HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-03 AEA Agenda and docs
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Alaska Energy Authority
Board Meeting
Wednesday, March 3, 2021
AGENDA
Dial 1 (888) 585-9008 and enter code 624-926-808# Public comment guidelines are below.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS
3. AGENDA APPROVAL
4. PRIOR MINUTES – January 13, 2021
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (2 minutes per person) see call in number above
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. Audit Update
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION – Discuss confidential matters related to Bradley Lake and confidential
personnel matters.
9. DIRECTOR COMMENTS
A. RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTIONS
B. Energy Act of 2020 – Update
C. AEA Annual Report
D. Denali Commission Update
E. Rural Update
F. Power Project Fund Dashboard and Loan Report
G. 1st Quarter Org Chart
H. Shovel Ready Projects – Update
I. EV Update (Fast Charging Station “corridor”)
J. Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Update
K. Legislative Update
L. Community Outreach
M. Articles of Interest
N. Next Regularly Scheduled AEA Board Meeting Wednesday, April 14, 2021
10. BOARD COMMENTS
11. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comment Guidelines
Members of the public who wish to provide written comments, please email your comments to
publiccomment@aidea.org by no later than 4 p.m. on the Tuesday before the meeting, so they can be shared
with board members prior to the Wednesday meeting.
When calling in, enter the teleconference muted. After board roll call and agenda approval, callers will be
asked to press *9 on their phones if they wish to make a public comment. This will initiate the hand-raising
function.
Callers will be unmuted individually in the order the calls were received. When an individual is unmuted, you
will hear, “It is now your turn to speak.” Please identify yourself and make your public comments.
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
RGYAUTHORITY.ORG
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors, AEA
THROUGH: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director
THROUGH: Amy Adler, Interim Chief Financial Officer
FROM: Salina Bearden, AEA Controller
DATE: March 3, 2021
Subject: On the June 30, 2020 financial statements, AEA netted the $1 billion dollar Power
Cost Equalization Endowment Fund (PCE) sweep and reverse sweep entries rather than
showing revenue and expense.
Background: In FY19, Department of Law determined that the unobligated balance of
the PCE fund was subject to the sweep (deposited) into the CBR. In FY19, AEA recorded
the sweep out of the PCE fund to the general fund as an AEA expense. During FY20, the
amount of the FY19 sweep was appropriated back to AEA by the legislature (reverse
sweep). AEA recorded the FY20 sweep amount, netting the entries for presentation in the
FY20 financial statements. AEA’s audit was completed and financial statements issued with
an unmodified opinion on October 26, 2020. AEA’s audited financial statements were
then provided to Division of Finance (DOF) for the State’s Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR).
In November 2020, AEA was contacted by Kris Curtis, Legislative Auditor requesting
information regarding AEA’s recorded entries for the PCE sweep. AEA provided all backup
documentation pertaining to the sweep, including AEA’s Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) research and determination for treatment of the transaction.
The Legislative Auditor sent a letter dated December 11, 2020 received by AEA on
December 18, 2020, stating that based on their interpretation of GASB, AEA’s financial
statements contained material misstatements and consideration should be given to
reissuing the financial statements.
Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2
After several communications, including letters, emails, and telephonic meetings, a
technical inquiry was submitted to GASB in order to provide guidance over this matter.
On Monday, February 8, 2021, a meeting was held with Paulina Haro, Project Manager
with GASB, legislative audit, AEA, DOF, and BDO USA, LLP. As a result of that meeting, it
was determined that AEA should not be recognizing a revenue or an expense for that
transaction as once the funds are transferred to the State, AEA no longer controls those
funds and they do not meet the requirements for revenue recognition.
Conclusion: As a result of the GASB inquiry, AEA appropriately presented the $1 billion
dollar sweep and reverse sweep entries and is not required to reissue the June 30, 2020
financial statements.
However, as a result of the inquiry and guidance provided by GASB, AEA will be presenting
operating revenues for amounts appropriated by legislation, which is a change from prior
year’s presentation. AEA will implement the change for the FY2021 financial statements.
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
RGYAUTHORITY.ORG
Response to Board Questions from
01/13/2021 AEA Board Meeting
1.Provide update on Bradley Lake Hydoelectric facility inventory and spare parts. – See
response attached.
2.Provide Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting materials to
demonstrate whether there are commonalities with successful applicants and
consultants and reasons for denied applications. – See response attached.
3.Add a column to Denali Commission Awards spreadsheet to include Estimated
Construction Jobs Created and Estimated Permanent Jobs Created. – SEE 9D. Denali
Commission Update.
4.Identify Rural Communities with only one genreator. – See response attached.
5.Analyze efficiency of AEA Staff working at home versus the potential savings for
overhead. – STILL UNDER REVIEW
6.Analyze Energy provisions in COVID-19 relief package. Provide update at next Board
meeting including opportunities and funding available. – SEE 9B. ENERGY ACT
UPDATE.
Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 4
1. Provide update on Bradley Lake Hydoelectric facility inventory and spare parts.
The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project stocks onsite routine maintenance items such as
runway lights, long lead items (needle cones, generator inventory for
teardown/buildup), and various other power generation equipment, road construction
materials, and electrical transmission parts from the utility “plant”. Limited supplies are
kept of materials which are degradable in a marine environment such as rubber goods
including gasket materials etc.
Extended outages during repair projects have historically been caused due to the
discovery of damage (while repairs are being completed) to items that degrade in a
marine environment, as aforementioned, and must be replaced. During the last
extended outage, the repair delays were mostly attributable to machining work that
could not be completed on site and the extenuating circumstances revolving around
COVID-19.
Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 4
2. Provide Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting materials to
demonstrate whether there are commonalities with successful applicants and
consultants and reasons for denied applications.
Alaska Energy Authority uses REVAL Software (Renewable Energy Validation Software) to
collect data for REF Applicants. The software does not collect names of consultants that
prepare or submit applications. Sometimes the information can be inferred from the
applicant contact information, but the data is inconsistent as the project’s contact may
or may not be the consultant even if the application is prepared by a consultant.
AEA Staff determined no positive correlation between successful candidates for funding
and any consultant or firm assisting the applicants. The analysis of what makes a
particular project more or less likely to be funded turned more on the economics of the
project than the name, reputation, or professed expertise of a consultant.
Additionally, staff contacted previous employees with experience in processing and
evaluating more than one round of REF applications. Each offered their personal opinion
for rounds they evaluated, they were not influenced by firms or personalities of
consultants but were focused on the relative economics of the projects.
Attached are following documents:
1.Evaluation and scoring criteria applied to each application.
2.Graphics demonstrating the cumulative funding through Round 9 by region.
3.Graphic demonstrative funding Round 13 by region and technology. (NOTE: Rounds 10,
11, and 12 were not funded).
4.REF Application Summary Report
5.REFAC Presentation
REF Evaluation and Scoring Criteria by Stage
Cumulative Funding through Round 9
Round XIII – Application Summary
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 7/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13001 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro, Other Energy Region: Bristol Bay
Applicant: Nushagak Electric & Telephone Cooperative Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project (Run of River Project)
Project Description
The proposed Project is a new 10-12 MW run of river hydropower project consisting of an intake structure, power conduit, powerhouse
forebay, powerhouse, and tailrace channel approximately 4 miles downstream of the Tikchik Lake outlet above a natural falls on the
Nuyakuk River. Power from the Project would be available to the customers of the Cooperative and potentially other areas in the region.
The renewable power provided by the Project would represent a significant improvement in the current distribution system and minimize
the reliance of local communities on fossil fuels as their primary source of electricity. Currently, the population that would be served by
this Project relies wholly on diesel generation, which is barged upstream through the Nushagak River drainage to requisite locations.
The reduction (or elimination) of water transport of fuels will reduce the potential for negative environmental impacts due to spills. The
primary industry in the Project service area is related to commercial harvest and processing of salmon. The long-term demand for more
reliable, efficient, and cost-effective renewable electric power, dispatchable renewable thermal heat, high-speed broadband, along with
the likely limited resource impacts makes this Project a highly viable opportunity.Initially this project will replace up to 1.5 million gallons
of diesel fuel annually, eventually up to 2.5 million gallons per year of diesel fuel will be replaced with renewable hydro energy which will
provide electric power, heating, or thermal conversion to other useful energy needs. We believe the combination of renewable energy
and increased broadband access will provide the basis for economic and social improvement and growth in the region for generations to
come.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
"The Nuyakuk River is considered to be a Navigable Waterway by the State of Alaska and BLM. A plan amendment to the Wood Tikchik
State Park Management Plan would need to be completed, Legislative action (SB 91) finalized in 2019 called for a Plan Amendment for
this authorization to be consistent with the plan requirements.If DMLWs approach is similar to the Windy Corner project in Chugach
State Park, the intake and powerhouse facility would be authorized by DPOR and DMLW would help with process guidance; New
transmission lines would need to be authorized with an easement from DMLW if they fall on state land outside of the State Park. No
water right application on file yet, please submit application upon completing land exchange from Parks to DMLW. Flow Reservation
LAS 28250 issued to ADF&G includes this stretch of river."State Lands. Entire project occurs on mixed ownership lands, including some
lands within Wood TikChik State Park. Project also crosses navigable waters.
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Quaternary active Holitna segment of the Denali fault. However, this fault is
located north of the project and likely should not affect the proposed project.The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a
mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining, since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land
and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.We have no objection to any feasibility analysis proposed and would
need more information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public access afforded by RS
2477 ROWs and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction,
subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of
proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 7/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 8/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13001 Standard Application
Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project (Run of River Project)
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)12.43 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)53.58
2. Matching Resources (15)15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.25
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)13.39
4. Project Readiness (5)3.50 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)1.13 Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)5
6. Local Support (5)5.00 Regional (of all applications)1
7. Sustainability (5)3.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)56.45
Total Stage 3 Score (100)56.45
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $152,858,624 $152,858,624 Cost of Electricity $0.46/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $2,000,000 $1,000,000 Price of Fuel $4.71/Gal
Matching Funds $10,280,000 $10,280,000 Household Energy Cost $6,323
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
The applicant has requested $2,000,000 in grant monies from the REF program. AEA is recommending funding for the feasibility and
conceptual design portion of the project in the amount of $1,000,000, as indicated by the applicant in their application's budget schedule.
Such funding does address the applicant's concern over phase II of their project regarding limited possible and eligible sources of funds
for feasibility studies. The applicant is in a position to begin feasibility study work in the project site area owing to their securing of a
special use permit from the Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources' Div. of Parks & Outdoor Recreation. AEA understands there are risks
relating to the project regarding FERC permitting requirements and potential risks related to significant project cost overages. Owing to
this, AEA finds that it is prudent and appropriate at this time to recommend only funding the feasibility and conceptual design portion of
the proposed project.Project Concerns:-Local tribal groups and development organizations have indicated that they are concerned over
the potential environmental impacts of the project on the fish population, a primary source of economic activity in the region, and have
asked that these issues be resolved between involved parties prior to engaging in construction of the project. The impact of the project
on the regional fish habitat will likely be assessed as part of the feasibility study portion of the project. It is expected, and indicated as
part of the application, that the applicant will work together with these concerned organizations to alleviate their concerns. The applicant
has demonstrated their desire and ability to secure needed permits from all respective local, state, and federal agencies.-Owing to the
significant amount of transmission infrastructure which would be required to distribute the energy amongst the six identified
communities, it is not unreasonable to assume there is a risk of significant construction cost overages. Issues concerning right-of-way to
construction lines over private land is also a risk to the project.-The timeline to construct of 24 months may also be too optimistic when
noting issues with road construction and permafrost. It is probable that the proposed project will require a longer development
timeframe.-The five identified communities, with the exception of Aleknagik, have not provided any letters of support indicating their
desire to purchase hydro power from the proposed system (PSA).-The lack of storage for a run-of-river hydro, like the subject, will likely
result in a reduced diesel displacement, especially during periods of low hydro flow. Issues relating to integration of the existing
community power systems with the proposed project will likely require some complex engineering.-Agencies may require conditioning of
final project that will reduce and/or increase total project costs.
Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 8/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 9/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13002 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project
Project Description
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is requesting $128,250 and will provide a match of $6,750 to conduct a wind power
feasibility and conceptual design project for the community of Goodnews Bay. AVEC, with the cooperation of the community, proposes to
assess the feasibility of wind resources suited to provide power to the community and to prepare a conceptual design of a wind facility.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Not on state landNo real location. Feasibility Study, project adjacent to navigable waters.We have no objection to any feasibility analysis
proposed and would need more information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public
access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR -
PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction,
subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of
proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 9/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 10/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13002 Standard Application
Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)13.43 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)66.33
2. Matching Resources (15)7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.15
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)16.58
4. Project Readiness (5)4.25 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)2.50 Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)4
6. Local Support (5)5.00 Regional (of all applications)2
7. Sustainability (5)5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)58.77
Total Stage 3 Score (100)58.77
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.56/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $128,250 $128,250 Price of Fuel $4.09/Gal
Matching Funds $6,750 $6,750 Household Energy Cost $6,832
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The applicant is requesting REF Round 13 grant funding in the amount of $128,250 for the "feasibility and conceptual design" phase of
the proposed wind system project. The applicant is an established rural utility provider with knowledge and experience in the
development, and integration of wind-diesel systems in their service area. Prior wind resource study work has been completed prior to
this request, indicating the presence and viability of the renewable resource. It is anticipated that the applicant will utilize a portion of the
grant monies to determine site control, assess the integration of the proposed wind system with the existing diesel plant, and assess the
impact of proposed project on heat recovery due to reduced diesel generation. The applicant, as a revenue generating utility, does have
the ability to self-fund reasonable cost overruns. The applicant does indicate that if needed, they would be able to contribute additional
matching cash funds; this is a boon to the project. AEA recommends full funding in the amount of $128,250 for the requested feasibility
and conceptual design wind energy project.Project Concerns:No mention of integration challenges/risks. The applicant indicated high
penetration system for this project is considerably higher than that of other wind projects in AVEC portfolio. Likely that these integration
challenges will be identified and addressed as part of the feasibility study.No analysis concerning how the project will impact any existing
heat recovery systems. This will likely be a part of the feasibility study.Location not yet determined, will be determined by requested
feasibility study. Site selection and control to be established post-feasibility.
Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim
Page 10/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 11/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13003 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project
Project Description
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is requesting $237,500 and will provide a match of $12,500 to conduct a wind power
feasibility and conceptual design project for the community of Kotlik. AVEC, with the cooperation of the community, proposes to assess
the feasibility of wind resources suited to provide power to the community and to prepare a conceptual design of a wind facility.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Insufficient information to review. Request for funding for feasibility study. No location selected for placement of meteorological study
tower at this time. DMLW permit required if DNR managed land selected.Native lands with easments.We have no objection to any
feasibility analysis proposed and would need more information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to
determine how public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move
towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Kaltag fault (see Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956). However, this fault is located north of
the project and likely should not affect the proposed project.All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should
conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes,
active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion,
and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition
of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the
Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 11/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 12/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13003 Standard Application
Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)14.21 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)57.42
2. Matching Resources (15)7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.25
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)14.36
4. Project Readiness (5)1.67 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)2.50 Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)6
6. Local Support (5)5.00 Regional (of all applications)3
7. Sustainability (5)5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)54.73
Total Stage 3 Score (100)54.73
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $3,100,000 $3,100,000 Cost of Electricity $0.58/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $237,500 $237,500 Price of Fuel $4.60/Gal
Matching Funds $12,500 $12,500 Household Energy Cost $7,223
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The applicant is requesting REF Round 13 grant funds in the amount of $237,500 to fund the feasibility and conceptual design phase of
the proposed 300-kW wind energy project. The proposed project will utilize the installation of a met tower in the community to assess
the feasibility of a future wind energy resource. The applicant is an established and experienced regulated rural utility provider, there
does not appear to be any issues with the operations and maintenance of the proposed wind system. The applicant has also indicated
its ability to self-fund potential cost-overruns, this is a boon to the proposed project. Additionally, the applicant has indicated its
monetary support of future phases, should the wind resource prove feasible, with a proposed 10% cash match for the future design and
construction phases. The existing diesel power plant will be continually maintained and operated in conjunction with the proposed wind
system to provide backup electrical generation should the wind system fail to meet the required load. AEA recommends full funding for
the proposed project in the amount of $237,500.Project Concerns:Met tower installation timeframe as indicated in the proposed project
schedule seems a bit short. There is a risk that this portion of the project could take longer than anticipated.Met tower site selection has
not yet been finalized. Major landholders in the community have expressed support for the project, however, this is a risk to the project if
the applicant cannot secure a site for the met tower.The proposed project is contingent on the presence of a sustainable and viable
renewable wind resource in the area. The assessment of such is to be the primary aim of the proposed feasibility and conceptual
design phase.
Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta
Page 12/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 13/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13004 Heat Application
Project Type: HeatSolar, HeatRecovery, HeatPump,
HeatOther
Energy Region: Railbelt
Applicant: University of Alaska Anchorage Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility
Applicant Type: Governmental Entity Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Building Integrated Technologies Potential in Alaska
Project Description
In this project, we will develop numerical models for the assessment of the potential of building integrated technologies (such as solar-
thermal, thermal storage, thermal storage coupled with airsource heat pump, solar-thermal coupled with thermal storage) in reducing the
energy consumption of residential buildings in Alaska. The models will then be used to assess fossil-basedenergy use reduction in
Utqiagvik, Kaktovik and Kotzebue for existing residential buildings. Through transient modeling, we will investigate the energy
contribution of each component in residential buildings. We will use TRNSYS (transient system simulation tool) simulation software
todevelop the models and simulate different scenarios. The evaluation of different scenarios enables quantification of the contribution of
each renewable energy component (and their combinations) to the overall building energy consumption. The work will provide possible
improvements that can bemade to decrease energy consumption of existing residential buildings by retrofitting them with renewable
energy technologies. In the second part of the project, we will investigate the potential of integrating renewable energy technologies to
new buildings in Alaska. First, we will investigatethe passive design parameters such as building envelope and fenestration for
improving energy efficiency. Next, we will incorporate renewable energy of technologies and determine the overall energy contributions
to the building energy consumption. Such theoretical simulation models allow for easy design changes and forecasting the impact of
these design changes which will allowbuilders to make decisions without physical construction or spending much time to gather data.
Page 13/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 14/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13004 Heat Application
Building Integrated Technologies Potential in Alaska
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 4 Heat applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $105,872 $ Cost of Electricity $/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $69,349 $0 Price of Fuel $/Gal
Matching Funds $36,523 $0 Household Energy Cost
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Election District: I-17 University
Page 14/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 15/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13005 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind, Solar Energy Region: Bristol Bay
Applicant: Naknek Electric Association, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Naknek Service Area Wind and Solar Power Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Project Description
Naknek Electric Association (NEA) proposes to assess, via a feasibility study and conceptual design process, the technical and
economic practicality of constructing a wind farm and expanding its solar PV capacity to create a medium-to-high penetration wind-solar-
diesel hybrid power system to meet its approximate mean 2 MW baseload power demand. NEA envisions that the much higher
additional summer demand of 10 to 13 MW for seafood processing activities would likely continue to be met with diesel engine
generators.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
State school site, land conveyed to DOT via omnibis Act. DOT has entered into a management agreement with the local school district
but title remains with DOT.We have no objection to any feasibility analysis proposed and would need more information (likely derived
from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs and 17(b) easements could
be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction,
subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of
proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 15/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 16/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13005 Standard Application
Naknek Service Area Wind and Solar Power Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)15.37 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)50.33
2. Matching Resources (15)9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.63
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)12.58
4. Project Readiness (5)4.83 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)1.00 Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)7
6. Local Support (5)2.00 Regional (of all applications)2
7. Sustainability (5)4.33 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)53.45
Total Stage 3 Score (100)53.45
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $12,262,000 $12,262,000 Cost of Electricity $0.49/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $103,500 $103,500 Price of Fuel $3.82/Gal
Matching Funds $11,500 $11,500 Household Energy Cost $7,814
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The applicant is requesting $103,500 for feasibility and conceptual design. AEA recommends full funding. The public benefits appear
favorable to advancing the integration of renewable energy sources across Alaska and the data relating to the continued research and
feasibility studies will be a valued resource for similar future projects in the region.Project Concerns:Vague and/or inaccurate electric and
thermal load data poses a risk as to the accuracy of the modeling for the proposed project. Naknek does has a proven wind resource
and electric load data, however, thermal load data is lacking.Potential for environmental impact on bird populations near coastal
area.Applicant did not indicate risks concerning integration with existing diesel system. Loss of heat sales to Bristol Bay Borough
School owing to loss of heat recovery from proposed system is a risk.
Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 16/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 17/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13006 Heat Application
Project Type: HeatBiofuel Energy Region: Yukon-Koyuk/Upper Tanana
Applicant: Alaska Gateway School District Proposed Phase(s): Construction
Applicant Type: Governmental Entity Recommended Phase(s): Construction
Walter Northway School Wood Chip Heating System
Project Description
The Northway School Woodchip Heating Project proposes Phase IV Construction funding in the amount of $650,000 and will construct a
biomass wood chip district heating system to service the Northway School and Garage. This project will replace about 23,166 gallons of
imported heating fuel which is approximately 90% of the current usage. This system will use approximately 280 tons(25% moisture) per
year of locally harvested woodchips. This project will create local wood harvesting employment/small business opportunities, providing a
use for wood that is harvested to protect communities from wildfire while decreasing the community's dependence on expensive
imported diesel.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Project is likely within a DOT Airport property. Applicant will need to work with DOT or their designee to obtain landowner authorization.
If biomass is desired from DNR managed lands, applicant will need to work with Forestry.We have no objection to any feasibility analysis
proposed and would need more information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public
access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR -
PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction,
subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of
proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 17/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 18/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13006 Heat Application
Walter Northway School Wood Chip Heating System
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)16.22 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)84.54
2. Matching Resources (15)7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.42
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)21.14
4. Project Readiness (5)4.10 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)7.25 Statewide (of 4 Heat applications)1
6. Local Support (5)5.00 Regional (of all applications)1
7. Sustainability (5)4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)69.70
Total Stage 3 Score (100)69.70
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $793,500 $793,500 Cost of Electricity $0.59/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $650,000 $650,000 Price of Fuel $2.45/Gal
Matching Funds $62,375 $62,375 Household Energy Cost $8,246
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The applicant is seeking a request for REF grant monies in the amount of $650,000 for the construction of a biomass boiler to be
integrated into the Walter Northway School site with the goal of displacing the use of more costly heating fuel. The applicant is
experienced in the development, construction, and operation of biomass boilers. The applicant currently owns and operates a biomass
mass boiler at a location within the local district. AEA recommends full funding in the requested amount of $650,000 for the proposed
project.Project Concerns:The applicant indicated (see section 3.1 of application) procurement and construction schedule appears
unrealistically short. The applicant indicates 5 months for procurement and 4 months for construction/installation of boiler.Applicant
indicated they were not yet certain as to which type of boiler would be procured (see section 5.4.4 of application).Labor allocation is not
specified, it is not clear if any critical positions required for the project development/construction would be over-subscribed. This is not
expected to be a major risk to the project.This project is recommended for full funding of $650,000.
Election District: C-6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border
Page 18/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 19/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13007 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Aleutians
Applicant: City of Unalaska Department of Public Utilities Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
City of Unalaska Wind Power Feasibility and Final Design
Project Description
City of Unalaska (COU) proposes a two-phase project: feasibility/conceptual design to determine best method to integrate wind power
with the planned geothermal power project (to be operational in 2024), followed by final design and permitting. COU initiated a self-
funded wind study in 2017 to identify prospective wind power sites and collect high quality wind data. Four met towers were installed
(two 60-meter at two primary sites of interest, one 34-meter at an auxiliary site, and one 10-meter at a reference site). As of Sept. 2020,
the two 60-meter towers remain operational and a wind resource report documenting the project is presently in draft form. COU
anticipates installing 2 to 5 MW wind turbine capacity. Construction funding will be explored during the feasibility/conceptual phase.
Options include bank financing or grant funding. Wind and geothermal power will enable COU to attain its near-term goal of achieving a
100% renewable energy-powered community with its longer-term goal of becoming a world leader in operating a carbon-free economy.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Potential exist for Temporary Water Use Authorizations as a consequence of dewatering activites resulting from excavation operations
associated with construction of foundations for wind generatiors. There are exisitng water rights for public water supply and power under
ADL 47232 and ADL 400616. Native LandsWe have no objection to any feasibility analysis proposed and would need more information
(likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs and 17(b)
easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction,
subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of
proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 19/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 20/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13007 Standard Application
City of Unalaska Wind Power Feasibility and Final Design
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)9.83 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)54.33
2. Matching Resources (15)9.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.54
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)13.58
4. Project Readiness (5)5.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)2.33 Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)9
6. Local Support (5)1.00 Regional (of all applications)1
7. Sustainability (5)2.83 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)46.41
Total Stage 3 Score (100)46.41
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $15,866,000 $14,100,000 Cost of Electricity $0.36/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $1,143,900 $139,000 Price of Fuel $3.05/Gal
Matching Funds $127,100 $13,900 Household Energy Cost $4,997
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding
The applicant has indicated a grant fund request in the amount of $1,143,900 for use as part of the proposed project's "Feasibility and
Conceptual Design" and "Final Design and Permitting" phases. AEA recommends partial funding for the proposed project. It is
recommended the feasibility and conceptual design (CDR) phase, requested at $139,000, be funded prior to funding the final design
phase. It is expected that the applicant's cash match for the partial feasibility portion will be reduced to $13,900 (10% of cost). Cash
match expected as applicant indicated that they would self-fund a 10% cash match for both the CDR ($13,900) and the final design
phase ($113,200); with the final design phase not recommended, only the CDR phase match would be available.The integration of the
Geothermal plant, expected on-line in 2024, with the proposed wind system, potential ESS, and the existing diesel plant is complex and
will likely require some study as part of the initial feasibility phase to gauge the requirements for integration. Additionally, the load which
the geothermal plant could meet is to be determined and it is likely that the joint-venture between Ounalashka Corporation and Chena
Power (OCCP) will have more accurate estimates as to generational capacity for the Geothermal system as the project progresses. As
the feasibility portion of the requested phases is anticipated to finish in April 2022, this allows more time for other components of the
project to develop and will refine the scope of the proposed wind system.Successful completion of the feasibility CDR will allow for a
determination to be made on the selection of the generational capacity of the proposed wind system. At present, the applicant has
provided a range of 2 to 5 MW.Project Concerns:While applying for a feasibility study and final design funding request, the applicant left
blank those sections relating to the sustainability (section 7) of the project. Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating
and maintaining the project throughout its lifetime and selling energy from the completed project was not addressed. There is not
anticipated to be a 14th REF funding round. Although specific information isn’t available at this time, there should be some
consideration and discussion of these topics because they are important in determining the projects long term success.The applicant did
not address the size of the wind system, turbine type, and other technical aspects in the application as they have not yet been
evaluated. It is expected that items relating to proposed system performance, operations and maintenance costs, fuel costs and basic
operation of the system will be addressed as part of the feasibility study. This should have been addressed at least high level for this
application.If geothermal power plant fails to materialize, the proposed system integration and project will be all the more critical in
transforming current power generation from fossil fuel sources to renewables.Potential cost overruns are a risk to the project and the
ability of the applicant, subject to their board's approval, to self-fund these overages is a boon to the project. The amount of overage,
however, which the applicant could self-fund is unknown and likely limited in scope.While future phase funding sources will be further
explored as part of the proposed feasibility and final design portion of the project, this is a risk to the project.
Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 20/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 21/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13008 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Bristol Bay
Applicant: City of Chignik Proposed Phase(s): Design
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design
Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project
Project Description
The City of Chignik is seeking funding to complete final design and permitting for a run of the river hydroelectric dam project that will
enable the city to eliminate dependency on diesel fuel for electricity generation. The establishment of the project will supply year round
electrical generationfor the community. The City, Tribal Council, Borough, CE2 Engineers, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium are in a collaborative venture to manage the project successfully with ANTHC taking the lead on project management. CE2
Engineers will be continually involved to conduct work on the project following the completion of the feasibility study in September 2014.
The final feasibility report recommends the installation of a 385 kW generator with ananticipated capacity factor of 63%. The final report
of the feasibility study models this system and it was determined that the City would see an annual reduction in diesel fuel use by 63,500
gallons annually. The study indicates that “based on current electric demand...[this] has potential todisplace 184,000 gallons of diesel
fuel annually.” The system is projected to run primarily as a diesel-free system with the exception of two periods in the year where water
flow is projected to be too low. During FY15, the city spent about $250K on diesel fuel to generate electricity. Through thisproject, the
city will see substantial enhancements in the areas of water supply delivery, reduced dependence on fossil fuels, and reduced
maintenance of electric generation infrastructure. The City of Chignik is already a FERC license holder for the hydroelectric project
which can significantly reduce the permitting timeline.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
A DMLW Water Resources authorization is recognized to be required. City of Chignik holds title to most affected uplands, remaining
potentially impacted parcel owned by Chignik Lagoon Native Corporation. Consistent with the resource agency meeting notes from
October 16, 2013, please work with DMLW's Water Resource section and either file for an amendment to existing water right (LAS
27818) or apply for an additional water right.Bristol Bay Native Corp./City of ChinikWe have no objection to any feasibility analysis
proposed and would need more information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public
access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR -
PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
See general DGGS comment on hazards. The coastal area in this region is subject to potential tsunami hazard, see
https://doi.org/10.14509/29675 and https://earthquake.alaska.edu/sites/all/tsuMap/html/tsunami.html.All projects proposing the
development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice
movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to
perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional
information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/,
http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 21/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 22/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13008 Standard Application
Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)24.67
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.57
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $7,438,000 $7,438,000 Cost of Electricity $0.42/kWh
REF9 Grant Funds $1,276,656 $0 Price of Fuel $3.94/Gal
Matching Funds $00 $0 Household Energy Cost $5,826
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2
Application did not meet the minimum score of 40 points in stage 2. The application will not proceed to stage 3 per Section 4 – “Stage
2”, of the REF Process Manual.Project Concerns:The applicant did not address heat loss from the proposed system. The proposed
hydro plant is anticipated to displace substantially more power than the city load requires. Some of this load could be use to power
electric boilers in community buildings to utilize the excess hydro power for heating purposes. Heat loss from diesel-off time due to the
hydro is a risk to the project. Run-of-river hydro with little storage will not allow for diesels-off in periods of low water flow (i.e. winter
months).Lack of local knowledge concerning operation and maintenance of hydro systems. Diesel O&M knowledge/experience cannot
be readily applied to hydro O&M. There will be added O&M costs for hydro. O&M costs are not clear and many differing values have
been stated in the application. Schedule appears too compressed. Dispersal of grant funds would likely not occur until Aug 2021 at the
earliest. Final design cost of ~$1.27M does not align with the ANTHC (2018) stated cost of $379,829.Applicant does not indicate ability
to self-fund cost overruns. Applicant indicates potential PSA with local fish processor, however, no letters of support or MOUs provided.
Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 22/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 23/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13009 Standard Application
Project Type: Geothermal Energy Region: Bering Straits
Applicant: Kawerak, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility
Applicant Type: Other Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility
Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Power Plant Conceptual Design
Project Description
The “Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Power Plant Conceptual Design” project will allow stakeholders in the Bering Strait Region the
chance to design an on-site power and heat production facility for Pilgrim Hot Springs. The property is owned by Unaatuq, LLC, a
consortium of seven regional and local entities, including five Alaska Native Corporations, one Tribal Consortium (Kawerak), and a non-
profit regional CDQ corporation. Kawerak acts as a co-managing owner ofthe property, along with Bering Straits Native Corporation, and
will manage the Renewable Energy Fund grant and project activities. Kawerak, Inc. will work with the Alaska Center for Energy and
Power as their main technical contractor, and hire a full-service engineering firm to provide various task as described in the scope of
work. By providing sustainable, clean energy to Pilgrim HotSprings using the existing and abundant geothermal resource on site,
business development activities may continue to grow and bring economic benefit to all residents of the Bering Strait Region.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
New info - Project does not appear to be tied to Rock Creek Mine at this time and appears to be entirely on non-State land. TWUP
would likely still be needed. Exempt from water use act if > 120 degrees celsius. Water resources for possible cooling fluids would
require water rights. Revise TWUP to TWUA. Power use for proposed Rock Creek Mine and others. Rock Creek Mine is not in
operation, and is looking for buyers. Project will require TWUP for drilling and water rights depending on the temperature of the
geothermal resource.Unaatuq LLCWe have no objection to any feasibility analysis proposed and would need more information (likely
derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs and 17(b)
easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
Pilgrim Hot Springs has been known to be a major geothermal anomaly, and suspected for decades of hosting a significant moderate-
temperature geothermal resource. Earlier exploration (?70s and early ?80s) failed to find the upflow zone which produces the surface
springs. Location of and drilling into the upflow zone is essential for an understanding of this resource that is an adequate basis for
development decisions. This project suggests a stepwise progression, with drilling following geophysical surveys, which in turn followed
geological surveys. The surveys are proceeding under Phase I of this project, although results are not given. This proposal is for Phase
II, drilling and results of phase I are needed to fully evaluate. The timeline given in the proposal states that this Phase II drilling will be
done between about February and November of 2012.The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point
and did not note any issues that would affecting mining, since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note
any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction,
subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of
proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 23/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 24/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13009 Standard Application
Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Power Plant Conceptual Design
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)42.46
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.01
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $9,005,721 $9,005,721 Cost of Electricity $/kWh
REF9 Grant Funds $368,822 $0 Price of Fuel $/Gal
Matching Funds $136,893 $0 Household Energy Cost $7,531
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2
It is determined that the project is not technically and economically feasible, as per regulation 3 AAC 107.645. As such, this application
will not be proceeding to stage 3 of the evaluation process. Project Concerns:-Project is predicated on a future, non-existent tourist
community. Tourist demand is not fully developed and is subject to seasonality and volatility owing to issues related to COVID-19 and/or
other travel restrictions.-No thermal or electrical loads indicated. Generational capacity is based on resource, not future load demand.-
Integration is not adequately addressed. Applicant indicates induction generators, but synchronous generators would be more
appropriate.-Diesel generation is not addressed in the application although it would be required, even with geothermal generation.
Displaced diesel is assumed at 100% of geothermal production. This is incorrect, as supplemental integrated diesel power would be
required at the site for peak load assistance and as backup.-Total project costs are not wholly addressed; the geothermal power plant is
a smaller aspect of the overall project. Note items such as road maintenance, improvements construction (e.g. wellness retreat), full
and part time labor costs, state approved runway construction (if part of development strategy), and others are all additional costs which
would likely be incurred by the applicant as part of the overall project site development. -Native village relocation has not been simple,
based on past occurrences within the State. It would be reasonable to assume that the potential relocation of the dispersed community
of Mary's Igloo would be a major undertaking, likely adding significant costs to the project.
Election District: T-39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta
Page 24/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 25/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13010 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast
Applicant: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Proposed Phase(s): Design
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design
Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design - Hoonah, AK
Project Description
IPEC is requesting $461,474 in grant funding to prepare the final design for Water Supply CreekHydro (WSCH). IPEC plans to hire
HDR-Alaska to do this work. IPEC will provide labor, and laboroverhead, travel, meals & lodging, and legal expenses in the amount of
$75,000 as in-kind match.IPEC staff regularly provides administrative and technical support for consultants as part of itsannual labor
budget.HDR prepared a conceptual design report for IPEC in 2011, then in December 2019, a feasibilitystudy specific to WSCH. The
December 2019 study is included with this application. The nextstep is final design and permitting, and once it is complete, the Water
Supply Creek Hydro projectwill be "shovel-ready."
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Water right application on file (LAS 32100). Recommend completing a Hazard Potential Classification and Jurisdictional Review form for
submittal to DNR's Dam Safety Program.Native LandsWe have no objection to any feasibility analysis proposed and would need more
information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs
and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
See general DGGS comment on hazards. The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Fairweather fault (see Quaternary
fault & fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956). This fault
has been active in the last 150 years.All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site
survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis,
landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving
construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault &
fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 25/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 26/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13010 Standard Application
Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design - Hoonah, AK
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)12.38 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)85.83
2. Matching Resources (15)11.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.35
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)21.46
4. Project Readiness (5)5.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)5.25 Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)2
6. Local Support (5)5.00 Regional (of all applications)1
7. Sustainability (5)5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)70.09
Total Stage 3 Score (100)70.09
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $5,984,099 $5,984,099 Cost of Electricity $0.59/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $461,474 $461,474 Price of Fuel $2.79/Gal
Matching Funds $75,000 $75,000 Household Energy Cost $6,297
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The applicant is requesting REF Round 13 grant funds in the amount of $461,474 for the "final design and permitting" phase of the
proposed run-of-river hydro project in Hoonah, AK. The applicant is an experienced and technically knowledgeable rural utility which
owns and operates several hydro plants in the region, including Gartina Falls near the project site. Owing to this, the applicant has also
demonstrated technical knowledge concerning the integration of hydro generation into their community diesel plants. For this particular
request, it is assumed that the integration of the proposed plant will be determined as part of the requested phase.The applicant has
demonstrated substantial support for the project. The applicant has already completed the prior reconnaissance and feasibility phases,
the latter being recently completed in 2019. The quote for the requested final design and permitting phase, as prepared by the
applicant-selected engineering firm, appears detailed and reasonable.The applicant has also demonstrated its ability to utilize multiple
funding sources in funding projects like the subject. The completed feasibility portion of the proposed project was partially funded
through a $30k grant via the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. The applicant has also stated that they have, although limited, the
ability to self-fund reasonable cost overruns through allocations from their general fund. This is a boon to the project.The proposed
project seeks to displace diesel powered electric generation within the community, further incorporating renewable energy generation
into the local grid, advancing the goal of the REF. AEA is recommending full funding for the proposed project in the amount of
$461,474.Project Concerns:Run-of-river hydro and absence of storage reduces diesel displacement during the winter months when
water flow is low.Ability for the applicant to self-fund cost overruns is limited, as substantial debt service obligations may affect its
financial position.Loss of heat recovery is not specifically addressed as part of the application, and this could be a risk to the subject as
additional fuel may be required to replace the loss of heat recovery from the diesel gensets. The local native tribe, Hoonah Indian
Association, is in the process of installing a biomass heat loop within the community to assist in the offset of heat loss from displaced
diesel generation. Loss of heat recovery is not anticipated to be significant as diesel generation will still be required to meet the
community load.
Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 26/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 27/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13011 Heat Application
Project Type: HeatRecovery Energy Region: Northwest Artic
Applicant: City of Shungnak Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction
Shungnak Heat Recovery Expansion
Project Description
The proposed project will expand the heat recovery system in Shungnak, AK to provide heat for the health clinic, cookhouse community
center, VPSO housing, and community store, displacing an estimated 14,036 gallons of fuel oil being used annually in these community
facilities, for an estimated cost savings of $115,797 per year at the current fuel price of $8.25 per gallon. The heat recovery system
currently serves the collective heating needs of the water treatment plant and city office. This proposed expansion is possible due to
AVEC replacing all of its diesel generators with models that include marine manifolds, which will significantly increase the amount of
recovered heat available.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No NRO involvementNative Town/Shungnak/NANA/IsingnakmuntWe have no objection to any feasibility analysis proposed and would
need more information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public access afforded by RS
2477 ROWs and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction,
subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of
proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 27/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 28/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13011 Heat Application
Shungnak Heat Recovery Expansion
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)22.81 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)73.50
2. Matching Resources (15)0.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.03
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)18.38
4. Project Readiness (5)5.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)3.25 Statewide (of 4 Heat applications)2
6. Local Support (5)5.00 Regional (of all applications)1
7. Sustainability (5)5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)64.44
Total Stage 3 Score (100)64.44
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $1,303,607 $1,303,607 Cost of Electricity $0.73/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $1,303,607 $1,303,607 Price of Fuel $8.25/Gal
Matching Funds $00 $00 Household Energy Cost $11,601
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The applicant is requesting REF Round 13 grant funds in the amount of $1,303,607 to fund the final design and permitting, and
construction of the proposed heat recovery system upgrade. The applicant has not indicated any matching funds, although ANTHC has
self-funded the feasibility portion of the proposed project. Heat distribution infrastructure within the village and the existing diesel power
plant are the target improvements for the heat recovery upgrades and additions. The applicant is proposing these heat recovery system
upgrades in an effort to maximize the benefit which would be provided by the local utility as it replaces its existing diesel gensets with
new gensets equipped with marine manifolds.A heat sales agreement exists between the applicant and the local utility. A revised heat
sales agreement will be developed to continue to provide monetary incentive to the local utility to provide ongoing support in maintaining
and operating the heat recovery system. The local utility currently maintains 30 local heat recovery system in those communities in
which it operates. With the exception of these revenues earned by the utility to provide ongoing maintenance and support, there are no
anticipated additional funds required for the proposed project. The proposed project is estimated to significantly reduce the cost
incurred by the applicant for heating village improvements. AEA is recommending full funding for this project in the amount of
$1,303,607.Project concerns:There is a risk to the project concerning potential cost overruns. The applicant's proposed project
development and operations partner, ANTHC, is experienced in the pursuit of grant and loan sources. While several funding sources
are identified, the inability of the applicant to self-fund any potential cost overruns is a risk to the project.The applicant indicated revised
heat sales agreement with the local utility is paramount to the success of this project. If an agreement fails to materialize there will be
little to no benefit realized by the local community.The applicant indicates that the community is anticipated to construct a PV solar and
battery storage system. There is a risk that such renewable energy offset of diesel production could impact heat recovery of the
proposed project. Applicant indicated preliminary analysis indicates that high levels of solar production would occur during those
months where heating is not required, thus limiting the impact on the proposed project. Further analysis with the solar system in
production would be required to measure the impact of heat recovery loss.
Election District: T-40 Arctic
Page 28/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 29/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13012 Standard Application
Project Type: Geothermal Energy Region: Aleutians
Applicant: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Division
of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility
Applicant Type: Other Recommended Phase(s): 0
Engineering Alaska's Geothermal Energy- HSBV, Akutan
Project Description
Although previous studies have been conducted to evaluate and characterize geothermalresources in the State of Alaska, there still
exist extensive disagreements on the commercialpotential of Alaska geothermal energy. The objective of this collaborative study is to
establish asystematic engineering solution/workflow to develop Alaska geothermal resources. This projectintegrates laboratory
experiments, field characterizations, and numerical modeling for advancingthe physical understanding of Alaska geothermal resources
and guiding future geothermalresearch and development in the state. Hot Springs Bay Valley (located adjacent to the City ofAkutan), a
geothermal area with high temperature gradients will be used as a case study toexecute and validate the workflow proposed in this
project. Eventually, the engineering workflowdeveloped and validated in this project will be applied to the other geothermal sites across
thestate, thus making contributions to the renewable energy inventory of Alaska.
Page 29/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 30/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13012 Standard Application
Engineering Alaska's Geothermal Energy- HSBV, Akutan
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $947,156 $ Cost of Electricity $/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $851,263 $0 Price of Fuel $/Gal
Matching Funds $95,893 $0 Household Energy Cost
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 30/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 31/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13013 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro, Storage Energy Region: Copper River/Chugach
Applicant: Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility
Cordova Hydro Storage Assessment Project
Project Description
Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) is requesting $295,000 to conduct an analysis of the hydroelectric resources in the area, per AEA
recommendation in attached letter AEA Regional Hydro Resource Assessment dated April13, 2017. CEC intends to collect LIDAR
imagery and develop feasibility assessments on at least four potential storage locations. The results of this analysis will inform the
strategic direction of CEC in the short and long term. The priority assessment is for storage capacity upstream of the existing Humpback
Creek Hydroelectric Project. The potential storage location is on private lands with low permitting and regulatory overheads and is a low-
cost, high value supplement to the existing infrastructure. The next priority is at the Raging Creek hydroelectric site, for which CEC has
already conducted a desktop feasibility assessment. Raging Creek would be a long-term hydro prospect that faces moderate permitting
and regulatory barriers that has the potential to bring CEC to 100% renewable. A more comprehensive feasibility assessment would be
conducted as part of this application. The last two locations and reports includes an updated feasibility report on Snyder Falls and a pre-
feasibility on storage potential at Power Creek would. To maximize the LIDAR equipment, McMillen-Jacobs professional staff
mobilization, and helicopter support, CEC proposes to conduct aerial reconnaissance of Boy Scout Lake, No Name Lake #1, and No
Name Lake #2, per AEA recommendation.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No water use permits or authorizations are required for the feasibility study.Multiple Sites, Native Lands and Forest Service Lands.
Waters within the project area may be navigable.We have no objection to any feasibility analysis proposed and would need more
information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs
and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
See general DGGS comment on hazards. The coastal area in this region is subject to potential tsunami hazard, see
https://doi.org/10.14509/27241 and https://earthquake.alaska.edu/sites/all/tsuMap/html/tsunami.html.All projects proposing the
development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from
natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice
movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to
perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional
information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/,
http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 31/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 32/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13013 Standard Application
Cordova Hydro Storage Assessment Project
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)13.25 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)78.17
2. Matching Resources (15)15.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.99
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)19.54
4. Project Readiness (5)5.00 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)3.33 Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)1
6. Local Support (5)4.00 Regional (of all applications)1
7. Sustainability (5)5.00 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)70.13
Total Stage 3 Score (100)70.13
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $52,961,078 $70,000,000 Cost of Electricity $0.39/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $294,642 $294,642 Price of Fuel $2.80/Gal
Matching Funds $150,000 $150,000 Household Energy Cost $6,740
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The applicant, CEC, is requesting REF Round 13 grant funds in the amount of $294,642 for "reconnaissance" and "feasibility and
conceptual design" phases of the proposed project. CEC is looking to assess the feasibility of four potential hydro storage sites. The
primary assessment is to secure storage capacity upstream of the existing hydro site at Humpback Creek. Supplemental feasibility
analysis for potential hydro generation at two sites (Raging Creek & Snyder Falls) with an additional three sites anticipated for aerial
reconnaissance including geotechnical and other field observations is also part of the planned project. The project schedule and budget
is reasonable and detailed. CEC has sufficient technical and operational knowledge to maintain and operate the future hydro plants that
may result from this grant request. CEC, in tandem with the contracted engineering company, McMillen Jacobs has sufficient
experience and knowledge in reconnaissance and feasibility work to begin work on the requested phases. CEC has already expended
a significant amount of its own funds on feasibility and reconnaissance work of approximately $444,000. Owing to CEC's current hydro-
diesel-battery system, CEC is dedicated to exploring further integration of renewable energy generation into its grid, supporting the goal
of the REF program. CEC has indicated its support of future phases through a combination of proprietary, native, and federal funds.
CEC's ability to self-fund cost overruns, for this phase or future phases, is a boon to the proposed project. CEC has demonstrated
satisfactory grant reporting performance in prior REF rounds. AEA recommends full funding for the proposed project in the amount of
$294,642.Project Concerns:Land access issues for Raging Creek may prove to result in a long lead time to development if the site is
selected for hydro development.LIDAR based reconnaissance may prove to require more time than scheduled due to issues with LIDAR
surveying during precipitation.
Election District: P-32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia
Page 32/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 33/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13014 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Applicant: Puvurnaq Power Company Proposed Phase(s): Construction
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Construction
Improved airfoil for wind turbines in Kongiganak
Project Description
The Puvurnaq Power Company has been operating five Windmatic 17S wind turbine for the last eight years. These wind turbines that
were originally designed and manufactured in Denmark in the 1980’s. They previously operated in California, and refurbished to their
original specification and reinstalled in the village of Kongiganak. The turbines nacelles have received a number of improvements,
however the turbine blades are of the original turbine blade design of the mid-1980’s. In the 1990’s, the U.S. Solar Energy Research
Institute (SERI), which subsequently became the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), commenced a program to design and
test and improved airfoil specifically for these types of Danish wind turbines, of which there were some 7000 installed in California. The
SERI airfoils were developed to provide aerodynamic performance improvements over original equipment blades supplied with the
Windmatic, Vestas and other fixed pitch, stall regulated turbines. The outcome of the NREL/SERI program was the development and
testing of new family of airfoils with improved performance in three primary areas. These are:• Restrained peak power for greater drive
train life • Reduced sensitivity to turbulence• Significantly improved annual energy productionIn each test instance of stall regulated
machines the annual energy output was increasing by 20 to 30%, while not causing increased loading on the tower, gearbox and drive
train. Over 80 sets of these blades were installed on various wind farms in California. Puvurnaq is requesting $98,000 from the REF
program to purchase and install two sets of the advanced SERI Thin Airfoils. The Puvurnaq Power Company (PPC) staff will retrofit two
of their five 95 kW windmatic turbines with these blades. It is estimated that PPC will provide an inkind match of $9,000 which
represents the labor and equipment to install and test the blade sets. The blades were manufactured by one of the largest blade
manufacturer in China, AVIC Huiteng Windpower, under the design supervision of James Tangler the NREL design engineer. The
turbine blades utilize a tip break design for emergency overspeed protection, which should improve overspeed protection compared to
the air brake design on the current wind turbine blades. Purvurnaq Power Company proposes to acquire these blade sets and install
them on two of its wind turbine in Kongiganak. The Puvurnaq Power maintenance crew has access to an uptower service crane, which
will enable local perform the retrofit using local personnel. Purvurnaq will undertake a program to evaluate the performance of these new
airfoils, comparing performance to the non-retrofitted turbines, and comparing the previous four year average production, in order to
validate the anticipated improved performance in the Alaskan environment and wind conditions.The following measurements and data
will be recorded: Cut in speedMaximum kW outputPower curveAverage kWTotal kWh
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Native LandsWe have no objection to any feasibility analysis proposed and would need more information (likely derived from the
feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs and 17(b) easements could be
affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction,
subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of
proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 33/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 34/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13014 Standard Application
Improved airfoil for wind turbines in Kongiganak
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)15.95 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)89.50
2. Matching Resources (15)7.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.02
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)22.38
4. Project Readiness (5)4.33 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)10.00 Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)3
6. Local Support (5)1.00 Regional (of all applications)1
7. Sustainability (5)4.50 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)69.66
Total Stage 3 Score (100)69.66
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $117,000 $117,000 Cost of Electricity $0.65/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $108,000 $108,000 Price of Fuel $4.93/Gal
Matching Funds $9,000 $9,000 Household Energy Cost $8,111
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding
The applicant is requesting $108,000 in REF Round 13 grant funds to retrofit two sets of new airfoils, to increase wind generational
capacity, on two of its existing wind turbines. The proposed project budget and schedule appear reasonable and are adequately
supported. The applicant has a proven track record of providing needed maintenance on its existing wind system as well as providing
system data to AEA, regarding previously funded projects. AEA recommends full funding in the amount of $108,000 for the proposed
project.**Note on Funding Request**On Dec 3, 2020 the applicant was contacted to clarify a matter concerning the funding amounts.
The applicant did clarify, through correspondence with the AEA grant manager, that the correct value is $117,000 ($98k for 2 foils + $24k
for shipping + $9k for installation). The applicant is offering installation as an in-kind match. The total revised grant request for this
application is $108,000. Full funding in the revised requested amount of $108,000 recommended.Project concerns:Applicant schedule
appears too condensed, grant receipt, procurement, shipping, and installation are likely to require more than nine months. Any
disruptions resulting from shipping, a more common occurrence owing to growing demand for delivery services logistics companies from
COVID-19, will likely result in project being delayed from stated schedule.Largest risk is the new blades would not produce as much
additional marginal power as was anticipated. This would impact project economics across all aspects. Another risk is potential issues
with maintaining and/or repairing the new technology airfoils. No backup data regarding the proposed airfoil types has been provided,
there is limited support which indicates efficiency and/or capacity gains from applying this new airfoil technology.The applicant should
take precautions in the installation phase so as to not void the limited manufacturer warranty, if applicable.
Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim
Page 34/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 35/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13015 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast
Applicant: Burro Creek Holdings, LLC Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design
Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility, Design
Burro Creek Hydro Project
Project Description
Develop a 2 MW run-of-river hydro project on private property at Burro Creek, south of Skagway. Transmit electricity to markets in
Skagway (and possibly Haines) via a submarine cable.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
A water use application is on file (LAS 29573). Please be sure final design water use requirements are consistent with filed
application.Burrow Creek Holdings LLC, Lands have been selected by the State under GS-5450We have no objection to any feasibility
analysis proposed and would need more information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how
public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR
- PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
See general DGGS comment on hazards. The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Dalton section of the Denali fault
(see Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and
https://doi.org/10.14509/24956). This fault has been active in the last 15,000 years. The coastal area in this region is subject to potential
tsunami hazard, see https://doi.org/10.14509/30029 and https://earthquake.alaska.edu/sites/all/tsuMap/html/tsunami.html.All projects
proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental
effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence,
storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may
be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of proposed
site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/,
http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 35/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 36/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13015 Standard Application
Burro Creek Hydro Project
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)53.17
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.56
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $19,172,000 $19,172,000 Cost of Electricity $/kWh
REF9 Grant Funds $586,000 $0 Price of Fuel $/Gal
Matching Funds $26,000 $0 Household Energy Cost $4,885
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2
Items of concern:A similar 5MW project in Southeast Alaska (Hiilangaay), being developed by a utility (AP&T), has a final project cost of
$31M. Given the high fixed costs for hydro projects, project components being sized for a 7M hydro site, and the submersible
transmission cable the total project costs for the proposed are likely to be $25-30M at a minimum.The demand factors for this project are
uncertain. Local power demand appears stable and AP&T, the local utility, has not pursued the development of other studied hydro sites
due to lack of demand, such as Schubee and Connolly lakes. Applicant project would have to be significantly below the cost to develop
these alternate sites, if it were to be a viable economic option. Additionally, West Creek, with road access to the north was studied for a
25MW hydro project. Owing to lack of power demand, however, this project has also not been pursued.Electrification of the municipal
dock is unlikely due to the load required by the cruise ships. The load which the cruise ships would require is greater than that existing
community as a whole (10-25MW per ship). There are also significant technical problems concerning the receipt of the shore power by
the cruise ships, such as placement of power hook-ups and issues concerning load ramping to prevent local grid blackouts. Cruise ship
diesel generation would not be able to be 100% offset due to high load requirements. Hydro power via AP&T assets provides the
majority (99%) of power generation within the Skagway area. It is unlikely this project would displace any existing diesel generation if at
all. Displacement of diesel consumption by cruise ships, if possible, would only occur in the summer months and is temporal in nature.
Inability of project to store energy would not allow it to assist in the small diesel generation by the local utility. AP&T only fires their
diesel plant during limited periods of high demand during the winter months when the run-of-river hydro sites are experiencing low flow
rates.
Election District: Q-33 Downtown Juneau/Douglas/Haines/Skagway
Page 36/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 37/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13016 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro, Storage Energy Region: Southeast
Applicant: Community of Elfin Cove Non-Profit Corporation,
Elfin Cove Utility Commission
Proposed Phase(s): Design
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design
Elfin Cove Hydro Final Permitting and Design
Project Description
The project will include a run-of-river hydroelectric plant between Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake (upper system) and a storage
hydroelectric project between Jim's Lake and tidewater (lower system). Our FERC License Application considers two development
options:The Full Development Option would feature a 35-kW upper system and 105 kW lower system for 140 kW of generating capacity,
supplying 90% of the utility’s annual energy demand.The Phased Development Option would defer installation of power recovery
equipment on the upper system to the future (only the water diversion would be initially built), providing 105 kW of generating capacity
and supplying 82% of the utility’s annual energy demand.At this time we expect to proceed with the phased development option, as it is
the more economic of the two. Accordingly, this application describes the phased development option.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
The Elfin Cove Utility Commission (Community of Elfin Cove) has submitted two Applications for Water Rights (LAS 29817 and LAS
29818). The Elfin Cove Utility Commission may need to apply for a Temporary Water Use Authorization prior to the construction phase
of the project. The DMLW Water Resources Section recommends the applicant consult with our Southeast Office to determine specific
water use authorization requirements. May need a shoreland public easement. Withdrawn for Power ProjectWe have no objection to any
feasibility analysis proposed and would need more information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to
determine how public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move
towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
See general DGGS comment on hazards. The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Fairweather fault (see Quaternary
fault & fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956). This fault
has been active in the last 150 years.All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site
survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis,
landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving
construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault &
fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 37/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 38/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13016 Standard Application
Elfin Cove Hydro Final Permitting and Design
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)40.33
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.73
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $5,909,500 $5,909,500 Cost of Electricity $0.65/kWh
REF9 Grant Funds $130,000 $0 Price of Fuel $4.15/Gal
Matching Funds $32,500 $0 Household Energy Cost $8,007
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2
The application did meet the minimum score of 40 points in stage 2, by a margin of 0.33 points. It is the determination of AEA that the
application does not reflect a prudent allocation of limited grant monies. The proposed project does not yield sufficient benefits to
substantiate its costs. The application will not proceed to stage 3 per Section 4 – “Stage 2”, of the REF Process Manual.Project
concerns:-Future funding sources are noted but not specific in identifying clear loan/grant programs or private options. Applicant does
state that cost savings are a priority and has demonstrated their ability to service debt (e.g. ongoing bulk diesel fuel facility surcharge). -
Contingency of 18% for construction cost is not sufficient. Capital and operational costs are frequently greater than estimated and are
likely underestimated for this project.-Small drainage area at project site poses a risk owing to possible low rainfall. Low rainfall years
would not be offset by high rainfall years as the load is limited.-Grantee has been a recipient of AEA funds in the past, and has
experienced some long grant close-out timeframes.
Election District: R-35 Sitka/Petersburg
Page 38/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 39/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13017 Standard Application
Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Bristol Bay
Applicant: Pedro Bay Village Council Proposed Phase(s): Construction
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Construction
KNUTSON CREEK HYDRO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Project Description
The proposed project is an approximately 150 kW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Knutson Creek near Pedro Bay. The hydro project
will provide nearly all (~98%) of the electricity needs of the village, as well as providing a significant amount of interruptible energy to
heat the tribal council building and other community buildings in the village.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
Water permit. No additional authorizations needed. Knutson Creek within the area that the project lies is not considered navigable for
title purposes. An application for a water use is on file (LAS 33115). No additional authorizations are required. Native/Pedro Bay
Association. Knutson Creek May be navigable waters We have no objection to any feasibility analysis proposed and would need more
information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs
and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
See general DGGS comments on hazards. The closest seismic source to the proposed project is the Lake Clark fault (see Quaternary
fault & fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956). The
relative activity of this structure is unknown.All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a
geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults,
tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate
appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving
construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault &
fold digital database: http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 39/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 40/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13017 Standard Application
KNUTSON CREEK HYDRO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)28.33
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.34
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $6,927,870 $6,927,870 Cost of Electricity $0.82/kWh
REF9 Grant Funds $1,710,000 $0 Price of Fuel $2.60/Gal
Matching Funds $5,000 $0 Household Energy Cost $7,117
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2
Application did not meet the minimum score of 40 points in stage 2. The application will not proceed to stage 3 per Section 4 – “Stage
2”, of the REF Process Manual.Project concerns:Cost estimate likely significantly low for whole project. Breaking project up over many
years with multiple mobilization and longer project management have much higher costs. Funding to complete project not identified so
break of many years before construction can resume if ever. Most recent cost estimate not provided, no supporting documentation
outlining cost estimate. $15k for annual O&M on hydro and diesel appears low.Applicant has not yet provided AEA with final
deliverables for Design and Permitting funding from 2013 AEA REF Round 6. Grant period of performance is being extended to end of
March 2021. This may be an indication to AEA that the proposed schedule is likely too condensed.As evidenced by the school closure
in 2011, due to low enrollment, market demand in the local area appears to be trending downward.Comments concerning funding of
future phases of construction are non-descript. Applicant states they have ability to service debt through own revenue, however, the
amount of debt service which could be taken on is unknown and insufficient to fund entire project.
Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 40/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 41/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13018 Standard Application
Project Type: Storage Energy Region: Northwest Artic
Applicant: Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Design
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design
Kotzebue Community-Scale Energy Storage System
Project Description
It is the Kotzebue Electric Association (KEA) Board of Director’s goal to achieve 50% renewable energy generation by 2025. To achieve
this goal, a community-scale Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) is necessary to manage variable generation from wind and solar
power. KEA installed and began operating a small lithium-ion BESS in 2015 that has been successful in allowing KEA to capture more
renewable energy, improve system reliability (outage mitigation) and reduce diesel importation. To reduce diesel importation by 50%,
maintain system reliability and capture more renewable energy, KEA proposes to construct a community scale BESS. The proposed
BESS will allow for 100+% renewable power generation from renewable resources (diesel-free power generation) and maximum use of
KEA’s wind and solar assets.
DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments
No NRO involvementPrivate/Municipal/Power PlantWe have no objection to any feasibility analysis proposed and would need more
information (likely derived from the feasibility and other planning analysis) to determine how public access afforded by RS 2477 ROWs
and 17(b) easements could be affected by such projects as they move towards maturity. DNR - PAAD Unit
DNR/DGGS Feasibility Comments
The DMLW Mining section reviewed the AEA projects from a mining stand point and did not note any issues that would affecting mining,
since the majority of the projects are not on state owned land and did not note any mining locations in the vicinity of the projects.
DNR/DGGS Geohazards Comments
All projects proposing the development of permanent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential
detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction,
subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of receiving construction permits, depending on location of
proposed site. Additional information on active faults is available in the Quaternary fault & fold digital database:
http://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/qff/, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff, and https://doi.org/10.14509/24956.
Page 41/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 42/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13018 Standard Application
Kotzebue Community-Scale Energy Storage System
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35)14.29 Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)48.54
2. Matching Resources (15)13.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.85
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)12.13
4. Project Readiness (5)3.07 Project Rank
5. Benefits (15)1.50 Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)8
6. Local Support (5)0.00 Regional (of all applications)2
7. Sustainability (5)3.77 Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)51.52
Total Stage 3 Score (100)51.52
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $3,675,000 $3,675,000 Cost of Electricity $0.41/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $325,000 $325,000 Price of Fuel $5.49/Gal
Matching Funds $100,000 $100,000 Household Energy Cost $7,264
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision
KEA is requesting grant monies in the amount of $325,000 for the final design and permitting phase of the integration of a BESS into
their local wind-solar-diesel power system. The scope of work relating to the use of grant monies as stated in the application is
concerning a system power flow study and a techno-economic study. These studies will be utilized in selecting the appropriate BESS
requirements for achieving 100% renewable energy penetration. KEA is an established utility with experience in developing and
operating a grid with multiple generation sources. KEA has demonstrated a commitment to integrating renewable energy system in their
grid through the development of both wind and solar systems at project site. KEA has also demonstrated experience in procurement
and operation of a small-scale BESS through their 2015 BESS implementation. AEA recommendation is full funding of $325,000 with
special provisions for the proposed project.Project Concerns:KEA did not adequately provide a sufficient amount of data relating to the
performance of their existing solar, wind, and BESS systems. This is a risk to the project as it does not provide sufficient evidence as to
the potential performance of the proposed system. A study assessing potential performance prior to the implementation of the 2015
BESS was provided, however, current performance data would be more helpful in this application.KEA's provided schedule seems a bit
tight considering that both the technical and economic studies are proposed to be conducted simultaneously. There is a risk that the
labor required to conduct these studies may become over-encumbered.KEA's stated O&M appears on the low end of the spectrum, with
$5,000 estimated yielding less than 100 man-hours per year.Anticipated diesel savings are likely under-estimated.Final design should
consider the integration of indicated those future wind turbines replacing the aging existing turbines.It is an assumption that the final
design will lend itself to the selection of the appropriate model BESS for KEA's existing grid.Significant cost overruns, while unlikely, are
a risk to the project as to extent of the overrun could affect the future financial position of the applicant.
Election District: T-40 Arctic
Page 42/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 43/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13019 Heat Application
Project Type: Biomass Energy Region: Railbelt
Applicant: City of Nenana Proposed Phase(s): Construction
Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): 0
NENANA BIOMASS AND WASHETERIA
Project Description
The city of Nenana is making remarkable strides towards the construction of a multi-purpose biomass facility. When completed, the
project will meet multiple needs within the city. For instance, it will supplement the heating requirements of municipal buildings and
house a washeteria (public showers, laundry, water filling station). The facility and operation will support local employment, support and
improve community sanitation, potentially revitalize local milling industry and the biproducts of the wood combustion will be a major
source of marketable biochar – a soil amendment that helps to increase soil fertility for agriculture
Page 43/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 44/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13019 Heat Application
NENANA BIOMASS AND WASHETERIA
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 4 Heat applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $1,048,000 $ Cost of Electricity $/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $894,000 $0 Price of Fuel $/Gal
Matching Funds $00 $0 Household Energy Cost
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Election District: C-6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border
Page 44/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 45/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13020 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind, Solar, Storage Energy Region: Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
Applicant: Akiachak Ltd.Proposed Phase(s): Recon
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon
Akiachak Reconnaissance Study
Project Description
Reconnaissance Study will focus on collecting and analyzing Akiachak's current diesel system and its wind and solar resources along
with its electric and thermal load data. This baseline data will then be used to create a conceptual design for an energy system that
incorporates wind/solar/battery with the current diesel system. A proposed costs and financing will also be included in the final
Reconnaissance Study Report.
Page 45/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 46/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13020 Standard Application
Akiachak Reconnaissance Study
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $91,000 $ Cost of Electricity $/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $91,000 $0 Price of Fuel $/Gal
Matching Funds $00 $0 Household Energy Cost
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Election District: S-38 Lower Kuskokwim
Page 46/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 47/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13021 Standard Application
Project Type: Wind, Solar, Storage Energy Region: Bristol Bay
Applicant: City of Port Heiden Proposed Phase(s): Recon
Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon
Port Heiden Reconnaissance study
Project Description
Reconnaissance Study will focus on collecting and analyzing Port Heiden's current diesel system and its wind and solar resources along
with Its electric and thermal load data. This baseline data will then be used to create a conceptual design for an energy system that
incorporates wind/solar/battery with the current diesel system. A proposed costs and financing will also be included in the final
Reconnaissance Study Report.
Page 47/50 01/13/2021
1/13/2021 reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13
reval.akenergyauthority.org/Application/SummaryReport?round=13 48/50
Renewable Energy Fund: Round 13 Application Summaries
App #13021 Standard Application
Port Heiden Reconnaissance study
Stage 3 Scoring Summary
Criterion (Max Score)Score Feasibility Analysis
1. Cost of Energy (35) Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)
2. Matching Resources (15) Benefit/Cost Ratio
3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)
4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank
5. Benefits (15) Statewide (of 19 Standard applications)
6. Local Support (5) Regional (of all applications)
7. Sustainability (5) Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)
Total Stage 3 Score (100)
Funding & Cost Requested Recommended
Total Cost Through Construction $91,000 $ Cost of Electricity $/kWh
REF13 Grant Funds $91,000 $0 Price of Fuel $/Gal
Matching Funds $00 $0 Household Energy Cost
AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1
Election District: S-37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim
Page 48/50 01/13/2021
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Renewable Energy
Fund Advisory
Committee (REFAC)
Alaska Energy Authority —
Renewable Energy Fund –Round XIII
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
SAFE,
RELIABLE, &
AFFORDABLE
ENERGY
SOLUTIONS
January 15, 2021
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
2
Welcome and Introductions
SAFE,
RELIABLE, &
AFFORDABLE
ENERGY
SOLUTIONS
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
3
Agenda
•10:00am-10:10pm Welcome and Introductions
•10:10am-10:20am REFAC Overview
•REF evaluation process
•REFAC advisory role
•10:20am-10:45am Informational Items
•Fund Balance
•Round XIII Request for Application Schedule
•Review of non-recommended applications
•Review of recommended application summaries
•10:45am-10:55am Action Items
•Solicitation of advice from committee members concerning Round XIII (13) REF application recommendations to the Legislature
•10:55am-11:00am Member comments
•11:00am Adjourn
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
REFAC Overview
4
•REF Evaluation Process
•REFAC Advisory Role
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
REFAC Advisory Committee
5
NAME TITLE SECTOR APPOINTED BY
Kohler,Meera CEO,Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Small rural electric utility Governor (pending)
VACANT TBD Business/organization involved
in renewable energy
Governor
Schubert,Gail CEO, Bering Straits Native Corporation Representative of an Alaska
Native Organization
Governor
Siira, Alicia Member,Denali Commission; Exec Dir,
Associated General Contractors of Alaska
Denali Commission Governor
Thibert,Lee CEO,Chugach Electric Association Large urban electric utility Governor
Von Imhof, Natasha Senator Senate Member 2 Senate President
Wilson, David Senator Senate Member 1 Senate President
Wool,Adam Representative House Member 2 Speaker of the House
Zulkosky, Tiffany Representative House Member 1 Speaker of the House
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.
*3 AAC 107.615 a project is a ”direct use” of RE resources if it uses renewable energy resources to generate or to make a fuel used to generate energy
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.
6
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 one is an evaluation of applicant and project eligibility and application completeness, 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 two) of the evaluation.
•The application must provide a detail description of the phase(s) of project proposed.
Applications which fail to meet the requirements of stage one will be rejected by the authority, and will notify each applicant whose application is rejected of the authority’s decision.
7
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 two 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
vendors.
The following items are evaluated as part of the stage two
evaluation, 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
•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. Those applications that score below 40 points in this stage will be automatically rejected by the authority, however, those projects scoring above 40 can 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.
8
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 three 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.
9
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 four 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.
10
Even Split
Energy Region Grant Funding % Total
Cost
burden
(HH
cost/HH
income)
Allocation cost
of energy basis
Additional
funding
needed to
reach 50%
% of
target
allocation % Total
Allocation
per capita
basis
Allocation
per region
basis
Aleutians $17,426,348 7%9.39%$17,935,444 ($8,458,626)97%1%$2,851,862 $21,991,472
Bering Straits $20,485,269 8%15.43%$29,456,220 ($5,757,159)70%1%$3,301,922 $21,991,472
Bristol Bay $10,911,982 5%14.40%$27,499,297 $2,837,666 40%1%$2,498,585 $21,991,472
Copper River/Chugach $23,793,838 10%6.93%$13,224,221 ($17,181,728)180%1%$3,090,571 $21,991,472
Kodiak $16,486,919 7%5.83%$11,132,481 ($10,920,678)148%1%$2,951,723 $21,991,472
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $37,237,089 15%17.83%$34,039,114 ($20,217,531)109%4%$8,971,788 $21,991,472
North Slope $1,251,859 1%3.87%$7,393,706 $2,444,994 17%1%$2,491,403 $21,991,472
Northwest Arctic $23,119,029 10%15.99%$30,540,928 ($7,848,564)76%1%$2,512,949 $21,991,472
Railbelt $22,059,938 9%5.05%$9,636,377 ($17,241,750)229%78%$188,445,503 $21,991,472
Southeast $54,193,791 22%5.48%$10,469,004 ($48,959,289)518%9%$22,566,950 $21,991,472
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $14,377,031 6%26.49%$50,579,402 $10,912,670 28%1%$2,222,940 $21,991,472
Statewide $563,101 0%0.00%
TOTAL $241,906,195 100%$241,906,195 100%$241,906,195 $241,906,195
Cumulative through Round 9
Cost of Power Allocation Population
Total Round
1-9 Funding
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
REF Round XIII funding limits are governed by the requested phase(s) in the application and the technology type applied. No grant request amounts were found to be in excess of the grant funding limits as stated.
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 Funding Limits
REF Round XIII Grant Funding Limits
11
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
12
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
REF Fund Balance
As of December 31st, 2020, the current REF Fund Balance is $6.5 million. The REF program is set to sunset in 2023. As indicated in the provided budget analysis, there are administrative costs related to operating budget appropriations allocated for FY22 and FY23 at $1.4 million per year.
With a current REF fund balance of $6.5 million, this is insufficient to cover the total grant requests of all 21 received applications of $12.8 million, a delta of ($6.2 million)
The current list of 11 recommended applications totals a recommended grant request of $4.7 million. With a REF fund balance of $6.5 million, this is sufficient to cover these requests with $1.7 million remaining for further appropriation or left within the fund, at the discretion of the Legislature.
13
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
EXPECTED DATE ACTION
Jul 20, 2020 RFA posted
Sep 28, 2020 Application submission deadline
Sep -Dec 2020 Evaluation of Applications
Jan 15,2021 REFAC Meeting
Jan 29, 2021 AEA deadline for recommendations to Legislature
July 1, 2021 Capital funds appropriated by Legislature –Grants could begin
Request for Applications Schedule –REF Round XIII
14
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Round XIII –Received Applications Summary
For REF Round XIII, AEA received a total of 21 applications yielding a total grant request of $12.8 million.
15
Energy Region No. of Applications Grant Funds Requested
Aleutians 2 1,995,163$
Bering Straits 1 368,822$
Bristol Bay 5 5,181,156$
Copper River/Chugach 1 294,642$
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 4 564,750$
Northwest Arctic 2 1,628,607$
Railbelt 2 963,349$
Southeast 3 1,177,474$
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 1 650,000$
Total 21 12,823,963$
Technology No. of Applications Grant Funds Requested
Biomass Heat 2 1,544,000$
Geothermal 2 1,220,085$
Heat (Other)1 69,349$
Heat Recovery 1 1,303,607$
Hydro 7 6,458,772$
Storage 1 325,000$
Wind 7 1,903,150$
Total 21 12,823,963$
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Round XIII –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 indicate a funding request:
(1)Reconnaissance
(2)Feasibility and Conceptual Design
(3)Final Design and Permitting
(4)Construction
*For purposes of tabulation, if an applicant applied for more than one phase, the first chronological phase was counted, with the latter phases being excluded.
16
Requested Phase No. of applications Grant Funds Requested
Reconnaissance 4 1,327,905$
Feasibility and Conceptual Design 8 4,637,321$
Final Design and Permitting 5 3,496,737$
Construction 4 3,362,000$
Total 21 12,823,963$
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Non-Recommended Applications –Summary
17
In AEA’s stage one evaluation, as per 3 AAC 107.635, it was determined that five applications did not meet the 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 issued to the applicants.
Owing to the subsequent stage two evaluation for the remaining applications, it was concluded by the authority that a further five applications, as per 3 AAC 107.645, were not technically and economically feasible. Applicants were then notified of their rejection. Four applicants appealed their rejections. Upon the authority’s receipt of the appeals, and af tera thorough review of the applicants’ applications, the rejections were upheld. The applicants were then notified in writing of AEA’s final determination of non-recommendation.
There are 11 remaining applications which are recommended, with 10 being rejected during stage one and stage two evaluations, of an initial total of 21 applications. In terms of grant funding requests, a total of $2 million was rejected in stage one and a total of $4 million rejected in stage two, yielding a total of $6.7 million in grant request monies remaining . With a current REF fund balance of $6.5 million, there are insufficient funds to cover the total grant request amount, prior to AEA funding level recommendations as addressed later in the presentation, with a delta of ($219,476).
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Non-Recommended Applications –Stage One
18
Below are the five identified applications which were rejected owing to the stage one evaluation:
Count
Energy
Region ID
Application
ID Applicant Name Project Name Technology
Requested
Phase(s)
Rejected
Stage
B/C
Ratio
Stage 2
Score
Grant
Request ($)Rejection Reasoning
1 Railbelt 1132 13004 University of Alaska Anchorage
Building Integrated
Technologies Potential in Alaska Heat (Other)Feas 1 N/A N/A $ 69,349 Ineligible project
2 Aleutians 1140 13012
University of Alaska Fairbanks -
Alaska Division of Geological &
Geophysical Surveys
Engineering Alaska's Geothermal
Energy- HSBV, Akutan Geothermal Recon; Feas 1 N/A N/A $ 851,263 Ineligible project
3 Railbelt 1147 13019 City of Nenana
NENANA BIOMASS AND
WASHETERIA
Biomass
Heat Const 1 N/A N/A $ 894,000 Late submittal, Incomplete application
4
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim 1148 13020 Akiachak Ltd & Subsidiaries Akiachak Reconnaissance Study Wind Recon 1 N/A N/A $ 91,000 Late submittal, Incomplete application
5 Bristol Bay 1149 13021 City of Port Heiden
Port Heiden Reconnaissance
study Wind Recon 1 N/A N/A $ 91,000 Late submittal
Total $ 1,996,612
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Non-Recommended Applications –Stage Two
19
Below, and continued on the following pages, are the five identified applications which were rejected owing to the stage two evaluation:
Count
Energy
Region ID
Application
ID Applicant Name Project Name Technology
Requested
Phase(s)
Rejected
Stage
B/C
Ratio
Stage 2
Score
Grant
Request ($)
1 Bristol Bay 1136 13008 City of Chignik
Chignik
Hydroelectric Dam
Project Hydro Design 2 0.57 24.67 $ 1,276,656
Reasoning
This project is not recommended due primarily to poor economics: high cost of study for marginal benefits and required long life
for the investment to achieve economic payback.
The potential load (diesel displacement) and resource (annual precipitation) are both very limited. Any decrease in load or
resource in a year will not be made up in another year because of the limitations of demand or resource.
Capital and operational costs are frequently greater than estimated. However, this application is for almost $1.3 million dollars
for final design and permitting of a small hydroelectric facility. Other projects can tend to have final design and permitting more
in the range of half a million dollars plus or minus.
Application did not meet the minimum score of 40 points in stage 2.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Non-Recommended Applications –Stage Two
20
Count
Energy
Region ID
Application
ID Applicant Name Project Name Technology
Requested
Phase(s)
Rejected
Stage
B/C
Ratio
Stage 2
Score
Grant
Request ($)
2 Bering Straits 1137 13009 Kawerak, Inc.
Pilgrim Hot Springs
Geothermal Power
Plant Conceptual
Design Geothermal Feas 2 1.01 42.46 $ 368,822
Reasoning
Insufficient information was available for the applicant analysis, so the AEA analysis is the same as that of the applicant. The
project’s public benefits may be significant but are not easily monetized and there is no existing electrical system to use as the
basis for estimating benefits from displaced diesel-generated electricity. For illustrative purposes we assume the applicant would
pursue the developments, without the geothermal resource, by using diesel generators.
The applicant assumes that the electrical system will lead to economic development and attract tourists. A demand/market
analysis or business plan could help to determine how many visitors can be expected and how many staff will be required to
operate the site.
This project is predicated on a future tourism- based community. The tourism demand is not fully developed, and subject to
seasonality and volatility.
The specified powerhouse capacity is based on the geothermal resource estimate, not an existing or estimated community
electrical load.
The detail and funding for the necessary business planning, tourism development, and infrastructure construction that would
justify the design and construction of a geothermal power plant at Pilgrim Hot Springs were not provided. Therefore, AEA does
not recommend funding this project.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Non-Recommended Applications –Stage Two
21
Count
Energy
Region ID
Application
ID Applicant Name Project Name Technology
Requested
Phase(s)
Rejected
Stage
B/C
Ratio
Stage 2
Score
Grant
Request ($)
3 Southeast 1143 13015
Burro Creek
Holdings, LLC
Burro Creek Hydro
Project Hydro Feas; Design 2 1.56 53.17 $ 586,000
Reasoning
This project is not recommended due primarily to lack of diesel displacement. Currently almost all energy used by local utility is
generated from hydropower such that an intertie with the local utility would not displace diesel fuel. Potential diesel loads to be
displaced are given as dock electrification, transmission to the Yukon for mine loads, and various electric transportation in
Skagway.
Electrification of dock for cruise ships poses very substantial technical challenges. Displacement of cruise ship power would occur
only part of the year and part of a week. A connection for cruise ships would not enable ships to go off diesel. Transportation
and mines are other possible future demands that are not currently present. The project likely has a significant higher direct and
indirect cost than estimated. Prior to any sales various infrastructure upgrades to the utility system would need to occur. Power
sales from this project would need to go through the local utility. The utility may choose to meet new loads by developing their
own projects and not purchasing power from an Independent Power Producer.
A large percent of the application is for a business plan. To determine the project market an Integrated Resources Plan needs to
be prepared with the local utility to determine the future possible loads and projects to meet the loads.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Count
Energy
Region ID
Application
ID Applicant Name Project Name Technology
Requested
Phase(s)
Rejected
Stage
B/C
Ratio
Stage 2
Score
Grant
Request ($)
4 Southeast 1144 13016
Community of Elfin
Cove Non-Profit
Corporation, Elfin
Cove Utility
Commission
Elfin Cove Hydro
Final Permitting and
Design Hydro Design 2 0.73 40.33 $ 130,000
Reasoning
This project is not recommended due primarily to poor economics: high cost of study for marginal benefits, required long life for
the investment to achieve economic payback and the associated uncertainty about whether the resource will be available used for
its economic life. The potential load (diesel displacement) and resource (annual precipitation) are both very limited. Any
decrease in load or resource in a year will not be made up another year because of the limitations of demand or resource.
Capital and operational costs are frequently greater than estimated. The construction cost estimate uses 18% for contingency.
This project will be small, remote, few bidders, and there are questions on how items will be constructed. Similar small projects in
the Southeast have had cost increases greater than 20%.
This phase of design and permitting work has received grant funding from the Renewable Energy Fund and the time and cost
have substantially increased from initial estimates. The substantial increases provide AEA with less confidence in completion of
current phase and construction phase.
Non-Recommended Applications –Stage Two
22
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Non-Recommended Applications –Stage Two
23
Count
Energy
Region ID
Application
ID Applicant Name Project Name Technology
Requested
Phase(s)
Rejected
Stage
B/C
Ratio
Stage 2
Score
Grant
Request ($)
5 Bristol Bay 1145 13017
Pedro Bay Village
Council
KNUTSON CREEK
HYDRO PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION Hydro Const 2 0.34 28.33 $ 1,710,000
TOTAL 4,071,478$
Reasoning
This project is not recommended due primarily to poor economics. With a B/C ratio of less than 1.0, the calculated future
benefits of the project are less than the costs. The model B/C Ratio calculated is likely optimistic as the capital construction cost
of the project and operation & maintenance costs for two systems (hydro and diesel) tend to be more than estimated.
Capital and operational costs are frequently greater than estimated. The Grant would be used for phase 1 of the project with
additional sources of funds not identified for phase 1 cost increases or future phases. This project will be small, remote, few
bidders, and breaking a project into phases over many years as funding is sought will increase costs because of multiple
mobilizations and length of project management time. There are significantly limited reasonable funding options that would be
available to the applicant to cover phase 1 cost increases/overruns or future phase costs in a timely manner. Any loan
commitments on the part of the applicant would further depress the B/C ratio. Application did not meet the minimum score of 40
points in stage 2.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Round XIII –Recommended Applications Summary
There are 11 remaining recommended applications, totaling $4.7 million. Two applications, pursuant to 3 AAC 170.655(b), are recommended for partial funding, for the initial phase of those requested by the applicant; this accounts for the reduction in grant monies requested from $6.7 million to $4.7 million.
24
Energy Region No. of applications Grant Funds Requested
Aleutians 1 139,000$
Bristol Bay 2 1,103,500$
Copper River/Chugach 1 294,642$
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 3 473,750$
Northwest Arctic 2 1,628,607$
Southeast 1 461,474$
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 1 650,000$
Total 11 4,750,973$
Technology No. of applications Grant Funds Requested
Biomass Heat 1 650,000$
Heat Recovery 1 1,303,607$
Hydro 3 1,756,116$
Storage 1 325,000$
Wind 5 716,250$
Total 11 4,750,973$
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Round XIII –Recommended Applications Summary
With a current REF Fund Balance of $6.5 million and a remaining total grant request amount of $4.7 million, there is sufficient REF funds to cover the recommended grant amounts, with a remaining $1.7 million remaining in the fund.
25
Requested Phase No. of Applications Grant Funds Requested
Reconnaissance 1 294,642$
Feasibility and Conceptual Design 5 1,608,250$
Final Design and Permitting 3 2,090,081$
Construction 2 758,000$
Total 11 4,750,973$
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Recommended Applications Overview –AEA Rank
26
Please see related summary report for details concerning the evaluation of the individual applications.
Count Energy Region ID
Application
ID Project Name Applicant Tech
B/C
Ratio
Impacted
Population
Household
Energy Cost
Stage 2
Score
Stage 3
Score
Regional
Rank
Statewide
Rank
Requested
Phase Cost
Applicant Grant
Requested
Applicant
Match Offered Rec Phase(s)
AEA Rec
Funding Level Rec Funding
Cumulative
Funding
1
Copper
River/Chugach 1141 13013 Cordova Hydro Storage Assessment Project
Cordova Electric
Cooperative, Inc.Hydro 0.99 2343 6,740$ 78.17 70.13 1 1 444,642$ 294,642$ 150,000$ Recon; Feas Full 294,642$ 4,317,973$
2 Southeast 1138 13010
Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design -
Hoonah, AK
Inside Passage Electric
Cooperative Hydro 1.35 782 6,297$ 85.83 70.09 1 2 536,474$ 461,474$ 75,000$ Design Full 461,474$ 2,719,724$
3
Yukon-
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana 1134 13006
Walter Northway School Wood Chip Heating
System
Alaska Gateway School
District
Biomass
Heat 1.42 60 8,246$ 84.54 69.7 1 3 683,500$ 650,000$ 62,375$ Const Full 650,000$ 2,119,250$
4
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim 1142 13014
Improved airfoil for wind turbines in
Kongiganak Puvurnaq Power Company Wind 2.02 523 8,111$ 89.5 69.66 1 4 117,000$ 108,000$ 9,000$ Const Full 108,000$ 4,425,973$
5 Northwest Arctic 1139 13011 Shungnak Heat Recovery Expansion City of Shungnak
Heat
Recovery 1.03 253 11,601$ 73.5 64.44 1 5 1,303,607$ 1,303,607$ -$ Design; Const Full 1,303,607$ 4,023,331$
6
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim 1130 13002
Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and
Conceptual Design Project
Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative, Inc.Wind 0.15 284 6,832$ 66.33 58.77 2 6 135,000$ 128,250$ 6,750$ Feas Full 128,250$ 1,128,250$
7 Bristol Bay 1129 13001
Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project (Run of
River Project)
Nushagak Electric &
Telephone Cooperative Hydro 0.25 3306 6,323$ 53.58 56.45 1 7 12,280,000$ 2,000,000$ 10,280,000$ Feas Partial 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
8
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim 1131 13003
Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual
Design Project
Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative, Inc.Wind 0.25 649 7,223$ 57.42 54.73 3 8 250,000$ 237,500$ 12,500$ Feas Full 237,500$ 1,365,750$
9 Bristol Bay 1133 13005
Naknek Service Area Wind and Solar Power
Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Naknek Electric Association,
Inc.Wind 0.63 488 7,814$ 50.33 53.45 2 9 115,000$ 103,500$ 11,500$ Feas Full 103,500$ 1,469,250$
10 Northwest Arctic 1146 13018
Kotzebue Community-Scale Energy Storage
System
Kotzebue Electric
Association Storage 0.85 3112 7,264$ 48.54 51.52 2 10 425,000$ 325,000$ 100,000$ Design Full w/ SP 325,000$ 4,750,973$
11 Aleutians 1135 13007
City of Unalaska Wind Power Feasibility and
Final Design
City of Unalaska -
Department of Public
Utilities Wind 0.54 4592 4,997$ 54.33 46.41 1 11 1,271,000$ 1,143,900$ 127,100$ Feas Partial 139,000$ 2,258,250$
TOTAL 17,561,223$ 6,755,873$ 4,750,973$
Note:
orange cells indicate heat project applications
blue cells indicate standard electric project applications
Recommended Projects Project Costs Recommendation
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Round XIII –Recommended Partial Funding
As part of the evaluation process and pursuant to 3 AAC 170.655(b), two application, as indicated below, have been recommended for partial funding. To caveat, if these partial funding recommendations are reversed and full funding recommended, this would raise the total grant request amount for all remaining 11 recommended applications to $6.7 million. At $6.7 million, the current REF fund balance of $6.5 million is insufficient to fund the total grant request amoun t, yielding a delta of ($219,476).
Application #13001 –Partial Funding: AEA is recommending funding for the feasibility and conceptual design portion of the project in the amount of $1,000,000, as indicated by the applicant in their application's budget schedule. Such funding does address the applicant's concern over phase II of their project regarding limited possible and eligible sources of funds for feasibility studies. The applicant is in a position to begin feasibility study work in the project site area owing to th eirsecuring of a special use permit from the Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources' Div. of Parks & Outdoor Recreation. AEA understands there are risks relating to the project regarding FERC permitting requirements and potential risks related to significant project cost overages. Owing to this, AEA finds that it is prudent and appropriate at this time to recommend only funding the feasibility and conceptual design portion of the proposed project.
27
Count Energy Region ID
Application
ID Project Name Applicant Technology
Stage 2 Score
(Tech/Econ)
Stage 3
Ranking Score
Regional
Rank
Statewide
Rank
Applicant
Phase(s)
Requested
Applicant
Grant
Requested
AEA
Recommended
Phase(s)
AEA Recommended
Funding Level
Recommended
Funding ($)Delta
6 Bristol Bay 1129 13001 Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project (Run of River Project)Nushagak Electric & Telephone Cooperative Hydro 53.58 56.45 1 6 Feas; Design 2,000,000$ Feas Partial 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
10 Aleutians 1135 13007 City of Unalaska Wind Power Feasibility and Final Design City of Unalaska - Department of Public Utilities Wind 54.33 46.41 1 10 Feas; Design 1,143,900$ Feas Partial 139,000$ 1,004,900$
TOTAL 3,143,900$ 1,139,000$ 2,004,900$
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Round XIII –Recommended Partial Funding
28
Application #13007 –Partial Funding: AEA recommends partial funding for the proposed project. It is recommended the feasibility and conceptual design (CDR) phase, requested at $139,000, be funded prior to funding the final design phase. The integration of the Geothermal plant, expected on-line in 2024, with the proposed wind system, potential ESS, and the existing diesel plant is complex and will likely require some study as part of the initial feasibility phase to gauge the requirements for integration. As the feasibility portion of the requested phases is anticipated to finish in April 2022, thisallows more time for other components of the project to develop and will refine the scope of the proposed wind system . Successful completion of the feasibility CDR will allow for a determination to be made on the selection of the generational capacity of the proposed wind system. At present, the applicant has provided a range of 2 to 5 MW.
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 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, Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana, and the North Slope 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.
29
Even Split
Energy Region Grant Funding % Total
Cost
burden
(HH
cost/HH
income)
Allocation cost
of energy basis
Additional
funding
needed to
reach 50%
% of
target
allocation % Total
Allocation
per capita
basis
Allocation
per region
basis
Aleutians $17,426,348 7%9.39%$17,935,444 ($8,458,626)97%1%$2,851,862 $21,991,472
Bering Straits $20,485,269 8%15.43%$29,456,220 ($5,757,159)70%1%$3,301,922 $21,991,472
Bristol Bay $10,911,982 5%14.40%$27,499,297 $2,837,666 40%1%$2,498,585 $21,991,472
Copper River/Chugach $23,793,838 10%6.93%$13,224,221 ($17,181,728)180%1%$3,090,571 $21,991,472
Kodiak $16,486,919 7%5.83%$11,132,481 ($10,920,678)148%1%$2,951,723 $21,991,472
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $37,237,089 15%17.83%$34,039,114 ($20,217,531)109%4%$8,971,788 $21,991,472
North Slope $1,251,859 1%3.87%$7,393,706 $2,444,994 17%1%$2,491,403 $21,991,472
Northwest Arctic $23,119,029 10%15.99%$30,540,928 ($7,848,564)76%1%$2,512,949 $21,991,472
Railbelt $22,059,938 9%5.05%$9,636,377 ($17,241,750)229%78%$188,445,503 $21,991,472
Southeast $54,193,791 22%5.48%$10,469,004 ($48,959,289)518%9%$22,566,950 $21,991,472
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $14,377,031 6%26.49%$50,579,402 $10,912,670 28%1%$2,222,940 $21,991,472
Statewide $563,101 0%0.00%
TOTAL $241,906,195 100%$241,906,195 100%$241,906,195 $241,906,195
Cumulative through Round 9
Cost of Power Allocation Population
Total Round
1-9 Funding
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN
ALASKA
Member comments
30
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 31
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
Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 4
4. Identify Rural Communities with only one genreator.
AEA “watch” list of communities down to one engine (or about to be).
Crooked Creek
Igiugig
Kongiganak
Levelock
Mertarvik
Napaskiak
Newtok
Ouzinkie
Venetie
Staff are monitoring and coordinating responses from contractors and providing technical
assistance.
1
Energy Act of 2020 – Action Items Appended
Note: **AEA** notation denotes AEA comment and/or action item
Title I – Efficiency
Section 1001 – Coordination of energy retrofitting assistance for schools - **AEA**
Section 1002 – Use of energy and water efficiency measures in Federal buildings
Section 1003 – Energy efficient data centers
Section 1004 – Energy-efficient and energy-saving information technologies
Section 1005 – Extended Product System Rebate Program - **AEA**
Section 1006 – Energy Efficient Transformer Rebate Program - **AEA**
Section 1007 – Smart building acceleration
Section 1008 – Modifications to the ceiling fan energy conservation standard
Section 1009 – Report on electrochromic glass
Section 1010 – Energy and water for sustainability
Section 1011 – Weatherization Assistance Program
Section 1012 – Federal Energy Management Program
Section 1013 – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Technical Assistance Partnership
Program - **AEA**
Section 1014 – Smart energy water efficiency pilot program
Title II – Nuclear - **AEA**
Section 2001 – Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability
Section 2002 – Amendments to definitions in Energy Policy Act of 2005
Section 2003 – Nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application programs
Section 2004 - High-performance computation collaborative research program
2
Section 2005 – Nuclear energy budget plan
Section 2006 – Organization and administration of programs
Section 2007 – Extension and expansion of limitations on importation of uranium from
Russian Federation
Section 2008 – Fusion energy research
Title III – Renewable Energy Research and Development
Section 3001 – Water power research and development
Section 3002 – Advanced geothermal innovation and leadership - **AEA**
Section 3003 – Wind energy research and development - **AEA**
Section 3004 – Solar energy research and development - **AEA**
Section 3005 – Hydroelectric production incentives and efficiency production - **AEA**
Section 3006 – Conforming Amendments
Subtitle B – Natural Resources Provisions - **AEA**
Section 3101 – Definitions
Section 3102 – Program to improve eligible project permit coordination
Section 3103 – Increasing economic certainty
Section 3104 – National goal for renewable energy production on Federal land
Section 3105 – Facilitation of coproduction of geothermal energy on oil and gas
Section 3106 – Savings clause
Subtitle C – Energy Storage
Section 3201 – Better energy storage technology
Section 3202 – Energy storage technology and microgrid assistance program -
**AEA**
Title IV - Carbon Management
3
Section 4001 – Fossil energy
Section 4002 – Establishment of carbon capture technology program
Section 4003 – Carbon storage validation and testing
Section 4004 – Carbon utilization program
Section 4005 – High efficiency turbines
Section 4006 – National energy technology laboratory reforms
Section 4007 – Study on Blue Hydrogen Technology
Section 4008 – Produced water research and development
Title V – Carbon Removal
Section 5001 – Carbon removal
Section 5002 – Carbon dioxide removal task force and report
Title VI - Industrial and Manufacturing Technologies
Section 6001 – Purpose
Section 6002 – Coordination of research and development of energy efficient technologies
for industry
Section 6003 – Industrial emissions reduction technology development program
Section 6004 – Industrial Technology Innovation Advisory Committee
Section 6005 – Technical assistance program to implement industrial emissions reductions
Section 6006 – Development of national smart manufacturing plan
Title VII – Critical Minerals
Section 7001 – Rare earth elements
Section 7002 – Mineral security
Section 7003 – Monitoring mineral investments under Belt and Road Initiative of People’s
Republic of China
Title VIII - Grid Modernization
4
Section 8001 – Smart grid regional demonstration initiative
Section 8002 – Smart grid modeling, visualization, architecture, and controls – **AEA**
Section 8003 – Integrated energy systems - **AEA**
Section 8004 – Grid integration research and development
Section 8005 – Advisory Committee
Section 8006 – Coordination of efforts - **AEA**
Section 8007 – Technology demonstration on the distribution grid - **AEA**
Section 8008 – Voluntary model pathways
Section 8009 – Performance metrics for electricity infrastructure providers
Section 8010 – Voluntary State, regional, and local electricity distribution planning -
**AEA**
Section 8011 – Micro-grid and integrated micro-grid systems program - **AEA**
Section 8012 – Technical amendments; authorization of appropriations
Section 8013 – Indian energy
Section 8014 – Report on electricity access and reliability - **AEA**
Section 8015 – Net metering study and evaluation - **AEA**
Title IX – Department of Energy Innovation
Section 9001 – Office of technology transitions
Section 9002 – Lab partnering service pilot program - **AEA**
Section 9003 – Technology commercialization fund
Section 9004 – Streamlining prize competitions
Section 9005 – Milestone-based demonstration projects
Section 9006 – Other transaction authority extension
Section 9007 – Technology transfer reports and evaluation
Section 9008 – Veterans’ health initiative
Section 9009 – Sustainable Transportation Research and Development
Section 9010 – Loan program office title XVII reform
Section 9011 – Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
5
Title X – ARPA-E Amendments
Section 10001 - ARPA-E amendments
Title XI – Other Matters
Section 11001 – Low-Dose Radiation Research - **AEA**
Section 11002 – Authorization
Section 11003 – Sense of Congress
Section 11004 – Addressing insufficient compensation of employees and other personnel of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Section 11005 – Report on the authority of the Secretary of Energy to implement flexible
compensation models
AEA General Comments
Source: Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources – Energy Act of 2020 Section by
Section
TITLE I – EFFICIENCY
• Section 1001 – Coordination of energy retrofitting assistance for schools.
o Section 1001 streamlines available federal energy efficiency programs and
financing to help improve efficiency and lower energy costs for schools.
o AEA Comments:
Program could increase access for Alaska public school entities, tribal
school entities and DoD operated schools to energy efficiency financing
programs and related technical assistance to improve long term cost
savings.
• Section 1002 - Use of energy and water efficiency measures in Federal buildings.
6
o Section 1002 amends the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) to
require the Department of Energy (DOE) to report to the President and Congress
on each agency’s energy savings performance contracts, including their investment
value; their initial guaranteed savings compared to actual energy savings from the
previous year; the plan for entering into new contracts in the coming year; and
information explaining why any previously submitted plans for contracts were not
implemented. The section further amends NECPA to allow agencies to accept,
retain, sell, or transfer energy savings and apply the proceeds to fund a
performance contract under this title. It excludes contracts for work performed at
federal hydropower facilities.
• Section 1003 - Energy efficient data centers.
o Section 1003 requires the development of a metric for data center energy
efficiency, and requires the Secretary of Energy, Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and Director of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to maintain a data center energy practitioner program and open data
initiative for federally owned and operated data center energy usage.
• Section 1004 – Energy-efficient and energy-saving information technologies.
o Section 1004 requires the OMB Director to collaborate with each federal agency to
implement energy-efficient and energy-saving information technologies.
• Section 1005 – Extended Product System Rebate Program.
o Section 1005 directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a rebate program to
encourage replacement of energy inefficient electric motors.
o AEA Comments:
Program has the potential to benefit AEA’s electric vehicle programs, such
as those electric school bus replacements as part of the VW settlement
7
program. Additionally, this program could be leveraged as a potential
matching funds source.
• Section 1006 – Energy Efficient Transformer Rebate Program.
o Section 1006 directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a rebate program to
encourage replacement of energy inefficient transformers.
o AEA Comments:
Depending on the details, Section 1006 may benefit AEA’s RPSU program
in rural village electric grid upgrades as well as the AK Intertie and Bradley
Lake transformer maintenance and upgrade efforts. This program could
also serve as a potential source for matching funds related to upgrading
and replacing rural distribution systems.
• Section 1007 – Smart building acceleration.
o Section 1007 directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a program to implement
smart building technology in federal buildings and demonstrate the costs and
benefits of smart buildings. The section requires the Secretary of Energy, as a part
of the Better Building Challenge, to develop smart building accelerators to
demonstrate innovative policies and approaches to accelerate the transition to
smart buildings. The section also establishes a research and development (R&D)
program focused on building-to-grid integration.
• Section 1008 – Modifications to the ceiling fan energy conservation standard.
o Section 1008 amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) by adding
language exempting large-diameter ceiling fans manufactured on or after January
21, 2020 from meeting minimum ceiling fan efficiency requirements as described
in the final rule titled “Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation
Standards for Ceiling Fans.” Establishes that large diameter ceiling fans shall meet
8
calculation of the Fan Energy Index in accordance with ANSI/AMCA Standard 208-
18.
• Section 1009 – Report on electrochromic glass.
o Section 1009 directs the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on the benefits
of electrochromic glass on energy consumption and occupant comfort in buildings.
• Section 1010 – Energy and water for sustainability.
o Section 1010 establishes an interagency committee, led by the Secretaries of
Energy and the Secretary of the Interior, to coordinate and collaborate on energy-
water nexus activities. It also requires the Secretary of Energy to integrate water
and energy considerations into DOE’s research, development, and demonstration
(RD&D) programs.
• Section 1011 – Weatherization Assistance Program.
o Section 1011 reauthorizes the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) through
fiscal year 2025. Amends EPCA to clarify that renewable energy technologies are
included in the definition of weatherization materials, and authorizes DOE to take
non-energy benefits, such as health and safety improvements, into account when
determining appropriate standards and procedures for WAP. This section further
amends EPCA to (1) make technical training grants available to private contractors
that provide weatherization assistance, and (2) add a new Section 414D to establish
a competitive grant program within WAP for new and innovative weatherization
services.
• Section 1012 – Federal Energy Management Program.
o Section 1012 amends NECPA to formally establish in law the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP). This section details FEMP’s directives and the duties
of its director.
9
• Section 1013 – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Technical Assistance Partnership Program.
o Section 1013 amends EPCA to re-designate DOE’s Clean Energy Application
Centers as the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Technical Assistance Partnership
Program (Program). The Program is required to include the 10 current regional
CHP Technical Assistance Partnerships, any others the Secretary of Energy
establishes, and any supporting activities under the Technical Partnership Program
of the Advanced Manufacturing Office. The Program must encourage deployment
of CHP, waste heat to power, and efficient district energy by providing education,
outreach, and project-specific support to building and industrial professionals
through assessments and advisory activities.
o AEA Comments:
The Pacific NW CHP partnership is currently assisting Providence Hospital-
Anchorage with a CHP feasibility analysis based on microturbines. AEA
facilitated that connection, as well as discussions between NW CHP and the
Lower Kuskokwim School District in Bethel. Continuation of this program
and additional funding has potential to benefit Railbelt CHP efforts as well
as rural heat recovery projects. AEA should consider becoming a partner.
• Section 1014 – Smart energy water efficiency pilot program.
o Section 1014 authorizes a new Smart Energy and Water Efficiency Pilot Program.
This pilot program provides grants to water authorities that provide water,
wastewater, or water reuse services for demonstrating advanced and innovative
technology-based solutions.
TITLE II – NUCLEAR
• AEA Comments:
o All of the nuclear-related policies below have potential to benefit AEA as we
continue our collaboration with ACEP, USDOE and Idaho National Labs to identify
10
and characterize potential sites in Alaska for a small modular nuclear reactor
project.
• Section 2001 – Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability.
o Section 2001 requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a program to support
the availability of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HA-LEU) for civilian domestic
research, development, demonstration, and commercial use. Requires the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to submit to Congress a report that identifies
updates to regulations, certifications, and other regulatory policies that the
Commission determines are necessary in order for HA-LEU to be commercially
available. This section also requires the Secretary of Energy to submit a report on
the new program, including schedule and cost estimates, and a report on advanced
fuel material availability to detail nuclear material inventories at DOE other than
those containing the uranium-235 isotope.
• Section 2002 – Amendments to definitions in Energy Policy Act of 2005.
o Section 2002 amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05) to update the
definition of “advanced nuclear reactor.”
• Section 2003 – Nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application programs.
o Section 2003 reauthorizes DOE’s nuclear energy research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application (RDD&CA) activities, including
advanced fuel, R&D for advanced reactors, used fuel technologies, and integration
of nuclear energy systems for both existing plants and advanced nuclear concepts.
This section also authorizes an advanced reactor demonstration program, funding
for the versatile test reactor, educational programs, as well as an international
coordination effort.
11
• Section 2004 - High-performance computation collaborative research program.
o Section 2004 amends EPACT05 to ensure coordination with other DOE programs
and industry to avoid the duplication of high-performance computing activities.
• Section 2005 – Nuclear energy budget plan.
o Section 2005 amends EPACT05 to include a biennial budget plan update which
shall be reported to relevant Congressional committees.
• Section 2006 – Organization and administration of programs.
o Section 2006 instructs the Secretary of Energy to coordinate cross-cutting
programs among other relevant Federal agencies and national laboratories,
collaborate with specific entities on programs, disseminate results of projects as
practicable, create an education and outreach program to promote public
understanding of the benefits of nuclear energy, and establish a nuclear energy
technical assistance program. It also requires the Nuclear Energy Advisory
Committee to perform an annual review of all programs.
• Section 2007 – Extension and expansion of limitations on importation of uranium from
Russian Federation.
o Section 2007 extends and expands limitations on importing uranium from Russia.
• Section 2008 – Fusion energy research.
o Section 2008 authorizes a program for fusion energy R&D to assist in the
establishment of a competitive fusion power industry. It also continues U.S.
participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) fusion
collaboration and requires a report to Congress on project schedule.
TITLE III – RENEWABLE ENERGY AND STORAGE
• Section 3001 – Water power research and development.
12
o Section 3001 reauthorizes DOE’s marine energy and hydropower RDD&CA
activities, including the National Marine Energy Centers and research on reducing
potential environmental impact and pumped storage hydropower technologies.
• Section 3002 – Advanced geothermal innovation and leadership.
o Section 3002 reauthorizes DOE’s geothermal energy RDD&CA program, including
enhanced geothermal research, additional geothermal demonstration projects,
including one specifically in the eastern United States, research for heat pumps and
direct use, and expansion of the DOE’s Frontier Observations for Research in
Geothermal Energy (FORGE) program. It also establishes a program to utilize DOE’s
computing and modeling capabilities to understand geothermal resources,
expands the definition of renewable energy to include thermal energy, and directs
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to update its geothermal resource assessments.
o AEA Comments:
Despite the lack of geothermal power development in Alaska, with the
exception of Chena Hot Springs, there is still considerable potential based
on the identified geothermal resources. Potential sites include Mt.
Makushin, Akutan, and Mt. Spurr. Heat pumps have proven effective in
Alaska locations with low power costs and high heating costs, such as SE
Alaska. Federal research and investment in enhanced geothermal systems
and heat pumps will benefit Alaska and AEA.
• Section 3003 – Wind energy research and development.
o Section 3003 reauthorizes DOE’s wind energy RDD&CA program, including
research on onshore, offshore, and distributed wind energy systems, advanced
manufacturing, grid integration, and wind system recycling, amongst other subject
areas. It also establishes a wind technician training grant program.
o AEA Comments:
13
This wind energy RDD&CA program could assist in putting AVEC wind
turbine to use. Wind tech training grant program is also an element which
could be leveraged by AEA to increase the scope of the existing rural energy
circuit rider program.
• Section 3004 – Solar energy research and development.
o Section 3004 reauthorizes DOE’s solar energy RDD&CA program, including
research on photovoltaic, heating and cooling, and concentrating solar energy
systems, grid integration, and photovoltaic recycling, among other subject areas.
It also establishes an advanced solar manufacturing initiative to enhance domestic
manufacturing capabilities.
o AEA Comments:
Solar applications in Alaska have increased dramatically in recent years, and
that trend is only expected to increase. New PV technologies, such as bi-
facial panels, are particularly suited for sub-arctic solar applications.
• Section 3005 – Hydroelectric production incentives and efficiency production.
o Section 3005 extends the incentives for hydroelectric production and efficiency
authorized in EPACT 2005 through fiscal year 2036 and expands support to include
small hydropower facilities in areas with inadequate electric service.
o AEA Comments:
This is beneficial to Alaska and AEA in consideration of the prevalence of
those current and future small, islanded, hydropower facilities throughout
the State. Such incentives will continue financially benefit owners or
operators of small hydro facilities through the issuance of incentive
payments for efficiency based capital improvements.
• Section 3006 – Conforming Amendments.
14
o Section 3006 makes conforming amendments to the existing code pursuant to the
contents of Sections 3001, 3003, and 3004.
SUBTITLE B – NATURAL RESOURCES PROVISIONS
• AEA Comments:
o Reducing barriers to energy development on federal lands will benefit Alaska
disproportionately, since Alaska has more federal lands than any other state. For
example, the Falls Creek hydro project in Gustavus took decades to obtain site
control because it required an act of Congress to allow a land trade between the
National Park Service and the State.
• Section 3101 – Definitions.
o Section 3101 defines key terms in the subtitle, including “covered land,” “Federal
land,” “land use plan,” and “eligible project” (for the purposes of this subtitle, a
wind, solar, or geothermal project)
• Section 3102 – Program to improve eligible project permit coordination.
o Section 3102 requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to
improve interagency cooperation for solar, wind, and geothermal permits on
Federal land.
• Section 3103 – Increasing economic certainty.
o Section 3103 provides flexibility for the Secretary of the Interior to ensure solar,
wind, and geothermal projects are cost competitive on Federal land.
• Section 3104 – National goal for renewable energy production on Federal land.
o Section 3104 requires the Secretary of the Interior to set national goals for wind,
solar, and geothermal energy production on Federal land no later than September
15
1, 2022. The Secretary shall seek to permit at least 25 gigawatts (GW) of electricity
from wind, solar, and geothermal projects by 2025.
• Section 3105 – Facilitation of coproduction of geothermal energy on oil and gas.
o Section 3105 allows noncompetitive leasing for geothermal energy on Federal
lands if it will be coproduced from an existing oil or gas well.
• Section 3106 – Savings clause.
o Section 3106 states that nothing in the subtitle shall change responsibilities of the
Secretaries of the Interior or Agriculture to manage public lands under the
principles of multiple use and sustained yield in accordance with the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act.
SUBTITLE C – ENERGY STORAGE
• Section 3201 – Better energy storage technology.
o Section 3201 establishes an RD&D program to advance energy storage
technologies and directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out energy storage
demonstration projects, as well as a competitive pilot project grant program. It also
establishes a joint long-term demonstration initiative with the Secretary of
Defense. This section further establishes an energy storage materials recycling R&D
program.
• Section 3202 – Energy storage technology and microgrid assistance program.
o Section 3202 establishes an energy storage and microgrid grant and technical
assistance program at DOE for rural electric cooperatives and public utilities to
assist with designing and demonstrating energy storage and microgrid projects
that use energy from renewable energy sources.
o AEA Comments:
16
Establishes potential for matching funds for rural Alaska microgrid energy
storage projects. Has the potential to provide proof of concept methods
of energy storage applications for those renewable energy systems in rural
Alaska where the renewable resources (wind, rainfall, etc…) are subject to
seasonal volatility, improving the overall efficiency of the renewable energy
systems.
TITLE IV – CARBON MANAGEMENT
• Section 4001 – Fossil energy.
o Section 4001 amends EPACT05 to include additional objectives for fossil energy
programs.
• Section 4002 – Establishment of carbon capture technology program.
o Section 4002 directs the Secretary of Energy to conduct RDD&CA activities for
carbon capture technologies. It also authorizes and encourages support for large-
scale pilot projects. This section includes carbon capture research facilities. Includes
a first-of-a-kind through third-of-akind commercial-scale carbon capture
technology demonstration program to show substantial improvements in the
efficiency, effectiveness, costs, and environmental performance of carbon capture
technologies for power, industrial, and other commercial applications.
• Section 4003 – Carbon storage validation and testing.
o Section 4003 directs the Secretary of Energy to establish an RD&D program for
carbon storage, a large-scale carbon sequestration demonstration program, and
an integrated storage program.
• Section 4004 – Carbon utilization program.
o Section 4004 establishes a DOE RD&D program for carbon utilization. This section
authorizes research to identify and evaluate novel uses for carbon, and includes a
program to demonstrate applications of carbon utilization for a variety of sectors.
17
Includes a national Carbon Utilization Research Center for early-stage R&D
activities.
• Section 4005 – High efficiency turbines.
o Section 4005 establishes a DOE RD&D program to improve the efficiency of various
types of gas turbines used in power generation and aviation.
• Section 4006 – National energy technology laboratory reforms.
o Section 4006 provides the Director of the National Energy Technology Laboratory
(NETL) special hiring authority to allow more effective recruiting of highly-talented
individuals for certain positions. It also delegates the Director additional human
resources authority to meet research needs. This section extends to NETL authority
for laboratory-directed R&D.
• Section 4007 – Study on Blue Hydrogen Technology.
o Section 4007 requires the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on the benefits
of blue hydrogen technology and how that technology can further enhance the
deployment and adoption of carbon capture and storage.
• Section 4008 – Produced water research and development.
o Section 4008 authorizes the Secretary of Energy to carry out an R&D program for
technologies to reduce the environmental impact of produced water and
opportunities to reprocess produced water at natural gas or oil development sites.
TITLE V – CARBON REMOVAL
• Section 5001 – Carbon removal.
o Section 5001 establishes an RD&D program to examine the methods, technologies,
and strategies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a large scale. It
also requires the Secretary of Energy to award prizes to pre-commercial and
18
commercial direct air capture projects for qualified facilities that capture carbon
dioxide directly from the ambient air. Authorizes Direct Air Capture Test Centers.
• Section 5002 – Carbon dioxide removal task force and report.
o Section 5002 directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare a report identifying tools
the Federal Government can use to advance deployment of carbon dioxide
removal projects. It also establishes a Carbon Dioxide Removal Task Force to advise
the Secretary of Energy on matters pertaining to carbon dioxide removal, identify
barriers to the advancement of carbon dioxide removal projects, and tools for
advancing and deploying such projects.
TITLE VI - INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES
• Section 6001 – Purpose.
o Section 6001 outlines the purposes of the title, which are to encourage the
development and evaluation of technologies that increase the technological and
economic competitiveness of U.S. industry and manufacturing and decrease the
emissions of non-power industrial sectors.
• Section 6002 – Coordination of research and development of energy efficient technologies
for industry.
o Section 6002 updates the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections
Act to ensure references in the Act reflect the current organization of DOE.
• Section 6003 – Industrial emissions reduction technology development program.
o Section 6003 establishes a cross-cutting RDD&CA program to further development
and commercialization of economic and competitive technologies that reduce
emissions from nonpower industrial sectors. The program focuses on several areas,
including reducing emissions from production processes for iron, steel, aluminum,
cement, and chemical production, as well as from high temperature heat
generation. The program also encourages leveraging smart manufacturing and
19
sustainable manufacturing; increasing energy efficiency; using alternative materials
and developing net-zero emissions fuels. It further focuses on reducing emissions
from shipping, aviation, and long-distance transportation; using industrial carbon
capture; and harnessing high-performance computing to develop technologies in
these focus areas.
• Section 6004 – Industrial Technology Innovation Advisory Committee.
o Section 6004 authorizes a Federal Advisory Committee composed of members
from relevant federal agencies, labor groups, academia, national labs, nonprofit
organizations, State government, and industry. The advisory committee is directed
to work with the Secretary of Energy to develop missions and goals of the program
established in Section 6003, as well as to develop a strategic plan on how to achieve
those goals.
• Section 6005 – Technical assistance program to implement industrial emissions reductions.
o Section 6005 authorizes a program to provide technical assistance to eligible
entities to promote commercial application of technologies that reduce emissions
from the sectors identified in Section 6003.
• Section 6006 – Development of national smart manufacturing plan.
o Section 6006 requires the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the National
Academies, to develop a national plan for smart manufacturing technology
development and deployment to improve domestic manufacturing sector
productivity and efficiency.
TITLE VII – CRITICAL MINERALS
• Section 7001 – Rare earth elements.
o Section 7001 requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out an R&D program to
develop advanced separation technologies for the extraction and recovery of rare
earth elements (REEs) and other critical materials from coal and coal byproducts,
20
as well as mitigate any potential environmental and public health impacts of such
activities. It also directs the Secretary of Energy to provide a report to Congress
that evaluates the development of advanced separation technologies for the
extraction and recovery of REEs and other critical materials from coal and coal
byproducts
• Section 7002 – Mineral security.
o Section 7002 promotes a secure and robust critical minerals supply chain by (1)
requiring the executive branch designate a list of critical minerals and update that
list every three years; (2) requiring USGS to conduct domestic resource assessments
of critical minerals and to make that information publicly available; (3) requiring
the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture to publish critical
mineral Federal Register notices within 45 days of being finalized; (4) directing the
Secretary of Energy to conduct an RDD&CA program on the development of
alternatives to, recycling of, and efficient production and use of critical materials
(which may be carried out by DOE’s Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub); (5)
directing the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Energy Information
Administration to develop analytical and forecasting tools to evaluate critical
minerals markets; (6) requiring the Secretary of Labor and the Director of the
National Science Foundation to develop curriculum and a program for institutions
of higher education to build a strong critical minerals workforce; and (7)
reauthorizing the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program
through fiscal year 2029.
• Section 7003 – Monitoring mineral investments under Belt and Road Initiative of People’s
Republic of China.
o Section 7003 requires the Director of National Intelligence to study and submit to
Congress a report of investments in minerals by the People’s Republic of China. It
further directs the Director to make recommendations to the Secretary of the
21
Interior when designating minerals as critical per the designation criteria in Section
7002.
TITLE VIII – GRID MODERNIZATION
• Section 8001 – Smart grid regional demonstration initiative.
o Section 8001 reauthorizes the smart grid demonstration program in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, and adds the commercial application of
distribution automation technologies to the goals of the program.
• Section 8002 – Smart grid modeling, visualization, architecture, and controls.
o Section 8002 authorizes an RDD&CA program on: modeling emerging
technologies for secure and reliable design of the grid, as well as technologies to
improve sensing, monitoring, and visualization of the grid. It also authorizes
RDD&CA on development of grid architectures for a modern grid; operation and
controls of the grid; interoperability of emerging technologies with existing electric
grid infrastructure; and underground transmission and distribution lines.
o AEA Comments:
This program may benefit the IMC’s efforts to improve modeling of the
Railbelt Grid, as well as the RRC’s efforts to modernize and encourage new
interconnections to the Grid.
• Section 8003 – Integrated energy systems.
o Section 8003 authorizes an RD&D program to develop cost-effective integrated
energy systems for a variety of purposes and incorporating a variety of
technologies, including nuclear energy, renewable energy, storage, and carbon
capture. The section directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a 10-year strategic
plan on integrated energy systems.
o AEA Comments:
22
AEA anticipates a significant increase in Railbelt Grid and rural microgrid
integration and interconnection projects in coming years. This effort would
support those projects.
• Section 8004 – Grid integration research and development.
o Section 8004 authorizes DOE RD&D activities on integrating renewable energy and
electric vehicles onto the electric grid.
o AEA Comments:
Federal RD&D activities concerning section 8004 could be beneficial to AEA
as it seeks to integrate future EV charging stations along the Alaska
roadway network and renewable energy projects within the existing electric
grid.
• Section 8005 – Advisory Committee.
o Section 8005 directs the Secretary of Energy to designate an existing advisory
committee to assist with identifying R&D needs, assessing progress on R&D
activities, and updating technology roadmaps for the activities authorized in
Sections 8001 and 8002.
• Section 8006 – Coordination of efforts.
o Section 8006 directs the Secretary of Energy to coordinate with relevant entities on
the activities authorized in the amendments made in this title, including electric
utilities, transmission organizations, State, Tribal, and local governments, and the
national labs, among other entities.
o AEA Comments:
AEA should request to be a participant of such federal grid modernization
coordination efforts
• Section 8007 – Technology demonstration on the distribution grid.
23
o Section 8007 requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a grant program to carry
out projects related to modernization of the electric grid, including for distribution
system technologies.
o AEA Comments:
Great opportunity for distribution upgrade matching funds. Consider
assessing and ranking distribution systems.
• Section 8008 – Voluntary model pathways.
o Section 8008 requires the Secretary of Energy to initiate development of voluntary
model pathways for modernizing the electric grid through a collaborative public-
private effort that produces illustrative policy pathways for states, regions, and
regulators, and facilitates the modernization of the grid and associated
communications networks.
• Section 8009 – Performance metrics for electricity infrastructure providers.
o Section 8009 directs the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the steering
committee, to submit a report to Congress that includes an evaluation of grid
performance and a description of the costs and benefits identified in grid modeling
and visualization work.
• Section 8010 – Voluntary State, regional, and local electricity distribution planning.
o Section 8010 directs the Secretary of Energy to provide, on the request of a state,
regional organization, or electric utility, assistance to develop electricity
distribution plans by conducting resource assessments and analysis of further
demand and distribution requirements, and developing open source tools for
state, regional, and local planning and operations.
o AEA Comments:
AEA should act on this voluntary request, per section 8010, and seek
assistance in developing distribution plans and related open source
24
planning and operational tools for further refinement of past and/or
creation of new regional energy plans. These plans would also serve as
beneficial resource to local utilities in their local electricity distribution
planning.
• Section 8011 – Micro-grid and integrated micro-grid systems program.
o Section 8011 directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a program to promote
development of integrated micro-grid systems for isolated communities and
micro-grid systems to increase critical infrastructure resiliency. It also authorizes
micro-grid demonstration grants for isolated communities, rural electric
cooperatives, and municipalities.
o AEA Comments:
The types of Microgrids AEA builds in rural Alaska are particularly relevant
to the goals of this program. Grant funds allocated for Alaska-based
projects should be directed through AEA.
• Section 8012 – Technical amendments; authorization of appropriations.
o Section 8012 makes technical amendments to existing statutes and authorizes
appropriations to carry out Sections 8001 through 8011 of this title.
• Section 8013 – Indian energy.
o Section 8013 amends section 2601(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to include
any land occupied by a majority of residents who are members of Alaskan Native
Tribes in the definition of Indian Land. The section also allows the Secretary of
Energy to reduce any required cost share for energy projects funded through the
Office of Indian Energy.
• Section 8014 – Report on electricity access and reliability.
25
o Section 8014 requires the Secretary of Energy to assess electricity access and
reliability by Tribal communities and to produce a report based on the findings of
the assessment. The Secretary of Energy must consult with Tribal governments in
the design and conduct of the study and consult with the North American Electric
Reliability Council (NERC) and FERC in conducting the study.
o AEA Comments:
More than any other state energy office, AEA could contribute to this study
based on its depth of expertise and experience developing Microgrids for
Rural Alaska tribal communities. AEA should serve as the primary point of
contact for all tribal entities in Alaska relating to reliability. AEA should
promote its existing expertise with the PCE program to secure this effort.
• Section 8015 – Net metering study and evaluation.
o Section 8015 directs the Secretary of Energy to enter into an agreement with the
National Academies to conduct an evaluation of the current challenges associated
with net metering and report on new and alternative technologies to improve net
metering.
o AEA Comments:
Alaska has seen tremendous growth in net metering since it was passed
into law in Alaska in 2010. In recent years both GVEA and HEA have
requested RCA approval to expand their net metering limits beyond what
was originally required. As participation increases, the unintended
consequence of transferring costs to other customers becomes a bigger
concern. This issue needs to be addressed in Alaska and so would benefit
from the proposed study.
TITLE IX – DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY INNOVATION
• Section 9001 – Office of technology transitions.
o Section 9001 establishes an Office of Technology Transitions, the mission of which
is to improve the commercial impact of the research investments of DOE and to
26
focus on commercializing technologies that advance the missions of DOE,
including reducing greenhouse 11 gas emissions and other pollutants. It requires
the Secretary of Energy to appoint a Chief Commercialization Officer to serve as
the head of the Office and as the principal advisor on all matters relating to DOE
technology transfer. The section also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to carry
out additional technology transfer programs, including supporting regional energy
innovation and clean energy incubators, providing small business vouchers, and
assisting entrepreneurial fellowships, among other activities.
• Section 9002 – Lab partnering service pilot program.
o Section 9002 establishes a Lab Partnering Service Pilot Program at DOE to provide
services that encourage and support partnerships between the national
laboratories and public and private sector entities. The Secretary of Energy is
directed to support the development of metrics to determine the effectiveness of
the pilot program.
o AEA Comments:
AEA should be the primary point of contact for Alaska, especially with
reference to rural Alaska communities.
• Section 9003 – Technology commercialization fund.
o Section 9003 reauthorizes the Technology Commercialization Fund (Fund) at DOE
and mandates cost-share in accordance with Section 988 of EPACT05, clarifies
requirements for evaluating and selecting applications for funding, and requires an
annual report on the projects that the Secretary of Energy has funded each year.
The section also requires a report on means to improve the administration of the
Fund.
• Section 9004 – Streamlining prize competitions.
27
o Section 9004 requires the Secretary of Energy to issue Department-wide guidance
on the design, development, and implementation of prize competitions, and
provide training and prize competition design support, among other activities.
• Section 9005 – Milestone-based demonstration projects.
o Section 9005 authorizes the Secretary of Energy to carry out milestone-based
demonstration projects that require specific technical and financial milestones to
be met in order for a participant to receive funding from DOE, with cost-share
requirements in accordance with Section 988 of EPACT05.
• Section 9006 – Other transaction authority extension.
o Section 9006 extends authorization of the Other Transaction Authority granted
under subsection 646(g)(10) of the Department of Energy Organization Act by 10
years. It also provides that the provisions of Section 602 of the Public Works and
Economic Development Act of 1965 shall apply with respect to construction,
alteration, or repair work of projects funded by grants or contracts authorized
under Sections 3001, 3003, 3004, 5001, 8007, and the amendments made by such
sections.
• Section 9007 – Technology transfer reports and evaluation.
o Section 9007 requires the Secretary of Energy to submit annual reports on the
implementation of Sections 9001-9005 of this Title and to submit an evaluation
every three years on the extent to which these programs are achieving success on
relevant short-term and long-term metrics. The section also requires the Secretary
of Energy to work with the National Academies to issue a report on any
programmatic gaps that exist to the commercial application of technologies
developed at the national laboratories.
• Section 9008 – Veterans’ health initiative.
28
o Section 9008 requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a research program in
artificial intelligence and high-performance computing focused on developing
tools to solve big data challenges associated with veterans’ health care. It also
authorizes the Secretary of Energy to develop tools to apply to big data challenges
across federal agencies to leverage DOE capabilities to solve complex problems
through a competitive, merit-reviewed process.
• Section 9009 – Sustainable Transportation Research and Development.
o Section 9009 reauthorizes DOE’s RDD&CA activities within the Offices of Hydrogen
and Fuel Cell Technologies, Vehicle Technologies, and Bioenergy Technologies for
FY 2021 through 2023.
• Section 9010 – Loan program office title XVII reform.
o Section 9010 amends Title XVII of EPACT05 to defer collection of fees and other
expenses from applicants until financial closing, expand project eligibility. It also
adds provisions on analysis by the Secretary of the Treasury, application status,
outreach, coordination, and reports to Congress. The section authorizes funding
from FY 2021-2025 for administrative and other expenses, and additional funding
for administrative expenses not otherwise covered by fees collected from project
applicants.
• Section 9011 – Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research.
o Section 9011 directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program to broaden
support and provide grants for science and engineering research in applied energy,
environmental management, and basic science.
TITLE X – ARPA-E AMENDMENTS
• Section 10001 - ARPA-E amendments.
o Section 10001 amends the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 16538(b)) to
authorize ARPA-E to support projects addressing nuclear waste clean-up and
29
management, and to improve the resilience, reliability, and security of our energy
infrastructure, in addition to its existing missions. It also adds an annual reporting
requirement on ARPA-E’s scale-up, demonstration, and coordination activities.
TITLE XI – OTHER MATTERS
• Section 11001 – Low-Dose Radiation Research.
o Section 11001 requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a research program on
low dose and low dose rate radiation to enhance the understanding of the effects
of such radiation and inform subsequent risk assessment and management.
o AEA Comments:
If AEA participates in the planning and construction of a small modular
reactor in Alaska as planned, this research will be valuable to respond to
concerns about possible radiation exposure.
• Section 11002 – Authorization.
o Section 11002 amends section 112(a)(1)(B) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978 to authorize the operation of the Cheney disposal cell through
September 30, 2031.
• Section 11003 – Sense of Congress.
o Section 11003 expresses the Sense of Congress that in order to maintain U.S.
leadership in science and technology while lowering emissions, DOE must prioritize
funding for fundamental research, and research and development infrastructure.
• Section 11004 – Addressing insufficient compensation of employees and other personnel of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
o Section 11004 authorizes the Chairman of the Commission, under certain
conditions and subject to limitations, to compensate persons with scientific,
technological, engineering, and mathematical skills as may be required.
30
• Section 11005 – Report on the authority of the Secretary of Energy to implement flexible
compensation models.
o Section 110005 requires the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to Congress on
the hiring authority made available to the Secretary of Energy by the Office of
Personnel Management.
AEA GENERAL COMMENTS
• No reference to the State Energy Program (SEP).
• Increase in efficiency programs focused on schools. See section 1001.
• For Alaska Housing Finance Corp (AHFC), the changes to Weatherization Assistance
Program (WAP) appear to be in line with what they need. See section 1011.
• Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is referenced, but not seemingly expanded. It would be
beneficial to have some available funding for feasibility related projects. While the
program is entitled CHP, AEA utilizes the funding for Heat Recovery (HR). See section
1013.
• Programs like wind, geothermal, and solar will get a boost, per AEA can pull in program
funds if AEA would have a program manager watching for the opportunities. Again, what
would AEA programs look and what is the end result? Does AEA want to be an information
resource, or does it want to support the installation of projects? See section 3002 through
3005.
• Indian Energy – change to the program is unclear. The ability to reduce required match
was already an element of the program. Perhaps the change expands on how funding is
procured. It would be important to know if AEA could support Indian Energy applications
and then administer the projects on behalf of the interested community. See section 8013.
RETURN TO BEGINNING OF DOCUMENT
Award No Project Name DC Funding Perf. Period Beg Perf. Period Thru Actions Since Last Report
Estimated Jobs
Created
Permanent Jobs
Created
01349-09 RPSU - Togiak-Twin Hills Intertie 4,187,221 2/15/2011 9/30/2021 None 26 2
01432-09 BFU - Tatitlek 1,472,000 6/1/2013 12/31/2021 None 30 2
01474-07 BFU - Chalkytsik 517,500 6/16/2015 12/31/2021 None 30 2
01485-04 START Communities Tech Asst 375,000 11/1/2015 6/30/2022 None 2 0
01492-08 BFU - Beaver 608,000 7/6/2016 12/31/2021 None 5 2
01500-06 Bulk Fuel Operator Training 1,010,000 9/1/2016 12/31/2021 None 3 0
01515-08 Circuit Rider Program 1,200,000 1/1/2017 12/31/2021 Add $300,000; extend to 12/31/2022 3 0
01516-07 RPSU - Maintenance & Improvement 748,776 10/1/2016 12/31/2022 None 20 0
01523-07 Miscellaneious Small M&I Projects 1,220,000 6/1/2017 12/31/2021 Add $350,000; extend to 12/31/2022 20 0
01525-05 Power Plant Operator Training 647,514 8/15/2017 9/30/2021 None 3 0
01544-03 Itinerant Utility Training 500,000 3/1/2018 6/30/2021 None 3 0
01548-06 RPSU M&I - Statewide 2,550,000 5/1/2018 12/31/2021 None 20 0
01549-04 RPSU Inventory & Assessment - Statewide 300,000 4/18/2018 12/31/2021 None 20 0
01550-03 RPSU - Akhiok 1,500,000 5/1/2018 9/30/2021 None 26 2
01551-04 RPSU - Venetie 250,000 5/1/2018 12/31/2020 None 5 2
01557-02 Barge Headers and Fill Lines 3,976,820 10/1/2018 12/31/2022 None 60 0
01571-01 BFU - Nunapitchuk 3,522,546 8/15/2019 12/31/2022 None 30 2
01573-01 BFO In Community Training 40,000 8/15/2019 12/31/2020 None 2 0
01574-02 RPSU - Nikolai 1,733,740 8/1/2019 3/31/2023 Add $1,382,690; extend to 03/31/2023 5 2
01575-02 RPSU - Nelson Lagoon 135,455 8/1/2019 6/30/2021 None 5 2
01576-03 RPSU - Rampart 1,733,740 8/1/2019 3/31/2023 Add $1,382,690; extend to 03/31/2023 5 2
01577-03 RPSU - Napaskiak 335,455 8/1/2019 12/31/2021 None 26 2
01592-00 BFU - Scammon Bay 300,000 2/17/2020 3/31/2021 None 5 2
01600-00 VEEP - Statewide 875,000 6/15/2020 12/31/2022 Add $375,000; extend to 12/31/2022 3 0
01610-01 BFU - Ekwok 100,000 9/1/2020 9/30/2021 None 30 2
01611-00 Engineering Library 100,000 9/1/2020 6/30/2022 None 1 0
01618-00 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project 2,880,000 9/1/2020 12/31/2022 None 65 2
01628-00 Craig High School Biomass Project 440,417 11/1/2020 12/31/2021 None 8 2
Total Funding for Active DC Awards:33,259,184
Less Total Spending on Active DC Awards:(14,023,074)
Total Funding Remaining on Active DC Awards:19,236,110
Active Denali Commission Awards
As of 02/17/2021
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
RGYAUTHORITY.ORG
AEA Rural Program & Project Highlights
2/3/21 AEA Board Meeting
RPSU / BFU M&I Projects
Maintenance and Improvement projects seek to target at risk infrastructure to
ensure the facilities meet there intended useful life. The project sizes are smaller
than a full replacement and maximize the effectiveness of decreasing funds.
RPSU M&I
24 projects construction planned for FY22-23
Total Budget $1.79 million
BFU M&I
6 projects construction planned for FY22-23
Total Budget $2.1 million
Denali Commission Funding
Denali Commission (DC) funding for State FY21-22. AEA was successful in
obtaining an approximately 5 million in program and project funding
commitment primarily for rural programs and projects. These funds are
leveraged by matching State funding for capital projects at a 20% State to 80%
DC. The Denali Commission is the primary federal funding partner for AEA rural
programs. About 3.8 million has currently been awarded to AEA.
Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) - Inventory and Assessment
The Inventory and Assessment project is about 75%. 127 power houses have
been 3d imaged and the power generation systems assessed. Completion is
anticpated in the second quarter of 2021. This effort will be the basis for project
priority lists for Rural programs as required by 3 AAC 108.11
Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2
AEA Active Rural Projects
$20,407,022
$24,373,751
$4,718,857
$3,113,898
Active Projects Total Budgeted
BFU RPSU Training Circuit Rider
15
52
8
85
Total Active Projects
BFU RPSU Training Circuit Rider
AEA LOAN DASHBOARD REPORT
AEA POWER PROJECT LOAN FUND
YEAR TO DATE
07/01/2020 LOAN ACTIVITY EARNINGS
START DATE LOAN CATEGORY STARTING
BALANCE
FUNDS
DISBURSED
PAYMENTS
RECEIVED
ENDING
BALANCE
INTEREST
RECEIVED
LATE FEES
RECEIVED
INTEREST +
LATE FEES
20 AEA POWER PROJECT FUND LOANS 27,560,262 755,554 (429,131) 27,886,685 220,056 1,562 221,618
TOTAL # OF PPF LOANS
4 LOAN PROGRAM SUMMARY
# OF DELINQUENT PPF
LOANS Outstanding Loans per Trial Balance 27,886,685.17$
127,754.15$ Uncommitted Cash Balance 10,701,681.51$
LOANS DELINQUENT
AMOUNT ($)Loan Commitments 207,738.01$
0.419%Total Loan Program 38,796,104.69$
% OF DELINQUENT
LOANS TO PORTFOLIO
BALANCE
01/31/2021
END DATE
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE LOAN PORTFOLIO ACTIVITY (07/01/2020 - 01/31/2021 )
Waterfall Creek Hydro - King Cove, Alaska
Print Date: 2/17/2021
Page 1 of 2
AEA POWER PROJECT FUND LOANS BY ENERGY REGION & PROJECT TYPE
OUTSTANDING BALANCES & NEW ACTIVITY
ENERGY REGION AEA PPF LOAN
BALANCE
REMAINING
LOAN
COMMITMENTS
NEW
APPLICATIONS
IN PROCESS
# OF AEA PPF
LOANS TOTAL
ALEUTIANS 2,514,602 - 65,000 4 2,579,602
BERING STRAITS - - - - -
BRISTOL BAY 451,906 - 514,500 2 966,406
COPPER RIVER/
CHUGACH - - - - -
KODIAK 38,000 - - 1 38,000
LOWER YUKON-
KUSKOKWIM 322,271 - - 2 322,271
NORTH SLOPE - - - - -
NORTHWEST ARCTIC - - - - -
RAILBELT 4,015,661 - - 3 4,015,661
SOUTHEAST 20,351,422 164,135 - 3 20,515,557
27893070.2 YUKON-KOYUKUK/
UPPER TANANA 192,823 43,603 4,083,114 5 4,319,540 10422145.37
58569.36 27,886,685 207,738 4,662,614 20 32,757,037 TOTAL
BIOMASS
$97,307
CONSERVATION
$0DIESEL
$913,295
HYDRO
$24,327,308
SOLAR
$785,859
TRANSMISSION
$1,824,285
TANK FARM
$2,258,829
WIND
$2,550,154
AEA PPF LOANS BY PROJECT TYPE -NEW & OUTSTANDING BALANCE
BIOMASS
1
CONSERVATION
0
DIESEL
5
HYDRO
7
SOLAR
1
TRANSMISSION
1
TANK FARM
1
WIND
4
AEA PPF LOANS BY PROJECT TYPE
Print Date: 2/17/2021
Page 2 of 2
Curtis ThayerExecutive Director - AEAPCN 08-0208VacantChief Operating OfficerPCN 08-0206Bryan CareyOwned Assets/Hydro Group MgrPCN 08-X071Keith DivollPCE TechnicianPCN 08-X075Jennifer BertoliniExecutive AsstPCN 08-0219VacantAdmin AsstPCN 08-0410Kirk WarrenDir Engineering & Energy DevelopmentPCN 08-0491VacantPlanning ManagerPCN 21-7014Josephine HartleyProject Manager Program MangerPCN 08-0443 Vacant Safety/Whs PCN 08-0440Jacob CryderRural Electric Utility WorkerPCN 21-7010Kyler KillmerCircuit Rider TechnicianPCN 08-X003Justin TuomiRural Electric Utility WorkerPCN 21-7012Tim SandstromDir Rural ProgramsPCN 08-0466Alan FettersRural Assist MgrPCN 08-0231TW PatchDirector Planning PCN 08-0230Daniel JohnstonProject ManagerPCN 08-X007Phillip ChandonnetCircuit Rider TechPCN 08-X029Rebecca GarrettProject ManagerPCN 08-0403Brandy Dixon Communications Director PCN 08-X034Owen BerklundSr AccountantPCN 08-0457Vacant IFD AmblerPCN 08-0233Justin CrowtherSystems ProgrammerPCN 08-X076Robert HawkinsMIS AdministratorPCN 08-0227Vacant Analyst ProgrammerPCN 08-X037William PriceProject ManagerPCN 08-0222Alan WeitznerExecutive Director - AIDEAPCN 08-0200Mark Davis Chief Infrastructure Dev OfficerPCN 08-0224Chris AndersonCommercial Fin DirPCN 08-0201Amy AdlerInterim CFOPCN 08-0203Salina BeardenControllerPCN 08-0453VacantFinancial Systems AnalystPCN 08-X038Debra Caldwell Asst ControllerPCN 08-X074VacantAccounting TechPCN 08-0468VacantAccountantPCN 08-0438Ian NilsenIT Analyst/ Network SupportPCN 21-7015Amy GreenAccounting TechPCN 08-0214Melissa YangSr Project Acct/ Budget AnalystPCN 08-0507Linda SennHR Director PCN 08-0455Lex SargentoCPCOPCN 08-0220VacantContracting OfficerPCN 08-0495Lois LemusContracting OfficerPCN 08-X019Selwin RayContract AdminPCN 08-0469Alyssa WilsonExecutive AsstPCN 08-0213Khae PasaoAdmin AsstPCN 08-X036Aimee SudbeckAdmin AsstPCN 21-7013VacantSr Investment Offcr Project FinancePCN 08-0402Leona HakalaLoan Officer IIPCN 08-0204William PhelanLoan Officer IIPCN 08-0205Emily EngrischCredit AdministratorPCN 08-0215Rebecca LawsLoan Srvcs SupvPCN 08-0207James JohnsonLoan Servicing/ Accounting TechPCN 08-0210 VacantProject ManagerPCN 08-0490Jesse PetersonSr. Manager PFAMPCN 08-0228Ryan GarnerProject Manager Program ManagerPCN 08-X033VacantProgram Manager - Energy Data PCN 08-0425Conner EricksonEconomistPCN 08-X098VacantSenior IFD OfficerPCN 08-X095Jeff WilliamsPCE Program Mgr/ Cmnty Assist AdvPCN 08-0411Angelica SamudioPCE TechnicianPCN 08-0217Jeff San JuanSr Fin OfficerPCN 08-X109 Terence CatoIT DirectorPCN 08-0401 82 EX: Exempt 0 NP: Non Perm 82 Total PositionsDepartment of Commerce, Community and Economic DevelopmentAIDEA/AEAFY2021 Org Chart as of 2/16/2021VacantIFD CoordinatorPCN 08-0412Sam TappenIFD OfficerPCN 08-0498 Morgan NeffChief Investment OfficerPCN 08-0229VacantBusiness Systems AnalystPCN 08-X141VacantEnergy Funding Res SpecialistPCN 08-X077Taylor AsherAsst Project Mgr - RenewablesPCN 08-X1062/16/2021Betsy McGregorPrelim Design & Envir MgrPCN 08-X073Geoffrey JohnsInvestment Offcr PF PCN 08-X072Karin St. ClairGrants CoordinatorPCN 08-X127Christal MouaHR TechnicianPCN 08-0473Nicole DavisFront Desk Admin PCN 08-0216UpdatedColleen BryanCommunications DirectorPCN 08-0223VacantProgram ManagerPCN 08-0202SHARED SERVICESAIDEAAEAKevin BucklandControllerPCN 08-0209Brandon ClarkSr AccountantPCN 08-0423Carmen NobleAccountantPCN 08-0493Rita NiemannAccounting TechPCN 08-0211Jennifer BrownAsst ControllerPCN 08-X117Fiorella Isla GalvezAccounting TechPCN 08-0221David LockardInfrastructure EngineerPCN 08-X123
Shovel-Ready
Energy Infrastructure
Projects in Alaska
February 2021
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 19
OVERVIEW
Created in 1976 by the Alaska Legislature, the
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public
corporation of the State of Alaska governed by
a board of directors with the mission to
“reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is
the state's energy office and lead agency for
statewide energy policy and program
development. AEA accomplishes this mission
through its core services: Owned Assets, Power
Cost Equalization, Rural Energy Assistance,
Energy Technology Programs, Grants and
Loans, and Energy Planning.
This document is a catalog of Shovel-Ready
Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska within
AEA’s capability to manage. Each project
provides significant benefits to the
communities in which they are targeted.
Infrastructure projects of larger scope provide
a corresponding greater benefit to more than
a single community and have long-term
positive impacts on the state economy.
This catalog of energy projects ready for
funding and capable of near-term deployment
has been within the AEA portfolio for varying
periods as funding priorities have shifted from
time to time. All projects have been carefully
engineered and that engineering kept up to
date in the event funding were to become
available. Each project can be developed once
clearances are given and funding is available
We wish to make clear that the organization of
this catalog is purposeful. Projects are
aggregated into “by category of energy”
spheres and are prioritized within each sphere.
Our listing of these projects within each
sphere will be able to advance to construction
as expediently as practical. Project completion
is harder to calculate but sooner construction
completions are rated more positively for
priority.
PROGRAM SUMMARY
CATEGORY NUMBER OF PROJECTS COST ($ MILLION)
Railbelt (Transmission) 3 $1.1 Billion
Hydroelectric 8 $5.9 Billion
Rural Power System Upgrades 20 $35
Bulk Fuel Upgrades 36 $82
Biomass/Heat 6 $9.5
Wind 9 $114
Totals 83 $7.10 Billion
The following pages include in-depth descriptions of the six categories listed in the above table.
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 19
RAILBELT
3 PROJECT GROUPS, TOTAL $1.1 BILLION
Over the past decade, Railbelt Utilities have
spent nearly $1 billion on generation assets in
the region. Many facilities were largely justified
through the respective utilities local area
planning criteria, as such little attention was
given to the transmission of this generation
portfolio throughout the interconnected
system which could take maximum advantage
of the construction of these newer, higher
efficiency units which replaced or caused the
retirement of fewer efficiency generators. In
2014, largely in recognition of this fact, AEA
contracted for completion of a region-wide
transmission plan. This plan, completed in
2017 identified a host of prioritized projects
which, if constructed, would relieve
transmission congestion that currently exists
on the transmission system, most importantly
unconstraining the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Facility, while at the same time, satisfying the
requirements set out in the reliability
standards in place for the railbelt region of the
State. Below is a summary of the transmission
plan results. It describes in a prioritized fashion
the unmet needs of the interconnected bulk-
power system.
LEVEL 1 PROJECTS (KENAI PENINSULA)*
PRIORITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ($ MILLION)
1** Soldotna-Quartz Creek (and
Substation)
Upgrade Soldotna-Quartz Line to 230kV $70
1 Bernice Lake-Beluga HVDC 100 MW HVDC Southern Intertie $185
1 Grid Stabilization Batteries Railbelt Integrated Battery System $115
1 University-Dave’s Creek 230kV Reconstruct existing line $58
1 Bradley Lake Spillway Raise 7’ raise to accommodate Battle Creek inflows $4
2 Bradley-Soldotna 115kV Line New Line and Bradley/Soldotna Substations $66
3 University-Dave's Creek Substations Convert stations for 230 kV operation $35
4 Dave's Creek-Quartz Creek Upgrade line to Rail Conductor, Quartz Sub $15
Sub-Total $548
*Level 1 Projects constitute the host of projects most directly required to fully un-constrain the
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Facility.
**In 2019 the Swan Lake Fire prompted discussions on potential realignment and upgrades to
the Soldotna to Quartz Creek Transmission Line on the Kenai Peninsula. That project is listed
here as priority 1 in Level 1 Projects.
Note: All “Priority 1” projects represent alignment with the Railbelt utilities prioritizations.
SUMMARY
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 19
LEVEL 2 PROJECTS (SOUTHCENTRAL)
PRIORITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ($ MILLION)
1 Fossil Creek Substation New 115 kV substation $10.7
2 Eklutna Hydro Substation New 115 kV substation $9.7
Sub-Total $20.4
LEVEL 3 PROJECTS (NORTH)
PRIORITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ($ MILLION)
1 Lorraine-Douglas Lorraine-Douglas 230 kV line and Stations $129.3
2 Douglas-Healy New 230 kV line operated at 138 kV $243.6
3 Healy-Fairbanks Convert 138 kV to 230 kV $106.8
4 Communications Upgrade Upgrade communication infrastructure $15.0
Sub-Total $494.7
Total Transmission Upgrade Estimate $1.1 Billion
The host of projects within each of the above three tables were identified by applying the current
Transmission Planning Standards contained within the reliability standards which are in place for
the Railbelt.
At the time of the transmission plan completion, the benefits ascribed to the above host of
projects resulted in a cost to benefit ratio in total of 3.4:1. It is important to note that this analysis
would need to be updated however it is highly unlikely that any significant movement, one
direction or the other concerning the costs/benefits would be seen.
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 5 of 19
HYDROELECTRIC
8 PROJECTS, TOTAL $5.9 BILLION
As Alaska’s largest source of renewable energy, hydropower supplies more than 20 percent of
the state’s electrical energy in an average water year. There are nearly 50 operating utility-scale
hydroelectric projects in Alaska. The majority of Alaska’s existing hydro projects are located in
the southeast and southcentral regions of Alaska.
LEVEL 1 PROJECTS
BRADLEY LAKE SPILLWAY RAISE – $4.0 MILLION
Sponsor Bradley Lake Project Management Committee
Description Seven foot raise of the Bradley Lake Spillway to
accommodate Battle Creek inflows and
efficiency of existing generators.
Status Ready for construction.
ELFIN COVE CROOKED CREEK HYDROELECTRIC – $5.5 MILLION
Sponsor Community of Elfin Cove
Description 105 kW run of river project serving Community
of Elfin Cove. The project would replace
powerplant diesel usage. Estimated fuel savings
$160,000 annually.
Status Design and licensing phase.
SUMMARY
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 6 of 19
THAYER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC (ANGOON) – $24 MILLION
Sponsor Kootznoowoo Incorporated
Description 850 kW run of river hydroelectric project on
Thayer Creek serving the community of Angoon.
The project would replace powerplant diesel
usage and a substantial amount of community
heating oil. Estimated fuel savings ~$1,200,000
per year.
Status Design and licensing phase.
LEVEL 2 PROJECTS
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC (RAILBELT REGION) – $53 MILLION
Sponsor Homer Electric Association
Description Grant Lake would be a 5 MW storage project
serving the Railbelt region. Estimated equivalent
fuel savings $4,000,000 annually. License from
FERC and in the final design.
Status Design and licensing phase.
SUSITNA-WATANA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (RAILBELT REGION) – $5.6 BILLION (2014$)
Sponsor Alaska Energy Authority
Description Susitna-Watana would be a 609 MW (maximum)
storage project serving the railbelt region of
Alaska. The project can replace ~60 percent of
the natural gas usage of the railbelt region and
create 23,000 direct and indirect jobs during
construction.
Status Design and licensing phase. The State of Alaska
has spent $193 million advancing this project
and is through two-thirds of the licensing
process.
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 7 of 19
SWEETHEART LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (JUNEAU REGION) – $188 MILLION (2014$)
Sponsor Juneau Hydropower Inc.
Description Sweetheart Lake would be a 19.8 MW storage
project serving the Juneau region. Estimated fuel
savings $20,750,000 annually. This project has a
license from FERC and is in the final design.
Status Design and licensing phase.
LEVEL 3 PROJECTS
INDIAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (TENAKEE SPRINGS) – $8.3 MILLION
Sponsor City of Tenakee Springs
Description Indian River is a 180 kW run-of-river
hydroelectric project serving the community of
Tenakee Springs. The project would replace
community diesel generation with hydroelectric.
Estimated fuel savings $104,000 annually.
Status Ready for construction.
KNUTSON CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (PEDRO BAY) – $5 MILLION
Sponsor Pedro Bay Village Council
Description This project is a 150 kW run of river hydroelectric
project serving Pedro Bay. The project will
replace community diesel generation by
hydroelectric. Estimated fuel savings $120,000
annually. This project is in the final design.
Status Design and licensing phase.
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 8 of 19
RURAL POWER SYSTEM UPGRADE
20 PROJECTS @ $1.75 MILLION = $35 MILLION
Electricity powers lighting, communications,
heat, and is necessary to operate infrastructure
that supports safe and healthy living
conditions. In Alaska’s rural communities
electricity is often generated by a small local
“system” (generation and distribution) using
diesel fuel, and that power is three to five
times more than power in urban parts of the
state.
Upgrades may include efficiency
improvements, powerhouse upgrades or
replacements, line assessments, lines to new
customers, demand-side improvements, heat
recovery, and repairs to generation and
distribution systems. It is not uncommon to
see a significant increase in fuel savings.
Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) projects
range from maintenance and improvement to
full system replacements.
Using an average upgrade project cost of
$1.75 million and a 20 year expected life span
the yearly funding level required to meet the
need for rural power systems is approximately
$16 million. This assumes all power systems
being at the expected point in their life span,
which is not the case. To bring the required 20
projects up to the necessary life cycle
expectancy would require about $35 million.
AEA has contracted to inventory and assess all
eligible rural power systems. This effort will
compile over 200 data points on each
community power system including
generation, distribution, and heat recovery. For
the first time, complete 3D imaging of each
powerhouse will be captured enabling an
enhanced ability for remote assistance and
training. Scheduled completion is expected in
the second quarter of 2021.
TYPICAL POWERHOUSE
BEFORE
SUMMARY
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 9 of 19
RPSU-Eligible Communities
PRIORITY PROJECT COST ($ MILLION)
1 Rampart $1.75
2 Nikolai $1.75
3 Beaver $1.75
4 Buckland $1.75
5 Chefornak $1.75
6 Chenega Bay $1.75
7 Chuathbaluk $1.75
8 Crooked Creek $1.75
9 Elfin Cove $1.75
10 Golovin $1.75
11 Karluk $1.75
12 Kokhanok $1.75
13 Koliganek $1.75
14 Levelock $1.75
15 Manokotak $1.75
16 McGrath $1.75
17 Napakiak $1.75
18 Ouzinkie $1.75
19 Pedro bay $1.75
20 Pelican $1.75
Sub-Total $35
7 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 10 of 19
BULK FUEL UPGRADE
36 PROJECTS @ $2 MILLION = $82 MILLION
Rural Alaska is energized primarily by diesel
for power generation and heating. Gasoline is
used for transportation. Many villages are
located either along rivers or on the coast, so
fuel is primarily delivered by barge. Where
barge delivery is unavailable or uneconomic,
air tankers and in a few cases tanker trucks
deliver fuel. Delivery is seasonal and limited by
sea or river ice, water levels, or ice road
availability. Villages of a few hundred people
must store hundreds of thousands of gallons
of fuel to meet their annual energy needs.
Many of rural Alaska’s bulk fuel facilities were
built in the 1950s and 1960s. They were not
built to national standards and aren’t
compliant with today’s health and safety
regulations. Some of them are at the end of
their useful lives. This infrastructure, however,
continues in service until upgraded or
replaced, in some cases posing serious risks. In
recent years, AEA’s Bulk Fuel Upgrade (BFU)
program has shifted emphasis from new
construction to repairs. In many cases, existing
bulk fuel tanks can be re-used if they are
appropriately refurbished. Repair projects
focus on minimizing risk, using local workers,
and replacing piping, pumps, valves, and tanks
when necessary.
Using an average upgrade project cost of $2
million and a 40-year expected lifespan (20-
year design life span), the yearly funding level
required to meet the need for rural bulk fuel
facilities is approximately $40 million dollars.
This assumes all bulk fuel facilities being at the
expected point in their life span, which is not
the case. To bring the required 50 projects up
to the necessary life cycle expectancy would
require about $100 million dollars.
TYPICAL BULK FUEL FACILITY
BEFORE
SUMMARY
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 11 of 19
BFU-Eligible Communities
LEVEL 1 PROJECTS
PRIORITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ($ MILLION)
1 Tuluksak (1) Native Corporation $2
2 Nondalton City Bulk Fuel Facility $2
3 Togiak Native Corp Bulk Fuel Facility $2
4 Noatak Tribal Bulk Fuel Facility $2
5 Shungnak Tribal Bulk Fuel Facility $2
6 Scammon Bay Native Corp Fuel Facility $2
7 Ekwok City Bulk Fuel Facility $2
8 Shageluk (2) Native Corp / City Fuel Facilities $4
9 Marshall (2) Utility / City Bulk Fuel Facility $4
10 Minto (2) Utility / Native Corp Fuel Facilities $4
11 Goodnews Bay City Bulk Fuel Facility $2
12 Birch Creek Tribal Bulk Fuel Facility $2
13 Nulato City Bulk Fuel Facility $2
14 Chalkyitsik Native Corp Fuel Facility $2
15 Venetie Tribal Bulk Fuel Facility $2
16 Allakaket City Bulk Fuel Facility $2
17 Rampart Tribal Bulk Fuel Facility $2
18 Russian Mission (2) Native Corp / City Bulk Fuel Facilities $4
Sub-Total $42
11 2 3 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 1
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 12 of 19
BFU-Eligible Communities
LEVEL 2 PROJECTS
PRIORITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ($ MILLION)
1 Fort Yukon (2) Native Corp / Tribal Fuel Facility $4
2 Klawock Utility Bulk Fuel Facility $2
3 Hydaburg Utility Bulk Fuel Facility $2
4 Ambler Tribal Bulk Fuel Facility $2
5 Kivalina (2) Utility / City Bulk Fuel Facility $4
6 Beaver Tribal Bulk Fuel Facility $2
7 Mountain Village Native Corp Fuel Facility $2
8 Craig Utility Bulk Fuel Facility $2
9 St. Paul Native Corp Fuel Facility $2
10 Togiak City Bulk Fuel Facility $2
11 Coffman Cove Utility Bulk Fuel Facility $2
12 Noatak Tribal Bulk Fuel Facility $2
13 Eek Native Corp Fuel Facility $2
14 Oscarville Native Corp Fuel Facility $2
15 Thorne Bay Utility Bulk Fuel Facility $2
16 Platinum Tribal Bulk Fuel Facility $2
17 Hughes City Bulk Fuel Facility $2
18 Kobuk City Bulk Fuel Facility $2
Sub-Total $40 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 13 of 19
BIOMASS/HEAT
6 PROJECTS, TOTAL $9.5 MILLION
Alaska's primary biomass fuels are wood, sawmill waste, fish by-products and municipal waste.
Wood remains an important renewable energy source for Alaskans. More than 100,000 cords of
wood are burned in the form of chips, cordwood, and pellets annually. Wood-heating systems in
Alaska are creating local jobs and reducing the cost of building heat in rural communities
throughout the state.
LEVEL 1 PROJECTS
HAINES SCHOOL AND POOL (CHIP) – $1.8 MILLION
Sponsor Haines Borough
Description The proposed biomass district energy system is
designed to provide heat to the Haines School
and Pool, Administration Building, Library,
Vocational Education building (Voc-Ed), Garage,
and future Greenhouse, with the school and
pool, is the baseline scenario.
Status Ready for construction.
KAKE (CHIP) – $3.5 MILLION
Sponsor Organized Village of Kake
Description The proposed biomass system is designed to
provide heating to the Public Safety Building,
Boys & Girls Club, Health Clinic, Senior Center,
Kake School, a future greenhouse, a future
building at the Bingo Hall location, and the
Community Center.
Status Ready for construction.
SUMMARY
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 14 of 19
LEVEL 2 PROJECTS
CRAIG HIGH SCHOOL (CHIP) – $770,000
Sponsor Craig City School District
Description This project is to construct a wood chip heating
plant at Craig High School. The wood heating
system is expected to include a wood fuel
delivery system, biomass boilers, and heat
exchangers to be integrated into the existing
heating system of Craig High School.
Status Ready for construction.
KLAWOCK MALL (CORDWOOD) – $845,000
Sponsor Klawock Heenya Corporation
Description Construct a cordwood heating system, including
a large woodshed to heat two-thirds of the
Klawock Bell Tower Mall. The other one-third is
the AC Grocery Store and they are using the heat
from the refrigeration units. The Biomass system
could be backup heat for the grocery store.
Status Conceptual design.
NORTHWAY SCHOOL BIOMASS – $1.32 MILLION
Sponsor Alaska Gateway School District (Tok)
Description This project will construct a woodchip heating
system for the Northway School, the garage, and
the teacher housing duplex. The project is
estimated to offset approximately 90 percent of
the fuel use.
Status Ready for construction.
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 15 of 19
LEVEL 3 PROJECT
KETCHIKAN HIGH SCHOOL (PELLET) – $1.25 MILLION
Sponsor Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Description This project will construct a pellet heating system
for the new clinic, tribal office, community
building, and water treatment plant. The project
design was completed through a grant from the
United States Forest Service.
Status Ready for construction.
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 16 of 19
WIND
9 PROJECTS, TOTAL $114.2 MILLION
In Alaska, there are abundant wind resources available for energy development. High costs
associated with fossil fuel-based generation and improvements in wind power technology make
this clean, renewable energy source attractive to many communities. Today wind energy accounts
for 2.4 percent of the state’s total energy production and that percentage is growing. Since 2012,
Alaska’s wind energy capacity has increased 400 percent.
LEVEL 1 PROJECT
FIRE ISLAND WIND FARM EXPANSION – $75 MILLION
Sponsor Cook Inlet Regional Inc.
Description Expansion of the Fire Island Wind farm from 17.6
MW to 52.8 MW with the installation of 22 more
GE 1.6 MW wind turbines. Cook Inlet Regional
could sell the power to any of the south-central
Alaska utilities. This project would help to
stabilize electrical costs in Southcentral Alaska.
Status Ready for construction.
LEVEL 2 PROJECTS
CHEFORNAK, KIPNUK, AND PILOT POINT BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE – $2.4 MILLION
Sponsor Village of Chefornak, Native Village of Kipnuk,
and Native Village of Pilot Point
Description Currently, Chefornak, Kipnuk, and Pilot Point
have fully operational wind turbines installed in
their communities. Battery energy storage will
increase wind energy utilization and reduce the
need to curtail wind energy production.
Status Ready for construction.
SUMMARY
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 17 of 19
IGIUGIG WIND – $1.0 MILLION
Sponsor Igiugig Village Council
Description Installation of two 25 kW turbines. The turbines
will be used in conjunction with the community
in-river hydrokinetic turbine. Fuel offset will be
7,044 gallons of diesel per year.
Status Design and licensing phase.
KONGIGANAK, KWIGILLINGOK, AND TUNTUTULIAK TURBINE UPGRADES – $4.8 MILLION
Sponsor Native Village of Kongiganak, Native Village of
Kwigillingok, and Native Village of Tuntutuliak
Description Incorporate more efficient rotor and nacelle
upgrades for 15 wind turbines to increase the
efficiency and power output of existing turbines.
This project would also add a 500 kW solar array
to each system.
Status Design and licensing phase.
KWETHLUK WIND AND SOLAR WITH ELECTRIC THERMAL STORAGE UNITS – $4.2 MILLION
Sponsor Village of Kwethluk
Description Install three 100kW wind turbines, a 500 kW solar
array, and 50-70 electric thermal storage units.
The projected diesel displacement for this project
is 70,000 gallons of diesel fuel at the power plant
and 20,000 gallons of heating fuel.
Status Design and licensing phase.
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 18 of 19
LEVEL 3 PROJECTS
DUTCH HARBOR AND UNALASKA WIND-DIESEL PROJECT – $11.6 MILLION
Sponsor Dutch Harbor and City of Unalaska
Description Install 2MW capacity wind turbines and battery
energy storage near the water treatment plant.
Dutch Harbor is the largest fishing port in North
America with a very high industrial load. This
project would offset 270,000 gallons of diesel per
year.
Status Ready for construction.
KOTZEBUE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION WIND FARM EXPANSION – $7.0 MILLION
Sponsor Kotzebue Electric Association
Description The utility will install two more EWT 900 kW wind
turbines and expand battery energy storage. This
project is expected to displace 300,000 to
400,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually, thus
lowering the cost of energy in the community.
Status Design and licensing phase.
NOME WIND TO HEAT – $400,000
Sponsor Nome Joint Utility System
Description Nome will be purchasing an electric boiler to
utilize excess wind produced from their Banner
Peak Wind Farm. The boiler will be used to heat
the school and potentially the hospital and rec
center in the future. The expected cost savings
from diesel displacement for the school district
would be $71,000 per year.
Status Ready for construction.
Shovel-Ready Energy Infrastructure Projects in Alaska February 2021
Alaska Energy Authority Page 19 of 19
STEBBINS AND ST. MICHAEL WIND FARM EXPANSION – $7.8 MILLION ($2021)
Sponsor Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Description Installation of a single 900 kW turbine. Fuel offset
will be 160,000 gallons of diesel per year. The
project will also include the installation of an
electric boiler in the St. Michael pump house and
will account for another 5,000 gallons of diesel
displacement. The wind farm expansion project
will serve both Stebbins and St. Michael.
Status Design and licensing phase.
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director THROUGH: Kirk H. Warren, P.E.,PMP, Director, Engineering & Energy Development FROM: Betsy McGregor, Preliminary Design & Environmental Manager DATE: February 18, 2021
RE: Electric Vehicle Update (Fast Charging Station Corridor)
BACKGROUND: In 2018 AEA was designated the Lead Agency to administer the Volkswagen Settlement Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund. The fund was established after it was discovered that Volkswagen had installed illegal software in some of its vehicles. Alaska was
allocated $8.125 million to fund projects that reduce NOx emissions to fully mitigate the excess
NOx produced in the State. Thus far, AEA has distributed or committed $6.4M in total to replace
33 school buses, one public transit bus, prime power diesel gensets in six rural communities, and
one battery storage-based fast charger. AEA has also allocated $1.25 million towards electric
vehicle charging infrastructure (EVSE) the status of which is described below under “current
status.” CURRENT STATUS: AEA has released a solicitation for the development of an EV fast charging corridor from Homer and Seward to Fairbanks. An RFQ was released February 22 to develop a list of qualified EVSE vendors which will be made publically available. AEA also released an RFI to identify parties interested in hosting charging stations which will be provided to qualified vendors. AEA will release a competitive solicitation to select sites upon the completion of the RFQ process described above. The goal is to install one fast charger every 50-100 miles within 5 miles of the highway system in a cost-effective manner. Construction will begin in 2021 and the stations would be operated and maintained for 5 years after activation. Schedule for Fast Charging Corridor Solicitations
Description Deadline Date Release of RFQ to qualify EVSE Vendors February 22, 2021 Release RFI to identify potential site hosts February 24, 2021 RFQ Submission Deadline March 8, 2021 Notification of Approved EVSE Vendors March 10, 2021 Release of RFA for DCFC Sites March 12, 2021 RFA Round 1 Submission Deadline May 5, 2021 Round 1 Sites Selected May 12, 2021
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Kirk H. Warren, P.E.,PMP, Director, Engineering & Energy Development DATE: February 18, 2021 RE: Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Update
BACKGROUND: With the passage of Senate Bill (SB)123 by the 31st Legislature, electric utilities must participate in the referenced organization, an Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), if the utility operates in an interconnected electric energy transmission networkd served by an ERO
certificated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). If, within 90 days of the RCA
notification to a load serving entity (LSE, a utility that serves customers demands), no person or
groups of persons (organizations) have not applied for certifications as an ERO, the RCA shall
form and certificate an ERO on its own.
Under SB 123 the RCA shall adopt regualtions governing ERO’s on or before July 1, 2021.
DRAFT regulations have been promulgated and have been the topic of much discussion at
various RCA technical workshops related to the creation of this ERO. Duties of an ERO: Briefy, the duties delineated in SB123 of at ERO are:
1. Develop Reliability standards that provide an adequate level of reliability of an
interconnected electric energy transmission network
2. Develop integrated resource plans
3. Establish rules to
a. Ensure the directors act independently from users/owners/operators of the
bulk power system (BPS)
b. Equitably allocate dues, fees among all LSE’s
c. Provide procedures for the enforcement of reliability standards
4. Be governed by a board that
a. Includes as nonvoting members the chair of the RCA (or designee) and the
attorney general (or designee)
b. Is independent/balanced or combination thereof
5. Integrated Resource Planning
6. Require Project preapproval by the RCA for large energy projects
Duties of LSE’s: Briefly, the duties delinated in SB123 of the LSE’s within an ERO are: 1. Develop procedures to ensure that all LSE’s (and those LSE’s otherwise exempt from
regulation), ensuring that all entities served by an ERO are subject to the ERO’s tariff
on file with the commission
CURRENT STATUS: The Railbelt Utilities entered into a memorandumof understanding (MOU) on December 18th, 2019. This MOU outlines the visions of the LSE’s on how to establish a functional organization that could be stood up and be successful in an effort to file for an
application as an ERO for the railbelt. This interim organization is known as the Railbelt
Reliability Council (RRC). Although the Railbelt utilities are the only signatories to this MOU, a
stakeholder group has been formed through consent of the parties and this RRC is currently
creating foundational documents (by-laws, articles of incorporation, duties of care, policies &
proecures) of the proposed ERO. The structure of the RRC is as follows:
1. All Railbelt Utilities
2. AEA (State Entity – transmission & generation owner)
3. 2ea. Independent Power Producers (selected by Alaska Independent Power
Producers Association, CIRI, Alaska Environmental Power)
4. Consumer Advocady seat (AKPIRG)
5. 2ea. Non afilliated seats (REAP, Hank Koegel)
6. RCA & RAPA fill two ex-officio (non-voting seats).
The RRC has hired a number of consultants to work on facilitation, tariff requirements,
application requirements and standards development. The costs of this effort is borne as outlined in the MOU and shared amongst the LSE’s on a pro-rata share of annual
system demand for the railbelt.
813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 • Phone: (907) 771-3000 • Fax: (907) 771-3044 • Email: info@akenergyauthority.org
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
RGYAUTHORITY.ORG
January 19, 2021
Senate Secretary Chief Clerk
President of the Senate Speaker of the House
Alaska State Legislature Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Room 211 Thomas Stewart Building, Room 202
Juneau, AK 99801 Juneau, AK 99801
Dear Senate President and Speaker of the House:
As required by Alaska Statute 44.83.085, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) provides an update
to the Legislature on the status of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project each year. Along
with this letter a copy of the 2018 annual report is appended.
On December 26, 2014, the project was halted by Administrative Order (AO) 271 to come to a
complete stop by the end of the calendar year 2017. AEA closed out the project yet preserved
the value of the State of Alaska's investment and maintained the public value of the data
collected through careful, thorough archiving. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s
(FERC) updated Study Plan Determination (SPD) provides the State with certainty on what is
needed for a complete FERC license application if the project is restarted.
With its SPD, FERC reaffirmed the scope of studies necessary for determining impact assessment
and developing protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. FERC validated the quality
and integrity of work completed to date. To the extent which the project proposal does not
change and the data gathered does not become stale or non-representative of baseline
conditions, FERC ruled AEA would not need to repeat the already-completed Integrated
Licensing Process steps. If restarted, FERC may require additional scoping and/or modifications
to the approved SPD.
The current status of the project is as follows:
Engineering – The completed engineering feasibility report contains the information
necessary for a license application and demonstrates the project is technically feasible.
Economics – The benefit-cost and economic impact analysis concluded that if constructed,
the project would generate billions of dollars in energy savings for the Railbelt and would
provide significant long-term benefit to the economy.
Financing – AEA investigated various financing models, some of which resulted in an
estimated $0.066/kilowatt hour 50-year average real price in 2014 dollars.
Licensing – AEA is approximately two-thirds into the Integrated Licensing Process. Had the
project not been shut down following FERC's issuance of the updated SPD in June 2017, the
next steps would have been the implementation of the second study season, followed by
preparation of final reports and a license application.
On February 22, 2019, Governor Dunleavy issued AO No. 309 rescinding, amongst others, AO
No. 271, which resulted in the removal of the fiscal restraint previously ordered. This order has
not changed the status of the project. At the request of the Legislature on February 11, 2020,
AEA presented an overview of the Susitna-Watana project to the Senate Community and
Regional Affairs Committee (copy provided). The data presented in this presentation to the
Legislature was before 2017. AEA has spent no further state funds during Fiscal Year 2020.
AEA is proud of the work completed to advance the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. The
effort has yielded significant benefits in terms of knowledge produced and shared, and an
understanding of this resource potential to offer stable, low-cost power to Alaskans over the
100-year life of the project upon completion.
Respectfully Submitted,
Curtis W. Thayer
Executive Director
Cc: Alaska Energy Authority Board
Alaska State Legislature
REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE
2018
1 SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from the Executive Director ................................................................................................................. 2
Status Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 3
History ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Engineering .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Economics ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Financing ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Licensing ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Summary of Project Funding ........................................................................................................................ 14
Susitna-Watana Hydro at a Glance
Licensing efforts started: 2011
Location: River mile 184, above Devils Canyon
Size: 705-foot-high dam
Reservoir: ~42 miles long, average width of 1.25
miles
Estimated Supply: About 50 percent of Railbelt
electrical demand
Estimated Cost: $5.655 billion (2014$)
Installed Capacity: 459 MW
Annual Energy: 2,800,000 MWh
Licensing: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC)
Anticipated Project Life: 100+ years, providing
long-term, stable rates
Project closed down: 2016-2017
SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT 2
3 SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT
SUSITNA -WATANA HYDRO PROJECT
STATUS SUMMARY
By the end of 2017 the project
was completely shut-down per
Governor Walker’s June 2016
directive.
FERC issued its Study Plan
Determination (SPD) June 22,
2017, followed by a licensing
abeyance.
The favorable FERC SPD,
licensing abeyance, and careful
cataloguing of research, data,
and reporting, will preserve the
State’s investment.
The unobligated balance of
$1.893 million was returned to
the general fund in FY2019.
SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT 4
Project History
The hydroelectric potential of the Susitna River has been studied since the early 1950s. The first study was completed by
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and subsequent reviews were completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the
1970s. Many Alaskans remember the efforts of the Alaska Power Authority (APA)—now the Alaska Energy Authority—to
develop a two-dam project on the Susitna River in the 1980s.
At that time, the APA submitted a license application to FERC in
1983 for the Watana-Devils Canyon Project on the Susitna River.
The license application was withdrawn in 1986, largely due to the
relatively low cost of gas-fired electricity in the Railbelt and the
declining price of oil throughout the 1980s and its impact on the
State budget. The APA concluded that the project’s
environmental impacts could be mitigated, but the project was
not financially feasible at that time.
In 2011, recognizing the potential of a hydroelectric project on
the Susitna River as a solution to the continued need for long-
term, stable sources of energy, the Alaska Legislature authorized
and funded the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to once again
explore project feasibility and move through the FERC licensing
process.
Over the last six years, AEA completed data gap analyses, building
on the quality data from the 1980s, and completed several
important milestones in the FERC Integrated Licensing Process.
AEA’s studies have shown the project is technically, and
economically feasible. The 459-megawatt project would be
capable of producing 2,800 gigawatt hours of energy annually, or
about half of the Railbelt’s energy needs.
With the updated FERC Study Plan Determination (SPD) issued in
June 2017, the final licensing milestone in this 2011-2017 period
was reached. State budget challenges prompted Governor
Walker, in June 2016, to call for the project to be shut down,
though in such a way as to ensure preservation of the State’s
investment made to-date. The updated SPD and licensing
abeyance, followed by completion of final reporting and archiving
of all project information, has done just that. All project activity
has ceased.
5 SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT
In January 2015, AEA completed the Susitna-Watana Hydro Engineering Feasibility Report, concluding the majority of
engineering work necessary to file for a FERC hydropower license. This effort is the result of several years of
collaboration among engineering contractors, dam-safety experts, utilities, FERC and AEA to design a safe and cost-
effective project, as well as the results from: drilling and geotechnical investigations to test the quality of rock and
measure bedrock for a solid foundation; studies and modeling for maximum probable flood and seismic events; and
modeling to simulate the projected electrical generation to meet Railbelt demand.
The report is a critical milestone and concludes that the project is technically feasible. Noteworthy conclusions are
summarized below.
SAFETY
Active faults have not been found within the dam site. Drilling conducted during the summer of 2014 confirmed that
there is no “Watana lineament” along the Susitna River channel, supporting results from investigations conducted
during the 1980s licensing effort. In addition, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS)
conducted extensive geologic mapping in the Talkeetna Mountains and found no active faults directly in the project
area. In addition, the current dam design, once constructed, would be able to withstand a 50-year flood without having
to open spillway gates and would pass the 10,000-year flood with one spillway gate inoperable.
DESIGN
The structure is designed as a curved gravity dam, constructed using Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) methodology
with a straight gravity (thrust) section on each abutment. The height of the dam has been optimized to 705 feet above
bedrock, lowered from approximately 730 feet. The nominal crest elevation is 2,065 feet and the crest length is
approximately 2,810 feet. The reservoir would be approximately 42-miles long with an average width of 1.25 miles.
AEA worked with the Railbelt utilities to ensure that the generators are appropriately sized for Railbelt demand,
modeling potential operations and integrating into the Railbelt system to ensure maximum long-term benefits to the
Railbelt. As part of this effort, the overall nominal capacity rating of the three proposed turbines has been reduced to
459 megawatts while maintaining the same energy output of 2,800 gigawatt hours of annual power, or 50 percent of the
Railbelt’s current demand.
The potential access and transmission routes were narrowed down to two alternative north-south routes that extend
from the Denali Highway and the Gold Creek Route that runs east-west and would connect with the Alaska Railroad
(unconnected to the state highway system).
COST
The anticipated project cost is estimated to be $5.65 billion (2014$ and based on oil prices at $105 per barrel), including
licensing, design and construction, but excluding escalation and interest during construction.
Engineering & Safety Milestones
SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT 6
To understand the potential economic impacts from licensing, constructing and operating the Susitna-Watana Hydro
and future workforce needs, AEA worked with Northern Economics on the Benefit-Cost and Economic Impact Analysis.
The report, published in March 2015, concluded that, if constructed, the project would generate billions of dollars in
energy savings for the Railbelt and would be a significant, long-term benefit to the economy.
Based on the 2014 projection of natural gas prices,
the analysis estimated a total energy savings of $11.2
billion (2014$) during the first 50 years of the project,
an annual average of nearly $225 million. When
additional benefits of the dam were factored in,
including the retirement of older generation facilities,
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a
reduction in the frequency of power outages, the
energy cost savings surpassed $14 billion. The
benefit-cost ratio from the energy savings and
retirement of older, unneeded generation facilities alone is 2.46.
Construction of the Susitna-Watana Hydro Project would also provide thousands of direct and indirect jobs for many
decades. The
project would
support an average
of approximately
200 non-
construction jobs
annually during
both pre-
construction and
construction phases
as well as an annual
construction
workforce of
approximately
1,200 people during
construction of the
project.
In addition, Susitna-Watana Hydro would generate more than $800 million (2014$) in local spending pre-construction
and a projected $2.6 billion (2014$) in local spending during construction. During operation of the project, an estimated
$26.5 million (2014$) would be spent annually for operations, boosting local and regional economies.
Economic Milestones
Project
Spending
Category
Local
Spending
(million $)
Multiplier Effects
Business
Sales
(million $) Jobs
Labor
Income
(million $)
Licensing/Design;
Other Program
Costs
814.1 551.2 3,870 204.3
Construction 2,658.5 1,837.1 11,305 627.3
Operation 26.5 18.5 105 6.4
Table uses 2014 dollars
7 SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT
In 2014, AEA worked with PFM, an international financial advisory firm, to develop financing models for Susitna-Watana
Hydro. AEA received confirmation that Rural Utilities Service (RUS), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that
provides low-cost financing for infrastructure improvements, could provide financing for 50 percent of the project costs.
AEA and PFM developed scenarios that included combinations of state investment, bonds and federal financing
programs (RUS) and private financing. In developing the scenarios, AEA kept three goals in mind: 1) provide affordable
power to Alaskans, 2) protect investments made by the State of Alaska and 3) investigate ways that the State would be
repaid its initial investment.
The combination of AEA Revenue Bonds (30 years, 5% interest, refinanced) and RUS financing the remainder of
construction (35 years, 4% interest) resulted in a $0.066/kWh 50-year average real price (2014$).
Financing Milestones
SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT 8
Following authorization in 2011 to advance the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, AEA pursued a FERC license
application through the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), FERC’s default licensing process. The ILP is a front-loaded,
iterative, milestone-driven process that provides a defined structure, including timeframes for licensing activities, study
plan development, formal study plan determination, reporting on study implementation, stakeholder engagement and
early National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping.
Final licensing activities between 2016 and 2017 effectively wrapped up the project as per Governor Walker’s June 2016
directive. Following FERC’s Study Plan Determination, issued in June 2017, the project was put into abeyance, allowing
the State to preserve the investment already made, and no further movement toward licensing is planned at this time.
Licensing Milestones & Timeline
Page 1 of the 254 page FERC Study Plan Determination.
The full document is available at www.ferc.gov.
9 SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT
Between 2011 and 2017 AEA
moved the Susitna-Watana
Hydro project through step 14,
approximately two-thirds of the
way through the ILP process.
Had the project not been shut
down, following the SPD
issuance in June 2017, next
steps for the project would
have been implementation of
the second study season;
preparation of the Updated
Study Reports; impact
assessment; preparation of the
Draft License Application;
development of protection,
mitigation and enhancement
measures; and preparation of
the Final License Application.
FERC Integrated Licensing Process (ILP)
SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT 10
2011 AEA reviewed existing information, identified potential natural resource issues, performed data gap
analyses and held preliminary discussions with agencies, Alaska Native entities and other
stakeholders.
In October, AEA filed the Preliminary Permit Application (PPA) with FERC, which provided AEA priority
status for licensing the project. The Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) was initiated with AEA filing the
Notice of Intent (NOI) and the Preliminary Application Document (PAD) at the end of the year.
2012 Public scoping meetings were held in Anchorage, Wasilla, Glennallen, Talkeetna, Cantwell and
Fairbanks.
AEA jumpstarted the licensing process by initiating 18 studies designed to gather critical
environmental data, and to help inform the scope and methods of the proposed licensing studies.
A significant amount of the 2012 licensing effort was spent developing the study plan with
stakeholders for FERC’s approval. The study plan is a key part of the licensing process and outlines the
studies that will be conducted to provide a better understanding of the Susitna Basin to assess
potential impacts and develop protection, mitigation and enhancement measures.
AEA performed extensive public outreach with resource agencies, Alaska Native entities, non-
governmental organizations and other stakeholders, holding 34 days of technical meetings to develop
the study plan.
The Proposed Study Plan, consisting of 58 studies, was submitted to FERC in July. Following further
collaboration with stakeholders, AEA submitted an Interim Revised Study Plan and finally, in
December, a Revised Study Plan to FERC for approval.
2013 With a Study Plan Determination (SPD), FERC approved the Susitna-Watana Hydro Environmental
Study Plan, which included 58 studies in resource areas such as geology and soils, water quality,
geomorphology, groundwater, ice processes, instream flow, fish and aquatic, wildlife, botany,
recreation, cultural, subsistence, socioeconomics, transportation, and safety. AEA consulted with
stakeholders and prepared and provided all supplemental information as ordered by FERC in its SPD.
AEA filed 29 technical reports summarizing results from the 2012 studies and commenced the
implementation of the Susitna-Watana Hydro Study Plan, an unprecedented environmental study of
the Susitna Basin, with an estimated 350 biologists, engineers, hydrologists, archeologists, and
scientists of many other disciplines in the field gathering data.
AEA held 22 days of technical meetings from June through December 2013, keeping licensing
participants up-to-date on the results of the 2012 studies and the licensing studies as they were being
implemented.
Licensing activities and all documents were made publicly available via the project website and more
than 100 public meetings and presentations about Susitna-Watana Hydro were held, demonstrating
the commitment of an open, accurate and collaborative approach to managing stakeholder
expectations.
Susitna-Watana Licensing Activities 2011-2017
11 SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT
2014 An important milestone in the FERC ILP is the Initial Study Report (ISR), which serves as a progress
report on the implementation of each of the 58 studies and accounts for any variances from the
approved plan; describes plans and schedule for the second year of study; and describes AEA’s
proposed modifications of the FERC-approved plan. As part of the Initial Study Report process, a
series of meetings are held to discuss the findings and requested modifications, by both AEA and
other stakeholders, in order to lead to an updated Study Plan Determination by FERC.
However, budgetary constraints precluded AEA from being able to provide a schedule for completing
the second year of study and finalizing AEA’s proposed modifications to the Study Plan. Accordingly,
AEA adhered to the existing FERC ILP schedule at the time, and filed a Draft ISR in February, which
described the 2013 implementation of the FERC-approved Study Plan and any variances and
presented results. Once the FY15 capital budget was approved, AEA was able to prepare and file the
8,600-page Final ISR in June, which included AEA’s proposed study modifications and plans to
complete the second year of study for each of the 58 studies, per the FERC regulations. In October,
AEA held 6 days of ISR Meetings with stakeholders to review the ISR.
AEA reached a critical land-access agreement in spring 2014 with Cook Inlet Region Inc. and six Cook
Inlet village corporations (CIRWG) to allow AEA access to land in order to further Susitna-Watana
Hydro environmental studies.
2014 marked another year of intensive and specific research involving more than 200 field scientists.
Data collection efforts were prioritized based on the level of funding received, relative importance of
the study, sequencing of interrelated studies, and need for continuous data collection with the goals
of preserving the value of the work completed to date and maintaining as tight a licensing timeline as
possible. Prior to initiating field work, AEA held 12 days of technical meetings with stakeholders to
describe AEA’s plan for 2014 activities and to consult with resource agencies on AEA’s proposed
modifications to the FERC-approved Study Plan.
By the end of the 2014 season, data collection was completed for 13 of the FERC-approved studies.
AEA filed 33 technical memoranda describing 2014 study implementation, proposed study
modifications for consideration in FERC’s updated Study Plan Determination, or additional
information as requested during the October ISR Meetings.
In addition to technical meetings, AEA presented information gathered as part of the environmental
field effort and provided updates on the licensing status during regular meetings with CIRWG; public
meetings in the communities of Wasilla, Fairbanks, Glennallen, Kenai, Anchorage and Talkeetna; and
to numerous professional groups, associations and NGOs.
2015 Administrative Order 271, issued by Gov. Walker in December 2014, halted discretionary spending on
the Susitna-Watana Hydro Project, and to comply, AEA essentially pressed pause in the midst of the
Initial Study Report process in early 2015. FERC granted AEA an abeyance from the licensing process.
AEA received clarification on discretionary spending from the Office of Management and Budget
director in July 2015 and was notified that the project was to use existing funds to advance to the
next licensing milestone, the FERC Study Plan Determination.
In August, AEA filed a request with FERC to lift the licensing abeyance and to submit additional Initial
Study Reports covering all work completed to-date for consideration in FERC’s updated Study Plan
Determination, and proposed a new schedule. AEA’s plan was supported by members of CIRWG,
Railbelt utilities, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
and the Alaska Ratepayers.
SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT 12
Following public comments, FERC ultimately ordered that the vast amount of material filed from 2013
through 2015 in the form of numerous technical memoranda and Initial Study Reports met the ILP
requirements for the Initial Study Report and that AEA satisfactorily provided a roadmap linking the
reports for each study; and therefore, the reports would collectively be considered the Initial Study
Report for purposes of the ILP and FERC’s Study Plan Determination.
The 2015 study implementation was limited to finishing studies near completion; continuing surveys
of collared moose, caribou and other animals; completing analysis of data already gathered; and
removing field equipment installations where possible.
At the end of 2015, AEA filed more than 8,000 pages of reports summarizing implementation of the
FERC-approved Study Plan during 2014 and 2015 in the form of Study Completion Reports for studies
that had been completed or 2014-2015 Study Implementation Reports for incomplete studies. AEA
also filed an Initial Study Report for each of the 58 studies, summarizing the status of implementation,
all variances and AEA’s proposed modifications to the Study Plan, and referencing/linking all related
documents.
2016 The project emphasis in 2016 was to advance the licensing process to FERC’s updated Study Plan
Determination and shut down the project while preserving the State’s investment thus far.
In March, AEA held 5 days of Initial Study Report meetings with FERC and stakeholders, reviewing all
of the technical memoranda and Initial Study Reports filed by AEA between 2013 and 2015 for each of
the 58 studies, describing implementation of the FERC-approved Study Plan, any variances, AEA’s
proposed modifications, and steps to complete each study.
In the next step of the ILP, stakeholders may file with FERC comments on the Initial Study Reports and
can make recommendations for modifications to the FERC-approved Study Plan or request new
studies. In June, nearly 1,600 pages of comments and recommendations for modifications to the
Study Plan or requests for new studies were filed with FERC. Of note, the State of Alaska resource
agencies supported the FERC-approved Study Plan, AEA’s implementation of the Study Plan and AEA’s
proposed modifications to the Study Plan.
AEA responded to all commenters and on October 24, 2016 filed over 1,000 pages refuting nearly all
of the Study Plan modifications and new study requests. The vast majority of the comments were
either not appropriate at the ISR stage of the ILP or the requests did not meet the regulatory criteria
for modification to the existing Study Plan or for new studies. For example, some modification
requests were simply to complete the FERC-approved Study Plan. Other recommendations had been
previously submitted to FERC during the 2012 study planning phase and FERC had already ruled in its
2013 determination that the requests were beyond what is necessary to evaluate project effects and
develop FERC license conditions. Some recommended modifications would be extensive and costly,
such as expanding studies downstream to Cook Inlet, extending the number of years of study, and
modeling climate change to be considered as a future without-project scenario for impact
assessment. The estimated cost of implementing all of the modifications and new studies requested
by stakeholders would add between $260 million and $370 million to the cost of completing the
environmental studies in the ILP process. AEA presented substantial evidence that these Study Plan
modifications were unnecessary to support a license application.
Data collection in 2016 was limited to ice thickness and water surface elevation to fill data gaps for
the ice processes model; final aerial surveys of collared moose, caribou and ptarmigan and aquatic
furbearers to finish those nearly complete studies; and final data acquisition and
maintenance/removal of hydrology equipment installations to support project shutdown. Analysis
and final reporting of data already gathered continued during 2016.
13 SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT
All field equipment installations were removed from the field or transferred to other State agencies
by October 2016. Removal of equipment adhered to all relevant permits, and where applicable, sites
were restored to pre-installation conditions. Permit close-out reports were submitted for 16 of the 23
permits.
2017 FERC reviewed the ISR, stakeholders’ comments to the ISR and AEA’s responses and issued an
updated Study Plan Determination (SPD) on June 22, 2017. FERC overwhelmingly endorsed the
previously approved Study Plan, with minor modifications to 16 of the 58 studies, many of which were
proposed by AEA. FERC did not adopt any of the study modifications as requested by stakeholders
and rejected each of the four new study requests. Of note, FERC rejected nearly all of the
recommendations to expand numerous studies farther downstream into the lower river. FERC
rejected recommendations to add more years of data collection, agreeing with AEA’s analysis showing
that 2012 - 2015 environmental conditions were within the normal range of environmental variation.
FERC also rejected recommendations for a comprehensive climate change study of the entire Susitna
basin, endorsing AEA’s proposed approach that capitalizes on FERC’s conventional hydrological
approach, the hydrologic climate change study conducted by DGGS for AEA in the upper Susitna basin
above the proposed dam site, and an assessment of future trends based on planned sensitivity
analyses and common sense.
By the end of calendar year 2017, all work on the Susitna-Watana Hydro Project had come to a full
stop. Permit close-out reports were submitted for all field permits. All equipment was inventoried and
stored at the AEA warehouse or transferred to other State agencies. All contracts were terminated. To
preserve the value of the State’s investment and provide the data in the most usable format for
future licensing, as well as for resource managers, researchers, developers of other projects, and the
public, analysis and final reporting of data already gathered was completed. Final reporting was
completed for 8 FERC-approved wildlife and botanical studies, including those conducted by ADF&G
(i.e., moose, caribou, and ptarmigan). Calibration and validation reports were prepared for each of
the riverine physical process models, as well as a model integration report, to support the feasibility
of the approach in the FERC-approved Study Plan for assessing project impacts and developing
protection, mitigation and enhancement measures. All research and data was catalogued and stored
in publicly accessible databases on AEA’s project website, ARLIS and GINA.
FERC’s SPD provides the State with certainty on what is needed to file a defensible FERC license
application should the project be restarted. With its SPD, FERC reaffirmed the scope of studies
necessary for determining impact assessment and developing protection, mitigation and
enhancement measures, and FERC validated the quality and integrity of work completed to date.
As requested by Governor Walker in his August 4, 2016 letter to FERC, the licensing process was put
into abeyance following FERC’s SPD. To restart the project, FERC will need a firm commitment from
the State to pursue a license. Of the 58 studies, 19 have been completed as required by FERC and
significant progress has been made in completing the remaining 39 studies. To the extent the project
proposal does not change and the data gathered does not become stale, FERC ruled that AEA would
not need to repeat the already-completed ILP steps. If restarted, FERC may require additional scoping
and/or modifications to the approved Study Plan.
2018 No work was done on the Susitna-Watana Hydro Project in calendar year 2018.
SUSITNA-WATANA HYDRO REPORT 14
Below is a summary of project funding as of October 9, 2018 ($ in thousands)
Authorized Funds - State of Alaska Appropriations
FY2009 $1,528.1
FY2011 $9,644.8
FY2012 $65,700.0
FY2014 $95,200.0
FY2015 $20,000.0
Total Authorized Funds - State of Alaska Appropriations $192,072.9
Expenditures to Date, Encumbered and Committed Funds ($190,179.9)
Funds returned to the State General Fund in FY2019 $1,893.0
Balance of Authorized Funds $0.0
Summary of Project Funding
Information about the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project is archived and publicly available via the following:
www.susitna-watanahydro.org
www.gis.suhydro.org
www.arlis.org/susitnadocfinder/
This publication of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project status and financial condition is submitted by AEA in
accordance to AS 44.83.085. This document was designed and created in-house and distributed in electronic format.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
Alaska Energy Authority
Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director
Bryan Carey, Owned Assets/Hydro
Group Manager
Senate Community & Regional
Affairs Committee
February 11, 2020
Current Status
Alaska Energy Authority 3
In 2014, Administrative Order (AO) 271 placed the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project into abeyance
In 2019, AO 306 rescinded AO 271
No state funds were spent in Fiscal Year 2019
State Energy Policy
Alaska Energy Authority 4
In 2010, House Bill 306 was
passed and set an
aspirational goal to
generate 50% of the state’s
electricity from renewable
and alternative energy
sources by 2025
Why Large Hydro?
Alaska Energy Authority 5
Oil & Gas 70%
Coal 9%
21%Hydro
2011
Oil & Gas 65%
Coal 6%
27%Hydro
2019
Why Susitna-Watana?
50% Railbelt energy demand
Greater winter storage capacity
Lower overall cost to develop
Less complex project
Fewer long-term operational
uncertainties
Stable, reliable, clean energy
100+ years
AS 44.83.080 Powers of the Authority
Alaska Energy Authority 7
(18) to acquire a Susitna River power project, whether by
construction, purchase, gift, or lease, including the
acquisition of property rights and interests by eminent
domain under AS 09;
(19) to perform feasibility studies and engineering and
design with respect to power projects.
Project History
Alaska Energy Authority 8
2017
Licensing Abeyance
Alaska Energy Authority 10
Dam Height: 705 feet
Dam Elevation: 2,065 Feet MSL
Reservoir Length: ~42 miles
Reservoir Width: ~1.25 miles
Installed Capacity: 459-619 MW
Annual Energy: 2,800,000 MWh
Cost: ~$5.655 billion (2014$)
Project At a Glance
Size and generation optimized
Design reviewed by International
Board of Consultants
Designed to withstand:
10,000-year flood
Maximum credible earthquake
of a magnitude 8.0
2014 Engineering Feasibility Report
Engineering
Alaska Energy Authority 11
Economics
Alaska Energy Authority 12
Benefit-Cost and Economic
Impact Analyses completed in
2015
Based on 2014 projection of
natural gas prices:
Benefit-cost ratio of 2.39
from energy savings alone
$11.2 billion (2014$) in
energy savings over first 50
years
$4.7 billion (2014$) in capital
and O&M costs over first 50
years
Employment Opportunities
Alaska Energy Authority 13
Direct jobs:
5,000 preconstruction and non-construction direct jobs (2010-2028)
12,000 direct overall construction workforce
Local spending and statewide multiplier effects (2014$):
Alaska Energy Authority 14
Licensing Status
Integrated Licensing Process
2/3 of the way done
58 FERC-approved studies:
Implemented 2012-2017
19 studies completed
39 significant progress made
Initial Study Report filed with
FERC
FERC Study Plan Determination Outcome
Alaska Energy Authority 15
Confirmed adequacy of
environmental studies
Validated quality of work
completed to date
Rejected nearly all study
modification requests
Rejected requests for
additional years of study
Confirmed data gathered
thus far is representative of
baselines
Rejected requests for
additional studies
Licensing activity currently in
abeyance
Alaska Energy Authority 16
Project Timeline
Governor and Legislature Determine Next Steps
If greenlighted…
Determine licensing status
Update cost estimate to obtain license
Update benefit-cost and economic impact analyses
Review data to assure it remains reflective of current conditions
Consult with FERC, landowners, and other stakeholders
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
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 (888) 300-8534
akenergyauthority.org
For more information, please contact AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA2020 Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Status ReportAlaska Energy Authority —Renewable Energy Fund – Round XIIIREDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKASAFE, RELIABLE, & AFFORDABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONSAlaska State LegislatureJanuary 2021
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAREF OverviewPage 3REF Statutory GuidancePage 4Round XIII Request for Application SchedulePage 5REF Received Applications SummaryPage 6REF Evaluation ProcessPage 8REF Funding LimitsPage 12REF Fund BalancePage 13Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC)Page 14REFAC RolesPage 15Non-Recommended ApplicationsPage 16REFAC Solicitation of Advice on Recommended ProjectsPage 24Recommended Applications SummaryPage 25Applications Forwarded for Legislature’s Decision on FundingPage 27Partial Funding RecommendationPage 28Online Supplemental MaterialsPage 302SAFE, RELIABLE, & AFFORDABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONSTable of Contents
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAREF Overview3The Alaska Renewable Energy Fund (REF) is a competitivegrant program that was established by the Alaska StateLegislature in 2008 and is now in its thirteenth annual funding cycle (i.e. Round). The program was established tohelp fund cost-effective renewable energy projects throughout the state. These projects are intended to helpcommunities reduce their dependence on fossil fuels in order to stabilize their costs of both heat and electricity.The program also creates jobs, utilizes local energy resources, keeps money in local economies, and fosterseconomic development. As December 31, 2020, the REF has funded $255 million worth of projects since itsinception.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAREF 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.*3 AAC 107.615 a project is a ”direct use” of RE resources if it uses renewable energy resources to generate or to make a fuel used to generate energyEvaluation processDevelop 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 ALASKADATEACTIONJul20, 2020Request For Applications (RFA) postedSep 28, 2020Application submissiondeadlineSep - Dec 2020Evaluationof ApplicationsJan 15,2021Renewable Energy Fund AdvisoryCommittee (REFAC) MeetingJan 29, 2021AEAdeadline for recommendations to LegislatureJuly1, 2021* (Estimate)Capitalfunds appropriated by Legislature – Grants could beginRequest for Applications Schedule – REF Round XIII5
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKARound XIII – Received Applications SummaryThe 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 indicate a funding request: (1) Reconnaissance(2) Feasibility and Conceptual Design(3) Final Design and Permitting(4) Construction*For purposes of tabulation, if an applicant applied for more than one phase, the first chronological phase was counted, with the latter phases being excluded.6Requested Phase No. of applications Grant Funds RequestedReconnaissance4 1,327,905$ Feasibility and Conceptual Design8 4,637,321$ Final Design and Permitting5 3,496,737$ Construction4 3,362,000$ Total 21 12,823,963$
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKARound XIII – Received Applications SummaryFor REF Round XIII, AEA received a total of 21 applications yielding a total grant funding request of $12.8 million.7Energy Region No. of Applications Grant Funds RequestedAleutians 2 1,995,163$ Bering Straits 1 368,822$ Bristol Bay 5 5,181,156$ Copper River/Chugach 1 294,642$ Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 4 564,750$ Northwest Arctic 2 1,628,607$ Railbelt 2 963,349$ Southeast 3 1,177,474$ Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 1 650,000$ Total 21 12,823,963$ Technology No. of Applications Grant Funds RequestedBiomass Heat 2 1,544,000$ Geothermal 2 1,220,085$ Heat (Other) 1 69,349$ Heat Recovery 1 1,303,607$ Hydro 7 6,458,772$ Storage 1 325,000$ Wind 7 1,903,150$ Total 21 12,823,963$
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAREF Evaluation Process - Stage 1 – Eligibility and CompletenessThe REF evaluation process is comprised of four stages. Stage one is an evaluation of applicant and project eligibility and application completeness, 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 two) of the evaluation. •The application must provide a detail description of the phase(s) of project proposed.Applications which fail to meet the requirements of stage one will be rejected by the authority, and the authority will notify each applicant whose application is rejected of the authority’s decision.8STAGE1 CRITERIAPASS/FAILTimely submittal of applicationPASS/FAILApplicanteligibility, including formal authorization and ownership, site control, and operationPASS/FAILProject EligibilityPASS/FAILComplete application,including Phase description(s)PASS/FAIL
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAREF Evaluation Process - Stage 2 – Technical and Economic FeasibilityStage two 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 vendors. The following items are evaluated as part of the stage two evaluation, 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 •Economic feasibility and benefits – including but not limited to project benefit-cost ratio, project financing plan, and other public benefits owing to the projectAll stage 2 criteria are weighted as follows as part of the evaluation process. Those applications that score below 40 points in this stage will be automatically rejected by the authority, however, those projects scoring above 40 can 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.9CRITERIACRITERIA DESCRIPTIONWEIGHT1Projectmanagement, development, and operation25%2Qualificationsand experience20%3Technicalfeasibility20%4.aEconomic benefit-cost ratio25%4.bFinancingplan5%4.cOther publicbenefit5%
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAREF Evaluation Process - Stage 3 – Project RankingStage three 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•ComplianceAll stage 3 criteria are weighted as follows as part of the evaluation process. The stage 3 scoring is used to determine the ranking score. 10CRITERIACRITERIA DESCRIPTIONWEIGHT1Costof Energy30%2Matching Funds15%3Project Feasibility(levelized score from stage 2)25%4Project Readiness5%5Public Benefits10%6Sustainability10%7Local Support5%8RegionalBalancePass/Fail9CompliancePass/Fail
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAREF Evaluation Process - Stage 4 – Regional SpreadingStage four 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 spreadingStage 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.11Even SplitEnergy Region Grant Funding % TotalCost burden (HH cost/HH income)Allocation cost of energy basisAdditional funding needed to reach 50%% of target allocation% TotalAllocation per capita basisAllocation per region basisAleutians$17,426,348 7% 9.39% $17,935,444($8,458,626)97%1% $2,851,862$21,991,472Bering Straits$20,485,269 8% 15.43% $29,456,220($5,757,159)70%1% $3,301,922$21,991,472Bristol Bay$10,911,982 5% 14.40% $27,499,297 $2,837,66640%1% $2,498,585$21,991,472Copper River/Chugach$23,793,838 10% 6.93% $13,224,221($17,181,728)180%1% $3,090,571$21,991,472Kodiak$16,486,919 7% 5.83% $11,132,481($10,920,678)148%1% $2,951,723$21,991,472Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim$37,237,089 15% 17.83% $34,039,114($20,217,531)109%4% $8,971,788$21,991,472North Slope$1,251,859 1% 3.87% $7,393,706 $2,444,99417%1% $2,491,403$21,991,472Northwest Arctic$23,119,029 10% 15.99% $30,540,928($7,848,564)76%1% $2,512,949$21,991,472Railbelt$22,059,938 9% 5.05% $9,636,377($17,241,750)229%78% $188,445,503$21,991,472Southeast$54,193,791 22% 5.48% $10,469,004($48,959,289)518%9% $22,566,950$21,991,472Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanan$14,377,031 6% 26.49% $50,579,402 $10,912,67028%1% $2,222,940 $21,991,472Statewide $563,101 0% 0.00%TOTAL $241,906,195 100% $241,906,195 100% $241,906,195 $241,906,195Cumulative through Round 9Cost of Power AllocationPopulationTotal Round 1-9 Funding
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAREF Round XIII funding limits are governed by the requested phase(s) in the application and the technology type applied. No grant request amounts were found to be in excess of the grant funding limits as stated.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 Areasare 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 fuelREF Round XIII Grant Funding Limits12REF Funding Limits
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAAs of December 31st, 2020, the current REF Fund Balance is $6.5 million. The REF program is set to sunset in 2023. As indicated in the provided budget analysis, there are administrative costs related to operating budget appropriations allocated for FY22 and FY23.With a current REF fund balance of $6.5 million, this is insufficient to cover the total grant requests of all 21 received applications of $12.8 million, a delta of ($6.2 million).The current list of 11 recommended applications totals a recommended grant request of $4.7 million. With a REF fund balance of $6.5 million, this is sufficient to cover these requests with $1.7 million remaining for further appropriation or left within the fund, at the discretion of the Legislature.13REF Fund Balance
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKARenewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC)14NAMETITLESECTORAPPOINTED BYKohler,MeeraCEO,Alaska Village Electric CooperativeSmall ruralelectric utilityGovernor (pending)VACANTTBDBusiness/organizationinvolved in renewable energyGovernorSchubert,GailCEO, Bering StraitsNative CorporationRepresentative of an Alaska Native OrganizationGovernorSiira, AliciaMember,Denali Commission; Exec Dir, Associated General Contractors of AlaskaDenali CommissionGovernorThibert,LeeCEO,Chugach Electric AssociationLarge urban electric utilityGovernorVon Imhof, NatashaSenatorSenateMember 2Senate PresidentWilson, DavidSenatorSenateMember 1SenatePresidentWool,AdamRepresentativeHouse Member 2Speaker of the HouseZulkosky, TiffanyRepresentativeHouse Member 1Speaker of the House
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAStatutes (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 inAS 42.45.045(i) a statewide and regional ranking of all applications recommended for grants.(b) In consultation with the advisory committee established inAS 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 rank15REFAC Roles
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKANon-Recommended Applications – Summary16In AEA’s stage one evaluation, as per 3 AAC 107.635, it was determined that five applications did not meet the 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 issued to the applicants. Owing to the subsequent stage two evaluation for the remaining applications, it was concluded by the authority that a further five applications, as per 3 AAC 107.645, were not technically and economically feasible. Applicants were then notified of their rejection. Four applicants appealed their rejections. Upon the authority’s receipt of the appeals, and aftera thorough review of the applicants’ applications, the rejections were upheld. The applicants were then notified in writing of AEA’s final determination of non-recommendation.There are 11 remaining applications which are recommended, with 10 being rejected during stage one and stage two evaluations, of an initial total of 21 applications. In terms of grant funding requests, a total of $2 million was rejected in stage one and a total of $4 million rejected in stage two, yielding a total of $6.7 million in grant request monies remaining. With a current REF fund balance of $6.5 million, there are insufficient funds to cover the total grant request amount, prior to AEA funding level recommendations as addressed later in the presentation, with a delta of ($219,476).
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKACount Energy Region IDApplication IDProject Name Applicant TechB/C RatioImpacted PopulationHousehold Energy CostStage 2 ScoreStage 3 ScoreRegional RankStatewide RankRequested Phase CostApplicant Grant RequestedApplicant Match OfferedRec Phase(s)AEA Rec Funding LevelRec FundingCumulative Funding1Railbelt 1132 13004Building Integrated Technologies Potential in AlaskaUniversity of Alaska AnchorageHeat (Other) 0 7877 1,428$ 0 N/A N/A N/A 105,872$ 69,349$ 36,523$ N/A Stage 1 Reject Not Recommended 69,349$ 2Bristol Bay 1136 13008 Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project City of Chignik Hydro 0.57 95 5,826$ 24.67 N/A N/A N/A 1,276,656$ 1,276,656$ -$ N/A Stage 2 Reject Not Recommended 1,346,005$ 3Bering Straits 1137 13009Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Power Plant Conceptual DesignKawerak, Inc. Geothermal 1.01 3690 7,531$ 42.46 N/A N/A N/A 505,715$ 368,822$ 136,893$ N/A Stage 2 Reject Not Recommended 1,714,827$ 4Aleutians 1140 13012Engineering Alaska's Geothermal Energy-HSBV, AkutanUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical SurveysGeothermal 0 990 8,418$ 0 N/A N/A N/A 947,156$ 851,263$ 95,893$ N/A Stage 1 Reject Not Recommended 2,566,090$ 5Southeast 1143 13015 Burro Creek Hydro Project Burro Creek Holdings, LLC Hydro 1.56 1045 4,885$ 53.17 N/A N/A N/A 612,000$ 586,000$ 26,000$ N/A Stage 2 Reject Not Recommended 3,152,090$ 6Southeast 1144 13016Elfin Cove Hydro Final Permitting and DesignCommunity of Elfin Cove Non-Profit Corporation, Elfin Cove Utility CommissionHydro 0.73 11 8,007$ 40.33 N/A N/A N/A 162,500$ 130,000$ 32,500$ N/A Stage 2 Reject Not Recommended 3,282,090$ 7Bristol Bay 1145 13017KNUTSON CREEK HYDRO PROJECT CONSTRUCTIONPedro Bay Village Council Hydro 0.34 36 7,117$ 28.33 N/A N/A N/A 1,715,000$ 1,710,000$ 5,000$ N/A Stage 2 Reject Not Recommended 4,992,090$ 8Railbelt 1147 13019 NENANA BIOMASS AND WASHETERIA City of NenanaBiomass Heat0 362 5,072$ 0 N/A N/A N/A 894,000$ 894,000$ -$ N/A Stage 1 Reject Not Recommended 5,886,090$ 9Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim1148 13020Akiachak Reconnaissance Study Akiachak Ltd & Subsidiaries Wind 0 724 8,068$ 0 N/A N/A N/A 91,000$ 91,000$ -$ N/A Stage 1 Reject Not Recommended 5,977,090$ 10Bristol Bay 1149 13021 Port Heiden Reconnaissance study City of Port Heiden Wind 0 105 7,703$ 0 N/A N/A N/A 91,000$ 91,000$ -$ N/A Stage 1 Reject Not Recommended 6,068,090$ TOTAL6,400,899$ 6,068,090$ -$ Note:orange cells indicate heat project applicationsblue cells indicate standard electric project applicationsNon-Recommended ProjectsProject CostsRecommendationNon-Recommended Applications – Summary17The following applications were not recommended for funding, owing to the authority’s stage one and stage two evaluation criteria, as indicated below:
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKANon-Recommended Applications – Stage One18Below are the five identified applications which were rejected owing to the stage one evaluation:CountEnergy RegionIDApplication IDApplicant Name Project Name TechnologyRequested Phase(s)Rejected StageB/C RatioStage 2 ScoreGrant Request ($)Rejection Reasoning1 Railbelt 1132 13004 University of Alaska AnchorageBuilding Integrated Technologies Potential in AlaskaHeat (Other) Feas 1 N/A N/A $ 69,349 Ineligible project2 Aleutians 1140 13012University of Alaska Fairbanks - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical SurveysEngineering Alaska's Geothermal Energy- HSBV, AkutanGeothermal Recon; Feas 1 N/A N/A $ 851,263 Ineligible project3 Railbelt 1147 13019 City of NenanaNENANA BIOMASS AND WASHETERIA Biomass HeatConst 1 N/A N/A $ 894,000 Late submittal, Incomplete application4Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim1148 13020 Akiachak Ltd & Subsidiaries Akiachak Reconnaissance Study Wind Recon 1 N/A N/A $ 91,000 Late submittal, Incomplete application5 Bristol Bay 1149 13021 City of Port HeidenPort Heiden Reconnaissance studyWind Recon 1 N/A N/A $ 91,000 Late submittalTotal $ 1,996,612
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKANon-Recommended Applications – Stage Two19Below, and continued on the following pages, are the five identified applications which were rejected owing to the stage two evaluation:CountEnergy RegionIDApplication IDApplicant Name Project Name TechnologyRequested Phase(s)Rejected StageB/C RatioStage 2 ScoreGrant Request ($)1 Bristol Bay 1136 13008 City of ChignikChignik Hydroelectric Dam ProjectHydro Design 2 0.57 24.67 $ 1,276,656 ReasoningThis project is not recommended due primarily to poor economics: high cost of study for marginal benefits and required long life for the investment to achieve economic payback. The potential load (diesel displacement) and resource (annual precipitation) are both very limited. Any decrease in load or resource in a year will not be made up in another year because of the limitations of demand or resource.Capital and operational costs are frequently greater than estimated. However, this application is for almost $1.3 million dollars for final design and permitting of a small hydroelectric facility. Other projects can tend to have final design and permitting more in the range of half a million dollars plus or minus. Application did not meet the minimum score of 40 points in stage 2.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKANon-Recommended Applications – Stage Two20CountEnergy RegionIDApplication IDApplicant Name Project Name TechnologyRequested Phase(s)Rejected StageB/C RatioStage 2 ScoreGrant Request ($)2 Bering Straits 1137 13009 Kawerak, Inc.Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Power Plant Conceptual DesignGeothermal Feas 2 1.01 42.46 $ 368,822 ReasoningInsufficient information was available for the applicant analysis, so the AEA analysis is the same as that of the applicant. The project’s public benefits may be significant but are not easily monetized and there is no existing electrical system to use as the basis for estimating benefits from displaced diesel-generated electricity. For illustrative purposes we assume the applicant would pursue the developments, without the geothermal resource, by using diesel generators. The applicant assumes that the electrical system will lead to economic development and attract tourists. A demand/market analysis or business plan could help to determine how many visitors can be expected and how many staff will be required to operate the site.This project is predicated on a future tourism- based community. The tourism demand is not fully developed, and subject to seasonality and volatility.The specified powerhouse capacity is based on the geothermal resource estimate, not an existing or estimated community electrical load.The detail and funding for the necessary business planning, tourism development, and infrastructure construction that would justify the design and construction of a geothermal power plant at Pilgrim Hot Springs were not provided. Therefore, AEA does not recommend funding this project.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKANon-Recommended Applications – Stage Two21CountEnergy RegionIDApplication IDApplicant Name Project Name TechnologyRequested Phase(s)Rejected StageB/C RatioStage 2 ScoreGrant Request ($)3 Southeast 1143 13015Burro Creek Holdings, LLCBurro Creek Hydro ProjectHydro Feas; Design 2 1.56 53.17 $ 586,000 ReasoningThis project is not recommended due primarily to lack of diesel displacement. Currently almost all energy used by local utility is generated from hydropower such that an intertie with the local utility would not displace diesel fuel. Potential diesel loads to be displaced are given as dock electrification, transmission to the Yukon for mine loads, and various electric transportation in Skagway. Electrification of dock for cruise ships poses very substantial technical challenges. Displacement of cruise ship power would occur only part of the year and part of a week. A connection for cruise ships would not enable ships to go off diesel. Transportation and mines are other possible future demands that are not currently present. The project likely has a significant higher direct and indirect cost than estimated. Prior to any sales various infrastructure upgrades to the utility system would need to occur. Power sales from this project would need to go through the local utility. The utility may choose to meet new loads by developing their own projects and not purchasing power from an Independent Power Producer. A large percent of the application is for a business plan. To determine the project market an Integrated Resources Plan needs to be prepared with the local utility to determine the future possible loads and projects to meet the loads.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKACountEnergy RegionIDApplication IDApplicant Name Project Name TechnologyRequested Phase(s)Rejected StageB/C RatioStage 2 ScoreGrant Request ($)4 Southeast 1144 13016Community of Elfin Cove Non-Profit Corporation, Elfin Cove Utility CommissionElfin Cove Hydro Final Permitting and DesignHydro Design 2 0.73 40.33 $ 130,000 ReasoningThis project is not recommended due primarily to poor economics: high cost of study for marginal benefits, required long life for the investment to achieve economic payback and the associated uncertainty about whether the resource will be available used for its economic life. The potential load (diesel displacement) and resource (annual precipitation) are both very limited. Any decrease in load or resource in a year will not be made up another year because of the limitations of demand or resource. Capital and operational costs are frequently greater than estimated. The construction cost estimate uses 18% for contingency. This project will be small, remote, few bidders, and there are questions on how items will be constructed. Similar small projects in the Southeast have had cost increases greater than 20%. This phase of design and permitting work has received grant funding from the Renewable Energy Fund and the time and cost have substantially increased from initial estimates. The substantial increases provide AEA with less confidence in completion of current phase and construction phase.Non-Recommended Applications – Stage Two22
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKANon-Recommended Applications – Stage Two23CountEnergy RegionIDApplication IDApplicant Name Project Name TechnologyRequested Phase(s)Rejected StageB/C RatioStage 2 ScoreGrant Request ($)5 Bristol Bay 1145 13017Pedro Bay Village CouncilKNUTSON CREEK HYDRO PROJECT CONSTRUCTIONHydro Const 2 0.34 28.33 $ 1,710,000 TOTAL4,071,478$ ReasoningThis project is not recommended due primarily to poor economics. With a B/C ratio of less than 1.0, the calculated future benefits of the project are less than the costs. The model B/C Ratio calculated is likely optimistic as the capital construction cost of the project and operation & maintenance costs for two systems (hydro and diesel) tend to be more than estimated. Capital and operational costs are frequently greater than estimated. The Grant would be used for phase 1 of the project with additional sources of funds not identified for phase 1 cost increases or future phases. This project will be small, remote, few bidders, and breaking a project into phases over many years as funding is sought will increase costs because of multiple mobilizations and length of project management time. There are significantly limited reasonable funding options that would be available to the applicant to cover phase 1 cost increases/overruns or future phase costs in a timely manner. Any loan commitments on the part of the applicant would further depress the B/C ratio. Application did not meet the minimum score of 40 points in stage 2.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKASolicitation of Advice from REFACAs statutorily required per AS 42.45.045 and set forth in 3 AAC 107.660, the authority solicited advice from the REFAC, on Jan 15, 2021, during the posted public meeting 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 is provided herein for consideration by the legislature for recommendation in accordance with AS 42.45.045(d)(3). Any grant awards are subject to legislative 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, Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana, and the North Slope 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. 24Even SplitEnergy Region Grant Funding % TotalCost burden (HH cost/HH income)Allocation cost of energy basisAdditional funding needed to reach 50%% of target allocation% TotalAllocation per capita basisAllocation per region basisAleutians$17,426,348 7% 9.39% $17,935,444($8,458,626)97%1% $2,851,862$21,991,472Bering Straits$20,485,269 8% 15.43% $29,456,220($5,757,159)70%1% $3,301,922$21,991,472Bristol Bay$10,911,982 5% 14.40% $27,499,297 $2,837,66640%1% $2,498,585$21,991,472Copper River/Chugach$23,793,838 10% 6.93% $13,224,221($17,181,728)180%1% $3,090,571$21,991,472Kodiak$16,486,919 7% 5.83% $11,132,481($10,920,678)148%1% $2,951,723$21,991,472Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim$37,237,089 15% 17.83% $34,039,114($20,217,531)109%4% $8,971,788$21,991,472North Slope$1,251,859 1% 3.87% $7,393,706 $2,444,99417%1% $2,491,403$21,991,472Northwest Arctic$23,119,029 10% 15.99% $30,540,928($7,848,564)76%1% $2,512,949$21,991,472Railbelt$22,059,938 9% 5.05% $9,636,377($17,241,750)229%78% $188,445,503$21,991,472Southeast$54,193,791 22% 5.48% $10,469,004($48,959,289)518%9% $22,566,950$21,991,472Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanan$14,377,031 6% 26.49% $50,579,402 $10,912,67028%1% $2,222,940 $21,991,472Statewide $563,101 0% 0.00%TOTAL $241,906,195 100% $241,906,195 100% $241,906,195 $241,906,195Cumulative through Round 9Cost of Power AllocationPopulationTotal Round 1-9 Funding
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKARound XIII – Recommended Applications SummaryThere are 11 remaining recommended applications for Round XIII, totaling $4.7 million. Two applications, pursuant to 3 AAC 170.655(b), are recommended for partial funding, for the initial phase of those requested by the applicant; this accounts for the reduction in grant monies requested from $6.7 million to $4.7 million.25Energy Region No. of applications Grant Funds RequestedAleutians1139,000$ Bristol Bay21,103,500$ Copper River/Chugach1294,642$ Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim3473,750$ Northwest Arctic21,628,607$ Southeast1461,474$ Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana1 650,000$ Total 11 4,750,973$ Technology No. of applications Grant Funds RequestedBiomass Heat 1 650,000$ Heat Recovery 1 1,303,607$ Hydro 3 1,756,116$ Storage 1 325,000$ Wind 5 716,250$ Total 11 4,750,973$
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKARound XIII – Recommended Applications SummaryWith a current REF Fund Balance of $6.5 million and a remaining total grant request amount of $4.7 million, there is sufficient REF funds to cover the recommended grant amounts, with a remaining $1.7 million balance remaining in the fund.26Requested Phase No. of Applications Grant Funds RequestedReconnaissance 1 294,642$ Feasibility and Conceptual Design 5 1,608,250$ Final Design and Permitting 3 2,090,081$ Construction 2 758,000$ Total 11 4,750,973$
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKACount Energy Region IDApplication IDProject Name Applicant TechB/C RatioImpacted PopulationHousehold Energy CostStage 2 ScoreStage 3 ScoreRegional RankStatewide RankRequested Phase CostApplicant Grant RequestedApplicant Match OfferedRec Phase(s)AEA Rec Funding LevelRec FundingCumulative Funding1Copper River/Chugach1141 13013Cordova Hydro Storage Assessment ProjectCordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.Hydro 0.99 2343 6,740$ 78.17 70.13 1 1 444,642$ 294,642$ 150,000$ Recon; Feas Full 294,642$ 294,642$ 2Southeast 1138 13010Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design - Hoonah, AKInside Passage Electric CooperativeHydro 1.35 782 6,297$ 85.83 70.09 1 2 536,474$ 461,474$ 75,000$ Design Full 461,474$ 756,116$ 3Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana1134 13006Walter Northway School Wood Chip Heating SystemAlaska Gateway School DistrictBiomass Heat1.42 60 8,246$ 84.54 69.7 1 3 683,500$ 650,000$ 62,375$ Const Full 650,000$ 1,406,116$ 4Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim1142 13014Improved airfoil for wind turbines in KongiganakPuvurnaq Power Company Wind 2.02 523 8,111$ 89.5 69.66 1 4 117,000$ 108,000$ 9,000$ Const Full 108,000$ 1,514,116$ 5Northwest Arctic 1139 13011 Shungnak Heat Recovery Expansion City of ShungnakHeat Recovery1.03 253 11,601$ 73.5 64.44 1 5 1,303,607$ 1,303,607$ -$ Design; Const Full 1,303,607$ 2,817,723$ 6Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim1130 13002Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design ProjectAlaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Wind 0.15 284 6,832$ 66.33 58.77 2 6 135,000$ 128,250$ 6,750$ Feas Full 128,250$ 2,945,973$ 7Bristol Bay 1129 13001Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project (Run of River Project)Nushagak Electric & Telephone CooperativeHydro 0.25 3306 6,323$ 53.58 56.45 1 7 12,280,000$ 2,000,000$ 10,280,000$ Feas Partial 1,000,000$ 3,945,973$ 8Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim1131 13003Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design ProjectAlaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Wind 0.25 649 7,223$ 57.42 54.73 3 8 250,000$ 237,500$ 12,500$ Feas Full 237,500$ 4,183,473$ 9Bristol Bay 1133 13005Naknek Service Area Wind and Solar Power Feasibility and Conceptual DesignNaknek Electric Association, Inc.Wind 0.63 488 7,814$ 50.33 53.45 2 9 115,000$ 103,500$ 11,500$ Feas Full 103,500$ 4,286,973$ 10Northwest Arctic 1146 13018Kotzebue Community-Scale Energy Storage SystemKotzebue Electric AssociationStorage 0.85 3112 7,264$ 48.54 51.52 2 10 425,000$ 325,000$ 100,000$ Design Full w/ SP 325,000$ 4,611,973$ 11Aleutians 1135 13007City of Unalaska Wind Power Feasibility and Final DesignCity of Unalaska - Department of Public UtilitiesWind 0.54 4592 4,997$ 54.33 46.41 1 11 1,271,000$ 1,143,900$ 127,100$ Feas Partial 139,000$ 4,750,973$ TOTAL17,561,223$ 6,755,873$ 4,750,973$ Note:orange cells indicate heat project applicationsblue cells indicate standard electric project applicationsRecommended ProjectsProject CostsRecommendationApplications Forwarded for Legislature’s Decision on Funding27On January 15, 2021 the REFAC voted unanimously in favor of the authority’s recommended applications and assigned ranking, aspresented below in descending order:
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKARound XIII – Partial Funding RecommendationsAs part of the evaluation process and pursuant to 3 AAC 170.655(b), two application, as indicated below, have been recommended for partial funding. To caveat, if these partial funding recommendations are reversed and full funding recommended, this would raise the total grant request amount for all remaining 11 recommended applications to $6.7 million. At $6.7 million, the current REF fund balance of $6.5 million is insufficient to fund the total grant request amount, yielding a delta of ($219,476). The REFAC did concur with the authority’s findings on these matters of recommended partial funding. Application #13001 – Partial Funding: AEA is recommending funding for the feasibility and conceptual design portion of the project in the amount of $1,000,000, as indicated by the applicant in their application's budget schedule. Such funding does address the applicant's concern over phase II of their project regarding limited possible and eligible sources of funds for feasibility studies. The applicant is in a position to begin feasibility study work in the project site area owing to theirsecuring of a special use permit from the Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources' Div. of Parks & Outdoor Recreation. AEA understands there are risks relating to the project regarding FERC permitting requirements and potential risks related to significant project cost overages. Owing to this, AEA finds that it is prudent and appropriate at this time to recommend only funding the feasibility and conceptual design portion of the proposed project.28CountEnergy Region IDApplication IDProject Name Applicant TechnologyStage 2 Score (Tech/Econ)Stage 3 Ranking ScoreRegional RankStatewide RankApplicant Phase(s) RequestedApplicant Grant RequestedAEA Recommended Phase(s)AEA Recommended Funding LevelRecommended Funding ($)Delta6 Bristol Bay 1129 13001 Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project (Run of River Project) Nushagak Electric & Telephone Cooperative Hydro 53.58 56.45 1 6 Feas; Design 2,000,000$ Feas Partial 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 10 Aleutians 1135 13007 City of Unalaska Wind Power Feasibility and Final Design City of Unalaska - Department of Public Utilities Wind 54.33 46.41 1 10 Feas; Design 1,143,900$ Feas Partial 139,000$ 1,004,900$ TOTAL3,143,900$ 1,139,000$ 2,004,900$
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKARound XIII – Partial Funding Recommendations29Application #13007 – Partial Funding: AEA recommends partial funding for the proposed project. It is recommended the feasibility and conceptual design (CDR) phase, requested at $139,000, be funded prior to funding the final design phase. The integration of the Geothermal plant, expected on-line in 2024, with the proposed wind system, potential ESS, and the existing diesel plant is complex and will likely require some study as part of the initial feasibility phase to gauge the requirements for integration. As the feasibility portion of the requested phases is anticipated to finish in April 2022, thisallows more time for other components of the project to develop and will refine the scope of the proposed wind system. Successful completion of the feasibility CDR will allow for a determination to be made on the selection of the generational capacity of the proposed wind system. At present, the applicant has provided a range of 2 to 5 MW.
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKASupplemental materials as listed below have been made available on AEA’s websitefor reference by interested parties:•2020 REF Recommendations•REF Round XIII Status Report•REF Round XIII Application Summaries Report•RED Round XIII Economic Evaluations Summaries Report•Application Documents•REF Round 13 Cover Letter•Request for Applications Solicitation•Standard Application Form•Heat Application Form•Best Practices Guides•Guide provided for each eligible technology type – Biomass, Heat Pump, Heat Recovery, Hydro, Solar, and Wind•Economic Evaluation Model•Additional DocumentsOnline Supplemental Materials30
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA31SAFE, RELIABLE, & AFFORDABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONSALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY813 West Northern Lights Blvd.Anchorage, Alaska 99503Phone: (907) 771-3000Fax: (907) 771-3044Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888-300-8534
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
ANNUAL CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
February 2, 2021
PROJECT: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project
PROJECT LOCATION: Homer, Alaska
ORIGINAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS1: $ 355,900,000
ORIGINAL ESTIMATED COSTS OF BATTLE CREEK DIVERSION
IMPROVEMENT2: 47,200,000
ORIGINAL ESTIMATED COSTS OF SSQ LINE ACQUISITION3: 16,810,000
$ 419,910,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS:
Construction Expenditures-Original Construction $ 316,902,894
Construction Expenditures-Battle Creek Diversion 46,401,274
Construction & Acquisition Cost – SSQ Transmission Line 16,810,000
Total Construction & Acquisition Costs $ 380,114,168
Financing Costs-Original Construction 11,316,424
Financing Costs-Battle Creek Diversion Improvement 173,045
Financing Costs –SSQ 115-Kv Transmission Line $ 190,000
Total Financing Costs 11,679,469
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 391,793,637
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Appropriated Funds: SLA1979 CH 80 $ 80,000
SLA1981 CH 92 $ 5,000,000
SLA1981 CH 92 $ 10,000,000
SLA1982 CH 141 $ 3,000,000
SLA1984 CH 171 $ 50,000,000
SLA1985 CH 96 $ 50,000,000
SLA1986 CH 41 $(50,000,000)
SLA1986 CH 41 $ 50,000,000
SLA1986 CH 128 $ 50,000,000
SLA1987 CH 96 $(50,000,000)
SLA1987 CH 96 $ 50,000,000
SLA1988 CH 172 $ 7,000,000
SLA1993 CH 19 $(12,082,500) $162,997,500
1 Excludes project financing costs. Also excludes major maintenance and repair costs and preconstruction
costs associated with Battle Creek diversion. Excludes costs associated with the SSQ Line acquisition and
remediation.
2 Excludes project financing costs. Battle Creek diversion construction costs are included in this estimate .
3 Excludes project financing costs. SSQ Line acquisition and remediation costs are included in this estimate.
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Status Report
Page 2 of 4
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
Other: Power Revenue Bonds, includes interest earnings $165,221,818
Battle Creek Diversion Power Revenue Bonds,
includes interest earnings 42,105,633
Participating Utility Cash Contributions 4,468,686
SSQ 115-kV Transmission Line Bonds $ 17,000,000
Total Source of Funds: $391,793,637
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Bradley Lake is a hydroelectric project located near Homer, Alaska with an installed capacity of
120 megawatts. Construction of the Bradley Lake Project was substantially completed in 1991,
with the date of commercial operation declared to be September 1, 1991. The project continues to
provide electric power to the Railbelt utilities from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks. The project
is operated and maintained by Homer Electric Association.
PROJECT STATUS AT 12/31/20:
The Bradley Lake Project Management Committee (“BPMC”) has responsibility to operate and
maintain the Bradley Lake hydroelectric project. The BPMC was established pursuant to Section
13 of the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Electric Power (“Power Sales Agreement”) dated
December 8, 1987. The members of the BPMC include the Alaska Energy Authority (“AEA”) and
the five purchasers under the Power Sales Agreement - Chugach Electric Association, Inc
(“CEA”).; Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc (“GVEA”).; the City of Seward (“Seward
Electric System”); Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative, Inc. (“AE&EC”); and Matanuska
Electric Association, Inc. (“MEA”). Originally, the Alaska Electric Generation & Transmission
Cooperative, Inc. (“AEG&T”) was a purchaser under the Power Sales Agreement for the benefit
of HEA and MEA. AEG&T assigned its rights under the Power Sales Agreement pertaining to
MEA to MEA in 2015, and its rights pertaining to HEA to AE&EC in 2003. HEA is an additional
party to the Power Sales Agreement, and is the entity represented on the BPMC while AE&EC
has no direct vote as a consequence of the individual representation of HEA. Originally, the
Municipality of Anchorage’s Municipal Light & Power (“ML&P”) was a purchaser under the
Power Sales Agreement. CEA acquired ML&P on October 30, 2020, and its rights under the
Power Sales Agreement.
Originally, the Project encompassed 5,498 acres of federal lands. All of these lands were conveyed
to the State of Alaska, pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act, through five separate Tentative
Approvals (TAs) and a Patent from the United States that became effective Spring 2018. AEA is
no longer required to pay annual charges for the use and occupancy of lands that were owned by
the United States.
Bradley Lake hydroelectric project generation for the year was 431,458 megawatt hours (MWh).
The 2020 generation was higher than the long term annual mean generation of 390,000 MWh. The
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Status Report
Page 3 of 4
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
projects ongoing maintenance and repairs are funded by the purchasers and not by state
appropriation.
One major project for 2020 included the continuation and completion of construction of the West
Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion project (“Battle Creek”). The Battle Creek diversion project
will increase the Bradley Lake Hydropower Project’s annual energy by approximately 37,000
MWh. A license amendment was received from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(“FERC”) in September 2016. The Battle Creek diversion project Invitation to Bid, site visits, and
bid opening were performed in the Fall of 2017. Four of the five Railbelt utilities are participating
in the Battle Creek project.
Preconstruction activities for the Battle Creek diversion project were partially funded by a $3
million allocation of an ARCTEC Energy Project appropriation (FSSLA11 CH 5). Additional
funding sources include a $500,000 Renewable Energy Grant, a $500,000 contribution by the
participating utilities to match the Renewable Energy Grant, and an additional $1.2 million
contribution by the participating utilities.
In December 2017, the Authority issued, as a private placement, $47 million of Power Revenue
Bonds for the long-term financing of the construction costs of the Battle Creek Diversion Project.
The Power Revenue Bonds consist of $40 million New Clean Renewable Energ y Bonds
(“NCREB”); $1.2 million Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (“QECB”); and $5.8 million
Taxable Draw-Down Bonds. The tax subsidies associated with the NCREB and QECBs
significantly reduce the net interest costs of financing the WFUBC construction project. The draw
period on the $5.8 million Alaska Energy Authority Power Revenue, Ninth Series Taxable Draw-
Down Bonds expired in December 2020 with no draws made on this Series. The participating
utilities will provide cash contributions of $4.5 million.
The contractor mobilized to the Bradley Lake Project in April 2018. During 2018 and 2019 the
contractor completed the dam access road and began work on the diversion structure. In 2020, the
contractor completed the diversion structure and installed the pipeline. The project was complete
in October 2020.
A second project initiated in 2020 was the Transmission Line Projects, which included the
acquisition of approximately 39.3 miles of 115 kV and 69 kV electricity transmission line systems
between the Sterling Substation and Quartz Creek Substation (“SSQ Line”), and certain related
rights, rights of way, and permits as part of the Bradley Lake Project. The SSQ Line is a critical
component of the Railbelt transmission system. The transmission line delivers Bradley Lake
hydroelectric generated power from HEA’s grid to transmission lines linked to all the other
Railbelt utilities. In the summer of 2019, the SSQ Line was out -of-service for an extended time
after receiving damage during the Swan Lake Fire. It took four months to bring the line back into
service costing an estimated $12 million to Railbelt Utility ratepayers. The addition of the SSQ
Line to the Bradley Lake Project assets is intended to benefit Alaska ratepayers through better cost
alignment, increased reliability, and future prospects for upgrades to the line, decreasing line losses
and allowing increased transmission north of Bradley Lake Power.
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Status Report
Page 4 of 4
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
In December 2020, the Authority issued, as a private placement, $17 million of Power Revenue
Bonds for the long-term financing of the acquisition costs of the SSQ Line. The line was purchased
from HEA for $13.3 million. Additional costs include remediation of the 69kV line,
Inspection/Repair outside of the Fire Zone, Right of Way (“ROW”) transfer and upgrade costs,
funding of the Capital Reserve account, and bond issuance closing costs.
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
ANNUAL CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
February 2, 2021
PROJECT: Alaska Intertie Project
PROJECT LOCATION: Willow to Healy, Alaska
CURRENT ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS:
Construction Expenditures-Original Construction $124,245,687
Construction Expenditures-Upgrades/Improvements
through 12/31/20 15,422,704
Projection to Complete Upgrades/Improvements: 8,877,296
Total Estimated Project Costs $148,545,687
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Appropriated Funds:
Original Construction SLA1980 CH 50 $ 3,000,000
SLA1981 CH 92 $ 36,000,000
SLA1981 CH 92 $ 40,000,000
SLA1983 CH107 $ 25,000,000
SLA1984 CH171 $ 18,600,000
SLA1987 CH127 $ 5,896,400
FY87 Administrative Lapse $ (33,281)
Source of Funds-Original Construction $128,463,119
Improvements/Upgrades SLA2002 CH 1 $ 20,300,000
SLA2008 CH 29 $ (10,000,000)
SLA2008 CH 29 $ 10,000,000
SLA2011 CH 5 $ 5,000,000
SLA2012 CH 5 $ (9,160,564)
SLA2012 CH 5 $ 8,160,564
Source of Funds-Upgrades/Improvements $ 24,300,000
Total Source of Funds: $152,763,119
Alaska Intertie Project Status Report
Page 2 of 3
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Alaska Intertie (“AKI”) transmission line is a 170-mile long, 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission
line between Willow and Healy. It is owned by the Alaska Energy Authority (“AEA”) and
operated at 138kV. The AKI was built in the mid 1980’s with State of Alaska appropriations of
approximately $124 million. The AKI is one of a number of transmission segments that, when
connected together, move power throughout the Railbelt Grid from Delta through Fairbanks to
Anchorage down to the southernmost limit at Nanwalek. The project includes transmission towers,
conductors, the Cantwell substation, transformers at the Healy and Teeland substations (Knik
Road), and Railbelt system stability devices (Static VAR Compensators) at three locations that are
necessary to allow the utilities to remain interconnected and for power to flow between utilities.
The project is owned outright by AEA, and carries no debt.
PROJECT STATUS AT 12/31/20
The AKI continues normal operations carrying Bradley Lake and economy power north into the
Golden Valley Electric Association (“GVEA”) system. The economy power is generated by
Chugach Electric Association (“CEA”), Homer Electric Association (“HEA”) and Matanuska
Electric Association (“MEA”). Although power generally flows north, the line is available for
GVEA to transfer energy south if an emergency situation finds the Cook Inlet region short of
electric power.
AEA has a 5-year renewable service agreement with Alstom Grid (now GE Power) for
maintenance, repair, training, parts, and telephonic support for the Static VAR Compensators,
which were installed under contract in 2015. This service agreement ensures this critical
infrastructure can be economically maintained.
The Second Amended and Restated Alaska Intertie Agreement (“ARAIA”) was signed by AEA
and the Railbelt utility participants (participants) in March 2014. The participants include GVEA,
CEA, and MEA. Originally, the Municipality of Anchorage’s Municipal Light & Power
(“ML&P”) was a purchaser under the ARAIA. CEA acquired ML&P on October 30, 2020, and
its rights under the ARAIA. The participants and AEA each have a seat on the Intertie Management
Committee (“IMC”). The IMC has responsibility to operate and maintain the AKI. The IMC
adopted bylaws to govern their operation, and retained contracts and operating procedures to
maintain an easy transition to the amended agreement. The longstanding Intertie Operating
Committee (“IOC”) continues to recommend operating policies, procedures, and standard
practices to the IMC for consideration.
Additional Background:
Agreements were developed over a span of 30 years to govern the cooperative management and
operation of the connected network at large. AEA has agreements with participating utilities to
ensure the AKI operates with prudent maintenance and operation by utilities. CEA is the southern
Alaska Intertie Project Status Report
Page 3 of 3
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
region operator and GVEA is the northern region operator. MEA and CEA provide maintenance
of the AKI in the southern region. GVEA provides maintenance in the northern region.
Potential extension of the AKI to the Point MacKenzie area – In 2002 AEA, working
collaboratively with the intertie participants, explored extending the AKI to connect with the
southcentral transmission system at a location determined to be most reliable to the bulk-electric
system. In analyzing this potential project, it was determined that the Point MacKenzie area was
the optimal location for the terminus, strengthening the transmission inter-connection and
ultimately assisting in the movement of energy from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project to
Fairbanks, ensuring increased capacity and reliability of power transmission in southcentral Alaska
and providing greater flexibility for dispatching generation resources for region-wide ratepayer
benefit. Currently the Authority, in consultation with the intertie participants, is discussing how
to move forward with the Intertie extension project.
813 W Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone : (907) 771 -3000 Fax : (907) 771 -3044 Email : info@akenergyauthority.org
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
RGYAUTHORITY.ORG
AEA Community Outreach Engagement
Updated on February 18, 2021 (6-Month Look Back)
# DATE DESCRIPTION AEA TEAM MEMBER
1. February 24, 2021 Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Presentation To The Fairbanks Economic Development
Corporation: Energy For All Alaska Task Force
Curtis W. Thayer
Bryan Carey
2. February 5, 2021 Alaska Energy Authority Is Committed To Our Rural Neighbors Op-Ed Curtis W. Thayer
3. February 4, 2021 AEA Overview Presentation To The 2021 Alaska Power Association Legislative Conference Curtis W. Thayer
4. January 27, 2021 Media Inquiry On Energy Efficiency By Alaska Energy Transparency Project Curtis W. Thayer
5. January 25, 2021 Alaska Cargo And Cold Storage Launches Major Addition To The Global Cold Chain Press Release Curtis W. Thayer
6. January 22, 2021 Baxter Senior Living Successful Commissioning Of Yanmar Combined Heat & Power System
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony Tim Sandstrom
7. January 21, 2021 Baxter Senior Living Partners With AEA, KI Energy To Install Cutting-Edge Green Power Generation
Press Release Curtis W. Thayer
8. January 6, 2021 Media Inquiry On West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Project By Alaska Contractor Magazine Curtis W. Thayer
9. January 5, 2021 AEA West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Project To Receive Top Honors For 2021 ACEC Of
Montana Engineering Excellence Press Release Curtis W. Thayer
10. December 30, 2020 Radio Interview With KUAC FM 89.8 In Fairbanks Curtis W. Thayer
Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2
# DATE DESCRIPTION AEA TEAM MEMBER
11. December 18, 2020 The Alaska Energy Authority Is Helping Prepare The Railbelt For Tomorrow Op-Ed Curtis W. Thayer
12. December 18, 2020 Media Inquiry On Rural Energy Systems By Alaska Business Curtis W. Thayer
13. December 17, 2020 AEA Completes Acquisition Of HEA’s 115-kV Transmission Line Press Release Curtis W. Thayer
14. December 10, 2020 Denali Commission, U.S. Forest Service, And AEA Announce Over $1 Million In Funding For
Biomass Projects In Rural Communities Press Release Curtis W. Thayer
15. December 8, 2020 AIDEA & AEA Overview Presentation To City Of Seward (With Alan Weitzner) Curtis W. Thayer
16. December 3, 2020 Media Inquiry On Renewable Energy Projects By Scienceline Curtis W. Thayer
17. November 12, 2020 Pumped Hydro Presentation To Office Of Indian Energy Bryan Carey
18. October 23, 2020 Media Inquiry On Power Cost Equalization By Alaska’s News Source Curtis W. Thayer
19. October 22, 2020 Media Inquiry On Power Cost Equalization By Ketchikan Daily News Curtis W. Thayer
20. October 6, 2020 Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Development Presentation To Governor Curtis W. Thayer
21. October 1, 2020 Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Development Presentation To Office Of Management & Budget Curtis W. Thayer
22. September 23, 2020 2020 Virtual Southeast Conference Annual Meeting: Energy Committee Curtis W. Thayer
23. September 18, 2020 Media Inquiry On Alaska Cargo & Cold Storage By Alaska’s News Source Curtis W. Thayer
24. September 16, 2020 AEA Awarded $21 Million BUILD Grant For Anchorage Airport Project Press Release Curtis W. Thayer
25. September 2, 2020 Congressman Don Young Visits AIDEA & AEA Office (With Alan Weitzner) Curtis W. Thayer
813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 • Phone: (907) 771-3000 • Fax: (907) 771-3044 • Email: info@akenergyauthority.org
REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG
RGYAUTHORITY.ORG
PRESS RELEASE
Brandy M. Dixon
Public Engagement Officer
(907) 771-3078
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 5, 2021
AEA West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Project to
Receive Top Honors for 2021 ACEC of Montana Engineering Excellence
(Anchorage) — The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is pleased to announce the American Council
of Engineering Companies of Montana (ACEC of Montana) has selected the West Fork Upper
Battle Creek Diversion (WFUBCD) Project for the 2021 Montana Grand Project Award.
Designed by DOWL, the WFUBCD Project will increase the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project
annual energy production by 10 percent through diverting more water to Bradley Lake.
WFUBCD will provide about 37,000 MWh of renewable energy per year — enough electricity for
5,000 homes.
“We’d like to thank ACEC of Montana for this recognition, it is truly an honor,” said AEA Board
Chair Dana Pruhs. “This project is an excellent example of the benefits associated with the
design-bid-build delivery construction method. I want to thank DOWL for its involvement and
excellent participation in the project.”
“What we were able to accomplish in collaboration with our project partners Chugach Electric
Association, Homer Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, and the City of Seward
is something to be proud of,” said AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer. “The diversion of
water from Battle Creek to behind the Bradley Lake dam will allow the project to deliver more
lower-cost energy to the ratepayers, an accomplishment squarely with AEA’s mission.”
The WFUBCD Project consists of a diversion dam and two miles of pipeline to divert waters from
the Upper Battle Creek Basin to the Bradley Lake Reservoir, increasing the amount of water
available to the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. The Bradley Lake Reservoir provides over
1,100 feet of head to the Bradley Lake Powerplant — one acre-foot of added water supply
increases electric production by approximately one megawatt-hour.
The ACEC of Montana Engineering Excellence Awards recognizes a firm’s project that has
applied unique or innovative technologies, enhanced awareness for the engineering profession,
utilized social, economic, and sustainable design, and successfully fulfilled the client/owner’s
needs, including schedule and budget.
The Alaska Energy Authority is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board
of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.”
###
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210124005094/en/Alaska-Cargo-and-Cold-Storage-Launches-Major-Addition-to-the-Global-Cold-Chain 1/3
Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage, LLC signed a 55-year ground lease with the State of Alaska for a
700,000-square-foot cold storage facility strategically located at Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport, the sixth-busiest cargo airport in the world. (Photo: Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport)
January 25, 2021 12:01 AM Eastern Standard Time
ANCHORAGE, Alaska--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage, LLC
(ACCS) and the State of Alaska executed a 55-year lease agreement at Ted Stevens
Anchorage International Airport (ANC), marking a major milestone in the development
of a more than 700,000-square-foot, climate-controlled warehouse facility. With 32.5
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210124005094/en/Alaska-Cargo-and-Cold-Storage-Launches-Major-Addition-to-the-Global-Cold-Chain 2/3
million cubic feet of capacity, the facility will provide ANC with a critical piece of
infrastructure at the world’s sixth-busiest cargo airport.
“This project will improve shipping to and through Anchorage, create jobs, an d show the
world that Alaska is open for business,” said Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy. “We’re excited
about the potential this integral piece of the global cold chain has to make Ted Stevens
Anchorage International Airport and Alaska a more attractive place f or global companies
to do business.”
ACCS is a joint venture of industrialist Chad Brownstein and McKinley Capital
Management, LLC (McKinley Capital), which is led by Rob Gillam. Brownstein is the
founder of Rocky Mountain Resources which has aggregated an industrial complex
throughout the Mountain West. Gillam is the chief executive officer and chief investment
officer at McKinley Capital.
Located on the Great Circle Route, ANC is within 9.5 hours of 90% of key markets in
Asia, Europe and North America. Illustrating this importance, during COVID-19 air travel
disruptions, ANC was the busiest airport in the world on select days in 2020.
Historically, a limited supply of warehouse and transfer facilities at ANC designates
ANC’s air cargo support as “gas-and-go.” Brownstein and Gillam say the development
of ACCS — located runway-adjacent and within a Foreign Trade Zone — will position
ANC to be transformed into a key cold chain transfer hub for global air cargo carriers.
“We believe Alaska offers world-class development and investment opportunities,” said
Gillam. “ACCS is a clear instance. There are many industries that require cold storage.
One example is Alaska seafood, one of Alaska’s biggest exports, and it’s shipped
globally. For decades, almost no value-added or fresh production occurred in-state.
ACCS will lead the way in changing that trend. Now, Alaska can capitalize on its
valuable position as a hub between North America and Asia. We see this project as
something with potential to increase air cargo traffic and spur local economic
development. We’re confident ACCS will ultimately bring more dollars and jobs into
Anchorage and across the state.”
“The addition of this facility with cold storage capabilities brings new opportunity for the
global distribution tenants and customers already benefitting from the unique features of
the Anchorage trade and tariff exemptions,” said Brownstein. “The facility will serve as
the cold storage gateway between the Americas, Asia, and Europe, and further
integrate Alaska into the global cold chain.”
“Cargo carriers and their industry partners are recognizing the advantages of operating
at ANC. ACCS’s new facility will strengthen our already powerful cargo network,” said
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210124005094/en/Alaska-Cargo-and-Cold-Storage-Launches-Major-Addition-to-the-Global-Cold-Chain 3/3
Airport Director Jim Szczesniak. “ANC offers daily, nonstop freighter service to m ore
than 30 destinations and near daily service to an additional 20. This facility will allow
perishables to be consolidated from North America and Latin America and then
distributed to freighters bringing perishables closer to the consumer. Cutting the time
from field or sea to the consumer will provide a better product.”
In September 2020, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA), a $21 million BUILD grant to administer in support of the ACCS project.
“It’s incredible to be a part of this project that has the potential to improve Alaska’s
position on the global supply chain,” said AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer.
“Our partnership with the ACCS team enables AEA to deploy its expertise to assure that
the best of cutting-edge technology will make the building a showpiece in energy-
efficiency.”
The facility will be constructed in phases. The first phase will be roughly 190,000 square
feet with plans to begin construction in the second half of 2021. When fully comp leted,
the facility will offer cold and warm storage, quick cargo, and general warehousing
options, logistics services, and auxiliary space for tenant offices.
About Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage, LLC
Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage, LLC (ACCS) is a joint venture of industrialist Chad
Brownstein and McKinley Capital Management, LLC (McKinley Capital), which is led by
Rob Gillam. Brownstein is the founder of Rocky Mountain Resources which has
aggregated an industrial complex throughout the Mountain West. Gillam is the chief
executive officer and chief investment officer at McKinley Capital. ACCS signed a 55 -
year ground lease with the State of Alaska to develop a secure, more than 700,000 -
square-foot and 32.5 million-cubic-foot, climate-controlled warehouse facility at Ted
Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC).
Contacts
Jennifer Thompson, 907-242-1152
jennifer@thompsonpr.com
Alaska Economic Report No. 2/2021
Page 2
Energy:
New-tech power unit in Anchorage
Page 2
Infrastructure:
$200 million air cargo project
An advanced-technology Combined Heat and Power, or CHP, system developed by Japa-nese-owned Yanmar, an energy technology company, has been installed at a multi-unit Baxter Senior Living facility in Anchorage. KI Energy, a subsidiary of Knikatnu Inc., of Wasil-la, markets the Yanmar CHP units in Alaska and has previously done three single-building installations in Wasilla, McCarthy and Anchor-age. The Baxter system is the first multi-build-ing project and the second-largest Yanmar project in the U.S.
Basically, the units produce electricity in a gas-powered engine and capture waste heat for building heat and hot water. The units use 88 percent of the energy consumed from the gas compared with 37 percent to 60 percent in a commercial gas-fired power plant. The state’s Alaska Energy Authority provided low-cost financing through AEA’s Power Project Fund. ***
Health:Alaska does well combating COVID-19: Alaska is doing very well in dealing with COVID-19. Fifty two percent of seniors 65 and older are now vaccinated and 10,000 are sched-uled for their shot. Eighty percent of residents in seniors’ and long-term care facilities are vaccinated, as is 20 percent of the state’s popu-lation. The data is as of Feb. 10, and from state Dept. of Health and Social Services officials.***
Groundbreaking could happen later this year on the $200 million airport cold storage and air cargo transfer facility at Ted Stevens Interna-tional Airport in Anchorage. Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage LLC is developing the project on a lease from the airport. This is the first of several new or expanded cargo projects planned as Anchorage continues to ride a boom in inter-national air cargo. One uncertainty is whether environmental contamination at the site can be clean up in time for construction to begin.***
Anchorage air cargo sets a record A record 3.48 million tons of cargo landed at Anchorage’s airport in 2020, a 16 percent in-crease over 2019, which also set a record. Most of the freight was on all-cargo flights landing to refuel but this activity spurs fuel sales and aircraft servicing. A certain amount of cargo is also switched between fights in Anchorage. Federal Express and United Parcel Service maintain freight sorting hubs. Airport officials expect a similar volume of freight in 2021.***Legislative deadlock broken? The deadlock
over organization of the state House appears to
have broken with Kodiak’s Rep. Louise Stutes
chosen as Speaker. There are no details yet of a
new coalition, and there may still be an im-
passe. The House is split 20-20 between Repub-
licans and alliance of Democrats, Stutes, who
is a Republican, and three independents.
***