council.Instructors for the training session included AEA staff and Terri Harper of Terri's Organization Planning Services (T.O.P.S.).The attendees expressed great appreciation for the effort made by both TCC and AEA. Revised 02/2009 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Rural Power Systems Upgrade Program Current Status Between the calendar years 2000 through 2008,38 communities have benefited from powerhouse and distribution upgrades.11 additional communities are currently undergoing or are scheduled for construction upgrades in 2009.12 additional communities are in conceptual design or final design stage. Program Description The Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU)program concentrates on powerhouse and electrical distribution upgrades.Typical project include powerhouse upgrades or replacements,distribution line assessments and upgrades,line extensions to new customers,demand-side improvements and repairs to generation and distribution systems.Energy efficiency,reliability,safety and sustainability are primary drivers during the conceptual design,final design and construction process.Identification of available alternative and renewable energy and interoperability with any existing alternative and renewable energy sources is high priority with the rising cost of fuel and carbon emissions concerns. Examples of programmatic efforts include: °Rebuilding or replacement of worn-out,inefficient diesel generator units. °Rebuilding or replacement of old,hazardous and non-code compliant distribution systems. °Construction of new power generation systems that meet State and Federal codes.Communities State ofAlaska °Inclusion of waste heat recovery systems in new powerhouses.ae °Force account labor and technical assistance to rural communities through AEA personnel and/or contractors with experience in rural construction. System upgrades to be funded may be identified through a variety of ways,including via technical assistance,advanced by the local community or directed by the Legislature.The Majority of funds are via the Denali Commission.Other sources include Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG)and Rural Utility Service (RUS). Program Progress Annual Fuel Savings from New Powerhouses Electricity provides for lighting,communications, mre Eee Eo weit 3 heat and power necessary to operate infrastructure_.ge htnoutesoerltnere that supports all other elements needed in any community to permit safe and healthy living conditions.In rural communities throughout Alaska, electricity is generated by a small local "system” (generation and distribution)using diesel fuel at a .cost that is three to five times higher than that in 200.000 :urban parts of the state.Of the 200 rural 300,000 i1 [i |communities,approximately half are served by7ascooperativesoranotherformofutilitythatperformsoPeeSEELLFSSHSYUnderawell-established organization.Others are served by very small entities,many which experience technical and administrative problems due to lack ofeconomiesofscaleand/or lack of specialized skillsin the community. Reviewed 2/2009 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Training Program Current Status The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA),along with the Denali Commission Training Fund,provides training opportunities to local residents for their energy projects and infrastructure.In FYO7,the AEA Training Program provided training to 131 rural Alaskans.For FY08,the program was funded at $416,435 and at least 118 rural Alaskans are expected to be trained. Program Description The intent of this training is to ensure that community personnel have the best skills with which to sustain their energy infrastructure in a business-like manner.With proper training,utilities can keep their facilities code-compliant and sustainable. The training program currently offers the following courses: e =Bulk Fuel Operator Training e =Itinerant Bulk Fuel Operator Training e Bulk Fuel Business Training e Power Plant Operator Training e Advanced Power Plant Operator Training e =Electric Utility Business Training e PCE Utility Clerk Training e Hydro Power Plant Training Reviewed 2/2009 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITYpeervcAlaskaIndustrialDevelopmentandExportAuthority Reviewed:February 10,2009 Project Fact Sheet:BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CURRENT STATUS:An earthquake of 5.7 occurred January 24,2009 approximately 50 miles from Bradley.Dam and power plant were inspected and no damage was noted.On September 25,2008 a helicopter under contract for maintenance transmission line work contacted the line and cut it.The helicopter was destroyed and the pilot was injured.A claim has been submitted to the insurance company for the Helicopter firm. PROJECT COST:$317 million (original cost plus major capital improvements through June 30, 2007) DESCRIPTION:The project has 126 MW of installed capacity hydroelectric project located 27 air miles southeast of Homer on the Kenai Peninsula.The project consists of Bradley Lake,a 125 foot high concrete faced,rock filled dam structure,three diversion structures,a 19,063 ft. long power tunnel and vertical shaft,generating plant,interior substation,20 miles of transmission line,and substation.Due to its remote location,the project has its own airstrip, boat dock,residential quarters,and utility system.The project is normally automatically operated by remote dispatch by Chugach Electric Association from Anchorage. PURPOSE:The Bradley project provides 5-10%of the annual railbelt electric power needs at the lowest generation cost.Bradley is most important to the railbelt electric system during the cold winter months.Demand for both electric power and gas for heat is at its highest.Utilities limited by available gas are able to use Bradley power to meet the high electric demand. SOURCE OF FUNDS:Legislative appropriations and AEA revenue bonds repaid by participating utilities. PARTICIPANTS:Under the Power Sales Agreement,100%of the project's capacity has been sold to the power purchasers:Chugach Electric Association,Inc.(30.4%);Municipality of Anchorage (25.9%);Alaska Electric Generation &Transmission Cooperative,Inc.(25.8%); acting on behalf of Homer Electric Association,Inc.(12.0%)and Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.(13.8%);Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc.(16.9%);and City of Seward (1.0%) BENEFITS:Authority ownership now assures the railbelt area of a long-term source of power at a stable cost and promotes economic development in the region. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:The power generation potential of Bradley Lake was first studied by the U.S.Corps of Engineers and presented in a report dated March 1955.The project was authorized by Congress in 1962,but,despite its feasibility,federal funds were not available for its construction.The Alaska Energy Authority (then Alaska Power Authority)assumed responsibility for the project in 1982.Preliminary plans and field investigations started in 1982. In April 1984,the Authority submitted an application for license to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).The license to construct the project was issued on December 31,1985.In 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard e Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495www.aidea.org e 907/771-3000@ FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 e www.akenergyauthority.org Bradley Hydroelectric Project Page 2 of 2 Project Fact Sheet December 1987,the Authority and the railbelt utilities entered into a Power Sales Agreement to delineate responsibilities.Project was declared in commercial operation September 1,1991. Bradley has been producing power for 16 years.In 2007,Bradley produced 392,000 MW of power at a cost of approximately $.039 per kWh. A Bradley Project Management Committee (BPMC)was formed in 1993 with representatives from each of the power purchasers and Alaska Energy Authority.The BPMC is responsible for the management,operation,maintenance,and improvement of the project,subject to the non- delegable duties of the Alaska Energy Authority. /=AASKAENERGYAUTHORITY%xg Alaska Industrial DevelopmentandExportAuthority Reviewed August 8,2008 Project Fact Sheet:ALASKA INTERTIE CURRENT STATUS:The intertie is currently in operation.Several Repair and Renovation projects have been authorized by the Intertie Operating Committee and AEA has started to pursue the projects.The projects are the STATIC VAR COMPENSATOR replacement project and the TOWER 195 RELOCATION project.There is $10M available to accomplish this work. PROJECT COST:Initial capitals costs of $124 million.Warranty and repair and replacement fund is paid into by utilities to cover costs. DESCRIPTION:The Alaska Intertie transmission line is a 170-mile long,345kV transmission line between Willow and Healy that is owned by AEA.It is presently operated at 138 KV. PURPOSE:The purpose of the Alaska Intertie is to interconnect Golden Valley Electric Association, the regulated utility that serves areas north of the Alaska Range with south central Alaska Utilities. The intertie also allows resources north and south of the range to be shared to improve reliability. Notably,the GVEA storage battery,as well as GVEA generation resources,can and have been used to send emergency power southward to minimize catastrophic network wide outages.The operation of this intertie materially improves overall system reliability. SOURCE OF FUNDS:The Intertie was built in the mid-1980s with State of Alaska appropriations totaling $124 million.Currently,there is no debt associated with this asset. PARTICIPANTS:The operation of the Intertie is governed by the Alaska Intertie Agreement entered into in 1985 and amended in 1991.The parties to this agreement are AEA (formerly Alaska Power Authority),Anchorage Municipal Light &Power,Chugach Electric Association Inc.,Alaska Municipal Utilities System,Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc.,and the Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative (AEG&T is comprised of Matanuska Electric Association and Homer Electric Association). BENEFITS:In 1981,a study demonstrated a positive feasibility of the line and recommended construction of an intertie to allow exchange of economy energy and the sharing of reserve generation capacity between the Anchorage and Fairbanks load centers.It was estimated that the benefits from the project would be approximately $17 million per year. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:Agreements have been developed over a span of 30 years to govern the cooperative management,operation of the connected network at large.AEA has agreements with participating utilities that assure the Alaska Intertie operates with prudent maintenance and operation by utilities.ML&P is the intertie operator,while MEA and GVEA provide maintenance and operations services. AEA serves as financial administrator,providing basic accounting services to establish a cost-based wheeling rate that is trued up each year.AEA collects payments from Intertie users and pays expenses,including reimbursement of costs incurred by the two operators of the line,ML&P and GVEA,and the three maintenance contractors,MEA,CEA,and GVEA. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard e Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495 www.aidea.org e 907/771-3000 e FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 e www.akenergyauthority.org /=ALASKAqo)ENERGY AUTHORITYaxe*Alaska Industrial DevelopmentandExportAuthority Revised August 5,2008 Project Fact Sheet:ALASKA-BC INTERTIE STUDY CURRENT STATUS:A portion of the AKBC funds have been re-appropriated for the design and permitting of the Petersburg to Kake Intertie project.Some funds have been retained to monitor the situation in British Columbia,where the government is re-evaluating whether to build the backbone intertie from southern BC to 60 miles from the Alaska-BC border.Further action on the export project depends in part on the evaluation by private mining companies of the economics of major mines near the Alaska BC border.The final feasibility report has been published.It is available online at http:/Awww.akenergyauthority.org/AKBCProjectPage.html After July 1,2008 AEA will begin the final route selection,design and permitting process for the Petersburg to Kake Intertie.AEA is presently discussing an integrated corridor development concept with DOT-PF,to build a joint road/intertie project.AEA attended a public meeting in Petersburg in late June.Considerable community input was received,useful to AEA and DOT- PF and Southeast Conference to determine the best course of action for the project.Another meeting is scheduled in Kake on August 5,2008 to further discuss the project. PROJECT COST:$3.2 million. DESCRIPTION:To analyze and confirm the feasibility of a transmission line that would connect two parts of the Four Dam Pool service area and the two major Southeast hydroelectric power plants in the Ketchikan-Wrangell-Petersburg region through construction of a 67-mile electrical transmission intertie;and connect the Four Dam Pool transmission system into the Canadian grid,and thus gain access to power markets either in Canada or US Pacific Northwest.As a part of the study,examine the construction of a transmission backbone that that would entice private or local government entities to develop hydro power projects that could produce as much as 100 MW of power for use in southern SE Alaska or be exported. PURPOSE:Provide a transmission system to allow for exportation of power to the British Columbia grid.Additional intertie will allow delivery of excess power for Lake Tyee to Ketchikan. SOURCE OF FUNDS:Legislative appropriation of $3.2 million.Of the $3.2M funding,AEA has expended approximately $511,000 as of September 30,2007. PARTICIPANTS:Hatch Energy (Contractor)and an Advisory Work Group made up of representatives from Southeast Alaska communities including:Auke Bay,Craig,Juneau, Ketchikan,Metlakatla,Petersburg,and Wrangell. BENEFITS:The draft final report supports the Swan-Tyee Intertie and the Kake Petersburg Interties as being economically feasible,and indicates the export intertie link shows economic promise,but cannot be definitively determined at this time. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:This study has an advisory committee and steering committee to assist AEA in proper administration of funds.The committees have participated actively in 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard e Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495_www.aidea.org ¢907/771-3000 ¢FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 @ www.akenergyauthority.org Alaska-BC Intertie Study Page 2 of 2 Project Fact Sheet the formulation of the consultant scope of work,selection of the consultant.The feasibility study has been reviewed and approved by the work group. Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Ww xf ye eo ENERGY AUTHORITY Reviewed June 3,2008 Project Fact Sheet:EKLUTNA TRANSMISSION LINE UPGRADE CURRENT STATUS:Project construction is complete.The line presently awaits connection into the Railbelt network.As the available funds through the AEA grant are nearly exhausted, the Eklutna Operating Committee (ML&P,Chugach and MEA)has elected to complete the project using funds they will secure.The Operating Committee has designated ML&P as the project manager for completing terminations,commissioning and energizing the line.ML&P is securing professional services to accomplish this commissioning process.They will be reporting the proposed schedule to AEA for commissioning in the spring of 2008. PROJECT COST:$19.3 million DESCRIPTION:The project consists of rebuilding the existing 115kV wood-pole electric transmission line from the Eklutna Hydroelectric Plant to the point where the Beluga 230kV electric transmission line intersects the line (near Briggs Tap/Fossil Creek),spanning a distance of 22.5 miles. PURPOSE:To upgrade the existing single circuit line to a double circuit line providing an overall capacity and reliability to the intertie.To improve system reliability and resolve fault issues,the generating utilities approached the legislature for funding to construct a dedicated transmission link between the two generation centers and to provide a second line to serve the four existing MEA taps.The new transmission line will be constructed and insulated for 230KV, but will initially operated at 138KV. SOURCE OF FUNDS:Grant to the Municipality of Anchorage Municipal Light and Power through the Alaska Energy Authority for an Eklutna project transmission line upgrade.AEA is the grant administrator. PARTICIPANTS:Anchorage Municipal Light and Power,Chugach Electric Association,Inc., and Matanuska Electric Association. BENEFITS:This intertie project will resolve concerns over the 50-year age of a wood structured primary intertie link between the hydroelectric power plant at Eklutna,and the ML&P plant no.2,which is one of the main generation centers for South Central Alaska.Completion of the intertie will increase operating and dispatch flexibility for South Central Alaska,and increase reliability of power supply. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:Concerns for system reliability and safety led South Central Utilities to approach the legislature for a $19.3 Million appropriation to replace a 50-year-old key transmission link between two South Central Generation facilities.The Eklutna hydropower generation facility,recently repowered to produce 40MW of storage hydropower,was connected to the rest of the Railbelt system through the wood structured link. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard #Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495 www.aidea.org e 907/771-3000 «FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 «www.akenergyauthority.org /=ALASKASDihte€ENERGY AUTHORITY+*Alaska Industrial DevelopmentandExportAuthority Revised:February 17,2009 Project Fact Sheet:LARSEN BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CURRENT STATUS:Upgrades to the Larsen Bay Hydro Facility are in progress.Project substantial completion is tentatively scheduled for June of 2009.The utility is now supplying a portion of the cannery's energy needs to increase utility revenues and enable repayment of bond funds.The utility has agreed to allow the use PCE payments to aid in repayment of the PPF Ioan. PROJECT COST:$320,000 from CDBG grant DESCRIPTION:The Larsen Bay hydro facility has experienced numerous significant operating issues over the last several years which have resulted in delaying the ownership transfer from AEA to the community.The most significant issue is the reliability of the existing hydro switchgear and controls. Scheduled improvements include: e Replacement of the existing unreliable hydro switchgear and controls with new modern switchgear that includes data acquisition and remote monitoring capabilities.This task is still in progress with the new switch gear now in basic operation. e Repair ice damage to the water intake structure.This task was substantially completed in *Jan 2009. e Supply a portion of the cannery domestic load to facilitate increased use of hydro power without negatively impacting the power to the community and increase revenue to the city.This task was substantially completed spring of 2007. PURPOSE:The project intent is to increase the reliability,and use of the hydro electric system in order to facilitate the turnover of ownership of the system to the City of Larsen Bay. SOURCE OF FUNDS:In 2004,the City of Larsen Bay applied for and received a CDBG Grant to upgrade the hydro facility.In 2005,AEA negotiated a Grant Agreement with the City of Larsen Bay and CDBG to manage the hydro upgrade project.Subsequently,the project was awarded $320,000 from CDBG. PARTICIPANTS:Alaska Energy Authority and the City of Larsen Bay BENEFITS:Once operating reliably and efficiently the hydro can displace the majority of the city's diesel fuel used for electrical generation.The utility can now provide a portion of the cannery's energy needs resulting in increased revenue to the utility.Sales to the cannery during the summer of 2007 allowed the City of Larsen Bay to pay its loan obligations for FY 2007 and 2008.The intent is to turn the hydro facility over to the City after the improvements have been completed and the facility has proven itsreliability. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:This 475-kilowatt project went into commercial operation in mid-1991 with construction costs of approximately $1.6 million.In addition to producing electricity for this isolated Kodiak Island community,the project replaced the City of Larsen Bay's old water supply system and provides a safe source of water with reduced maintenance and improved water quality.The original intent of the hydro project was to turn the facility over to the City of Larsen Bay once it had been demonstrated to be operationally viable over a few years.The hydro operated only intermittently and unreliably for many years;therefore the community would not agree to accept the facility or make bond payments until these problems were worked out.In 2004,the City of Larsen Bay agreed to seek CDBG funding to make improvements to the hydro facility. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard *Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495www.aidea.org ¢907/269-3000 *FAX 907/269-3044 ®Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 ©www.akenergyauthority.org W xx "AIDEN P=NASADadAlaskaIndustrialDevelopmentandExportAuthority Revised August 4,2008 Project Fact Sheet:RAILBELT ELECTRICAL GRID AUTHORITY STUDY CURRENT STATUS:The Consultant,Black and Veatch (B&V),has completed analysis work,and has delivered a draft report.A second technical conference was held to explain the results of the study,and the draft report is now posted on the AEA web page.AEA is accepting public comment for a 20 day period after July 23,2008.Current project completion is expected to be September 2008. PROJECT COST:$800,000 DESCRIPTION:Black and Veatch (B&V)was hired as consultant to AEA to perform the analysis of the potential of a Railbelt Electrical Grid Authority in increasing cost effectiveness and reliability in the operation of the Railbelt transmission grid.B&V will analyze operation costs,look at current and future generation sources,look at current and future electrical demands and develop a series of future scenarios with recommendations for a grid authority. This work will be done in conjunction with the Railbelt utilities,through extensive interviews with affected stakeholders and subject matter experts and with the guidance and feedback of an advisory work group. PURPOSE:This Railbelt Electrical Grid Authority (REGA)study will identify a range of grid authority business structures to own,operate,control,maintain and operate the future Railbelt Electrical generation and transmission Grid This business structure alternatives could range from a voluntary organization to dispatch power and manage the grid assets,or it could be more encompassing to include responsibility for planning and acquiring new generation and assuming ownership of existing Railbelt assets. SOURCE OF FUNDS:Legislative appropriation. PARTICIPANTS:Black and Veatch;Alaska Energy Authority;Homer Electric Association; Chugach Electric Association;Anchorage Municipal Light and Power;Matanuska Electric Association;Golden Valley Electric Association;and a variety of stakeholders as represented on the advisory group and through interviews. ) BENEFITS:The project will provide the range of effective business structures that the Railbelt can employ to manage the future generation and transmission assets,with comparative economic assessments,analysis of barriers to implementation,and an implementation plan. This will provide a basis for any decisions relating to the enhancement and growth of Railbelt Electric Infrastructure under a variety of possible future energy supplies. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:A recent petition by MEA to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska called for the creation of a regional Generation and Transmission Cooperative as a means to implement a collective process to secure new generation sources for the Railbelt. This matter is currently being considered by the RCA. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard e Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495 www.aidea.org e 907/771-3000 e FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 ¢www.akenergyauthority.org Soa PEN =ALASKAmbays==|=ENERGY AUTHORITYaSkaFNGUStralevelopmenandExportAuthority Revised August 4,2008 Project Fact Sheet:SWAN-TYEE INTERTIE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION CURRENT STATUS:The project has been mobilized and line clearing is underway. Remaining portions of the intertie towers are under order.Foundation construction is underway.AEA project manager Strandberg made a site visit in late July.At that time,the foundation contractor's barges were on-site and there were 5 separate foundation crews in operation with 5 helicopters supporting.The prime transformer has been bid,and towers bids have been taken,and a low bidder selected.Four Dam Pool Power Agency has an office in Ketchikan,and has environmental monitors,geotechnical consultants,on site inspectors in place as the construction is pursued.Construction photos are available from AEA on request. Four Dam Pool will issue tax exempt bond offerings to finance the remainder of completion funds required beyond the $46.2M grant. PROJECT COST:$46.2 million DESCRIPTION:This project will complete the construction of the 57-mile Swan-Tyee Intertie between the Swan Lake hydro-electric power plant and the Tyee Lake hydro-electric power plant,and when energized will allow the communities of Petersburg,Wrangell,and Ketchikan to be electrically interconnected.The work will be completed in the 2008 and 2009 construction seasons.The intertie will be owned and operated by The Four Dam Pool Power Agency. PURPOSE:This project will allow power that is produced in the Four Dam Pool transmission network to be scheduled and economically dispatched.Initially,it is expected that excess water energy available at Lake Tyee generation capacity and energy will be used to offset an energy shortage in the Ketchikan area.In a longer range capacity,the intertie can be used to convey power for export through an export intertie that is being considered into British Columbia. SOURCE OF FUNDS:Grant to the Four Dam Pool Power Agency PARTICIPANTS:The Four Dam Pool Power Agency consisting of three purchasing utilities (municipal utilities of the Cities of Ketchikan,Wrangell and Petersburg)and two electric cooperatives (Copper Valley Electric Association and Kodiak Electric Association). BENEFITS:Generation,avoiding a looming shortage in Ketchikan that could have required Ketchikan Public Utilities to operate expensive and polluting diesel generation. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:This project was partially funded in 2005.The Four Dam Pool Power Agency cleared the Right-of-Way and purchased and installed tower foundations, construction was stopped when these funds were expended.The region was able to secure an appropriation of $46.2 million for completion of the project. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard e Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495 www.aidea.org e 907/771-3000 e FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 «www.akenergyauthority.org AE EN /=ALASKA Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Revised August 4,2008 Project Fact Sheet:_TEELAND DOUGLAS TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CURRENT STATUS:Project meetings continue.The ML&P team is midway in outreach and public meetings.ML&P,AEA prime contractor has scheduled a public hearing in Wasilla on August 6,2008.A portion of the funds for this project ($10M)were re-appropriated to repair Static VAR compensators and a tower with foundation difficulties during this legislative session. PROJECT COST:$20.3 million DESCRIPTION:Upgrade and extend the line from the Teeland Substation on Knik-Goose Bay Road to the Douglas substation in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.The project is an integral part of the Alaska Intertie and will replace approximately 25 miles of an existing transmission line operated at 138kV,owned by MEA. PURPOSE:Construction of this bypass line will parallel the existing MEA owned line,and allow the present MEA owned intertie link,20 miles of which is insulated at 115kV and operated at 138kV,to return to MEA control and service.Continued use of this 20-mile portion of the 25- mile MEA asset by certain Railbelt utilities until January 1,2014 has been provided for through an RCA order. SOURCE OF FUNDS:2002 Legislative appropriation to AEA. PARTICIPANTS:AEA is contracting with Municipal Light and Power under a cooperative agreement to accomplish the transmission line project.AEA will own the new line and it will become part of the Alaska Intertie Project. BENEFITS:This new line will be an addition to the existing 170 mile Alaska Intertie.With AEA ownership and access,the existing agreements with MEA for use of MEA transmission lines, which are complex,will no longer be needed.It is expected that intertie operations will be simplified,and MEA will gain the full use of its assets it previously had devoted to intertie operation. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:It was determined that the most effective way to construct the line was to have ML&P manage all construction activities.This decision was the result of a collaborative effort between AEA and the Intertie participant utilities.The project has been approved by the Intertie Operating Committee. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard e Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495 www.aidea.org e 907/771-3000 «FAX 907/771-3044 e Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 e www.akenergyauthority.org ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO.2009-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY REGARDING A LOAN BY THE AUTHORITY TO TDX NORTH SLOPE GENERATING,INC.FOR'THE ACQUISITION OF A SOLAR COMBUSTION TURBINE IN DEADHORSE,ALASKA. WHEREAS,TDX North Slope Generating ,Inc.has applied to the Alaska Energy Authority (the "Authority”)for a loan in the amount of $2,500,000 with a term of 20 years under the Authority's power project fund program (AS 42.45.010)at the interest rate established under AS 42.45.010(f)(2)(A)(the "Loan'); WHEREAS,the nature,purpose and terms of the Loan are described in the memorandum from Authority staff attached as Exhibit "A”hereto (the "Memorandum'), WHEREAS,staff of the Authority has recommended that the Authority make the Loan,subject to certain conditions,as described in the Memorandum; WHEREAS,the Loan is consistent with all requirements in AS 42.45.010 and the applicable regulations of the Authority related to such loans (3 AAC 106.100 -.140):;WHEREAS,3 AAC 106.110(d)requires that a loan from the power project fund be approved by the Authority's board if the subject loan will exceed $2,000,000;and WHEREAS,it is in the best interest of the Authority that the Authority make the Loan,subject to conditions recommended by staff as described in the Memorandum. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.The Authority finds the standards in 3 AAC 106.110 for the Authority's Loan to TDX North Slope Generating Inc.as described in the Memorandum are met. Section 2.The Authority's Loan to TDX North Slope Generating Inc.as described in the Memorandum is approved,subject to the conditions recommended by staff as set forth in the Memorandum. Section 3.The Executive Director of the Authority and the Deputy Director-Credit of the Authority are authorized to take such actions as may be necessary or convenient to consummate the Loan including,without limitation,issuing a commitment with respect to the Loan.The Executive Director is authorized to approve non-material changes in the terms and conditions of the Loan as the Executive Director,in his discretion,determines appropriate. DATED at Anchorage,Alaska on this 26th day of February,2009. o Ny oe %BO Ui4'a "&.;my(SEALJ e "Secretary AEA Resolution No.2009-02 Chair Page 2 of 2