HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023.04.07 AEA REF Round 15 Status Report (Final)REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Round 15 (FY2024)
Renewable Energy
Fund (REF)
Status Report
Alaska Energy Authority —
Renewable Energy Fund –Round XV
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
SAFE,
RELIABLE, &
AFFORDABLE
ENERGY
SOLUTIONS
Alaska State Legislature
April 2023
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 2
SAFE,
RELIABLE, &
AFFORDABLE
ENERGY
SOLUTIONS
Table of Contents REF Overview Page 3
REF Statutory Guidance Page 4
Round XV Request for Applications Schedule Page 5
REF Evaluation Process Page 6
REF Funding Limits Page 10
Proposed REF Capitalization for Round 15 (FY2024)Page 11
REF Received Applications Summary Page 12
Non-Recommended Applications Summary Page 14
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) Solicitation of Advice on Recommended Projects Page 16
REFAC Roles Page 17
REFAC Current Members Page 18
Recommended Applications Summary Page 19
Applications Forwarded for Legislature’s Decision on Funding Page 21
Partial Funding Recommendations Page 23
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
REF Overview
3
The Alaska Renewable Energy Fund (REF)is a competitive grant program that was establishedbytheAlaskaStateLegislaturein2008andisnowinits15thannualfundingcycle(i.e.Round).The program was established to help fund cost-effective renewable energy projects throughoutthestate.These projects are intended to help communities reduce their dependence on fossilfuelsinordertostabilizetheircostsofbothheatandelectricity.The program also creates jobs,promotes renewable energy technology transfer within Alaskan communities,utilizes localenergyresources,keeps money in local economies,and fosters economic development.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
REF Statutory Guidance (AS 42.45.045)
Eligible projects must:
Be a new project not in operation in 2008, and
•be a hydroelectric facility;
•direct use of renewable energy resources;
•a facility that generates electricity from fuel cells that use hydrogen from renewable energy sources or natural gas (subject to additional conditions); or
•be a facility that generates electricity using renewable energy.
•natural gas applications must also benefit a community that:
•Has a population of 10,000 or less, and
•does not have economically viable renewable energy resources it can develop.
Evaluation process
Develop a methodology for determining the order of projects that may receive assistance,
•most weight being given to projects that serve any area in which the average cost of energy to each resident of the area exceeds the average cost to each resident of other areas of the state,
•significant weight given to a statewide balance of grant funds and to the amount of matching funds an applicant is able to make available
•The REF evaluation process is comprised of four stages.
4
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
DATE / ANTICIPATED DATE ACTION
October 4, 2022 Request for Applications posted
December 5, 2022 Application submission deadline
December 2022 -March 2023 Evaluation of Applications
April 5,2023 REFAC Meeting
April 7, 2023 Submission of recommendations to Legislature
July 1, 2023 If capital funds are appropriated by the Alaska Legislature –Grants could begin
Request for Applications Schedule –REF Round XV
5
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
REF Evaluation Process: Stage 1 Eligibility and Completeness
The REF evaluation process is comprised of four stages. Stage 1 is an evaluation of the applicant, project eligibility and, completeness of the application, as per 3 AAC 107.635. This portion of the evaluation process is conducted by AEA staff.
•Applicant eligibility is defined as per AS 42.45.045 (l).
•“electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, independent power producer, local government, or other governmental utility, including a tribal council and housing authority;”
•Project eligibility is defined as per AS 42.45.045 (f)-(h) and is provided on the preceding page.
•Project completeness:
•An application is complete in that the information provided is sufficiently responsive to the RFA to allow AEA to consider the application in the next stage (Stage 2) of the evaluation.
•The application must provide a detailed description of the phase(s) of project proposed.
Applications that failed to meet the requirements of Stage 1 were rejected by the authority. Each applicant whose application was rejected was notified of the authority’s decision.
6
STAGE 1 CRITERIA PASS/FAIL
Applicant eligibility, including formal
authorization and ownership, site control,
and operation
PASS/FAIL
Project Eligibility PASS/FAIL
Complete application,including Phase
description(s)
PASS/FAIL
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
REF Evaluation Process: Stage 2 Technical and Economic Feasibility
Stage 2 is an evaluation concerning technical and economic feasibility. This portion of the evaluation process is conducted by AEA staff, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and contracted third-party economists.
The following items are evaluated as part of the Stage 2evaluation, as required per 3 AAC 107.645:
•Project management, development, and operations;
•Qualifications and experience of project management team, including on-going maintenance and operation;
•Technical feasibility –including but not limited to sustainable current and future availability of renewable resource, site availability and suitability, technical and environmental risks, and reasonableness of proposed energy system; and,
•Economic feasibility and benefits –including but not limited to project benefit-cost ratio, project financing plan, and other public benefits owing to the project.
All Stage 2 criteria are weighted as follows as part of the evaluation process. Applications that score below 40 points in this stage are automatically rejected by the authority, however, those projects scoring above 40 may also be rejected as under 3 AAC 107.645(b) has the authority to reject applications that it determines to be not technically and economically feasible, or do not provide sufficient public benefit.
7
CRITERIA CRITERIA DESCRIPTION WEIGHT
1 Project management, development, and
operation
25%
2 Qualifications and experience 20%
3 Technical feasibility 20%
4.a Economic benefit-cost ratio 25%
4.b Financing plan 5%
4.c Other public benefit 5%
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
REF Evaluation Process: Stage 3 Project Ranking
Stage 3 is an evaluation concerning the ranking of eligible projects. This portion of the evaluation process is conducted by AEA staff in conjunction with solicitation from the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) .
The following items are evaluated as part of the stage three evaluation, as required per 3 AAC 107.655-660:
•Cost of energy
•Applicant matching funds
•Project feasibility (levelized score from stage 2)
•Project readiness
•Public benefits (evaluated through stage 2 benefits)
•Sustainability
•Local Support
•Regional Balance
•Compliance
All Stage 3 criteria are weighted as follows as part of the evaluation process. The Stage 3 scoring is used to determine the ranking score.
8
CRITERIA CRITERIA DESCRIPTION WEIGHT
1 Cost of Energy 30%
2 Matching Funds 15%
3 Project Feasibility (levelized score from
Stage 2)
25%
4 Project Readiness 5%
5 Public Benefits 10%
6 Sustainability 10%
7 Local Support 5%
8 Regional Balance Pass/Fail
9 Compliance Pass/Fail
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
REF Evaluation Process: Stage 4 Regional Spreading
Stage 4 is a final ranking of eligible projects, as required per 3 AAC 107.660, which gives “significant weight to providing a statewide balance of grant money, taking into consideration the amount of money available, number and types of projects within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank.” This portion of the evaluation process is conducted by AEA staff in conjunction with solicitation from the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) .
The following items are evaluated as part of the stage four evaluation, as required per 3 AAC 107.660:
•Cost of energy burden = [HH cost of electric + HH heat cost] ÷ [HH income] –this is used to determine target funding allocation by region –for regional spreading
Stage 4 cost of energy burden given below. The below table indicates target funding, as has been allocated, by region, this will be applied to Stage 3 statewide ranking to determine the regionally-spread rank.
9
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
REF Round XV funding limits are limited by the requested phase(s) in the application and the technology type applied.
Low vs High Cost Energy Areas:
•Low Energy Cost Areas are defined as communities with a residential retail electric rate of below $0.20 per kWh, before Power Cost Equalization (PCE) reimbursement is applied. For heat projects, low energy cost areas are communities with natural gas available as a heating fuel to at least 50% of residences, or availability expected by the time the proposed project is constructed.
•High Energy Cost Areas are defined as communities with a residential retail electric rate of $0.20 per kWh or higher, before PCE funding is applied. For heat projects, high energy cost areas are communities that do not have natural gas available as a heating fuel.
REF Round XV Funding Limits
REF Round XV Grant Funding Limits
10
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Proposed REF Capitalization for FY2024 / Rd 15
The State of Alaska FY2024 proposed capital budget allocates $7.5 million for REF Round 15 grant funding of recommended projects.
The current list of 27 recommended applications yields a total grant request of $25.25 million. With the proposed REF budget of $7.5 million, there would be insufficient funding to cover the current Round 15 recommendations. Additional funding of $17.75 million would need to be allocated to fund all of the current Round 15 recommendations or some of the Round 15 recommendations will not be funded.
The table to the right indicates historical REF program funding from the inception of the REF program to the FY2023 appropriation.
$15M was approved in the FY2023 capital budget for REF Round 14, the largest REF capitalization since FY2014.
11
Legislative Appropriation Fiscal Year
100,001,000$ FY2008
25,000,000$ FY2009
25,000,000$ FY2010
36,620,231$ FY2011
25,870,659$ FY2012
25,000,000$ FY2013
22,843,900$ FY2014
11,512,659$ FY2015
-$ FY2016
-$ FY2017
(3,156,000)$ FY2018 - RPSU Reappropriation
11,000,000$ FY2019
-$ FY2020
-$ FY2021
4,750,973$ FY2022
15,000,000$ FY2023
299,443,422$ TOTAL (excl. operating appropriation)
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
For REF Round 15, AEA received 31 applications, with a corresponding total grant request of $33.0 million.
Round XV –Received Applications Summary
12
Round 15 Summary of Received Applications - by Energy Region
Energy Region No. of Applications REF Funding Requested ($)
Aleutians 2 4,497,650$
Bristol Bay 5 6,692,378$
Copper River Chugach 1 500,000$
Lower Yukon Kuskokwim 7 3,806,068$
Northwest Arctic 1 1,134,500$
Railbelt 12 9,788,733$
Southeast 2 4,538,526$
Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana 1 2,082,000$
Total 31 33,039,855$
Round 15 Summary of Received Applications - by Technology
Technology No. of Applications REF Funding Requested ($)
Biomass 1 500,000$
Geothermal 2 113,500$
Heat Recovery 1 1,000,000$
Hydro 6 8,967,570$
Solar 6 8,586,768$
Storage 1 2,172,984$
Wind 14 11,699,033$
Total 31 33,039,855$
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
Round 15 Grant Funds Requested by Energy Region
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
Biomass Geothermal Heat
Recovery
Hydro Solar Storage Wind
Round 15 Grant Funds Requested by Technology
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Round XV –Received Applications Summary
The table to the right indicates the number of applications received by requested phase, along with the corresponding grant request totals. Per the current RFA, there are four phases, listed below in chronological order, for which an applicant may request funding:
(1)Reconnaissance
(2)Feasibility and Conceptual Design
(3)Final Design and Permitting
(4)Construction
Several applications received in Round 15 requested funding for more than one phase.
13
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
Round 15 Grant Funds Requested by Phase
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Stage 1 Non-Recommended Applications Summary
14
In AEA’s Stage 1 evaluation, as per 3 AAC 107.635, it was determined by AEA evaluation staff that 4applications did not meet the eligibility and/or completeness requirements and were rejected. Two applicants appealed their rejections as per 3 AAC 107.650 –“Requests for reconsideration”. Upon AEA’s due consideration and review of the appeals, both rejections were upheld, and final written notices were issued to those applicants.
No additional applications were rejected as per 3 AAC 107.645, Stage 2 evaluations.
With an initial receipt of 31 applications and 4 being rejected during Stage 1, there are 27 remaining applications which are recommended. With respect to grant funding requests, a total of $3.1 million was rejected in Stage 1.
AEA received 31 initial applications. Owing to AEA’s Stage 1 review, 4 applications were rejected, reducing the total grant funds requested by $3.1 million. The remaining 27 applications, totaling a grant request of $29.9 million, were then evaluated according to Stage 2, Stage 3, and Stage 4 criteria. With the current proposed REF fund allocation of $7.5 million for FY2023, there are insufficient REF funds to cover one-hundred percent of the Round 15 requests. Partial funding recommendations, which are discussed further along in the presentation, were made in full consideration of project phases applied for, application scoring, project scope eligibility, and household cost of energy.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Stage 1 Non-Recommended Applications
15
Below are the 4 identified applications that were rejected during the Stage 1 evaluation:
Application
Number Applicant
Application
Name Technology Phase Community
Funds
Requested
Election
District Rejection Reason
15002
Nushagak Electric &
Telephone
Cooperative
Nuyakuk
Hydroelectric
Project Hydro
Feasibility and
Conceptual
Design Dillingham $1,000,000 37-S
Project received maximum
funding for requested
phase in previous REF
Rounds
15015 Beric Alaska Energy
Beric Alaska
Energy Solar One Solar
Reconnaissance;
Feasibility and
Conceptual
Design Railbelt $ 52,500 30-O Application was not signed
15019 City of Akiak
Akiak
Reconnaissance
and Wind
Assessment Wind; Solar
Reconnaissance;
Feasibility and
Conceptual
Design Akiak $ 446,500 38-S Application was not signed
15030 City of Fairbanks
Public Works
Solar Panel Array Solar
Final Design and
Permitting;
Construction Fairbanks $1,600,000 31-P Incomplete application
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Solicitation of Advice from REFAC
As statutorily required per AS 42.45.045 and set forth in 3 AAC 107.660, the authority is to solicit advice from the REFAC concerning making a final list / ranking of eligible projects, which gives “significant weight to providing a statewide balance of grant money, taking into consideration the amount of money available, number and types of projects within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank.” This finalized list will be provided to the legislature for recommendation in accordance with AS 42.45.045(d)(3). Any grant awards are subject to legislative approval and appropriation.
The right-hand table is provided to assess the “regional spreading” of REF funding. As indicated, both the Railbelt and the Southeast energy regions currently exceed 200% of their target allocation based on their cost of energy burden. Bristol Bay and Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana energy regions are the remaining regions where the allocation, based on the cost of energy burden, has not met 50% of their potential allocation, categorizing these regions as “under-served”.
The authority solicits advice from the REFAC relating to any recommendations in changes to funding level, ranking, and/or total amount of funding and number of projects.
16
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
REFAC Roles
Statutes (AS 42.45.045)
•AEA “in consultation with the advisory committee…develop a methodology for determining the order of projects that may receive assistance….”
•AEA “shall, at least once each year, solicit from the advisory committee funding recommendations for all grants.”
Regulations (3 AAC 107.660)
(a) To establish a statewide balance of recommended projects, the authority will provide to the advisory committee established in AS 42.45.045 (i) a statewide and regional ranking of all applications recommended for grants.
(b) In consultation with the advisory committee established in AS 42.45.045 (i), the authority will
(1) make a final prioritized list of all recommended projects, giving significant weight to providing a statewide balance of grant money, and taking into consideration the amount of money that may be available, number and types of projects within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank
17
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
REFAC Advisory Committee
18
NAME TITLE SECTOR APPOINTED BY
VACANT VACANT Small rural electric utility Governor (pending)
Rose,Chris Founder / Executive Director, Renewable
Energy Alaska Project (REAP)
Business/organization involved
in renewable energy
Governor
VACANT VACANT Representative of an Alaska
Native Organization
Governor (pending)
Amberg, Alicia Member,Denali Commission; Exec Dir,
Associated General Contractors of Alaska
Denali Commission Governor
Janorschke,Bradley General Manager,Homer Electric
Association
Large urban electric utility Governor
Stedman, Bert Senator Senate Member 2 Senate President
Wilson, David Senator Senate Member 1 Senate President
Carpenter, Ben Representative House Member 2 Speaker of the House
Cronk, Mike Representative House Member 1 Speaker of the House
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
There are 27 recommended applications, totaling a request of $25.25 million.
Round XV –Recommended Applications Summary
19
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
Round 15 Grant Funds Recommended by Energy Region
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
Biomass Geothermal Heat
Recovery
Hydro Solar Storage Wind
Round 15 Grant Funds Recommended by Technology
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Round XV Geographical Distribution of Recommended Applications
20
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Applications Forwarded for Legislature’s Decision on Funding
21
Please see related summary report for details concerning the evaluation and description of the individual applications.
Recommended Projects*Recommendation
App. #Applicant Project Title Phase Energy Region
Election
District Technology Community
Grant Funds
Requested
Matching
Funds
Stage 3
Score
Benefit /
Cost Ratio HEC
Regional
Rank
State
Rank
Rec. Funding
Level
Rec. Funding
Amount
Cumulative
Rec. Funding**
15007 TDX Adak Generating, LLC
Hydroelectric Power Adak -Feasibility and
Conceptual Design Feasibility and Conceptual Design Aleutians 37-S Hydro Adak $ 497,650 $ 247,075 91.66 1.26 $ 12,265 1 1 Full $ 497,650 $ 497,650
15018 Golden Valley Electric Association
LIDAR Improvement to Interior Wind Energy
Assessments Feasibility and Conceptual Design Railbelt 36-R Wind Railbelt $ 250,000 $ 125,000 90.78 2.46 $ 9,943 1 2 Full $ 250,000 $ 747,650
15025
Alaska Electric & Energy
Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC)Mount Spurr Geothermal Feasibility and Conceptual Design Railbelt 37-S Geothermal Railbelt $ 45,500 $ 30,940 88.06 1.83 $ 7,523 2 3 Full $ 45,500 $ 793,150
15024
Alaska Electric & Energy
Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC)Augustine Island Geothermal Feasibility and Conceptual Design Railbelt 37-S Geothermal Railbelt $ 68,000 $ 42,140 87.76 1.83 $ 7,523 3 4 Full $ 68,000 $ 861,150
15022 Naknek Electirc Association Inc Naknek Electric Battery Energy Storage System
Final Design and Permitting;
Construction Bristol Bay 37-S Storage
Naknek, South
Naknek, King Salmon $ 2,172,984 $ 1,950,000 83.47 1.07 $ 10,532 1 5 Full $ 2,172,984 $ 3,034,134
15001 Native Village of Kluti-Kaah Woodchip Heating Project Construction
Copper River
Chugach 36-R Biomass
Native Village of Kluti-
Kaah (Copper Center)$ 500,000 $ 403,400 81.84 1.04 $ 10,138 1 6 Full $ 500,000 $ 3,534,134
15013 Kipnuk Light Plant
Kipnuk Battery Installation, Integration and
Commissioning Construction
Lower Yukon
Kuskokwim 38-S Wind Kipnuk $ 434,000 $ 859,000 80.53 5.00 $ 9,624 1 7 Full $ 434,000 $ 3,968,134
15028
Inside Passage Electric
Cooperative Water Supply Creek Hydro Construction Construction Southeast 2-A Hydro Hoonah $ 3,538,526 $ 6,853,474 80.42 0.38 $ 9,663 1 8 Full $ 3,538,526 $ 7,506,660
15005
Cook Inlet Region Inc (CIRI)
Energy, LLC Beluga Renewable Resource Assessment Feasibility and Conceptual Design Railbelt 37-S Wind Beluga $ 298,000 $ 54,000 79.99 0.91 $ 13,101 4 9 Full $ 298,000 $ 7,804,660
15011 Naterkaq Light Plant
Chefornak Battery Installation, Integration, and
Commissioning Construction
Lower Yukon
Kuskokwim 38-S Wind Chefornak $ 437,000 $ 859,000 78.91 1.72 $ 8,946 2 10 Full $ 437,000 $ 8,241,660
15004
Cook Inlet Region Inc (CIRI)
Energy, LLC Healy Renewable Resource Assessment Feasibility and Conceptual Design Railbelt 30-O Wind Healy $ 298,000 $ 54,000 78.36 2.59 $ 9,425 5 11 Full $ 298,000 $ 8,539,660
15023
Alaska Electric & Energy
Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC)Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project
Reconnaissance; Feasibility and
Conceputal Design Railbelt 8-D Wind HEA Serving Area $ 214,400 $ 97,448 77.64 1.15 $ 7,523 6 12 Full $ 214,400 $ 8,754,060
15006 Tanana Chiefs Conference
Huslia Community-Scale Solar PV and Battery
Project
Final Design and Permitting;
Construction
Yukon-Koyukuk
Upper Tanana 36-R Solar Huslia $ 2,082,000 $ 110,000 74.77 1.00 $ 11,090 1 13 Full $ 2,082,000 $ 10,836,060
**Orange line indicates limit of recommended projects able to be funded with $7.5 million appropriation; funding of additional projects will require an increased appropriation equal to those cumulative funding amounts as recommended.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Applications Forwarded for Legislature’s Decision on Funding (continued)
22
Please see related summary report for details concerning the evaluation and description of the individual applications.
Recommended Projects*Recommendation
App. #Applicant Project Title Phase Energy Region
Election
District Technology Community
Grant Funds
Requested
Matching
Funds
Stage 3
Score
Benefit /
Cost Ratio HEC
Regional
Rank
State
Rank
Rec. Funding
Level
Rec. Funding
Amount
Cumulative
Rec. Funding**
15009 Matanuska Electric Association
Railbelt Wind Feasbility Study and Conceptual
Design Feasibility and Conceptual Design Railbelt Various Wind Railbelt $ 1,833,333 $ 550,000 73.83 1.10 $ 5,792 7 14 Full $ 1,833,333 $ 12,669,393
15003 Northwest Arctic Borough Selawik Solar PV Construction Northwest Arctic 40-T Solar Selawik $ 1,134,500 $ 251,500 72.86 0.88 $ 8,448 1 15 Full $ 1,134,500 $ 13,803,893
15026 Yakutat Community Health Center
Yakutat Community Health Center Heat Recovery
Project
Final Design and Permitting;
Construction Southeast 2-A Heat Recovery Yakutat $ 1,000,000 $ 273,000 72.19 1.24 $ 7,957 2 16
Full w/ special
provisions $ 1,000,000 $ 14,803,893
15016 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Kalskag Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Lower Yukon
Kuskokwim 37-S Wind Kalskag $ 267,300 $ 29,700 72.10 0.30 $ 9,022 3 17 Full $ 267,300 $ 15,071,193
15021 Alaska Renewables LLC Utility-Scale Railbelt Wind –Alaska Renewables Final Design and Permitting Railbelt 30-O; 36-R Wind Railbelt $ 2,000,000 $ 3,546,500 71.64 0.68 $ 5,791 8 18 Full $ 2,000,000 $ 17,071,193
15017 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
New Stuyahok Solar Energy and Battery Storage
Project
Final Design and Permitting;
Construction Bristol Bay 37-S Solar New Stuyahok, Ekwok $ 2,520,000 $ 280,000 64.67 0.07 $ 9,273 2 19 Full $ 2,520,000 $ 19,591,193
15014 City of Chignik Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Final Design and Permitting Bristol Bay 37-S Hydro Chignik $ 802,394 $ 43,767 61.47 0.67 $ 6,780 3 20 Full $ 802,394 $ 20,393,587
15012 Atmautluak Tribal Utilities
Atmautluak Battery and Thermal Stove
Installation, Integration and Commissioning Construction
Lower Yukon
Kuskokwim 38-S Wind Atmautluak $ 577,000 $ 81,000 59.18 0.77 $ 9,546 4 21 Full $ 577,000 $ 20,970,587
15029 Chugach Electric Association Godwin Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility and Conceptual Design Railbelt 5-C Hydro CEA Serving Area $ 1,729,000 $ 306,117 58.53 0.40 $ 3,613 9 22 Full $ 1,729,000 $ 22,699,587
15008 Turnagain Arm Tidal Energy Corp
Turnagain Arm Tidal Electricity Generation
Project (TATEG)Reconnaissance Railbelt
16-H; 15-H;
8-D Hydro Railbelt $ 1,400,000 $ 280,000 56.41 1.07 $ 5,792 10 23
Partial w/ Special
Provision $ 400,000 $ 23,099,587
15027
Tuntutuliak Community Services
Association
Tuntutuliak Community Services Association
Solar Energy Project
Final Design and Permitting;
Construction
Lower Yukon
Kuskokwim 38-S Solar Tuntutuliak $ 1,197,768 $ 14,000 55.57 0.00 $ 10,426 5 24
Full w/ special
provisions $ 1,197,768 $ 24,297,355
15031 City of Unalaska
City of Unalaska Wind Power
Design/Construction
Final Design and Permitting;
Construction Aleutians 37-S Wind Unalaska $ 4,000,000 $ 8,790,000 54.05 0.90 $ 8,418 2 25 Partial $ 420,000 $ 24,717,355
15010 City of Napaskiak
Napaskiak Reconnaissance and Wind Assessment
Project
Reconnaissance; Feasibility and
Conceputal Design
Lower Yukon
Kuskokwim 38-S Wind Napaskiak $ 446,500 $ 3,000 53.66 0.33 $ 10,069 6 26 Partial $ 337,500 $ 25,054,855
15020 Levelock Village Council Levelock Feasibility and Conceptual Design Feasibility and Conceptual Design Bristol Bay 37-S Wind Levelock $ 197,000 $ 9,000 53.35 0.04 $ 10,171 4 27
Full w/ special
provision $ 197,000 $ 25,251,855
*If approved by the Legislature, this funding would become effective July 1, 2023 for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2024 budget.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Round XV –Partial Funding Recommendations
As part of the evaluation process and pursuant to 3 AAC 170.655(b), 3 applications, as provided below, have been recommended for partial funding. If these partial funding recommendations are reversed and full funding recommended, this would raise the total grant request amount for all remaining 27 recommended applications to $29.9 million. Reasoning for recommendations of partial funding are provided on the following page. Partial funding recommendations have been made in full consideration of additional due diligence and information needed from preliminary project phases prior to funding for final design and/or construction; eligibility of items comprising project scope; and statewide balance of grant money, taking into consideration the amount of money available, number and types of projects within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank (as per 3 AAC 107.660).
23
Application
Number
Applicant
Name Project Title Project Phase
Energy
Region
Election
District Tech
Grant
Funds
Requested
Matching
Funds
Matc
h
Type
Stage
3
Score
Benefit/Co
st Ratio
Household
Energy
Cost
Regiona
l Rank
State
wide
Rank
Recommended
Funding Amount
15008
Turnagain
Arm Tidal
Energy
Corp
Turnagain Arm Tidal
Electricity Generation Reconnaissance Railbelt
16-H; 15-
H; 8-D Hydro $1,400,000 $ 280,000
In
Kind 56 1.07 $5,792 10 23 $ 400,000
15010
City of
Napaskiak
Napaskiak Reconnaissance
and Wind Assessment Reconnaissance
Lower
Yukon
Kuskokwi
m 38-S Wind
$
446,500 $ 3,000
In
Kind 54 0.33 $10,069 6 26 $ 337,500
15031
City of
Unalaska
City of Unalaska Wind
Power Design/Construction
Final Design and
Permitting;
Construction Aleutians 37-S Wind $4,000,000 $8,790,000 Cash 54 0.9 $8,418 2 25 $ 420,000
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Round XV –Partial Funding Reasoning
24
Application
Number Applicant Name Project Title Partial Funding Reasoning
15008
Turnagain Arm
Tidal Energy Corp
Turnagain Arm
Tidal Electricity
Generation
The requested funding amount was to fund two studies, one study for regulatory requirements and
permitting and one study for bathymetry for the site. AEA recommends funding only the study for
regulatory requirements and permitting in Round 15. Reconnaissance studies are a desktop study and the
analysis should use resource, economic, and operational data that is readily and/or publicly available. There
are also many stakeholders on a project such as TATEG, and it is imperative for project planners to conduct
extensive stakeholder outreach prior to any feasibility study work, such as bathymetric mapping, to
determine the extent of stakeholder approval. Additionally, the TATEG project’s permitting and regulatory
requirements must be known before the project team can sufficiently define the scope of work, and
subsequently estimate the project cost and schedule.
15010 City of Napaskiak
Napaskiak
Reconnaissance
and Wind
Assessment
Costs proposed for equipment and monitoring in the application appear high when compared to similar
projects. AEA recommends partial funding for the met tower to bring the cost in line with similar projects;
requested funding for this line item was $194k and AEA recommends $97k. AEA recommends partial
funding for monitoring costs; requested funding for this line item was $2,000 a month and AEA
recommends $1,000.
15031 City of Unalaska
City of Unalaska
Wind Power
Design/Constructio
n
The requested phases were Final Design & Permitting and Construction. AEA recommends funding only the
Final Design & Permitting Phase in Round 15. Partial funding will allow for more refined cost estimates for
the Construction Phase in future REF rounds, as well as, provides additional time to determine if other
energy projects will be moving forward in the region.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 25
SAFE,
RELIABLE, &
AFFORDABLE
ENERGY
SOLUTIONS
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: (907) 771-3000
Fax: (907) 771-3044
Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888-300-8534