The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-09-30 BPMC Agenda and docsBRADLEY LAKE PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - REVISED Friday, September 30, 2022 Immediately Following the 9:00 AM IMC Meeting To participate dial 1-888-585-9008 and use code 212-753-619# 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL (for Committee members) 3. PUBLIC ROLL CALL (for all others present) 4. AGENDA APPROVAL 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS 6. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES – July 29, 2022 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION – (Bylaws Section 5.11.4) – To discuss confidential financial matters regarding Required Project Work and financing, the immediate knowledge of which may have an adverse effect on the Authority or Project. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. FY2023 Budget – Amendment 4 and Resolution 22-07 Battle Creek Diversion – Allocation Revision B. Resolution 22-08 Authorizing the Financing of the Required Project Work C. Consulting Engineer Opinion regarding Upgrade to Transmission Line between Bradley Lake and Sterling Substation D. Department of Energy Request for Information – Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Program (DE-FOA-0002827) E. Inflation Reduction Act – Tax Law Update 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Required Project Work i. Special Committee on Required Project Work Brian Hickey ii. Bond Financing Update Dona Keppers B. Railbelt Regional Coordination Update Brian Hickey C. AEA Letter on RFI #DE-FOA-0002762 on Hydroelectric Incentives Program 10. OPERATORS REPORT HEA 11. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Budget to Actual Expense Report 6.30.22 (unaudited) Budget Subcommittee B. O & D Report Russell Thornton 12. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 13. MEMBERS COMMENTS 14. NEXT MEETING DATE – December 9, 2022 15. ADJOURNMENT ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FY2023 PROPOSED BUDGET - AMEND 4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 2023 Budget Contents Schedule Description Page # Summary FY23 Proposed Budget Summary 3 Schedule A Bradley Lake Capital Purchases (not funded by R&C) 4 Schedule B Bradley Lake Operations & Maintenance Budget 5 - 13 Schedule C Bradley Lake Monthly Utility Contributions 14 Schedule D R&C Fund Disbursements and Repayments 15 Schedule E Battle Creek Capital Purchases (not funded by R&C) 16 Schedule F Battle Creek Operations & Maintenance Budget 17 - 18 Schedule G Battle Creek Monthly Utility Contributions 19 Schedule H SSQ Line Capital Purchases (not funded by R&C) 20 Schedule I SSQ Line Operations & Maintenance Budget 21 Schedule J SSQ Line Monthly Utility Contributions 22 ` Page 2 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Budget Summary A B C D E FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2020 FY2021 Amended Amended Amended Bradley Lake (excluding Battle Creek & SSQ Line shown below)Actuals Actuals Budget Budget Budget Revenues, Expenses & Changes in surplus Revenues Utility Contributions (sch C) 18,507,495 15,327,573 16,403,421 8,105,065 10,072,285 Other Miscellaneous-R&C Fund Cash Call - 1,976,230 1,799,000 - - Interest Income 1,887,786 752,000 750,000 903,500 - Excess Payment Agreement 12,010,956 Other Available Funds - 1,325,513 1,325,513 - - 20,395,281 19,381,316 20,277,934 9,008,565 22,083,241 Expenses Operations & Maintenance (sch B) 4,773,126 4,921,752 5,798,702 6,606,170 6,800,119 Renewals/Replacements (R&C Fund Repayments) (sch D) 2,278,302 1,084,962 1,184,753 1,331,902 1,653,013 Renewals/Replacements (R&C Fund Cash Call) (sch D) - 750,000 750,000 - - Non R&C Capital Purchases (sch A) 283,425 540,501 652,000 909,000 1,558,000 Transfer To(From) Operating Reserve 112,715 276,375 84,752 161,494 61,153 Debt Service 12,778,775 11,453,263 11,453,263 - - Arbitrage Transfer 168,938 354,464 354,464 - - Excess Payment Agreement - - - - 12,010,956 20,395,281 19,381,316 20,277,934 9,008,565 22,083,241 Surplus (Deficit) - - - - - Other Project Costs - Battle Creek Revenues, Expenses & Changes in surplus Revenues - Battle Creek Utility Contributions (sch G) 1,967,642 3,817,734 6,013,048 3,564,453 3,569,672 Other Miscellaneous-R&C Fund Cash Call - - - - - Interest Income 47,620 329 - - - Capital Reserve Contributions - - - - - Other Available Funds - - - - - 2,015,262 3,818,063 6,013,048 3,564,453 3,569,672 Expenses - Battle Creek Battle Creek Operations & Maintenance (sch F) 580,606 475,700 547,714 399,610 417,373 Renewals/Replacements (R&C Fund Repayments) (sch D) - 1,103,993 1,104,000 1,104,000 1,104,000 Renewals/Replacements (R&C Fund Cash Call) (sch D) - - - - Capital Purchases (sch E) - 7,913 - - - Capital Purchases - Revenue Fund (sch E) 822,327 320,000 115,000 90,000 Transfer To(From) Operating Reserve (11,713) 124,322 30,926 (29,621) 3,553 Debt Service 1,753,324 3,130,353 3,518,317 3,064,883 3,006,599 IRS Subsidy (1,129,282) (1,131,617) - (1,089,419) (1,051,853) Cost of Issuance 9th Series - - - - Capital Reserve Contribution - 107,399 492,091 - - 2,015,262 3,818,063 6,013,048 3,564,453 3,569,672 Surplus (Deficit) - - - - - Other Project Costs - SSQ Line Revenues, Expenses & Changes in surplus Revenues - SSQ Line Utility Contributions (sch J) - 59,350 360,000 2,250,511 758,884 Other Miscellaneous-R&C Fund Cash Call - - - 9,893,771 - Capital Reserve Contributions - - - - - Other Available Funds - - - 1,559,492 - - 59,350 360,000 13,703,774 758,884 Expenses - SSQ Line SSQ Line Operations & Maintenance (sch I) - 10,194 170,000 444,523 336,999 Renewals/Replacements (R&C Fund Repayments) (sch D) - - - - - Renewals/Replacements (R&C Fund Cash Call) (sch D) - - - - - Capital Purchases (sch H) - 49,156 190,000 750,000 - Transfer To(From) Operating Reserve - - - 54,905 (21,505) Debt Service - - - 12,454,346 443,390 Capital Reserve Contribution - - - - - - 59,350 360,000 13,703,774 758,884 Surplus (Deficit) - - - - - Other Information Operating Reserve * 1,070,208 1,159,740 1,321,234 1,360,024 Operating Reserve - Battle Creek* 79,085 109,543 79,922 83,475 Operating Reserve - SSQ Line* 34,000 88,905 67,400 Monthly Contributions 1,632,040 1,366,952 675,422 839,357 Monthly Contributions Battle Creek 242,670 501,087 297,038 297,473 Monthly Contributions SSQ Line 30,000 187,543 63,240 *Required to be 20% of budgeted operating expense Page 3 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Capital Purchases (not funded by R&C Fund) Schedule A FY21 FY22 FY23 Amended Amended Amended Budget Budget Budget Replace/Automate Fish Water Valves & Actuators 40,000 - - Upgrade Crews Quarters\Residence Kitchen\New Furniture - 139,000 159,000 Replace dump truck and sander 170,000 20,000 - Pick up truck - - UPS Replacement 37,000 - - Rough terrain fork lift (with plow for snow) - - IRIS Air gap monitoring system (computer) 45,000 45,000 65,000 Housing Preliminary Design 10,000 - - Emerson Cybersecurity Update 137,000 - - Heavy Duty trailer for equipment - 20,000 20,000 ABB Replace GIS Actuators 240,000 309,000 Replacement pickup truck 45,000 - Needle Valve rebuild 150,000 150,000 Start New Servo Design 100,000 250,000 Soldotna SVC Battery Replacement 70,000 - Battle Creek Bridge Repair 80,000 - North Fork Improvements 5,000 Mini Excavator 100,000 Install New Bradley Microwave System 500,000 SSQ Design - Total Non R&C Capital Purchases 462,000 909,000 1,558,000 Capital Project Description Page 4 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Bradley Lake Operations and Maintenance Budget Schedule B FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY21 Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Amended Budget Summary by cost type Labor & Benefits 1,219,935 1,011,432 208,503 1,257,590 1,266,685 (9,095) 1,307,994 2,802,081 Indirect Costs 1,383,388 1,251,241 132,147 1,486,285 1,295,342 190,943 1,486,285 - Travel 45,950 10,512 35,438 44,950 1,729 43,221 38,450 26,450 Training 49,300 14,875 34,425 49,300 25,474 23,826 49,300 49,300 Contractual 869,842 655,575 214,267 903,340 701,750 201,590 1,156,343 1,986,307 Supplies & Materials 346,345 262,370 83,975 389,345 282,663 106,682 429,345 311,232 Other Costs 67,818 65,648 2,170 70,818 68,510 2,308 97,318 67,318 Equipment, Furniture and Machinery 176,000 127,535 48,465 170,000 43,344 126,656 73,000 24,000 Maintenance Projects - 314 (314) - - - - - Administrative Costs 1,192,464 1,373,624 (181,160) 1,438,319 1,226,007 212,312 2,158,844 1,769,905 Battle Creek O&M - - - (181,245) - (181,245) (190,710) (236,473) 5,351,042 4,773,126 577,915 5,628,702 4,911,504 717,198 6,606,170 6,800,119 Bradley Lake O&M 4% charge to Battle Creek Battle Creek O&M - - - (181,245) - - (190,710) (236,473) BC Bradley Lake O&M 4% charge to Battle Creek FERC 535 - Operation Supervision & Engineering Operations Sup/Eng Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 107,453 89,713 17,740 107,453 112,274 (4,821) 107,604 264,009 Indirect Costs 155,698 128,545 27,153 155,698 125,787 29,911 155,698 - Travel 10,450 246 10,204 10,450 408 10,042 10,450 10,450 Training 9,300 991 8,309 9,300 2,076 7,224 9,300 9,300 Contractual 1,000 173 827 11,000 - 11,000 11,000 1,000 Supplies & Materials 4,000 3,698 302 4,000 3,082 918 4,000 4,000 Administrative Costs (9,745) 9,745 - - Bradley Lake Operating Total 287,901 223,366 64,536 297,901 233,883 64,018 298,053 288,759 Page 5 of 22 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY21 Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Amended Budget FERC 535 - Operation Supervision & Engineering Total 287,901 223,366 64,536 297,901 233,883 64,018 298,053 288,759 HEA FERC 537 - Hydraulic Expenses Hydraulic Expenses Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 84,081 67,694 16,387 84,192 86,134 (1,942) 84,192 204,512 Indirect Costs 107,519 98,886 8,633 114,320 97,168 17,152 114,320 - Travel 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 129 9,871 8,000 - Contractual 22,000 - 22,000 (37,000) 32,071 (69,071) 73,000 123,000 Contractual - Design Services 59,000 - 59,000 - - Supplies & Materials 19,000 9,806 9,194 59,000 2,297 56,703 16,000 32,000 Equipment, Furniture and Machinery 81,000 13,368 67,632 32,000 - 32,000 39,000 - Administrative Costs - (8,712) 8,712 - - Bradley Lake Operating Total 323,600 189,754 133,846 321,512 209,086 112,425 334,512 359,512 FERC 537 - Hydraulic Expenses Total 323,600 189,754 133,846 321,512 209,086 112,426 334,512 359,512 HEA FERC 538 - Electric Expenses Electric Expenses Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 208,745 210,745 (2,000) 218,044 274,470 (56,426) 218,044 480,048 Indirect Costs 242,067 257,551 (15,484) 262,004 270,826 (8,822) 262,004 - Travel 7,000 3,140 3,860 7,000 110 6,890 7,000 7,000 Training 25,000 13,884 11,116 25,000 23,398 1,602 25,000 25,000 Contractual 7,000 2,587 4,413 2,000 - 2,000 5,000 2,000 Supplies & Materials 50,732 14,111 36,621 41,732 23,771 17,961 42,732 9,732 Equipment, Furniture and Machinery 63,000 91,512 (28,512) 73,000 30,979 42,021 11,000 - Other Costs - 5,000 2,102 2,898 - - Administrative Costs - (25,026) 25,026 Bradley Lake Operating Total 603,544 593,530 10,014 633,780 600,630 33,150 570,780 523,780 FERC 538 - Electric Expenses Total 603,544 593,530 10,014 633,780 600,630 33,150 570,780 523,780 HEA FERC 539 - Misc. Hydraulic Power Generation Expenses Misc Hydro Power Exp Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 104,936 70,195 34,741 105,047 85,110 19,937 104,788 220,062 Indirect Costs 107,519 98,544 8,975 114,320 95,770 18,550 114,320 - Training 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 15,000 Page 6 of 22 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY21 Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Amended Budget Contractual 287,525 185,822 101,703 287,525 213,924 73,601 287,525 315,867 Supplies & Materials 17,900 31,569 (13,669) 17,900 66,633 (48,733) 17,900 17,900 Administrative Costs - (21,052) 21,052 Bradley Lake Operating Total 532,879 386,130 146,749 539,791 440,386 99,405 539,533 568,829 HEA BRADLEY CIRCUITS/RADIO TO BERNICE LK Other Costs 35,695 35,696 (1) 35,695 35,696 (1) 35,695 35,695 BRADLEY CIRCUITS/RADIO TO BERNICE LK Total 35,695 35,696 (1) 35,695 35,696 (1) 35,695 35,695 HEA BRADLEY CIRCUITS BERNICE LK TO ANCH Other Costs 29,773 29,194 579 29,773 29,162 611 29,773 29,773 BRADLEY CIRCUITS BERNICE LK TO ANCH Total 29,773 29,194 579 29,773 29,162 611 29,773 29,773 CEA FERC 539 - Misc. Hydraulic Power Generation Expenses Total 598,347 451,020 147,327 605,259 505,243 100,016 605,001 634,297 FERC 540 - Rents FERC Land Use Fee Bradley Lake Operating Other Costs - - - - - - - - Bradley Lake Operating Total - - - - - - - - FERC 540 - Rents Total - - - - - - - - AEA FERC 541 - Maintenance Supervision & Engineering Maint Supervision/Eng Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 114,456 84,904 29,552 114,456 111,150 3,306 114,758 271,869 Indirect Costs 155,698 121,096 34,602 155,698 126,172 29,526 155,698 - Administrative Costs (9,493) Bradley Lake Operating Total 270,154 206,000 64,154 270,154 227,829 42,325 270,456 271,869 FERC 541 - Maintenance Supervision & Engineering Total 270,154 206,000 64,154 270,154 227,829 42,325 270,456 271,869 HEA FERC 542 - Maintenance of Structures Maintenance of Structures Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 76,499 62,612 13,887 77,639 86,305 (8,666) 77,639 192,060 Indirect Costs 97,823 91,244 6,579 105,421 95,689 9,732 105,421 - Contractual 91,000 3,682 87,318 59,000 12,010 46,990 89,000 56,000 Supplies & Materials 88,713 39,489 49,224 100,713 85,859 14,854 243,713 94,000 Equipment, Furniture and Machinery 32,000 22,552 9,448 52,000 12,365 39,635 23,000 19,000 Page 7 of 22 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY21 Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Amended Budget Maintenance Projects - - - - - - - - Administrative Costs (11,689) Bradley Lake Operating Total 386,035 219,579 166,456 394,773 280,540 114,233 538,773 361,060 BRADLEY UPGRADE CREWS QUARTERS/RESIDENCE KITCHEN Contractual - - - - - - - - BRADLEY UPGRADE CREWS QUARTERS/RESIDENCE KITCHEN - - - - - - - - FERC 542 - Maintenance of Structures Total 386,035 219,579 166,456 394,773 280,539 114,234 538,773 361,060 HEA FERC 543 - Maintenance of Reservoirs, Dams & Waterways Maint Res, Dams, WWays Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 45,080 1,335 43,745 40,744 1,035 39,709 40,744 110,433 Indirect Costs 56,322 1,693 54,629 56,689 336 56,353 56,689 - Travel 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,000 Contractual 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 22,500 Supplies & Materials 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 Administrative Costs (55) 55 Bradley Lake Operating Total 107,902 3,028 104,874 123,933 1,316 122,617 123,933 153,933 BRADLEY NUKA REPAIR Contractual - - - - - - - - Supplies & Materials - - - - - - - - Equipment, Furniture and Machinery - - - - - - - - BRADLEY NUKA REPAIR Total - - - - - - - - BRADLEY POWER TUNNEL MAINT (Dam) Contractual 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 - BRADLEY POWER TUNNEL MAINT (Dam) Total 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 - FERC 543 - Maintenance of Reservoirs, Dams & Waterways Total 122,902 3,028 119,874 138,933 1,316 137,617 138,933 153,933 HEA FERC 544 - Maintenance of Electric Plant Maintenance of Elec Plant Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 273,620 249,706 23,914 309,110 360,790 (51,680) 309,110 732,288 Indirect Costs 368,424 362,402 6,022 423,178 393,039 30,139 423,178 - Travel 4,500 - 4,500 4,500 - 4,500 4,500 4,500 Contractual 49,000 19,661 29,339 86,000 18,741 67,259 49,000 58,000 Supplies & Materials 70,000 66,370 3,630 38,000 26,776 11,224 30,000 43,000 Page 8 of 22 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY21 Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Amended Budget Maintenance Projects - - - - - - - - Administrative Costs (31,974) Bradley Lake Operating Total 765,544 698,139 67,405 860,788 767,372 93,416 815,788 837,788 BRADLEY HIGH BAY LIGHTS Supplies & Materials - - - - - - - - BRADLEY HIGH BAY LIGHTS Total - - - - - - - - FERC 544 - Maintenance of Electric Plant Total 765,544 698,139 67,405 860,788 767,372 93,416 815,788 837,788 HEA FERC 545 - Maintenance of Misc. Hydraulic Plant Maint of Misc Hydr Plant Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 69,395 62,843 6,552 69,297 81,232 (11,935) 69,297 168,254 Indirect Costs 92,318 91,280 1,038 98,957 90,555 8,402 98,957 - Contractual 3,900 6,763 (2,863) 3,900 2,447 1,453 3,900 3,900 Supplies & Materials 63,000 93,510 (30,510) 58,000 70,481 (12,481) 34,000 29,000 Maintenance Projects - 314 (314) - - - - Equipment, Furniture and Machinery - 5,000 Administrative Costs (9,789) 9,789 - - Bradley Lake Operating Total 228,613 254,710 (26,097) 230,154 234,926 (4,772) 206,154 206,154 BRADLEY FISH WATER DSGN/MIDDLE FORK SHACK IMPR Contractual - - - - - - - - Supplies & Materials - - - - - - - - BRADLEY FISH WATER DSGN/MIDDLE FORK SHACK IMPR Total - - - - - - - - FERC 545 - Maintenance of Misc. Hydraulic Plant Total 228,613 254,710 (26,097) 230,154 234,926 (4,772) 206,154 206,154 HEA FERC 556 - System Control & Load Dispatching System Cntl & Load Disp Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 21,140 37,092 (15,952) 21,140 16,879 4,261 19,708 20,174 Contractual 53,000 57,365 (4,365) 53,000 5,010 47,990 53,000 85,500 Supplies & Materials 6,000 3,204 2,796 6,000 3,040 2,960 6,000 12,000 Equipment, Furniture and Machinery - - - - - - - - Administrative Costs (997) 997 - - Bradley Lake Operating Total 80,140 97,661 (17,521) 80,140 23,932 56,208 78,708 117,674 HEA BRADLEY EMERSON ANTIVIRUS UPGRADE Contractual - - - - - - - - HEA Page 9 of 22 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY21 Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Amended Budget BRADLEY EMERSON ANTIVIRUS UPGRADE Total - - - - - - - - Snow Measurement Bradley Lake Operating Contractual 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 AEA Administrative Costs (400) 400 Bradley Lake Operating Total 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 9,600 400 10,000 10,000 Seismic Service Bradley Lake Operating Contractual 62,000 56,310 5,690 62,000 59,801 2,199 62,000 62,000 AEA Administrative Costs (2,392) 2,392 Bradley Lake Operating Total 62,000 56,310 5,690 62,000 57,409 4,591 62,000 62,000 Streamguaging Serv Bradley Lake Operating Contractual 209,917 189,917 20,000 183,615 193,615 (10,000) 218,000 218,000 AEA Administrative Costs (7,745) 7,745 Bradley Lake Operating Total 209,917 189,917 20,000 183,615 185,870 (2,255) 218,000 218,000 Permits Bradley Lake Operating Other Costs 350 758 (408) 350 1,550 (1,200) 350 350 AEA Administrative Costs - (62) 62 Bradley Lake Operating Total 350 758 (408) 350 1,488 (1,138) 350 350 FERC 556 - System Control & Load Dispatching Total 362,407 354,646 7,761 336,105 278,300 57,805 369,058 408,024 FERC 562 - Station Expenses Station Expenses SVC/Substation Maintenance Contract Labor & Benefits 59,774 72,086 (12,312) 55,712 29,810 25,902 62,388 64,043 CEA Travel 4,000 2,596 1,404 4,500 53 4,447 3,500 3,500 CEA Contractual 2,000 51,167 (49,167) 1,800 - 1,800 2,000 1,800 CEA Contractual 3,024 (3,024) - - AEA Supplies & Materials 12,000 613 11,387 10,000 209 9,791 10,000 9,600 CEA Other Costs 2,000 - 2,000 - - - 1,500 1,500 CEA Other Costs - - - - - - 30,000 - HEA Equipment, Furniture and Machinery - - - - - - - - CEA Maintenance Projects - - - - - - - - CEA Labor & Benefits 212 - - AEA Page 10 of 22 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY21 Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Amended Budget Labor & Benefits 27,298 - 27,298 27,298 19,707 7,591 71,759 34,375 HEA Contractual - - - - 51,729 (51,729) 59,600 86,160 HEA Supplies & Materials 10,000 - 10,000 34,000 515 33,485 5,000 35,000 HEA Equipment, Furniture and Machinery - - - 13,000 - 13,000 - - HEA Administrative Costs (4,210) 4,210 SVC/Substation Maintenance Contract Total 117,072 126,462 (9,390) 146,309 101,049 45,260 245,747 235,978 FERC 562 - Station Expenses Total 117,072 126,462 (9,390) 146,310 101,048 45,262 245,747 235,978 FERC 563 - Weather Monitoring Power Sup Bradley Lake Operating Contractual - 5,244 (5,244) - - AEA Bradley Lake Operating Total - 5,244 (5,244) - FERC 571 - Maintenance of Overhead Lines Maint of OH Lines Bradley Lake Operating Labor & Benefits 27,459 2,507 24,952 27,459 1,577 25,882 27,963 39,954 Travel 10,000 4,530 5,470 - - - - - Contractual 50,000 66,884 (16,884) 100,000 99,378 622 100,000 150,000 Supplies & Materials 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 5,000 Equipment, Furniture and Machinery - 103 (103) - - - - - Administrative Costs (4,038) 4,038 - - Bradley Lake Operating Total 92,459 74,024 18,435 132,459 96,917 35,542 132,963 194,954 HEA FERC 571 - Maintenance of Overhead Lines Total 92,459 74,024 18,435 132,459 96,916 35,543 132,963 194,954 FERC 920 & 930 - Administrative Expense AEA Bradley Admin Fees Bradley Lake Operating Administrative Costs 200,000 200,000 - 201,000 262,854 (61,854) 274,000 277,000 Administrative Costs 2,500 3,095 2,500 2,500 Travel 3,500 1,029 - - Bradley Lake Operating Total 200,000 200,000 - 207,000 266,978 (59,978) 276,500 279,500 AEA Operating Committee Exp-Audit Bradley Lake Operating Administrative Costs 19,900 20,298 (398) 19,900 21,120 (1,220) 19,900 19,900 AEA Bradley Lake Operating Total 19,900 20,298 (398) 19,900 21,120 (1,220) 19,900 19,900 Page 11 of 22 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY21 Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Amended Budget Operating Committee Exp-Legal Bradley Lake Operating Administrative Costs 30,000 215,162 (185,162) 70,000 60,098 9,902 70,000 70,000 AEA Bradley Lake Operating Total 30,000 215,162 (185,162) 70,000 60,098 9,902 70,000 70,000 Operat Committee Exp-Arbitrage Bradley Lake Operating Administrative Costs 3,000 2,685 315 5,000 2,818 2,182 5,000 5,000 AEA Bradley Lake Operating Total 3,000 2,685 315 5,000 2,818 2,182 5,000 5,000 Trust & Account Fees Bradley Lake Operating Administrative Costs 11,918 12,118 (200) 13,000 11,441 1,559 13,000 13,000 AEA Bradley Lake Operating Total 11,918 12,118 (200) 13,000 11,441 1,559 13,000 13,000 Misc Admin Bradley Lake Operating Contractual - - - - - - 111,818 790,580 Administrative Costs 11,646 12,000 (354) 18,900 18,202 698 12,000 12,000 AEA Bradley Lake Operating Total 11,646 12,000 (354) 18,900 18,202 698 123,818 802,580 FERC 920 & 930 - Administrative Expense Total 276,464 462,263 (185,799) 333,800 380,657 (46,857) 508,218 1,189,980 FERC 924 & 925 - Insurance Premiums Insurance Premiums Bradley Lake Operating Administrative Costs 575,000 613,782 (38,782) 692,019 656,351 35,668 1,366,444 984,179 AEA Administrative Costs 56,000 39,347 16,653 56,000 23,724 32,276 16,000 31,326 HEA Bradley Lake Operating Total 631,000 653,129 (22,129) 748,019 680,075 67,944 1,382,444 1,015,505 Risk Management Bradley Lake Operating Administrative Costs - - - - - - 25,000 - CEA- - Bradley Lake Operating Total - - - - - - 25,000 - FERC 924 & 925 - Insurance Premiums Total 631,000 653,129 (22,129) 748,019 680,075 67,944 1,407,444 1,015,505 FERC 928 - Regulatory Commission Expenses FERC Admin Fees Administrative Costs 185,000 169,976 15,024 175,000 156,071 18,929 150,000 150,000 AEA Page 12 of 22 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY21 Actual (Over) Under Budget to date FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Amended Budget Administrative Costs (6,567) 6,567 Bradley Lake Operating Total 185,000 169,976 15,024 175,000 149,504 25,496 150,000 150,000 FERC Related Prof Services FERC Part 12 Inspection Administrative Costs - - - 75,000 42,396 32,604 25,000 25,000 AEA Contractual Engineer-FERC license issues Administrative Costs 100,000 88,256 11,744 110,000 121,783 (11,783) 180,000 180,000 AEA Bradley Lake Operating Total 100,000 88,256 11,744 185,000 164,179 20,821 205,000 205,000 FERC 928 - Regulatory Commission Expenses Total 285,000 258,232 26,768 360,000 313,682 46,318 355,000 355,000 Total Bradley Lake Budget 5,351,042 4,773,126 577,915 5,628,702 4,911,504 717,198 6,606,170 6,800,119 - - - - - - - Page 13 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Monthly Utility Contributions Schedule C A B C D E FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Annual Annual Annual Annual Percent Amended Amended Amended Amended Power Purchaser Share Budget Budget Budget Budget Chugach Electric (combined w ML&P) 56.30%11,026,056 9,235,126 4,563,152 12,432,865 Homer Electric 12.00%2,350,140 1,968,409 972,607 2,649,987 Matanuska Electric 13.80%2,702,664 2,263,673 1,118,500 3,047,489 Golden Valley Electric 16.90%3,309,780 2,772,178 1,369,756 3,732,068 City of Seward 1.00%195,840 164,035 81,051 220,832 Rounding 5 100.0%19,584,485 16,403,421 8,105,066 22,083,240 Percent FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Power Purchaser Share Monthly Monthly Amended Amended Budget Monthly Chugach Electric (combined w ML&P) 56.30%918,838 900,902 92,345 1,048,737 Homer Electric 12.00%195,845 192,021 19,683 223,532 Matanuska Electric 13.80%225,222 220,826 22,635 257,062 Golden Valley Electric 16.90%275,815 270,431 27,720 314,807 City of Seward 1.00%16,320 16,002 1,640 18,628 100.0%1,632,040 1,600,181 164,023 1,862,765 Page 14 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT R&C Fund Disbursements and Repayments Schedule D PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED TO REPAY TO REPAY TO REPAY Description Disburse at 06/30/21 Disburse at 06/30/22 Disburse at 06/30/23 R&C FUND PROJECTS Governor 0.00 4,052,070.14 0.00 4,052,070.14 0.00 4,052,070.14 Replace RFLS 0.00 251,092.69 0.00 251,092.69 0.00 251,092.69 Replace Runners 0.00 1,946,732.79 0.00 1,946,732.79 0.00 1,946,732.79 Replace cable from dam to power house 0.00 2,321,922.94 0.00 2,321,922.94 0.00 2,321,922.94 Replace power system stabilizer 0.00 619,205.10 0.00 619,205.10 0.00 619,205.10 Replace two RTUs 0.00 86,905.27 0.00 86,905.27 0.00 86,905.27 Culvert Repairs 0.00 675,966.79 0.00 675,966.79 0.00 675,966.79 Trans Towers Frost Jacking Repairs 0.00 887,596.62 0.00 887,596.62 0.00 887,596.62 Replace Plant and SCADA Controls 0.00 1,344,683.05 0.00 1,344,683.05 0.00 1,344,683.05 Vibration Monitoring System 0.00 490.00 0.00 490.00 0.00 490.00 Battle Creek Feasibility 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fire Alarm System Replacement 150,000.00 191,179.09 150,000.00 341,179.09 1,500,000.00 1,841,179.09 Battle Creek Diversion 0.00 1,170,000.00 0.00 1,170,000.00 0.00 1,170,000.00 Replace Electro-Mechanical Relays 0.00 1,277,197.06 0.00 1,277,197.06 0.00 1,277,197.06 Fishwater Screen Debris Removal 0.00 312,236.43 0.00 312,236.43 0.00 312,236.43 Turbine Nozzle Repair 0.00 1,428,861.07 0.00 1,428,861.07 0.00 1,428,861.07 Spillway Raise 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SVC replacement Daves Creek | Soldotna 0.00 8,517,991.11 0.00 8,517,991.11 0.00 8,517,991.11 Equipment Storage Shed 0.00 510,550.13 0.00 510,550.13 0.00 510,550.13 Emerson Operating System Upgrade 0.00 622,665.00 0.00 622,665.00 0.00 622,665.00 Generator #2 Relacement 0.00 953,212.71 0.00 953,212.71 0.00 953,212.71 Road Grader 370,000.00 370,000.00 0.00 370,000.00 0.00 370,000.00 Battle Creek Construction 3,666,000.00 3,666,000.00 0.00 3,666,000.00 0.00 3,666,000.00 Battle Creek Cash Call 750,000.00 750,000.00 0.00 750,000.00 0.00 750,000.00 Repayment through Cash Call (750,000.00) (750,000.00) 0.00 (750,000.00) 0.00 (750,000.00) Needle Rapairs 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 Construct additional residence 0.00 980,000.00 980,000.00 0.00 980,000.00 Spillway Raise & Expansion Project 800,000.00 800,000.00 1,500,000.00 2,300,000.00 5,686,000.00 32,706,557.99 1,930,000.00 34,636,557.99 3,000,000.00 37,636,557.99 Current Year R&C Repayment (2,288,753.22) (2,435,901.73) (2,757,012.53) Adjust bal to $5 mill (won't be corrected until year end) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Less Interest in Fund Applied to Repayment (269,486.35) 0.00 0.00 Net Transfer from Revenue Fund (2,558,239.57) (2,435,901.73) (2,757,012.53) Cumulative Prior Years R&C Repayments (25,518,390.50) (28,076,630.07) (30,512,531.80) Due back to Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 R&C Cumulative Interest (Retained) Applied As Part of Repayment 0.00 0.00 0.00 Net R&C Repayments (25,518,390.50) (28,076,630.07) (30,512,531.80) NET DUE TO R&C FUND 4,629,927.92 4,124,026.19 4,367,013.65 R&C FUND CASH FLOW PROJECTION Beginning Investment Balance 3,922,231.19 370,072.08 875,973.82 Disbursements-current year (5,686,000.00) (1,930,000.00) (3,000,000.00) Disbursements-prior year accrued (406,104.23) 0.00 0.00 R&C Repayment to utilities (18,294.45) 0.00 0.00 Net other cash inflow(outflow) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Current year interest earnings 269,486.35 0.00 0.00 Current year Participants Contributions to R&C 2,288,753.22 2,435,901.73 2,757,012.53 Ending Investment Balance 370,072.08 875,973.82 632,986.35 Accrued R&C Payable at year end-Due to Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Accrued R&C vendor Payable at year end 0.00 0.00 0.00 PROJECTED NET DUE + ENDING INVESTMENT BALANCE 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 REPAYMENT AMOUNT $412,050.13 x 25% all 4 years 2nd yr 103,012.53 3rd yr 103,012.53 4th yr 103,012.53 $5,686,000 x 25% all 4 years 1st yr 1,421,500.00 2nd yr 1,421,500.00 3rd yr 1,421,500.00 $1,930,000 x 25% all 4 years 1st yr 482,500.00 2nd yr 482,500.00 1st yr 750,000.00 2,288,753.22 2,435,901.73 2,757,012.53 Page 15 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Battle Creek Capital Purchases (not funded by R&C Fund) Schedule E FY21 FY22 FY23 Approved Amended Approved Budget Budget Budget Battle Creek Diversion 320,000 - Battle Creek Associated Costs 15,000 15,000 Vent Enlargment 50,000 50,000 Pressure Sensor w SCADA 25,000 25,000 Power feed to LBC Bridge 25,000 - Total Non R&C Capital Purchases 320,000 115,000 90,000 Capital Construction Project Description Page 16 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Battle Creek Operations & Maintenance Budget Schedule F HEA 268,524 332,875 (64,351) 92,569 69,382 23,187 - - CEA - - - - - - - - AEA 126,900 247,731 (120,831) 273,900 225,073 48,827 208,900 180,900 BL - - - 181,245 181,245 - 190,710 236,473 395,424 580,606 (185,182) 547,714 475,700 72,014 399,610 417,373 - - - - - - FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget FY21 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Approved Budget Summary by cost type - - Administrative Costs 395,424 580,606 (185,182) 255,469 223,224 32,245 82,900 54,900 Battle Creek O&M - Bradley Allocation - - - 181,245 181,245 - 190,710 236,473 Battle Creek O&M - - 111,000 71,231 39,769 126,000 126,000 395,424 580,606 (185,182) 547,714 475,700 72,014 399,610 417,373 Bradley Lake O&M 4% charge to Battle Creek Battle Creek O&M - - - 181,245 181,245 - 190,710 236,473 BL FERC 537 - Hydraulic Expenses Hydraulic Expenses Battle Creek Operating Labor & Benefits - - - - - - - - Indirect Costs - - - - - - - - Travel - - - - - - - - Training - - - - - - - - Contractual - - - 66,000 37,481 28,519 81,000 81,000 AEA Supplies & Materials - - - - - - Equipment, Furniture and Machinery - - - - - - - - Bradley Lake Operating Total - - - 66,000 37,481 28,519 81,000 81,000 FERC 537 - Hydraulic Expenses Total - - - 66,000 37,481 28,519 81,000 81,000 - - FERC 556 - System Control & Load Dispatching Streamgaging Expenses Battle Creek Operating Labor & Benefits - - - - - - - - Indirect Costs - - - - - - - - Travel - - - - - - - - Training - - - - - - - - Contractual - - - 45,000 33,750 11,250 45,000 45,000 AEA Supplies & Materials - - - - - - - - Equipment, Furniture and Machinery - - - - - - - - - - Bradley Lake Operating Total - - - 45,000 33,750 11,250 45,000 45,000 FERC 556 - System Control & Load Dispatching Total - - - 45,000 33,750 11,250 45,000 45,000 FY20 FY21 Page 17 of 22 FY22 FY23 FY20 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget FY21 Amended Budget Actual (Over) Under Budget FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Approved Budget FY20 FY21 - - FERC 920 & 930 - Administrative Expense Battle Creek Admin Fees Administrative Costs 12,274 12,274 0 11,419 11,419 - - - HEA Administrative Costs 105,000 105,051 (51) 122,000 123,295 (1,295) 71,000 43,000 AEA Battle Creek Admin Fees Total 117,274 117,325 (51) 133,419 134,714 (1,295) 71,000 43,000 Operating Committee Exp-Owners Representative Administrative Costs 256,250 320,601 (64,351) 81,150 57,963 23,187 - - HEA Operating Committee Exp-Owners Representative Total 256,250 320,601 (64,351) 81,150 57,963 23,187 - - Operating Committee Exp-Legal Administrative Costs 15,000 135,880 (120,880) 30,000 19,844 10,156 5,000 5,000 AEA Operating Committee Exp-Legal Total 15,000 135,880 (120,880) 30,000 19,844 10,156 5,000 5,000 Operat Committee Exp-Arbitrage Administrative Costs 2,000 1,690 310 2,000 1,807 193 2,000 2,000 AEA Operat Committee Exp-Arbitrage Total 2,000 1,690 310 2,000 1,807 193 2,000 2,000 Trust & Account Fees Administrative Costs 4,800 5,000 (200) 8,800 8,077 723 4,800 4,800 AEA Trust & Account Fees Total 4,800 5,000 (200) 8,800 8,077 723 4,800 4,800 Operating Committee Exp-Other Administrative Costs 100 110 (10) 100 819 (719) 100 100 AEA Operating Committee Exp-Other Total 100 110 (10) 100 819 (719) 100 100 - - FERC 920 & 930 - Administrative Expense Total 395,424 580,606 (185,182) 255,469 223,224 32,245 82,900 54,900 Total Bradley Lake Budget 395,424 580,606 (185,182) 547,714 475,700 72,014 399,610 417,373 Page 18 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Battle Creek Monthly Participating Purchaser Contributions Schedule G A B C D E F G FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2023 FY2023 Previous New Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Percent Percent Amended Amended Amended Proposed Amend 4 POWER PURCHASER Share Share Budget Budget Budget Changes Budget Chugach Electric Association 32.72% 30.40%2,367,938 1,403,682 1,168,167 (82,987) 1,085,180 Homer Electric Association 34.44% 37.90%2,491,807 1,477,109 1,229,275 123,631 1,352,906 Matanuska Electric Association 14.86% 13.80%1,075,133 637,324 530,392 (37,777) 492,615 Golden Valley Electric Association 16.90% 16.90%- - 603,275 - 603,275 City of Seward 1.08% 1.00%78,169 46,338 38,563 (2,867) 35,696 Rounding 100.00%100.00%6,013,047 3,564,453 3,569,672 - 3,569,672 Previous New FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2023 FY2023 Percent Percent Amended Amended Amended Proposed Amend 4 POWER PURCHASER Share Share Budget Budget Budget Changes Monthly Chugach Electric Association 32.72% 30.40%220,385 116,974 97,347 (10,373) 86,974 Homer Electric Association 34.44% 37.90%231,913 123,092 102,440 15,454 117,893 Matanuska Electric Association 14.86% 13.80%100,063 53,110 44,199 (4,722) 39,477 Golden Valley Electric Association 16.90% 16.90%- - 50,273 - 50,273 City of Seward 1.08% 1.00%7,275 3,862 3,214 (358) 2,855 100.00%100.00%559,636 297,038 297,473 - 297,473 Page 19 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SSQ Line Capital Purchases (not funded by R&C Fund) Schedule H FY21 FY22 FY23 Approved Amended Approved Budget Budget Budget SQ Line Access Documentation 150,000 - - SQ Line Acquisition Costs 40,000 - - SQ Soldotna-Qtz Ck 230kV Construction 750,000 - Total Non R&C Capital Purchases 190,000 750,000 - Capital Project Description Page 20 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SSQ Line Operations and Maintenance Budget Schedule I HEA 150,000 300,523 231,999 CEA - - - AEA 20,000 144,000 105,000 170,000 444,523 336,999 - FY21 FY22 FY23 FY21 Amended Budget FY22 Amended Budget FY23 Approved Budget Summary by cost type Labor & Benefits 32,500 85,820 56,999 Indirect Costs - - - Travel - - - Training - - - Contractual 110,000 250,000 200,000 Supplies & Materials 7,500 56,992 25,000 Other Costs - 7,711 - Equipment, Furniture and Machinery - - - Maintenance Projects - - - Administrative Costs 20,000 44,000 55,000 170,000 444,523 336,999 FERC 571 - Maintenance of Overhead Lines Maint of OH Lines SQ Line Labor & Benefits 32,500 85,820 56,999 HEA Travel - - - Contractual 110,000 150,000 150,000 HEA Contractual - 100,000 50,000 AEA Supplies & Materials 7,500 56,992 25,000 HEA Other Costs - 7,711 - HEA SQ Line Total 150,000 400,523 281,999 FERC 571 - Maintenance of Overhead Lines Total 150,000 400,523 281,999 FERC 920 & 930 - Administrative Expense AEA Bradley Admin Fees Bradley Lake Operating Administrative Costs 20,000 42,000 53,000 AEA Bradley Lake Operating Total 20,000 42,000 53,000 SSQ Line Trust & Account Fees SQ Line Administrative Costs - 2,000 2,000 AEA SQ Line Total - 2,000 2,000 FERC 920 & 930 - Administrative Expense Total 20,000 44,000 55,000 Total Bradley Lake Budget 170,000 444,523 336,999 Page 21 of 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SSQ Line Monthly Utility Contributions Schedule J A B C D FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Annual Annual Annual Percent Amended Amended Amended Power Purchaser Share Budget Budget Budget Chugach Electric (combined w ML&P) 56.30%202,680 1,267,038 427,252 Homer Electric 12.00%43,200 270,061 91,066 Matanuska Electric 13.80%49,680 310,571 104,726 Golden Valley Electric 16.90%60,840 380,336 128,251 City of Seward 1.00%3,600 22,505 7,589 Rounding 100.00%360,000 2,250,511 758,884 FY2022 FY2023 Power Purchaser Percent FY2021 Amended Amend Share Monthly Monthly Monthly Chugach Electric (combined w ML&P) 56.30%16,890 199,522 35,604 Homer Electric 12.00%3,600 42,527 7,589 Matanuska Electric 13.80%4,140 48,906 8,727 Golden Valley Electric 16.90%5,070 59,892 10,688 City of Seward 1.00%300 3,544 632 100.0%30,000 354,390 63,240 Page 22 of 22 BPMC Resolution 22-07 Battle Creek Diversion - Allocation Revision Page 1 of 4 BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 22-07 Battle Creek Diversion – Allocation Revision INTRODUCTION All the Purchasers of the Bradley Lake Management Committee (“BPMC) have supported the development and completion of the Battle Creek Diversion Project (“BCD Project”). As reflected in Resolutions No. 2017-02, including the First and Second Amendments, Resolution 2018-01 and Resolution No. 22-06 (together the “Earlier BCD Project Resolutions”), any Purchaser who did not initially participate in the development, construction and completion of the BCD Project (a “Non-Purchaser”), was granted an option to participate in the future. On April 29, 2022, Golden Valley Electric Association (“GVEA”), an initial Non- Purchaser, issued its Callback Notice and payment to the Alaska Energy Authority (the “Authority”). As provided in the Earlier BCD Project Resolutions, the GVEA Callback Notice and payment resulted in a reallocation of BCD Project shares beginning June 1, 2022. This Resolution 22-07 provides a corrected Exhibit A to account for the purchase of Anchorage Municipal Light & Power Association’s (“ML&P) share of the BCD Project by Homer Electric Association and Alaska Electric Energy Cooperative (collectively “HEA”). PURPOSE OF BPMC RESOLUTION 22-07 The purpose of this Resolution 22-07 is to revise Exhibit A in order to re-allocate the BCD Project shares consistent with the Earlier BCD Project Resolutions. RESOLUTION NO. 22-07 WHEREAS, the BPMC has authorized the development and financing of the BCD Project through the adoption of the Earlier BCD Resolutions - Resolution No. 2017-01 (June 28, 2017), Resolution No. 2017-02 (October 13, 2017), First Amendment to Resolution No. 2017-02 (December 1, 2017), Second Amendment to Resolution No. 2017-02 (December 6, 2017), and Resolution No. 2017-03 (December 16, 2017); BPMC Resolution 22-07 Battle Creek Diversion - Allocation Revision Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the BPMC adopted Resolution No. 2018-01 to clarify the methodology to be used by the BPMC and to allocate BCD Project shares of any Non- Participating Purchaser that had not been otherwise sold or transferred. WHEREAS, the BPMC accepted GVEA’s Callback Notice in Resolution No. 22- 06; WHEREAS, with receipt of the Callback Notice and payment prior to May 1, 2022 GVEA will participate in the BCD Project at the level equal to the capacity percentage it holds in the Bradley Lake Project; WHEREAS, attached and incorporated herein by this reference is Amendment No. 2 to Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2018-01, that reflects the allocated percentages for all Participating Purchasers in the BCD Project and replaces Exhibit A in Resolution No. 22-06. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BPMC, the aforementioned comments and Recitals are incorporated and made part of this Resolution No. 22-07; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Earlier BCD Project Resolutions are incorporated as if fully set forth herein; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the attached Second Amendment to Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2018-01 reflects the shares for each Participating Purchaser of the BCD Project, including GVEA and HEA’s share incorporating its purchase of ML&P’s share, replacing the existing First Amendment to Exhibit A, Resolution No. 22-06 and Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2018-01; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that except for the changes expressly provided in Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2018-01, no further changes have been made to the Earlier BCD Project Resolutions by the adoption of this Resolution No. 22-07. DATED at Anchorage Alaska, this _____ day of September, 2022. _________________________________ Chair, Bradley P. Janorschke Attest: ______________________________ Secretary, Curtis Thayer BPMC Resolution 22-07 Battle Creek Diversion - Allocation Revision Page 3 of 4 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2018-01 Reallocation of BCD Shares – (with revised Exhibit A) First Revision Resolution 22-06 Exhibit A, May 2022 Power Purchaser BCD Percent Share Prior to GVEA Buy-in Re solution 2018-01 Re-allocation of 16.9% to GVEA Ma y 1, 2022 BCD Percent Share After GVEA Buy-in Re solution 22-06 Bradley Lake Shares Chugach Electric Association 39.38%6.66%32.72%56.30% Homer Electric Association 41.44%7.00%34.44%12.00% Matanuska Electric Association 17.88%3.02%14.86%13.80% Golden Valley Electric 0.00%0.00%16.90%16.90% City of Seward 1.30%0.22%1.08%1.00% 100.00%16.90%100.00%100.00% Second Revision Resolution 22-06 Exhibit A Power Purchaser BCD Percent Share Prior to GVEA Buy-in REVISED Re-allocation of 16.9% to GVEA May 1, 2022 REVISED BCD Percent Share After GVEA Buy-in New Resolution Bradley Lake Shares Chugach Electric Association 39.38%(8.98%)30.40%56.30% Homer Electric Association 41.44%(3.55%)37.90%12.00% Matanuska Electric Association 17.88%(4.08%)13.80%13.80% Golden Valley Electric 0.00%16.90%16.90%16.90% City of Seward 1.30%(0.3%)1.00%1.00% 100.00%0.00%100.00%100.00% BPMC Resolution 22-07 Battle Creek Diversion - Allocation Revision Page 4 of 4 Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Battle Creek REVISED Participating Purchaser Contributions Second Revision Resolution 22-06, Exhibit A FY23 Contributions Summary Resolution 22-06 FY2023 FY2023 FY2023 Revised Exh A New Annual Annual Annual Percent Percent Amended 3 Proposed Amend 4 POWER PURCHASER Share Share Budget Changes Budget Chugach Electric Association 32.72%30.40%1,168,167 (82,987) 1,085,180 Homer Electric Association 34.44%37.90%1,229,275 123,631 1,352,906 Matanuska Electric Association 14.86%13.80%530,392 (37,777) 492,615 Golden Valley Electric Association 16.90%16.90%603,275 - 603,275 City of Seward 1.08%1.00%38,563 (2,867) 35,696 100.00%100.00%3,569,672 - 3,569,672 Resolution 22-06 Revised Exh A New FY2023 FY2023 FY2023 Percent Percent Amended 3 Proposed Amend 4 POWER PURCHASER Share Share Monthly Changes Monthly Chugach Electric Association 32.72%30.40%97,347 (10,373) 86,974 Homer Electric Association 34.44%37.90%102,440 15,454 117,893 Matanuska Electric Association 14.86%13.80%44,199 (4,722) 39,477 Golden Valley Electric Association 16.90%16.90%50,273 - 50,273 City of Seward 1.08%1.00%3,214 (358) 2,855 100.00%100.00%297,473 - 297,473 PD 7/22-10/22 TOTAL TOTAL PER MO FOR 4 MONTHS PER PER MO FOR REMAIN TO PAY CONTRIBUTIONS UTILITY 4 MONTHS AMENDED FY22 8 MONTHS 11/22-6/23 FOR FY2023 Chugach Electric Association 97,347 389,389 86,974 695,791 1,085,180 Homer Electric Association 102,440 409,758 117,893 943,148 1,352,906 Matanuska Electric Association 44,199 176,797 39,477 315,818 492,615 Golden Valley Electric Association 50,273 201,092 50,273 402,183 603,275 City of Seward 3,214 12,854 2,855 22,842 35,696 Total 297,473 1,189,891 297,473 2,379,781 3,569,672 1850 Parkway Place  Suite 800  Marietta, GA 30067  770-425-8100  Fax 866-611-3791  www.gdsassociates.com Georgia  Texas  Alabama  New Hampshire  Wisconsin  Florida  Maine  Washington California Kevin J. Mara, P.E., Executive Vice President kevn.mara@gdsassociates.com main 770-425-8100 fax 866-611-3791 September 6, 2022 Mr. Bryan Carey Director of Owned Assets Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Subject: Opinion on Upgrade to Transmission Line between Bradley Lake and Sterling Substation Mr. Carey: Presented herewith is a summary of our analyses, investigations, studies and opinion with respect to the proposed system upgrade: Upgrade from Bradley Lake to Soldotna (“BLS Upgrade”) and the Soldotna to Sterling Upgrade (“SS Line Upgrade”) related to the Bradley Lake Project. The Project Description GDS Associates (GDS), has been retained by Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to provide an independent opinion (Opinion) of the proposed upgrade to the Transmission Line from Bradley Lake power plant to Soldotna (“BLS Upgrade”) and Soldotna Substation to Sterling Substation (“SS Line Upgrade”). The goal of both the BLS and SS Upgrades will allow for AEA to improve the assets of the Bradley Lake Project. The BLS and SS Upgrades combined with other work planned along the route from Bradley Lake to Anchorage allows for increased the efficiency and reliability of this portion of the transmission system which is necessary for the power delivery from the Bradley Project. The BLS Upgrade is still in its infancy, because the design and planning has not started and will likely take several years. This proposed project will add a new 115kV transmission line from the Bradley Lake Project through Bradley Junction to the Soldotna Substation. This new line will parallel the existing line providing additional capacity as well as redundancy. The line from Bradley Junction to Soldotna is within Homer Electric Association’s (“HEA”) service territory and was built by HEA for the Bradley Lake Project. The Agreement for Sale of Transmission Capacity dated December 8, 1987 defines the participating utilities obligations related to this section of line. AEA has acquired certain transmission rights through the acquisition of the transmission line from Sterling Substation to Quartz Creek Substation (SSQ line). The proposed new transmission will not adversely affect the existing HEA line although the two lines will be general in the same right-of-way. The total length of the line is roughly 68 miles. This project includes modifications to the existing GIS switchgear and 0.5 miles of 115 kV solid-dielectric cable at the Bradley Lake power plant. The northern end of the line would terminate in a new 115kV substation connected to the existing HEA substation through the existing AEA SVC bay. The new station will be 115kV ring bus station. The estimated cost of the BLS Upgrade including the substations is $66.6 million. 1850 Parkway Place  Suite 800  Marietta, GA 30067  770-425-8100  Fax 866-611-3791  www.gdsassociates.com Georgia  Texas  Alabama  New Hampshire  Wisconsin  Florida  Maine  Washington California Kevin J. Mara, P.E., Executive Vice President kevn.mara@gdsassociates.com main 770-425-8100 fax 866-611-3791 The SS Upgrade proposes to convert 14 miles of existing 115 kV transmission line from Soldotna Substation to Sterling Substation to a double circuit 115 kV and 230 kV transmission line. HEA has retained ownership of the SS Line and AEA has purchased transmission capacity in the SS line. The SS Line is operated under the Amendment to Agreement for Sale of Transmission Capacity. Further AEA has retained the right to direct HEA to repair or upgrade the SS Line. The double circuit will allow the Sterling Substation to continue to operate at 115 kV and provide capacity for HEA to this station. The cost to upgrade this is $24.4 million and SS Upgrade does not include any substation upgrades at Soldotna. The SS Upgrade is necessary to keep the Bradley Lake Project in good and efficient operating condition. GDS reviewed the Power Sales Agreement, financial statements of purchasing utilities and the AEA, and engineering and design studies provided to GDS. This Opinion is GDS’s professional opinion. In particular, this Opinion addresses whether the BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades are of sound economics and national standards for prudent utility practice based on information available during the assessment. 2022 Financing The financing of these improvements (the 2022 Bonds) will be issued pursuant to AEA’s Power Revenue Bond Resolution, adopted September 7, 1989, as amended and supplemented and the Alaska Energy Act (AS 44.83) (collectively Power Revenue Bond Resolution). Terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Power Revenue Bond Resolution. The proceeds of the 2022 financing may be issued in either bond form or as a loan and may be either taxable or tax-exempt. The 2022 financing proceeds, deemed as Additional Bonds under the Power Revenue Bond Resolution will be used to pay (i) capital costs for the BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades;1 and (ii) cost of issuance of the 2022 Bonds. The 2022 Bonds will consist of a not to exceed principal amount of $85,400,000. The 2022 Bonds, and bonds issued on a parity basis under the terms of the Power Revenue Bond Resolution, are direct and general obligations of the AEA secured by full faith and credit of AEA, which are secured as to payment of the principal of, and interest on, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Resolution, by a pledge of Revenues and moneys, securities and funds held or set aside to be held by the AEA under the Power Revenue Bond Resolution. This Opinion summarizes our work to date hereof. We make no representations for changed conditions occurring or becoming known after such date which could affect the material presented herein to the extent of such changes. Power Sales Agreement AEA is a public corporation and an agency of the state of Alaska. AEA is the State’s energy office. In December of 1987, AEA, at that time the Alaska Power Authority, entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of electric power (Agreement). The Agreement details a disposition of energy from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project), in which AEA sells the output to multiple municipals and cooperatives (Purchasers) through Alaska’s Railbelt Region. The Project is a 120-megawatt hydroelectric project which provides 10 percent of the Railbelt area’s energy needs. The Agreement has a 50-year term 1 Bradley Lake Project Management Committee: Report of the Bradley O&D Committee, Review of the Proposed Transaction. 1850 Parkway Place  Suite 800  Marietta, GA 30067  770-425-8100  Fax 866-611-3791  www.gdsassociates.com Georgia  Texas  Alabama  New Hampshire  Wisconsin  Florida  Maine  Washington California Kevin J. Mara, P.E., Executive Vice President kevn.mara@gdsassociates.com main 770-425-8100 fax 866-611-3791 and each Purchaser has a share in the energy generated by the facility. For the Purchasers to the north of the Project, such energy shares are transferred from the Project to the Purchasers via a 115 kV transmission line between Sterling and Cooper Landing on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (SSQ Line). In December 2020 AEA purchased the following from HEA: capacity rights of the SS Line (Soldotna to Sterling Substation); ability to direct HEA to repair/upgrade the SS Line; HEA’s property rights to the SSQ line; and all of HEA’s property rights to the 69 kV line between Soldotna and Quartz Creek Substation. The Sterling to Quartz Creek Transmission Upgrade is the next step in upgrading the transmission capacity and reliability of the delivery from the Bradley Lake Project The Agreement, among other things, established the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee (BPMC). The purpose of the BPMC is to facilitate the operation and maintenance at the project as well as power scheduling, power production and power dispatch. The members of the BPMC include the AEA and the six utilities that purchase power under the Agreement, consisting of: • Chugach Electric Association (CEA) • Municipal Light & Power (ML&P) (now part of CEA) • HEA 2 • Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) • Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) • City of Seward AEA issued bonds in support of the Bradley Lake Project from 1989 through 2020 which mature annually each July 1 through the year 2021 with interest rates ranging from 3.5 percent to 6.25 percent. Under the Agreement, if a participating utility fails to make payments, the AEA may, after consultation with the other participating utilities, terminate or suspend delivery of power to the non-paying participant. If power deliveries are suspended or terminated to the non-paying participant, the AEA has the right to proportionally increase the percentage shares of the remaining participants with the caveat that no participant’s share can be increased by more than 25 percent. The remaining participants’ allocation of project costs and power generation will be based on the updated percentage shares. Agreement Project Work Definitions The Agreement contemplates that work will be needed during the 50-year term to keep the Project in efficient operating condition. The Agreement addresses ongoing work for the Project by breaking the work into two categories; (i) Required Project Work 3; and (ii) Optional Project Work.4 Required Project Work is defined as “repairs, maintenance, renewables, replacements, improvements or betterments required by federal or state law, a licensing or agency with jurisdiction over the Project, or this Agreement, or otherwise necessary to keep the Project in good and efficient operating condition, consistent with (1) sound economics for the Project and the Purchasers, and (2) national standards for the industry.” 2 Homer Electric Association, Inc. and its single-member cooperative Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative. 3 Section 1 (hh), Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Electric Power dated December 8, 1987 4 Section 1 (t), Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Electric Power dated December 8, 1987 1850 Parkway Place  Suite 800  Marietta, GA 30067  770-425-8100  Fax 866-611-3791  www.gdsassociates.com Georgia  Texas  Alabama  New Hampshire  Wisconsin  Florida  Maine  Washington California Kevin J. Mara, P.E., Executive Vice President kevn.mara@gdsassociates.com main 770-425-8100 fax 866-611-3791 Optional Project Work is defined as “Project repairs, renewals and replacements, improvements, betterments, additions, or expansions that do not constitute Required Project Work.” GDS’s opinion is that the BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades are Required Project Work. Specifically, Required Project Work includes work that is “…otherwise necessary to keep the Project in efficient operating condition…”. This work should be “…consistent with sound economics for the Project and the Purchasers...” and “…national standards for the industry.” GDS addresses these two tests for Project necessity separately as (1) Economics; and (2) Industry Standard. Economics The sound economics test for BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades, extends to both the Project and the Purchasers. It is GDS’s opinion that the Proposed Transaction meets the economics test for Required Project Work as further detailed in this Opinion. GDS reviewed the financials of AEA as well as for each of the Purchasers. The borrowed amount of $85.4 million is assumed over a 30 year term at a rate of 5%. Principal and Interest payments for the 2022 Bonds are $5.6 million annually. Bradley Lake Power Revenue Refunding Bonds (Series 4 and 6 included in Existing debt) mature by June 2022 reducing the overall debt service obligation by over $10 million in 2023. Existing debt payments in Table 2 also include the $10 million prepayment for the Series 10 bonds paid on June 29, 2022. Finally, Table 2 also considers the 2022 Bonds for the SSQ Line Upgrade (Sterling to Quartz Creek Upgrade) in the analysis of financial feasibility. Annual net margins for AEA were reviewed from 2015 through 2021 based on audited financial statements including all outstanding long-term debt. AEA’s average net margin over this period is $22 million. Earnings before interest, tax, and amortization averaged $29 million over this period which more than covers the average annual debt service obligation over the next 30 years. Finally, The Bradley Lake Project Bonds matured on July 1, 2021, resulting in the availability of the Excess Payments to be applied toward the annual 2022 debt service issued to fund Required Project Work. This can be done in accordance with Section 29 of the Power Sales Agreement. The SS Transmission Upgrade will reduce system losses once completed. The value of these system losses is estimated at $15.5 million in net present value over 30 years, or $1 million per year in reduced operating costs along just the SS Line.5 The benefit of reduced losses on the BLS section is estimated to be greater than what was estimated for the SSQ/SS sections. If the losses are the same as the SSQ/SS section, operating costs for the BLS Upgrade could be reduced by $3.4 million per year on average over 30 years.6 5 CEA. Soldotna to Quartz Creek Upgrade Evaluation Memorandum. August 6, 2021. Value of losses calculated based on CEA’s cost of generation and is considered a conservative estimate. Soldotna to Quartz section total value of losses is estimated at $58.6 million. $43.1 million for the Sterling to Quartz Creek section and $15.5 million for the Soldotna to Sterling section. 6 The SSQ/SS line losses are valued at $58.6 million over 30 years for 53.4 miles of line. At 47.3 miles of line, the BLS line losses might be valued at $51.9 million. 1850 Parkway Place  Suite 800  Marietta, GA 30067  770-425-8100  Fax 866-611-3791  www.gdsassociates.com Georgia  Texas  Alabama  New Hampshire  Wisconsin  Florida  Maine  Washington California Kevin J. Mara, P.E., Executive Vice President kevn.mara@gdsassociates.com main 770-425-8100 fax 866-611-3791 Further, future energy flows could increase by 25 to 40%. The increased flows provides additional avoided loss benefits as well as the potential for future resource development. Industry Standard The Required Project Work definition includes any improvements or betterments required by federal or state law plus an additional efficiency test that improvements are within industry standard. In the contiguous United States, authority over generation and transmission siting and reliability resides with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).7 Section 215 of the Federal Power Act, however, carves out Alaska and Hawaii. In 2017, AEA signed a memo of understanding (MOI) with certain Railbelt Utilities. The MOI commenced the process to create reliability standards that are similar to those required by FERC and are considered industry standard in the lower 48 states. These standards address transmission reliability, generation ownership, operation and system vulnerabilities. It is GDS’ opinion the industry standard for generation and transmission reliability requires betterments and upgrades to the transmission system such as those detailed in the BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades. The betterments and upgrades are consistent with Prudent Utility Practice (as that term is defined by the Bond Resolution) and therefore should be considered Required Project Work as set forth in the Agreement. Summary and Conclusion Based on our analyses, we are of the opinion that: 1. The BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades represent prudent utility practice and are within the definition of Required Project Work. The BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades are necessary to keep the Project in efficient running conditions and is both economical and in accordance with industry standard practices. Alaska is advancing reliability standards, similar to those required by FERC through NERC in the lower 48 states. These standards will require greater transmission reliability in the future and the BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades will position AEA and the Purchasers to fully comply. 2. Neither the issuance of the 2022 Bonds, nor any payments associated with the BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades, will impair the ability of the AEA to pay debt service on the outstanding bonds and the 2022 Bonds through the collection of revenues under the PSA and the auxiliary services contemplated under the Definitive Agreements.8 3. The BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades are expected to provide stable and reliable delivery from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. The BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades will increase the conductor size and the insulation level of the existing transmission line. Such increased transmission capacity will reduce losses and enable the reliable delivery of the output from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. 4. The BLS and SS Transmission Upgrades are also expected to support future development of hydropower, wind, and solar projects on the Kenai Peninsula. As development of these resources occur, losses would increase significantly if the transmission upgrade were not implemented. The 7 https://www.ferc.gov/enforcement/enforce-res/EPAct2005.pdf 8 Such agreements are conditions precedent to the Proposed Transaction (Page 19 of the Resolution). 1850 Parkway Place  Suite 800  Marietta, GA 30067  770-425-8100  Fax 866-611-3791  www.gdsassociates.com Georgia  Texas  Alabama  New Hampshire  Wisconsin  Florida  Maine  Washington California Kevin J. Mara, P.E., Executive Vice President kevn.mara@gdsassociates.com main 770-425-8100 fax 866-611-3791 benefit of the upgrade increases as new projects are developed and allows for an increase of 25- 40% in energy flows. Respectfully submitted, Kevin J. Mara, P.E. Executive Vice President Exhi bit Table 1 AEA Audited Financial Statements Fiscal Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Revenues Charges for Services $17,289 $18,974 $19,179 $21,848 $21,426 $21,889 $23,209 Grants and Contributions 104,208 32,467 31,244 19,642 24,745 14,082 17,292 Investment Income 35,095 11,048 114,443 79,344 78,008 51,411 151,983 Total Revenue $156,592 $62,489 $164,866 $120,834 $124,179 $87,382 $192,484 Expenses Grants and Projects $111,719 $69,116 $62,629 $56,692 $48,582 $47,969 $45,927 General and Administrative 6,113 6,590 4,704 4,454 5,672 5,742 20,605 Interest Expense 3,668 3,177 2,652 2,371 1,746 827 1,159 Plant Operations 3,985 4,709 4,330 5,772 5,350 5,376 7,797 Depreciation 10,487 10,529 10,808 15,594 10,862 10,917 12,356 Provision for Loan Loss 6 -2 154 -51 169 61 -33 Total Expenses $135,978 $94,119 $85,277 $84,832 $72,381 $70,892 $87,811 State Re-appropriation of Funds $0 $0 ($13,556) ($10,067) ($1,097,695) ($21,222) $1,017,213 Net Margin $20,614 ($31,630) $66,033 $25,935 ($1,045,897) ($4,732) $1,121,886 EBITA $28,273 ($23,746) $73,169 $34,027 ($1,038,632) $1,532 $1,130,809 Exhi bit Table 2 Debt Service Schedule ($1,000s) Existing Long-Term Debt1 SSQ Line 2022 Bonds2 BLS and SS Line 2022 Bonds3 Total Debt Service Fiscal Year Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total 2022 $23,184 $2,632 $25,816 $25,816 2023 $1,603 $1,869 $3,472 $798 $2,650 $3,448 $1,285 $4,270 $5,555 $12,475 2024 $1,612 $1,803 $3,415 $838 $2,610 $3,448 $1,350 $4,206 $5,555 $12,418 2025 $1,620 $1,736 $3,356 $879 $2,568 $3,448 $1,417 $4,138 $5,555 $12,359 2026 $1,629 $1,670 $3,299 $923 $2,524 $3,448 $1,488 $4,067 $5,555 $12,302 2027 $1,638 $1,602 $3,240 $970 $2,478 $3,448 $1,562 $3,993 $5,555 $12,243 2028 $1,647 $1,534 $3,181 $1,018 $2,430 $3,448 $1,641 $3,915 $5,555 $12,184 2029 $1,657 $1,466 $3,123 $1,069 $2,379 $3,448 $1,723 $3,833 $5,555 $12,126 2030 $1,667 $1,397 $3,064 $1,122 $2,325 $3,448 $1,809 $3,747 $5,555 $12,067 2031 $1,677 $1,329 $3,006 $1,179 $2,269 $3,448 $1,899 $3,656 $5,555 $12,009 2032 $1,687 $1,259 $2,946 $1,238 $2,210 $3,448 $1,994 $3,561 $5,555 $11,949 2033 $1,698 $1,190 $2,888 $1,299 $2,148 $3,448 $2,094 $3,462 $5,555 $11,891 2034 $1,710 $1,120 $2,830 $1,364 $2,083 $3,448 $2,198 $3,357 $5,555 $11,833 2035 $1,721 $1,050 $2,771 $1,433 $2,015 $3,448 $2,308 $3,247 $5,555 $11,774 2036 $1,734 $979 $2,713 $1,504 $1,943 $3,448 $2,424 $3,132 $5,555 $11,716 2037 $1,746 $908 $2,654 $1,579 $1,868 $3,448 $2,545 $3,010 $5,555 $11,657 2038 $1,759 $837 $2,596 $1,658 $1,789 $3,448 $2,672 $2,883 $5,555 $11,599 2039 $1,773 $765 $2,538 $1,741 $1,706 $3,448 $2,806 $2,750 $5,555 $11,541 2040 $1,787 $692 $2,479 $1,828 $1,619 $3,448 $2,946 $2,609 $5,555 $11,482 2041 $1,801 $619 $2,420 $1,920 $1,528 $3,448 $3,093 $2,462 $5,555 $11,423 2042 $1,374 $554 $1,928 $2,016 $1,432 $3,448 $3,248 $2,307 $5,555 $10,931 2043 $1,374 $496 $1,870 $2,117 $1,331 $3,448 $3,411 $2,145 $5,555 $10,873 2044 $1,374 $437 $1,811 $2,222 $1,225 $3,448 $3,581 $1,974 $5,555 $10,814 2045 $1,374 $378 $1,752 $2,334 $1,114 $3,448 $3,760 $1,795 $5,555 $10,755 2046 $1,374 $321 $1,695 $2,450 $997 $3,448 $3,948 $1,607 $5,555 $10,698 2047 $1,374 $262 $1,636 $2,573 $875 $3,448 $4,146 $1,410 $5,555 $10,639 2048 $1,374 $204 $1,578 $2,701 $746 $3,448 $4,353 $1,203 $5,555 $10,581 2049 $1,374 $145 $1,519 $2,836 $611 $3,448 $4,570 $985 $5,555 $10,522 2050 $1,374 $88 $1,462 $2,978 $469 $3,448 $4,799 $756 $5,555 $10,465 2051 $1,374 $29 $1,403 $3,127 $321 $3,448 $5,039 $516 $5,555 $10,406 1. Includes Series 1, 4,6, 7, 8, and 10 bonds. 2. Debt service on SSQ Line section only ($53 million). 3. Debt schedules for BLS and SS only totaling $84.5 million, as described in this Opinion. From:Curtis W. Thayer To:BPMC Members; Brian J. Hickey Subject:DOE - Request for comments on upcoming grid grants from states, local governments, tribes (including Alaska Native corporations), non-profits, and industry for $10.5 billion across three grant programs with grants up to $250 million each - DUE: October Date:Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:54:08 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png FYI---See below. We could file joint comments----we have six weeks and this should a topic for the BPMC. This something we can partner on. Best Regards, Curtis W. Thayer Executive Director 813 W Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage AK 99503 (907) 771-3009 (office) (907) 744-4704 (cell) cthayer@akenergyauthority.org Request for Information: Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Program DATE: August 30, 2022 SUBJECT: Request for Information (RFI) (DE-FOA- 0002827) DUE DATE: October 14, 2022, 5pm EDT SUBMIT TO: GDORFI@hq.doe.gov This is a Request for Information (RFI) issued by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Grid Deployment Office (GDO) in collaboration with the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED). This RFI seeks public input to help inform DOE’s implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL).1 The BIL is a once-in-a-generation investment in infrastructure, designed to modernize and upgrade American infrastructure to enhance United States competitiveness, drive the creation of good-paying union jobs, tackle the climate crisis, and ensure stronger access to economic, environmental, and other benefits for disadvantaged communities (DACs). BIL includes a historic investment to upgrade our transmission and distribution systems to improve reliability and resilience and to facilitate the deployment of more affordable and cleaner energy across the country as highlighted by DOE’s Building a Better Grid Initiative. As relevant to this RFI, under sections 40101(c), 40107, and 40103(b), the BIL appropriated approximately $10.5 billion for the five-year period encompassing Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 through 2026 to prevent outages and enhance the resilience of the electric grid, deploy technologies to enhance grid flexibility, and demonstrate innovative approaches to power sector infrastructure resilience and reliability. Together DOE refers to these provisions as the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) program.2 To help inform DOE’s implementation of the BIL provisions referenced above, this RFI seeks input on: · DOE’s implementation strategy for the GRIP program, including the competitive solicitation process, funding opportunity announcement (FOA) structure, prioritization of topics and projects, and assessment criteria. In addition to the overview presented here, the full DRAFT FOA can be found https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect/?doc=DE-FOA- 0002740&agency=DOE. · The alignment of the implementation of the GRIP program in supporting the Biden Administration’s priorities, including: a. Maximizing Benefits of an upgraded and modernized grid for American communities, including increased resilience and reliability and increased access to affordable, lower- carbon electricity. b. Quality Jobs developed through the GRIP program including (a) efforts to attract, train, and retain a skilled workforce and (b) workforce opportunities in communities that have lost jobs due to the displacements of fossil energy jobs. c. Community Benefits that could be achieved through the GRIP program including diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. Public Law 117-58 (November 15, 2021). 42 USC §18711(c); 42 USC §18712(b); 42 USC §17386 d. Implementation of the Justice40 Initiative3 and the maximizing of benefits to disadvantaged communities, within the GRIP program, and where applicable. The three programs offering competitive grant funding for grid investments encompass a number of eligible entities, including states, Tribes, units of local government, public utility commissions, grid operators, utilities, and more. There are opportunities for investment in grid resilience and hardening, deployment of technologies to get more out of the existing grid, and large-scale transmission and distribution infrastructure. Information collected from this RFI may be used by DOE for planning purposes, which could include revisions to the draft FOA noted above and developing future FOAs, other solicitations 1 2 or technical assistance related to the GRIP program. The information collected may be published, therefore, DOE strongly encourages that no confidential business information or proprietary information be submitted and, if such information is provided, all documents are marked accordingly. This is an RFI only. DOE will not pay for information provided under this RFI and no project will be supported as a result of this RFI. This RFI is not accepting applications for financial assistance. This RFI’s purpose and questions for response are provided at the end of this document, beginning with RFI Categories and Questions on page 22. Background On November 15, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. signed the BIL. The BIL is a once-in-a- generation investment in infrastructure, which provides the backbone for a more sustainable, resilient, and equitable economy through enhancing U.S. global competitiveness, diversifying regional economies to include supply chain and manufacturing industries, creating good union jobs, and ensuring stronger access to economic and other benefits for underserved communities. The BIL appropriates more than $62 billion to DOE to ensure the clean energy future delivers true economic prosperity to the American people by: · Investing in American manufacturing and workers, by creating good-paying jobs with the free and fair chance to join a union and supporting effective workforce development that ensures access to these jobs and enables workers to advance in their careers. · Expanding access to energy efficiency and clean energy for families, communities, and businesses. · Delivering reliable, clean, and affordable power to more Americans. · Building the technologies of tomorrow through clean energy demonstrations. The BIL appropriated approximately $10.5 billion for the five-year period encompassing FY22 through FY26 for three provisions broadly focused on enhancing the resilience of our power system against growing threats of extreme weather and climate change. A reliable, resilient, affordable, and equitable The Justice40 initiative, created by E.O. 14008, establishes a goal that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal investments—including investments in climate change; clean energy and energy efficiency; clean transit; affordable and sustainable housing; training and workforce development; the remediation and reduction of legacy pollution; and the development of critical clean water infrastructure—flow to disadvantaged communities. The Justice40 Interim Guidance provides a broad definition of disadvantaged communities (Page 2): https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/M-21-28.pdf. The Department of Energy has identified DACs by census tract. See https://www.energy.gov/diversity/justice40- initiative. The DOE, the Office of Management and Budget, and/or the Federal Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) may issue additional and subsequent guidance regarding the designation of disadvantaged communities and recognized benefits under the Justice40 Initiative. 2 clean power system is a core requirement for achieving the Biden Administration target of a 100% 3 carbon pollution free electricity system by 2035 and a net zero emission economy by 2050. As part of the whole-of-government approach to advance equity and encourage worker organizing and collective bargaining,4,5,6 the implementation of BIL sections 40101(c), 40107, and 40103(b) will seek to encourage meaningful engagement and participation of workforce organizations, including labor unions, as well as underserved communities and underrepresented groups, including Tribal nations7. Consistent with Executive Order 14008,8 the GRIP program is designed to help meet the goal that 40% of the benefits of federal investments in clean energy and climate solutions flow to disadvantaged communities, as defined by the Department pursuant to the Executive Order and Interim Guidance and to drive the creation of good-paying jobs with the free and fair chance for workers to join a union. Grid Resilience and Innovative Partnerships (GRIP) Elements DOE is proposing a combined implementation strategy for the following three BIL sections in order to support the development of more comprehensive and regional resilience strategies: · Section 40101(c): Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid/Hazard Hardening (Grid Resilience Grants) · Section 40107: Deployment of Technologies to Enhance Grid Flexibility/Smart Grid Investment Matching Grant Program (Smart Grid Grants) · Section 40103(b): Program Upgrading Our Electric Grid and Ensuring Reliability and Resiliency (Grid Innovation Program) Together, these three programs form the GRIP program. DOE intends to coordinate implementation of these programs together to the extent practicable, to maximize the benefits and impacts of the three programs. DOE believes such coordination will provide practical benefits to applicants by aligning and coordinating the objectives and funding opportunities for the three provisions within the GRIP program: · Aligning timing of programs should ease the application process by enabling applicants to focus on one annual award cycle for all relevant opportunities; · A coordinated application process should allow for development of broader teams in industry, state, local, Tribal, and regional partnerships; · Coordinated implementation should enable a more systematic approach to planning to help identify projects with the most significant national, regional, and community resilience, reliability, and affordability benefits; and · Industry applications can be informed by and complementary to other energy planning efforts and grid resilience investments that States, Territories, and Indian Tribes are undertaking, including in connection with other BIL programs such as the Grid Resilience State and Tribal EO 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” (January 20, 2021). 4 5 EO 14025, “Worker Organizing and Empowerment,” April 26, 2021. EO 14052, “Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” November 18, 2021. EO 13175, November 6, 2000 “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments”, charges all executive departments and agencies with engaging in regular, meaningful, and robust consultation with Tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have Tribal implications. EO 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” January 27, 2021. 3 formula grants under BIL section 40101(d), State Energy Security Plans under BIL section 40108, and other activities supported by the State Energy Program, including a mandatory focus on transmission and distribution planning under BIL section 40109. DOE Draft Strategy for Grid Resilience and Innovative Partnership (GRIP) Program The Nation’s power system is aging and under increasing and evolving threat, yet historical investments have not been sufficient in magnitude or focus to address these threats to the grid. The energy transition is underway with the retirement of older assets, the deployment of newer assets with different generation profiles, and a shifting load profile that includes storage, electric vehicles, building electrification, and more. All of this creates both challenges and opportunities to build a more resilient grid. Disruptive weather events are more intense in terms of temperature extremes and precipitation; are becoming broader in scope; and are affecting larger areas at a time, such as Winter Storm Uri, Hurricane Ida, and Hurricane Maria. Droughts are longer-lasting, compounding the potential impact of disruptive events and increasing other threats such as wildfires. Increasing interdependencies between critical infrastructure systems will continue to impact our power system and can have a significant impact on other sectors. Power outages from extreme weather have doubled over the past two decades across the country, highlighting our aging grid and infrastructure. Vulnerable communities have disproportionally suffered during these events. Approaches and solutions that leverage new technologies; enable the deployment of new, geographically disbursed carbon-free energy resources; enhance the ability to move power on a regional and interregional basis; and work towards common regional goals and strategies, are all necessary to achieve greater grid resilience and reliability. With the grid resilience funding provided by the BIL there is an opportunity to not only invest in power system infrastructure that addresses critical interconnected national and regional needs, but also a unique chance to build partnerships between states, local governments, Tribes, and power system owners and operators that align industry objectives with broader regional goals to enhance reliability, all-hazards resilience, access to affordable energy resources, and efficiency of the electric grid. A comprehensive approach that considers opportunities available across relevant BIL provisions should enable more coordinated efforts by relevant stakeholders that can ultimately guide investment strategies for improving resilience beyond what the BIL can 6 7 8 support directly. Concurrently, infrastructure investments in power system resilience offer the opportunity to include a diverse set of populations, including underserved and disadvantaged communities, in the development of resilience strategies that focus on communities, and equitable access to opportunities and the benefits that derive from them. DOE believes that a coordinated approach to implementation should reduce barriers to equitable community participation. For the reasons described above, DOE believes there are significant benefits to be realized by the coordinated implementation of the three BIL programs focused on power sector infrastructure and resilience. In this request for Information, DOE is requesting comment on this coordinated approach. 4 Together the GRIP program has three common Strategic Goals: 1. Transform community regional, interregional, and national resilience, including in consideration of future shifts in generation and load As explained in DOE’s Building a Better Grid Initiative Notice of Intent, modernizing, hardening, and expanding the grid will enhance the resilience of our entire electric system, and ensure that electricity is available to customers when it is needed most. Projects funded by the GRIP program should be designed to enable significant national, regional, or community resilience improvements, consistent with grid needs that will manifest as a result of aging grid infrastructure, increasing climate change-related or other hazards to reliability, and the clean energy transition. An important objective of community and regional resilience and transformation is improving the electric grid’s ability to avoid, mitigate and recover from major disruptions and plan for future disruptions across all hazards. Grid investments can enhance resilience by, among other things: i. increasing regional and interregional electricity transfer capacity, ii. addressing the most consequential system needs and challenges that cause or contribute to the problematic and increasing interconnection queue time for clean energy, iii. facilitating clean energy deployment, generation mix diversity, and other system benefits. A systemic approach can consider all aspects of physical infrastructure and the ability of power system owners and operators to mitigate outages and restore power to communities as well as the ability of communities to work towards recovery. Therefore, alignment with state, regional, and national energy planning is important to understand threats, mitigation approaches, and system needs, and to help with the prioritization of funding. BIL investments can leverage these plans as well as industry and other investments to assist in community transformation. Proposals may consider emphasis on a specific threat, such as wildfire or flooding, and how an approach can transform a region or community resulting in a significant resilience and other economic benefits, with an emphasis on equity. 2. Catalyze and leverage private sector capital for infrastructure deployment. Investments should prioritize driving innovative approaches to achieving grid infrastructure deployment at-scale where significant economic benefits to mitigate threats and impacts of disruptive events to communities can be attained. DOE is looking for proposals that will leverage private sector and non-federal public capital to advance deployment goals. These efforts will be aligned with state, regional, or other planning activities and goals. As state resilience plans continue to be updated annually and evaluate future risks, DOE is interested in how Federal funds will leverage industry investments towards hardening their system and/or advancing innovative solutions to enhance system resilience. DOE is also interested in leveraging Federal infrastructure funding to maximize grid infrastructure deployment at-scale. Successful projects will demonstrate how federal investments under the GRIP program can lead to additional future investments by industry, communities, venture capital, and other private debt and equity capital. Investments should prioritize grid 5 improvements especially in cases where GRIP investments can overcome institutional barriers, perceived risk, and the like so as to both deliver beneficial grid outcomes and demonstrate an approach suitable for replication. 3. Advance community benefits Increasing grid reliability and resilience provides notable benefits such as reducing outages resulting from extreme events and/or other causes, by reducing restoration times from such outages, or by reducing risks to health and safety for the affected community. In keeping with the Administration’s goals, and as an agency whose mission includes strengthening our country’s energy prosperity, DOE seeks projects that should not only contribute to the country’s energy technology and climate goals, but also meet the following goals (1) support meaningful community and labor engagement; (2) invest in the American workforce; (3) advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and (4) contribute to the goal that 40% of the overall benefits flow to disadvantaged communities (the Justice40 Initiative). To ensure these priorities are met, applications must include a Community Benefits Plan that illustrates how the proposed project plans to incorporate the four priorities stated above, as well as achieve the priorities outlined in the proposed Community Benefits Plan. Topic Areas The proposed objectives, eligibility, technical approach, and evaluation criteria for each of the three programs within the GRIP program are outlined below. DOE will be requesting and reviewing concept papers as part of the application process. Concept Papers and full applications can only cover one Topic Area. Based on DOE’s review of the concept papers, DOE will encourage a subset of applicants to submit Full Applications. · Topic Area 1: Grid Resilience Grants (BIL section 40101(c)) · Topic Area 2: Smart Grid Grants (BIL section 40107) · Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Program (BIL section 40103(b)) Topic Area 1: Grid Resilience Grants (40101(c)) Objective This program supports activities that reduce the likelihood and consequence of impacts to the electric grid due to extreme weather, wildfire, and natural disaster. The statutory language requires prioritization of projects that will generate the greatest regional or community benefit (whether rural or urban) in reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events.9 DOE is seeking projects that address comprehensive transformational transmission and distribution technology solutions that will mitigate one or multiple hazards across a region or within a community, including but not limited to wildfires, floods, hurricanes, extreme heat, extreme cold, storms, and any other event that can cause a disruption to the power system. Consistent with the broader overall objectives of the GRIP programs, projects in this area should demonstrate that they provide significant economic and justice benefits to communities, can leverage capital investment, and lead to repeatable solutions for other entities. 42 USC §18711(c)(4) 6 Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants defined by the statute include electric grid operators, electricity generators, electricity storage operators, transmission owners or operators, distribution providers, fuel suppliers, and other relevant entities, as determined by the Secretary.10 DOE proposes to allow and encourage eligible applicants to team up with each other and with a wide variety of additional entities, including but not limited to technology vendors, system integrators, subject matter experts, community leaders, and other stakeholders, in order to submit applications that provide a comprehensive approach to addressing and mitigating one or more hazards across a region or within a community. Support from stakeholders should be demonstrated by letters of 9 commitment and support from potential team members. In addition, State, Tribal, territory, regional or regulatory stakeholders should be engaged in the approach as appropriate. Eligible Uses and Technical Approaches Grants under this program are for projects and activities that increase the ability of applicants to reduce the likelihood and consequences of impacts to the electric grid due extreme weather, wildfire, natural disaster and other disruptive events. DOE is proposing to require that applicants demonstrate a transformational, comprehensive approach to mitigating one or more hazards across a region or within a community. Concurrently, DOE encourages applicants to align proposed grid resilience and grid hardening investments with broader State, Tribal, or regional resilience or energy security plans. DOE is particularly interested in applications for adaptive storage deployment, microgrid deployment, and the undergrounding of distribution and transmission lines – in addition to other eligible projects and solutions that provide significant benefit. In the selection process, DOE will prioritize applications that address community transformation or the ability to leverage capital investments. Activities, technologies, equipment, and hardening measures include but are not limited to;11 A. weatherization technologies and equipment; B. fire-resistant technologies and fire prevention systems; C. monitoring and control technologies; D. undergrounding of electrical equipment; E. utility pole management; F. the relocation of power lines or the reconductoring of power lines with low-sag, advanced conductors; G. vegetation and fuel-load management; H. the use or construction of distributed energy resources for enhancing system adaptive capacity during disruptive events, including microgrids and battery-storage subcomponents; I. adaptive protection technologies; J. advanced modeling technologies; K. hardening of power lines, facilities, substations, of other systems; and L. replacement of old overhead conductors and underground cables 42 USC §18711(a)(2) 42 USC §18711(e)1 7 By statute, DOE is not permitted to allow entities to use grant funds to construct new electric generating facilities or large-scale battery storage facilities that are not used for enhancing system adaptive capacity during disruptive events, or for cybersecurity purposes.12 Additional Statutory Requirements 10 11 · Cost Share. Minimum 50% non-federal cost share of total project costs. For small utilities, it is a minimum 1/3 non-federal cost share of total project costs. · Small utility set-aside. Thirty percent (30%) of the total funding available will be set aside for small utilities, which are defined as entities that sell no more than 4,000,000 MWh of electricity per year.13 DOE proposes that entities applying for this set aside must demonstrate their eligibility by submitting their total retail electricity sales to ultimate customers as reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) on Form 861 for the last reporting year. · Report on Resilience Investments. An applicant must submit as part of their application, a report detailing past, current, and future efforts by the eligible entity to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events.14 DOE proposes that this report include efforts over at least the previous 3 years and at least the next 3 years and any broader resilience strategy used by the applicant. · Limitation of award amount. DOE may not award a grant to an eligible entity in an amount that is greater than “the total amount that the eligible entity has spent in the previous 3 years on efforts to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events”. 15 DOE is proposing an additional discretionary limit of $100 million in federal funds per award. DOE proposes to interpret “efforts to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events” as those activities, technologies, equipment, and hardening measures that are eligible for grants under this provision.16 DOE also proposes that applicants will need to certify in their application an accounting of amounts spent on such efforts as an element of the Report on Resilience Investments described above. · Funding supplemental to existing efforts. Grants under this program are in general intended to be supplemental to existing hardening efforts done by applicants for any given year.17 DOE proposes that the applicant describe in a narrative how the grant funding provided by this program would result in proposed activities that are additional to efforts that would have been undertaken but- for the funding, and will generate the greatest community or regional resilience benefit in reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events. The narrative should reference the Report on Resilience Investments to demonstrate how the proposed activities would be additional to existing planned investments. · Biennial Report to Congress. Every two years DOE will submit a report to Congress covering data on the cost of projects, the types of activities funded, and the extent to which the ability of the See BIL section 40101(e)(2), as codified at 42 USC 18711(e)(2) 42 USC §18711(c)(5) 42 USC §18711(c)(2)(B) 12 13 14 15 42 USC §18711(c)(3) 42 USC §18711(e)1 42 USC §18711(c)(1)(A) 8 power grid to withstand disruptive events has increased.18 DOE will provide guidance to awardees on specific reporting requirements to measure and communicate the change in the grid's ability to withstand disruptive events. Awardees will be required to track and report this data to DOE. Technical Review Criteria Applications are proposed to be assessed based on the following criteria. 1. Impact, Transformation, and Technical Merit (50%) · Extent to which the proposed projects will generate the greatest community or regional resilience benefit in reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events. This criterion will be assessed by considering the degree to which the project, based on information provided in the full application, has the demonstrated technical ability to: § comprehensively mitigate one or more hazards faced by community or region § fully mitigate the potential for equipment to cause a wildfire in a community or region § fully address the consequences of an outage caused by a natural hazard § mitigate economic risk as derived from outage duration or outage frequency · Extent to which project supports State, local, Tribal, regional resilience, decarbonization, or other energy strategies and plans. · Extent to which the proposed project aligns with and is additive to the current efforts by the applicant outlined in the Report on Resilience Investments. · Extent to which the application provides sufficient technical detail to demonstrate that the proposed project is technically feasible and would likely result in the described community or regional resilience benefits. · The potential impact of the project to lead to additional private sector investments. 2. Project Plan and Project Financial Feasibility (20%) Project Plan · Project Approach, Workplan (including Milestone Summary), and Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO). Degree to which the approach and critical path have 16 17 been clearly described and thoughtfully considered; and the degree to which the task descriptions are clear, detailed, timely, and reasonable, resulting in a high likelihood that the proposed Workplan and SOPO will succeed in meeting the project goals. · Identification of Risks. Discussion and demonstrated understanding of the key anticipated risks (e.g., technical, financial, market, environmental, regulatory) involved in the proposed work and the quality of the mitigation strategies to address them. · Baseline, Metrics, and Deliverables. The level of clarity in the definition of the baseline, metrics, and milestones; and relative to a clearly defined baseline, the strength of the 42 USC §18711(i) 9 quantifiable metrics, milestones, and mid-point deliverables defined in the application, such that meaningful interim progress will be made. Project Financial Feasibility · The level of confidence in the cost estimate and the required project contingency. · Cost share commitment is adequate and cost share contributions are identified. · Sufficient justification for why government funding is necessary, and what can be delivered different, better or faster with this funding. · The degree to which the applicant justifies the project’s economic viability and cost- effectiveness with DOE financial assistance and the degree to which the proposed project avoids duplication/overlap with other publicly or privately funded work. 3. Management Team and Project Partners (10%) Project Management · Description of the project management organization including relevant and critical subrecipients and vendors. The capability of the prime recipient and the proposed team to manage and address all aspects of the proposed work with a high probability of success · The qualifications, relevant expertise, and time commitment of the key individuals on the project team and Management Team · The level of participation by project participants as evidenced by letter(s) of commitment and how well they are integrated into the Project Plan/Workplan · The degree to which the applicant has defined and described a project management structure that addresses interfaces with DOE and key hub team 18 members · The clarity and appropriateness of the roles of the team members Partners · Degree to which the applicant includes partnerships with critical entities that will help ensure project success, as well as any partnerships with entities (including other states) outside of the applicant’s jurisdiction, who will commit to encourage asset operators (e.g., utilities, merchant developers) to replicate the proposed approaches, technologies or solutions, as applicable. 4. Community Benefits Plan (20%) Overall Approach · Extent to which an applicant’s Community Benefits Plan illustrates project viability and social risk mitigation through the following sections: Community Benefits · Every BIL-funded project is expected to contribute to the country’s energy infrastructure modernization goals, energy technology demonstration and deployment goals, and climate goals, and also to (1) support meaningful community and labor engagement; (2) invest in America’s workforce; (3) advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and (4) contribute to the goal that 40% of the overall project benefits flow to disadvantaged communities (the Justice40 Initiative). 10 · To ensure these goals are met, applications must include a Community Benefits Plan that illustrates how the proposed project plans to incorporate the four goals stated above and are encouraged to submit letters of support from established labor and community-based organizations that demonstrate the applicant’s ability to achieve the above goals as outlined in the Community Benefits Plan. Quality Jobs · Quality and manner in which the proposed project will create or retain high quality, good- paying jobs with a free and fair choice to join, form, or assist a union. · Extent to which applicant has a plan to attract, train, and retain skilled workers; and partner with community-based, labor, and worker organizations and groups. · Extent to which the project provides workforce opportunities in low and moderate- income communities or communities that have lost jobs due to fossil energy displacement. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) · The quality and manner in which the proposed project incorporates and measures diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility goals in the project, as reflected in the applicant’s Community Benefits Plan. · Extent to which the project supports the development or demonstration in DACs, supports existing minority business enterprises (MBEs) or promotes the creation of MBEs and underrepresented businesses in DACs. · Extent to which workforce education and training is targeted to serve underrepresented workers and those facing barriers to career-track training and employment. · Extent of engagement of organizations that represent underserved communities as core element of their mission to include Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), MBEs, associations, and non-profit organizations. · Extent to which the project illustrates the ability to meet or exceed the objectives of the Justice40 Initiative, including the extent to which the project benefits disadvantaged, underserved communities or partners with Tribal Nations. Justice40 Initiative · Extent to which the Community Benefits Plan identifies: specific, measurable benefits for disadvantaged communities, how the benefits will flow to disadvantaged communities, and how negative environmental impacts affecting disadvantaged communities would be mitigated; and · Extent to which the project would contribute to meeting the objective that 40% of the benefits of climate and clean energy investments flow to disadvantaged communities. 11 Topic Area 2: Smart Grid Grants (40107) Objectives This program seeks to deploy and catalyze technology solutions that increase the flexibility, efficiency, reliability, and resilience of the electric power system, with particular focus on enhancing the system’s capabilities to meet the following objectives: · increase the capacity of transmission facilities or the capability of the transmission system to reliably transfer increased amounts of electric energy; · prevent faults that may lead to wildfires or other system disturbances; · integrate variable renewable energy resources at the transmission and distribution levels; and · facilitate the aggregation and integration (edge-computing) of electric vehicles and other grid- edge devices or electrified loads. Ideally, projects funded under this program should coordinate with and support broader State, local, Tribal, community and regional strategies on resilience, energy security, and decarbonization. In addition, smart grid technologies funded and deployed at scale under this program should have a pathway to wider market adoption such that the funding significantly encourages and facilitates the development of a smart grid.19,20 Aggregation of smart grid technologies is encouraged to accelerate deployment. Eligible Applicants Statutory language requires that the grant goes to the party making the actual expenditures for the qualifying Smart Grid investments.21 The following domestic entities are eligible to apply: · Institutions of higher education; · For-profit entities; · Non-profit entities; and · State and local governmental entities, and tribal nations. DOE encourages applicant teams to include a broad set of stakeholders including but not limited to electric grid operator or owners, technology vendors, system integrators, subject matter experts, and community leaders. In addition, State, local, Tribal, territory, or regulatory stakeholders should be engaged in the approach as appropriate. Eligible Uses and Technical Approaches A broad set of eligible smart grid investments and capabilities is allowed under statute,22 and any combination of smart grid investments and functions that support the objectives are eligible. DOE will require projects to support data standards, interoperability, and non-discriminatory data access on a real- time basis. DOE is particularly seeking applications that address the grid flexibility functions identified in the BIL and support market deployment of specific smart grid technologies including: · Increasing transmission capacity and operational transfer capacity through grid enhancing technologies such as dynamic line rating, flow control devices, advanced conductors, and network topology optimization, to improve system efficiency and reliability. 42 USC §17386(e)(1)(C) 42 USC §17386(e)(1)(C) 42 USC §17386(b) and (d) 12 · Improving the visibility of the electrical system to grid operators, to help quickly 19 20 The Smart Grid | SmartGrid.gov 21 22 rebalance the electrical system with autonomous controls, through data analytics, software, and sensors. · Enhancing secure communication and data flow between distribution components, through investments in optical ground wire, dark fiber, operational fiber, and wireless broadband communications networks. · Aggregation and integration of distributed energy resources and other “grid-edge” devices to provide system benefits, such as renewable energy resources, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, vehicle-to-grid technologies and capabilities, and smart building technologies. · Enhancing interoperability and data architecture of systems that support two-way flow of both electric power and localized analytics to provide information between electricity system operators and consumers. · Anticipating and mitigating the impacts of extreme weather or natural disaster on grid resilience, including investments to increase the ability to redirect or shut of power to minimize blackouts, prevent wildfires, and avoid further damage. Grants under this program may not be used to cover expenditures for generation, transmission, or distribution infrastructure and expenditures for the physical interconnection of devices, if such expenditures are not directly related to enabling the “Smart Grid functions” enumerated by statute or by the Secretary.23 Grants also may not be used for ongoing or routine costs not incurred in the initial installation, training or start-up of smart grid functions and devices.24 Additional Statutory Requirements Cost Share. Minimum 50% non-federal cost share of total project costs. Proposed Award Size. Up to $30 million per award (Federal share). Cybersecurity Plan. In accordance with BIL Section 40126, DOE is proposing to require awardees to submit a cybersecurity plan after selection and prior to receiving funding.25 These plans are intended to foster a cybersecurity- by-design approach26 for BIL efforts. The Department will also use these plans to ensure effective integration and coordination across its research, development, and demonstration programs. The Department recommends using open guidance and standards such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), the DOE Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) cybersecurity 23 42 USC §17386(c)(2),(5) 42 USC §17386 (c)(6)-(8). 42 USC §18725 Security must be baked into the development process, not bolted on. Security risk evaluation and mitigation measures should be an active component in a project (or product) lifecycle – from early development stages to implementation. 13 performance goals for critical infrastructure and control systems.27 The cybersecurity plan created pursuant to Section 40126 should document any deviation from open standards, as well as the utilization of proprietary standards where the awardee determines that such deviation is necessary. · Cybersecurity plans should be commensurate to the threats and vulnerabilities associated with the proposed efforts and demonstrate the cybersecurity maturity of the project. · Cybersecurity plans may cover a range of topics relevant to the proposed project, e.g., software development lifecycle, third-party risks, and incident reporting. · At a minimum, the Cybersecurity Plan should address questions noted in IIJA section 40126(b) ‘Contents of Cybersecurity Plan’.28 · Projects receiving funding under this program must utilize open protocols and standards (including Internet-based protocols and standards) if available and appropriate.29 Technical Review Criteria 1. Impact, Transformation, and Technical Merit (50%) o Extent to which the project will have a significant effect on encouraging and facilitating the development of one or more smart grid functions identified aspriority focus areas in the Objectives and Eligible Uses and Technical Approachessections above. o Extent to which the project would enhance system flexibility to meet program objectives. o Extent to which the project supports State, local, Tribal, regional resilience, decarbonization, or other energy strategies and plans. o Extent to which the application provides sufficient technical detail to demonstrate that the proposed project is technically feasible and would likely result in thedescribed smart grid benefits. o The potential impact of the project to reduce innovative technology risk; achieve further deployment at-scale; and lead to additional private sector investments. 2. Project Plan and Project Financial Feasibility (20%) – Same description as for Grid Resilience Grants above NERC critical infrastructure protection (CIP) standards for entities responsible for the availability and reliability 24 25 26 27 of the bulk electric system. NIST IR 7628: 2 Smart grid cyber security strategy and requirements. NIST SP800- 53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations: Catalog of security controls in 18 categories, along with profiles for low-, moderate-, and high-impact systems. NIST SP800-82, Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security. NIST SP800-39, Integrated Enterprise-Wide Risk Management: Organization, mission, and information system view. AMI System Security Requirements: Security requirements for advanced metering infrastructure. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 27001, Information Security Management Systems: Guidance on establishing governance and control over security activities (this document must be purchased). IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 1686- 2007, Standard for Substation Intelligent Electronic Devices (IEDs) Cyber Security Capabilities (this document must be purchased). DOE Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2). CISA cybersecurity performance goals for critical infrastructure and control systems directed by the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems, found at https://www.cisa.gov/cpgs 42 USC §18725 42 USC §17386(e)(1)(B) 14 3. Management Team and Project Partners (10%) – Same description as for Grid Resilience Grants above 4. Community Benefits Plan (20%) – Same description as for Grid Resilience Grants above Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Program (40103(b)) Objectives This program seeks to provide financial assistance to eligible entities (States, local governments, Tribes, public utility commissions) to facilitate coordination and collaboration with electric sector owners and operators to: · demonstrate innovative approaches to transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure to harden and enhance resilience and reliability; and · demonstrate new approaches to enhance regional grid resilience, implemented through States by public and rural electric cooperative entities on a cost-shared basis.30 DOE is proposing to solicit projects that contribute significantly to one or more of the following primary objectives: · Ensuring reliable grid operations by reducing the frequency, scale, and/or duration of disruptions, improving availability of a technologically and geographically diverse set of generation capacity, reducing capacity interconnection time, increasing regional and interregional transfer capacity, or reducing costs associated with increased reliability. · Improving overall grid resilience in terms of avoiding, withstanding, responding to, and recovering from disruptions, including deliberate attacks, accidents, the growing threats of extreme weather events and climate change, and other naturally occurring threats or incidents. Projects may demonstrate: o Individual technologies and solutions (or multiple technologies and solutions 28 29 working as a system) that address resilience in one part of the power system(e.g., transmission system).o Technologies and solutions that address resilience across the traditional boundaries in the power system (e.g., between transmission and distribution). · Enhancing collaboration between and among eligible entities and private and public sector owners and operators on grid resilience, in alignment with regional resilience strategies and plans. This includes collaboration across state and other territorial boundaries such as grid operators or other balancing authorities, with a particular focus on innovating planning processes, modeling, cost allocation, permitting, reduction of interconnection queue waiting time, and other activities aided by collaborative approaches. and. · Contributing to the decarbonization of the electricity and broader energy system in a way that supports system resilience, reliability, and affordability by improving access to technologically and geographically diverse energy resources, including distributed energy resources and electrification opportunities. · Providing enhanced system value, improving current and future system cost- effectiveness, and delivering economic benefits to community members, underrepresented regions, or other stakeholders. Applications should clearly identify their value proposition for each individual stakeholder group. 42 USC §18712(b)(3) 15 Project results should enable asset owners and operators to effectively articulate within local, state, regional and federal decision-making frameworks the economic, technical, and societal benefits of deploying new innovative technologies that improve system reliability and resilience. Eligible Applicants The eligible applicants to this program as defined in statute31 are: 1. a State 2. a combination of two or more States 3. an Indian Tribe 4. a unit of local government 5. a public utility commission Eligible applicants are expected to work in partnership with public or private electric utilities and other grid stakeholders to develop projects and are encouraged to identify project developers as part of their application. DOE is proposing to encourage eligible applicants to assemble diverse and multi-functional project teams capable of receiving and managing Federal and matching funds; executing on technology deployments and upgrades; conducting operational testing and validation; analyzing resultant data and performance; clearly communicating and disseminating findings to key stakeholders and decision makers; implementing activities to invest in America’s workforce; meaningfully engaging communities and stakeholders; advancing energy and 30 environmental justice; and ensuring diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. Projects supported by this program are intended to be at sufficient scale and within a system of sufficient complexity to establish confidence in the value proposition of the proposed approach. Eligible Uses and Technical Approaches Applications to this topic area may address the transmission system, the distribution system, storage or a combination. Applications combining multiple approaches are encouraged, and all applications should demonstrate how the proposed innovative approach interacts with each other and any existing infrastructure to increase overall system resilience. Innovative approaches can include advanced technologies, innovative partnerships, financial arrangements, and environmental siting and permitting strategies. Hardening of assets and infrastructure may be included but must show a clear contribution to overall system resilience. DOE has identified the three areas of interest for this program. These are not exhaustive, nor intended to be fully independent. Applications that address more than one area of interest, or that present alternative approaches to accomplish the key objectives outside of the specified areas of interest, are encouraged. Area of Interest 1: Transmission system applications The transmission system in operation today is the backbone of the electricity delivery system that connects all grid resources and acts as the path for electricity to flow from generation to demand. Transmission capacity constraints and congestion can prevent delivery of clean, cost- effective electricity to consumers, harming overall system reliability. Advanced transmission technologies, coupled with advanced computational and advanced dynamic situational awareness, are a suite of tools that can help address transmission challenges, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of electricity delivery, and increase the reliability and resilience of the system. Innovative project approaches can reduce or remove 16 the existing technical, economic, and/or regulatory barrier(s) necessary to accelerate widescale transmission expansion and renewable energy interconnection. Proposed solutions should demonstrate enhanced transmission system operational flexibility or capacity while enhancing reliability. Applications in this area could include technologies, solutions, and advanced functionalities such as: · Investments and strategies that accelerate interconnection of clean energy generation and/or storage · Interregional or cross-ISO/RTO projects that address key grid reliability, flexibility, and/or resilience challenges · Projects addressing grid access challenges for remote, stranded, or novel low-carbon resources · Planning, modeling, cost allocation, or other approaches that enable a transition to innovative financial and/or regulatory constructs that accelerate transmission expansion · Underground or underwater HVDC systems in challenging environments · Capacity enhancing approaches such as advanced conductors or dynamic line rating systems · Congestion management techniques including energy storage and integrated controls · Transmission-scale reactive power devices · Flexible alternating current transmission system (FACTS) devices · Solid state transformers · Power flow controllers for AC or High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) systems Area of Interest 2: Distribution system applications The distribution system serves as a highly interconnected system providing reliable electricity to consumers. The integration of variable distributed energy sources such wind and solar power, new loads such as electric vehicle charging, and energy storage into these networks is creating new challenges and opportunities for power system control and operation. Solutions should demonstrate improved cost- value characteristics relative to alternative approaches, managing distribution grid integration costs and traditional asset upgrade costs while maintaining or enhancing system reliability and service provision. In addition, extreme weather events have led to an increase in the frequency and duration of de- energization events. These occurrences, along with other experienced or potential disruptions of the distribution grid highlight the importance of improved system resilience. Solutions should demonstrate improved system resilience in response to disruptions and/or recovery from these events with an emphasis on community transformation. Applications in this area could include demonstration of technologies, solutions, and advanced functionalities such as: · Adaptive microgrid formation, reliable islanded operations, and service provision during grid-tied operations · Demonstration of reliable and resilient system operations utilizing high levels of distributed renewable generation and energy storage, or increased levels of non- emitting, non-electric distributed energy resources (e.g., renewable heating or cooling) · Black-start capable systems and control approaches to minimize negative impacts during power grid disruptions · Provision of grid services from distributed, advanced grid-forming inverter-based systems at sufficient scale and system complexity 17 · Behind the meter asset operations, aggregation, and coordination to provide demand response and grid services, including building systems, distributed generation, energy storage, electric vehicle fleets and others Area of Interest 3: Combination systems applications While there is a clear differentiation between transmission and distribution systems in the current electrical grid, they both function within the same overall systems. This area of interest is intended to highlight opportunities to improve joint resilience and functionality across both grid sectors. This could involve using assets in one sector to provide services to the other in a manner that reduces upgrade or expansion requirements, or efforts to improve visibility and communication across sectors to allow for more complete optimization of grid operations. Applications in this area could include demonstration of technologies, solutions, and advanced functionalities such as: · Utilization of distribution grid assets to provide backup power and reduce transmission requirements · Utilization of distribution grid dispatchable loads, distributed generation, and energy storage to manage transmission congestion and limit required upgrades · Optimized integrated management of transmission and distribution systems · Monitoring and control technologies, that can provide improved resilience and extend grid visibility & situational awareness across the entire electric delivery system by providing real-time situational awareness across the system Additional Statutory Requirements Cost Share. Minimum 50% non-federal cost share of total project costs. Proposed Award Size. Between $50 million and $250 million per award (Federal share). Proposed increased award of $1 Billion per award for interregional transmission projects only. Cybersecurity Plan. In accordance with BIL Section 40126, DOE is proposing to require awardees to submit a cybersecurity plan after selection and prior to receiving funding.32 These plans are intended to foster a cybersecurity- by-design approach33 for BIL efforts. The Department will also use these plans to ensure effective integration and coordination across its research, development, and demonstration programs. The Department recommends using open guidance and standards such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), the DOE Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) cybersecurity performance goals for critical infrastructure and control systems.34 The cybersecurity plan created 42 USC §18725 Security must be baked into the development process, not bolted on. Security risk evaluation and mitigation measures should be an active component in a project (or product) lifecycle – from early development stages to implementation. NERC critical infrastructure protection (CIP) standards for entities responsible for the availability and reliability of the bulk electric system. NIST IR 7628: 2 Smart grid cyber security strategy and requirements. NIST SP800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations: Catalog of security controls in 32 33 34 18 pursuant to Section 40126 should document any deviation from open standards, as well as the utilization of proprietary standards where the awardee determines that such deviation is necessary. · Cybersecurity plans should be commensurate to the threats and vulnerabilities associated with the proposed efforts and demonstrate the cybersecurity maturity of the project. · Cybersecurity plans may cover a range of topics relevant to the proposed project, e.g., software development lifecycle, third-party risks, and incident reporting. · At a minimum, the Cybersecurity Plan should address questions noted in IIJA section 40126(b) ‘Contents of Cybersecurity Plan’.35 Technical Review Criteria 1. Impact and Market Viability (50%) o Extent to which the project will address innovative approaches and deployment goals across transmission system, distribution system, storage or a combination asidentified as priority focus areas in the Eligible Uses and Technical Approachessection above. o Extent to which the project clearly enhances collaboration between eligible entities and owners/operators, ensures electricity system reliability and/or resilience,provides enhanced system value and economic benefits, or contributes to thedecarbonization of the electricity and broader energy systems. o Extent that the project has the potential to deliver near-term impact. o Extent to which project supports State, local, Tribal, and regional resilience, decarbonization, or other energy strategies and plans. o The potential impact of the project to increase adoption of innovative approach(es), for example to lead to more widespread deployment of advanced technologies;innovative partnerships; new financial arrangements; increased non-Federal investment; deployment of projects identified by innovative planning,modeling, or cost allocation approaches; and/or innovative environmental siting,permitting strategies, or community engagement practices. 2. Project Plan and Project Financial Feasibility (20%) Project Plan 18 categories, along with profiles for low-, moderate-, and high-impact systems. NIST SP800-82, Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security. NIST SP800-39, Integrated Enterprise-Wide Risk Management: Organization, mission, and information system view. AMI System Security Requirements: Security requirements for advanced metering infrastructure. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 27001, Information Security Management Systems: Guidance on establishing governance and control over security activities (this document must be purchased). IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 1686- 2007, Standard for Substation Intelligent Electronic Devices (IEDs) Cyber Security Capabilities (this document must be purchased). DOE Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2). CISA cybersecurity performance goals for critical infrastructure and control systems directed by the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems, found at https://www.cisa.gov/cpgs 42 USC §18725 19 · Project Approach, Workplan (including Milestone Summary), and Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO). Degree to which the approach and critical path have been clearly described and thoughtfully considered; and the degree to which the task descriptions are clear, detailed, timely, and reasonable, resulting in a high likelihood that the proposed Workplan and SOPO will succeed in meeting the project goals. · Identification of Risks. Discussion and demonstrated understanding of the key anticipated risks (e.g., technical, financial, market, environmental, regulatory) involved in the proposed work and the quality of the mitigation strategies to address them. · Baseline, Metrics, and Deliverables. The level of clarity in the definition of the baseline, metrics, and milestones; and relative to a clearly defined baseline, the strength of the quantifiable metrics, milestones, and mid-point deliverables defined in the application, such that meaningful interim progress will be made. Project Financial Feasibility · The level of confidence in the cost estimate and the required project contingency. · Cost share commitment is adequate and cost share contributions are identified. · Sufficient justification for why government funding is necessary, and what can be delivered different, better or faster with this funding. · The degree to which the applicant justifies the project’s economic viability and cost- effectiveness with DOE financial assistance and the degree to which the proposed project avoids duplication/overlap with other publicly or privately funded work. Project Viability, Readiness, and Timing · Evidence as to the state of project development, including depth, stage and completeness of engineering design; critical agreements and permits in place; customer expressions of interest; and financial commitments beyond the support sought under this FOA 3. Management Team and Project Partners (10%) – Same description as for Grid Resilience Grants above 4. Community Benefits Plan (20%) – Same description as for Grid Resilience Grants above 35 Performance Metrics DOE is requiring awardees to report program specific performance metrics and BIL-wide metrics to track toward key departmental goals – ensuring justice and equity, creating jobs, boosting domestic manufacturing, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and advancing a pathway to private sector. Reported values will be initially prospective (e.g., what awardees plan to build, generate, or store, etc.), but additional reporting will be required annually and upon project completion to measure the actual infrastructure supported or to update prospective estimates. Each project will only be required to report data specific to the project, examples include: · Installed electricity nameplate, transmission, or distribution capacity [MW] · Installed stationary storage capacity [MW and MWh] 20 · Transmission capacity or reconductoring capacity increase [GW-miles] · Undergrounding [miles] · Disruption recovery time [minutes] · Delivery distance [miles] · Reduced congestion / increased delivery [MWh] · Number of sensors or grid enhancing devices installed In support of tracking workforce development, data collected through Davis Bacon Act compliance will be used to track direct jobs. To the extent projects support training programs their outcomes should also be tracked. Justice40 benefits and community and stakeholder engagement will be tracked and to the extent a project supports domestic manufacturing, direct domestic manufacturing capacity should be tracked for programs that support (i.e., construct, establish, retool, re-equip, or retrofit) manufacturing capacity or advanced energy property recycling capacity. 21 RFI Purpose The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, State and local officials, labor unions, Tribes,36 community-based organizations (CBOs),37 and other stakeholders on issues related to the GRIP program. This is a Request for Information (RFI) only and not a funding opportunity. DOE will not pay for information provided under this RFI and no project will be supported as a result of this RFI. To help inform DOE’s implementation of the BIL provisions referenced above, this RFI seeks input on the following categories: 1. DOE’s implementation strategy for the GRIP program, both overall and the individual topic areas. 2. DOE’s approach to Community Benefits including engagement, quality jobs, DEIA, and Justice40. 3. Build America, Buy America requirements. RFI Categories and Questions Responses to this RFI may address one or more of the questions presented. Category 1: DOE’s Proposed Implementation Strategy for GRIP program 1. What actions can DOE take to best achieve the benefits of coordinating applications to all three Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships topic areas at the same time? 2. How should DOE best assess and prioritize applications that further state objectives developed through the Grid Resilience formula grants under BIL section 40101(d), the State Energy Security Plans under BIL section 40108, and activities supported by the State Energy Program under BIL section 40109? 3. How can funding from the GRIP program best overcome challenges impeding the development of transmission, grid solutions, and interconnecting new generation and storage to improve grid resilience and reliability? 4. What approaches can be used to both solicit and evaluate proposals for high-value deployment projects with additionality (i.e., where additional funding will overcome existing obstacles that would otherwise result in the project not being built)? 5. Any comment on the overall solicitation process, structure, prioritization, requirements, and assessment criteria presented in the draft FOA. The Draft FOA (DE- FOA-0002740) can be found https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect/?doc=DE-FOA- 0002740&agency=DOE. Including Tribal governments, American Indian and Alaska Native communities, Tribal enterprises, Alaska Native Regional and village corporations. Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) are public or private not-for-profit resource hubs that provide specific services to the community or targeted population within the community. 22 6. Are existing or expected supply chain concerns anticipated to delay or impact development of potential applications or project implementation, if awarded? What might be some of the potential barriers to timely delivery and how can DOE support the timely delivery of projects? 36 37 7. DOE proposes to open the first application cycle for the GRIP program in fall 2022 for 45 days for applicants to submit concept papers, that the Department will then down select to recommend submission of full applications in winter 2023, targeting award selections announced in spring 2023. a. Any comments on this proposed timing? b. Are there inter-state inter-regional projects, as described in this RFI, that are sufficiently advanced in development to be ready to apply by this timeline in fall 2022? Category 2: DOE Proposed Implementation for Grid Resilience Grants (40101(c)) 1. How should DOE define community and assess “greatest community benefit in reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events” for prioritization of applications? 2. What other relevant entities should the Secretary consider as eligible entities? 3. Are there additional burdens or challenges faced by small utilities as defined by the statute that should be taken into consideration for the design of this program? 4. What information could be provided by applicants to ensure proposals are supplemental to existing or already planned hardening efforts? 5. What evaluation criteria, and what accompanying evidence, should DOE seek to best achieve the goals of this program as laid out in the FOA? 6. Is the proposed $100 million Federal funds cap per award appropriate? What actions can DOE take to optimize the overall portfolio supported by 40101(c) through the mobilization of other funds? 7. Is the proposed information to be contained in the Report on Resilience Investments appropriate to determine if proposed projects are supplemental to existing efforts? What challenges may be faced in developing the report? What additional DOE guidance would aid in development of the report? 8. What data should be required to be tracked by awardees for the duration of the project and/or after project completion to assess "the extent to which the ability of the power grid to withstand disruptive events has increased” and to inform the biennial Report to Congress? a. How long after project completion should data be tracked to fully understand the impacts of project funding beyond the biennial report? b. What data should be tracked to understand changes in community resilience? 9. Information or analysis that could be submitted to help identify the highest impact projects and proposals that address (1) public benefit (e.g., cost/benefit of the project), (2) additionality (e.g., obstacles that additional funding would allow the project to overcome or would otherwise prevent the project from advancing in the absence of the funding), (3) stakeholder support 23 (e.g., projects where a regional planning process is underway or is taking place), and (4) transformative potential of the project (e.g., the value of the project in catalyzing follow-on replication). 10. Any comment on the selection criteria specifics, relative weighting, and capacity for applicants to meet the criteria under this program. 11. Any comment on the proposing staging and timing of the application, evaluation, and award process (including both Concept Paper and Full Application Stages), and on the requested performance period. 12. Any comment on the specific proposed application and information submission requirements. Category 3: DOE Proposed Implementation for Smart Grid Grants (40107) 1. Appropriateness of highlighted grid flexibility functions and technologies of interest identified by DOE above. Are there additional smart grid functionalities or technologies that would support grid reliability and resilience that should be considered? 2. Information or analysis that could be submitted to help identify the highest impact solutions and proposals that address (1) greatest public benefit (e.g., cost/benefit of the project), (2) additionality (e.g., obstacles that the Federal funding would allow the project to overcome that would otherwise prevent the project from advancing in the absence of the Federal funding), and (3) transformative potential of the project, (e.g., the value of the project in catalyzing follow-on replication). 3. In the collective portfolio of awarded projects, any suggestions regarding project types that have special strategic importance? 4. Appropriateness of the requirement for a cybersecurity plan for this provision, and the required contents of such a cybersecurity plan. 5. Any comment on the selection criteria specifics, relative weighting, and capacity for applicants to meet the criteria under this program. 6.Any comment on the proposing staging and timing of the application, evaluation, and award process (including both Concept Paper and Full Application Stages), and on the requested performance period. 7. Any comment on the specific proposed application and information submission requirements. Category 4: DOE Proposed Implementation for Grid Innovation Program(40103(b)) 1. How should DOE define and evaluate a full range of “innovative approaches” to transmission and distribution projects that deploy large-scale, high-value projects that are innovative in scope; scale; stakeholder engagement; technology; partnership or business model; financial arrangement; use of innovative planning, modeling, or cost allocation approaches; 24 environmental siting or permitting strategies; or in overcoming other existing barriers to project development and deployment in ways that enhance reliability and resilience and unlock new renewable generation? 2. What technical review criteria, and what accompanying evidence, should DOE seek to best achieve the goals of this program as laid out in the FOA? 3. Information or analysis that could be submitted to help identify the highest impact projects and proposals that address (1) greatest public benefit (e.g., cost/benefit of the project), (2) additionality (e.g., obstacles that the Federal funding would allow the project to overcome that would otherwise prevent the project from advancing in the absence of the Federal funding), (3) stakeholder support (e.g., projects where a regional planning process is underway or is taking place), and (4) transformative potential of the project (e.g., the value of the project unlocking resilience and reliability benefits from investments elsewhere on the grid). 4. What are best practices and processes for states, public utility commissions, Tribes, and other eligible entities to obtain input and engage in coordination with regional planning organizations, electricity utilities, and other stakeholders in developing and submitting proposals? 5. This draft FOA will make up to $2 billion available for this first award cycle under BIL section 40103(b). Any comment on whether any specific projects or types of large transformative projects might not be viable within the current FOA total of $2 billion, but could be viable if additional funding were made available and/or if the maximum award size were increased (see question #6 below on maximum award size). 6.Appropriateness of the proposed range of $50 million to $250 million for Federal investment; as well as the provision allowing an increased maximum award of up to $1 billion for an application submitted by a coalition of multiple states for interregional transmission projects. a. What actions can DOE take to optimize the overall portfolio supported by 40103(b) through the mobilization of other funds? Does such a scale of investment support the right scale of project to achieve transformative impact? b. Are there any impactful projects that may not be sufficiently supported with these minimum and maximum award sizes but that would provide significant public benefits, consistent with the statute, by cost-effectively 1) increasing transfer capacity between regions, 2) addressing the most consequential system needs and challenges related to interconnection queue times, and 3) increasing access to geographically and technologically diverse energy resources to enhance energy affordability, resource adequacy, and resilience? What are examples of these projects that would not be viable, and what maximum / minimum award size would accommodate these projects? 7. In the collective portfolio of awarded projects, any suggestions regarding project types that have special strategic importance? Should the program prioritize inter-regional multi-state or other types of projects that may be more transformative and provide multiple benefits on a large scale? 8. Appropriateness of the requirement for a cybersecurity plan for this provision, and the required contents of such a cybersecurity plan. 25 9. Any comments on the selection criteria specifics, relative weighting, and capacity for applicants to meet the criteria under this program. 10. Any comments on the proposing staging and timing of the application, evaluation, and award process (including both Concept Paper and Full Application Stages) to accommodate the most impactful types of deployment projects at various stages of development. 11. Any comments on the requested performance period, considering that potential projects will be different stages of development and readiness 12. Any comments on the specific proposed application and information submission requirements 13. Appropriateness of the use of a minimum 50% non-Federal cost share for the proposed project. Should DOE establish a different minimum non-Federal cost share? Should DOE express a preference for projects with a higher non-Federal cost share than the statutory minimum? a. To what degree should DOE include in the Technical Review Criteria and Policy Program Factors an assessment of applicant’s ability to provide sufficient information to show that minimal federal cost-share is being requested, so that GRIP program dollars are 1) only providing the amount of additional capital needed to advance project development and 2) unlocking the greatest possible public benefits relative to the amount of federal investment. What types of application information should be requested to indicate that minimal federal cost-share is being requested? 14. DOE is interested in supporting highly impactful projects that can deliver significant public benefit and acknowledges that some of these projects may be earlier in the planning or development stages. DOE is considering an option to offer grants of up to $20 million for planning and development activities for concept papers submitted by a coalition of multiple states for projects that are interregional (i.e., cross multiple ISOs, grid operators, or other balancing authorities) and/or a product of an interregional planning process – assuming the concept paper shows promise in the ability to deliver significant public benefit, but has a project that is not sufficiently mature enough to submit a Full Application. Please provide comment on this approach, the maximum planning and development grant size, what factors to consider in offering these types of grants, and any other additional considerations. Category 5: Community Benefits, Justice40, Quality Jobs, and Performance Metrics 1. How can applicants ensure community-based stakeholders/organizations are engaged and included in the planning, decision-making, and implementation processes (e.g., including community-based organizations that are advisory to the decision or directly benefit) for the GRIP program? 2. How can DOE best support the creation and retention of high-quality jobs, and the clear workforce training pathways into those jobs, through the GRIP program? 26 3. DOE identified eight policy priorities to guide DOE’s implementation of Justice4038 in DACs: (1) decrease energy burden;39,40,41 (2) decrease environmental exposure and burdens;42 (3) increase access to low-cost capital; (4) increase the clean energy job pipeline and job training for individuals;43 (5) increase clean energy enterprise creation (e.g., minority-owned or disadvantaged business enterprises); (6) increase energy democracy, including community ownership and other economic benefits associated with the energy transition; (7) increase parity in clean energy technology access and adoption; and (8) increase energy resilience. a. Of the eight Justice40 benefits, any comments on tracking these across the GRIP program? 4. What are the most appropriate performance and other metrics to track community benefits? Category 6: Build America, Buy America requirements If funded, DOE will consider applicability of the Build America, Buy America Act44. All projects subject to the corresponding FOA for GRIP are considered “infrastructure.” The Buy America requirements of the BIL do not apply to DOE projects in which the prime recipient is a for-profit entity; the requirements only apply to projects whose prime recipient is a “non-Federal entity,” e.g., a State, local government, Indian tribe, Institution of Higher Education, or nonprofit organization. 1. Identify any iron, steel, manufactured goods/products or construction materials which may be crucial to this work, and whether those items would normally be procured domestically or from a foreign source. 2. For any item that would normally be procured from a foreign source, please specify to the best of your ability what actions would be required to comply with this requirement should it be deemed to apply, such as the expected added cost of sourcing the requisite materials from domestic sources, seeking a waiver from Build America, Buy America, etc.; the impact on your project, and whether these items would be unable to be procured domestically due to lack of availability or cost. The Justice40 Initiative states that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal investments will flow to DACs, and that projects will have minimal negative impacts on communities with environmental justice concerns. The Justice40 Interim Guidance defines benefits as direct and indirect investments (and program outcomes) that positively impact disadvantaged communities and provides examples (Page 4): https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/07/M-21-28.pdf The Initiative for Energy Justice https://iejusa.org/glossary-and-appendix/#glossary_of_terms DOE’s LEAD tool illustrates energy burden in U.S. https://www.energy.gov/eere/slsc/maps/lead-tool Drehobl, A., Ross, L., and Ayala, R. 2020. How High are Household Energy Burdens? Washington, DC: ACEEE. Tessum, C., et al., 2019. Inequity in consumption of goods and services adds to racial–ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOE’s US Energy & Employment Jobs Report (USEER), https://www.energy.gov/us-energy-employment- jobs- report-useer; Department of Labor, Civilian Labor Force by Sex, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/facts-over- time/women-in-the-labor-force Additional information related to the application and implementation of these Buy America requirements, please see OMB Memorandum M-22-11, issued April 18, 2022: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/M-22-11.pdf 27 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Disclaimer and Important Notes This RFI is not a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA); therefore, DOE is not accepting funding applications at this time. DOE may issue a FOA in the future based on or related to the content and responses to this RFI; however, DOE may also elect not to issue a FOA. There is no guarantee that a FOA will be issued as a result of this RFI. Responding to this RFI does not provide any advantage or disadvantage to potential applicants if DOE chooses to issue a FOA regarding the subject matter. Final details, including the anticipated award size, quantity, and timing of DOE- funded awards, will be subject to Congressional appropriations and direction. Any information obtained as a result of this RFI is intended to be used by the U.S. Federal Government on a non-attribution basis for planning and strategy development; this RFI does not constitute a formal solicitation for proposals or abstracts. Your response to this notice will be treated as information only. DOE will review and consider all responses in its formulation of program strategies for the identified materials of interest that are the subject of this request. DOE will not provide reimbursement for costs incurred in responding to this RFI. Respondents are advised that DOE is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted under this RFI. Responses to this RFI do not bind DOE to any further actions related to this topic. Freedom of Information Act: Responses received under this RFI are subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Because information received in response to this RFI may be used to structure future programs and funding opportunity announcements and/or otherwise be made available to the public, respondents are strongly advised to NOT include any information in their responses that might be considered business sensitive (e.g., commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential), trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential. Consistent with 10 CFR 1004.11, DOE requires that any person submitting information that they believe to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two well- marked copies: one copy of the document marked “confidential” which must clearly and conspicuously identify the business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Failure to comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise. The Government is not liable for the disclosure or use of unmarked information and may use or disclose such information for any purpose. If you choose to provide business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information, you must include a cover sheet marked as follows identifying the specific pages containing business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information: Notice of Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data: Pages [List Applicable Pages] of this response may contain business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information that is exempt from public disclosure. Such information shall be used or disclosed only for the purposes described in this RFI DE-FOA-0002827. The Government may use or disclose any information that is not appropriately marked or otherwise restricted, regardless of source. 28 29 In addition, (1) the header and footer of every page that contains business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information must be marked as follows: “Contains Business Sensitive, Trade Secrets, Proprietary, or Otherwise Confidential Information Exempt from Public Disclosure” and (2) every line and paragraph containing such information must be clearly marked with double brackets or highlighting. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. Evaluation and Administration by Federal and Non-Federal Personnel Federal employees are subject to the non-disclosure requirements of a criminal statute, the Trade Secrets Act, 18 USC 1905. The Government may seek the advice of qualified non-Federal personnel. The Government may also use non-Federal personnel to conduct routine, nondiscretionary administrative activities. The respondents, by submitting their response, consent to DOE providing their response to non- Federal parties. Non-Federal parties given access to responses must be subject to an appropriate obligation of confidentiality prior to being given the access. Submissions may be reviewed by support contractors and private consultants. Request for Information Response Guidelines Responses to this RFI must be submitted electronically to GDORFI@hq.doe.gov no later than 5:00pm (EDT) on October 14, 2022. Responses must be provided as attachments to an email. It is recommended that attachments with file sizes exceeding 25MB be compressed (i.e., zipped) to ensure message delivery. Responses must be provided as a Microsoft Word (.docx) or PDF attachment to the email, and no more than 20 pages in length, 12-point font, 1-inch margins. Only electronic responses will be accepted. For ease of replying and to aid categorization of your responses, please copy and paste the RFI questions, including the question numbering, and use them as a template for your response. Respondents may answer as many or as few questions as they wish. DOE will not respond to individual submissions or publish publicly a compendium of responses. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas discussed. Respondents are requested to provide the following information at the start of their response to this RFI: 1. Company / institution name 2. Company / institution contact 3. Contact's address, phone number, and e-mail address. Bradley Lake Operator Report Page 1 Bradley Lake Operator Report BPMC 30 September 2022 Unit Statistics: Generation Unit 1 (MWhrs) Unit 2 (MWhrs) Total (MWhrs) July 2022 Aug. 2022 Sept. 2022* 14,740 22,973 28,027 12,936 22,648 27,502 27,676 45,621 55,529 Hydraulics Avg. Lake Level (ft.) Usage (ac ft.) Fish water (CFS) July 2022 Aug. 2022 Sept. 2022* 1,143 1,165 1,174 2,254 3,847 2,252 122 118 110 Battle Creek Inflows to Bradley (ac ft.) July 2022 Aug. 2022 Sept. 2022* 12,981 12,456 6,544 * As of Sept. 23, 2022 Lake Level – 1,174.1’ as of Sept 23, 2022 Activities • Dam – Completed the monthly safety inspections. Jay Thom of DOWL conducted the yearly dam safety operator training. Completed the yearly fly over inspection of Bradley River from tidewater to the dam. • Dam Access Road – The crew has repaired the washout areas, cleaned and groomed the ditch along the road up to the dam. • Battle Creek Diversion- Completed the road repairs up to the diversion. Jay Thom of DOWL was out on project to inspect the crack that has developed on the shoulder of the upper section of road (pictures attached). He determined that it is in an area that was used for waste rock disposal during construction. The crack developed due to the natural compaction over time of the waste material. We have blocked the area off and will monitor the area for any changes. Completed the modifications of the upper battle creek pipe air valves (pictures attached). We have received the parts needed to install the redundant forebay water level transducer. DOWL is evaluating how to improve the MIF by-pass pipe outlet measurement readings. Completed the installation of the monument plaque at the diversion site. Bradley Lake Operator Report Page 2 • Bradley Lake Duplex New building – Project final drawings and specification have been issued. The requests for bids packages have been issued. The Prebid meeting was held on 22 Sept 2022. Bids are due by the end of October. • Fire system o We will retest the fire pump when Chinook Fire personnel return to complete the few remaining items on the punch list. o RESPEC has started submitting documents for review on the project wide fire alarm system refresh. • Safety o There have been no lost time or reportable accidents for the months of July, August and September. o Bradley crew have completed their CPR/First Aid refresher training. o Next safety meeting is 10 Oct. 2022 • Barge trip- Next barge will be scheduled for late October 2022. It will bring the new pickup, dump truck sander attachment, forklift batteries, and change out the dumpster. • Annual Maintenance Outage – Developing the work scope for next year. Outage date has been set for 17 April – 5 May 2023. This is the only dates ABB has a qualified crew available to do the GSI work. • Forced outage - On 21 Sept 2022 a visitor from CEA was standing by unit #2 Emergency trip switch when her back pack strap hooked the handle tripping the unit. The unit was restored to operation within a couple of minutes. • Contractors/ Visitors on site- o Janna Davis HEA and Don Maynor ARECA conducted a plant safety walk through on 28 July 2022. Noted several items from last report had been corrected. No new issues noted. o Washington Crane and Hoist completed the inspection of the project cranes, hoists and other lifting devises on 30 Aug 2022. The 40ton mobile crane was red tagged out of service for multiple issues. o HSWCD completed their work for the year for invasive plant treatment up the battle creek diversion road on 22 September 2022. o Bay Safety – Completed the fire extinguisher inspection on 8,9 September 2022. No issues were noted. o ARRI competed their final fish studies on lower battle creek on 8 September 2022. o John Laughead of VIOTH was on site 20 Oct 2022 to review the needle rebuild specifications. Bradley Lake Operator Report Page 3 o ADFG staff are on site weekly to service their equipment at the fish counting weir in Battle Creek. They will complete their counting by the last week in October 2022. o Bruce Linton of HEA and Bill Brookins of Trident Engineering will be on site 3 Oct. 2022 to conduct the above ground tank inspections. o Starr Insurance- David Ingham will be on site 19 Oct. 2022 for plant walk down. Bradley Lake Dam - Water elevation at 1175.1 Bradley Lake Operator Report Page 4 Bradley Lake Spillway – Water Level at 1175.1 Bradley Lake Operator Report Page 5 Battle Creek Diversion Road Damage Bradley Lake Operator Report Page 6 Battle Creek New Air Vent and Air Vent Hut. (Note the little black bear at the hut) Bradley Lake Operator Report Page 7 Battle Creek Fish Weir Counting Station (Note the brown bear visitor in the bottom photo)