Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-21 AEA Agenda and docs 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044 REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG Alaska Energy Authority Board Meeting Wednesday, June 21, 2023 8:30 AM AGENDA Dial 1 (888) 585-9008 and enter code 212-753-619# Public comment guidelines are below. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS 3. AGENDA APPROVAL 4. PRIOR MINUTES – May 19, 2023 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (2 minutes per person) see call in number above 6. NEW BUSINESS - None 7. OLD BUSINESS - None 8. DIRECTOR COMMENTS A. Responses to Board Questions from May Board Meeting B. Governor’s State Energy Security Task Force Update C. FY24 Operating Budget and Capital Budget Update D. AEA Infrastructure Awards Tracker: i. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) III – Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (application). ii. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) III – Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation (application). iii. Energy Efficiency Revolving Fund Capitalization Grant Program (Sec 40502) E. Owned Assets update F. AEA Library Demonstration G. State Energy Program (SEP) Update H. Renewable Energy Grant Fund (REF) Update I. Power Project Fund (PFF) Update J. Legislative Update K. Cook Inlet Gas Supply L. Community Outreach M. Articles of Interest N. Next Regularly Scheduled AEA Board Meeting Wednesday, August 2, 2023 9. BOARD COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT Public Comment Guidelines Members of the public who wish to provide written comments, please email your comments to publiccomment@akenergyauthority.org by no later than 4 p.m. on the day before the meeting, so they can be shared with board members prior to the meeting. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 On the meeting day, callers will enter the teleconference muted. After board roll call and agenda approval, we will ask callers to press *9 on their phones if they wish to make a public comment. This will initiate the hand-raising function. We will unmute callers individually in the order the calls were received. When an individual is unmuted, you will hear, “It is now your turn to speak.” Please identify yourself and make your public comments. 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG Alaska Energy Authority BOARD MEETING MINUTES Friday, May 19, 2023 Anchorage, Alaska 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Pruhs called the meeting of the Alaska Energy Authority to order on May 19, 2023, at 8:53 am. A quorum was established. 2.ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS Members present: Chair Dana Pruhs (Public Member); Vice-Chair Bill Kendig (Public Member); Albert Fogle (Public Member); Adam Crum (Commissioner DOR); Julie Sande (Commissioner DCCED); and Randy Eledge (Public Member). 3.AGENDA APPROVAL Vice-Chair Kendig requested to add an Executive Session after Item 7. Old Business, with personnel matters as the topic of discussion. There was no objection. There was no objection to approving the agenda with the amendment to include Executive Session after Item 7. Old Business. 4.PRIOR MINUTES – April 11, 2023 MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to approve the prior minutes of April 11, 2023. Motion seconded by Mr. Fogle. The motion to approve the minutes of April 11, 2023, passed without objection. 5.PUBLIC COMMENTS (2 minutes per person) There were no members of the public online or in-person who requested to comment. 6. NEW BUSINESS – None 7. OLD BUSINESS - None MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to enter into executive session to discuss confidential personnel issues. This is supported by the Open Meetings Act, which allows the Board to consider confidential matters in Executive Session. In this case, the Board believes that the subjects would have an adverse effect upon the finances of AEA and are protected by law, due to rules protecting personnel privacy and certain business information. Motion seconded by Mr. Fogle. DRAFT Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 9 A roll call vote was taken and the motion to enter into Executive Session passed unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 8:57 am. Personnel Matters The Board reconvened its regular meeting at 9:31 am. Chair Pruhs advised that the Board did not take any formal action on matters discussed while in Executive Session. 8. DIRECTOR COMMENTS A. Responses to Board Questions from April Board Meeting Curtis Thayer, Executive Director and Secretary-Treasurer, informed that the responses to Board questions from the April Board meeting are contained within the packet. Vice-Chair Kendig asked if the cost to charge 50 kWh for an electric vehicle (EV) is comparable to one tank of gas. Mr. Thayer requested Audrey Alstrom, AEA Director of AEEE, to provide additional information. Ms. Alstrom discussed that EV charging ranges are dependent on the vehicle’s battery capacity. Batteries with larger kWh have longer ranges. The 50 kWh example shown in the table is on the lower end, and is comparable to the Nissan Leaf. Its range is approximately 90 miles per full battery capacity charge. Vice-Chair Kendig noted that the provided chart and other charts he has reviewed show the levelized cost per EV charge compared to the cost of gas. He discussed his concern that the costs shown do not consider the cost to produce the EV and the cost to dispose of the batteries. Vice- Chair Kendig stated that the rates shown are subsidized rates mandated by Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). He requested staff to invite RCA Commissioner Bob Doyle and RCA Commissioner Bob Picket to an AEA meeting to explain the complete picture of the EV costs. Vice- Chair Kendig noted that the Commissioners directed him to review the book “The Unpopular Truth: about Electricity and the Future of Energy.” He believes the book provides a balanced view, and recommended that Board members read the book. Vice-Chair Kendig discussed that members are being provided with the upside of EVs without being provided a view of the downside. Chair Pruhs asked why the rates from Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) are double the rates of the other utilities. Vice-Chair Kendig explained that the utilities were given a range and MEA chose the rates that had the least effect on their members’ rates. The other utilities chose to put more burden on their members. Ms. Alstrom explained that the table illustrated in the packet shows the rates that utilities can charge a vehicle at a charging station. It lists MEA’s cost per kWh at .32 cents. She noted that Golden Valley Electric Association’s (GVEA) current rate is .65 cents per kWh, and through RCA, has lowered their charging station rate to .15 cents per kWh. The utilities’ residential rate would DRAFT Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 9 be used if the EV was charging at home. Vice-Chair Kendig asked if the rates shown are for Level 3 charging stations. Ms. Alstrom agreed. Vice-Chair Kendig commented on his understanding that the charging stations are Level 2. Mr. Thayer agreed that most of the charging stations are Level 2 and are being changed to Level 3. Chair Pruhs requested explanation on how the commercial businesses that host the charging stations will charge the customer. Ms. Alstrom explained that charging stations usually take payments through an electronic application (app). The commercial charging station owner can choose to charge an additional amount over the utility rate, or they can provide the electricity at the utility rate with no extra fee, or they can charge a lower amount. Chair Pruhs asked if his understanding is correct that the residential charging fee is at the residential rate and is not subsidized. The commercial charging rate is subsidized to the amounts shown. Mr. Thayer discussed that commercial users have different rate classes depending on the power usage. Chair Pruhs asked if the amount of commercial charging utilization is tracked per quarter or per year. Ms. Alstrom believes the individual utilities would have access to that information. AEA receives the operational data from the chargers that AEA funds. Chair Pruhs asked Mr. Thayer if AEA has any role outside of installing the EV charging stations using the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) funds. Mr. Thayer discussed that AEA does not have additional responsibilities outside of installing the charging stations with the NEVI funds. He noted another issue being reviewed by the Legislature is the lack of a fuel tax for EV users. The gasoline fuel tax is supposed to be used for road maintenance and EV users do not currently pay a fuel tax. Chair Pruhs indicated there is a tax on the tires. Vice-Chair Kendig suggested the possibility of charging a tax per kWh to be deposited into the highway funds. Vice-Chair Kendig commented on two charging stations that were inoperable: one in Girdwood and one in Anchorage. The Anchorage location has since been repaired. He expressed concern regarding the reliability of the charging stations to Fairbanks and what would happen if two of the charging stations were not working. Vice-Chair Kendig asked if the State has a certified evaluation of the electric charging stations. Mr. Thayer and Ms. Alstrom indicated the State does not conduct a certified evaluation of the electric charging stations. Vice-Chair Kendig recommended the issue be brought to the attention of the Legislature and the Governor for the State to test the charging stations. Mr. Thayer discussed reviewing the regulations and test procedure data of other states to use as a guideline. Vice-Chair Kendig commented that charging stations should be regulated like gas stations. He believes the Department of Transportation should review these issues. Chair Pruhs commented that the certification of the meters should be conducted by the utilities, rather than by the State. Mr. Thayer stated that there are no regulations on charging stations. Individual businesses can invest and install a charging station based upon the availability of the power at the location. The requirements for federal funding for charging stations include distances DRAFT Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 9 between charging stations and the proximity to a particular road system. Ms. Alstrom added that the charging stations funded through the NEVI funds are required to be networked and to show their operational status. There were no additional questions. B. Governor’s State Energy Security Task Force Mr. Thayer discussed that the kickoff meeting of the Alaska Energy Security Task Force was held on April 25, 2023. The meeting agenda and slides from that meeting are included in the Board packet. The Symposium Series will be open to the public and will be recorded for future viewing. The second meeting of the Task Force was held and reviewed foundational topics such as AEA, PCE, and ACEP. The next meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2023. Mr. Thayer indicated that he would continue to provide informational items of interest to Board members. He discussed that the Governor’s goal is to reach the moonshot goal of 10-cent power for Alaska, as well as comparing Alaska’s rates with national rates. Chair Pruhs asked if the 10-cent goal is approximately half of the current average cost of power. Mr. Thayer agreed. Chair Pruhs believes that there are only a few states in the Lower 48 with 10-cent power. Mr. Thayer agreed, and noted that the national average is approximately 16-cent power. Chair Pruhs inquired as to the cost averages throughout the different areas of Alaska. Mr. Thayer indicated that the Railbelt average is approximately 20-cent power for total cost. The fuel costs are less. Bradley Lake is four-cent power. Fire Island is 9.6-cent power, and natural gas is at 8-cent power. Mr. Thayer will provide the Board with the presentation that includes the cost breakdown by utility. Mr. Eledge asked if the costs described include transmission costs. Mr. Thayer explained that the all-in cost of 20-cent power includes transmission costs. Mr. Fogle asked if Bradley Lake could support the Railbelt if more capacity was added. Mr. Thayer noted that additional capacity to Bradley Lake would not support the Railbelt. He explained that Bradley Lake is 120 megawatts and supports approximately 10% of the Railbelt. The Bradley Lake Dixon Diversion project is expected to expand the support by another 5%. Mr. Thayer discussed that Susitna-Watana could support approximately half of the Railbelt at 450 megawatts. Mr. Fogle inquired as to the possibility of raising the lake level and putting in two more generators. Mr. Thayer explained that the Dixon Diversion will most likely raise the dam level 28 feet. There is a pit available for another generator, if needed. Bradley Lake was designed to have three 40-megawatt generators and the installation was two 60-megawatt generators. The pit has its own challenges regarding oscillation issues within the original design. The installation of batteries, as part of the required project work, will help with the oscillations. Chair Pruhs commented that in order to decrease the cost of power to reach the 10-cent goal, either the volume must increase, or a subsidy must be provided. He asked for Mr. Thayer’s DRAFT Alaska Energy Authority Page 5 of 9 feedback. Mr. Thayer explained that the Task Force is viewing that state in locational areas of the Railbelt, rural, and coastal. There is no predetermined solution regarding subsidies at this point. He noted the direct correlation between lowering the cost of energy on Railbelt and PCE funding. Mr. Thayer discussed that Canada, for example, has one rate for all users. The Task Force will review the options and levers available to reach the goal, including PCE, tax credits, and other Infrastructure Bill credits. Commissioner Crum supports the utilization of lowering the cost of energy for the Railbelt in order to positively affect the PCE funding. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Thayer for his efforts. Mr. Thayer indicated that he would continue to provide updates and information to the Board. There were no additional questions. C. AEA Infrastructure Awards Tracker: Mr. Thayer discussed that staff has developed a weekly tracking spreadsheet of the available infrastructure funding. The spreadsheet contains hyperlinks and pertinent information, such as stakeholders, scope and objectives, type of funding, required match, and staff point of contact. Mr. Thayer highlighted that the Legislature has designated $5 million as the 20% match for the Carbon Reduction Program, Port Electrification. AEA is partnering with Department of Transportation (DOT) and DCCED on this program. Mr. Thayer indicated that Commissioner Sande could provide additional information on this program. Chair Pruhs expressed appreciation to staff for creating the spreadsheet per his request. He looks forward to the monthly updates. Chair Pruhs asked for a color key to be contained within the spreadsheet. Mr. Thayer noted a key was included in the first draft and was accidentally excluded from the Board packet. The spreadsheet will be updated to include the key. Mr. Thayer noted the color code is as follows: • Green: AEA submitted an application • Yellow: AEA plans to submit an application or concept paper • Blue: AEA waiting for guidance • Orange: Application lead to be taken by other entities Chair Pruhs asked if AEA is partnering with private entities for any of the grants. Mr. Thayer indicated that the program is now open to for-profit companies. He noted that the utilities were the lead in GRIP 1 and 2, and AEA was the lead in GRIP 3. Mr. Thayer discussed the project applications. Determinations will be made in the fall. He commended the staff for the preparation of the concept papers and the applications. Mr. Thayer noted that Trident requested AEA partner with them on a concept paper to review geothermal power in Unalaska. Discussion continued regarding additional types of projects available for concept papers, applications, and funding. Chair Pruhs inquired as to ways that AEA can inform private entities about these opportunities. Mr. Thayer indicated that AEA has informed communities regarding the opportunity to apply for DRAFT Alaska Energy Authority Page 6 of 9 grants in energy improvement in rural and remote areas. He discussed that AEA staff is available to provide technical assistance to communities in completing the application, if needed. Chair Pruhs asked if there is a segue for AIDEA to assist with additional monies after the grant funding is utilized. Mr. Thayer believes there could be a segment for that possibility. He commented that AEA does not give tax advice. However, there is information provided on the website that lists available tax credits and some of the tax credits are stackable. Chair Pruhs commented on the challenges for small business owners and small communities to understand the complicated process of applying for grants and loans. Randy Ruaro, AIDEA Executive Director, discussed that AIDEA has a 37-page memorandum available that explains the tax credits. He believes that staff can create a one-page matrix that outlines the key tax credits. He reiterated the disclaimer that staff is not providing tax advice. Chair Pruhs suggested the matrix information is included in presentations given to communities and businesses. Mr. Fogle recommended AEA staff present to different Chambers of Commerce to discuss the tax credit opportunities. Mr. Thayer informed that the information is on AEA’s website and is being advertised as available. He noted that the Chamber of Commerce circuit will begin soon. Commissioner Sande complimented Mr. Thayer and AEA staff for their collaboration and assistance in utilizing the limited use State cruise ship funding for the eligible coastal communities. The efforts are key in maximizing and advancing economic development and in ensuring that the port visitors have a positive experience. She expressed appreciation to Mr. Thayer for his efforts. A brief at-ease was taken. i. Electric Vehicle Update Mr. Thayer reviewed the Electric Vehicle Update provided in the Board packet. The site host application deadline was May 15, 2023. Thirty-four applications were received and are under review. The results should be available by May 23, 2023. The Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group (AKEVWG) quarterly meeting will be held next week. Additionally, a NEVI workshop is planned for June 10, 2023. Mr. Thayer commented that AEA has a good working relationship and partnership with DOT. He noted that Commissioner Ryan Anderson was complimentary of AEA’s efforts and supports AEA’s partnership on the port electrification application. ii. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) – Sec. 40101(d) – Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid Formula Grants Application Mr. Thayer advised that a copy of the BIL, Section 40101 (d) is included in the Board packet. The application was filed last year. The amount is $60 million over the course of five years, and requires a State match of $1.8 million. This is the second year that the match and the federal receipt authority has been requested. The process is ongoing and should move forward as planned. The DRAFT Alaska Energy Authority Page 7 of 9 total amount for last year and this year will be approximately $22 million. iii. Industrial Decarbonization and Emissions Reduction Demonstration-to-Deployment (DE-FOA-0002936) Near-Net-Zero Facility Build Project – Trident / AEA Concept Paper Mr. Thayer informed that this item was discussed earlier in the meeting. The concept paper is included in the Board packet. Trident is the lead and AEA is listed as a team member. The determination will be made in a few months if the process can move forward to the application phase. D. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)in i. IRA Tax Incentive Overview Mr. Thayer indicated this item was discussed under the AEA Infrastructure Awards Tracker agenda item. E. Capital Budget – Unknown until Session ends (5/17/2023) Mr. Thayer informed that additional information will be available at the next Board meeting. The overview is that AEA received all funding requested in the operating budget and all funding requested in the capital budget, including $140 million of federal receipt authority. The session ended last night, and the final information will be provided to members. Mr. Thayer reviewed specific line item amounts that were included in the budget: Statewide Grid Resilience at $1.8 million; Power System Upgrades at $7.5 million; Bulk Fuel was doubled to $11 million; Dixon Studies and Hydro Studies at $5 million; full funding of the Renewable Energy Program at $5million; Renewable Energy Fund (REF) at $17 million; Delta Phase III Power at $3 million; and Black Rapids Training Site at $12.7 million. Mr. Thayer discussed that AEA has been given five new staffing positions dedicated to infrastructure. Offers have been extended for two of the positions. Mr. Thayer expressed appreciation to AEA staff, especially Rebecca Garret, Karin St. Clair, Conner Erickson, Tim Sandstrom, Amy Adler, Pam Ellis, Audrey Alstrom, and Jennifer Bertolini for their diligent efforts. F. Legislative Update Mr. Thayer discussed the legislative update information and the PowerPoint presentations are provided in the packet. He conveyed particular support from Senator Stedman and Representative Edgmon. G. Cook Inlet Gas Supply – Included in the packet H. Community Outreach – Included in the packet DRAFT Alaska Energy Authority Page 8 of 9 I. Articles of Interest - Included in the packet J. Next Regularly Scheduled AEA Board Meeting Wednesday, June 21, 2023 Mr. Thayer informed that the next regularly scheduled AEA Board meeting is June 21, 2023. He discussed that AEA was requested to provide promotional items to potential investors next week at the Governor’s Sustainability Conference. The information is included in the packet. Mr. Thayer highlighted that Brandy Dixon, AEA, along with about 12 staff members have focused their efforts on the success of the conference. The current attendance number is over 800 people, with 150 speakers and subject matter experts worldwide. Mr. Eledge asked Mr. Thayer for AEA’s total capital budget amount. Mr. Thayer stated that the federal receipt authority was approximately $145 million. The State UGF increased by $15 million to $50 million. Mr. Thayer indicated that the $82 million with DOT and DCCED, and the $52 million from the NEVI Program are not held by AEA. Mr. Thayer will provide a distinct breakdown of the budget funding at the next meeting. Mr. Thayer discussed that the Governor’s carbon package was passed by the Legislature. An amendment was included that AEA’s Renewable Energy Fund will receive 20% of anything sold through carbon credits. The bill was spearheaded through Department of Revenue and Senator Bishop. The Department of Natural Resources will administer the plan. Mr. Thayer expressed his understanding that the schedule includes one to two years to write the regulations and another one to two years to implement the regulations. Mr. Fogle asked if AEA and AIDEA are anticipating delays in the annual audit. Mr. Thayer indicated that auditors are on the premises this week conducting preliminary work. He anticipates that the process is on track to meet the October audit deadline. AEA is fully staffed, and no problems are anticipated. He noted that Clay Christian is the new CFO, and he is available to answer any questions. Mr. Christian discussed that staff has been meeting with the auditors. Processes are ongoing to ensure that the requirements are fulfilled for AEA and AIDEA to obtain signed opinions by the target date of October 25, 2023. This includes expediting items from other parts of the State structure that have caused delays in the past. Mr. Fogle asked what completion date was indicated in the RFP for the auditors. Mr. Thayer does not have the Eide Bailly auditor’s contract with him today to confirm the date. The October 25, 2023 date meets the State deadline. Mr. Fogle believes the deadline was either October 1st or September 15th, which has not been met in years. He is hoping to meet the deadline. Mr. Thayer explained that AEA and AIDEA’s fiscal year ends June 30th, after which the books can be closed. However, AEA and AIDEA depend on other parts of government to close their books before AEA and AIDEA can close its books. A sequencing of events must occur. Last year, there were staffing issues and AIDEA was on time and AEA was late. The year before, AEA was on time and AIDEA was late. The goal this year is for both entities to be on time. DRAFT Alaska Energy Authority Page 9 of 9 9. BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Eledge is pleased that the Legislature recognizes the efforts of AEA and its leadership. He believes this is a tribute to both Mr. Thayer and the staff. Mr. Eledge acknowledged the accomplishment. Mr. Kendig expressed appreciation for the good meeting and extensive information provided by the staff. Mr. Fogle asked for the September and October meeting dates. Ms. Bertolini advised the meetings will be held on September 21st and October 25th. Mr. Fogle requested a reminder is sent to members regarding the meeting dates for the rest of the year. Ms. Bertolini agreed. Mr. Fogle requested the audit is released a week before the October 25th meeting for the Board to review the audit and approve it at the October meeting. Mr. Thayer commented that a Bradley Lake Hydro Project trip is in the process of being scheduled in June due to interest from legislators who helped fund the Dixon Diversion Project. Mr. Eledge asked if any of the Board members will be available to attend the Energy Conference. He regrets that he is unable to attend. Vice-Chair Kendig indicated that he will attend all three of the days. Mr. Thayer noted that Commissioner Sande and Commissioner Crum will be in attendance all three of the days. Chair Pruhs thanked the members. He welcomed Mr. Christian to his new position, and expressed appreciation to Mr. Thayer and staff for the information, especially the work-in-progress spreadsheet. He suggested that a column is included to identify the projects that were implemented. Mr. Thayer made a last comment that $1.6 million was funded this morning from a competitive grant that was applied for last year. Federal receipt authority is currently within the budget for those funds. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business of the Board, the AEA meeting adjourned at 10:56 am. ___________________________________________________ Curtis Thayer, Executive Director / Secretary DRAFT 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG RGYAUTHORITY.ORG 8A. Response to Questions from AEA Board during May 19, 2023 Meeting: i.Do other states certify EV Charging stations? (see attached). ii.Include Cost Power Spreadsheet in June Board packet (see attached). iii.Include Pitch Sheets in June Board packet (see attached). iv.AEA Infrastructure Awards Tracker (with color key) (See Item 8D). v.REF Project list in June Board packet (See Item 8G). 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1, 2023 TO: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Audrey Alstrom, P.E., Director, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency SUBJECT: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Certification – Response to Board Question California is the only state known that certifies electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), or charging stations. California has transitioned into certifying by having the EVSE inspected, tested, and sealed by the county. This went into effect January 1, 2023. The EVSE requirements can be found here: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/pdfs/CA_EVSE_Regulation_Reference_Document.pdf Florida enabled its Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to provide definitions, methods of sale, labeling requirements, and price-posting requirements, but not the traditional “weights and measures” task of certifying and testing the equipment for accuracy like gas pumps. Weights and measures have always been implemented to protect the consumer, and it is anticipated that something similar is replicated with EVSE in the future as drivers shift away from gasoline, where weights and measures are currently strong, into electricity. Cost of Power by TechnologyTechnologyProject Owner Nameplate Capacity (MW) Cost of Power ($ / kWh) Source:Wind (onshore) Eva Creek Golden Valley Electric Assoc. (GVEA) 24.6 0.11$                                           GVEA, AEAWind (onshore) Pillar Mountain Kodiak Electric Assoc. (KEA) 9 0.11$                                           Environment & Energy News ‐ On Kodiak Island, flywheels are in and diesel is 99.8% out ‐ June 2016Wind (onshore) Fire Island Wind Cook Inlet Regional, Inc. (CIRI) 17.6 0.10$                                           CEA ‐ CIRI PPAWind (onshore) Delta Wind Farm Alaska Environmental Power (AEP) 1.9 0.12$                                           AEP ‐ GVEA PPA ‐ sold at GVEA's avoided costWind (onshore) Banner Peak Wind Farm Nome Joint Utilities (NJUS) 2.8 0.08$                                           NJUS PCE RCA Filing ‐ Dec 2022Hydroelectric (Small) Black Bear Lake / South ForkAlaska Power Company (APC) 6.5 0.07$                                           APC 2022 Annual ReportHydroelectric (Small) Ram Valley Hydro Ram Valley, LLC0.3 0.08$                                           Ram Valley ‐ MEA PPA (TA517‐18) ‐ sold at MEA's avoided costHydroelectric (Small) Hiilangaay Haida Energy LLC5 0.30$                                           APC RCA Tariff Filing (TA1‐760)Hydroelectric (Small) Southfork Hydro South Fork Hydro, LLC (SFH) 1.5 0.07$                                           SFH ‐ MEA PPA (TA407‐18)Hydroelectric (Small) Power Creek / Humpback CreekCordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) 7.25 0.06$                                           International Water Power ‐ Storage boosts hydro usage for Alaskan microgrid ‐ April 2021Hydroelectric (Large) Bradley Lake Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) 120 0.05$                                           AEAHydroelectric (Large) Terror Lake Kodiak Electric Assoc. (KEA) 34 0.07$                                           Environment & Energy News ‐ On Kodiak Island, flywheels are in and diesel is 99.8% out ‐ June 2016Hydroelectric (Large) Snettisham Alaska Electric Light & Power (AELP) 78 0.04$                                           AELP 2022 Annual ReportHydroelectric (Large) Eklutna Hydro Chugach Electric Assoc. (CEA) & Matanuska Electric Assoc. (MEA) 44.4 0.05$                                           CEA, MEA 2021 Annual Reports ‐ reflective of weighted cost between CEA & MEAHydroelectric (Large) Cooper Lake Chugach Electric Assoc. (CEA) 19.4 0.04$                                           CEA 2021 Annual ReportHydroelectric (Large) Swan Lake Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) 25 0.07$                                           SEAPA Board Presentation, Jan 2023Hydroelectric (Large) Tyee Lake Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) 25 0.07$                                           SEAPA Board Presentation, Jan 2023Natural Gas George M. Sullivan Plant Chugach Electric Assoc. (CEA) 293.5 0.07$                                           CEA 2021 Annual ReportNatural Gas Southcentral Power Plant Chugach Electric Assoc. (CEA) 200.2 0.06$                                           CEA 2021 Annual ReportNatural Gas Eklutna Generating Station Matanuska Electric Assoc. (MEA) 171 0.09$                                           MEA 2021 Annual ReportNatural Gas Nikiski Combined Cycle Homer Electric Assoc. (HEA/AEEC) 80 0.08$                                           AEEC 2021 Annual ReportSolar Willow Solar Alaska Renewable Energy Partners, LLC (AKREP) 1.2 0.08$                                           MEA‐AKREP PPA (TA510‐18) ‐ sold at MEA's avoided costSolar Houston Solar Energy49 LLC6 0.01$                                           MEA‐Energy49 LLC PPA (TA535‐18)Geothermal Chena Power Geothermal Chena Power, LLC0.68 0.07$                                           North of 56 ‐ Chena Hot Springs ‐ geothermla power, plus more ‐ April 2012Coal Healy #1 Golden Valley Electric Assoc. (GVEA) 28 0.11$                                           GVEA 2021 Annual ReportCoal Healy #2 Golden Valley Electric Assoc. (GVEA) 62 0.15$                                           GVEA 2021 Annual ReportCoal Aurora Aurora Energy LLC27.5 0.09$                                           GVEA 2021 Annual ReportAdvanced Nuclear N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ABiomass N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AHydrokinetic (Tidal) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AHydrokinetic (River) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AWind (offshore) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 1 of 12 Alaska Energy Security Task Force MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, April 25, 2023 Anchorage, Alaska 1. Welcome and Introductions Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom called the meeting of the Alaska Energy Security Task Force to order on April 25, 2023, at 2:02 pm. Members present: Chair Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom; Vice-Chair Curtis Thayer; Vice-Chair Gwen Holdmann; Jason Brune (Commissioner DEC); John Boyle (Commissioner DNR); Clay Koplin; Nils Andreassen; Isaac Vanderburg; John Simms; Andrew Guy; Karl Hanneman; Jenn Miller; Tony Izzo; Robert Venables; Duff Mitchell; Erin Whitney; Garrett Boyle; Keith Kurber (Commissioner); Representative George Rauscher; and Senator Click Bishop. Members introduced themselves and provided brief comments. 2. Governor’s Remarks and Vision for the Task Force Governor Dunleavy expressed appreciation to the members who have volunteered for this important Task Force for Alaska. He highlighted that this work could be the most significant effort contributed to Alaska. Governor Dunleavy discussed that Alaska and Hawaii are similarly unique in that they cannot wield power from other states to meet the power needs. Additionally, even if power could be wielded within Alaska, it would be difficult to meet the power needs of all communities due to the large geographical distances. Governor Dunleavy outlined the goal of the Task Force is to create three models, one for Coastal Alaska, one for Railbelt Alaska, and one for Interior and remaining areas of Alaska that will lower the cost of energy to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) by 2030. Governor Dunleavy noted that some people doubt this goal is achievable. He compared this goal to other goals that were doubted and yet were achieved. He discussed the example that people laughed at John F. Kennedy’s goal in 1961 of going to the moon by the end of the 1960’s. Governor Dunleavy emphasized the importance of believing the goal can be achieved. He believes that the Task Force can be creative in developing models that contain technologies of generation, storage, transmission, and distribution components that lead to 10 cents per kWh by 2030. Governor Dunleavy conveyed that the members of the Task Force are not seeking to stop a certain type of generation, nor to stop a certain type of distribution or transmission, nor to stop a certain type of storage. Governor Dunleavy expressed that the Task Force is a leader in the country with intelligent members. The Task Force has a responsibility to Page 2 of 12 accomplish its mission. The Task Force members must be dedicated and focused in moving the goal forward because Alaska is behind the curve in addressing its energy issues. He discussed the existing concerns within the regions of Alaska. Governor Dunleavy explained that the Task Force is to review all options for generation, including nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, biomass, and others. Similarly, the Task Force is to review all options for transmission and distribution, including the value of burying the transmission lines or adding small energy generators to sustain long-term inexpensive energy. Governor Dunleavy indicated that the Task Force was not created for political reasons, and he is not up for reelection. The next couple of years will be dynamic for Alaska. The Task Force must believe that the goal can be achieved using technology and utilizing the knowledge and understanding of the members. This is the time to help Alaska solve many of its issues. Governor Dunleavy expressed his belief in Alaska and in the promise of Alaska. He considers Alaska’s motto “North to the future” as inspirational and motivational. Governor Dunleavy reiterated his faith in the Task Force to achieve the critical responsibility of producing the models, suggesting changes in regulations and legislation, and other efforts that will result in 10-cent power by 2030. He looks forward to working with the Task Force and to seeing the outcomes. 3. Lieutenant Governor’s Remarks Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom thanked Governor Dunleavy for his comments. She discussed that the Governor is consistent in his message. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom believes Governor Dunleavy has full faith, trust, and confidence in the Task Force reaching its goal. She looks forward to the efforts. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom requested Vice-Chair Thayer proceed with the next items on the agenda. 4. Discussion/ Feedback from Task Force Members (roundtable) Vice-Chair Thayer agreed with the Governor’s description of the purpose of the Task Force. He believes the Task Force needs to create a statewide energy plan, and to evaluate energy generation, distribution, transmission, and storage opportunities across Alaska. He discussed that there are many renewable opportunities, and the missing component is transmission. Vice-Chair Thayer gave the example that the transmission line from Bradley Lake to Anchorage is at capacity. In order to accept more power, the capacity of the transmission line must be increased. He noted that 17% of the Bradley Lake Power goes to Fairbanks. Vice-Chair Thayer discussed the unique needs and cost structure of rural Alaska. He noted they are not connected by a grid, but rather maintain over 200 microgrids that primarily depend on diesel and bulk fuel. Vice-Chair Thayer informed that according to Alaska Page 3 of 12 Energy Authority (AEA), there is $800 million in deferred maintenance of the microgrids and over $300 million in deferred maintenance on the powerhouses, which prompts the question: What is a better way to deliver power to rural Alaska? Vice-Chair Thayer highlighted that while it is important to uphold the overall goal for the state, it is necessary to understand that the different regions of Alaska will have unique goals. He explained that Power Cost Equalization (PCE) was established 30 years ago to help level the cost power in rural Alaska. The first 750 kWh of power would be the same rate as the weighted average of the rate in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. He noted that every penny the rate is decreased on the Railbelt, translates to almost $200 million to rural Alaska in additional PCE. This shows the correlation between the benefits to the Railbelt and to rural Alaska. Vice-Chair Thayer informed that the proposed subcommittees are suggestions and review can occur to determine if changes need to be made. He asked for members to chair the subcommittees and invite experts and the public to be part of the process. Vice-Chair Thayer advised that info@akenergysecuritytaskforce.com is the email account. Public comments can be submitted. The website is akenergysecuritytaskforce.com. All Task Force information will be shared with the public. Vice-Chair Thayer acknowledged John Espindola, Special Assistant to the Governor, for his instrumental efforts in the development of the Task Force. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom asked Vice-Chair Holdmann to provide opening comments. Vice-Chair Holdmann agreed that the Governor has given a bold challenge to the Task Force. She believes this is an opportunity for the State to aggregate the information regarding energy in the state and to find innovative ways to reach the goal of 10-cent power. She does not believe this can be achieved through incremental improvements to the current systems. A broad view perspective and creative approaches are required to achieve the goal. Vice-Chair Holdmann is excited to work with the diverse members of the Task Force who were selected because of their unique perspective and ability to contribute. Vice-Chair Holdmann expressed hope that the Task Force can develop an organized process today to develop new approaches to existing concerns. 5. Organization of Task Force a. Task Force outcomes/products b. Meeting timeline c. Website / SharePoint d. Coordinating with existing working groups e. Resources f. Subcommittee Structure and Composition, Process for Nominating Members Page 4 of 12 i. Discussion – Subcommittees we want to form immediately ii. Regionally focused (Roadbelt, coastal, remote rural) iii. Alaska energy data gateway Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom advised that the next Task Force meeting is scheduled for May 9, 2023. She requested Vice-Chair Thayer to discuss the subcommittee structures and process. Vice-Chair Thayer discussed the eight proposed subcommittees and gave brief examples of their focus: State Energy Data, Statutes and Regulations, Railbelt Generation, Railbelt Transmission and Storage, Rural Generation, Distribution and Storage, Coastal Generation, Distribution and Storage, Incentives and Subsidies (Federal and State), and Renewables. A comment was made to include transportation costs within the Task Force’s purview. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom discussed that the Task Force has a duty and responsibility to question all the processes that are ongoing, why they are ongoing, if they are successful, and what could make the processes better. Commissioner Brune asked a member for a recommendation for a goal for all of Alaska and noted the many of the communities could have electric heat that is tied to the 10- cent power goal. The member agreed that an electric heat equivalent could be determined to be compared to 10-cent kWh power. Mr. Venables suggested that review of the non-fuel costs for the energy that is borne by Alaskans is considered, and asked if this is included in the 10-cent kWh price. Mr. Izzo expressed his understanding from conversations with the Governor, Mr. Espindola, and Mr. Thayer that the 10-cent kWh cost is the residential delivered price per kWh. In the Railbelt, more than half of residential rate payers have an energy component of under 10 cents. The price increase consists of all the other costs that are included. He gave the example based on Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) that seven cents of the average 20 cents per kWh is fuel. The utility has a base rate of approximately 12 to 13 cents. The base rate includes all other costs to operate the utility, including employee salary, healthcare, administrative, debt component, and outage repair. If the debt component was removed, Mr. Izzo believes that MEA could approach the 10-cent goal. This is one component. Mr. Izzo reiterated that the Governor discussed the likely possibility of multiple scenarios to achieve the goal. Mr. Izzo noted that consideration needs to be given to the different constructs available. He discussed the concept of merging the operational aspects of all the utilities in the Railbelt while maintaining their individual identities. Mr. Izzo feels this option deserves review to determine what cost savings could be achieved, if any. Mr. Hanneman commented that it is interesting that the Governor expressed a definitive Page 5 of 12 and specific numerical goal for the cost of power. Mr. Hanneman noted that with respect to energy security, his focus would be on availability, accessibility, affordability, and reliability. He believes that a broader context for energy could nurture the ability to reach a specific numeric goal. Mr. Hanneman discussed that integrating the utilities would be beneficial. Regarding the subcommittees, he does not agree that generation and transmission should be separate committees due to their inherent relation. Mr. Hanneman expressed support for the focus on the geographic regions. However, he believes that the generation, distribution, and storage should be integrated. Mr. Mitchell agreed with Mr. Hanneman’s comments that generation and transmission should be viewed holistically. He gave the example of British Columbia’s successful low-cost generation. Mr. Mitchell believes that Alaska can determine a way to provide low-cost generation and wheeling to an end-user that will also create jobs. He noted that Alaska has less than ¼ of 1% of the nation’s transmission. Additional infrastructure is necessary to improve the transmission constraints and bottlenecks, including the Bradley Lake issues. He commented that low cost generation and high cost transmission will not achieve the 10-cent per kWh goal. Commissioner Brune commented that Alaska has five utilities in an area that serves less than 600,000 people. Whereas, in the Lower 48, there are individual utilities that serve millions of people. Commissioner Brune discussed that getting the power from Anchorage to Fairbanks is cost prohibitive and needs to be resolved. He expressed the difficulty in discussing the possibility of combining the five utilities into one utility. Commissioner Brune gave the example that projects like Pogo have significant benefits to lowering the cost of power to the people in Fairbanks, as well providing environmental benefits by not using diesel for power. Mr. Izzo agreed that it is important to think outside of the box to reach a resolution. He suggested the possibility of establishing a generation and transmission (G&T) entity. He gave the example that the Railbelt might be viewed as urban Alaska. However, the power delivery system is less than first-world. Mr. Izzo discussed that the utilities are extremely limited and the system they have is the system they can afford because they are member-owned, rather than shareholder-owned. Communities today are shrinking, and fewer people are paying for the fixed costs. Mr. Izzo discussed that on the transmission side, the utilities are applying for $2.9 billion in grants for the necessary upgrades to the infrastructure highway. Those costs are fixed and are the same whether there is one combined utility or five utilities. Mr. Izzo commented that because of this, he can understand the proposed subcommittee separation of generation and transmission. The generation aspects must change in order to achieve energy security. It is imprudent for a utility to have one fuel supplier for 85% of its fuel coming across one line. Mr. Izzo noted that his excitement for the possibilities have expanded during today’s meeting. Page 6 of 12 Commissioner Brune requested clarification of his understanding that the utilities do not have one fixed rate, but rather can charge different rates, based upon their specific operation costs. He discussed that the economics of power projects vary significantly, and that one utility may have more success with projects because the economics are better. Mr. Izzo responded that it might be useful to delineate the rate structure during a subcommittee meeting. He explained that utilities can charge margins when power is moved between utilities. However, because the utilities are not for profit cooperatives, there is no return on equity. He noted that there is a cost to operate the segments of transmission. Studies would have to occur to determine the amount of efficiency that could be gained by combining the administration of the utilities. Mr. Vanderburg recommended reducing the number of subcommittees, given the busy schedules of the members and the amount of members on the Task Force. He advocated that connectivity among the subcommittees is maintained and that members are active on as many subcommittees as possible to achieve that connectivity. Mr. Vanderburg commented on the timing of the subcommittees. He suggested the possibility of beginning the focus with a few subcommittees on generation, transmission, and storage, and then as those subcommittees develop, form the subcommittee on regulations and policies. Mr. Vanderburg expressed support for combining transmission and generation as one subcommittee, as well as including renewables as generation, rather than its own subcommittee. Mr. Vanderburg asked the process question regarding how to facilitate the sharing of information among the subcommittees to maintain connectivity. Vice-Chair Thayer responded that a Sharepoint site will be created, and the Task Force members will have access to the documents. The documents will also be uploaded to the website. Mr. Guy echoed Mr. Vanderburg’s comments, considering the goal of 10 cents per kWh for the entire state. He believes that the proposed subcommittees will keep the status quo and will not be effective in reaching the goal. Rural Alaska, for instance, cannot continue with the status quo. Rural connectivity would be an effective focus in reaching the goal. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom responded that she will take the message to the Governor and offer it as a suggestion. Ms. Miller agreed with Mr. Vanderburg’s comments. She expressed the importance of setting the context and providing information and data to everyone concurrently. In terms of timing, it could be helpful to receive the current energy baseline data on generation types by community, and the current technologies of storage and transmission. Then review could occur regarding incentives and subsidies. She suggested that a funding model is included in that focus, as well as organizational structures and policies. After the context information is reviewed, the specific problem can be identified and the output would be the different solution models for rural, coastal, and Railbelt. Page 7 of 12 Vice-Chair Thayer requested Vice-Chair Holdmann to respond and discuss the scheduled Symposium Series that will provide the Task Force with common understanding of six thematic areas. Vice-Chair Holdmann agreed, and commented first on the subcommittee discussion. Vice-Chair Holdmann believes the subcommittees need a purpose and she supports the idea of combining the subcommittees based on a regional focus. Vice-Chair Holdman likes the idea of including a financing focus within the subcommittees. She noted that the incentives and subsidies could be a staff task to review and report back to the subcommittee regarding federal and State incentives and subsidies. Vice-Chair Holdmann asked members to think of any questions that staff of AEA, Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP), or other departments could research and report the information back to a subcommittee. Vice-Chair Holdmann discussed that the Statutes and Regulations Reform Subcommittee could be formed later when a better understanding is gleamed for what the subcommittee needs to accomplish. 6. Discussion: Proposed Symposium Series Vice-Chair Holdmann explained that the proposed symposium series is intended to “level up” members to provide a common understanding of the existing energy landscape and the available opportunities that could be applied in Alaska. She requested feedback from members regarding the thematic areas that could be discussed within the forum. The six thematic areas outlined would be presented by subject matter experts; existing and future technologies, the changing global energy landscape, overview of Alaska organizations that work on energy, Alaska energy policy, economics of energy in Alaska, and the history of power in Alaska. Vice-Chair Holdmann expressed that the symposium could also be a way to educate the public. She requested feedback regarding the format and timing of the symposium through a virtual series. Vice-Chair Holdmann agreed with a previous comment that the members have very busy schedules. She discussed the possibility of an optional one or two-day visioning session that is facilitated to develop a strategic foundation and shared insight to help shape some of the scenarios. If there is interest, Vice-Chair Holdmann informed that the University could organize a visioning session in addition to the proposed symposium series. Vice-Chair Thayer commented that conducting the symposium series in a webinar format would be useful and would allow the information to be reviewed at any time. The symposium series would not only provide foundational information for Task Force members, but it would also be available online for the public to access and understand the foundational information. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom agreed. Page 8 of 12 Ms. Miller expressed support for the symposium series and its thematic areas. She requested that information is provided as to the cost per kWh of energy across the state and the cost per kWh for funding the different possible solutions for lowering the cost of power. Mr. Hanneman commented that the proposed symposium series and topics are appropriate. He is supportive of an online webinar format for the initial overview. He believes that the Task Force will need additional specific documentation which could be provided as attachments to the symposium series. Vice-Chair Holdmann responded that part of the purpose of the Sharepoint managed by AEA is to provide additional information that is either specifically requested or deemed useful. She indicated that her notes from today show a request for information on technologies in Alaska, in terms of the delivered costs. Vice-Chair Holdmann indicated the possibility that staff at the University and staff at the State level could research the request and provide that input and information. 7. Roundtable – What does the committee need to be successful? Vice-Chair Holdmann asked members if there is additional information that staff could assemble that would be useful for the subcommittees. Mr. Hanneman followed up and commented on the ongoing efforts by the utilities and their tangible ideas and successes. He expressed the importance that this information is utilized and included in the data files. Mr. Izzo commented that utilities are accustomed to capital intensive and long lead time scenarios. He noted that the goal of 2030 is both exciting and scary, in that it is just over six years away. Mr. Izzo believes the assignment is to develop a plan to reach the goal. He feels that initially, it would be best to keep the Task Force members together for meetings. Mr. Izzo would like to review a SWOT analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the possible solutions to reach the goal. He discussed that, for instance, options could be listed such as nuclear for the Railbelt, Susitna Watana, and a North Slope gas line. However, permitting any of those options would be a heavy lift within the six-year timeframe. Mr. Izzo suggested that a high level SWOT analysis could be completed with the full Task Force to narrow the scope and then disperse into subcommittees to resolve aspects of that focus. Mr. Simms agreed with Mr. Izzo’s comments. He expressed the benefits of understanding the issues as a group and learning from each other’s experience and knowledge before breaking out into subcommittees. Mr. Simms expressed full support for the Governor’s initiative of 10-cent power by 2030. He elaborated hope that the Task Force will go beyond the 2030 goal to develop a longer-term plan for Alaska, which includes the benefits of all the renewable resources available and that will plan for sustainable cheap energy for future Page 9 of 12 generations. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom agreed with Mr. Simms. She commented that each member of the Task Force was selected with the expectation they would consider the best interest for future generations beyond the 2030 stated goal. Mr. Vanderburg responded to Vice-Chair Holdmann’s request for members to advise what information would be helpful. He requested information regarding potential future export opportunities for Alaska’s energy. He requested benchmark information on Alaska’s performance compared to other states in terms of utility administration, and integration tariffs. This information could be used to set goals to reach the 10-cent power by 2030. Mr. Vanderburg requested the status of the Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) and how they are performing with their charge of generation transition. Vice-Chair Thayer discussed that information regarding the RRC will be included in the symposium series. He gave a brief background of the RRC. Vice-Chair Thayer commented that the Governor’s Administrative Order asked for a report on October 31, 2023. This is a target for the Task Force. Vice-Chair Thayer expressed that the Governor realizes that the work of the Task Force will continue beyond that date, even though the specific format is unknown. He reiterated that the Task Force work will continue after the report is provided and will move into the implementation phase with the Task Force and with other stakeholders in the state. Mr. Mitchell discussed that the Task Force is aiming for the goal of 10-cent power by 2030. He believes that creating an executable plan will put the state on a trajectory for success beyond 2030. Mr. Mitchell commented that the energy and effort expended within the next few months will pay continuous dividends. He echoed support that after the report is given in October, implementation and execution of the plans will continue for the benefit of all Alaskans. Mr. Guy requested additional information on the current systems throughout the state. He noted that there are 50 communities within his region and most of the villages operate their own utility. He believes this contributes to the high cost of energy for individual communities. Mr. Guy commented that there are close to 200 utility companies in the state. The system is untenable and needs to change. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom requested Mr. Espindola to provide members with a list of all the utilities in the state, including the PCE communities. Mr. Espindola agreed. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom responded to comments regarding the length of time these issues have been identified and discussed. She recalled conversations during her Legislature tenure in 2003 with representatives from Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Mr. Izzo, and Vice-Chair Thayer. She agreed it is time to formulate answers. A brief at-ease was taken. Page 10 of 12 Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom reiterated that the next meeting is scheduled for May 9th. She asked that members email their specific information requests before the next meeting to info@akenergysecuritytaskforce.com in order to begin posting the information on the website. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom advised that during the process in the next few months, there will be an opportunity for the public to comment to the Task Force during a recorded listening session. She noted that she will be available, as well as Vice-Chair Thayer and Vice-Chair Holdmann, and any other Task Force members who can attend. Representative Rauscher expressed appreciation for the meeting discussion today. He noted that he Chairs the House Energy Committee and the goal is to support the Governor’s vision for the future of Alaska. Representative Rauscher believes it is important to adhere to the Governor’s topics regarding the Railbelt modeling the rural modeling, and the coastal modeling, as well as generation, transmission, storage, and export. Representative Rauscher commented that it will be incumbent on the Legislature to fund many of the initiatives that will be created to advance the goals. For approval in the House, 21 Representatives are needed to support the legislation, and for approval in the Senate, 11 Senators are needed to support the legislation. Representative Rauscher discussed that microreactors will be part of the process and he is looking to the Task Force to provide input and feedback that he can take back to the committee that is reviewing the impending legislation. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom invited Representative Rauscher’s legislative committee and all State legislators to watch the recordings of the Task Force learning sessions. She is aware that funding requests will need to be made, and noted that the Task Force will investigate all available funding sources. Mr. Vanderburg appreciates the clarity of the Governor’s goal of 10 cents per kWh by 2030. He emphasized that the goal is profound, challenging, and transformative. Mr. Vanderburg discussed that the visioning session suggested by Vice-Chair Holdmann could offer the opportunity to understand the gravity of achieving the goal, which he believes is a wholesale transformation, rather than an incremental change. Mr. Vanderburg asked Vice-Chair Holdmann if her suggestion for a visioning session included understanding the significance of 10 cents per kWh. Vice-Chair Holdmann elaborated that each member comes to the Task Force with bias. She discussed that there is a natural tendency to want to make incremental improvements. However, the moonshot goal of 10-cent power cannot be achieved by conducting business as usual or incremental improvements in rural Alaska. Vice-Chair Holdmann noted that the goal requires substantive State investment and gave the example that the Apollo program for the moonshot was $250 billion. She highlighted that studying the cost of this endeavor is essential. Page 11 of 12 Vice-Chair Holdmann believes it is important for the Task Force to have shared insight within a thoughtful process that is open to all ideas. It is necessary that the potential scenarios are considered from a big-picture perspective that is inclusive, rather than based upon preconceived notions or biases. Vice-Chair Holdmann explained that the visioning session could be utilized to establish a strategic foundation to clarify the thinking and the process for decision-making, which could then be refined by the Task Force as a whole and the subcommittees. Vice-Chair Holdmann discussed that the visioning session could also provide a good opportunity for the members to become acquainted with each other. She noted that if the Task Force members would like to conduct a voluntary visioning session, she and Vice-Chair Thayer could generate a schedule and propose it to the Task Force. A member commented and requested that the fiscal context is provided regarding 10-cent energy, delineating how many cents is energy generation, transmission, and debt structure. A comment was made that the national average as of December 2022 was 16.7 cents per kWh, which is an increase of three cents per kWh since 2021. A comment was made that there are utilities in the northwest that provide power at close to 10 cents. A question was asked if the 10-cent goal includes the use of PCE or is without PCE subsidies. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom indicated that she does not have an answer to that question. Mr. Guy commented that even with PCE, rural households pay approximately five times more than households in Anchorage. Currently, if Anchorage is paying 12 cents, rural households are paying more than 50 cents with PCE. Non-households pay an additional dollar in cost. Mr. Guy expressed support for a plan that can achieve rural parity with urban costs. PCE alone is not achieving parity. Mr. Thayer explained that PCE is a great program that is 30 years old. The floor for PCE is established by the average market cost in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, which is about 20 cents per kWh, and it caps at 75 cents per kWh. PCE subsidizes the difference for residential, but not for commercial. Mr. Thayer informed that there are communities in rural Alaska that pay $1.75 per kWh. The State of Alaska subsidizes PCE at about $40 million per year. Whereas, the State, through AEA, built the Intertie infrastructure from Willow to Healy to supply Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) and saves the Fairbanks rate payers about $37 million per year. Mr. Thayer noted that discussions with the Legislature regarding PCE are necessary, but are difficult to begin because of the fear of jeopardizing the PCE program. Mr. Thayer conveyed that there are unintended consequences of PCE for high-cost energy communities with a debt structure, which is a disqualifier for PCE. Page 12 of 12 A comment was made that it may be best to incentivize the communities with high cost of power to lower their costs on their microgrids without losing PCE, and perhaps this savings could help them subsidize or initiate renewable energy, such as solar or wind. The member commented that discussions regarding PCE are complicated. He suggested that the Task Force could examine ways to optimize PCE to invigorate communities to reduce costs. PCE is important and he believes that communication and discussions can occur. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom invited Mr. Espindola to provide his comments on working groups. Mr. Espindola recommended that the Task Force consider the ongoing energy planning efforts of existing working groups, such as the Nuclear Energy Working Group and the Hydrogen Working Group. Mr. Espindola requested that members email the names of any other working groups that could be useful to the Task Force. The email is: info@akenergysecuritytaskforce.com. Staff will compile the information and present it to the Task Force for consideration. It is possible that the identified working groups could give a short presentation during the symposium series. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom thanked the members for accepting the invitation to serve on the Task Force and for serving Alaska. She reiterated that the Task Force will discuss all options that could benefit Alaska. Chair Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom expressed that she and the Vice-Chairs welcome suggestions from members. Other information that is needed can be requested from info@akenergysecuritytaskforce.com. The next meeting is May 9, 2023. There being no further business of the Task Force, the Alaska Energy Security Task Force meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm. NANCY DAHLSTROM LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR www.ltgov.alaska.gov STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ANCHORAGE 550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 1700 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907.269.7460 907.269.0263 Fax lt.governor@alaska.gov Alaska Energy Security Task Force Tuesday, May 9, 2023 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm Teams Meeting: Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: 258 089 849 275 Passcode: ToTwZw Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions (Lt Gov) 2. Roll Call 3. Prior Meeting Minutes – April 25, 2023 4. Presentations: a. Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) b. Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) c. Railbelt Utilities current rates d. Power Cost Equalization (PCE) e. Members i. Discussion – Subcommittees, Chair, Vice Chair ii. Regionally focused (Roadbelt, coastal, remote rural) iii. Alaska energy data gateway 5. Discussion: Proposed Symposium Series 6. Roundtable – Discussion/Feedback from Task Force Members (roundtable) 7. Next Meeting Date: AEA OVERVIEW PRESENTATION Curtis W. Thayer Executive Director Alaska Energy Security Task Force May 9, 2023 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Who We Are Created in 1976 by the Alaska State Legislature, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the state's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Our Mission Reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 02 Railbelt Energy –AEA owns the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, the Alaska Intertie, and the Sterling to Quartz Creek Transmission Line —all of which benefit Railbelt consumers by reducing the cost of power. Power Cost Equalization (PCE) –PCE reduces the cost of electricity in rural Alaska for residential customers and community facilities, which helps ensure the sustainability of centralized power. Rural Energy –AEA constructs bulk fuel tank farms, diesel powerhouses, and electrical distribution grids in rural villages. AEA supports the operation of these facilities through circuit rider and emergency response programs. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency –AEA provides funding, technical assistance, and analysis on alternative energy technologies to benefit Alaskans. These include biomass, hydro, solar, wind, and others. Grants and Loans –AEA provides loans to local utilities, local governments, and independent power producers for the construction or upgrade of power generation and other energy facilities. Energy Planning –In collaboration with local and regional partners, AEA provides economic and engineering analysis to plan the development of cost-effective energy infrastructure. About AEA AEA’s mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. To achieve this mission, AEA strives to diversify Alaska's energy portfolio — increasing resiliency, reliability, and redundancy. AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 03 AEA Active Projects and Services AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 04 URBAN ENERGY AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 05 Bradley Lake is Alaska’s largest source of renewable energy. Energized in 1991, the project is situated 27‐air miles northeast of Homer on the Kenai Peninsula. The 120 MW facility provides low-cost energy to 550,000+ members on the Railbelt. Bradley Lake’s annual energy production is ~10% of Railbelt electricity at 4.5 cents/kWh (or ~54,400 homes/year) and over $20 million in savings per year to Railbelt utilities from Bradley Lake versus natural gas. AEA, in partnership with the Railbelt utilities, is studying the Dixon Diversion Project which would increase the annual energy production of Bradley Lake by 50% —or the equivalent of 14,000-28,000 homes. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project 06 BPMC BPMC The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project is owned by AEA and managed by the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee (BPMC), which is comprised of a member from each of the five participating Railbelt utilities: Chugach Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, and Seward Electric System. (56.3%)(1.0%) (16.9%)(13.8%) (12.0%) 07 Transmission Upgrades and Battery Storage AEA and the Railbelt utilities closed on $166 million in bond financing to improve the efficiency and deliverable capacity of power from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. The bonding comes at no additional cost to ratepayers or burden on the State treasury. Upgrade transmission line between Bradley Lake and Soldotna Substation Upgrade transmission line between Soldotna Substation and Sterling Substation Upgrade transmission line between Sterling Substation and Quartz Creek Substation Battery Energy Storage Systems for Grid Stabilization These projects will reduce constraints on the Railbelt by improving the Kenai Peninsula’s transmission capacity to export power from Bradley Lake —and allow for the integration of additional renewable energy generation. AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 08 Alaska Intertie AEA owns the 170-mile Alaska Intertie transmission line that runs between Willow and Healy. The line operates at 138 kV (it was designed to operate at 345 kV) and includes 850 structures. A vital section of the Railbelt transmission system, the Intertie is the only link for transferring power between northern and southern utilities. The Intertie transmits power north into the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)system and provides Interior customers with low-cost, reliable power —between 2008 and 2021, the Intertie saved GVEA customers an average of $37 million annually. The Intertie provides benefits to Southcentral customers as well through cost savings and resilience to unexpected events. Constructed in the mid‐1980s with $124 million in State of Alaska appropriations, there is no debt associated with the Alaska Intertie. AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 09 RURAL ENERGY AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 10 St. George Island, Pribilof Islands, AK Power Cost Equalization (PCE) AEA, along with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, administers the PCE program, which serves remote communities that are largely reliant on diesel fuel for power generation. 193 91 82,000 AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 11 Who is Eligible to Participate in PCE? PCE eligibility is determined by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in accordance with Alaska Statute 42.45.100-170. Eligible customers include: Residential and community facilities (water, sewer, public lighting, and clinics, etc.) Non-eligible customers include: State and federal facilities and commercial customers Any community with rates lower than the urban average (the PCE floor) AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 12 Rural Power System Upgrades BeforeAfter13 ~197 communities eligible for Rural Power System Upgrade Goal —improve power system efficiency, safety, and reliability Aging infrastructure and Operation and Maintenance Active projects —7 full and 16 Maintenance and Improvement/Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Deferred maintenance is $300 million ~400 rural bulk fuel facilities Goal —code compliant fuel storage facilities and prevention of spills and contamination Aging infrastructure, erosion, and catastrophic failure Active projects —8 full and 18 Maintenance and Improvement; no funding for two years Leveraging Coast Guard regulatory efforts to capture BFU assessments to prioritize projects Deferred maintenance is $800 million Bulk Fuel UpgradesBefore After14 FINANCING TOOLS AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 15 The PPF loan program qualifies applicants seeking low-interest loans for eligible power projects. PPF provides local utilities, local governments, or independent power producers an avenue to seek funding for the development, expansion, or upgrade of electric power facilities. Power Project Fund (PPF) Loan Program FLEXIBLE FINANCING Low-Cost Financing Tailored to Project and Borrower COMMUNITY BORROWING $27.2 Million in Outstanding Loans COMPETITIVE RATES Current PPF Interest Rate 5.03% as of May 1, 2023 AVAILABLE CAPITAL $6.4 Million Available for Lending AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 16 Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Established in 2008, the REF is a unique and robust competitive grant program, which provides critical financial assistance for statewide renewable energy projects, across a variety of project phases. Nearly $300 million invested in the REF by the State. Over 100 operational projects and 44 in development. The REF Advisory Committee unanimously approved 27 Round 15 projects for a total of $25.25 million. The REF funds projects across all development phases, serving as a catalyst for the continued pursuit of integrating proven and nascent technologies within Alaska’s energy portfolio. Capital Request: General Fund -$7.5 Million AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 17 Through recommendation by the Governor and approval by the Legislature, the State of Alaska appropriated nearly $20 million in support of 38 REF projects from Rounds 13 and 14. The appropriation of $15 million in the fiscal year 2023 for Round 14 was the largest appropriation since the fiscal year 2014. State funding has been supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars from local sources to develop viable renewable energy projects that will reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Active REF Rounds 13 and 14 AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 18 REF Round 15 Recommendations Community Project Amount Adak Hydropower -Feasibility and Conceptual Design 497,650 Railbelt / GVEA Serving Area LIDAR Improvement to Interior Wind Energy Assessments 250,000 Railbelt / HEA Serving Area Mount Spurr Geothermal Feasibility and Conceptual Design 45,500 Railbelt / HEA Serving Area Augustine Island Geothermal Feasibility and Conceptual Design 68,000 Naknek, South Naknek, King Salmon Electric Battery Energy Storage System Design 2,172,984 Native Village of Kluti-Kaah (Copper Center)Woodchip Heating Project 500,000 Kipnuk Battery Installation, Integration and Commissioning 434,000 Hoonah Water Supply Creek Hydro Construction 3,538,526 Beluga Beluga Area Renewable Resource Assessment 298,000 Chefornak Battery Installation, Integration, and Commissioning 437,000 Healy Healy Area Renewable Resource Assessment 298,000 Railbelt / HEA Serving Area Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project 214,400 Huslia Community-Scale Solar PV and Battery Project 2,082,000 Railbelt / MEA Serving Area Railbelt Wind Feasbility Study and Conceptual Design 1,833,333 Selawik Solar PV Array 1,134,500 Yakutat Community Health Center Heat Recovery Project 1,000,000 Kalskag Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design 267,300 Railbelt Utility-Scale Railbelt Wind –Alaska Renewables 2,000,000 New Stuyahok, Ekwok Solar Energy and Battery Storage Project 2,520,000 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Design 802,394 Atmautluak Battery and Thermal Stove Installation, Integration and Commissioning 577,000 Railbelt / CEA Serving Area Godwin Creek Hydroelectric Project 1,729,000 Railbelt Turnagain Arm Tidal Electricity Generation Project (TATEG)400,000 Tuntutuliak Community Services Association Solar Energy Project 1,197,768 Unalaska Wind Farm Design 420,000 Napaskiak Reconnaissance and Wind Assessment Project 337,500 Levelock Renewables Feasibility and Conceptual Design 197,000 Total:25,251,855 AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 19 INFRASTRUCTUREINVESTMENTAND JOBS ACT AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 20 These federal formula grant funds will provide $60 million to Alaska over five years, including $22.2 Million for the first two years allocation, to catalyze projects that increase grid resilience against disruptive events. Resilience measures include but are not limited to: -Relocating or reconductoring powerlines -Improvements to make the grid resistant to extreme weather -Increasing fire resistant components -Integrating distributed energy resources like microgrids and energy storage Formula-based funding requires a 15% state match and a 33% small utility match. Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability IIJA Formula Grant Program, 40101(d) Per IIJA section 40101(a)(1),8 a disruptive event is defined as “an event in which operations of the electric grid are disrupted, preventively shut off, or cannot operate safely due to extreme weather, wildfire, or a natural disaster.” 21 State of Alaska Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Implementation Plan AEA and the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), submitted their State of Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan (The Plan) to the United States Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, as required by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s (IIJA) NEVI Formula Program. On September 27, 2022, The Plan was approved. The announcement unlocks $19 million to expand EV charging infrastructure in Alaska. Over the next five years, AEA anticipates receiving $52 million. Funds will be received by DOT&PF and administered by AEA. On March 1, 2023, AEA issued a Request for Applications for to site hosts compete for a share of Alaska's NEVI program funding. Applications are due by 4 p.m. on May 15, 2023. AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 22 Funding must be used to build out Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs) first Alaska currently has one AFC (pending) After AFC buildout, funding can be used elsewhere Charging infrastructure must be DC fast-charging ⁻4 Combined Charging System Connectors ⁻>150 kW each Chargers must be located no more than 1 driving mile from AFC Charging stations must be located no more than 50 miles apart along designated AFC Match Requirements Federal share: 80% Private entity or other: 20% Justice40 Requirements NEVI Requirements AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 23 IIJA Energy Opportunities — Need Federal Receipt Authority IIJA: Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability Formula Grant Program, 40101(d) –$12 Million (requires $1.8 Million Federal Match) IIJA Competitive: Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund –$3.7 Million IIJA: State Energy Program –$2.9 Million IIJA Competitive: Alaska Rural EVSE Deployment –$2 Million IIJA: Energy Auditor Training –$315,000 (Over Five Years) Alaska High Efficiency Home Rebate Program –$37 Million Inflation Reduction Act Alaska Hope for Homes –$37 Million Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program: Black Rapids Training Site – $12.8 Million AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 24 To enhance the power system's resilience to extreme weather and climate change, the Grid Deployment Office is administering a $10.5 billion GRIP program under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. IIJA Competitive: Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) 1) Railbelt Backbone Reconstruction Project $100 Million* (Requested of DOE; submitted April 5, 2023) 2) Battery Energy Storage/HVDC Coordinated Control $16 Million* (Requested of DOE; submitted March 16, 2023) 3) Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project) $299 Million* (Due May 19, 2023) 3) Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation $250 Million* (Due May 19, 2023) *All four GRIP programs are in application phase. AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 25 813 W Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Main: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 akenergyauthority.org @alaskaenergyauthority @alaskaenergyauthority Alaska Energy Authority AEA provides energy solutions to meet the unique needs of Alaska’s rural and urban communities. 26 APPENDIX AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 27 Project/Program Budget Year Federal State UGF Total IIJA -Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability Formula FY24 12,110,523 1,816,579 13,927,102 IIJA -New Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund Capitalization FY24 3,773,780 -3,773,780 IIJA -State Energy Program FY23 Suppl.*2,865,930 -2,865,930 IIJA -EV Charging Equipment Competitive FY24*1,670,000 -1,670,000 IIJA -Energy Auditor Training FY24 63,600 -63,600 IRA -Home Energy and High Efficiency Rebate Allocations FY24 74,519,420 -74,519,420 Black Rapids Training Site -Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program FY23 Suppl.*12,752,540 -12,752,540 Rural Power Systems Upgrades FY24 25,000,000 7,500,000 32,500,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 FY24 -7,500,000 7,500,000 Bulk Fuel Upgrades FY24 7,500,000 5,500,000 13,000,000 Hydroelectric Development -Dixon &Godwin Creek Studies FY24 -5,000,000 5,000,000 Renewable Energy &Efficiency Programs FY24 -5,000,000 5,000,000 Delta Phase 3 Power FY24 3,000,000 3,000,000 Electrical Emergencies FY24 -200,000 200,000 TOTAL 140,255,793 35,516,579 175,772,372 FY2024 Capital Budget Overview •Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability Formula -$60 million over five years •National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program (funds from Department of Transportation RSA) -$52 million over five years AEA Overview Presentation | Alaska Energy Security Task Force| May 9, 2023 28 Alaska Center for Energy & Power University of Alaska Fairbanks Jeremy Kasper, ACEP Director Mission: Fostering development of practical, innovative and cost-effective energy solutions for Alaska and beyond Alaska Center for Energy & Power v Applied energy research program v Technology testing & optimization v Energy systems modeling & analysis v Knowledge network creation v Commercializing energy innovation acep.uaf.edu •Energy Transitions •Beneficial Electrification •Energy Policy and Economics •Geothermal •Advanced Nuclear •Energy Storage •Railbelt Decarbonization •Energy Innovation •Microgrids/ DERs •DoD Energy Needs •Hydrogen •CCUS Scenarios: ●High Electrification Focus: New Wind, Solar, & Tidal with High Electrification ●New Hydro Focus: New Hydro, Wind, & Solar with Moderate Electrification ●Diverse Mix Focus: New Wind, Solar, & Tidal with Moderate Electrification ●Nuclear Focus: New Nuclear, Wind, & Solar with Moderate Electrification ●Business as Usual: No new generation, no electrification, planned transmission upgrades DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7909704 High Electrification: what does this mean? ELECTRIFICATION of HEAT •Heating: PuMA (Pump Monitoring Apparatus) –New System for Quantifying Home Heating Oil Usage •Big Data:merging AHFC’s ARIS/AK WARM database to estimate statewide heating requirements •Household level surveys •Research on heat pumps + thermal electric storage stoves ELECTRIFICATION of TRANSPORTATION •Electric Vehicles https://uaf.edu/acep/projects/beneficial-and-equitable-electrification.php Load Forecasting ●Base load ●Electric vehicles ●Residential solar ●Heat pumps Residential Solar Heat Pumps EVs DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Advanced Nuclear Nuclear Working Group: https://www.uaf.edu/acep/working-groups/nuclear-energy-working-group.php Thank you Jeremy Kasper Alaska Center for Energy and Power University of Alaska Fairbanks jeremy.kasper@alaska.edu Alaska Energy Security Task Force Railbelt Utilities’ Rates Overview May 9, 2023 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Railbelt Utility Customer Breakdown 96,560 28,602 61,091 40,112 13,718 4,169 6,625 7,102 112,798 32,954 67,755 47,426 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 CEA HEA MEA GVEA Customer Count by Type Residential Commercial Industrial Street and Highway Lighting 85.6%86.8%90.2% 84.6% 12.2%12.7%9.8% 15.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CEA HEA MEA GVEA Customer Type Percent Breakdown Residential Commercial Industrial Street and Highway Lighting Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 02 Source: Regulatory Commission of Alaska –Annual Report Filings from Railbelt Utilities (2021) Alaska Energy Security Task Force Customer Breakdown –State Comparison *AK includes all Alaskan electric companies Source: Energy Information Administration –861M Monthly Electric Power Industry Report Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 03 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Customer Breakdown –State Comparison (<500k customers) *AK includes all Alaskan electric companies Source: Energy Information Administration –861M Monthly Electric Power Industry Report Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 04 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Cost per kWh details (COPA vs. NON-COPA) Source: Railbelt Utilities’ Online Published Rates (Effective April 1, 2023) Expense Type CEA (North)CEA (South)GVEA HEA MEA Fuel 0.04293$ 0.04293$ 0.06037$ 0.08877$ 0.06316$ Purchased Power 0.00982$ 0.00982$ 0.03901$ 0.01219$ 0.00964$ Special Contracts Credits (0.01644)$ Power Balacing -$ -$ 0.02168$ -$ (0.00384)$ Fire Island Wind 0.00108$ 0.00108$ -$ -$ COPA ($/kWh)0.05383$ 0.05383$ 0.12106$ 0.08452$ 0.06896$ Customer Charge (fixed,$ per month)13.62$ 8.00$ 22.50$ 20.00$ 13.00$ Energy Charge (per kWh)0.15724$ 0.13508$ 0.12973$ 0.16077$ 0.13215$ Rebates/Surcharges (per kWh)(0.03495)$ 0.01534$ -$ -$ 0.00071$ Regulatory Cost Charge (per kWh)0.00089$ 0.00089$ 0.00089$ 0.00089$ 0.00089$ NON-COPA ($/kWh)0.12318$ 0.15131$ 0.13062$ 0.16166$ 0.13375$ Effective Rate ($/kWh)0.177013 0.205143 0.25169$ 0.24618$ 0.20271$ Notes: Rates effective April 1, 2023 Source: Railbelt utility COPA filings with RCA; Railbelt utility online posted rates Railbelt Utilities Prevailing Residential Rates Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 05 Alaska Energy Security Task Force COPA -Cost per kWh details Source: Regulatory Commission of Alaska –COPA Filings from Railbelt Utilities (2023) Expense Type CEA (North)CEA (South)GVEA HEA MEA Fuel 0.04293$ 0.04293$ 0.06037$ 0.08877$ 0.06316$ Purchased Power 0.00982$ 0.00982$ 0.03901$ 0.01219$ 0.00964$ Special Contracts Credits (0.01644)$ Power Balacing -$ -$ 0.02168$ -$ (0.00384)$ Fire Island Wind 0.00108$ 0.00108$ -$ -$ COPA ($/kWh)0.05383$ 0.05383$ 0.12106$ 0.08452$ 0.06896$ Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 06 Alaska Energy Security Task Force COPA –Cost per kWh overview Source: Regulatory Commission of Alaska –COPA Filings from Railbelt Utilities (2023) Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 07 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Non-COPA Utility Costs Breakdown Source: Regulatory Commission of Alaska –Annual Report Filings from Railbelt Utilities (2021) Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 08 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Railbelt Utilities Cost of Power Overview, 2021 Operating Expenses CEA (consolidated)% of Total MEA % of Total HEA % of Total GVEA % of Total Fuel Expense 86,561,826$ 25%52,258,391$ 36%33,106,782$ 32%93,224,430$ 38% Power Production Expense 36,640,560$ 11%12,894,582$ 9%7,851,229$ 8%34,889,547$ 14% Purchased Power 23,129,060$ 7%2,557,074$ 2%4,692,580$ 5%33,683,244$ 14% Transmission Expense 9,313,578$ 3%677,725$ 0%1,726,619$ 2%4,764,497$ 2% Distribution Expense 26,798,579$ 8%16,339,777$ 11%8,919,050$ 9%16,187,110$ 7% Consumer Accounts Expense 10,554,469$ 3%5,783,842$ 4%3,940,496$ 4%6,210,089$ 3% Administrative & General 51,871,897$ 15%12,793,772$ 9%13,596,026$ 13%8,619,380$ 4% Total O&M 244,869,969$ 71%103,305,163$ 70%73,832,782$ 71%197,578,297$ 81% Other Expenses CEA (consolidated)% of Total MEA % of Total HEA % of Total GVEA % of Total Depr. & Amortization Expense 60,465,653$ 17.5%23,489,826$ 16%18,456,173$ 18%29,500,205$ 12% Tax Expense - Other -$ 0.0%383,448$ 0%-$ 0%598,197$ 0% Interest on long-term Debt 42,625,653$ 12.3%19,103,856$ 13%11,528,559$ 11%15,978,776$ 7% Interest Charged to Construction - Credit (2,641,159)$ -0.8%-$ 0%(198,581)$ 0%-$ 0% Interest Expense - Other -$ 0.0%9,011$ 0%26,551$ 0%-$ 0% Other Deductions -$ 0.0%342,567$ 0%-$ 0%-$ 0% Total Other Expenses 100,450,147$ 29%43,328,708$ 30%29,812,702$ 29%46,077,178$ 19% Total Cost of Power 345,320,116$ 146,633,871$ 103,645,484$ 243,655,475$ Cost of Power —CEA, HEA, MEA, & GVEA Source: Regulatory Commission of Alaska –Annual Report Filings from Railbelt Utilities (2021) Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 09 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Railbelt Utilities Long-Term Debt Service Schedule Year CEA HEA MEA GVEA Total 2022 42,193,000$ 15,972,197$ 15,100,362$ 26,425,603$ 99,691,162$ 2023 48,921,000$ 14,572,142$ 14,370,687$ 23,641,127$ 101,504,956$ 2024 48,921,000$ 14,588,947$ 14,215,594$ 22,407,034$ 100,132,575$ 2025 48,693,000$ 14,909,436$ 14,576,621$ 19,666,367$ 97,845,424$ 2026 54,009,000$ 15,631,037$ 14,603,545$ 20,107,990$ 104,351,572$ 2027+995,850,000$ 221,100,194$ 354,770,676$ 319,870,115$ 1,891,590,985$ Total Long-Term Debt 1,238,587,000$ 296,773,953$ 427,637,485$ 432,118,236$ 2,395,116,674$ Interest Rate Ranges 2.38% to 4.78%2.03% to 5.80%2.61% to 7.25%2.45% to 6.50% Long-Term Debt Schedule Source: Publically Available Financial Statements from Railbelt Utilities (2021) Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 10 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Railbelt Energy Generation by Source Source: Regulatory Commission of Alaska –Annual Report Filings from Railbelt Utilities (2021) Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 11 Alaska Energy Security Task Force United States Comparison Source: Energy Information Administration –861M Monthly Electric Power Industry Report Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 12 Alaska Energy Security Task Force United States Comparison Source: Energy Information Administration –861M Monthly Electric Power Industry Report Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 13 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Communities Comparison Source: AEA PCE Annual Statistical Report (Fiscal Year 2022) Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 14 Alaska Energy Security Task Force PCE Retail Electric Cost Comparison Source: AEA PCE Annual Statistical Report (Fiscal Year 2022) Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 15 Alaska Energy Security Task Force PCE Utility Customer Breakdown Source: AEA PCE Annual Statistical Report (Fiscal Year 2022) Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 16 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Questions? Railbelt Utilities' Rate Overview | Alaska Energy Security Task Force | May 9, 2023 17 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITYFY2024 OPERATING BUDGETRDU AEA Facilities AEA Rural Energy Assistance AEA PCE AEA Statewide Project, AEE Total Authorized Expenditure Authorization:Personal Services - - - - - Travel 22.5 149.3 2.2 22.1 196.1 Contractual 745.8 6,496.5 586.7 2,179.8 10,008.8 Supplies 8.0 98.0 - - 106.0 Equipment 5.0 10.0 - - 15.0 10,325.9 Grants - 100.0 47,694.8 - 47,794.8 Total781.3 6,853.8 48,283.7 2,201.9 58,120.7 Funding Sources:Federal Receipts (Fed) 1002 1,208.6 - 1,208.6 Unrestricted UGF (UGF) 1004 1,215.3 - 1,215.3 GF Program Receipts (DGF) 1005 50.0 - 50.0 I/A Receipts (Other) 1007 124.3 - 124.3 CIP Receipts (Other) 1061 2,727.4 800.7 3,528.1 Power Project Fund (DGF) 1062 996.4 - 996.4 SDPR (Other) 1108 150.0 - 150.0 PCE Endowment (DGF) 1169 381.8 48,283.7 - 48,665.5 Renewable Energy Fund (DGF) 1210 - 1,401.2 1,401.2 AEA Receipts (Other) 1107 781.3 - 781.3 Total781.3 6,853.8 48,283.7 2,201.9 58,120.7 - - - - - Alaska Energy Authority - Budget Components ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITYCapital Budget - FY2024 & FY2023 SupplementalProject Name State Funding Request (GovAmd) State Funding Request (Adjourn) Federal Receipt Authority (GovAmd) Federal Receipt Authority (Adjourn) Changes Total Fund CodeElectrical Emergency Response $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 1004 - General Fund Bulk Fuel Upgrades (state dollars are matching funds) $ 5,500,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 19,000,000 1002 - Fed Receipts / 1003 G/F Match Rural Power Systems Upgrades (state dollars are matching funds) $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 25,000,000 $ 25,000,000 $ - $ 32,500,000 1002 - Fed Receipts /1003 G/F Match Hydroelectric Development $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 1004 - UGF Renewable Energy & Efficiency Programs (AEEE) $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 1004 - UGF IIJA - Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability $ 1,816,579 $ 1,816,579 $ 12,110,523 $ 12,110,523 $ - $ 13,927,102 1002 - Fed Receipts / 1003 G/F Match IIJA - Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment Deployment - Competitive $ - $ - $ 1,670,000 $ 1,670,000 $ - $ 1,670,000 1002 Fed Receipts IIJA - New Energy Auditor Training - Competitive $ - $ - $ 63,600 $ 63,600 $ - $ 63,600 1002 Fed Receipts Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund Capitalization $ - $ - $ 3,733,780 $ 3,733,780 $ - $ 3,733,780 1002 - Fed Receipts Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Home Energy Performance-Based Whole-House Rebate Allocations; High Efficiency Electric Homer Rebate Allocations $ - $ - $ 74,519,420 $ 74,519,420 $ - $ 74,519,420 1002 - Fed Receipts Renewable Energy Grant Fund - Round 15 $ 7,500,000 $ 17,052,000 $ - $ - $ 9,552,000 $ 17,052,000 1004 - UGF $9,552,000 & 1210 REF - $7,500.000 Port Electrification $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 1166 Vessel Com (Other) Total $ 37,516,579 $ 49,568,579 $ 124,597,323 $ 128,097,323 $ 15,552,000 $ 177,665,902 Originally not in Governor's Amended Plan.Request for fund capitalization to REF program for Round 15 of REF projects. An additional $9.6M from the Governor's Amended Plan.FY24 Capital Budget - AuthorizedIIJA - Section 40101 (d) - formula grant program to strengthen and modernize America's power grid against wildfire, extreme weather, and other natural disasters. Improve resilience of the electric grid against disruptive events. Funding over five years to total over IIJA - Competitive application submitted November 2022. Goals of the project are to increase access to vehicle electrification in multiple rural and underserved communities Training for energy audits of commercial and residential buildings. AEA will RSA with AHFC.Section 40502 (IIJA) This funding will be used to establish and capitalize a revolving loan fund, under which the state shall provide loans and grants for commercial and residential energy audits, upgrades, and retrofits to increase the energy efficiency, physical comfort, and air quality of existing building infrastructure. Up to 25% of the funds may be used to provide grants or technical assistance to eligible recipients for energy audits, upgrades, and retrofits and up to 10% of the funds may be used for administrative expenses. USDOE IRA funds for consumer home energy rebate programs. AEA will partner with AHFC through and RSA. $37.4 million for Homer Rebate (Alaska Hope for Homes) and $37.2 million for HEHERA. Brief SummaryCritical to rural communities - provides technical support when an electrical utility has lost, or will lose the ability to generate or transmit power. AS42.45.900 Bulk fuel tank farm upgrades. Replaces aging tanks that may be leaking. Adds capacity to meet community needs. Meets code compliance standards improving life, health, and safety of community. An increase of $6M from Governor's Amended Plan.Electric utility systems are part of the basic infrastructure of rural communities. New power systems are designed to meet accepted utility standards for safety, reliability, and environmental protections. Review and study of 2 major hydroelectric sites: 1) Dixon Diversion and 2) Godwin Creek.Program support and federal match for AEA's renewable energy & efficiency programs (biomass, efficiency, EV, energy storage, geothermal, heat recovery, hydroelectric, solar, Project Name State Funding Request (GovAmd) State Funding Request (Adjourn) Federal Receipt Authority (GovAmd) Federal Receipt Authority (Adjourn) Changes Total Fund CodeIIJA State Energy Program - Formula - 40109 IIJA $ - $ - $ 2,865,930 $ 2,865,930 $ - $ 2,865,930 1002 Fed Receipts Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program - Black Rapids Training Site in Delta Junction $ - $ - $ 12,752,540 $ 12,752,540 $ - $ 12,752,540 1002 Fed Receipts Total $ - $ - $ 15,618,470 $ 15,618,470 $ - $ 15,618,470 Grand Total $ 37,516,579 $ 49,568,579 $ 140,215,793 $ 143,715,793 $ 15,552,000 $ 193,284,372 FY2023 SupplementalBrief SummaryUSDOE SEP formula funds to develop and implement clean energy programs and projects. Lump sum of $3,661,930 for AEA less $796,000 federal receipt authorization received in FY23 = balance requested in FY24. Application submitted December 2022.Extension of an electric power line to the Black Rapids Training Site. AEA partnership with GVEA. No state match is required. GVEA has committed funds to complete the project. 12,500 $46,000 $41,024 $143,716 5,000 $15,451 $9,950 $37,069 $400 $10,000 $15,000 $7,500 $5,000 $3,633 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,0002021 2022 2023 2024THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ROUNDEDALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FUNDING SOURCE 4 YEAR COMPARISON (CAPITAL) FY2024 AUTHORIZED BUDGET (IN THOUSANDS ROUNDED)Federal ReceiptsGeneral Fund (UGF)SDPR (Other)PCERenew Energy (DGF)Vessel Com (Other)Railbelt Energy Fund $781 $781 $781 $1,202 $1,209 $1,209 $847 $852 $1,215 $124 $124 $124 $2,568 $2,570 $3,528 $996 $996 $996 $150 $150 $150 $50 $50 $50 $737 $737 $971 $1,400 $1,401 $1,401 $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,0002022 2023 2024Thousands of Dollars RoundedALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FUNDING SOURCE 3 YEAR COMPARISON (OPERATING) FY2024 AUTHORIZED BUDGET (IN THOUSANDS ROUNDEDAEA ReceiptsFederal ReceiptsGeneral Fund (UGF)I/A Receipts (Other)CIP ReceiptsPPF (DGF)SDPR (Other)GF Program Receipts (DGF)PCERenew Energy (DGF)CBR (UGF) AEA Infrastructure Awards: Submitted, Pending, Potential Section Number TitleFOA Number / Program GuidanceApplicable Stakeholders General Scope/Objectives Funding TypeStatus / Critical Program DatesApproximate Total Federal Funding Available for All AwardsAlaska Specific FundingMatch SharePoint of Contact Notes / Federal Receipt AuthorityIIJA Sec. 11401National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program (NEVI)Guidance* States*Provide funding to States to strategically deploy electric vehicle charging infrastructure and to establish an interconnected network to facilitate data collection, access, and reliability.Formula GrantAEA application has been submitted and Alaska's Plan was approved by FHWA September 27, 2022$5 billion for 5 year period FY 2022‐2026 $52 million20%Audrey Alstrom(aalstrom@akenergyauthority.org)*Approved for $7,758,240 FY 2023*Future years funded through DOT*AEA may need to provide match for administrative dollars used by AEA ‐ maximum match from AEA $1,040,000, match will depend on amount of AEA administrative costs*Working on RSA by project need to follow up with DOT, and amendment to include next phase in MOA. IIJA Sec. 40109State Energy ProgramSEP‐IIJA ALRD*State Energy Offices*Support energy efficiency strategies.*Develop and implement energy security, resilience, and emergency preparedness plans.*Reduce energy costs and carbon emissions.*Deploy building and facility retrofit projects.*Increase investments to expand the use of clean energy resources and infrastructure, including the transmission and distribution system. *Educate and train the clean energy workforce to perform comprehensive energy audits and upgrades in state‐specific sectors.*Support state and local governments in helping underserved sectors and communities benefit from clean energy opportunities. Formula GrantAEA Application was submitted November 2022Award received April 2023$500,000,000 for 5 year period FY 2022‐2026 $3,661,930 NoneAudrey Alstrom(aalstrom@akenergyauthority.org)*Approved for $796k in 2023 Budget*Applied for $2,865,930 for FY 2024*AEA has receipt authority for SEP program and works in collaboration with AHFC on program.*Abstracts for activities needed before setting up budgetIIJA Sec. 40101(d)BIL ‐ Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid, Formula Grants to States and Indian TribesDE‐FOA‐0002736States and Indian Tribes with Sub Awards as Follows: *Electric grid operator*Electricity storage operator *Electricity generator*Transmission owner or operator *Distribution provider *Fuel supplier *Any other relevant entity as determined by the Secretary of the DOE*Weatherization technologies and equipment*Fire‐resistant technologies and fire prevention systems*Monitoring and control technologies*Undergrounding of electrical equipment*Utility pole management*Relocation of power lines or the reconductoring of power lines with low sag, advanced conductors*Vegetation and fuel load management*Use of construction of distributed energy resources for enhancing system adaptive capacity during disruptive events including microgrids and battery‐storage subcomponents*Adaptive protection technologies*Advanced modeling technologies*Hardening of power lines, facilities, substations, or other systems*Replacement of old, overhead conductors and underground cablesFormula GrantAEA submitted application for FY22‐FY23 on 4/18/2023 $2,300,000,000 or $459,000,000 / yearApprox. $22.2 M (Fed) total for first two years with $3.6 M State MatchAdditional funding to be applied for FY24‐FY2615%Conner Erickson(cerickson@akenergyauthority.org)Bryan Carey (bcarey@akenergyauthority.org)*Program administered by AEA per Governor's Direction*Approved $12.1M (fed) and $3.6M match in 2023 Budget.*Applied for $12,110,523 (fed) and $1,816,579 match for FY 2024*Future Requests will be Federal Receipts $36,331,569 and match $3,633,155FY 2022 VTO Program Wide FundingFiscal Year 2022 Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Program Wide Funding Opportunity AnnouncementDE‐FOA‐0002611*States, local governments, tribes*For Profit entities*Non‐profit entities*institutions of higher education*advance research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) in several areas critical to achieving net‐zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, including: reduction of weight and cost of batteries, reduction in life cycle emissions of advanced lightweight materials, reduced costs and advanced technologies for both on‐ and off‐road vehicle charging and infrastructure, innovative public transit solutions, and training to increase deployment of these technologies among diverse communities.Competitive Grant / Cooperative AgreementAEA submitted application November 2022Award announced May 19, 2023 $                         957,000,000 $1,670,000 $417,500 Audrey Alstrom(aalstrom@akenergyauthority.org)*Applied for $1,670,000 for FY 2024* Approved $1,500,000 in FY 2023 (1004 UGF) for competitive matches related to Evs*AEA was awarded requested grant, announced 5/19/2023*AEA plans on 1 l charging station per energy region at a minimum.Page 1 AEA Infrastructure Awards: Submitted, Pending, Potential Section Number TitleFOA Number / Program GuidanceApplicable Stakeholders General Scope/Objectives Funding TypeStatus / Critical Program DatesApproximate Total Federal Funding Available for All AwardsAlaska Specific FundingMatch SharePoint of Contact Notes / Federal Receipt AuthorityIIJA Sec. 40502Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Capitalization Grant ProgramALRD*State Energy Offices *Provide capitalization for an energy efficiency  revolving loan fundFormula GrantApplication Submitted by AEA May 18, 2023$250,000,000 $4,569,780 NoneConner Erickson(cerickson@akenergyauthority.org)*Approved for $796k in 2023 Budget.*Applied for $3,773,780 for FY 2024*One time grant amount, lump sum receipt*AEA has receipt authority for program and AHFC will manage program*MOU and RSA needs to be established between AEA and AHFC, include better defined role than previous MOUs. IIJA Sec. GRIP 3: 40103(b)BIL ‐ Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships: Grid Innovation Program*Railbelt Concept Paper DE‐FOA‐0002740* A state*Combination of two or more states*Indian tribe*Unit of local government*Public utility commission*Demonstrate innovative approaches to transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure to harden and enhance resilience and reliability*Demonstrate new approaches to enhance regional grid resilience, implemented through States by public and rural electric cooperative entities on a cost‐shared basisCompetitive GrantApplication Submitted by AEA May 18, 2023$5,000,000,000$1,920,000,000 for FY 2022 ‐ 2023$0 100% (or 50% of total project cost)Bryan Carey (bcarey@akenergyauthority.org)*Funding request will depend on award being issued for competitive grant. AEA had 2 Concept Papers accepted and will submit applications for both. *Potential Request for Railbelt Concept Paper  is $413M Federal request and $413M match over 8 years*Second funding cycle anticipated Q1 2024IIJA Sec. GRIP 3: 40103(b)BIL ‐ Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships: Grid Innovation Program*Microgrid Concept Paper DE‐FOA‐0002740* A state*Combination of two or more states*Indian tribe*Unit of local government*Public utility commission*Demonstrate innovative approaches to transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure to harden and enhance resilience and reliability*Demonstrate new approaches to enhance regional grid resilience, implemented through States by public and rural electric cooperative entities on a cost‐shared basisCompetitive GrantApplication Submitted by AEA May 18, 2023$5,000,000,000$1,920,000,000 for FY 2022 ‐ 2023$0 100% (or 50% of total project cost)Rebecca Garrett (Rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org)*Funding request will depend on award being issued for competitive grant. AEA had 2 Concept Papers accepted and will submit applications for both. *Potential Request for Microgrid Concept Paper  is $250M Federal Request and $250M match over 8 years*Second funding cycle anticipated Q1 2024BIL Sec 41008 Topic 1: Near Net Zero Facility Build ProjectsU.S. Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations ‐ Industrial Decarbonization and Emissions Reduction Demonstration‐to‐DeploymentDE‐FOA‐0002936Topic 1: *For profit organizationsThis FOA makes available approximately $6 billion in federal funds for projects that will validate low‐GHG emitting industrial facilities capable of manufacturing products and materials with low‐carbon footprints. DOE aims to fund projects in the highest emitting, hardest‐to‐abate industries where rapidly deployed decarbonization technologies can have the greatest impact: iron, steel, steel mill products, aluminum, cement, concrete, glass, pulp, paper, industrial ceramics, chemicals, and other energy intensive industrial processes.  Topic 1 is anticipated to award 2‐5 projects with federal funding from $100M to $250M per award.  AEA signed on as a partner on the Trident concept paper, which includes the development of Trident's new Unalaska processing site, in conjunction with the Makushin Geothermal project.Competitive Grant / Cooperative AgreementTrident Seafoods submitted a concept paper to DOE‐OCED4/20/2023Full application submission deadline8/4/2023 $500,000,000 Total$100,000,000 ‐ $250,000,000per award $0 50% of total project costsStefanie Moreland(smoreland@tridentseafoods.com) / AEA is listed a supporting partner on the concept paperAEA Federal receipt authority not needed as Trident Seafoods, if awarded, would be the prime recipient of the federal grant.  Total project cost estimated in excess of $500MMay need budget authority for funds coming from Trident to AEA, this would require MOU.IIJA Sec. 40552(b)Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant ProgramDE‐FOA‐0002883*States*Local Governments*Tribes*Assist states, local governments, and Tribes in implementing strategies to reduce energy use, to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and to improve energy efficiency.Formula GrantAEA submitted pre‐award sheet 4/14/23Pre‐Award Sheet Due 4/28/23Application Due 7/31/23$550,000,000 $1,627,450 NoneAudrey Alstrom(aalstrom@akenergyauthority.org)*Approved for $2M in 2023 Budget.*One time grant amount from IIJA funding of $1,627,450Page 2 AEA Infrastructure Awards: Submitted, Pending, Potential Section Number TitleFOA Number / Program GuidanceApplicable Stakeholders General Scope/Objectives Funding TypeStatus / Critical Program DatesApproximate Total Federal Funding Available for All AwardsAlaska Specific FundingMatch SharePoint of Contact Notes / Federal Receipt AuthorityIRA Part 2 50121 Home Efficiency Rebates ProgramProgram Info*State Energy OfficesGrants to states to provide home energy efficiency rebates. Formula GrantApplication Open for Early Administrative Funds $2.5MFull application period expected Summer 2023$4,300,000,000Alaska allocation $37,368,480$37,368,480 0%Audrey Alstrom / AHFCAHFC will manage program*Applied for $37,368,480 for FY 2024*AEA has receipt authority for program and AHFC will manage program*MOU and RSA needs to be established between AEA and AHFCIRA Part 2 50122 Home Electrification and Appliance  Rebate ProgramProgram Info*States*TribesRebates for heat pumps, panel/service upgrades, electric stoves and clothes dryers, and insulation/air sealing measures.Formula GrantApplication Open for Early Administrative Funds $2.5MFull application period expected Summer 2023$4,500,000,000Alaska allocation $37,150,940$37,150,940 0%Audrey Alstrom / AHFCAHFC will manage program*Applied for $37,150,940 for FY 2024*AEA has receipt authority for program and AHFC will manage program*MOU and RSA needs to be established between AEA and AHFC IIJA Sec. 11101; 11403Carbon Reduction Program*Port ElectrificationCRP Guidance*StatesStates may use Carbon Reduction Program funds for projects that support the reduction of transportation emissions, including: the construction, planning, and design of trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation; public transportation projects; and congestion management technologiesFormula GrantNo application: formula funding allocated to DOT on annual basis Carbon Reduction Strategy Due 11/15/23$5,000,000,000$1,920,000,000 for FY 2022 ‐ 2023$81,878,583 20% Tim Sandstrom*DOT responsible for requesting receipt authority for FHWA funds.* DOT / DCCED to provide matching funds, potential use of Head Tax. * AEA evaluating potential for port electrification project and would manage program. IIJA Sec. Title VIIIRide and Drive Electric Fiscal Year 2023DE‐FOA‐0002881* Institutes of higher education* Indian Tribes* States* Local Governments* For‐profit entities* Non‐profit entities*ConsortiaThe Joint Office will provide funding for: 1. Electric vehicle (EV) charging resiliency planning for continuity of operations and services for all EV users; 2. Equitable business model development and deployment for EV charging; 3. Workforce development to support EV charging; 4. Increased industrial capacity, competition, and redundancy for validation testing and certification in the United States of Alternating Current (AC) Level 2 and/or Direct Current (DC) fast chargers; 5. Assessing Competitive Grant / Cooperative Agreement Concept Paper Due 6/16/23Application Due: 7/28/23Total of $51 million for 24 to 40 awards$0 up to 50% Josi Hartley* Whitepaper sent to AEA staff to review and determine if AEA has an eligible project.*AEA will distribute white paper publicly.*Josi to follow up with Michael BakerIIJA Sec. 40333 (EPAct 2005 Sec. 247)Section 247: Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectricity IncentivesGDO GuidanceQualified hydroelectric facility must be:*Licensed by the FERC, or is a hydroelectric project constructed, operated, or maintained pursuant to a permit or valid existing right‐of‐way granted prior to June 10, 1920, or a license granted pursuant to the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.); *Placed into service before November 15, 2021; and,*In compliance with all applicable Federal, Tribal, and State requirements, or would be brought into compliance with these requirements as a result of the capital improvements carried out using a payment under this section.DOE will provide incentive payments for qualifying capital improvement projects that directly relate to these categories:Category 1: Improving grid resiliency.Category 2: Improving dam safety to ensure acceptable performance under all loading conditions (including static, hydrologic, and seismic conditions).Category 3: Environmental improvements.Incentive PaymentsLetter of Intent Due 6/22/23Application Due: 10/6/23$553,600,000$5M maximum amount per facility per yearDOE intends to allocate up to 25% of the funding for Small projects, defined as hydropower projects that have a nameplate capacity of less than 10 MW.$0 Payments shall not exceed 30% of capital improvementBryan Carey (bcarey@akenergyauthority.org)*Karen to talk to Bryan when he returns about AEA's eligibilty based on scoring metrics.IIJA Sec. 40103(c)(3)Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas (Fixed Award Grants)DE‐FOA‐0003045* Institutes of higher education*Utilities*Tribal nations*State*Local Governments*For‐profit entities*Non‐profit entitiesClean energy projects funded under this FOA must serve communities with populations less than 10,000 and satisfy at least one of the objectives listed in BIL Section 40103(c)(3). These "resilient clean energy objectives” are: A. Improving overall cost‐effectiveness of energy generation, transmission, or distribution;B. Siting or upgrading transmission and distribution lines;C. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy generation in rural or remote areas;D. Providing or modernizing electric generation facilities; E. Developing microgrids; and, Competitive GrantConcept Papers Due 7/13/2023Application Due 10/12/23$50,000,000 $0 0Rebecca Garrett (Rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org)*AEA staff to reach out to communities with known projects that may be eligible*AEA will send funding notice to REF email lists from past rounds and distribute white paper publicly.*Funding request depends on award being issued for competitive grant, FOA yet to be published.*Rebecca looking to submit concept paper Chefornak and Kipnuk.Page 3 AEA Infrastructure Awards: Submitted, Pending, Potential Section Number TitleFOA Number / Program GuidanceApplicable Stakeholders General Scope/Objectives Funding TypeStatus / Critical Program DatesApproximate Total Federal Funding Available for All AwardsAlaska Specific FundingMatch SharePoint of Contact Notes / Federal Receipt AuthorityIIJA Sec. 40103(c)Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote AreasDE‐FOA‐0002970* Institutes of higher education*Utilities*Tribal nations*State*Local Governments*For‐profit entities*Non‐profit entities*Demonstrate innovative and replicable approaches to improve the resilience, safety, reliability, and availability of, and reduce the adverse impacts from energy generation by rural or remote areas.*Outcomes that can be scaled and/or have accelerated market adoption.*Transition to a decarbonized energy system.Competitive GrantFirst Funding Round $300M: Concept Papers Due 4/14/2023Application Due 6/28/23$1,000,000,000 over 5 years $0 20‐50%Rebecca Garrett (Rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org)*AEA did not submit a concept paper in the first funding round .  *Potential for future requests based on next 3 years of funding opportunities.IRA Sec. 60101Clean Heavy‐Duty VehiclesProgram Info(1) a state; (2) a municipality; (3) an Indian Tribe; (4) a nonprofit school transportation associationProgram covers up to 100 percent of costs for (1) incremental cost of replacing an existing heavy‐duty vehicle with a zero‐emission vehicle; (2) purchasing and operating associated infrastructure; (3) workforce development and training; (4) planning and technical activitiesCompetitive Grant, RebatesResponses to RFI Due June 5, 2023$1,000,000,000 TBD TBDTBDWaiting for guidanceFunding request depends on award being issued for competitive grant, FOA yet to be published.IRA Sec. 60102Clean Ports ProgramPort Program Info(1) a port authority; (2) a state, regional, local or tribal agency ; (3) an air pollution control agency; (4) a private entityTo purchase and install zero‐emission port equipment and technology, conduct associated planning or permitting activities for this equipment and technology, and develop climate action plans to further address air pollution at ports.Competitive Grant, RebatesResponses to RFI Due June 5, 2023$3,000,000,000 TBD TBDTBDWaiting for guidanceFunding request depends on award being issued for competitive grant, FOA yet to be published.IIJA Sec. 40503Energy Auditor Training Grant ProgramDE‐FOA‐0002885*States*Covers any cost associated with individuals being trained or certified to conduct energy audits by— (i) the State; or (ii) a State‐certified third‐party training program.*Pay the wages of a trainee during the period in which the trainee receives training and certification.Competitive Grant; no formula allocationApplication period was not open as of 4/18/23$40,000,000 $0 TBD Audrey Alstrom*Approved for $63,600 in 2023 Budget.*Applied for $63,600 for FY 2024* Future funding requests dependent on guidance. *AHFC  will likely be lead. Waiting for guidance to be issued. RSA will be needed with AHFC.IRA Sec. 60103Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundEPA Information*For Sec. 134(a)(1) eligible applicants are States, municipalities, tribal governments and eligible recipients defined in 134(c)(1). *For Sec. 134(a)(2)&(3) eligible applicants are eligible recipients defined in 134(c)(1).*134(c)(1) provides that an eligible recipient is a nonprofit organization that (A) is designed to provide capital, leverage private capital, and provide other forms of financial assistance for the rapid deployment of low‐ and zero‐emission products, technologies, and services; (B) does not take deposits other than deposits from repayments and other revenue received from financial assistance using the grant funds; (C) is funded by public or charitable contributions; and (D) invests in or finances projects alone or in conjunction with other investors.*Sec. 134(a)(1) for competitive grants to enable low‐income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit from zero‐emission technologies, including distributed technologies on residential rooftops;*Sec. 134(a)(2) for competitive grants to eligible entities to provide financial and technical assistance to projects that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions; and*Sec. 134(a)(3) for competitive grants to eligible entities to provide financial and technical assistance to projects that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions in low‐income and disadvantaged communities.Competitive GrantApplication estimated to open June 2023Sec. 134(a)(1) $7 billion, Sec. 134(a)(2) $12 billion, Sec. 134(a)(3) $8 billionTBD TBDTBD*HB 154 Alaska Energy Independence Fund proposed to set up a fund for future awards.  *AHFC and AEA collaborating on program. *Funding request depends on award being issued for competitive grant, FOA yet to be published.Page 4 AEA Infrastructure Awards: Submitted, Pending, Potential Section Number TitleFOA Number / Program GuidanceApplicable Stakeholders General Scope/Objectives Funding TypeStatus / Critical Program DatesApproximate Total Federal Funding Available for All AwardsAlaska Specific FundingMatch SharePoint of Contact Notes / Federal Receipt AuthorityMicrogridsUnderserved and Indigenous Community MicrogridsDE‐FOA‐0002933*TBDThe objective of this planned FOA would be to conduct coordinated research, development, and implementation of replicable microgrid solutions for underserved and Indigenous communities in remote and islanded regions throughout the United States.Competitive Grant / Cooperative Agreement Application period was not open as of 4/18/23TBD $0 TBDTBDWaiting for guidanceFunding request depends on award being issued for competitive grant, FOA yet to be published.IRA Part 2 50123 State Based Energy Efficiency Contractor TrainingWebsite*StatesProvide training and education to contractors involved in the installation of home energy efficiency and electrification improvementsCompetitive GrantTBD $200,000,000 TBD TBD Audrey AlstromAHFC  will likely be lead. Waiting for guidance to be issued. RSA will be needed with AHFC.IIJA Sec. 41006(a)(2)U.S. Tidal Energy Advancement DE‐FOA‐0002845* Institutes of higher education* Indian Tribes* States* Local Governments* For‐profit entities* Non‐profit entitiesProvide the first large scale investment for the development of a tidal Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) site. Fund a tidal or river current site development, preferably led by a project/site developer in the U.S., and fund in‐water demonstration of at least one tidal energy system. Topic 1 is the development of a 1‐5MW site and Topic 2 is community development of up to 500kW site isolated for grid.Competitive Grant / Cooperative AgreementTopic 1: Concept Paper Due 6/5/23Application Due: 7/25/23Topic 2: Concept Paper Due 7/13/23Application Due: 10/19/23$35 million for Topic 1$10 million for Topic 2Both topics include 2 awards for Phase 1, and then 1 project is selected to complete other phases.$0 up to 20%Audrey Alstrom(aalstrom@akenergyauthority.org) *Funding request depends on award being issued for competitive grant.*Concept Paper ORPC, AEA listed as partner.FY 2023 VTO Program Wide FundingFiscal Year 2023 Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Program Wide Funding Opportunity AnnouncementDE‐FOA‐0002893* Institutes of higher education* Indian Tribes* States* Local Governments* For‐profit entities* Non‐profit entities*advance research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) in several areas critical to achieving net‐zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, including: reduction of weight and cost of batteries, reduction in life cycle emissions of advanced lightweight materials, reduced costs and advanced technologies for both on‐ and off‐road vehicle charging and infrastructure, innovative public transit solutions, and training to increase deployment of these technologies among diverse communities.Competitive Grant / Cooperative Agreement Concept Paper Due 6/26/23Application Due: 8/11/23Total of $99.5 million for 37 to 63 awards$0 up to 50% Josi Hartley*This FOA is focused on R&D activities that may not be the best fit for AEA.*AEA will distribute white paper publicly.*AEA will not pursue this FOAIIJA 11101 and 11401Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grants (community charging & corridor charging)Coastal CommunitiesNOFO 693JJ323NF00004*States or political subdivisions*Metropolitan Planning Organization*Local Government*Special purpose district*Public authority with transportation function*Tribe*Territory*Program funds will be made available each fiscal year for Community Grants, to install electric vehicle charging and alternative fuel in locations on public roads, schools, parks, and in publicly accessible parking facilities. These grants will be prioritized for rural areas, low‐and moderate‐income neighborhoods, and communities with low ratios of private parking, or high ratios of multiunit dwellings.Competitive GrantDOT to be lead on applicationFY 22‐23 Application Due June 13thAEA, DOT, Launch Alaska, and AML working on project development for community charging$2,500,000,000 $0 20%*DOT lead*AEA Contact Josi Hartley*DOT responsible for requesting receipt authority and match.*15M DOT lead, AEA possibly co‐applicantDOT provides match for coastal communities. AEA to provide letter of support.IIJA 11101 and 11401Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grants (community charging & corridor charging)Fairbanks MPO (FAST)NOFO 693JJ323NF00004*States or political subdivisions*Metropolitan Planning Organization*Local Government*Special purpose district*Public authority with transportation function*Tribe*Territory*Program funds will be made available each fiscal year for Community Grants, to install electric vehicle charging and alternative fuel in locations on public roads, schools, parks, and in publicly accessible parking facilities. These grants will be prioritized for rural areas, low‐and moderate‐income neighborhoods, and communities with low ratios of private parking, or high ratios of multiunit dwellings.Competitive GrantDOT to be lead on applicationFY 22‐23 Application Due June 13thAEA, DOT, Launch Alaska, and AML working on project development for community charging$2,500,000,000 $0 20%*DOT lead*AEA Contact Josi Hartley*FAST submitting application.*Fairbanks MPO $2M.  AEA to provide letter of support. $25k for AEA to participate in outreach. Do not need receipt authority.IRA Sec. 60114Climate Pollution Reduction GrantsEPA Program Info*States, Municipalities, TribesTo develop and implement plans for reducing greenhouse gasesFormula Grant for Planning and Competitive Grants for ImplementationPlanning Grant Work plan Due 4/8/23$250,000,000 for planning$4,600,000,000 for implementation$3,000,000 for planning formula grantnone for planning TBD for implementationDEC Lead*DEC responsible for requesting receipt authority.Page 5 AEA Infrastructure Awards: Submitted, Pending, Potential Section Number TitleFOA Number / Program GuidanceApplicable Stakeholders General Scope/Objectives Funding TypeStatus / Critical Program DatesApproximate Total Federal Funding Available for All AwardsAlaska Specific FundingMatch SharePoint of Contact Notes / Federal Receipt AuthorityIRA Sec. 50131Assistance for Latest and Zero Building Energy Code AdoptionDE‐FOA‐0003055 (not issued yet)*State and local governments with authority to adopt building codeGrants to assist states and units of local government that have authority to adopt and implement building codes to (1) adopt codes for residential buildings that meet or exceed the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code; and/or (2) adopt a building energy code for commercial buildings that meet or exceed the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1–2019.Competitive GrantFOA release anticipated October 2023$1,000,000,000 TBD TBDAHF will likely be lead. Waiting for guidance*AHFC will likely be lead. Waiting for guidance to be issued.IIJA Sec.  40511Building Codes Implementation for Efficiency and ResilienceDE‐FOA‐0002813*State and State Partnerships*Enable sustained, cost‐effective implementation of updated building energy codes to save customers money on their energy bills.*Create training materials.*Collect and disseminate quantitative data on construction and code implementation.*Plan and Implementation of updates in energy codes.Competitive GrantConcept Paper Due 1/31/23Application Due 3/27/23$225,000,000 $0 TBD AHFC lead*AHFC responsible for requesting receipt authority. AHFC submitted application for $2.5M.Cell Color / StatusApplication Submittedby AEAAEA plans to submit application /Concept PaperAEA waiting for guidance to be issuedEnergy program with other agency leadPage 6 1 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 A. Cover Page Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Applicant: The Alaska Energy Authority representing the State of Alaska Technical and Business Point of Contact: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority The Alaska Energy Authority and Railbelt utilities are partners in this project as collaborative decision makers representing all the primary transmission owners and operators of Alaska’s largest electrical grid (the Railbelt). The project partners (the Team) are: 1. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) 2. Chugach Electric Association Inc, a Central Region Cooperative (CEA) 3. Golden Valley Electric Association Inc., a Northern Region Cooperative (GVEA) 4. Homer Electric Association Inc., a Southern Region Cooperative (HEA) 5. Matanuska Electric Association Inc., a Central Region Cooperative (MEA) 6. The City of Seward, Alaska, dba Seward Electric System, a Southern Region Municipal Utility (SES) 7. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) is participating as a team member, in an advisory and regulatory role, as permitted by their statutory authority and restrictions. Project Location: All three regions (Northern, Central, and Southern) of the Ala ska Railbelt electrical grid and the Eastern Region1. 1 Copper Valley Electric Association serves the Eastern Region and is a stakeholder knowledgeable about this application but is not a project team member. Area served by the Railbelt grid Area served by Copper Valley Electric Association 2 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 B. Project overview B.1 Background Vision and Opportunity Alaska and the nation are at a critical transition point with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build resiliency and develop a fuel-diverse, low-carbon economy, by investing in essential electrical infrastructure. The state’s largest, but electrically islanded, grid serves over 75% of the state’s population including diverse and underserved communities, primary commerce and shipping centers, strategic military bases, and access areas for key mineral deposits. However, due to the relatively low population to share in costs, the electric system does not meet the minimum standards of the Lower 48 states. This deficiency limits the grid’s resiliency and undermines the ability to usher in a clean energy future. At this intersection, the collective mission of the State of Alaska, and the interconnected Railbelt electric utilities, is to build a resilient, clean, smart, and low-cost electrical grid. This grid must support a fuel-diverse energy landscape that drives sustainable economic development in Alaska and ensures a cost-effective delivery of energy to Railbelt consumers and beyond. The Railbelt utilities and State share a vision: a collaborative future in the Railbelt in which our communities come together and share resources to strengthen and build a smart, clean electrical grid that promises our residents, our national defense infrastructure, and communities adjacent to the Railbelt access to clean, low-cost energy from any source. An innovative team has been assembled to manage the project consisting of relevant decision makers in the region: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) representing the State of Alaska, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), and five electric utilities that make up the Railbelt electric grid. The team will work under a structure like the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee (BPMC), an organization with a 32-year history of successful project development and management. The Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) will construct new transmission lines parallel to the existing single regional ties and provide a looped transmission feed to the DOD ground-based missile defense facility at Fort Greeley and interconnect the currently islanded Copper Valley Electric Association with the Railbelt grid. The Project will incorporate a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable installed in a challenging marine environment. This cable circuit will require significant innovation which is more fully described later in this document. Alaskans are enthusiastic about funding opportunities to rise to their unique energy challenges. A recent Op-Ed in the Anchorage Daily News, co-written by Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy and Doug Tansy, business manager for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers No. 1547, highlights this intent: “Right now, we have historic alignment of the players involved. Utilities, the state of Alaska, and labor are working together in a way that has not been seen in our lifetimes to build a reliable, resilient, and efficient grid for future families and business owners. Now is the time for all the players to combine efforts and secure this investment for Alaskans.” The total estimated cost for the construction of the line segments and associated station facilities proposed in this funding cycle is approximately $822.7M. In this application we are requesting a federal grant of $411.4M. We anticipate an eight-year project timeframe. The State of Alaska, and the Railbelt utilities are committed to upgrading the Railbelt transmission grid. On December 2, 2022, the BPMC, through AEA, closed on a bond package for $166M, 65% of which will be dedicated to match federal aid for transmission reconstruction and 35% to three-regional grid 3 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 stabilization battery energy storage systems (BESS), one of which is currently in service and two of which are included in this grant application. This funding will begin work on the Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP), but without Federal and State assistance it cannot be completed in a reasonable time frame. We are seeking State funding assistance2 to help close the gap between utility funding and federal assistance.3 4 History The Railbelt electric grid is unique in North America as it is technically a fully functioning long- distance electrical grid on a very small scale. The Railbelt is characterized by three load- generation regions with four load-balancing areas. These load-generation concentrations, known as the Northern Region (Fairbanks-Delta Junction), the Central Region (Anchorage-MatSu), and Southern Region (the Kenai Peninsula), are tied together with two long transmission lines operating at 115kV and 138KV. The grid provides electricity to approximately 75% of the state's residents and generates 80% of the electricity in Alaska. It extends over 700 miles from the Bradley Lake Project, located at the head of Kachemak Bay near Homer, Alaska, in the Southern Region, to Delta Junction in Interior Alaska, roughly the distance from Washington, DC to Atlanta, GA, as depicted in figure 1. The grid transverses inhospitable subarctic mountainous terrain and the Cook Inlet with its tremendous tides and currents. The region is laced with highly active seismic zones and is subject to volcanic eruptions, forest fires, flooding, and fierce annual winter storms. The grid's assets vary from high voltage (138 kV and 230 kV) submarine cable crossings in Cook Inlet5 to remote "helicopter/riverboat-access-only" river crossings and numerous transmission structures well above 2000 feet (sub-arctic). Unlike numerous areas in the contiguous lower forty-eight states, the Railbelt has received minimal federal investment in grid development. The Eklutna Hydroelectric Project, initially constructed in the 1950s, was the last major federal project in the Railbelt that included a transmission line component. This project was rebuilt by the Bureau of Reclamation's Alaska Power Administration after the 1964 "Good Friday” Earthquake and sold by the Federal government to Central Region utilities in the early 1990s. 2 The Governor has submitted legislation to establish a funding agency for the purpose of energy related projects. 3 State matching funding is subject to Executive branch and Legislative approval. Utility funding is subject to Cooperative and Municipal governing Board approval. 4 Given the duration of this project, and if selected for award, during the grant negotiation process the Team will seek an inflation adjustment clause, based on actual inflation. 5 Cook Inlet is a silt laden 180-mile inlet reaching from Knik Arm to the Gulf of Alaska. The Inlet has the fourth highest tidal range in the world at 35 feet and contains an endangered subspecies of the Beluga Whale. Railbelt Grid Figure 1: Alaska’s Relative Size 4 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Due to the high cost of transmission lines, the regions are moderately interconnected, primarily at 69kV, 115kV, 138KV, 230kV. A tight power pool operates in the Central region, and an active economy energy market exists between regions but is severely limited by transmission constraints. There is no formal interconnection queue. A reserve-sharing pool exists between all three regions. Historically, due to weak interconnections the regions have planned for capacity separately. The Railbelt grid is technically characterized as "transient stability limited," with machines under dynamic stress swinging against other machines within the region; and with regions swinging against each other across the light interregional interconnections. The grid is susceptible to and has experienced large-scale6 small-signal instability oscillations. Voltage stability, which varies from marginal to good depending on the specific area, has been improved with the addition of six static VAR compensators at critical locations. The Railbelt grid operates under a subset of North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) standards modified to account for the scale and nature of the interconnection (the grid's system bias is variable and ranges from 3-10 MW/.1 hertz). The grid has a sophisticated under-frequency load shed scheme which sheds load to match generation in four stages with varying time delays and, in some cases, considering frequency rate-of-change. Traditional day-ahead and real-time security constrained economic dispatch are run in each LBA with net interchange, and frequency monitored and managed to NERC CPS 1 and 2. Dynamic events on the grid occur and resolve very quickly (2-10 seconds) when compared with the much larger North American grids which resolve in tens of minutes. The grid's peak demand is roughly 750 MW compared to ERCOT's peak demand of 85,000 MW. The grid's annual energy consumption is approximately 4,500 GWH compared to ERCOT at 339,000 GWH. The Railbelt’s Grid Modernization Resiliency Plan (GMRP) Today, the broader energy landscape in Alaska and across the world is being reshaped by multiple change drivers. Geopolitical shifts are dramatically altering global energy markets. Decarbonization policies and technological advancements, shaped by increasingly dramatic climate change, are both the result of and contributor to a shift in focus on energy and the environment. Regionally, uncertainty around Cook Inlet natural gas and broader fuel supply issues for utility companies is a critical – and shared – challenge looming on the near-term horizon. The Railbelt’s weakly interconnected grid is inadequate to meet the challenges of a sustainable, fuel diverse, decarbonized future. In response to this shared challenge, the Team has come together to develop a broad-based, long-term plan to ensure the future energy viability of the Railbelt from a social, economic, and technical perspective. The technical aspect of that Plan is the GMRP, of which the RIR is a component. The Team will propose that the GMRP be incorporated into Alaska’s broader State Energy Plan as that document is developed in the coming months. 6 Oscillations have been measured with a peak of 220 MW, a 1.1 second period and sustained for over 90 seconds on a grid with a summer valley peak load of approximately 500MW. 5 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Figure Two is a graphic representation of the Southern, Central, and Northern regions of the Railbelt grid with the current system and the proposed Southern and Central Region GMRP components overlayed. The components of the GMRP in these regions that make up the 22-23 funding cycle RIR are highlighted in yellow. A more detailed listing of the Plan’s component projects (transmission line segments and substations), and estimated costs is outlined in the workplan. Figure Three is a graphic representation of the entire Railbelt with the full GMRP overlayed on the existing system. On this diagram, yellow highlights indicate GRIP Topic 3 Railbelt Innovative Resiliency (RIR) projects; rust and red highlights indicate Topic 1 (RBR) projects; and the blue “C” indicates GRIP Topic 2 Smart Grid projects. This Plan is highly innovative and transformational in that it will reshape the Railbelt in a way that will usher in a sustainable fuel diverse low carbon future. As we describe below, the totality of this transformation is innovative technically and financially from both a teaming and regulatory perspective. Given the operational nature of the Railbelt and the disparate socioeconomic status and vast diversity of its communities, valuable lessons from this undertaking will be broadly applicable to the larger grids of the contiguous lower forty-eight states and North America. Our estimated total cost for the GMRP is $2.87B over fifteen years. Without significant Federal and State investment, the GMRP and this Project are beyond the financial capabilities of the Railbelt utilities. The priority for diversifying the Railbelt fuel supply and decarbonizing the Railbelt grid must be to stabilize frequency and decongest the transmission system. These improvements are required irrespective of the nature of fuel supply diversity and decarbonization solutions. B.2 Project Goals The RIR line segments considered in this application will construct a second parallel Figure 2: RIR Components in current funding cycle Figure 3: Railbelt Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan 6 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 transmission line between the Southern, Central, and Northern regions of the Railbelt grid. The current configuration lacks redundancy, impedes reliability, limits the ability to construct and move clean energy from one region to another, and constrains economic dispatch, thus increasing fuel burn, carbon emissions, and the cost of power to our member-ratepayers. In addition, the project will allow the Team to engage in interregional planning and operations. Further, this application includes completion of two grid-scale energy storage systems (that will) augment the existing 46 MW- two-hour battery already installed on the Kenai Peninsula. These three energy storage systems will be coordinated and operated in real-time with the HVDC submarine cable to maximize transfer capability between regions and minimize spinning reserves, thereby reducing fuel usage, and reducing carbon emissions. The three storage systems will also provide coordinated regulation for system-wide renewables. As importantly, the energy storage systems and new interties will stabilize grid frequency and eliminate the small signal instability oscillations, decreasing the likelihood of large-scale system outages and machine damage. Goal Description 1 Completion of the transmission lines and HVDC submarine cable from Soldotna to Nikiski to Beluga and on to Healy, using innovative and technical solutions to enhance resiliency in extreme environments. 2 Completion of BESS units in Northern and Central Regions to coordinate with existing BESS unit and HVDC in Southern region to enhance resiliency and eliminate small signal instability events and increase frequency control. 3 Significantly increase transfer capability between regions (75MW to 200-300 MW). The increased capacity will enable regional participation in planning and clean energy projects, reduce capacity limitations, add resiliency, redundancy, and improve economies of scale. 4 Reduce reliance on fossil fuels and improve resiliency; reduce carbon emissions; virtually eliminate impacts of long-term outages due to extreme weather, wildfire, natural disasters, and other disruptive events. 5 Document lessons learned that can be shared throughout Alaska, the nation, and the world. 6 Adoption of innovative rate-making techniques to incent transmission construction, easing member/ratepayer burden in procuring matching funds for the project. The project includes an innovative HVDC submarine circuit crossing Cook Inlet from Nikiski in the Southern region to Beluga in the Central region. This crossing will present technical challenges requiring innovative solutions and will subsequently provide important lessons that can be shared throughout Alaska and the US, through DOE’s national laboratory system, with potential specific applicability to offshore wind facilities. As noted above, the RCA, a team member in this project, has agreed to consider innovative rate- making techniques that will incent transmission construction, easing the member/ratepayer burden in procuring matching funds for the project. These rate -making strategies could include inclusion of costs in rate-base through the RCA’s Simplified Rate Filing (SRF) process, prior to the assets being used and useful; or forward funding of the project costs. Either or both will significantly reduce the carrying cost of capital thereby reducing the burden on the membership/ratepayers and improving project benefit -cost metrics. Achieving these objectives will have a significant impact on increasing the transfer capacity between all regions, reducing the requirements for thermal generat ion reserve, and thus 7 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 lowering carbon emissions. It will also improve economic dispatch, further reducing carbon emissions, and eliminate transmission capacity constraints that restricts the use of Bradley Lake energy and capacity. It will allow flexibility to address shifts in load or generation, interregional participation in clean energy projects, and improve economies of scale. As a result, increased economies of scale will decrease the per unit cost of clean energy generation. From a resiliency perspective, accomplishing these goals will reduce or eliminate the likelihood of outages or lack of transfer capability due to small signal instability, flood, unbalanced snow loading, and tree and animal related outages7. Innovative rate making will reduce capital carrying costs and improve the benefit-cost ratio for projects incentivizing wise transmission investment. Finally, having a robustly integrated grid will allow for interregional planning which, as noted above, will increase economies of scale and operating efficiencies. As previously referenced, we have formed a unique partnership between all relevant decision makers in the Railbelt; the State of Alaska represented by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the four interconnected Railbelt Electric Cooperatives, the single Railbelt municipal utility, and the utility regulator, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). We have strong support from organized labor, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and other labor unions; and strong support from other stakeholders including the Railbelt reliability Council the Railbelt’s newly formed electric reliability organization , the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA). Together, the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local 1547 (IBEW 1547) have a joint electrical apprenticeship training center. This collaborative organization is prepared and excited about ramping its activities up to train what will become that next generation of Alaskan electrical and telecommunications workers required to staff the GMRP. In terms of regional planning and coordination, this unique team has already enhanced collaboration between the State, the regional cooperatives and Seward Electric System, a municipal utility, and the RCA. Value Proposition The value proposition for the residents of the Railbelt grid is clear, this project will position the Railbelt for a fuel diverse, sustainable clean energy future and lower energy costs through more efficient use of scarce Cook Inlet natural gas as we transition away from natural gas to a clean energy future. Numerous tribal and disadvantaged communities exist within the Railbelt proper. For the non-Railbelt communities that receive Power Cost Equalization (PCE) funds, most of which are tribal and many of which are disadvantaged, the value proposition is the direct economic benefits that will occur as we hold the Railbelt cost of power down and increase the PCE energy subsidy to these stakeholders. For all rural villages (including non-PCE), as well as the DOE and the nation, the lessons learned from the process of decarbonizing a sm all scale, fully functioning grid will provide valuable best-method insights to execute this necessary regional activity. Finally, improving the resiliency, reliability, and efficiency of the Railbelt grid will provide 7 The 2019 Swan Lake fire separated the Central and Northern regions from the Southern region and the Bradley Lake hydroelectric project for ~135 Days resulting in millions of dollars of additional fuel burn (and Carbon emissions) by the Northern and Central region utilities. The Alaska Intertie between Douglas and Healy is often removed from service due to unbalanced heavy snow loading islanding the northern region from the Central and Southern regions during periods of peak load. 8 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 a more secure energy supply to critical military defense infrastructure located in the three Railbelt regions, enhancing national security and global stability. B.3 DOE Impact The total project cost is $ 822.7M with a federal grant assistance request of $411.4M. Matching funds will be pursued from the State and to the degree required from the utilities. DOE investment is critical to mobilizing this additional State and utility capital. Accomplishing a project of this magnitude in a 10-to-15-year time frame is beyond the financial capabilities of the Railbelt utilities without significant rate increases. The burden of such rate increases falls on all ratepayers but disproportionately on the disadvantaged and underserved. With the completion of this project, fuel burn (which represents about 40 % of an average consumer’s bill) can be reduced 10% to 15 %, exclusive of increased clean energy development. Project Scale In scale, this project will be the largest grid infrastructure project undertaken in the Railbelt since the interconnection of the Central and Northern regions in 1984. The benefits of this project will be significant and comparable to the recent economic benefit of converting the existing Railbelt generation fleet from GE Frame units to aero-derivative units which reduced fuel burn by nearly 30%. The benefits of the RIR will come in terms of improved fuel efficiency, reducing fuel costs, reduced carbon emissions, increased variable generation penetration, increased private capital investment from IPPs in energy development, reduced O&M, and will result in extended transition time to move away from Cook Inlet natural gas8. Finally, the project will promote coordinated energy and capacity planning across the Railbelt. Measures of Success Metrics consistent with SMART9 goals and objectives will be utilized to measure success. Examples of measurable success are System Average Heat Rate10 over time, CAIDI, SAIDI, and SAIFI11 resulting from transmission outages, measured increased transfer capability, measured frequency deviations, and reductions in CO2 emissions. B. 4 Community benefit, Workforce Development, & Disadvantaged Communities Improvements in Railbelt transfer capability, reliability, and resiliency will lower costs, and these benefits will flow to the numerous tribal and disadvantaged communities on the Railbelt as well as to the rural villages outside the Railbelt through Alaska’s unique Power Cost Equalization program. As noted above and in their letter of support, the IBEW sees this as an opportunity to train a new generation of linemen and wiremen, reinvigorating this sector of Alaska’s technical workforce. The broad and inclusive outreach program envisioned in our CBP will ensure that maximum benefit flows to the diverse and disadvantaged communities on the Railbelt. 8 The Cook Inlet Field provides heat to 140,000 homes and businesses in the Central region and is used to generate 70% of the electricity in the Railbelt. In early 2021, the field’s only remaining large-scale producer notified utilities (both gas and electric) that they would not extend existing gas contracts, most of which expire in 2028. Railbelt Utilities are working to develop alternatives in both the short, medium, and long -term. Extending the transition time to move off Cook Inlet gas is a critical part of this plan. 9 SMART-Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound. 10 This is the total number of MWHR produced, divided by the total thermal fuel used, measured in MMBtu. 11 CAIDI the consumer average interruption duration index. SAIDI- the system average interruption duration index. SAIFI System average interruption frequency index. 9 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 B.5 Long-Term Constraints This project will not create any long-term constraints on community access to natural resources and tribal cultural resources. B.6 Climate resiliency This project installs new poles, wires, and undersea cable, as well as traditional substation equipment. Design criteria will include where appropriate: mapping of avalanche chutes, placement of structures outside of known avalanche, and powder blast paths. If such placement is not possible, the use of breakaway conductor attachments, and poles in driven- pile-caisson construction for ease of replacement where avalanche danger , cannot be mitigated. When appropriate, a combination of wider than typical rights-of-way and taller structures may be used to prevent trees from making contact with overhead conductors, providing both fire prevention and protection. Ongoing right-of-way maintenance will also mitigate tree related outages. Substations and switchyards will be hardened to current AK-CIP standards for physical and cyber security. C. Technical Description Innovation and Impact C.1 Relevance and Outcomes Relevance to the FOA The RIR aligns perfectly with the FOA goals; transforming community, interregional and national resilience including consideration of future shifts in generation and load; catalyzing and leveraging State and private sector spending for impactful technology and infrastructure development; and advancing community benefit especially to disadvantaged and tribal communities. Further, the Project will provide training and job opportunities for the next generation of power system linemen, wireman, equipment operators, technicians and engineers. The Project has four primary components: the BESS, The HVDC submarine cable, the overhead lines connecting the HVDC cable to the Healy switchyard in the Northern region and the Beluga Switchyard in the Central region, and the lines connecting the Nikiski terminal with the Soldotna substation in the Southern region. As a part of the RIR, the BESS will ensure grid reliability by increasing interregional transfer capability, allowing for diversification of fuel supply, accelerating the adoption of variable renewable generation, reducing carbon emissions, improving frequency regulation, and eliminating potentially catastrophic small signal instability oscillations. Additionally, the BESS and HVDC submarine cable, operating as separate but integrated technologies and integrated with the second transmission path, will improve overall grid resilience and lower costs. The State Energy Plan is under development and the Team will propose that the GMRP be included in that plan. Unique Teaming The team, which has come together with the State through the Alaska Energy Authority, represents a unique collaborative effort. This effort exists between the eligible entity AEA, (a transmission and generation owner), a private non-profit electric cooperative representing all balancing authorities in the Railbelt which also constitutes the remaining transmission and generation owners and operators with in the Railbelt grid, a public municipal utility, and State’s Utility regulator. These entities all working collaboratively on a significant interregional project 10 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 will yield benefits for all Railbelt residents including disadvantaged and tribal communities and the broader State through PCE, food, transportation, and national security. C.2 Feasibility Addressed within Feasibility and Need below. C.3 Innovation and Impacts In current practice, BESS are commonly used for system frequency and variable generation regulation. System oscillation dampening is generally performed by Power Oscillation Dampers (PODs) on Static VAR Compensators or Power System Stabilizers (PSS) on generator exciters (two quadrant devices) which are secondary effect control devices as they attempt to control real power oscillations using reactive power and weak coupling between real and reactive power. Such devices have proven ineffective in dampening the small signal oscillations in the Railbelt. Additionally, HVDC submarine cables are used to transmit bulk power across bodies of water or asynchronously connect two grids and are not part of an oscillation control scheme. Project Improvement and Innovation Operating in a coordinated fashion, the BESS and HVDC line will increase transfer capability, resiliency, and reliability, by performing three functions, all of which contribute to frequency stabilization. The first function is increasing transfer capability. The second function is improved frequency regulation. And the third function is stabilizing the grid in terms of small signal instability. The HVDC controllers and the three BESS installations in three different regions of the system will be operated in a coordinated manner12 to increase transfer limits across the interconnecting transmission lines. From a small signal instability perspective, the BESS will eliminate large power oscillations. Following completion of the Nikiski-Beluga line or the Beluga–Healy section, the system controls will be modified to optimize system security associated with the decreased inertia and generation contingencies and increase the ability to accept renewables into the system by performing regulation and reserve optimization. An increase of the interregional transfer capacity from approximately 75MW to over 200MW will allow the generation with the highest costs and emissions on the Railbelt to run only during rare contingencies. It will also allow the large-scale wind projects of approximately 200MW capacity to be located as needed to take f ull advantage of geographic diversity of wind resources, which will minimize the amount of fossil fuel generation required to regulate the output of the Railbelt’s future wind generation portfolio. We know of no other single transmission line that has the capability to consolidate multiple planning areas into a single interregional planning area. Knowledge gleaned from this project’s unique integration of multiple BESS and HVDC will be useful throughout the country and world as BESS and HVDC systems are installed to facilitate increased variable clean energy project integration. C. 4 State, Local, Tribal, Regional, and National Resilience, Decarbonization Increasing grid resiliency and lowering the cost of Railbelt electricity will have direct positive impacts on the tribal and disadvantage communities within the Railbelt as well as direct positive impacts on rural PCE communities, which are most often tribal and disadvantaged communities. 12 If the grip Topic 2 application12 were to be approved, we would enhance this coordinated control with high speed communications and a single master controller rather than using multiple local controllers and system frequency as our primary direct control variable. Thus, Grip topic 2 and 3 are related but not dependent projects. 11 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 C. 5 Deployment Impacts; Further Development; Additional Private Sector Investments Development of a robust grid between regions in the Railbelt will facilitate the development of larger-scale Independent Power Producer (IPP) clean-energy projects by allowing participation in these projects by all the Railbelt utilities. Larger scale projects drive the price per unit of electricity down and make the benefit-cost hurdle lower and more achievable driving greater private sector investment in the Railbelt energy field. C. 6 Grid Innovation Program The BESS Feasibility and Need The Railbelt is transmission constrained so we are only able to move 10% or less of our peak load between regions. Further, Railbelt utility engineers have observed several increasingly concerning trends on the Railbelt over the past decade. These challenges include the degradation of frequency regulation, decreasing system frequency response to generation trip disturbances, and increasing magnitude and duration of natural frequency power oscillations and occasional large power swings impacting the entire Railbelt. A global engineering firm was engaged by Chugach to investigate the application of a battery energy storage system (BESS)13 as a solution to address these concerns. While this firm was able to show BESS contributions to ge neral improvement in frequency regulation on the Railbelt, they were unable to conclusively establish a link between the BESS performance and the natural frequency, small-signal instability oscillations. Building on work that had been done with global Pelton turbine manufacturer in Zurich 14. In early 2004, Chugach followed up with an internal and more robust analysis and validation of the Siemens PTI study15 but was without a conclusive link between the mechanical phenomenon in the turbine pit and the electric power grid. In 2022, a local engineering firm with a long history of study and evaluation of Railbelt grid phenomenon completed a study16 definitively showing that the cause of the oscillations was attributable to the characteristics of the Bradley Lake power plant in a weak and oscillatory summer valley system. The report indicates for a Douglas export of ~70 MW, the oscillations can be controlled with a ~45 MW absorption of a system BESS. If our Grip 2 project is funded, export limits could increase to 100-250 MW, indicating a BESS or combination of BESS’s capable of absorbing ~70 MW to ~150MW may be required to prevent these oscillations. This “uncharged” BESS capacity would be regulated and controlled across the system to meet this requirement. Based on these studies, and other analyses performed by Railbelt utilities, three regional BESS units were proposed in each of the Southern, Northern, and Central regions. Study work found that BESS units in the three regions provided significant reliability and economic benefit to the Railbelt. Given the 13 Bansal A, Anantharaman A, Donlagic T, Feltes T, Orikhi Z, Rachinger S, Silva D, Grande-Moran C; Alaska Railbelt Power System Oscillation Anchorage Bess unit Impact Analysis; 10-20-20; SPTI P# 620T-001718 14 List B, Amrein J, Heimann A, Furtner N, Keck H, Dorfler P, Hickey B, Stead D, Bradley Lake Deflector Divider Model Tests; 9-10-2004 VA TCH Hydro 15 Thornton R, Bell J, McKinnon C, Reid P, Hickey B; South Central Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Reliability and Economic Evaluation Report; 4-13-21; Chugach Internal Study 16 Cote J, Burlingame D, Lai D; Railbelt Oscillation Investigation and Mitigation study; 3-1-22; Electric Power Systems Inc. 12 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 cause-and-effect relationship between the Bradley Lake Project (when operating at low lake levels) and the Railbelt summer valley system resulting in the massive small signal instability oscillations, the BESS were determined to qualify as Required Project work for the Bradley Lake project, and 35 % of the recent $166M BPMC bond issue was allocated to BESS systems. Concerns for the Railbelt Railbelt steady-state frequency regulation has decreased over the past decade. Electrical system frequency is the primary control variable for interconnected power systems (grids). System frequency instantly telemeters the generation-load balance status to protection and control system feedback loops throughout a grid. Frequency is also a physical phenomenon that changes the actual electrical characteristic of the grid17. Many major power system components are designed to operate at a specific frequency. Deviation from design frequency can cause increased wear and tear and, in extreme cases, catastrophic damage. The amount of generation that moves frequency measured in MW/.1 Hz is known as system beta18 and is a measurement of stiffness or robustness of the grid. In the past seven years of system event analysis, the system beta has fallen from approximately 10 MW/.1 Hz in the 1990s to a current variable range between 3 and 13 MW/.1 Hz. A study performed at Chugach revealed that in 2011, system frequency was at the nominal 60 Hz about 44% of the time. In 2020, the time the system was at nominal frequency had fallen to about 15% of the time. This trend of straying from nominal frequency more often is of concern. Several drivers of the loss of frequency control are lighter, more efficient turbines with less spinning mass (rotating inertia), plant control systems that prioritize efficiency over response, and the introduction of non-dispatchable or variable generation into the generation-load mix. Alaska Railbelt Reliability Standards require that load shedding not occur when only one unit is tripped from the system. Measurements, such as system Tesla recordings, relay event recordings, and SCADA data, indicate that the ability of Railbelt generation to meet this requirement is deteriorating without expensive fast response spinning reserve from gas-fired generation. 17 Electrical components are a combination of the either inductive, capacitive, or resistive elements. The impedance presented to the grid by the inductive and capacitive components varies directly or inversely with frequency. 18 This value is closely related, but differs, from system bias, the response conditioning variable in the Area Control Error (ACE) equation. Figure 4- Railbelt Frequency Control decline 13 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 A significant and potentially catastrophic problem developing on the Railbelt is the increasing magnitude and duration of small signal power oscillations during system disturbances. When a generation unit trips off-line, or another disturbance occurs, power can begin to swing from one end of the system to the other, much like the way a spring oscillates back and forth when it is drawn and released. The frequencies at which the grid oscillates are known as the natural frequencies of the system, and these natural frequencies exist in most electro-mechanical systems. Natural frequency oscillations can be made up of tens to hundreds of MWs of energy transiting the length of the Railbelt in several tenths of a second. The energy associated with these power swings creates massive reactive forces in the electrical generator's physical infrastructure. Reactive forces in the physical generators create wear and tear in the in base- loaded generation, and in extreme cases, can result in catastrophic failure. Natural frequency oscillations have been a long-term characteristic of the Railbelt, leading to the installation of damping equipment such as power system stabilizers at Bradley Lake and power oscillation dampers on the equipment on the transmission system on the Kenai Peninsula. Natural frequency power oscillations have been increasing across the Railbelt power system. These natural frequency oscillations have been measured as large as 220 MW, shifting power from Bradley Lake to Fairbanks every second, lasting for minutes. With newer and faster data collection technology, it is clear that oscillations are a threat to system reliability and resiliency. Even previously unexplained generator damage may be explained by these power oscillations. For example, the Bradley Lake hydroelectric plant, which is known to participate in po wer oscillations based on a 2019 study19, has experienced significant generator stator damage in the past; the repairs approached $1 M. The BESS Solution In response to the concerns above, several potential solutions were informally considered including batteries, grid-scale resistors (brakes), and converting existing frame generators to synchronous condensers. Subsequently, given the advances in battery technology and the improvements in battery cost-benefit profiles, analysis found that BESS units in the three regions provided significant reliability benefit to Railbelt as a whole. Regional BESS in the Railbelt will improve power system performance, given their high speed of response and versatility. It was determined that BESS’s could successfully fulfill the required energy response to a loss of generation in as quickly as less than one second, improving system frequency. Furthermore, the study showed that a BESS could participate in balancing generation and load, thereby improving frequency regulation. Another finding of the study was that a BESS would help stabilize non-dispatchable renewables' output by smoothing the energy fluctuations 19 n (14) Figure 5- June 3 2021-Representative Natural frequency Oscillation 14 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 and controlling their release to the grid. It was also proven that adequate frequency control can prevent severe and potentially damaging oscillations throughout the Railbelt associated with Bradley Lake as well as mitigate oscillations resulting from transient swings following line trips. Likewise, it was noted that with coordinated response, the transient frequencies across weak tie- lines can be controlled and mitigated to increase transfer limits across the line. Chugach also commissioned a nationally recognized economic and regulatory firm to study20 the economic value of an investment in battery storage and evaluate the effect of battery storage on the Chugach-MEA Power Pool. The study found that the BESS would allow for a more efficient dispatch of generators in the Power Pool by providing fast spin and regulation of load. Additionally, taking reserves and regulation off of gas-fired units will reduce fuel and O&M costs by enabling a more efficient (lower cost) dispatch of the gas units. The study also found that the potential to avoid a major power system outage adds value to consumers. The study concluded that the battery would add significant value to the Power Pool. After careful analysis, it has been determined that a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)/ HVDC can significantly enhance system performance and reduce operational limitations in power systems. The proposed integrated BESS will bring a range of benefits to the Railbelt grid. These benefits include improved oscillation damping, enhanced disturbance response rate, increased transfer capability between regions, and less constrained economic dispatch. These improvements will result in reduced fuel burn, lower carbon emissions, and most importantly, greater ability to integrate variable generation such as wind and solar power into the grid. When operated in a coordinated fashion with the HVDC submarine cable, these benefits are significantly enhanced. The combined BESS system promises to be a valuable addition to the Railbelt grid’s power infrastructure. Southern Transmission upgrades HVDC and Interconnecting Transmission Lines Feasibility and Need The existing transmission system between the Southern and Central regions was originally constructed to transmit 16 MW of power from the Cooper Lake Power Plant to the Anchorage area. The addition of the 120 MW Bradley Lake hydro plant in 1991, as well as additional thermal generation in the southern region, now relies exclusively on this 1961 constructed line21 to transfer all power between the Central and Southern regions. This 218-mile series of single transmission lines was never intended to transfer the power from Bradley Lake to Anchorage. Currently, 100% of the energy produced for export from the Southern region is delivered over the single 115 kV transmission line for the Central and Northern regions. Although the transmission system has been upgraded in the past 30 years to include two Static Var Compensation systems and certain northern sections of the 164 -miles of transmission lines have been upgraded to 230 kV construction, a second or alternate transmission line has not been constructed. The single line crosses over 80 avalanche chutes, transverses through both state 20 National Economic Research Associates (NERA) South Central Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Reliability and Economic Evaluation report (n11) pp 44 21 Several sections shave been rebuilt to 230 kV standards over the past 1-½ decades and the rate of about 10 miles every other year. Construction windows are limited to 60 days per year in order to prevent spilling water at Bradley Lake. This constraint combined with restrictions around nesting migratory bird species and wetlands make construction slow and costly. The second line from Soldotna to Beluga would eliminate this challenge. 15 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 and national forest areas subject to forest fires and other hazards and parallels a Wild and Scenic highway and the scenic Kenai River and other wilderness areas. Outages to the single line have resulted in the separation of the Southern area from the bulk of the Railbelt for up to 135 continuous days in a single year (2019 Swan Lake fire), 60-day construction outages occur annually or bi-annually, and multiple unplanned separations often occur in a single year. Net of regional load, the Southern region has over 300MW of export capability and an additional 85MW of potential hydro as well as a large windfarm is under con sideration. Current export capability and the single transmission line stifle the development of future hydro, wind, and PV resources from being located in the Southern area. Additional renewable resources cannot be developed in the region due to limited transfer capacity available on the existing single line, and the risk of complete production curtailment when the single line is out of service. The characteristics of the single transmission line result in weak coupling between the Southern and Central regions, consequently, the stability limit of the transmission line is approximately 50% of the line’s thermal rating in one direction and approximately 30% in the other. The displacement of thermal generation with renewable generation such as wind or PV will further decrease the inertia in each of the regions and can negatively impact the stability limit across the single inter-regional transmission lines. In addition to the elimination of the large-scale oscillations and stability constraints, a new line can eliminate the constraints on developing new sources of clean energy in both the central and southern regions. However, without unconstrained access enabled by a new transmission line to the southern resources, the potential development of renewable resources in each region will be limited by each region’s ability to operate following a single contingency event. 16 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 As opposed to an AC submarine cable and transmission line, a new HVDC submarine cable, and associated AC transmission lines, is proposed. The HVDC submarine cable between the Southern and Central regions is proposed to utilize a bi-pole, 300 MW HVDC system and will eliminate charging current challenges posed by a long AC submarine cable. The submarine cable will require considerable design and mitigation measures within the waters of Cook Inlet to avoid areas of scouring from severe currents and shore ice. In addition, the Inlet has active and abandoned oil and gas pipelines as well as communication cables that are critical to the infrastructure of the Alaskan environment and economy. The use of a bi- pole DC system will allow the Southern and Central systems to remain interconnected and operated as a single integrated system for several years while the existing AC transmission line is being converted to 230 kV. As noted above, Cook Inlet has the highest tides in the US and the fourth highest tides in the world, resulting in very high tidal currents. The cables routing is intended to mitigate cable damage from these high currents which carry abrasive silt, trees, and other debris down the inlet. The Inlet is home to an endangered subspecies of Beluga whales. The significant tidal currents and ice scouring requires careful consideration and planning for the cable’s location. The existing communications cables and oil pipelines will require protection during the laying of the HVDC cable and state-of-the-art cathodic protection during operation. Innovative construction techniques like full-time whale watch and bubble noise dispersion technology will be used as required to mitigate potential harm to the Belugas. The installation of a bi-pole submarine cable will harden the Railbelt system against natural disasters such as forest fires, avalanches, and floods, all of which can impact the existing transmission line and result in islanding the Railbelt system into individually controlled area s for extended lengths of time. The assured interconnection of the Southern and Central regions through this additional transmission line will remove hurdles to the development of additional clean energy resources. The HVDC controller22 will play an integral part of stability control of the entire Railbelt grid. The controller will work in concert with BESS controllers in the Northern, Central , and Southern 22 n (9) Figure 6- Proposed HVDC Submarine Cable Routing 17 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 regions to control transient frequencies in each of the islands to increase stability limits across each of the AC transmission interconnections. The HVDC controller will help coordinate the system-wide regulation of clean energy resources. It will be integral to the ability to black-start either the Southern or Central region following a catastrophic event such as a repeat of the 1964 Good Friday Earthquake, the November 2018 earthquake or the tremendous windstorm of 2022. The Railbelt’s Northern region is interconnected to the Central region by a single, 195-mile-long transmission line. The Northern region, with the highest energy costs in the Railbelt, desires to import as much energy from the Southern and Central regions as is technically and reliably feasible. The existing transmission line has a stability limit of 65-84 MW, approximately 1/3 of the thermal limit of the line. To allow large imports of power from the south, in 200 3 GVEA installed a 46 MW/15-minute NiCad BESS. The BESS prevented large and sometimes total blackouts of the GVEA system following the loss of Central region intertie. The line has been de-energized for several weeks at a time due to severe icing or structure damage at one of the many river crossings, and these events can occur multiple times per year depending on weather. Due to the single contingency line, the Northern system, like the Southern system, is limited in the amount of renewable generation it can support on its system. However, unlike the Southern system, the Northern system does not have base-line hydro generation on-line to provide grid- strength, as measured by increased Short Circuit Ratio (SCR) following the loss of the tie to the Central region. The extremely low SCR following the loss of the single line puts the system with large motors, the existing SVCs and the existing BESS at risk. The proposed Beluga – Healy line will increase transfer capabilities between regions. The line will allow Northern region wind and PV resources to be totally developed as part of the integrated grid, as opposed to as an isolated region. Regulation could be performed over multiple regions, significantly reducing the integration costs for renewable resources. The geographical diversity of wind resources will reduce the overall variability of wind and solar resources, reducing the financial impact of regulation required by thermal resources. With the Beluga-Healy line, the Northern region could be operated without thermal generation during much of the year, only needed when system conditions or climatic events warrant it, or when renewables are unavailable. Further, the proposed routing of the line along the existing AKLNG pipeline route will open access to large, currently geographically unavailable, new wind resources. The combination of the Beluga – Healy line with the proposed Soldotna – Beluga line virtually eliminates transmission constraints on renewable development in the Railbelt. Additional lines and upgrades may be needed to establish specific renewable projects. However, the bulk of the benefits to the Railbelt are realized with these two transmission lines. D. Work Plan D.1 Project Objectives Phases Description 1 230kV transmission connection between the Southern Region and the Central Region. 2 HVDC submarine circuit including HVDC terminals at Nikiski and Beluga. 3 Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) that is comprised of a BESS in both Central and North Regions. 4 230kV transmission link between the Central region and the Northern Region. 18 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 D. 2 Technical Scope Summary Phase 1 Phase 1 is a transmission tie connection that connects the HVDC submarine segments with the existing transmission system. The overall objective of this segment is to construct a parallel path between the Central region and Southern region to improve transfer capability and increase resilience. The parallel line will reduce generating costs and will provide an optional path if fires or avalanches interrupt power transfer. The tie connection adds a 230kV bay at Soldotna substation, a new 25-mile 230kV overhead transmission segment from Soldotna to a new terminal point at Nikiski where the 230kV AC system transitions to a HVDC system. A similar process is repeated on the west side of Cook Inlet where the HVDC transitions back to 230kV AC and connects to Beluga over a 5-mile transmission line. At Beluga a new 230kV circuit will terminate in an existing 230kV bay where power will feed into the existing 230kV system feeding both Central and Northern Regions. Permitting and routing this segment will undergo a NEPA process expected to take three years. A large portion of the study work was completed in 2003 th rough the Southern Intertie project Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Routing for Soldotna to Nikiski Landing transmission segment follows the recommended path in prior study effort, but additional analysis is likely as conditions/property ownership may have changed since the original study. Preliminary work will begin to secure right-of-way access through easement, special permit, or land acquisition efforts. Once the final permits are secured, easements will be finalized. Land is available at both the end points (Soldotna and Beluga), therefore permits should be minimal to accommodate local design criteria. Land for both the Nikiski Landing and Beluga Landing will be required for the switchyards and will be placed adjacent to the HVDC converter stations . Transmission construction would start with right -of-way clearing followed by material delivery and installation of structures and anchors. Following erection, down guys are installed to support structures and conductors are strung using specialized pulling equipment. The conductor is then sagged and pulled to proper tension. Following conductor installation, conductors are clipped (attached to tangent and angle structures) or dead-ended (attached to end structures), and jumpers are installed to carry current from one side of the dead-end structure to the other. To expedite construction and minimize environmental impacts, helicopter construction is recommended in inaccessible remote locations. The use of helicopters to set structures and pull sock line (stringing line or rope) can reduce labor costs and increase productivity. Helicopters can also be used to deliver material to staged locations along the transmission path. Construction will add a 230kV bay at Soldotna that will include a termination structure for the line and associated structures, switches, and breakers to interconnect the line with the existing 230kV substation. The interconnection will include relaying protection and communications to safely operate the transmission line. The Nikiski Landing station on the north end of the project will be a termination point, switching station and transition point from 230kV Alternating Current (AC) system to a bi-pole HVDC station using a HVDC converter. Phase 2 Construction Phase 2 is a 38-mile HVDC submarine cable as described above. Preliminary routing studies were completed to confirm feasibility of the crossing. HVDC terminals will be located at Nikiski and 19 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Beluga Substations. A combination of HVDC underground cables and overhead transmission lin es will be utilized from the HVDC station to the submarine cable terminal. Since the cables are solid dielectric construction, station service and buildings are not anticipated. Due to the limited number of permitting agencies, we believe the permitting can be completed in three years, even considering the substantial public interest expected on the project. Phase 3 Construction Phase 3 includes the addition of two Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). The new BESS units will be located in both Northern and Central regions and will augment the existing BESS unit in the Southern region. As discussed in the feasibility section, incorporating BESS units in all three regions will provide significant reliability and economic benefit to the entir e Railbelt. The Northern BESS will be installed within a building to provide maximum protection from Fairbank’s extreme temperatures. Both BESS units will include battery modules, power transformers, switchgear and associated bus, steel, control, fire suppression and communications equipment. Phase 4 Construction Phase 4 is a 220-mile 230kV transmission link between Beluga in the Central Region and Healy in the Northern Region. The transmission line uses an existing spare 230kV bay at the Beluga 230kV yard and adds a 230kV substation at Healy. The transmission route is envisioned to follow the AKLNG right of way to Healy. A route selection study will be completed to reach a final determination on routing. Special considerations for outreach and flexibility in construction techniques will be necessary and are expected as the line transitions Denali National and State parks. Substation construction will include steel structures, foundations, conduit and cables, two 230kV/138kV power transformers and associated breakers and switches with SCADA, communications, protection and control devices. Line construction is envisioned using a combination of steel H structures, angle and deadend structures with all the associated guys, anchors, and overhead conductor. A fiber optic cable will be included in the Optical Ground Wire (OPGW) for communications. Due to the scale of the project (220-mile length), the project will be broken into 4 sections for construction purposes with multiple contractors working concurrent schedules to meet the construction timeline of just two years. Construction techniques are like those discussed under Phase 1. Phase 4 will provide improved energy transfer and resilience between the Central and North Regions. The existing transmission line crosses some of the most difficult territory in Alaska including numerous river crossings, snow and ice loading areas, mountain terrain , and proximity to fire danger from lightning strikes prevalent in the area. An alternative path will increase resiliency and reliability and reduce occurrences of transmission unavailability to transfer power throughout the Railbelt. This additional line will provide needed access to new inaccessible renewable energy opportunities such as wind, hydroelectric and PV. Phase 4 includes both a 230kV Substation and 230kV transmission line. D.3 WBS and Task Description Summary WBS Task Name Days *Resource Start Finish 1.000 Environmental/Permitting 20 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 1.001 Cent. BESS Station 90 P1 11/5/2022 3/11/2025 1.002 No. BESS Station 45 P2 11/5/2025 1/7/2026 1.003 Preliminary Design and NEPA Process - EIS 1095 P3 5/15/2024 7/30/2028 1.004 Soldotna Switchyard 90 P1 7/15/2027 11/18/2027 1.005 Nikiski HVDC 180 P1 6/3/2025 2/10/2026 1.006 Beluga HVDC 270 P1 6/3/2025 6/17/2026 1.007 Healy 230kV Sub 90 P2 11/10/2029 3/16/2030 1.100 Approval Milestone 1.200 Go/No Go 2.000 Design & Engineering 2.001 Cent. BESS 208 D1 1/15/2024 11/2/2024 2.002 No. BESS 208 D1 1/15/2025 11/3/2025 2.003 Soldotna Switchyard 180 D1 1/17/2028 9/26/2028 2.004 Soldotna/Nikiski 230kV 360 D1 6/1/2027 10/18/2028 2.005 Nikiski HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 360 D3 7/1/2027 11/17/2028 2.006 Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 360 D3 7/1/2027 11/17/2028 2.007 HVDC Submarine Cable 180 D4 1/15/2028 9/23/2028 2.008 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 270 D1 9/1/2028 9/15/2029 2.009 Beluga/Healy Transmission 1005 D2 1/15/2025 11/25/2028 2.010 Healy 230kV Sub 240 D2 12/1/2028 11/2/2029 2.100 Design Complete Milestone 3.000 Land Acquisition 3.001 No. BESS 90 L1 1/10/2026 5/16/2026 3.002 Soldotna/Nikiski 230kV 180 L2 8/10/2028 4/19/2029 3.003 Nikiski HVDC Terminal 180 L2 8/1/2028 4/10/2029 3.004 Beluga HVDC Terminal 270 L2 8/1/2028 8/15/2029 3.005 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 270 L2 8/10/2028 8/24/2029 3.006 Beluga/Healy Transmission 730 L1 8/10/2028 5/31/2031 3.007 Healy 230kV Sub 90 L1 3/20/2030 7/24/2030 3.100 Approval Milestone 3.200 Go/No Go 4.000 Long-lead Equipment Purchase 4.001 Cent. BESS 263 PO1 5/5/2023 5/9/2024 4.002 No. BESS 263 PO1 11/5/2025 11/9/2026 4.003 Soldotna/Nikiski 230kV 180 PO1 10/22/2028 7/1/2029 4.004 Nikiski HVDC Terminal 526 PO1 6/5/2025 6/13/2027 4.005 Beluga HVDC Terminal 526 PO1 6/5/2025 6/13/2027 4.006 HVDC Cable 526 PO1 9/25/2028 10/3/2030 4.007 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 180 PO1 9/20/2029 5/30/2030 4.008 Beluga/Healy 365 PO1 11/30/2028 4/26/2030 4.009 Healy 230kV Sub 526 PO1 11/10/2029 05/01/2031 4.100 Approval Milestone 21 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 4.200 Go/No Go 5.000 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep 5.001 Cent. BESS 30 C1 1/15/2025 2/26/2025 5.002 No. BESS 30 C2 1/15/2026 2/26/2026 5.003 Soldotna/Beluga Trans 125 R1 11/20/2028 5/14/2029 5.004 Nikiski HVDC 186 C1 6/10/2025 2/26/2026 5.005 Beluga HVDC 207 C1 6/10/2026 3/27/2027 5.006 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 25 R1 6/5/2029 7/10/2029 5.007 Beluga/Healy Trans 5.008 Section 1 283 R1 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.009 Section 2 283 R2 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.010 Section 3 283 R3 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.011 Section 4 283 R4 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.012 Healy 230kV Sub 90 C2 1/15/2030 5/21/2030 5.100 Right-of-Way Clearing Milestone 6.000 Construction 6.001 Cent. BESS Sub 403 E1 3/5/2025 9/21/2026 6.002 Cent. BESS 360 E1 10/1/2026 2/18/2028 6.003 No. BESS Building 396 G1 3/5/2026 9/11/2027 6.004 No. BESS Sub 403 E2 3/5/2026 9/21/2027 6.005 No. BESS 360 E2 10/1/2027 2/17/2029 6.006 Soldotna Switchyard 140 E3 6/1/2029 12/14/2029 6.007 Soldotna/Nikiski Landing 230kV 251 L1 6/1/2029 5/19/2030 6.008 Nikiski Landing Switchyard 140 E3 12/20/2029 7/4/2030 6.009 Nikiski HVDC Terminal 433 E4 12/20/2029 8/19/2031 6.010 Beluga Landing Switchyard 140 E5 12/20/2028 7/4/2029 6.011 Beluga HVDC Terminal 431 E5 7/10/2029 3/7/2031 6.012 HVDC Submarine Cable Laying 90 Sub1 8/1/2031 12/5/2031 6.013 Beluga Landing/Beluga 230kV 157 L1 6/1/2030 1/7/2031 6.014 Beluga/Healy 230kV 6.015 Section 1 656 L2 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.016 Section 2 656 L3 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.017 Section 3 656 L4 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.018 Section 4 656 L5 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.019 Healy 230kV Sub 623 E4 1/4/2029 5/28/2031 6.100 Construction Completion Milestone 7.000 Commissioning/Testing 7.010 Cent. BESS 90 D1 10/1/2026 2/4/2027 7.020 No. BESS 90 D2 2/20/2029 6/26/2029 7.030 Nikiski HVDC 49 D1 8/22/2031 10/29/2031 7.040 Beluga HVDC 49 D1 3/12/2031 5/19/2031 7.050 Soldotna/Beluga Trans 30 D1 5/22/2031 7/3/2031 22 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 7.060 Healy 230kV Sub 90 D2 5/30/2031 10/3/2031 7.070 Beluga/Healy Trans 30 D2 10/5/2031 11/16/2031 7.100 Commissioning/Testing Milestone Resource Description Resource Description C Civil Contractor D Design Engineering Firm E Electrical Contractor G General Contractor P Permit/Lands Company PO Purchasing Officer L Line Contractor R ROW Clearing Contractor Sub Submarine Cable Layer D.4 Milestone Summary Task Milestone Description Timeline Criteria 1.0 Project Management Plan and CBP 90 days Plan Submittal 2.0 Cybersecurity Plan 90 days Plan Submittal 3.0 Permits & CBP outreach complete Per schedule Record of Decision, permit issued, outreach 4.0 Land Acquisition Completion Per schedule Purchase/Easement documents executed 5.0 Long-lead Procurement Completion Per schedule Delivery Schedule Submitted 6.0 Construction Completion Monthly Monthly Progress Reports 7.0 Testing & Commissioning 120 days post Testing & Commissioning Report *Quarterly milestones will be added as the design is further refined. D. 5 Go/No Go Decision Points – Post NEPA Description Criteria Budget Period *Permitting Go/No Go Permit Issued 120 days Land Acquisition Go/No Go Purchase /Easement Agreement 180 days Long-lead Procurement Go/No Go P.O.’s secured 270 days Construction Go/No Go Construction Contract 540 days *Does not include NEPA Process Timeline- additional Go/No Go points will be added as design is further refined Go/No go conditions can occur through the routing, permitting and land acquisition process. Landowners/adjacent landowners/special interest groups and others can object to the use, view or construction method being proposed. The outcomes of the objections could be route adjustment, structure type change (wood pole to steel, fiberglass, or laminate), underground vs. overhead, longer conductor span lengths or specialized conductors. Generally, the No Go option results in a change rather than a complete loss of project. Transmission line materials such as submarine cable, power transformers, transmission structures, switches, breakers, anchors, and overhead conductor can have long lead times depending on the materials and design used. A No Go condition could arise when certain products are unavailable in the market to meet the project’s deadline. Options may include a change in design/material to accommodate the unavailability, such as using fiberglass structures rather than steel, or extending the completion time to accommodate the delivery schedule. Go/No Go on construction would generally occur if labor and equipment were unavailable or in short supply. Alternatives include using helicopter construction to reduce labor costs and speed construction. Project labor agreements can be used to minimize labor disruptions and increase available staffing using less skilled labor for less technical work such as hauling material , excavation, and general labor requirements. D.6 End of Project Goal 23 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Goal Description 1 Completion of transmission lines/HVDC submarine cable from Soldotna to Nikiski to Beluga and to Healy, using innovative and technical solutions in extreme environments. 2 Completion of BESS units in Northern and Central Regions to coordinate with existing BESS unit and HVDC in Southern region to eliminate small signal instability events and increase frequency control. 3 Significant increase in transfer capability between regions (75MW to 200-300 MW). The increased capacity will enable regional participation in clean energy projects, reduce capacity limitations, add redundancy, and improve economies of scale. 4 Reduce reliance on fossil fuels and carbon emissions and improve resiliency; virtually eliminate impacts of long-term outages due to extreme weather, wildfire, natural disaster and other disruptive events. 5 Document lessons learned that can be shared throughout Alaska, the nation, and the world. 6 Adoption of innovative rate-making techniques to incent transmission construction, easing member/ratepayer burden in procuring matching funds for the project. D.7 Project Schedule (Gantt Chart) *A more detailed version of this Gantt chart is available for review. D.8 Buy American Requirements for Infrastructure Projects This project will not include applicable infrastructure work. D.9 Project Management Overall Approach The project will use traditional project management techniques and controls such as change management, budget and cost control, and scope management as identified in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). A comprehensive risk log will be maintained by the project manager. All risk and mitigation strategies will be upda ted, at a minimum, at each milestone. The project will be managed by an overall project lead under the guidance of the Team. The Team is comprised of Railbelt utility engineers, system operators, and managers. Acting as the project steering committee, the Team will guide the project lead’s efforts and provide access to resources and data. The Team and DOE will validate and verify the performance of the systems at each milestone and go/no go point. Role Description Project Lead Manages overall project Engineering Liaison Evaluates process to secure needed design & engineering expertise Lands Liaison Evaluates process to secure land acquisition, easements, and permits Construction Liaison Evaluates the best method to secure construction contracts Labor Liaison Works with labor unions, workforce development organizations, universities, and trade schools to arrange for needed labor Project Management Lead Manages overall schedule and coordinates individual projects 24 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Finance & Grant Management Lead Coordinates work with AEA, utilities, DOE, RUS, and private lenders Government Relations Lead Communicates project details with local, state, and federal entities Purchasing & Materials Lead Assures key materials are available and monitors and works with vendors on unforeseen Buy America goals Public Relations Lead Communicates with key stakeholders and the general public, and executes the Community Benefit Plan outreach Legal & Contracts Lead Develops contracts and provides guidance with appropriate terms and conditions Accounting and Closeout Coordinator Coordinates with project leads, assuring all proper documentation is secured to timely close out projects; coordinates with Finance and Grant Management Lead Project Value and Change Management Projects will be competitively bid. Traditional project change control methods will be used. Quality Assurance/Control QA/QC Performed by the project management team; strict check-out and commissioning procedures will be developed in the Factory Acceptance (FAT)and Site Acceptance test (SAT) plans. Project Communication Project initiation documents, and Project Management Plan (PMP) will contain a project communications plan detailing chain of command and appropriate communication meeting cadence and tempo. E. Technical Qualifications and Resources Combined, the Team combined has two hundred years of Railbelt system operations, construction, and engineering experience. The Team is experienced and well versed in executing complex transmission line and substation projects in Alaska’s challenging environment. The Railbelt utilities have skilled engineers and designers, and the local work force includes IBEW journeymen, technicians, and linemen who have built the electrical system we have today. Engineering and design firms, who routinely propose projects as envisioned in the application , are available locally and in the Pacific Northwest. Alaska has multiple highly-skilled electrical contractors through the National Electrical Contractor Association (NECA), who employees workers from IBEW local 1547. They are versed in both high voltage transmission and substation construction. The IBEW has out-of-state traveler availability and a state-of-the-art apprenticeship school that can ramp up to meet demand. The NECA contractors have specialized tools and equipment to undertake remote offroad transmission construction. These specialized techniques have expedited construction and minimized environmental damage. E.1 Unique Qualifications and Expertise The Project Team is unique in that it includes all relevant decision makers in the Railbelt. The Team has decades of experience in constructing transmission lines and installing, operating, and maintaining high voltage (34.5kV 138 kV and 230kV Alternating Current (AC)) submarine cables in Cook Inlet. In addition, they have decades of experience with BESS systems. The existing BESS in Fairbanks at 46MW for 5 Minutes was the largest BESS in the world at the time of its installation in 2003, and, the Southern region BESS (46.5MW-2hours) was commissioned and installed in 2022. Further, with six Static VAR Compensators (SVCs) on the Railbelt the team is very familiar with installation, commissioning, and operation of high-power electronics like those used in 25 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 HVDC converters. The Team is currently rebuilding the 39-mile Sterling to Quarts Creek line to 230 kV. The Team has also collaborated on a number of other projects including the construction of the $350M Bradley Lake Hydroelectric facility in 1991, $47M Battle Creek diversion at Bradley Lake in 2020, and $10M Controls replacement on the Northern SVCS. Team members have also done significant transmission line construction individually. E.2 Existing Equipment and Facilities The Team’s systems have complex state-of-the-art SCADA/EMS systems with an interregional ICCP link for data transfer. A complex network of ringed SONET compatible digital microwave and fiber assets and hardened stations for high-speed communications. The microwave and fiber systems are currently used for SEL high speed mirrored bit communications to enable high speed transfer tripping. As noted above, several high voltage AC submarine cables and BESS systems and SVC’s as well as the equipment and technical know-how to work on them. E.3 Relevant, Previous Work Efforts, Demonstrated Innovations Numerous complex systems have been studied and successfully placed in the Railbelt by project team members. For example, as previously referenced, in 2003 the Northern region BESS, in 2022 the Southern region BESS, and the Central region BESS which is currently under procurement. High voltage AC Submarine cables have been installed, the earliest at 138kV in 1973. Static Var Compensators have been added, the earliest of which was 1985, and more recently the control systems on all the Alaska Intertie and Bradley Lake SVCs have been completely replaced. Installation of SCADA and EMS systems at all five utilities; installation of interregional digital microwave and fiber optic systems; installation of high-speed communication-assisted transfer trip and line current differential protection on all Railbelt transmission lines; eigenvector/value analysis that defined and mitigated, the small signal instability points between the weak summer valley Railbelt grid and the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric project. The study of development and installation of the Railbelt’s multi-stage, multi-delayed under frequency load shed schemes is another example of a complex real-time control system developed and installed by members of the project team. E.4 Key Team Members’ Time Commitment Key members will be assigned to this project as necessary to ensure successful completion. E.5 DOE Technical Services None CURTIS W. THAYER Experience and Achievements Alaska Energy Authority 2019-Present The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the state's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Position: Executive Director  The Executive Director serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority, responsible for all business and operations. I work closely with the Board as it sets Authority policies, goals, and objectives, and is responsible for the execution of Board directives. I have developed a close relationship with the Governor, Commissioners of principal State departments, the Legislature, business community, and the public to advance the mission of the Authority. Achievements: Increased the profile and developed a strategic action plan to advance the goal and objectives of the Authority  Worked with the Board to establish long-range vision, strategies, goals, policies, and plans; including leading the strategic planning process and working with the Board and Legislature to implement the strategy to achieve that vision.  Strengthening the working relationship with the five utilities is like shuttle diplomacy. A few of the key issues during the three years have included purchase of develop a strategy and bonding package for a $170 million upgrade for the transmission lines from Homer to Anchorage (closes 11/30/22), purchase SS/Q line ($17 million), Battle Creek diversion and construction delays and construction claims, ligation on the SQ line, and Governor’s goal of reducing the cost of power. Managing expectations of the Board, Governor’s Office, Legislature and our five utility partners has proved to be challenging (and rewarding).  Oversight responsibility of the Authority’s rural energy programs, including energy system upgrades, loan programs, alternative/renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the Power Cost Equalization program .  Reviewed and analyzed legislation, laws, regulations, and other public policies that may affect the Authority’s mission and programs and recommends changes when appropriate.  Developing and maintaining professional/cooperative relationships with local, state, and federal agencies, and Authority business partners.  Working with legislative or other government agencies regarding policies, programs, and budgets. Alaska State Chamber of Commerce 2015-2019 The Alaska Chamber is a non-profit, membership funded advocacy organization founded in 1953. The Chamber membership is comprised of companies, associations, and individuals from every business sector in Alaska. The Chamber’s core mission is to make Alaska the best place to do business through its advocacy for and defense of sound business policies based on the principles of free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. Position: President and CEO  As the President & Chief Executive Officer, I serve as the top administrative officer, principal spokesm an, chief advocate in Juneau and Washington DC, chief finance officer and team leader. Achievements: Raised the profile of the Alaska Chamber  Coordinated and guided the work of staff, lobbyists, counsel, committee, and volunteers in marshaling and expressing the Chamber’s business perspective on public policy issues which has increased the profile of the Alaska Chamber statewide through outreach and tackling tough legislative positions that benefit and promote business.  Lead efforts to develop and manage coalitions involving other business associations, advocacy groups local chambers and the US Chamber to achieve Chamber goals.  Grew Chamber membership for the last three straight years.  Developed and implemented a financial plan that has increased Chamber reserves by 15 percent within three years. State of Alaska, Department of Administration 2012 – 2014 With 1,100 employees and an annual budget of $350 million, DoA facilitates state government operations by providing policy leadership and management services in essential areas, including finance/accounting, payroll, human resources/retirement benefits, information technology, labor negotiations, legal services, procurement/facilities, and risk management. Positions: Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner  Served as the chief executive officer of DoA and as a member of Governor Sean Parnell’s cabinet. Unanimously confirmed by the Alaska State Legislature.  Advised Governor on IT, pensions, healthcare, and labor relations with the Legislature and business community.  Responsible for development and implementation of all DOA policies and programs. Hired and managed two deputy commissioners and ten division directors. Achievements: Reducing the Cost of Government  Reformed PERS/TERS (state/local government pension programs) to reduce annual state contribution and ensure long-term solvency. Annual savings are more than $300 million.  Restructured AlaskaCare (state healthcare program) to reduce state contribution without reducing core benefits . Annual savings are more than $60 million.  Negotiated with the state’s eleven public employee’s unions to limit automatic merit increases, reduce leave accruals, and cap benefit cash-outs, all without work stoppages. Annual savings are more than $20 million.  Worked with Legislature to revamp state procurement statutes to increase transparency and competition . Applied new statutes and best practices to major telecom procurement, which reduced annual state expenses by 50%. Previous Experience  2009-2012: Deputy Commissioner, State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development  2004-2009: Director, Corporate and External Affairs, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company  2002-2004: President & CEO, Thayer & Associates (political and corporate communications consulting)  2001-2002: External Affairs Advisor, Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team (BP, Phillips, Exxon)  1997-2000: Special Assistant, U.S Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska)  1993-1996: Professional Staff, U.S House Committee on Natural Resources  1991-1992: Management Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Education  University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Business/Justice  National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), Golden CO, Executive Energy Leadership Academy  University of Wisconsin, Institute of Organizational Management, U.S. Chamber  State of Alaska, Real Estate License Community Activities CURRENT  Alaska Board of Marine Pilots, Chair  Don Young Institute for Alaska, Chair  Alaska Leaders Archives, Treasurer PAST  Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation, Director  Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Director  Alaska Retirement Management Board, Trustee  Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board, Director  Abused Women Aid in Crisis (AWAIC), Director and Treasurer  Committee of 100 Top Chamber Executives, U.S. Chamber  Council of State Chamber Executives  Selected as “Top 40 under 40” community leader CLAY CHRISTIAN MBA, MS, CPA, CIA clay.christian@gmail.com • Cell: 301-706-1061• LinkedIn Profile • Chief Financial Officer • Chief financial officer with a long career of leadership for organizations undergoing major transitions. Creative and sound decision-making through changes in strategic direction, mergers and acquisitions, fundraising, debt and equity financing, performance improvement, financial audit restatements, and information systems. Focus areas include capital programs, investment, restructuring and alignment, asset management, procurement, real estate and construction, contract management, optimization, compliance, team building, and continuous training and process improvement. Deep experience with public and private partnerships, government sponsored entities, not-for-profit companies, investment tax credit, and qualified opportunity zone business development programs. Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, and Big 4 public auditor. • CORE COMPETENCIES • Chief Financial Officer • Strategic Planning • Risk Management • Capital Development • Not-for-Profit Mergers and Acquisitions • Financial and Management Reporting • Change Management • Optimization Excellent Written & Verbal Communication Skills • Leadership • Team Building and People Development Information Systems • Internal Controls • Training • Continuous Process Improvement • KEY ACHIEVEMENTS • • Chief Financial Officer for Alaska Infrastructure Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) • Vice President, Finance for 130-year-old company, Crowley Fuels, Alaska • Interim-Controller for start-up $3 billion Water Street Tampa real estate development • Independent consultant through Cross Services LLC for numerous companies undergoing substantial change (Fannie Mae, Muni Mae, Capital Petroleum Group, and above Water Street Tampa) • Worked remotely through pandemic and delivered outstanding results • Strong engagement with public auditors through new audits, consolidations, and financial restatements • Frequent meetings with boards, executives, general counsel, and operational leaders • Strategic and financial transformations • PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTING EXPERIENCE • Chief Financial Officer: Alaska Infrastructure Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) – Anchorage, Alaska 2023 – Present Leading team of more than 22 professionals for both entities who manage more than $3 billion in investment, federal, and state programs. Vice President, Finance: Crowley Fuels – Anchorage, Alaska 2021 – 2023 Lead for more than 20 professionals; equity raise of $120m; capital improvements of $20m; budgeting, forecasting, optimization, financial and compliance audits, investor presentations. CLAY CHRISTIAN • clay.christian@gmail.com • Cell: 301-706-1061 • Page 2 Private Equity Investment Firm (Cross Services LLC) – Remote to Tampa, Florida 2019 – 2021 Privately held $3B real estate investment, backed by wealthy individuals. • Interim controller; overseeing financial reporting, compliance, and leading accounting transformation on behalf of RSM and Deloitte, global public accounting firms. Capitol Petroleum Group (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2011 – 2018 Privately held $1B firm focused on wholesale and retail motor fuel sales in East Coast markets. • Led first-ever comprehensive audits of companies, developed compliance program and financial reporting system. Worked closely with mezzanine investors and bankers through budgeting, forecasting, financial restatements, and consolidations. • Designed and developed systems using SQL programs, created executive dashboards, trained accounting department, and implemented cloud-based applications to replace legacy systems. Miscellaneous Clients (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2009 – 2011 My private consulting firm, focusing on investment and capital raises for several non-public clients. Municipal Mortgage & Equity LLC (Cross Services LLC) – Baltimore, Maryland 2007 – 2009 Real estate management company with portfolio of municipal and mortgage revenue bonds. • Led team of 40 examining accounting and reporting of more than 20 business units subject to consolidation as variable interest entities. Designed and conducted cash flow modeling, valuation, and consolidation for 2,200 not-for-profit entities in affordable housing program. Fannie Mae (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2005 – 2006 Largest government sponsored entity providing mortgage capital to lenders, making housing more accessible and affordable. • Led team to review accounting policies and information systems for mortgage-backed securities programs and investments in not-for-profit affordable housing organizations. • Designed and developed SQL database to monitor and report operating performance. • EARLIER EXPERIENCE • Freddie Mac – Washington, DC Metro Area Ø Senior Director, Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance CohnReznick – Washington, DC Metro Area (lead CPA firm to low-income housing tax credit industry) Ø Senior Manager, Consulting and Audit Sodexo – Washington, DC Metro Area (global leader in food and facilities management services) Ø Senior Director, Strategic Information Analysis Ø Director, Internal Audit Ernst & Young – Boston, Massachusetts (global leader in public accounting) Ø Manager, Consulting and Audit • EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATIONS • MBA and MS, Accounting – Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts MS, Economics and BA, Geography – West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia Certified Public Accountant – CPA (Massachusetts License No. 16762) Certified Internal Auditor – CIA (Certificate No. 25966) Pamela J. Ellis Phone: (907) 771-3981 | Email: PEllis@akenergyauthority.org EDUCATION  Master Class for Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence University of Alaska Anchorage (Fall Semester 2015)  Bachelor of Arts, Major in Accounting / Minor in Management College of Saint Benedict – Saint Joseph, Minnesota (1987-1989) University of San Diego – San Diego, California (1985-1986) EXPERIENCE Alaska Energy Authority - Anchorage, Alaska Controller | December 19, 2022 to Present Supervisor: Curtis Thayer  Duties include supervision of the daily accounting functions, finance staff; Develop, design and implement policies, procedures, internal controls and work processes; oversees the Finance section for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA); Direct supervision of a Project Controller and Assistant Controller; conducts and oversees research and implementation of new accounting standards; controls budget and expenditures for both the AEA operations and capital budgets with restrictions by funding source; Manages federal receipts by reviewing federal grant applications for sufficient federal budget authorization and funding for match requirements; manages federal grant applications and ensures that finance components of the federal financial assistance award applications are properly completed; Manages the financial transactions of awarded federal grants and assures compliance with all federal financial reporting requirements; Reviews and assists with the publication and audit, by external auditors, of the AEA annual Single Audit; Manages the receipt and expenditure of all other funding sources of AEA. Including state funds and community grants that are managed by AEA on behalf of communities; reviews all AEA sub-recipient grants for initial or amendment. Reviews and approves all sub-recipient awards close outs; and responsible for the annual financial statements for AEA. Oversees the annual financial audit with external auditors. Municipality of Anchorage - Anchorage, Alaska Assistant Controller (Acting Controller 2011 & 2019) | February 2008 to Present December 16, 2022 Supervisors (Controllers/CFOs (when Acting for over 6 months)): Teresa Peterson, David Ryan, Lucinda Mahoney (CFO 2011), Nanette Spear, Tom Fink, Tammy Clayton, Alex Slivka (CFO 2019), and Mollie Mo rrison.  Supervision of up to seven staff accountants and up to four Contractors (Supervisory backfill during SAP implementation) as Assistant Controller and up to twenty-three staff accountants and four supervisors as Acting Controller for the Controller Division;  Duties of the Assistant Controller include review and creation of year-end workpapers, Detail Statements, capital asset schedules, footnotes, required supplementary schedules (RSI’s), and statistical tables for the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Coordination with internal and external auditors including audit field work and audit of the detailed statements and ACFR. As Acting Controller created the Letter of Transmittal and MD&A for the ACFR. Created audit finding recommended corrective action plans. Creation of the GASB 34 conversion entries and all required documentation. Recording of all debt financing activities at the governmental fund level and processing the conversion to the government-wide level for government-wide financial statement presentation.  Create and post in the General Ledger (GL) all required GL transactions required for G.O. debt refunding’s. Review all new G.O. debt GL postings for MOA’s Governmental Funds. Offer consultation with the Public Finance Division in regard to capitalization of capital assets for upcoming G.O. Bond issues.  Incorporation of three discretely presented component units and one trust fund in the form of four separate stand -alone audited financial statements into the government-wide financial statements for MOA.  Creation of a full set of stand-alone financial statements for CIVICVentures LLC (a blended component unit), including the MD&A, financial statements (in the full accrual and modified accrual presentation) with a two-year comparison and footnotes. Maintenance of inventory documentation and capital asset schedules. Participation in the annual audit.  Oversight of all daily accounting functions of Governmental Funds (to include the General Fund), Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Fiduciary Funds, and Suspense Funds (such as the Cash Pool Fund and the Employee Pay and Benefits Fund). Oversight of the MOA’s capital asset and construction work in progress (CWIP) daily accounting activities. The Assistant Controller supervises the Fixed Asset Accountant and Infrastructure Accountant for MOA. Daily review and approval of journal entries, fund certifications of Municipal Assembly documents, and reconciliations. Creation and management of month and year-end processing schedules. Responsible for period close coordination with other Finance Directors. Hold weekly meetings as required. Process the year-end split payroll postings and perform extensive reconciliations before posting.  Subject matter expert (SME) of the General Ledger (GL), Controlling Module (CO), Asset Management Module (AM), and the Projects Module of SAP.  Assist with implementation of all new GASB pronouncements. Review and update of Finance policy and procedures. Creation of internal control documentation and oversight of internal controls regarding the GL and creation of the ACFR per GAAP. Acting Controller as required. Fund / Reconciliation Accounting Supervisor | February 2005 to January 2008 Budget Coordinator Finance & CFO Departments Supervisors: Teresa Peterson, Wanda Tankersley, Michelle Drew, and David Richards  Supervised five Senior Staff Accountants. Two reconciliation accountants and three fund accountants. Oversight of the MOA’s daily accounting activities of the General Funds, Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Internal Service Funds and Trust Funds (Fiduciaries). To include review of all fund certifications created for the CFO for pending assembly legislation. Oversight of MOA’s capital asset module and creation of MOA’s capital asset footnote for the ACFR. Creation of various footnotes, RSI’s, and statistic tables of the ACFR. Review of MOA’s bank reconciliations, investment reconciliations, subledger to general ledger reconciliations and unclaimed property filings. Assist four Finance Divisions of the Finance Department and the CFO Department with review and creation of their annual operating budgets. Assist with review and updates to the intergovernmental cost allocation plans (IGCs) and methodologies for the Finance and CFO Departments. Acting Controller as required. General Fund Accountant | April 2004 to January 2005: Supervisor: Guy Baily  Create workpapers, detail statements, RSI’s, and statistical tables for all of MOA’s General Funds. Review and MOA wide department generated journal entries and creation of journal entries for all of MOA’s General Funds. Create fund balance worksheets for the General Funds of MOA. Reconcile all balance sheet accounts of the MOA General Funds and create year-end workpapers. Grant Fund Accountant | October 2001 to March 2004 Supervisor: Catherine Gettler-Amyott  Create monthly and quarterly grant reports for state, state pass thru federal, and federal grants awarded to MOA. Reconcile the GL to grant reports and make correcting entries in the GL as required. Receipt all grant proceeds and create year-end accrual / deferral entries. Create workpapers for the generation of the Single Audit. This was for MOA’s Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds and Special Revenue Funds. Assist in audit requests when being audited by external or internal auditors. Reconciliation Accountant | April 2001 to September 2001 Supervisor: David Richards  Reconciled the Accounts Payable subledger and Accounts Receivable subledger to the General Ledger. Reconciled the revenue postings to all Governmental Capital Project Funds and created corrective entries. PROFESSIONAL BOARDS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATES  Governmental Finance Officers Association – Member  Municipal Audit Committee – Member (when serving as the Acting Controller)  Lost Lake Run Board Member  GFOA certificate for Excellence in Financial Accounting and Reporting (2019 and 2020). COMPUTER SKILLS  Microsoft Word  Microsoft Excel  Microsoft PowerPoint  Microsoft Outlook  PeopleSoft Financial Systems  Corel WordPerfect  Corel Quattro Pro  IBM Lotus  Yardi Property Management Software  Microsoft Dynamics NAV 365 Business Central  Intuit Turbo Tax  Intuit QuickBooks Pro  SAP (to include completion of 1 semester SAP course at UAA on Hana, BW, and NetWeaver)  Kronos and NEOGOV  Libra Accounting Software  Skyline Software Systems  Onsite Manager  Various Web Based Reporting Systems BRANDY M. DIXON 13429 Karen Street Anchorage, AK 99515 (907) 764-3928 bmdinak@gmail.com SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Creative, forward thinking, resourceful Communications Professional with 15+ years experience in all facets of marketing, advertising, and public relations. Successfully promote diverse activities and events. Conduct public information, social marketing, and education campaigns. Strengths include:  Written and Oral Communication  Planning and Organizing  Managing and Mentoring  Researching and Evaluating Detail, results and goal oriented. Productive team member with dedication to quality and professionalism. Proven track record of putting ideas into motion and creating engaging, targeted marketing campaigns. SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS Written and Oral Communication  Executed mail and email broadcast campaigns, public relations, conferences shows, media advertisements, promotions, customer communications, and other marketing plans to inform the public.  Designed, scripted, edited and arranged production of internal/external newsletters, brochures, annual reports, corporate profiles and submissions, and internal/external communications.  Served as spokesperson for the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC). Responded in timely matter to media inquiries, arranged interviews, distributed press releases and media advisories to provide accurate information. Encouraged positive and discreet communication on controversial, sensitive and proprietary topics. Protected patients’ privacy and confidentiality according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act guidelines.  Ensured cross-system coordination between ANMC and its Tribal Health Organization partners throughout the state and interactions with media regarding personnel, programs, services and policies.  Managed interposition of vendors and contractors to successfully complete projects on time and on budget. Managing and Mentoring  Supervised team of five. Oversaw time and attendance, discipline, training, coaching, performance evaluations and ongoing development opportunities. Facilitated staff meetings.  Delegated responsibilities and assignments among staff and monitored timely completion of projects.  Identified and coordinated specific training opportunities for employees in alignment with their employee development plans.  Monitored and coached 25+ scholarship and internship participants throughout the course of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium’s (ANTHC) 9-week internship. Arranged travel, housing, onboarding, interviewed department heads for intern placement matching at ANMC and conducted periodic evaluations.  Managed database of 125+ scholarship and internship program participants via Microsoft Access to monitor program success.  Developed and presented information to executives on department activities and goals to sustain budget funding. Planning and Organizing  In collaboration with leadership, developed short and long-term strategic communication plans for ANMC to fulfill Board of Directors’ goals and objectives.  Planned and coordinated numerous company events for 2,000+ employees including Joint Commission celebration, employee picnic, employee appreciation celebrations and United Way campaigns. Provided key organization functions as a member of planning team for Annual Meeting for four years with 100+ attendees.  Successfully led marketing activities to promote the Healthy Alaska Natives Foundations’ annual fundraising ball for three years with an average attendance of 450+ attendees and celebrity guests.  Organized 20-30 employee forums over a two-year period with an average attendance of 30-40 people, which resulted in improved communication between hospital administration and staff. Researching and Evaluating  Conducted focus groups in partnership with external contractor to gain insight on needs of target audience. Developed communications plan based on results.  Initiated strategic planning and implementation on a variety of communication and marketing plans.  Reviewed ANTHC Scholarship and Internship applications, interviewed candidates and observed disciplinary procedures for program and departmental positions. Researched, developed and conducted trainings. Monitored and analyzed budgetary position for program. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Communications Director Communications and Events Director Client Insights Special Assistant to the CEO Marketing Manager Public Relations Manager Manager of Public Relations Senior Office Specialist Program Assistant Senior Office Assistant Office Manager Marketing Coordinator Alaska Energy Authority, AK Alaska Chamber, AK Solstice Advertising, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Southcentral Foundation, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Rizzo & Company, AK Microcom, AK 9/19 – Current 12/13 – 9-19 9/13 – 12/13 01/12 – 9/13 09/09 – 01/12 04/08 – 09/09 07/07 – 04/08 04/06 – 07/07 05/05 – 04/06 11/04 – 05/05 04/04 – 10/04 06/03 – 04/04 TECHNICAL SKILLS Microsoft Office Suite: Adobe Software:  Access  Excel  Outlook  PowerPoint  Publisher  Visio  Word  Acrobat  Bridge  InDesign  Illustrator  Photoshop PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS  American Marketing Association Alaska Chapter  Public Relations Society of America Alaska Chapter  Alaska Design Forum  Cook Inlet Regional Incorporation Shareholder EDUCATION  Bachelor of Art, Art, University of Alaska Anchorage, AK  Diploma, Robert Service High School, Anchorage, AK MARK ZIESMER (907) 771-3985 mziesmer@aidea.org EXPERIENCE July 2022 to Current ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, Anchorage, Alaska Project Controller – Owned Assets  Responsible for all accounting activities related to utility assets.  Establish, monitor, and enforce internal controls and accounting procedures.  Prepare, analyze, and distribute quarterly financial and compliance reports.  Work with management and utility partners for development of the annual budget.  Coordinate, plan, and serve as point of contact for the annual audit. July 2020 to July 2022 ALASKA SAUSAGE COMPANY, INC, Anchorage, Alaska Controller  Responsible for all company financial and accounting operations.  Evaluated procedures and processes for effectiveness and adherence to GAAP.  Administered 401k plans, payroll, health insurance, and workers compensation.  Collaborated with outside consultants to complete annual review and tax return.  Prepared bank reconciliations and cash forecasts. November 2010 to July 2020 DOYON UTILITIES, LLC, Fairbanks, Alaska Senior Regulatory Analyst (April 2019 – July 2020)  Prepared revenue requirement schedules and depreciation studies for rate filings.  Submitted quarterly and annual regulatory reports to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.  Assisted legal counsel with analyzing and developing regulatory strategic plans.  Aided the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in conducting utility audits and review of rate filings.  Provided guidance to corporate staff on regulatory matters. Senior Financial Analyst (July 2018 – April 2019)  Supervised and reviewed day-to-day work of financial analyst team.  Prepared the annual corporate budget, financial projections, and variance analyses.  Provided analysis for tariff rate changes and known and measurable adjustments. Business Systems Analyst (June 2017 – July 2018)  Maintained responsibilities held under Senior Utility Accountant/Analyst title.  Heavier focus on managing corporate wide system implementations and upgrades. Senior Utility Accountant/Analyst (November 2010 – June 2017)  Project manager for corporate wide system implementations and upgrades.  Spearheaded system process improvements and integration projects.  Provided ad hoc reporting support for all departments.  Reviewed work of accounts payable, payroll, and general ledger staff.  Supervised monthly accounting close and financial reporting.  Maintained corporate debt balances and compliance reporting.  Prepared bank reconciliations and cash flow forecasts. June 2010 to November 2010 KINROSS GOLD CORPORATION, Fairbanks, Alaska Senior Accountant  Finance team member for an enterprise resource planning system implementation.  Provided cost and fixed asset accounting for capital projects.  Supervised and reviewed day-to-day work of accounts payable and payroll staff. MARK ZIESMER (907) 771-3985 mziesmer@aidea.org EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) June 2009 to June 2010 DOYON UTILITIES, LLC, Fairbanks, Alaska Asset Guardian Coordinator / Project Accountant  Project manager for asset management software implementation.  Develop work order, preventive maintenance, and asset tagging processes.  Assist controller with identifying and developing project and cost reporting capability. April 2005 to May 2009 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES ALASKA, LLC, North Pole, Alaska Project Controls (May 2007 to May 2009) Accounts Payable Supervisor / Yield Analyst (December 2005 to April 2007) Project Cost Analyst (April 2005 to November 2005) October 2002 to March 2005 WILSON AND WILSON CPA’S, INC., Fairbanks, Alaska Senior Accountant EDUCATION University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska Master of Business Administration, Capital Markets University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma Bachelor of Arts, Economics CERTIFICATION IMA Data Analytics & Visualization Fundamentals Institute of Management Accountants IMA Robotic Process Automation Series Institute of Management Accountants UNIX System Administrator Cochise College PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Institute of Management Accountants – Member, Treasurer Government Finance Officers Association – Member COMPUTER SKILLS MS Office Suite, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Dynamics, MS SQL Server, Aspen Canopy, Oracle, Maximo, JD Edwards, QuickBooks, Jet Reports, IBM Cognos Connection, UNIX, Linux Bryan E. Carey, P.E. 13041 Ridgewood Road Anchorage, Alaska 99516 (907) 382-0949 E-mail B3Alaska@Outlook.com Summary of Qualifications Professional Engineer with over 30 years project experience at remote Alaskan sites. Experience in project management and working with varied teams of contractors and clients. Experience in design and construction at locations with challenging logistics. Strong verbal and written communication skills. Education and Professional Certifications Professional Engineer registration in Alaska CE - 10810 M.A., Business Administration, University of Alaska, Anchorage B.S., Petroleum Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Experience and Qualifications Director of Owned Assets, Project Manager, Alaska Energy Authority AEA), Anchorage, Alaska, 2001 to Present Project Manager at the two largest state owned but utility operated hydroelectric projects in the State (Bradley Lake and Snettisham). Responsibilities include insuring projects remain in compliance with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license and state permits, work with diverse group of utilities managers and professionals on project upgrades, insurance and legal agreements, and insure the State ownership interest is not impaired. Have recommended, worked with agencies and other stakeholders, and overseen multiple project license amendments through FERC to reduce land fees and flow releases. Oversee AEA owned Statewide transmission projects. Oversee planning and operation of AEA owned and utility operated & maintained projects. Ensure insurance and permits current and in compliance. Board Member Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) which is the certificated electric reliability organization for the Railbelt region of Alaska. The goal of the RRC is to ensure grid resilience and reduce long-term costs by developing and enforcing technically sound reliability standards, conduction grid-wide integration resource planning, and designing consistent interconnection protocols for grid users. Reviewed Renewable Energy Fund (REF) proposals and managed grantee’s. Proposed new West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Project for Bradley Lake hydroelectric Project to utilities. Oversaw all environmental and engineering studies. Filed FERC documents, and acquired license amendment. Managed acquiring funding, bidding, and oversaw construction of diversion project. Project completed on schedule and within budget of $47 million. Project increases annual energy of the largest hydroelectric project in Alaska by 10%. Project Manager for feasibility and conceptual engineering studies for the Susitna Hydropower Project. Oversaw engineering contractors to come up with conceptual designs and costs to fit within the Railbelt Integrated Resource Plan (Utilities future electrical demand and generation). Deliver presentations and question & answer at legislative committees and public organizations. Oversaw all engineering and environmental work for filing the Preliminary Application Document with FERC. Managed contractors to design, acquire site control, project funding, and construct energy projects at remote Alaskan communities. Projects required meeting with local community leaders and design engineers to develop a project design. Site control was then obtained and a Business Operating Plan developed and accepted by the project participants. Projects were built using contract construction managers or competitive bid. Negotiation of scope and changes occur at all phases with project participants and contractors. Bulk fuel, power plant, and small hydroelectric projects were completed at approximately 20 remote rural communities. Many of the projects had multiple energy projects completed. Remote work involved limited air or barge logistics. Steep terrain required several projects to be completed with extensive use of helicopters to move equipment William (Bill) Price Page | 1 William J. Price 25050 Cates Ave freedomsprice@live.com Eagle River Ak, 99577 907-903-3377 SUMMARY  20 years of experience as an Engineer and Project Manager.  Received Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering from Utah State University in 2002.  Professional Mechanical Engineer, State of Alaska License #129742. WORK EXPERIENCE Senior Infrastructure Engineer August 2019 – Present Alaska Energy Authority Anchorage AK  Maintain transmission & generation infrastructure owned by the Alaska Energy Authority. This includes the Alaska Intertie, Bradley Lake Hydro, and other related transmission infrastructure. Maintenance and operations managed through Committees consisting of utility engineers and executives.  Represent AEA on Railbelt Reliability Council, and participate in creation of the State Energy Security Plan.  Responsible for project planning. This includes collecting and analyzing energy and community data, identifying present and future needs, conceptualizing engineering solutions, and developing, reviewing, and analyzing plans and proposals in order to determine the feasibility and appropriate technology for a prospective project. Conduct site visits, including public meetings in order to discuss prospective projects with local entities and residents.  Direct design professionals and business consultants in the development of conceptual design reports, design documents, business plans and cost estimates appropriate to the scope of the project.  Perform project construction management functions including overseeing the preparation of construction budgets, schedules, work plans, quality control, oversight and on-site inspections during construction.  Administer technical services contracts including issuing invitation for bids, reviewing and evaluation bids, selecting contractors, preparing documents, negotiating and awarding contracts, monitoring and supervising contractors, preparing change orders, overseeing contract accounting, and evaluating contractor’s work.  Analyze data, research new technology, and propose solutions to technical problems. Develop comprehensive reports and technical analysis to propose solutions and effective actions to solve technical problems.  Coordinate with agency staff, rural community entities, federal and state agencies and the public on project and program-related topics. Mechanical Project Engineer March 2017 – August 2019 RSA Engineering Anchorage AK  Responsibilities included working with the clients to develop concept designs, calculations, equipment selections, mechanical design drawings, specifications and supporting documents. Work collaboratively with architects, structural, civil engineers and in house electrical engineers to complete projects on time and on budget. Significant projects summarized below:  Renovation of existing power plants in Kaktovik and Anaktuvuk Pass in the North Slope Borough. Project includes new radiators, heat exchangers, pumps, waste heat recovery loops, day tank, and related systems.  Replaced boilers and renovated mechanical rooms in multiple properties owned by the Municipality of Anchorage and the National Park Service. Replacement included site investigation, drawings, boiler selection and supporting equipment and piping design.  Developed plans and bidding documents for replacement of all domestic water piping in Valdez hospital.  Designed water and waste connections for North Slope Borough commercial and residential buildings. Installations included holding tanks, below and above grade sewer connections. William (Bill) Price Page | 2 Mechanical Project Engineer Jan 2011 – Jan 2017 Gray Stassel Engineering Anchorage AK  Designed or assisted in the design of 13 rural power systems for Alaskan villages. Communities included Atmautluak, Emmonak, Stebbins, Nunam Iqua, Teller, Togiak, Fort Yukon, Perryville, Kake and Heat Recovery renovations in Buckland and King Cove.  Project Engineer for Kvichak River RISEC (River In Stream Energy Conversion) Project. Deployed two hydrokinetic devices in the Kvichak River near Igiugig Alaska, which is home to one of the largest Salmon returns in the world (Bristol Bay). Both devices were connected to the Igiugig electric grid during testing.  Developed and maintained, budgetary estimates, project schedules, permit requirements, and stakeholder meetings.  Designed new power plant with a biomass and district heating system in Fort Yukon Alaska. System includes 4 diesel generators which provide prime power for the community of Fort Yukon. The district heating system will provide heat for 13 community buildings through nearly 9000 feet of arctic pipe and will offset approximately 50,000 gallons of heating oil annually in the community.  Assessed 7 rural Alaskan villages for new or updated heat recovery systems, resulting in construction of heat recovery systems in King Cove, Buckland and Atmautluak, which offset nearly 62,000 gallons of heating fuel annually. Director of Operations Support May 2009 – December 2010 212 Resources Salt Lake City UT  Operations Support for treatment of water produced during Natural Gas production in Wyoming and Colorado. Support included mechanical, process, and electrical engineering, IT, logistics, procurement, and corporate reporting.  Project Engineer for new produced water recycling facility in Colorado. Project vaporized produced water from nearby natural gas production. Super concentrated brine was stored for disposal, condensate (primarily methanol) was collected and clean water was discharged into a nearby tributary of the Colorado River.  Continued to serve as Field Engineer for both Colorado, and Wyoming sites. Supervised and assisted in installation of new equipment, engineering support and technical problem solving. Primary contact for vendors, contractors, consultants, manufacturers, and industry experts to solve problems and maintain field operations.  Developed and implemented a root cause analysis and corrective action program. Created documents and reporting systems to track failure events and corrective actions. Trained operations staff in data collection, and root cause investigation. Field Engineer Aug 2008 – May 2009 212 Resources Grand Junction CO  Provided technical support, stress analysis, vibration analysis, PLC trouble shooting, and general problem solving for 24 hr field operations. The remote facility, circulated, vaporized and concentrated produced and ‘frac’ water from natural gas production. The super condensed waste water, condensate and clean water were stored for the client use or disposal.  Monitored process efficiency through data collection and trend analysis, process improvements and preventative maintenance.  Supervise installation, repair or replacement of equipment, and manage corrective actions.  Support main office engineering staff through data collection, design engineering, testing and evaluation, field inspections utilizing AutoDesk Inventor and AutoCAD.  Support construction efforts and new site preparation.  Work with clients to determine operation requirements and design solutions.  Visit vendors and contractors to inspect equipment and construction to verify specifications were met. Ryan McLaughlin ryan.mclaughlin25@gmail.com 907.444.7886 Work Experience Alaska Energy Authority -Anchorage,Alaska (05/2023-present) Infrastructure Engineer (05/2023-present) -Assisted in engineering studies,field investigations,and development of engineering design for the Alaska Energy Authority’s owned assets. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium -Anchorage,Alaska (01/2022-present) Engineering Project Manager (01/2022-present) -Managed water,sanitation,and solid waste infrastructure projects for 7 Alaska Native communities in the Maniilaq and Norton Sound Regions of Alaska -Developed strong relationships with key tribal and city members to help identify and progress projects that were high priority community needs -Secured project funding through numerous sources and ensured engineering and construction was managed in compliance of funding requirements -Negotiated and administered engineering and construction contracts,tracked and adjusted consultant progress and ensured adherence to project scope,schedule,and budget Alaska Solar -Anchorage,Alaska (06/2021-10/2021) Solar Technician (06/2021-10/2021) -Worked on a small team to install ~700KW of residential solar in Southcentral Alaska -Interfaced with customers and provided easily digestible information on how the systems would operate and produce ConocoPhillips -Anchorage,Alaska (06/2015-03/2021) DataOps Engineer (05/2020-03/2021) -Collaborated with Amazon Web Services to develop a machine learning model that optimized wiper trips for the Coiled Tubing Drilling Program -Helped develop real-time and big data processing pipelines to support the Alaska Data Science team in an eort to move Company data from on-prem to the cloud -Acquired proficiency in multiple programming languages (SQL,Python)through on-the-job training and DataCamp curriculum Coiled Tubing Drilling Engineer (09/2018-05/2020) -Responsible for developing drilling programs and providing 24/7 engineering support during execution phases of Coiled Tubing Drilling projects -Delivered ~15 multi-million dollar projects on time and budget by working closely with multi-disciplinary teams and overseeing projects from start to finish -Managed all long-lead material and inventory needs for the Alaska CTD program -Developed new and innovative technologies with 3rd party vendors -Ensured strict compliance with government regulations and maintained close communication with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association throughout all activities Wells Supervisor (10/2016-09/2018) -Responsible for the on-site execution,supervision,and safety for a wide range of well intervention jobs including slickline,e-line,service coil,and frac work -Managed up to 6 crews at a time and ensured all crews had procedures,permits,and equipment necessary for daily activities -Collaborated with engineers and contractors to come up with quick decisions for issues that arose during Well Intervention operations Performance Engineer (06/2015-10/2016) -Created and provided near real-time performance reports and KPIs for Drilling Operations -Early adopter of Spotfire for data visualization and helped save over $1MM through small eciencies gained on highly repeatable tasks on the drilling rigs Education B.S.Petroleum Engineering,University of Alaska Fairbanks,2015 -President -Tau Beta Pi,Engineering Honor Society (2014-2015) -Chancellor’s List (3.95 GPA) -Minor,Music Performance -Fairbanks Symphony Orchestra (2013-2015) -Member of AADE and SPE (2011-2015) Extracurriculars American Association of Drilling Engineers,Alaska Chapter -Board Member,University Liaison (10/2019-03/2021) Ski Summit of Mount Denali (Self-Guided,2019) -Employed complex trip planning and risk management skills in a remote environment Wilderness First Responder (2021) -80 hr WFR certification to eectively identify and manage medical emergencies in the outdoors Bear 100 (2021) -100 mile mountain trail race in Utah,requiring a year of structured training,planning,and discipline Rebecca Garrett, PMP AEA Rural Programs Manager rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org Professional Work Experience State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Rural Programs Manager September 2022 - Present Oversee the Rural Programs Projects Managers and Grants section. Manage Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Program. Manage Bulk Fuel Upgrade (BFU) Program. Manage rural power system construction projects. Collaborate with other agency staff, rural community entities, and federal agencies to coordinate diverse interests in rural power system projects. Seek out and apply for funding for agency and partner energy projects. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Project Manager/Program Manager February 2018 – September 2022 Manager Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Program. Manage rural power system construction projects. Manage the active construction of 3 heat recovery systems around the state of Alaska. Manage State Clean Diesel (DERA) program for Alaska Energy Authority. Manage the DERA rural powerhouse engine replacement projects. Offer technical assistance to communities that need efficiency upgrades and/or are experiencing problems with the power system. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy projects and programs. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Assistant Project Manager June 2014 – January 2018 Manage end use (conservation) projects. Manage rural power system construction. Manage the construction of heat recovery systems around the state of Alaska. Manage State Clean Diesel (DERA) program for Alaska Energy Authority. Offer technical assistance to communities that need efficiency upgrades and/or are experiencing problems with the power system. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy conservation. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Project Development/Project Manager January 2009 - June 2014 Manage end use efficiency (conservation) projects. Develop and present regional energy fairs around the state with a focus on energy efficiency. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy conservation. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). Monitor section needs and lobby for additional support when necessary. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Section Program/Project Manager September 1999 – January 2009 Manage end use efficiency (conservation) program. Develop and present regional energy fairs around the state with a focus on energy conservation. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy efficiency. Authorize and release the Energy Cost Reduction RFP. Administer each project that results from the Cost Reduction RFP analysis. Facilitate bi-weekly section meetings, and collaborate with Accounting and Procurement. Oversee 20 projects with budgets totaling over $20 million all over the state of Alaska. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). Work History State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Programs Manager September 2022 - Present State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Project/Program Manager February 2018 – September 2022 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Assistant Project Manager June 2014 – January 2018 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Project Development January 2009 – June 2014 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Energy Efficiency Program May 2001 – May 2009 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Training Program Manager May 1997 – May 2001 State of Alaska – Division of Energy, Administrative Clerk III March 1997 – May 1997 Avis Rent-a-Car, Assistant Manager – Rental Counter September 1992 – December 1997 Certifications Project Management Professional (PMP) May 2018 Project Management Institute September 2015 Meeting Professionals International March 2007 Notary Public May 1997 – present E-Writing, Business and Technical Writing March 2006 Post Baccalaureate Course Work University of Alaska, Fairbanks May 2021 Sustainable Energy Occupational Endorsement University of Alaska, Anchorage September 2006 – May 2007 Organizational Behavior (BA 300), Technical Writing (ENGL 212) University of Alaska, Fairbanks March 1998 Cultural Awareness Education BA History, University of Alaska, Anchorage May 1996 Dimond High School, Anchorage Alaska June 1991 Volunteer Experience State of Alaska, Polling Place Worker, Anchorage AK August 2020 -Seasonal Primary and Election day worker at local polling station Gladys Wood Elementary School, Volunteer, Anchorage AK September 2006 – 2013 Parent working in the classroom and Parent-Teacher Organization Karin St. Clair AEA Grants Manager 907-771-3081 kstclair@akenergyauthority.org Professional Experience Alaska Energy Authority – Grants Manager - Dec 2011-2016 & Aug 2019-Present Maintain grants management database. Prepare reports from grants management software. Ensure data integrity in databases. Evaluate grantee proposal, plans and justifications to include cost factors. Process grant applications and obtain outstanding materials. Monitor and ensure timely receipt of reports from grantees. Monitor and administer federal and state grants and contracts. Collect and analyze grant data. Maintain electronic and physical files related to all aspects of the grant cycle. Prepare, scan, and verify historical documents for electronic conversion. Prepare grant agreements, notification letters, applications, and letters of inquiry. Communicate with Federal, State, and local agencies regarding award compliance. Review contracts for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with state regulations. Provide technical guidance to internal and external stakeholders on grant administration and financial policies, procedures, statutes, and regulations. Serve as liaison between the project managers and outside funding agencies; provides assistance in resolving issues and conflicts with funding agencies; participates in meetings and discussions in which decisions affecting projects are made. Inform grantees regarding regulation changes impacting grant opportunities. Process amendments, modifications, extensions, and terminations of contracts and subcontracts Alaska Energy Authority – Project Controls - Jul 2016-Jan 2020 Track status reporting, financial reporting, milestones, and deliverables of projects. Track and audit internal controls and guidelines associated with project controls. Monitor budget, scope, and milestones. Provide leadership and training to team members on internal controls and guidelines associated with project controls. Recommend and execute corrective actions to handle project compliance. Identify upcoming project milestones and customer requirements so that Project Managers can ensure satisfaction of project milestones and customer requirements. Monitor and implement approved project management plan changes. Management of less complex projects and close outs. Identify all funding sources and develop a monitoring system for funding opportunities. Assist communities in writing grant applications. Assist in writing grant applications for agency. Alaska Energy Authority – Administrative Assistant - Jun 2011-Dec 2011 Provided administrative support for various departments, including answering telephones, assisting visitors, resolving various problems, and assisting with inquiries. Prepared, transcribed, composed, typed, edited, and distributed agendas and minutes of numerous meetings. Scheduled and coordinated meetings, teleconferences, appointments, events, and other similar activities for staff, including travel and lodging arrangements. Assisted with Round V Grant Application data entry and file setup. Scanned, labeled, and tracked grant documents in award database (Navision). Entered milestones for grants in Navision. Created and maintained grant files and related paper documents. Tracked grant applications for Commercial Audit Program. Communicated with auditors and commercial owners regarding project progress and missing information. Prepared reimbursement paperwork for the finance department First National Bank Alaska - Administrative Assistant - 2009-2010 Prepared and assigned daily reports to Merchant Representatives. Logged and tracked the completion of reports by Merchant Representatives. Attended weekly staff meeting and transcribed meeting minutes. Arranged travel for Merchant Representatives. Monitored daily in town travel of merchant representatives. Monitored and ordered all supplies for department. Scheduled all trainings as well as reserved rooms and equipment needed. Composed and prepared mass mailings to merchants. Performed credit checks, acquired financial statements and business licenses for potential merchants. Worked with the IT Department in developing a new program for Merchant Services using Access and Excel. Responsible for merchant billing and collections. Answered multi-line phones, receive daily mail and incoming deliveries Law Offices of Thom F. Janidlo Anchorage - Administrative Assistant - 2006-2009 Scheduled all attorney court hearings, client meetings and consultations. Transcribed during appropriate trial setting conferences and client meetings. Transcribed and prepared legal court documents. Performed legal research to assist attorneys with preparation of court documents. Maintained accurate records for attorney’s billable hours. Identified more efficient and cost saving methods for ordering office supplies. Initiated the use of a credit card machine to assist in payment processing. Suggested the use of a scanner to replace paper processes, minimizing paper waste and expense. Answered multi-line phones, received daily mail and courier services. Computerized/Manual Accounts Payable/Receivable. Credit and Collections. Month-End- Closings. Account Reconciliation. Monthly Payroll Processing. Statement Billings. Customer Service/Client Relations. Office Management Education Project Management Institute- Project Management Foundation 2016 International Correspondence School- Medical Office Assistant Certificate 1999 Northwest College- General studies 1991-1992 Related Activities - Thompson Grants - Federal Grants Forum for State & Local Governments 2021 - Jim Hale - Writing for the Workplace (one day seminar) 2014 - Gil Tran, Senior Technical Manager, OMB - OMB’s Grant Reform and the Uniform Guidance (one day seminar) 2014 - Colleen Campbell, State of Alaska Single Audit Coordinator - State Single Audit Presentation (one day seminar) 2014 - Grants Management Workshop - Grants Management Certificate (two day workshop certificate attached) 2012 May 11, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20585 RE: Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Program – Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project To the U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA) is pleased to team with the State of Alaska, d/b/a the Alaska Energy Authority, and the other Railbelt electric utilities 1 to partner in the funding opportunity for the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) (DE-FOA-0002740). GVEA is a not-for-profit, member owned, electric cooperative that serves nearly 100,000 residents in Interior Alaska. We operate and maintain nearly 3,300 miles of power lines, 35 substations and nine generating facilities. GVEA’s electric system is interconnected with, and has the ability to serve, four critical military installations - Fort Wainwright, Eielson AFB, Fort Greely, and Clear AFS. GVEA is also interconnected to the other Railbelt electric utilities via a single transmission line, the majority of which is the Alaska Intertie – a 170 mile long, 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between Willow and Healy that operates at 138 kV. Together GVEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities comprise what is commonly referred to as the Alaska Railbelt electric system and provide electric service to approximately 75% of Alaska’s population. GVEA is supportive of the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project proposal and hopes that the proposal receives DOE approval. As a not-for-profit, member owned cooperative, GVEA has a fiduciary responsibility to our member-consumers, to ensure that GVEA’s resources are used wisely and prudently. As essential as the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project is to achieve meaningful, transformative, long-term benefits on the Railbelt electric system, and to Copper Valley Electric Association, the cost of achieving those benefits cannot, from a practical perspective, be borne solely by Railbelt Ratepayers. Financial support in the form of Department of Energy funding via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is critically necessary. For that reason, GVEA supports the cost allocation methodology 1 Chugach Electric Association, Inc., Homer Electric Association, Inc., Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., and the City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System. DOE Letter of Commitment (GVEA) – FOA-0002740 Page 2 of 2 outlined in this and other applications submitted by this project team to the DOE’s Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program that prioritizes securing Federal IIJA/IRA funds with State of Alaska matching funds for the “non-federal cost share requirement.” If necessary, additional funding will also come from GVEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities, subject to successful negotiation of the grant contract and receipt of Board of Directors, regulatory, and/or third-party approvals required to ensure that costs incurred by the utilities can appropriately be recovered from the Railbelt’s member-consumers. GVEA has been diligently working with the other Railbelt electric utilities and with the Alaska Energy Authority to ensure that the opportunities afforded by the DOE IIJA and IRA funding grants, once received, will meaningfully and positively transform the Alaska Railbelt electric system. GVEA fully supports the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project, as well as other aspects of the broader Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan that have been submitted to the DOE under separate applications. As the applications reflect, there exists unprecedented alignment amongst the Railbelt utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority to materially transform the Railbelt electric system. We are committed to work collaboratively in order to strengthen and build a smart, clean electrical grid that ensures residents, communities, and the military bases served by the Railbelt electric utilities have access to clean, reliable, low-cost energy. Sincerely, John J. Burns President & Chief Executive Officer May 12, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20585 RE: Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3 Grid Innovation Program; Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Dear Application Review Committee, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (MEA) is pleased to team with the State of Alaska, d/b/a the Alaska Energy Authority, and the other Rail belt electric utilities 1 to partner in the funding opportunity for Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) (DE-FOA-0002740). MEA is a not-for-profit, member owned, electric cooperative that serves almost 65,000 meters in the fastest-growing area of Alaska. We operate and maintain nearly 4700 miles of power lines, 26 substations and self-generate the majority of our power. MEA is interconnected to the other Rail belt electric utilities via a single transmission line, the majority of which is the Alaska lntertie -a 170 mile long, 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between Willow and Healy that operates at 138 kV. Together, MEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities comprise what is commonly referred to as the Alaska Rail belt Electric System and provides electric service to approximately 75°/o of Alaska's population. MEA is supportive of the Rail belt Innovative Resiliency Project proposal and hopes that the proposal receives DOE approval. As a not-for-profit, member owned cooperative, MEA has a fiduciary responsibility to our member-consumers, to ensure that MEA's resources are used wisely and prudently. As essential as the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project is to achieve meaningful, transformative, long-term benefits on the Railbelt Electric System, the cost of achieving those benefits cannot, from a practical perspective, be borne solely by our small number of Railbelt ratepayers. Financial support in the form of Department of Energy funding via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is critically necessary. For that reason, MEA supports the cost allocation methodology outlined in this and other applications being submitted by this project team to the DOE's Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program that prioritizes securing Federal IIJAIIRA funds with State of Alaska matching funds for the "non-federal cost share requirement." If necessary, additional funding will also come from MEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities, subject to successful negotiation of the grant contract and receipt of any necessary Board of Directors, regulatory, and/or third-party approvals required to ensure that costs incurred by the utilities can appropriately be recovered from the Railbelt's member-consumers. MEA has been diligently working with the other Rail belt electric utilities and with the Alaska Energy Authority to ensure that the opportunities afforded by the DOE IIJA and IRA funding grants, once received, will meaningfully and positively transform the Alaska Railbelt electric system. 1 Chugach Electric Association, Inc., Homer Electric Association , Inc., Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., and the City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System. MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION , INC . • P.O. Box 2929 • Palmer , Alaska 99645 • t 907.7 45.3231 • f 907 .7 61 .9368 • www .mea.coop U.S. Department of Energy Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3 May 12, 2023 Page 2 MEA fully supports the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency proposal, as well as other aspects of the broader Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan that has and will be submitted to the DOE under separate applications. As the application reflects, there exists unprecedented alignment amongst the Railbelt utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority to materially transform the Railbelt electric system. We are committed to work collaboratively in order to strengthen and build a smart, clean electrical grid that ensures residents, communities, and the military bases served by the Railbelt electric utilities have access to clean, reliable, low-cost energy. Sincerely, ~ci/)L ff11. lzzv Anthony M. WI Chief Executive Officer Corporate Office Central Peninsula Service Center 3977 Lake Street 280 Airport Way Homer, Alaska 99603-7680 Kenai, Alaska 99611-5280 Phone (907) 235-8551 Phone (907) 283-5831 FAX (907) 235-3313 FAX (907) 283-7122 May 11, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20585 RE: Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Dear Grid Deployment Office: Homer Electric Association, Inc. (HEA) is pleased to submit this letter expressing its support for the funding proposal for improving Grid Innovation. HEA is a not-for-profit, member owned, electric cooperative that serves the residents, businesses, and industrial facilities of the entire western Kenai Peninsula in the state of Alaska. HEA’s electric system is interconnected with the other Alaska Railbelt electric utilities via a single transmission line between the HEA and Chugach Electric systems. Together HEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities comprise what is commonly referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Electric System and provide electric service to approximately 75% of Alaska’s population. HEA supports the Railbelt Innovating Resiliency Project (RIRP) proposal and hopes that the proposal receives DOE approval. As a not-for-profit, member owned cooperative, HEA has a fiduciary responsibility to its member-consumers, to ensure that HEA’s resources are used wisely and prudently. As essential as transmission improvements are to achieving, transformative, long- term benefits on the Railbelt Electric System, the cost to HEA’s members of secure those benefits must be understood before HEA can make a financial commitment to participate in funding the project. For that reason, HEA expects financial support in the form of Department of Energy funding via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to be critically necessary. Accordingly, HEA commits to work with the other utilities and the State of Alaska to develop a firm cost allocation methodology for funding the “non-federal cost share requirement” of the initiatives as described in the applications being submitted by the Railbelt Utilities’ project team to the DOE’s Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. HEA’s funding obligation in this regard will be subject to HEA’s final approval of the terms of the grant agreement and any necessary or appropriate Board of Directors, regulatory, and/or third-party approvals. HEA fully supports the RIRP proposal, as well as other aspects of the broader Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan that have been submitted to the DOE under separate applications. As the application reflects, there exists unprecedented alignment among the Railbelt utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority to create a resilient, reliable Railbelt electric system that would be on a U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office May 11, 2023 Page 2 par with the systems currently enjoyed by the rest of the country. HEA is committed to work collaboratively in order to achieve that end. Sincerely, Bradley P. Janorschke General Manager 1 May 16, 2023 Gene Rodrigues, Assistant Secretary U.S. Department of Energy Office of Electricity 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Dear Assistant Secretary Rodrigues, We are writing in support of applications submitted by Matanuska Electric Association and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for FY2023 funding through Topic Areas 1, 2, and 3 the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five Alaska Railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s AEA are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will directly benefit the 75 percent of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the Railbelt but are eligible for Alaska’s innovative rural electric subsidy Power Cost Equalization program. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid by bringing it up to modern standards and enhancing resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disasters, climate change and rugged geographic terrain. These improvements are critical to preparing Alaska for a fuel-diverse clean energy future and integrating new sources of energy along the grid, which spans a distance equivalent to the space between Atlanta, GA and Washington, D.C. The benefit of this work reaches far beyond our state. The Railbelt grid supplies energy to five U.S. military bases of vital strategic importance to national security. These critical assets contribute to the national defense from a broad range of perspectives including missile defense, global telecommunications downlink infrastructure, and F-22 high-speed intercept capability. The Railbelt grid serves the Port of Alaska, a federally designated strategic seaport which provides virtually all of the cargo, food, fuel and building materials to the majority of Alaskans. And finally, the Railbelt grid serves Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport – the third busiest airport in the world in terms of cargo throughput. 2 With the U.S. Department of Energy as a partner, Alaska’s utilities and the State of Alaska will be positioned to demonstrate grid revitalization and decarbonization on a scale that can be replicated. Thank you for your consideration of this application. Consistent with applicable law, policy, and guidance, we respectfully ask that you give due consideration to the Matanuska Electric Association and AEA’s GRIP application. We ask that you keep our offices apprised of the outcome. 100 Cushman Street, Suite 102, Fairbanks, AK 99701 | www.fairbankschamber.org | 907-452-1105 April 3, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Re: FOA DE-FOA-0002740 To Whom it May Concern: We are writing today in support of the applications submitted by the members of the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1, 2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five railbelt electric utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization, which will directly benefit over 70% of the state’s population living connected to the railbelt grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern standards and creating resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disaster, climate change and rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing the state for the future and integrating new sources of energy, whatever they may be and wherever they are created. The Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce supports efficient, affordable and reliable power production for Interior Alaska. We have more than 600 members, and they rely on the Golden Valley Electric Association, one of the railbelt utilities, to power homes and businesses and drive manufacturing, support resource development and bolster community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. We hope the benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans, stimulates development opportunities and fosters growth. Sincerely, Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Jeremy Johnson Patrick Cotter President & CEO Board Chair Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 RE: Alaska’s Railbelt Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan To Whom It May Concern, The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a voluntary, nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide organization of 165 cities, boroughs, and unified municipalities, wherein over 97 percent of Alaskans reside. Since the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, AML has focused its efforts to support strategic regional projects that address the long-standing inadequacy of Alaska’s infrastructure. As part of this effort, we are proud to support projects that improve the condition of communities and intersect with Alaska’s municipalities. We are excited to see the proposed project for the Alaska Railbelt’s Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP) move forward. Working to decarbonize Alaska’s Railbelt grid is a particularly timely endeavor – state regulators have recently indicated that the natural gas supply that both power generation and other users rely on may not meet current demand within the next decade. This looming shortage puts economic activity throughout the state at risk by introducing long-term uncertainty to the key services that local governments and other organizations rely on from the Railbelt. With some of the highest energy prices in the country, solutions to control cost are a critical economic challenge facing Alaska’s communities and economic development. It’s important to note that in addressing costs on the Railbelt, these projects also stand to benefit communities across the state via the Power Cost Equalization program. The formula for this critical program ties subsidies for energy across the state to Railbelt prices – thus, if the cost of electricity on the Railbelt is lowered, it provides a greater subsidy to those communities who are experiencing high costs, and in effect lowering the cost to consumers. The GRMP is a strategic and collaborative effort that would go beyond the Railbelt to help make energy and the rural economies that depend on it more affordable and resilient. We fully support the GRMP and its associated projects. Sincerely, Nils Andreassen Executive Director 510 L Street, Suite 603, Anchorage, AK 99501 • 907-258-3700 • www.AEDCweb.com March 10, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Re: FOA DE-FOA-0002740 To Whom it May Concern: I’m writing today in support of the applications submitted by the members of Alaska’s Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1,2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five Railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s Alaska Energy Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will directly benefit over 70% of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the Railbelt. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern standards and bringing resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disaster, climate change and rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing Alaska for a fuel-diverse clean energy future and integrating new sources of energy, whatever they may be and wherever they are created. Anchorage Economic Development Corporation’s mission is to grow and diversify the economy of Anchorage and Alaska. The health and future success of the local economy relies on the Railbelt electric grid to power homes and businesses, drive manufacturing, support resource development and bolster community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. Going forward, we look forward to engaging with the utilities and the State and partnering to make sure the benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans. Thank you for your time and attention to Alaska’s infrastructure needs. You may reach me at 907-334-1206 or wpopp@aedcweb.com with any questions or requests for information. Sincerely, Bill Popp President & CEO March 10, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Re: FOA DE-FOA-0002740 Subject: Letter of Support for Alaska Railbelt GRIP Applications To Whom it May Concern: This letter expresses support for the applications submitted by the members of Alaska’s Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1, 2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s Alaska Energy Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will directly benefit over 70% of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the railbelt. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern standards and improving its resiliency against future natural disasters, climate change, and the ongoing challenges wrought by our rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing Alaska for a fuel-diverse clean energy future so new sources of energy can be fully integrated, whatever and wherever they may be. The Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) is a non-profit corporation certificated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) as the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) responsible for performing Integrated Resource Planning and developing and enforcing Reliability, Security, and Non- Discriminatory Open Access Transmission and Interconnection Standards for the railbelt bulk energy system. The capital projects proposed in the GRIP applications will directly impact the system under the RRC’s ERO jurisdiction. The RRC was certificated less than six months ago, and is still in the process of staffing and organizing. As such, the RRC cannot at this time render opinions on the specific projects included within the GRIP applications. The RRC can affirm that the existing Railbelt grid has multiple single contingency elements, capacity bottlenecks, and technical and operational constraints that prevent optimal dispatch of the region’s existing and potential future suite of generation resources. The RRC can also confirm that the existing Railbelt grid leaves some regions isolated for up to several months every year during periods of annual maintenance and, at times, for even longer due to natural disasters such as wildland fires. The projects within the GRIP applications will address these long-standing limitations, and the parties involved in developing the GRIP applications are the best-available team to advance current proposals GRIP Application Support letter March 10, 2023 Page 2 of 2 for railbelt system improvements to address these limitations. Over the timeframe that these capital projects would unfold, the RRC will become fully functional, implementing standards and integrated resource plans that will in time directly influence the refinement, execution, and operation of the capital upgrades proposed in the GRIP applications. The RRC Board of Directors is a balanced independent and stakeholder board whose directors represent the stakeholder interests of railbelt utilities, independent power producers, residential, industrial, and environmental consumers, and state agencies. The stakeholder interests represented on the RRC’s board individually and collectively rely on the railbelt electric grid to power homes and businesses, drive manufacturing, support resource development, and bolster community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. The RRC looks forward to continuing engagement with the utilities and the State in partnership to ensure the benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans. Thank you for your time and attention to Alaska’s infrastructure needs. You may reach me via e-mail with any questions or requests for information. Sincerely, RAILBELT RELIABILITY COUNCIL Joel D. Groves. P.E. President and Board Chair joel@polarconsult.net ALASKA JOINT ELECTRICAL APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING TRUST MELISSA CARESS Statewide Training Director Tom Cashen Training Center 5800 B Street Anchorage, AK 99518 Tel: (907) 337-9508 Fax: (907) 337-9500 CASEY PTACEK Training Coordinator Kornfeind Training Center 4782 Dale Road Fairbanks, AK 99709 Tel: (907) 479-4449 Fax: (907) 479-0425 May 18, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy  Grid Deployment Office   Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations  Re: FOA DE‐FOA‐0002740  To Whom it May Concern:  I’m writing today in support of the applications submitted by the members of Alaska’s Bradley Lake  Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1,2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation  Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five Railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s Alaska Energy  Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will  directly benefit over 75% of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural  Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the Railbelt.  This is a once‐in‐a‐generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern  standards and bringing resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disaster, climate change and  rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing  Alaska for a fuel‐diverse clean energy future and integrating new sources of energy, whatever they may  be and wherever they are created.  The Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship & Training Trust (AJEATT) is responsible for supplying  apprentice manpower to the IBEW Local 1547 and AK NECA. These organizations represent the majority  of the electrical work performed in the State of Alaska, whose members rely on the Railbelt electric grid  to power homes and businesses and drive manufacturing, support resource development and bolster  community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. Going  forward, we look forward to engaging with the utilities and the State and partnering to make sure the  benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans.   Thank you for your time and attention to Alaska’s infrastructure needs. You may reach me at   1‐907‐337‐9508, or melissa@ajeatt.org with any questions or requests for information.    Sincerely,  Melissa Caress  Statewide Training Director  AJEATT  Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 1 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES (SOPO) Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (RIR) A. OBJECTIVE The Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (RIR) aims to enhance resiliency and transfer capability among the three regions of the Railbelt. The Railbelt has experienced decreasing frequency regulation, slowed disturbance response and increasing magnitude natural frequency oscillations. The current configuration of the Railbelt system restricts the adoption of clean energy, diversification of the fuel supply, and Alaska’s preparation for a sustainable carbon-free future. A key priority to achieve this objective is to reinforce interconnections between the primary regions of the Railbelt by adding parallel lines and implementing Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) to resolve long-standing frequency control and instability issues. Alongside the High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable, these additions will alleviate transmission congestion and optimize interregional transfer capability. The project's innovative so lutions hold the promise of curbing escalating energy prices, which currently rank among the highest in the nation, while providing rural residents and disadvantaged communities with an opportunity to enhance community viability. Sharing these solutions with other communities will support collective efforts toward achieving clean, reliable, and affordable energy for all. B. SCOPE OF WORK The RIR project involves four primary components to meet the project’s objectives. The projects involve the interconnection of AC Transmission with a DC Bi-polar High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine circuit and three large capacity Battery Energy Storage systems (BESS). Coordinated interregional control and operations of the BESS and HVDC line will tie all the individual systems together to maximize stability and limit congestion. Phase 1 – New 230kV interconnection from Soldotna and Beluga to the terminals of the Phase 2 HVDC submarine cable) – these components are necessary to add a parallel interconnection between the Southern Region to the Central Region. Combined with the HVDC line they will provide a second path from the Southern Region to Central region that will provide redundancy and limit exposure to fire danger and avalanches and maintenance and construction outages which have been the major cause of system separation. Tying to Beluga is necessary to fully utilize the existing transmission connections to the Central and Northern Regions. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 2 Phase 2 - HVDC Submarine Circuit across Cook Inlet – The HVDC submarine Cable system provides for increased transfer capability and the ability to mitigate system stability challenges aiding in the elimination of interregional oscillations. Phase 3 - BESS units in both Central Northern Regions and Southern (existing) will work to control frequency caused by transmission line or generation trips from either unplanned unit trips or non-dispatchable power swings caused by wind and solar. The BESS units are necessary to fully integrate variable renewable generation and will work in concert with the HVDC controllers to minimize system oscillations. Phase 4 – New parallel interconnections between Central and Northern regions. Like Phase 1, the new path between the regions will not only improve resiliency and reliability but will increase energy transfer capability between the regions by 2-3 times. Providing a parallel path assures that all energy will continue to flow if the alternative path is lost. Major load swings between regions are also avoided by increasing system stability and allowing the lines to carry additional capacity reducing congestion. C. TASKS TO BE PERFORMED Task 1.0: Project Management and Planning (PMP): Subtask 1.1 – Project Management Plan (PMP): A PMP will be submitted within 60 days of the award. Subtask 1.2: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance The Applicant will undertake an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) with a lead agency (DOE) to identify and analyze possible adverse environmental impacts and investigate reasonable alternatives as appropriate. Subtask 1.3: Cybersecurity Plan (CSP) The Applicant will focus its efforts on protecting the Federal systems and its networks from cyber threats. The plan will incorporate processes to identify, investigate and mitigate threats from targeted phishing, denial of service attacks, and the introduction of malware into the system. A coordinated effort with the State, the utilities, and DOE will be undertaken to implement the tools necessary to provide continuous diagnostics and mitigation. The plan will be compliant with AKCIP standards. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 3 A full cybersecurity plan will be submitted during award negotiations and prior to receiving project funding. Subtask 1.4: Continuation Briefing(s): A continuation briefing will be done on an annual basis to explain the plans, progress, and results of the technical effort. Task 2.0: Preliminary Design, Community Benefit Plan (CBP) Outreach & Engineering – Design criteria for transmission lines, substations, submarine cable, converter stations, and BESS units. Subtask 2.1 – Risk Evaluation – Evaluate transmission components. Subtask 2.11 – Evaluate new transmission corridor for known events such as CBP input, avalanche, seismic, wildfire, heavy snow and ice loading. Subtask 2.12 – Evaluate subsea cable routing for CBP input, undersea obstructions, tidal currents, ice scouring, and Beluga whale migration. Subtask 2.13 – Evaluate BESS units for CBP input, fire suppression, temperature, and hazardous materials disposal. Subtask 2.2 – Design Criteria – Develop tailored and innovative design criteria to mitigate input and risks identified in 2.1. Evaluate alternative routing alignment as necessary. Subtask 2.3 – Preliminary Design – Engineer for submarine cable, converter stations, BESS units, foundations, anchors, guys, structure type, span length, conductor size, design, and sag. Evaluate potential right-of-way alignment, land ownership and permit requirements. Task 3.0: Public Notice – Provide public notice of intent to construct, provide data, seek input, and provide feedback. Adjust design and routing as necessary to secure permits. Task 4.0: Final Design & Engineering – Prepare final design documents for permitting and construction. Task 5.0: Permitting – Undertake EIS and apply for permits from appropriate agencies. Subtask 5.1 – Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 4 Subtask 5.2 – Scoping process –Federal agency begins the scoping process by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI). The NOI describes the project and provides background on potential impacts. The public provides comments on the proposed project, proposed alternatives, and environmental impacts. Applicant holds public meetings to obtain comments. Subtask 5.3 – Notice of Availability of Draft EIS – the Draft EIS presents, analyzes, and compares potential environmental impacts and proposed actions for mitigation. Subtask 5.4 – Notice of Availability of Final EIS – EIS prepared and distributed including comments from Draft EIS. Subtask 5.5 – Record of Decision – Notice of decision and rationale for decision giving factors such as cost, technical feasibility, agency and national objectives, and environmental impacts of any actions. Task 6.0: Procurement – Secure long-term materials such as submarine cable, inverters, converters, transformers, steel structures, and specialized equipment. Task 7.0: Construction – Undertake construction process Subtask 7.1 – Solicitation – prepare construction documents and evaluate most cost-effective method to seek bids. Subtask 7.2 – Award – Award contracts for construction Subtask 7.3 – Construction Management – Initiate project management office Subtask 7.4 – Construction Close Out Process Task 8.0: Testing & Commissioning – Undertake final inspection, energization, and cutovers as necessary. D. DELIVERABLES I. Management Reporting a. Progress Report b. Project Management Plan (PMP) c. Cybersecurity Plan d. Continuation Briefings II. Financial Reporting Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 5 III. Closeout Reporting E. BREIFINGS/TECHNCIAL PRESENTATIONS Briefings and technical presentations will be prepared as requested by the Federal Project Officer which may include a kickoff briefing, pre-continuation briefing, final project briefing and other technical, financial and/or administrative briefings as requested by the DOE. Award Number: Award Recipient: (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $103,376,300 $103,250,000 $206,626,300 49.97%1/1/2024-12/30/2025 Budget Period 2 $103,348,768 $103,250,000 $206,598,768 49.98%1/1/2026-12/30/2027 Budget Period 3 $102,801,234 $103,250,000 $206,051,234 50.11%1/1/2028-12/30/2029 Budget Period 4 $103,473,699 $103,250,000 $206,723,699 49.95%1/1/2030-12/30/2031 Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $413,000,000 $413,000,000 $826,000,000 50.00% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $3,249,314 $3,379,287 $3,509,259 $3,639,232 $0 $13,777,092 1.67% b. Fringe Benefits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% c. Travel $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $0 $470,400 0.06% d. Equipment $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0.01% e. Supplies $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $320,000 0.04% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Contractor $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 97.81% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 97.81% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $205,813,974 $205,753,946 $205,173,919 $205,813,891 $0 $822,555,729 99.58% i. Indirect Charges $812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 0.42% Total Costs $206,626,300 $206,598,768 $206,051,234 $206,723,699 $0 $826,000,000 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! Do not modify this template or any cells for formulas! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, contractors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows and columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 24 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 Sr. Engineer (EXAMPLE!!!)2000 $85.00 $170,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 2400 $190,000 2 Technicians (2)4000 $20.00 $80,000 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 4000 $80,000 1 thru 8 Contracting Officer 390 84.31 $32,881 390 $87.68 $34,196 390 $91.05 $35,511 390 $94.43 $36,827 - $0.00 $0 1560 $139,415 1 thru 8 Contracting Officer 1170 84.31 $98,643 1170 $87.68 $102,588 1170 $91.05 $106,534 1170 $94.43 $110,480 - $0.00 $0 4680 $418,245 1 thru 8 Executive Director 390 181.61 $70,828 390 $188.87 $73,661 390 $196.14 $76,494 390 $203.40 $79,327 - $0.00 $0 1560 $300,310 1 thru 8 Communication Director 1170 96.32 $112,694 1170 $100.17 $117,202 1170 $104.03 $121,710 1170 $107.88 $126,218 - $0.00 $0 4680 $477,824 1 thru 8 GIS 780 77.49 $60,442 780 $80.59 $62,860 780 $83.69 $65,278 780 $86.79 $67,695 - $0.00 $0 3120 $256,275 1 thru 8 Owned Assets Director 975 154.49 $150,628 975 $160.67 $156,653 975 $166.85 $162,678 975 $173.03 $168,703 - $0.00 $0 3900 $638,662 1 thru 8 Senior Infrastructure Engineer 1560 109.26 $170,446 1560 $113.63 $177,263 1560 $118.00 $184,081 1560 $122.37 $190,899 - $0.00 $0 6240 $722,689 1 thru 8 Infrastructure Engineer 1560 104.28 $162,677 1560 $108.45 $169,184 1560 $112.62 $175,691 1560 $116.79 $182,198 - $0.00 $0 6240 $689,750 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 150.00 $585,000 3,900 $156.00 $608,400 3,900 $162.00 $631,800 3,900 $168.00 $655,200 - $0.00 $0 15600 $2,480,400 1 thru 8 Environmental Engineer 3,900 150.00 $585,000 3,900 $156.00 $608,400 3,900 $162.00 $631,800 3,900 $168.00 $655,200 - $0.00 $0 15600 $2,480,400 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 104.28 $406,692 3,900 $108.45 $422,960 3,900 $112.62 $439,227 3,900 $116.79 $455,495 - $0.00 $0 15600 $1,724,374 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 104.28 $406,692 3,900 $108.45 $422,960 3,900 $112.62 $439,227 3,900 $116.79 $455,495 - $0.00 $0 15600 $1,724,374 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 104.28 $406,692 3,900 $108.45 $422,960 3,900 $112.62 $439,227 3,900 $116.79 $455,495 - $0.00 $0 15600 $1,724,374 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Total Personnel Costs 27495 $3,249,314 27495 $3,379,287 27495 $3,509,259 27495 $3,639,232 0 $0 109980 $13,777,092 Additional Explanation (as needed): Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and contractors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base hourly rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., rate negotiated for each hour worked on the project, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate BasisProject Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total EXAMPLE!!! Sr. Engineer $170,000 20%$34,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $38,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): Please use this box (or an attachment) to list the elements that comprise your fringe benefits and how they are applied to your base (e.g. Personnel) to arrive at your fringe benefit rate. INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. ______ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* ______ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at https://www.energy.gov/eere/funding/downloads/sample-indirect-rate-proposal-and-profit-compliance-audit , or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 1 EXAMPLE!!! Visit to PV manufacturer 2 2 $250 $500 $100 $160 $2,020 Current GSA rates 1 and 2 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 1 and 2 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 1 and 2 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 1 and 2 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel 3 and 4 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 3 and 4 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 3 and 4 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 3 and 4 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel 5 and 6 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 5 and 6 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 5 and 6 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 5 and 6 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel 7 and 8 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 7 and 8 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 7 and 8 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 7 and 8 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $470,400 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Only travel that is directly associated with this award should be included as a direct travel cost to the award. 4. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. 5. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 6. Columns E, F, G, H, I, J, and K are per trip. 7. The number of days is inclusive of the day of departure and the day of return. 8. Recipients should enter City and State (or City and Country for International travel) in the Depart from and Destination fields. 9. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3,4,5 EXAMPLE!!! Thermal shock chamber 2 $70,000 $140,000 Vendor Quote - Attached Reliability testing of PV modules- Task 4.3 1,2 Office set-up 10 $10,000 $100,000 Previous experience 10 new staff office set-up $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL EQUIPMENT $100,000 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. contractor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a contractor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the contractor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a contractor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 4,6 EXAMPLE!!! Wireless DAS components 10 $360.00 $3,600 Catalog price For Alpha prototype - Task 2.4 1,2 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $80,000 3,4 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $80,000 5,6 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $80,000 7,8 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL SUPPLIES $320,000 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. contractor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Sub-Recipient Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 2,4 EXAMPLE!!! XYZ Corp.Partner to develop optimal lens for Gen 2 product. Cost estimate based on personnel hours. $48,000 $32,000 $16,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 6 Contractor for developing robotics to perform lens inspection. Estimate provided by contractor. $32,900 $86,500 $119,400 1 thru 8 State of Alaska or competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $0 $1,600,000 1 thru 8 Competitive bid $42,059 $42,059 $42,059 $42,059 $168,237 2,3,4 Competitive bid $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000 2 thru 8 Competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,600,000 2,3,4 Lands Consultant Competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,600,000 2 thru 7 Labor/Governmental Consulting Competitive bid $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $900,000 1 thru 8 Project Coordination Committee Competitive bid $600,000 $600,000 $60,000 $600,000 $1,860,000 1 thru 8 Contractor Federal Project Reporting Competitive bid $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $600,000 2 thru 7 Contractor Projects Competitive bid $199,500,000 $199,500,000 $199,500,000 $199,500,000 $0 $798,000,000 2 thru 8 Accounting & Auditing Services Competitive bid $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $600,000 4,5 Insurance Consultant Competitive bid $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $130,000 4,5 Competitive bid $200,000 $200,000 $30,000 $0 $430,000 Sub-total $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237Total Contractual Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to sub-recipients, contractors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Sub-recipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 25% of total award costs. These sub-recipient forms may be completed by either the sub-recipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the sub-recipient's forms must match the sub-recipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. contractor status. 3. Contractors: List all contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Contractor cost with total project costs of $100,000 or more, a Contractor quote must be provided. A contractor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs.contractor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Contractor Name/Organization EXAMPLE!!! ABC Corp. Legal Services Public Relations Firm Cultural Consultation Design & Engineering Consultant NEPA Consultant FFRDC Name/Organization SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3 EXAMPLE ONLY!!! Three days of excavation for platform site $28,000 Engineering estimate Site must be prepared for construction of platform. Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a contractor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 5 EXAMPLE!!! Grad student tuition - tasks 1-3 $16,000 Established UCD costs Support of graduate students working on project Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 25.00%25.00%25.00%25.00%0.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $0 Total indirect costs requested:$812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim resulting cost as a Cost Share contribution, nor can the Recipient claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution . Neither of these costs can be reflected as actual indirect cost rates realized by the orgnaization, and therefore are not verifiable in the Recipient records as required by Federal Regulation (200.306(b)(1)) 5.. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE AEA is in the process of developing an indirect cost allocation plan (ICAP) and is working with independent contractor to develop a cost model to track and allocate indirect costs for federal cost recovery. AEA will seek approval of the ICAP by their cognizant agency as required. AEA understands that this process will take up to two years for development of the ICAP and the required approval. Currently, AEA utilized the 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). AEA fully expects to have an approved ICAP and indirect cost rate by July 1, 2025 and therefore, for budgetary purposes only, AEA has used an estimated rate of 25%. AEA will only request reimbursement based on the 10% de minimis rate or an approved indirect cost rate. Detailed Budget Justification You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. Example: Labor + Fringe ______ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. __X____ The organization does not have a current, federally approved indirect cost rate agreement and has provided an indirect rate proposal in support of the proposed costs. __X____ This organization has elected to apply a 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 State of Alaska 413000000 Subject to legislative approval, the state of Alaska will invest in this project $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $413,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SHARE $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $0 $413,000,000 $826,000,000 50.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 $103,376,300 $103,250,000 $206,626,300 2.Budget Period 2 $103,348,768 $103,250,000 $206,598,768 3.Budget Period 3 $102,801,234 $103,250,000 $206,051,234 4.Budget Period 4 $103,473,699 $103,250,000 $206,723,699 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $413,000,000 $413,000,000 $826,000,001 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $3,249,314 $3,379,287 $3,509,259 $3,639,232 $0 $13,777,092 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $0 $470,400 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $320,000 $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $205,813,974 $205,753,946 $205,173,919 $205,813,891 $0 $822,555,729 $812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 $206,626,300 $206,598,768 $206,051,234 $206,723,699 $0 $826,000,000 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:0 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Abstract The Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) is a crucial initiative aimed at building a resilient, clean, smart, and affordable electrical grid in Alaska. The project involves constructing new transmission lines, providing a looped transmission feed to the DOD ground-based missile defense facility at Fort Greeley, interconnecting the Copper Valley Electric Association with the Railbelt grid, and incorporating Battery Energy Storage (BESS) and a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable installed in a challenging marine environment. One of the primary objectives of the RIR is to address various challenges facing the electrical grid in the three Railbelt regions of Alaska. These challenges include decreasing system frequency regulation, slowing frequency response to disturbances, and increasing natural frequency power oscillations. To overcome these challenges, the project emphasizes the need for BESS and a new transmission line between the Northern, Central, and Southern regions of the Railbelt system. Not only will these projects solve the challenges above they will increase interregional transfer capacity, fuel supply diversity, interregional resilience and reliability, lower carbon emissions, reduce costs, and incentivize the introduction additional private sector clean energy projects into the Railbelt. Finally, they will allow for unconstrained interregional capacity planning and operation. The RIR work plan involves four phases, each with its own set of objectives and steps involved in construction, including permitting, routing, right-of-way access, and material delivery. The technical aspects of structure placement, soil conditions, foundation, and anchor design, as well as the switching and protection schemes required for the project, are also discussed. The RIR is a unique partnership between relevant decision makers in the Railbelt, including the State of Alaska, Railbelt Electric Cooperatives, Railbelt municipal utility, utility regulator, and labor unions. The project will incentivize wise transmission investment through innovative rate-making techniques. Furthermore, it will have a direct positive impact on tribal and disadvantaged communities within the Railbelt and rural Power Cost Equalization communities. Federal grant funding is critical to the success of the project. Without the significant rate increases that would negatively affect all ratepayers and would disproportionately affect disadvantaged and underserved communities, the investment required for this project exceeds the abilities of the Railbelt utilities, private sector, and the State. REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Prime Applicant: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Project Title: Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Total Project Costs $826 M Federal Share $413 M Match $413 M Executive Director Principal Investigator •Curtis Thayer •Bryan Carey Key Personnel •William Price •Clay Christian •Mark Ziesmer •Karin St. Clair Key Partners •Chugach Electric Association, Inc. •Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. •Homer Electric Association, Inc. •Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. •The City of Seward, Alaska dba Seward Electric System •Regulatory Commission of Alaska Proposed Project Duration •96 months REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR-The Project) aims to build a resilient, clean, smart, and low-cost electrical grid in Alaska. •The Project is part of the Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan to build a fuel-diverse, low-carbon economy in the Alaskan Railbelt. •The Project involves building new transmission lines, looped transmission feed to Fort Greeley, interconnecting Copper Valley Electric Association, and incorporating BESS and HVDC submarine cable. •BESS installations are needed to address challenges in the electrical grid such as decreasing system frequency regulation, slow frequency response to disturbances, and increasing natural frequency power oscillations. •New transmission is needed to allow for renewable resource development and eliminate constraints on renewable energy development in the Railbelt. •Objectives of the RIR and GMRP include increasing interregional transfer capability, resiliency, reliability, and reducing carbon emissions. •Unique partnership between all relevant decision-makers in the Railbelt includes the State of Alaska, Railbelt Electric Cooperatives, Railbelt municipal utility, utility regulator, and labor unions. •The Team has decades of experience in transmission line construction and operations including HV AC submarine cables, BESS installations, and power electronics like those used in HVDC-Ac converters. •The project will incentivize wise transmission investment through innovative rate-making techniques. •Federal grant funding is critical to the project's success as the investment required exceeds the abilities of the Railbelt utilities and the State, in the absence of significant rate increases that would disproportionately affect the disadvantaged and underserved. •The Project has significant community benefit to underserved, disadvantaged, and tribal communities throughout the Railbelt and to all Alaska through the Power Cost Equalization fund. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Community Benefits Plan : Job Quality and Equity The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, completed in 1991, brought together the State of Alaska (dba Alaska Energy Authority) and six of the Railbelt’s utility providers: 1) Chugach Electric Association, 2) Golden Valley Electric Association, 3) Homer Electric Association, 4) Matanuska Electric Association, 5) Seward Electric System, and 6) Municipal Light and Power1. The first four are member-owned cooperatives; Seward Electric System is owned and operated by City of Seward. Anchorage’s Municipal Light and Power was subsequently acquired by Chugach Electric Association. Together they provide approximately 80% of Alaska’s electricity.2 The State and these utilities have developed an efficient partnership through management and operation of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Acting jointly, they assembled a project team (the Team) and have drafted a Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP), which seeks to update Alaska’s outdated grid infrastructure in order to unconstrain the Bradley Lake project (the Project), improve the resiliency of power delivery from the Project and throughout the grid, reduce carbon emissions, ease the entry barriers to other clean power projects, and lighten the energy burden for three quarters of Alaska’s population. Included in GMRP is the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency (RIR) project—the subject of this application. In this funding cycle, the RIR seeks to construct an interregional transmission line (including a high voltage direct current submarine cable) parallel to the line that currently ties together the Railbelt’s Southern and Central regions, an interregional transmission line parallel to the line that currently ties the Central and Northern regions together, as well as two Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). In a future funding cycle, the RIR includes a transmission line from the Central region to the Copper Valley system, and on to the Ground Based Missile Defense System at Fort Greely in the Northern region. RIR is coordinated with, but distinct from, the Team’s requests in GRIP Topic Areas 1 and 2. The group’s GRIP Topic Area 1 proposal seeks to reconstruct the existing transmission system backbone, while our Topic Area 2 proposal seeks to design and procure the interregional battery-HVDC control and monitoring system. Given the interconnectedness of these three projects (which, taken together, compose the GMRP), community vetting for all three projects will be completed through a single coordinated public outreach effort as outlined below. 1. Community and Labor Engagement The Team recognizes that broad support for GMRP is necessary for successful project implementation. An effective public participation process draws on diverse perspectives from a broad cross-section of stakeholders. The Team looks forward to incorporating this public knowledge into both GMRP and RIR. The five utilities will form hubs for this process, since their properties will host many of the physical improvements and they already possess open communication channels with relevant stakeholders. Hiring a contractor to complete the GMRP 1 In 2020, Chugach Electric acquired Municipal Light and Power 2Alaska’s Energy Infrastructure | REAP (https://alaskarenewableenergy.org/ppf/alaskas-energy-infrastructure) 2 public participation plan is anticipated to cost $120,000. This cost is included in the project budget. GMRP Public Participation Plan Phase 1: Draft GMRP Public Participation Plan (1st and 2nd quarter 2024). Assuming we are selected for federal financial assistance and matching funds are in place, the Team intends to complete the following deliverables by 3rd quarter 20243: 1. 1. Define purpose and goals of GMRP public participation plan. 2. 2. Select the team members to manage the GMRP public participation plan. 3. 3. Select consulting firm to assist with GMRP public participation plan. 4. 4. Select environmental consultant to complete EIS for underwater HVDC submarine cable portion of RIR and field related stakeholder questions/input. 5. 5. Identify stakeholder groups affected by GMRP. 6. Draft stakeholder engagement strategies and outreach media. Include strategies designed to ensure participation from minority groups and disadvantaged communities affected by project. 7. Draft sample graphics and key messages. A focus group will be used to test the effectiveness of these materials on diverse populations. 8. Draft SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility) goals, including potential support for creation of minority business enterprises in disadvantaged communities; and SMART commitments to workers, stakeholders, and those vulnerable to project activities, including a commitment that work performed with GRIP funding will be done in compliance with Alaska public contracting law. 9. Finalize public participation plan schedule. 10. Launch GMRP website with public meeting schedule, GMRP description, and public comment section. This website will remain live until at least January 2031. Phase 2: Implement GMRP Public Participation Plan (2nd quarter 2024). The Alaska Energy Authority, representing the State of Alaska, is the lead applicant for this project. They are accustomed to engaging with local governments and tribal entities regarding permitting and regulatory processes for capital projects. Under the GMRP public participation plan, these conversations will begin early to inform project development in response to local communities’ needs and concerns. The Team believes that local governments and tribal entities are uniquely situated to identify actions the project can take to advance progressive workforce, DEIA, and environmental justice outcomes at the community level. Certain local meeting series may be accelerated as needed to allow time for sufficient public participation in individual projects represented in GMRP (such as RIR) that may be ready for construction as early as spring 2024. 3 All dates are subject to revision based on grant award date and the timing of successful obtainment of matching funds. 3 AEA will work closely with each utility provider to determine the appropriate time and setting for each community visit, taking care to avoid conflicts with other events. When possible, the AEA will use existing community events and meetings to gather input. The core team will devote special attention to ensuring diverse demographic participation at all meetings, including hosting all meetings outside of working hours. Task 1: Introductory Work Sessions (2nd or 3rd quarter 2024). Each of the five utility providers will host an introductory public work session. These work sessions will be advertised at least two weeks in advance via social media, public postings, utility cooperative mailers, text messages, and the GMRP website. Topics will include: Task 2: Data Collection and Materials Refinement (2nd or 3rd quarter 2024) A series of core team meetings will be held to refine the GMRP public participation plan in light of feedback gathered during initial work sessions. At this point, deadlines and core team leads will be decided for the following deliverables: 1. Conduct data collection and research as needed (including surveys) to address data gaps identified by the public. Surveys will be distributed electronically or made available at key community locations. We would not expect to get a statistically valid sample of the entire Railbelt population but enough feedback to assess community perspectives from a cross-section of stakeholders. 1. Review the GMRP: Communicate what it encompasses, costs, and its projected timeline and potential impacts; Identify stakeholders affected and their various value propositions; Provide extra detail about projects in GMRP that are shovel ready such as segments of RIR included in this GRIP application. 2. Communicate how the public can learn more, track project progress, and how their feedback will be used. 3. Share success stories as well as lessons learned from other electrical infrastructure upgrades conducted on the Railbelt. 4. Discuss structure of the Team and the roles and responsibilities of the six parties that constitute it. 5. Discuss metrics that will be used to measure the success of GMRP implementation. 6. Share proposed list of community organizations with whom the Team will conduct one-on-one outreach meetings, with an emphasis on organizations that serve disadvantaged populations. Solicit suggestions for additional organizations. 7. Present and solicit feedback on SMART DEIA goals, including support for creation of minority business enterprises in disadvantaged communities, and SMART commitments to workers, stakeholders, and those vulnerable to project activities, as developed during Phase 1. 8. Identify areas where stakeholders wish to have more data or information via questions like: “What should the Team consider that we haven't covered today?” “What information would you like to see at a future meeting?” “What additional questions do you have?” 9. Query and catalog any public concerns regarding the project. 4 2. Develop ArcGIS Online mapping tool for GMRP website. By hosting an interactive map of the project, the Team can solicit public comments that are geocoded by location, allowing identification of site-specific issues, needs, and themes. 3. Minutes from introductory work sessions as well as public comments from GMRP website coalesced to capture key themes and messages and posted to website. 4. Finalize: List of organizations with which to conduct one-on-one work sessions; SMART DEIA goals; SMART commitments. As part of this task, the core team will continue to utilize various stakeholder engagement tools to share project information, promote opportunities to get involved, and invite public input. Task 3: One-on-One Organizational Work Sessions and “Going to the People” (no later than 1st quarter 2025) Task 4: Public Feedback Sharing (3rdquarter 2024) 4 Asterisked organizations are those with whom preliminary contact about GMRP ha s already been made. 1. Work sessions with relevant organizations will be conducted. Early engagement with these groups will guide GMRP revisions and establish constructive relationships, as many of these groups will be critical partners throughout GMRP implementation. Discussion topics to include: environmental impacts (particularly around HVDC submarine cable included in RIR), viewshed impacts, subsistence impacts, state and federal land management, Power Cost Equalization, workforce development (including apprenticeships), support for minority business enterprises, DEIA recruitment, DEIA workplace policies, and state legislation. These meetings will follow the same template as the intro public work sessions (Task 1), communicating an overview of GMRP and inviting organizations to provide feedback. Minutes will be recorded. Examples of relevant organizations and Minority Serving Institutions with whom meetings will be sought include: Alaska Federation of Natives, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative*, University of Alaska, Alaska Pacific University, Alaska Black Caucus*, RurAL CAP, Alaska Municipal League*, IBEW Local 1547*, IUOE Local 302*, Alaska State Office of Veterans Affairs, Alaska Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association*, Alaska Operating Engineers Training Trust*, Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship & Training Trust*, Railbelt Tribal councils, and Railbelt City Councils.4 A. In addition to NEPA Process requirements, meetings will be sought with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Kenaitze and Knik Tribal Councils to discuss best practices to minimize environmental impacts from the placing of a submarine HVDC cable through Cook Inlet, which is home to an endangered population of Beluga whales. 2. Additional outreach will be conducted at existing meetings in each project area, such as: Tribal Council meetings, City Council meetings, and Chamber of Commerce lunches. Outreach will also be conducted in more informal settings in an attempt to recruit a more diverse group of stakeholders. The Team refers to this process as “G2P” or “Going to the People”. Examples of events suitable for G2P include: Alaska Federation of Natives Convention, Alaska Black Caucus Sunday night Zoom meetings, Alaska State Fair, community farmers’ markets, Juneteenth programming, Alaska Federation of Filipino Americans programming, Sportsman shows, music festivals, and more. 5 A second round of public meetings will be hosted by the five utilities as well as Alaska Energy Authority. Topics will include: Task 5: Internal GMRP Finalization (3rd quarter 2024) The Team will meet to discuss the Public Feedback Sharing and assign task leads for the following deliverables: Task 6: Board/Leadership Presentations (4th quarter 2024) 2. Investing in the American Workforce Alaska’s Economy Relies on the Railbelt RIR and GMRP will provide significant secondary benefits to most sectors of Alaska’s economy. In addition to serving as home to three quarters of Alaska’s population, the Railbelt, and 1. Recap GMRP purpose, goals, and timeline. 2. Themes and key takeaways from introductory work sessions, one-on-one org meetings, G2P events, and survey results. 3. Share SMART DEIA goal revisions and SMART commitments revisions. 4. Have stations set up around different topics: Participants can walk from station to station to learn about different elements of the project such as submarine HVDC cable, timeline, DEIA goals, labor commitments, environmental impacts, employment opportunities, homeowner impacts, and ask questions of project staff about the areas they are most interested in. 5. Demonstration and launch of ArcGIS mapping tool on GMRP website. 6. Request for additional feedback or concerns not captured thus far. 7. Minutes from this meeting will be posted to GMRP website. 1. GMRP final draft with incorporated stakeholder feedback. 2. Final draft of SMART DEIA goals and SMART commitments. 1. Final draft GMRP, SMART DEIA goals, and SMART commitments presented to each utility board and AEA leadership by the Team. Requested changes catalogued in detail. 2. Core Team meetings to incorporate requested changes from utility boards and AEA leadership. If funded through this application, these changes will be considered only whe re doing so allows GMRP to remain in compliance with Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office DE -FOA-0002740 job equality and equity, community and labor engagement, quality jobs, and DEIA requirements. 3. Revised final draft GMRP, SMART DEIA goals, and SMART commitments (including commitment to comply with State of Alaska public contracting law) presented to each board and AEA leadership. Presentations to focus on requested changes from previous meeting, and whether those changes were implemented. Each board will be asked to ratify these documents. If they do not approve the revised final drafts, a second round of edits and board presentations will be scheduled. 4. The board-ratified GMRP, SMART DEIA goals, and SMART commitments will be posted to the GMRP website. Outreach media—including emails to those who attended the previous two public meetings—will direct the public to these finalized documents. 6 particularly Anchorage, is the economic heart of Alaska, shunting labor, supplies, and goods to and from all corners of the state. While a quantitative analysis of the impact of the Railbelt on Alaska’s state economy lies outside the scope of this Community Benefits Plan, the magnitude of its import can be illustrated through a quick overview of the Port of Alaska, a potential beneficiary of this project as a customer of Chugach Electric Association: The Port of Alaska, located in Anchorage, is a federally designated Strategic Seaport, and serves 90% of Alaska’s population. It receives 50% of all freight shipped into Alaska by all modes (marine, truck, and air), and supports $14 billion of commercial activity in Alaska.5 74% of all waterborne freight and ninety-five percent of refined petroleum products entering the state are shipped through the Port of Alaska. This includes 100 % of the jet fuel supplied to Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson and 66 % of the jet fuel for Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport6, which is, as of April 2022, the third busiest cargo airport in the world.7 Despite its importance to the statewide economy, the Port of Alaska, like the rest of the Railbelt, is served by inadequate electrical infrastructure. Tony Izzo, general manager of Matanuska Electrical Authority, said: “We have one of the most fragile systems in the United States. I don’t refer to the Alaska Railbelt as first-world, because it’s not.”8 Unlike the contiguous forty-eight states, Alaska has received minimal federal investment in grid development. The Eklutna Hydroelectric Project, constructed in the 1950s, was the last major federal project in the Railbelt that included a transmission line component; RIR would change that. Employment at Chugach Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, and Seward Electric System More granularly, investment in RIR and GMRP will retain high-quality jobs with employer sponsored benefits at all five Railbelt utilities by creating new infrastructure that will require operation and maintenance for the next 25 years, as well as prepare the Railbelt grid for the development of low carbon energy infrastructure projects. Approximately 650 of the 1,100 total employees who work at these five utilities belong to labor unions.9 In addition, virtually all of the contractors that support the utilities are signatory to collective bargaining agreements. Alaska is not a Right to Work state; utility employees whose positions are covered by bargaining unit agreements are required to join unions consistent with those agreements. These are highly skilled and highly paid positions: the average wage of a journeyman lineman at these utilities ranges from $54.40 to $58.00 an hour. The utilities sponsor the following benefits: medical, dental, vision, life insurance, defined contribution retirement plans, 401(k), pension, short -term disability, long/short-term disability, tuition reimbursement, paid time off, and paid holidays. The 659 unionized workers these utilities employ suggests they possess access to sufficient supplies 5 Port of Alaska in Anchorage, The Logistical and Economic Advantages of Alaska's Primary Inbound Port, McDowell Group, October 2020. 6 Ten Year Tonnage Summary | Port of Alaska in Anchorage 7 Alaska Business Monthly, 04/13/23, "ANC Ranks 3rd in the World for Air Cargo" 8 Anchorage Daily News, 03/12/23, "Railbelt utilities again scramble to fill expected Cook Inlet gas shortages" 9 Email correspondence with Reagan M. Russel (see footnote 12); Justin Patterson (see footnote 13); phone correspondence with Charlene Flyum, (907)235-3369, Human Resources, Homer Electric Association, Friday, March 10, 2023 9:26 AM; Candice Strandberg, Human Resources, Chugach Electric Association, (907)762-4788, Friday, March 10, 2023, 9:16 AM; and Rob Montgomery, General Manager, Seward Electric System, (907)224-4073, Wednesday, March 8, 2023, 3:10 PM. 7 of skilled labor, while their longstanding track records of providing power to Alaska residents in remote and difficult environments demonstrates they are responsible employers. For perspective, each of these utilities is significantly older than the State of Alaska (which achieved statehood in 1959). Their years of founding are CEA: 1948; GVEA: 1947; HEA: 1945; MEA: 1941; and SES: 1921.10 Importantly, the Team includes the State of Alaska dba Alaska Energy Authority. With State support affirmed in this way, the GMRP public participation plan anticipates no issues establishing partnerships with tribal entities, local governments, and other State of Alaska departments with the goal of matching progressive workforce solutions to project needs. The Team has long-term relationships with organized labor in Alaska. They have used project labor agreements in the past for projects of this scale, such as construction of the Alaska Intertie. Each of the utilities has collective bargaining agreements with IBEW, among other unions. As outlined in detail in the GMRP public participation plan (Section 1), The Team plans to engage its labor partners early to initiate discussions around labor agreements, local and targeted hiring goals, card-check neutrality, and programs to attract, train, and retain new workers. HR directors at these utilities confirmed that their organizations possess plans to minimize the risk of labor disputes via contracts with “appropriate grievance resolution stipulations”11 and a staffed position of “Labor Relations Program Manager”.12 Melinda Taylor, Communications Director at IBEW Local 1547, wrote: “We would generally consider our relationship with each utility to be positive. We work well with each of these utilities and understand that the success of our membership is tied to the success of each utility. Because we have separate collective bargaining agreements with each utility (some of these utilities have multiple CBAs), the applicable work rules and expectations are much clearer than if there were no CBA in place. For these reasons, we believe that the IBEW is well-positioned to maintain strong labor relations with our partner utilities throughout any Railbelt grid modernization and revitalization projects.”13 Work performed with GRIP funding will be done in compliance with Alaska public contracting law, which contains provisions for local hire, apprenticeship training, prevailing wages and other forward-looking policies. Alaska has a unique labor market that results in construction employees on projects of this scale being dispatched by organized labor and benefiting from registered apprenticeship programs represented by the Alaska Apprenticeship Training Coordinators Association (AATCA). AATCA, composed of 16 different construction trades, is a member of the Alaska Works Partnership, a non-profit organization focused solely on getting Alaskans into careers in the construction industry. Alaska Works is jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the North American Building Trades Unions. By 10 Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association Inc., Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., and phone call with Rob Montgomery, General Manager, Seward Electric System, (907)2 24- 4073, Wednesday, March 8, 2023, 3:10 PM 11 Email correspondence between Reagan M. Russell, RMRussel@gvea.com, Human Resources at Golden Valley Electric Association, and Clare Boersma, clareboersma@northerncompassgroup.com, Monday, March 6, 2023, 10:39 AM. 12 Email correspondence between Justin Patterson, justin.patterson@mea.coop, Human Resources at Matanuska Electric Association, and Clare Boersma, clareboersma@northerncompassgroup.com, Monday, March 9, 2023, 3:27 PM. 13 Email correspondence between Melinda Taylor, mtaylor@ibew1547.org, Communications Director IBEW 1547, and Clare Boersma, clareboersma@northerncompassgroup.com, Tuesday, March 7, 2023, 6:00 PM. 8 complying with Alaska public contracting law and engaging registered apprentices in this project, the Team is assured of accessing the resources brought to bear by the Alaska Works Partnership in support of local hire, veteran hire, and as diverse a workforce as Alaska has to offer. Tasks Related to Quality Jobs 3. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) It is a fundamental policy of all five Railbelt utilities and Alaska Energy Authority to assure equal opportunity in employment to all individuals regardless of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, genetic information, veteran status, or disability. Each utility provides reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees who need them because of a disability or to practice their religion. They maintain strict policies fostering safe, inclusive workplaces free of discrimination and harassment. Hiring practices and standard operating procedures comply with all Local, State, and Federal laws. Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Homer Electric Association and Golden Valley Electric Association are federal contractors. The lone utility which is not—Seward Electric System—only has 10 employees. As federal contractors these utilities are subject to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ requirements for hiring and adhering to an Affirmative Action Plan. Alaska offers significant opportunities to engage underserved populations, including Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, and veterans. The GMRP public participation plan is designed to identify workforce partnerships to encourage participation of these and similar communities in the project, including meetings with organizations representing DACs to discuss how GMRP can best utilize and support minority business enterprises (MBEs), focus groups including minority populations to test communication materials effectiveness, “Going to the People” public outreach that target events with diverse populations, and hosting all public meetings after work to reduce barriers to participation. The Team will measure DEIA goals against data collected by Team HR departments related to workforce (including contractors), veteran status, ethnicity, gender, and disability status. Finalized DEIA goals will be evaluated against this dataset. Potential programs to increase diversity among project beneficiaries include affirmative action, scholarships, and anti-bias trainings for hirers. The Team’s members support continued development of a skilled, inclusive local workforce via the IBEW-NECA Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust, individual utility training programs, and the University of Alaska System. Under Task 3 of the GMRP public participation plan, meetings will be held between the Team, the Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust (AJEATT) and other relevant local training trusts. These meetings will assess how the apprenticeship programs these organizations offer serve workers facing systematic barriers to employment, and how to reduce those barriers through GMRP implementation. Given assumptions of a 1-cent/kWh reduction in the cost of power, cumulative annual benefits from the project in the form of reduced energy burdens of $18,215,330 will flow to DACs or Tribal 1. The Team will conduct one-on-one work sessions with IBEW Local 1547 and other relevant labor organizations about GMRP and input their feedback into the finalized plan. 2. The Team will meet with tribal entities, local governments, and State of Alaska departments to implement progressive workforce-related solutions into GMRP. 9 lands. For more detail on these benefits, see Section 4: “Project Benefits for Disadvantaged Communities”. Tasks Related to DEIA 1. Host public meetings outside of working hours; test communication materials on minority populations for effectiveness; target diverse populations with “G2P” outreach. 2. Invite one-on-one organizational meetings with organizations representing DACs affected by project, including tribal councils, Alaska Black Caucus, and Alaska Federation of Natives. 3. Share and refine SMART DEIA goals during GMRP public participation plan, including support for MBEs. 4. Assess how AOEETT and AJEATT apprenticeship programs serve workers facing systematic barriers to employment; implement improvements. 5. Collect data on workforce veteran status, ethnicity, gender, and disability throughout GMRP implementation. 6. Use collected data to evaluate success of DEIA goals throughout GRIP performance period. 4. Justice40 Initiative AEA is a state entity with obligations to the public interest, while the utilities are member-owned cooperatives (one is municipal with responsibilities to the city’s residents). GMRP’s public participation plan is designed to encourage local governments and tribes to identify actions the project can take to advance environmental justice in their individual communities through this project. This includes directing benefits to DACs and minority owned businesses through labor agreements, training programs, and reduced long-term energy burdens and CO2 emissions. The most significant potential negative environmental impact caused by RIR would be from the submarine HVDC cable through Cook Inlet. Although Cook Inlet already hosts numerous subsea petroleum and natural gas pipelines and high voltage AC submarine cables, it is home to an endangered subspecies of Beluga whale. In addition to complying with all federal and state environmental permitting requirements, including marine mammal monitoring during construction, the Team will endeavor to convene a joint meeting with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Kenaitze and Knik Tribal Councils (the governing bodies for the two Alaska Native Village Statistical Area s whose lands are adjacent to the intended path of the submarine cable through Cook Inlet) to discuss additional best practices for minimizing potential disruptions to this Beluga population. “America’s First Climate Refugees” Nowhere is climate change more visible--or occurring faster--than in the far north. Driven by a shift in popular sentiment, decarbonization policies and technological advancements are reshaping Alaska’s energy landscape. Uncertainty around Cook Inlet natural gas, which fuels approximately 70% of the Railbelt’s power, is a major challenge looming on the near-term horizon.14 The Alaska Department of Natural Resources forecasts there will be supply shortfalls of Cook Inlet gas starting around 2027; no alternative supply exists in-state.15 This economic 14 Alaska’s Energy Infrastructure | REAP (https://alaskarenewableenergy.org/ppf/alaskas-energy-infrastructure) 15 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas 2022-cook-inlet-gas-forecast-report.pdf 10 reality exists alongside complex moral and social issues: a thawing arctic disproportionately affects Alaska Native communities. For instance, Newtok Village, located on the Ninglick River, and the Native Village of Napakiak, located on the Kuskokwim River, are both currently being relocated to higher ground with over $60 million of federal aid; they are considered “America’s first climate change refugees.”16 Rob Montgomery, General Manager of Seward Electrical System, writes: “The biggest obstacle Railbelt utilities face in putting more renewable or carbon-free energy on the grid is the limited capacity of existing transmission infrastructure. The Railbelt’s transmission system simply is not robust enough to move electricity in large capacities that would ultimately drive down costs.” RIR will increase transfer capacity between the three Railbelt regions, paving the way for development of increased hydro-electric power generation and other clean energy solutions. This will help mitigate environmental impacts from the 3,218 natural-gas-produced GWh on the Railbelt each year, resulting in 1.61 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent.17 Additionally, RIR is projected to result in a 10-15% reduction in thermal spending due to decreased line losses and reduced reserves, and more efficient economic dispatch of generation units representing a non-cumulative decrease of over 200 million kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Project Benefits for Disadvantaged Communities Decreased Energy Burdens This project is anticipated to provide significant benefits to Alaska’s DACs, both on and off the Railbelt. There are 22 census tracts that qualify as disadvantaged18 on the Railbelt, with a combined population of 81,921.19 There are a further 17 Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas (ANVSA) on the Railbelt20, with a combined population of 160,486. These communities will receive direct benefits from GMRP via reduction of their energy burdens. As mentioned, Railbelt engineers believe GMRP’s decreased line losses and reduced reserves, due to increased transfer capability and improved economic dispatch, will result in thermal spending reductions of 10- 15%.21 Because the utilities are member-owned, these savings will transfer directly to reduced consumer costs. The Railbelt’s 260,00022 residential utility accounts serve 623,916 individuals23, 242,407 of whom live in a DAC or Alaska Native Village Statistical Area. Roughly speaking, Railbelt engineers project that the GMRP’s overall fuel savings of 10-15% of fuel and variable operations and maintenance could result in a reduction of approximately 0.5 cents/kWh to 1.5 cents/kWh for users24. The combined Railbelt utilities sold 4,408 GWh (Gigawatt-Hours) in 202025, yielding a potential total 16 See: Alaska on the edge: Newtok's residents race to stop village falling into sea | The Guardian; Impossible Choice Faces America's First 'Climate Refugees' : NPR; Alaska’s Climate Refugees - The Atlantic 17 Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity Generated from Conventionally Produced Natural Gas - O'Donoughue - 2014 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library 18 DOE Disadvantaged Communities Reporter 19 American Community Survey 2021 5 Year Population Estimates 20 2020 U.S. Census, DOE Disadvantaged Communities Reporter 21 Brian Hickey, Project Lead, P.E., Brian.Hickey@mea.coop, Zoom, 8:00-8:30 am, March 1st, 2023. 22 Summed from: Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association Inc., Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 23 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. 24 Production costing studies can be run to validate the accuracy of these estimates. 25 U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2020 11 savings of $44,080,000 for a 1-cent per kWh cost reduction based on historical generation data. A significant portion of those annual savings realized should pass through to member-owners; as a percentage of population served, 39% of these savings will flow to those who live in a DAC or on Tribal Land. A unique feature of RIR as a component of the GMRP is that it will also have significant economic impacts outside of the Railbelt due to Alaska’s Power Cost Equalization program (PCE). The PCE program was established in 1985 to provide economic assistance to residents and community facilities in rural Alaska, where electricity rates can be two to five times higher than in more urban areas. PCE was devised at the same time that state funds were used to construct major energy projects for urban Alaska, such as the Four Dam Pool, Bradley Lake, and the Alaska Intertie. The primary beneficiaries of PCE are residential customers, who are eligible for subsidy of actual consumption up to 750 kWh (starting FY23; it has historically been 500 kWh). If a household uses more than 750 kWh of electricity in a given month, the amount used above 750 kWh is not subsidized. Community facilities are also eligible for actual consumption up to 70 kWh per month per community resident. Community facilities must be nonprofit organizations that do not receive the majority of their funding from state and federal sources. AEA administers the PCE program by making payments directly to individual utilities enrolled in the program. The PCE program is funded by earnings of the PCE Endowment Fund. Alaska Statute 42.45.085 provides that five percent of the PCE Endowment Fund’s three-year monthly average market value may be appropriated to the PCE Program. In recent years the 5% draw on the endowment has been sufficient to fully fund PCE payments. PCE is determined for a utility as 95% of eligible power costs above the “Average Class Rate” and below $1.00 per kWh. The Average Class Rate is derived from the average electricity cost in Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks (20.03¢/kWh for FY 2022). Eligible costs are fuel expenses including transportation, and non-fuel expenses such as salaries, insurance, taxes, parts, supplies, and interest. By decreasing (or incrementally reducing over the long-term) electricity rates in Anchorage and Fairbanks, GMRP will correspondingly decrease the Average Class Rate AEA uses to calculate PCE for rural utilities, consequently increasing the PCE credit for eligible communities and residents. In FY22 PCE served 188 communities, 15426 (82%) of whom qualify as DACs or Tribal lands. Approximately 108,914,53027 of PCE-eligible kWh were produced between residential and community facilities in those 154 DACs. AEA has estimated, based on the statutory PCE credit formula, that the increased credit amount that would be issued by AEA to PCE-enrolled communities is estimated to be $1,263,000, when applying a one-cent reduction in the average class rate. Actual savings would be less than this, since Juneau, which is outside the Railbelt, is included in the “Average Class Rate”, and their rates would not be affected by thermal spending reductions from GMRP. It should also be noted that PCE payments received by a particular utility are not uniformly distributed and will vary from year-to-year based on the utilities’ energy cost reporting. In sum: GMRP and RIR’s projected 1-cent/kWh reduction in energy costs for users is estimated at a potential $44,080,000 in reduced energy burdens for on -Railbelt electricity users, 39% of 26 https://www.energy.gov/diversity/justice40-initiative 27 FY22 PCE Community Report.pdf (akenergyauthority.org) 12 whom belong to DACs or live on Tribal lands. Through AEA’s Power Cost Equalization program, that same 1-cent/kWh reduction in on-Railbelt energy costs is anticipated to result in an additional $1,263,00028 in PCE subsidies to off-Railbelt communities, 82% of which will flow to DACs or Tribal lands, on a representative percentage basis. The GMRP presents a unique opportunity for federal investment when considering the significant multiplier effects regarding both direct and indirect benefits to be realized by both on and off-Railbelt DACs, by virtue of long- standing existing programs seeking to equalize the cost of power between urban and rural areas of the state. Increased Energy Resilience The Railbelt region is home to some of the harshest conditions on earth, making grid resilience a top priority. Past disasters include volcanic activity, earthquakes, avalanches, forest fires, and landslides, which have left communities isolated and without power for days or weeks. 26% of Railbelt customers live in an ANVSA, many of which are located in remote areas with energy infrastructure that is particularly vulnerable to natural disaster. Increased grid resiliency is a primary goal of this project, best embodied by the interregional transmission line that will be installed parallel to the line that currently ties together the Railbelt’s Southern and Central region s, and which will allow for continued energy transmission between regions in the event of a major natural disaster. Additional resilience benefits include right-of-way clearing, aerial inspections, and refurbishment of existing lines and structures. Increased High Quality Job Creation Lastly, GMRP will create high paying jobs for members of DACs who live along the Railbelt. Working with IBEW-NECA Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust, individual utility training programs, and local colleges and the University of Alaska System, the project team will create apprenticeship and internship programs that streamline into jobs working on the grid. This will improve regional economies as well as help locals take ownership of the project, ultimately increasing energy democracy. Tasks Related to Justice40 Initiative 1. Provide numerous opportunities and means for disadvantaged communities to voice potential concerns over negative environmental impacts from GMRP through public participation process; host joint organizational meeting regarding submarine HVDC cable through Cook Inlet. 2. Me as ure decreased energy burdens for DACs on Railbelt. 3. Measure increased PCE credits for DACs off Railbelt. 4. Streamline apprenticeships and internships in remote communities into jobs working on Railbelt grid. 28 FY22 PCE Community Report.pdf (akenergyauthority.org) Prime or Sub Name City State Zip Code + 4 Prime Soldotna SubStation Soldotna Alaska 99669 Prime Sub Cable terminal Nikiski Alaska 99611 Prime Sub Cable terminal Beluga Alaska 99695 Prime Healy Substation Healy Alaska 99743 Prime Wilson Substation Fairbanks Alaska 99775 Prime International Substation Anchorage Alaska 99518 Locations of Work (DE-FOA-0002740) Confirmation Thank you for submitting your grant application package via Grants.gov. Your application is currently being processed by the Grants.gov system. Once your submission has been processed, Grants.gov will send email messages to advise you of the progress of your application through the system. Over the next 24 to 48 hours, you should receive two emails. The first will confirm receipt of your application by the Grants.gov system, and the second will indicate that the application has either been successfully validated by the system prior to transmission to the grantor agency or has been rejected due to errors. Please do not hit the back button on your browser. If your application is successfully validated and subsequently retrieved by the grantor agency from the Grants.gov system, you will receive an additional email. This email may be delivered several days or weeks from the date of submission, depending on when the grantor agency retrieves it. You may also monitor the processing status of your submission within the Grants.gov system by clicking on the “Track My Application” link listed at the end of this form. Note: Once the grantor agency has retrieved your application from Grants.gov, you will need to contact them directly for any subsequent status updates. Grants.gov does not participate in making any award decisions. IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you do not receive a receipt confirmation and either a validation confirmation or a rejection email message within 48 hours, please contact us. The Grants.gov Contact Center can be reached by email at support@grants.gov, or by telephone at 1-800-518-4726. Always include your Grants.gov tracking number in all correspondence. The tracking numbers issued by Grants.gov look like GRANTXXXXXXXXX. If you have questions please contact the Grants.gov Contact Center: support@grants.gov 1-800-518-4726 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Closed on federal holidays. The following application tracking information was generated by the system: Grants.gov Tracking Number:GRANT13888581 F3N8ZSHJXUH8UEI: Karin St. ClairSubmitter's Name: CFDA Number:81.254 CFDA Description:Grid Infrastructure Deployment and Resilience Funding Opportunity Number:DE-FOA-0002740 Funding Opportunity Description:BIL Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships ( GRIP) Agency Name:National Energy Technology Laboratory Application Name of this Submission:Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) Date/Time of Receipt: https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/spoExit.jsp?p=web/grants/applicants/track-my-application.html&tracking_num=GRANT13888581 TRACK MY APPLICATION – To check the status of this application, please click the link below: It is suggested you Save and/or Print this response for your records. May 18, 2023 05:14:34 PM EDT 1 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 A. Cover Page Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Applicant: The Alaska Energy Authority representing the State of Alaska Technical and Business Point of Contact: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority The Alaska Energy Authority and Railbelt utilities are partners in this project as collaborative decision makers representing all the primary transmission owners and operators of Alaska’s largest electrical grid (the Railbelt). The project partners (the Team) are: 1. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) 2. Chugach Electric Association Inc, a Central Region Cooperative (CEA) 3. Golden Valley Electric Association Inc., a Northern Region Cooperative (GVEA) 4. Homer Electric Association Inc., a Southern Region Cooperative (HEA) 5. Matanuska Electric Association Inc., a Central Region Cooperative (MEA) 6. The City of Seward, Alaska, dba Seward Electric System, a Southern Region Municipal Utility (SES) 7. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) is participating as a team member, in an advisory and regulatory role, as permitted by their statutory authority and restrictions. Project Location: All three regions (Northern, Central, and Southern) of the Ala ska Railbelt electrical grid and the Eastern Region1. 1 Copper Valley Electric Association serves the Eastern Region and is a stakeholder knowledgeable about this application but is not a project team member. Area served by the Railbelt grid Area served by Copper Valley Electric Association 2 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 B. Project overview B.1 Background Vision and Opportunity Alaska and the nation are at a critical transition point with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build resiliency and develop a fuel-diverse, low-carbon economy, by investing in essential electrical infrastructure. The state’s largest, but electrically islanded, grid serves over 75% of the state’s population including diverse and underserved communities, primary commerce and shipping centers, strategic military bases, and access areas for key mineral deposits. However, due to the relatively low population to share in costs, the electric system does not meet the minimum standards of the Lower 48 states. This deficiency limits the grid’s resiliency and undermines the ability to usher in a clean energy future. At this intersection, the collective mission of the State of Alaska, and the interconnected Railbelt electric utilities, is to build a resilient, clean, smart, and low-cost electrical grid. This grid must support a fuel-diverse energy landscape that drives sustainable economic development in Alaska and ensures a cost-effective delivery of energy to Railbelt consumers and beyond. The Railbelt utilities and State share a vision: a collaborative future in the Railbelt in which our communities come together and share resources to strengthen and build a smart, clean electrical grid that promises our residents, our national defense infrastructure, and communities adjacent to the Railbelt access to clean, low-cost energy from any source. An innovative team has been assembled to manage the project consisting of relevant decision makers in the region: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) representing the State of Alaska, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), and five electric utilities that make up the Railbelt electric grid. The team will work under a structure like the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee (BPMC), an organization with a 32-year history of successful project development and management. The Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) will construct new transmission lines parallel to the existing single regional ties and provide a looped transmission feed to the DOD ground-based missile defense facility at Fort Greeley and interconnect the currently islanded Copper Valley Electric Association with the Railbelt grid. The Project will incorporate a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable installed in a challenging marine environment. This cable circuit will require significant innovation which is more fully described later in this document. Alaskans are enthusiastic about funding opportunities to rise to their unique energy challenges. A recent Op-Ed in the Anchorage Daily News, co-written by Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy and Doug Tansy, business manager for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers No. 1547, highlights this intent: “Right now, we have historic alignment of the players involved. Utilities, the state of Alaska, and labor are working together in a way that has not been seen in our lifetimes to build a reliable, resilient, and efficient grid for future families and business owners. Now is the time for all the players to combine efforts and secure this investment for Alaskans.” The total estimated cost for the construction of the line segments and associated station facilities proposed in this funding cycle is approximately $822.7M. In this application we are requesting a federal grant of $411.4M. We anticipate an eight-year project timeframe. The State of Alaska, and the Railbelt utilities are committed to upgrading the Railbelt transmission grid. On December 2, 2022, the BPMC, through AEA, closed on a bond package for $166M, 65% of which will be dedicated to match federal aid for transmission reconstruction and 35% to three-regional grid 3 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 stabilization battery energy storage systems (BESS), one of which is currently in service and two of which are included in this grant application. This funding will begin work on the Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP), but without Federal and State assistance it cannot be completed in a reasonable time frame. We are seeking State funding assistance2 to help close the gap between utility funding and federal assistance.3 4 History The Railbelt electric grid is unique in North America as it is technically a fully functioning long- distance electrical grid on a very small scale. The Railbelt is characterized by three load- generation regions with four load-balancing areas. These load-generation concentrations, known as the Northern Region (Fairbanks-Delta Junction), the Central Region (Anchorage-MatSu), and Southern Region (the Kenai Peninsula), are tied together with two long transmission lines operating at 115kV and 138KV. The grid provides electricity to approximately 75% of the state's residents and generates 80% of the electricity in Alaska. It extends over 700 miles from the Bradley Lake Project, located at the head of Kachemak Bay near Homer, Alaska, in the Southern Region, to Delta Junction in Interior Alaska, roughly the distance from Washington, DC to Atlanta, GA, as depicted in figure 1. The grid transverses inhospitable subarctic mountainous terrain and the Cook Inlet with its tremendous tides and currents. The region is laced with highly active seismic zones and is subject to volcanic eruptions, forest fires, flooding, and fierce annual winter storms. The grid's assets vary from high voltage (138 kV and 230 kV) submarine cable crossings in Cook Inlet5 to remote "helicopter/riverboat-access-only" river crossings and numerous transmission structures well above 2000 feet (sub-arctic). Unlike numerous areas in the contiguous lower forty-eight states, the Railbelt has received minimal federal investment in grid development. The Eklutna Hydroelectric Project, initially constructed in the 1950s, was the last major federal project in the Railbelt that included a transmission line component. This project was rebuilt by the Bureau of Reclamation's Alaska Power Administration after the 1964 "Good Friday” Earthquake and sold by the Federal government to Central Region utilities in the early 1990s. 2 The Governor has submitted legislation to establish a funding agency for the purpose of energy related projects. 3 State matching funding is subject to Executive branch and Legislative approval. Utility funding is subject to Cooperative and Municipal governing Board approval. 4 Given the duration of this project, and if selected for award, during the grant negotiation process the Team will seek an inflation adjustment clause, based on actual inflation. 5 Cook Inlet is a silt laden 180-mile inlet reaching from Knik Arm to the Gulf of Alaska. The Inlet has the fourth highest tidal range in the world at 35 feet and contains an endangered subspecies of the Beluga Whale. Railbelt Grid Figure 1: Alaska’s Relative Size 4 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Due to the high cost of transmission lines, the regions are moderately interconnected, primarily at 69kV, 115kV, 138KV, 230kV. A tight power pool operates in the Central region, and an active economy energy market exists between regions but is severely limited by transmission constraints. There is no formal interconnection queue. A reserve-sharing pool exists between all three regions. Historically, due to weak interconnections the regions have planned for capacity separately. The Railbelt grid is technically characterized as "transient stability limited," with machines under dynamic stress swinging against other machines within the region; and with regions swinging against each other across the light interregional interconnections. The grid is susceptible to and has experienced large-scale6 small-signal instability oscillations. Voltage stability, which varies from marginal to good depending on the specific area, has been improved with the addition of six static VAR compensators at critical locations. The Railbelt grid operates under a subset of North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) standards modified to account for the scale and nature of the interconnection (the grid's system bias is variable and ranges from 3-10 MW/.1 hertz). The grid has a sophisticated under-frequency load shed scheme which sheds load to match generation in four stages with varying time delays and, in some cases, considering frequency rate-of-change. Traditional day-ahead and real-time security constrained economic dispatch are run in each LBA with net interchange, and frequency monitored and managed to NERC CPS 1 and 2. Dynamic events on the grid occur and resolve very quickly (2-10 seconds) when compared with the much larger North American grids which resolve in tens of minutes. The grid's peak demand is roughly 750 MW compared to ERCOT's peak demand of 85,000 MW. The grid's annual energy consumption is approximately 4,500 GWH compared to ERCOT at 339,000 GWH. The Railbelt’s Grid Modernization Resiliency Plan (GMRP) Today, the broader energy landscape in Alaska and across the world is being reshaped by multiple change drivers. Geopolitical shifts are dramatically altering global energy markets. Decarbonization policies and technological advancements, shaped by increasingly dramatic climate change, are both the result of and contributor to a shift in focus on energy and the environment. Regionally, uncertainty around Cook Inlet natural gas and broader fuel supply issues for utility companies is a critical – and shared – challenge looming on the near-term horizon. The Railbelt’s weakly interconnected grid is inadequate to meet the challenges of a sustainable, fuel diverse, decarbonized future. In response to this shared challenge, the Team has come together to develop a broad-based, long-term plan to ensure the future energy viability of the Railbelt from a social, economic, and technical perspective. The technical aspect of that Plan is the GMRP, of which the RIR is a component. The Team will propose that the GMRP be incorporated into Alaska’s broader State Energy Plan as that document is developed in the coming months. 6 Oscillations have been measured with a peak of 220 MW, a 1.1 second period and sustained for over 90 seconds on a grid with a summer valley peak load of approximately 500MW. 5 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Figure Two is a graphic representation of the Southern, Central, and Northern regions of the Railbelt grid with the current system and the proposed Southern and Central Region GMRP components overlayed. The components of the GMRP in these regions that make up the 22-23 funding cycle RIR are highlighted in yellow. A more detailed listing of the Plan’s component projects (transmission line segments and substations), and estimated costs is outlined in the workplan. Figure Three is a graphic representation of the entire Railbelt with the full GMRP overlayed on the existing system. On this diagram, yellow highlights indicate GRIP Topic 3 Railbelt Innovative Resiliency (RIR) projects; rust and red highlights indicate Topic 1 (RBR) projects; and the blue “C” indicates GRIP Topic 2 Smart Grid projects. This Plan is highly innovative and transformational in that it will reshape the Railbelt in a way that will usher in a sustainable fuel diverse low carbon future. As we describe below, the totality of this transformation is innovative technically and financially from both a teaming and regulatory perspective. Given the operational nature of the Railbelt and the disparate socioeconomic status and vast diversity of its communities, valuable lessons from this undertaking will be broadly applicable to the larger grids of the contiguous lower forty-eight states and North America. Our estimated total cost for the GMRP is $2.87B over fifteen years. Without significant Federal and State investment, the GMRP and this Project are beyond the financial capabilities of the Railbelt utilities. The priority for diversifying the Railbelt fuel supply and decarbonizing the Railbelt grid must be to stabilize frequency and decongest the transmission system. These improvements are required irrespective of the nature of fuel supply diversity and decarbonization solutions. B.2 Project Goals The RIR line segments considered in this application will construct a second parallel Figure 2: RIR Components in current funding cycle Figure 3: Railbelt Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan 6 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 transmission line between the Southern, Central, and Northern regions of the Railbelt grid. The current configuration lacks redundancy, impedes reliability, limits the ability to construct and move clean energy from one region to another, and constrains economic dispatch, thus increasing fuel burn, carbon emissions, and the cost of power to our member-ratepayers. In addition, the project will allow the Team to engage in interregional planning and operations. Further, this application includes completion of two grid-scale energy storage systems (that will) augment the existing 46 MW- two-hour battery already installed on the Kenai Peninsula. These three energy storage systems will be coordinated and operated in real-time with the HVDC submarine cable to maximize transfer capability between regions and minimize spinning reserves, thereby reducing fuel usage, and reducing carbon emissions. The three storage systems will also provide coordinated regulation for system-wide renewables. As importantly, the energy storage systems and new interties will stabilize grid frequency and eliminate the small signal instability oscillations, decreasing the likelihood of large-scale system outages and machine damage. Goal Description 1 Completion of the transmission lines and HVDC submarine cable from Soldotna to Nikiski to Beluga and on to Healy, using innovative and technical solutions to enhance resiliency in extreme environments. 2 Completion of BESS units in Northern and Central Regions to coordinate with existing BESS unit and HVDC in Southern region to enhance resiliency and eliminate small signal instability events and increase frequency control. 3 Significantly increase transfer capability between regions (75MW to 200-300 MW). The increased capacity will enable regional participation in planning and clean energy projects, reduce capacity limitations, add resiliency, redundancy, and improve economies of scale. 4 Reduce reliance on fossil fuels and improve resiliency; reduce carbon emissions; virtually eliminate impacts of long-term outages due to extreme weather, wildfire, natural disasters, and other disruptive events. 5 Document lessons learned that can be shared throughout Alaska, the nation, and the world. 6 Adoption of innovative rate-making techniques to incent transmission construction, easing member/ratepayer burden in procuring matching funds for the project. The project includes an innovative HVDC submarine circuit crossing Cook Inlet from Nikiski in the Southern region to Beluga in the Central region. This crossing will present technical challenges requiring innovative solutions and will subsequently provide important lessons that can be shared throughout Alaska and the US, through DOE’s national laboratory system, with potential specific applicability to offshore wind facilities. As noted above, the RCA, a team member in this project, has agreed to consider innovative rate- making techniques that will incent transmission construction, easing the member/ratepayer burden in procuring matching funds for the project. These rate -making strategies could include inclusion of costs in rate-base through the RCA’s Simplified Rate Filing (SRF) process, prior to the assets being used and useful; or forward funding of the project costs. Either or both will significantly reduce the carrying cost of capital thereby reducing the burden on the membership/ratepayers and improving project benefit -cost metrics. Achieving these objectives will have a significant impact on increasing the transfer capacity between all regions, reducing the requirements for thermal generat ion reserve, and thus 7 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 lowering carbon emissions. It will also improve economic dispatch, further reducing carbon emissions, and eliminate transmission capacity constraints that restricts the use of Bradley Lake energy and capacity. It will allow flexibility to address shifts in load or generation, interregional participation in clean energy projects, and improve economies of scale. As a result, increased economies of scale will decrease the per unit cost of clean energy generation. From a resiliency perspective, accomplishing these goals will reduce or eliminate the likelihood of outages or lack of transfer capability due to small signal instability, flood, unbalanced snow loading, and tree and animal related outages7. Innovative rate making will reduce capital carrying costs and improve the benefit-cost ratio for projects incentivizing wise transmission investment. Finally, having a robustly integrated grid will allow for interregional planning which, as noted above, will increase economies of scale and operating efficiencies. As previously referenced, we have formed a unique partnership between all relevant decision makers in the Railbelt; the State of Alaska represented by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the four interconnected Railbelt Electric Cooperatives, the single Railbelt municipal utility, and the utility regulator, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). We have strong support from organized labor, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and other labor unions; and strong support from other stakeholders including the Railbelt reliability Council the Railbelt’s newly formed electric reliability organization , the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA). Together, the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local 1547 (IBEW 1547) have a joint electrical apprenticeship training center. This collaborative organization is prepared and excited about ramping its activities up to train what will become that next generation of Alaskan electrical and telecommunications workers required to staff the GMRP. In terms of regional planning and coordination, this unique team has already enhanced collaboration between the State, the regional cooperatives and Seward Electric System, a municipal utility, and the RCA. Value Proposition The value proposition for the residents of the Railbelt grid is clear, this project will position the Railbelt for a fuel diverse, sustainable clean energy future and lower energy costs through more efficient use of scarce Cook Inlet natural gas as we transition away from natural gas to a clean energy future. Numerous tribal and disadvantaged communities exist within the Railbelt proper. For the non-Railbelt communities that receive Power Cost Equalization (PCE) funds, most of which are tribal and many of which are disadvantaged, the value proposition is the direct economic benefits that will occur as we hold the Railbelt cost of power down and increase the PCE energy subsidy to these stakeholders. For all rural villages (including non-PCE), as well as the DOE and the nation, the lessons learned from the process of decarbonizing a sm all scale, fully functioning grid will provide valuable best-method insights to execute this necessary regional activity. Finally, improving the resiliency, reliability, and efficiency of the Railbelt grid will provide 7 The 2019 Swan Lake fire separated the Central and Northern regions from the Southern region and the Bradley Lake hydroelectric project for ~135 Days resulting in millions of dollars of additional fuel burn (and Carbon emissions) by the Northern and Central region utilities. The Alaska Intertie between Douglas and Healy is often removed from service due to unbalanced heavy snow loading islanding the northern region from the Central and Southern regions during periods of peak load. 8 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 a more secure energy supply to critical military defense infrastructure located in the three Railbelt regions, enhancing national security and global stability. B.3 DOE Impact The total project cost is $ 822.7M with a federal grant assistance request of $411.4M. Matching funds will be pursued from the State and to the degree required from the utilities. DOE investment is critical to mobilizing this additional State and utility capital. Accomplishing a project of this magnitude in a 10-to-15-year time frame is beyond the financial capabilities of the Railbelt utilities without significant rate increases. The burden of such rate increases falls on all ratepayers but disproportionately on the disadvantaged and underserved. With the completion of this project, fuel burn (which represents about 40 % of an average consumer’s bill) can be reduced 10% to 15 %, exclusive of increased clean energy development. Project Scale In scale, this project will be the largest grid infrastructure project undertaken in the Railbelt since the interconnection of the Central and Northern regions in 1984. The benefits of this project will be significant and comparable to the recent economic benefit of converting the existing Railbelt generation fleet from GE Frame units to aero-derivative units which reduced fuel burn by nearly 30%. The benefits of the RIR will come in terms of improved fuel efficiency, reducing fuel costs, reduced carbon emissions, increased variable generation penetration, increased private capital investment from IPPs in energy development, reduced O&M, and will result in extended transition time to move away from Cook Inlet natural gas8. Finally, the project will promote coordinated energy and capacity planning across the Railbelt. Measures of Success Metrics consistent with SMART9 goals and objectives will be utilized to measure success. Examples of measurable success are System Average Heat Rate10 over time, CAIDI, SAIDI, and SAIFI11 resulting from transmission outages, measured increased transfer capability, measured frequency deviations, and reductions in CO2 emissions. B. 4 Community benefit, Workforce Development, & Disadvantaged Communities Improvements in Railbelt transfer capability, reliability, and resiliency will lower costs, and these benefits will flow to the numerous tribal and disadvantaged communities on the Railbelt as well as to the rural villages outside the Railbelt through Alaska’s unique Power Cost Equalization program. As noted above and in their letter of support, the IBEW sees this as an opportunity to train a new generation of linemen and wiremen, reinvigorating this sector of Alaska’s technical workforce. The broad and inclusive outreach program envisioned in our CBP will ensure that maximum benefit flows to the diverse and disadvantaged communities on the Railbelt. 8 The Cook Inlet Field provides heat to 140,000 homes and businesses in the Central region and is used to generate 70% of the electricity in the Railbelt. In early 2021, the field’s only remaining large-scale producer notified utilities (both gas and electric) that they would not extend existing gas contracts, most of which expire in 2028. Railbelt Utilities are working to develop alternatives in both the short, medium, and long -term. Extending the transition time to move off Cook Inlet gas is a critical part of this plan. 9 SMART-Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound. 10 This is the total number of MWHR produced, divided by the total thermal fuel used, measured in MMBtu. 11 CAIDI the consumer average interruption duration index. SAIDI- the system average interruption duration index. SAIFI System average interruption frequency index. 9 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 B.5 Long-Term Constraints This project will not create any long-term constraints on community access to natural resources and tribal cultural resources. B.6 Climate resiliency This project installs new poles, wires, and undersea cable, as well as traditional substation equipment. Design criteria will include where appropriate: mapping of avalanche chutes, placement of structures outside of known avalanche, and powder blast paths. If such placement is not possible, the use of breakaway conductor attachments, and poles in driven- pile-caisson construction for ease of replacement where avalanche danger , cannot be mitigated. When appropriate, a combination of wider than typical rights-of-way and taller structures may be used to prevent trees from making contact with overhead conductors, providing both fire prevention and protection. Ongoing right-of-way maintenance will also mitigate tree related outages. Substations and switchyards will be hardened to current AK-CIP standards for physical and cyber security. C. Technical Description Innovation and Impact C.1 Relevance and Outcomes Relevance to the FOA The RIR aligns perfectly with the FOA goals; transforming community, interregional and national resilience including consideration of future shifts in generation and load; catalyzing and leveraging State and private sector spending for impactful technology and infrastructure development; and advancing community benefit especially to disadvantaged and tribal communities. Further, the Project will provide training and job opportunities for the next generation of power system linemen, wireman, equipment operators, technicians and engineers. The Project has four primary components: the BESS, The HVDC submarine cable, the overhead lines connecting the HVDC cable to the Healy switchyard in the Northern region and the Beluga Switchyard in the Central region, and the lines connecting the Nikiski terminal with the Soldotna substation in the Southern region. As a part of the RIR, the BESS will ensure grid reliability by increasing interregional transfer capability, allowing for diversification of fuel supply, accelerating the adoption of variable renewable generation, reducing carbon emissions, improving frequency regulation, and eliminating potentially catastrophic small signal instability oscillations. Additionally, the BESS and HVDC submarine cable, operating as separate but integrated technologies and integrated with the second transmission path, will improve overall grid resilience and lower costs. The State Energy Plan is under development and the Team will propose that the GMRP be included in that plan. Unique Teaming The team, which has come together with the State through the Alaska Energy Authority, represents a unique collaborative effort. This effort exists between the eligible entity AEA, (a transmission and generation owner), a private non-profit electric cooperative representing all balancing authorities in the Railbelt which also constitutes the remaining transmission and generation owners and operators with in the Railbelt grid, a public municipal utility, and State’s Utility regulator. These entities all working collaboratively on a significant interregional project 10 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 will yield benefits for all Railbelt residents including disadvantaged and tribal communities and the broader State through PCE, food, transportation, and national security. C.2 Feasibility Addressed within Feasibility and Need below. C.3 Innovation and Impacts In current practice, BESS are commonly used for system frequency and variable generation regulation. System oscillation dampening is generally performed by Power Oscillation Dampers (PODs) on Static VAR Compensators or Power System Stabilizers (PSS) on generator exciters (two quadrant devices) which are secondary effect control devices as they attempt to control real power oscillations using reactive power and weak coupling between real and reactive power. Such devices have proven ineffective in dampening the small signal oscillations in the Railbelt. Additionally, HVDC submarine cables are used to transmit bulk power across bodies of water or asynchronously connect two grids and are not part of an oscillation control scheme. Project Improvement and Innovation Operating in a coordinated fashion, the BESS and HVDC line will increase transfer capability, resiliency, and reliability, by performing three functions, all of which contribute to frequency stabilization. The first function is increasing transfer capability. The second function is improved frequency regulation. And the third function is stabilizing the grid in terms of small signal instability. The HVDC controllers and the three BESS installations in three different regions of the system will be operated in a coordinated manner12 to increase transfer limits across the interconnecting transmission lines. From a small signal instability perspective, the BESS will eliminate large power oscillations. Following completion of the Nikiski-Beluga line or the Beluga–Healy section, the system controls will be modified to optimize system security associated with the decreased inertia and generation contingencies and increase the ability to accept renewables into the system by performing regulation and reserve optimization. An increase of the interregional transfer capacity from approximately 75MW to over 200MW will allow the generation with the highest costs and emissions on the Railbelt to run only during rare contingencies. It will also allow the large-scale wind projects of approximately 200MW capacity to be located as needed to take f ull advantage of geographic diversity of wind resources, which will minimize the amount of fossil fuel generation required to regulate the output of the Railbelt’s future wind generation portfolio. We know of no other single transmission line that has the capability to consolidate multiple planning areas into a single interregional planning area. Knowledge gleaned from this project’s unique integration of multiple BESS and HVDC will be useful throughout the country and world as BESS and HVDC systems are installed to facilitate increased variable clean energy project integration. C. 4 State, Local, Tribal, Regional, and National Resilience, Decarbonization Increasing grid resiliency and lowering the cost of Railbelt electricity will have direct positive impacts on the tribal and disadvantage communities within the Railbelt as well as direct positive impacts on rural PCE communities, which are most often tribal and disadvantaged communities. 12 If the grip Topic 2 application12 were to be approved, we would enhance this coordinated control with high speed communications and a single master controller rather than using multiple local controllers and system frequency as our primary direct control variable. Thus, Grip topic 2 and 3 are related but not dependent projects. 11 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 C. 5 Deployment Impacts; Further Development; Additional Private Sector Investments Development of a robust grid between regions in the Railbelt will facilitate the development of larger-scale Independent Power Producer (IPP) clean-energy projects by allowing participation in these projects by all the Railbelt utilities. Larger scale projects drive the price per unit of electricity down and make the benefit-cost hurdle lower and more achievable driving greater private sector investment in the Railbelt energy field. C. 6 Grid Innovation Program The BESS Feasibility and Need The Railbelt is transmission constrained so we are only able to move 10% or less of our peak load between regions. Further, Railbelt utility engineers have observed several increasingly concerning trends on the Railbelt over the past decade. These challenges include the degradation of frequency regulation, decreasing system frequency response to generation trip disturbances, and increasing magnitude and duration of natural frequency power oscillations and occasional large power swings impacting the entire Railbelt. A global engineering firm was engaged by Chugach to investigate the application of a battery energy storage system (BESS)13 as a solution to address these concerns. While this firm was able to show BESS contributions to ge neral improvement in frequency regulation on the Railbelt, they were unable to conclusively establish a link between the BESS performance and the natural frequency, small-signal instability oscillations. Building on work that had been done with global Pelton turbine manufacturer in Zurich 14. In early 2004, Chugach followed up with an internal and more robust analysis and validation of the Siemens PTI study15 but was without a conclusive link between the mechanical phenomenon in the turbine pit and the electric power grid. In 2022, a local engineering firm with a long history of study and evaluation of Railbelt grid phenomenon completed a study16 definitively showing that the cause of the oscillations was attributable to the characteristics of the Bradley Lake power plant in a weak and oscillatory summer valley system. The report indicates for a Douglas export of ~70 MW, the oscillations can be controlled with a ~45 MW absorption of a system BESS. If our Grip 2 project is funded, export limits could increase to 100-250 MW, indicating a BESS or combination of BESS’s capable of absorbing ~70 MW to ~150MW may be required to prevent these oscillations. This “uncharged” BESS capacity would be regulated and controlled across the system to meet this requirement. Based on these studies, and other analyses performed by Railbelt utilities, three regional BESS units were proposed in each of the Southern, Northern, and Central regions. Study work found that BESS units in the three regions provided significant reliability and economic benefit to the Railbelt. Given the 13 Bansal A, Anantharaman A, Donlagic T, Feltes T, Orikhi Z, Rachinger S, Silva D, Grande-Moran C; Alaska Railbelt Power System Oscillation Anchorage Bess unit Impact Analysis; 10-20-20; SPTI P# 620T-001718 14 List B, Amrein J, Heimann A, Furtner N, Keck H, Dorfler P, Hickey B, Stead D, Bradley Lake Deflector Divider Model Tests; 9-10-2004 VA TCH Hydro 15 Thornton R, Bell J, McKinnon C, Reid P, Hickey B; South Central Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Reliability and Economic Evaluation Report; 4-13-21; Chugach Internal Study 16 Cote J, Burlingame D, Lai D; Railbelt Oscillation Investigation and Mitigation study; 3-1-22; Electric Power Systems Inc. 12 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 cause-and-effect relationship between the Bradley Lake Project (when operating at low lake levels) and the Railbelt summer valley system resulting in the massive small signal instability oscillations, the BESS were determined to qualify as Required Project work for the Bradley Lake project, and 35 % of the recent $166M BPMC bond issue was allocated to BESS systems. Concerns for the Railbelt Railbelt steady-state frequency regulation has decreased over the past decade. Electrical system frequency is the primary control variable for interconnected power systems (grids). System frequency instantly telemeters the generation-load balance status to protection and control system feedback loops throughout a grid. Frequency is also a physical phenomenon that changes the actual electrical characteristic of the grid17. Many major power system components are designed to operate at a specific frequency. Deviation from design frequency can cause increased wear and tear and, in extreme cases, catastrophic damage. The amount of generation that moves frequency measured in MW/.1 Hz is known as system beta18 and is a measurement of stiffness or robustness of the grid. In the past seven years of system event analysis, the system beta has fallen from approximately 10 MW/.1 Hz in the 1990s to a current variable range between 3 and 13 MW/.1 Hz. A study performed at Chugach revealed that in 2011, system frequency was at the nominal 60 Hz about 44% of the time. In 2020, the time the system was at nominal frequency had fallen to about 15% of the time. This trend of straying from nominal frequency more often is of concern. Several drivers of the loss of frequency control are lighter, more efficient turbines with less spinning mass (rotating inertia), plant control systems that prioritize efficiency over response, and the introduction of non-dispatchable or variable generation into the generation-load mix. Alaska Railbelt Reliability Standards require that load shedding not occur when only one unit is tripped from the system. Measurements, such as system Tesla recordings, relay event recordings, and SCADA data, indicate that the ability of Railbelt generation to meet this requirement is deteriorating without expensive fast response spinning reserve from gas-fired generation. 17 Electrical components are a combination of the either inductive, capacitive, or resistive elements. The impedance presented to the grid by the inductive and capacitive components varies directly or inversely with frequency. 18 This value is closely related, but differs, from system bias, the response conditioning variable in the Area Control Error (ACE) equation. Figure 4- Railbelt Frequency Control decline 13 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 A significant and potentially catastrophic problem developing on the Railbelt is the increasing magnitude and duration of small signal power oscillations during system disturbances. When a generation unit trips off-line, or another disturbance occurs, power can begin to swing from one end of the system to the other, much like the way a spring oscillates back and forth when it is drawn and released. The frequencies at which the grid oscillates are known as the natural frequencies of the system, and these natural frequencies exist in most electro-mechanical systems. Natural frequency oscillations can be made up of tens to hundreds of MWs of energy transiting the length of the Railbelt in several tenths of a second. The energy associated with these power swings creates massive reactive forces in the electrical generator's physical infrastructure. Reactive forces in the physical generators create wear and tear in the in base- loaded generation, and in extreme cases, can result in catastrophic failure. Natural frequency oscillations have been a long-term characteristic of the Railbelt, leading to the installation of damping equipment such as power system stabilizers at Bradley Lake and power oscillation dampers on the equipment on the transmission system on the Kenai Peninsula. Natural frequency power oscillations have been increasing across the Railbelt power system. These natural frequency oscillations have been measured as large as 220 MW, shifting power from Bradley Lake to Fairbanks every second, lasting for minutes. With newer and faster data collection technology, it is clear that oscillations are a threat to system reliability and resiliency. Even previously unexplained generator damage may be explained by these power oscillations. For example, the Bradley Lake hydroelectric plant, which is known to participate in po wer oscillations based on a 2019 study19, has experienced significant generator stator damage in the past; the repairs approached $1 M. The BESS Solution In response to the concerns above, several potential solutions were informally considered including batteries, grid-scale resistors (brakes), and converting existing frame generators to synchronous condensers. Subsequently, given the advances in battery technology and the improvements in battery cost-benefit profiles, analysis found that BESS units in the three regions provided significant reliability benefit to Railbelt as a whole. Regional BESS in the Railbelt will improve power system performance, given their high speed of response and versatility. It was determined that BESS’s could successfully fulfill the required energy response to a loss of generation in as quickly as less than one second, improving system frequency. Furthermore, the study showed that a BESS could participate in balancing generation and load, thereby improving frequency regulation. Another finding of the study was that a BESS would help stabilize non-dispatchable renewables' output by smoothing the energy fluctuations 19 n (14) Figure 5- June 3 2021-Representative Natural frequency Oscillation 14 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 and controlling their release to the grid. It was also proven that adequate frequency control can prevent severe and potentially damaging oscillations throughout the Railbelt associated with Bradley Lake as well as mitigate oscillations resulting from transient swings following line trips. Likewise, it was noted that with coordinated response, the transient frequencies across weak tie- lines can be controlled and mitigated to increase transfer limits across the line. Chugach also commissioned a nationally recognized economic and regulatory firm to study20 the economic value of an investment in battery storage and evaluate the effect of battery storage on the Chugach-MEA Power Pool. The study found that the BESS would allow for a more efficient dispatch of generators in the Power Pool by providing fast spin and regulation of load. Additionally, taking reserves and regulation off of gas-fired units will reduce fuel and O&M costs by enabling a more efficient (lower cost) dispatch of the gas units. The study also found that the potential to avoid a major power system outage adds value to consumers. The study concluded that the battery would add significant value to the Power Pool. After careful analysis, it has been determined that a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)/ HVDC can significantly enhance system performance and reduce operational limitations in power systems. The proposed integrated BESS will bring a range of benefits to the Railbelt grid. These benefits include improved oscillation damping, enhanced disturbance response rate, increased transfer capability between regions, and less constrained economic dispatch. These improvements will result in reduced fuel burn, lower carbon emissions, and most importantly, greater ability to integrate variable generation such as wind and solar power into the grid. When operated in a coordinated fashion with the HVDC submarine cable, these benefits are significantly enhanced. The combined BESS system promises to be a valuable addition to the Railbelt grid’s power infrastructure. Southern Transmission upgrades HVDC and Interconnecting Transmission Lines Feasibility and Need The existing transmission system between the Southern and Central regions was originally constructed to transmit 16 MW of power from the Cooper Lake Power Plant to the Anchorage area. The addition of the 120 MW Bradley Lake hydro plant in 1991, as well as additional thermal generation in the southern region, now relies exclusively on this 1961 constructed line21 to transfer all power between the Central and Southern regions. This 218-mile series of single transmission lines was never intended to transfer the power from Bradley Lake to Anchorage. Currently, 100% of the energy produced for export from the Southern region is delivered over the single 115 kV transmission line for the Central and Northern regions. Although the transmission system has been upgraded in the past 30 years to include two Static Var Compensation systems and certain northern sections of the 164 -miles of transmission lines have been upgraded to 230 kV construction, a second or alternate transmission line has not been constructed. The single line crosses over 80 avalanche chutes, transverses through both state 20 National Economic Research Associates (NERA) South Central Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Reliability and Economic Evaluation report (n11) pp 44 21 Several sections shave been rebuilt to 230 kV standards over the past 1-½ decades and the rate of about 10 miles every other year. Construction windows are limited to 60 days per year in order to prevent spilling water at Bradley Lake. This constraint combined with restrictions around nesting migratory bird species and wetlands make construction slow and costly. The second line from Soldotna to Beluga would eliminate this challenge. 15 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 and national forest areas subject to forest fires and other hazards and parallels a Wild and Scenic highway and the scenic Kenai River and other wilderness areas. Outages to the single line have resulted in the separation of the Southern area from the bulk of the Railbelt for up to 135 continuous days in a single year (2019 Swan Lake fire), 60-day construction outages occur annually or bi-annually, and multiple unplanned separations often occur in a single year. Net of regional load, the Southern region has over 300MW of export capability and an additional 85MW of potential hydro as well as a large windfarm is under con sideration. Current export capability and the single transmission line stifle the development of future hydro, wind, and PV resources from being located in the Southern area. Additional renewable resources cannot be developed in the region due to limited transfer capacity available on the existing single line, and the risk of complete production curtailment when the single line is out of service. The characteristics of the single transmission line result in weak coupling between the Southern and Central regions, consequently, the stability limit of the transmission line is approximately 50% of the line’s thermal rating in one direction and approximately 30% in the other. The displacement of thermal generation with renewable generation such as wind or PV will further decrease the inertia in each of the regions and can negatively impact the stability limit across the single inter-regional transmission lines. In addition to the elimination of the large-scale oscillations and stability constraints, a new line can eliminate the constraints on developing new sources of clean energy in both the central and southern regions. However, without unconstrained access enabled by a new transmission line to the southern resources, the potential development of renewable resources in each region will be limited by each region’s ability to operate following a single contingency event. 16 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 As opposed to an AC submarine cable and transmission line, a new HVDC submarine cable, and associated AC transmission lines, is proposed. The HVDC submarine cable between the Southern and Central regions is proposed to utilize a bi-pole, 300 MW HVDC system and will eliminate charging current challenges posed by a long AC submarine cable. The submarine cable will require considerable design and mitigation measures within the waters of Cook Inlet to avoid areas of scouring from severe currents and shore ice. In addition, the Inlet has active and abandoned oil and gas pipelines as well as communication cables that are critical to the infrastructure of the Alaskan environment and economy. The use of a bi- pole DC system will allow the Southern and Central systems to remain interconnected and operated as a single integrated system for several years while the existing AC transmission line is being converted to 230 kV. As noted above, Cook Inlet has the highest tides in the US and the fourth highest tides in the world, resulting in very high tidal currents. The cables routing is intended to mitigate cable damage from these high currents which carry abrasive silt, trees, and other debris down the inlet. The Inlet is home to an endangered subspecies of Beluga whales. The significant tidal currents and ice scouring requires careful consideration and planning for the cable’s location. The existing communications cables and oil pipelines will require protection during the laying of the HVDC cable and state-of-the-art cathodic protection during operation. Innovative construction techniques like full-time whale watch and bubble noise dispersion technology will be used as required to mitigate potential harm to the Belugas. The installation of a bi-pole submarine cable will harden the Railbelt system against natural disasters such as forest fires, avalanches, and floods, all of which can impact the existing transmission line and result in islanding the Railbelt system into individually controlled area s for extended lengths of time. The assured interconnection of the Southern and Central regions through this additional transmission line will remove hurdles to the development of additional clean energy resources. The HVDC controller22 will play an integral part of stability control of the entire Railbelt grid. The controller will work in concert with BESS controllers in the Northern, Central , and Southern 22 n (9) Figure 6- Proposed HVDC Submarine Cable Routing 17 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 regions to control transient frequencies in each of the islands to increase stability limits across each of the AC transmission interconnections. The HVDC controller will help coordinate the system-wide regulation of clean energy resources. It will be integral to the ability to black-start either the Southern or Central region following a catastrophic event such as a repeat of the 1964 Good Friday Earthquake, the November 2018 earthquake or the tremendous windstorm of 2022. The Railbelt’s Northern region is interconnected to the Central region by a single, 195-mile-long transmission line. The Northern region, with the highest energy costs in the Railbelt, desires to import as much energy from the Southern and Central regions as is technically and reliably feasible. The existing transmission line has a stability limit of 65-84 MW, approximately 1/3 of the thermal limit of the line. To allow large imports of power from the south, in 200 3 GVEA installed a 46 MW/15-minute NiCad BESS. The BESS prevented large and sometimes total blackouts of the GVEA system following the loss of Central region intertie. The line has been de-energized for several weeks at a time due to severe icing or structure damage at one of the many river crossings, and these events can occur multiple times per year depending on weather. Due to the single contingency line, the Northern system, like the Southern system, is limited in the amount of renewable generation it can support on its system. However, unlike the Southern system, the Northern system does not have base-line hydro generation on-line to provide grid- strength, as measured by increased Short Circuit Ratio (SCR) following the loss of the tie to the Central region. The extremely low SCR following the loss of the single line puts the system with large motors, the existing SVCs and the existing BESS at risk. The proposed Beluga – Healy line will increase transfer capabilities between regions. The line will allow Northern region wind and PV resources to be totally developed as part of the integrated grid, as opposed to as an isolated region. Regulation could be performed over multiple regions, significantly reducing the integration costs for renewable resources. The geographical diversity of wind resources will reduce the overall variability of wind and solar resources, reducing the financial impact of regulation required by thermal resources. With the Beluga-Healy line, the Northern region could be operated without thermal generation during much of the year, only needed when system conditions or climatic events warrant it, or when renewables are unavailable. Further, the proposed routing of the line along the existing AKLNG pipeline route will open access to large, currently geographically unavailable, new wind resources. The combination of the Beluga – Healy line with the proposed Soldotna – Beluga line virtually eliminates transmission constraints on renewable development in the Railbelt. Additional lines and upgrades may be needed to establish specific renewable projects. However, the bulk of the benefits to the Railbelt are realized with these two transmission lines. D. Work Plan D.1 Project Objectives Phases Description 1 230kV transmission connection between the Southern Region and the Central Region. 2 HVDC submarine circuit including HVDC terminals at Nikiski and Beluga. 3 Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) that is comprised of a BESS in both Central and North Regions. 4 230kV transmission link between the Central region and the Northern Region. 18 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 D. 2 Technical Scope Summary Phase 1 Phase 1 is a transmission tie connection that connects the HVDC submarine segments with the existing transmission system. The overall objective of this segment is to construct a parallel path between the Central region and Southern region to improve transfer capability and increase resilience. The parallel line will reduce generating costs and will provide an optional path if fires or avalanches interrupt power transfer. The tie connection adds a 230kV bay at Soldotna substation, a new 25-mile 230kV overhead transmission segment from Soldotna to a new terminal point at Nikiski where the 230kV AC system transitions to a HVDC system. A similar process is repeated on the west side of Cook Inlet where the HVDC transitions back to 230kV AC and connects to Beluga over a 5-mile transmission line. At Beluga a new 230kV circuit will terminate in an existing 230kV bay where power will feed into the existing 230kV system feeding both Central and Northern Regions. Permitting and routing this segment will undergo a NEPA process expected to take three years. A large portion of the study work was completed in 2003 th rough the Southern Intertie project Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Routing for Soldotna to Nikiski Landing transmission segment follows the recommended path in prior study effort, but additional analysis is likely as conditions/property ownership may have changed since the original study. Preliminary work will begin to secure right-of-way access through easement, special permit, or land acquisition efforts. Once the final permits are secured, easements will be finalized. Land is available at both the end points (Soldotna and Beluga), therefore permits should be minimal to accommodate local design criteria. Land for both the Nikiski Landing and Beluga Landing will be required for the switchyards and will be placed adjacent to the HVDC converter stations . Transmission construction would start with right -of-way clearing followed by material delivery and installation of structures and anchors. Following erection, down guys are installed to support structures and conductors are strung using specialized pulling equipment. The conductor is then sagged and pulled to proper tension. Following conductor installation, conductors are clipped (attached to tangent and angle structures) or dead-ended (attached to end structures), and jumpers are installed to carry current from one side of the dead-end structure to the other. To expedite construction and minimize environmental impacts, helicopter construction is recommended in inaccessible remote locations. The use of helicopters to set structures and pull sock line (stringing line or rope) can reduce labor costs and increase productivity. Helicopters can also be used to deliver material to staged locations along the transmission path. Construction will add a 230kV bay at Soldotna that will include a termination structure for the line and associated structures, switches, and breakers to interconnect the line with the existing 230kV substation. The interconnection will include relaying protection and communications to safely operate the transmission line. The Nikiski Landing station on the north end of the project will be a termination point, switching station and transition point from 230kV Alternating Current (AC) system to a bi-pole HVDC station using a HVDC converter. Phase 2 Construction Phase 2 is a 38-mile HVDC submarine cable as described above. Preliminary routing studies were completed to confirm feasibility of the crossing. HVDC terminals will be located at Nikiski and 19 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Beluga Substations. A combination of HVDC underground cables and overhead transmission lin es will be utilized from the HVDC station to the submarine cable terminal. Since the cables are solid dielectric construction, station service and buildings are not anticipated. Due to the limited number of permitting agencies, we believe the permitting can be completed in three years, even considering the substantial public interest expected on the project. Phase 3 Construction Phase 3 includes the addition of two Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). The new BESS units will be located in both Northern and Central regions and will augment the existing BESS unit in the Southern region. As discussed in the feasibility section, incorporating BESS units in all three regions will provide significant reliability and economic benefit to the entir e Railbelt. The Northern BESS will be installed within a building to provide maximum protection from Fairbank’s extreme temperatures. Both BESS units will include battery modules, power transformers, switchgear and associated bus, steel, control, fire suppression and communications equipment. Phase 4 Construction Phase 4 is a 220-mile 230kV transmission link between Beluga in the Central Region and Healy in the Northern Region. The transmission line uses an existing spare 230kV bay at the Beluga 230kV yard and adds a 230kV substation at Healy. The transmission route is envisioned to follow the AKLNG right of way to Healy. A route selection study will be completed to reach a final determination on routing. Special considerations for outreach and flexibility in construction techniques will be necessary and are expected as the line transitions Denali National and State parks. Substation construction will include steel structures, foundations, conduit and cables, two 230kV/138kV power transformers and associated breakers and switches with SCADA, communications, protection and control devices. Line construction is envisioned using a combination of steel H structures, angle and deadend structures with all the associated guys, anchors, and overhead conductor. A fiber optic cable will be included in the Optical Ground Wire (OPGW) for communications. Due to the scale of the project (220-mile length), the project will be broken into 4 sections for construction purposes with multiple contractors working concurrent schedules to meet the construction timeline of just two years. Construction techniques are like those discussed under Phase 1. Phase 4 will provide improved energy transfer and resilience between the Central and North Regions. The existing transmission line crosses some of the most difficult territory in Alaska including numerous river crossings, snow and ice loading areas, mountain terrain , and proximity to fire danger from lightning strikes prevalent in the area. An alternative path will increase resiliency and reliability and reduce occurrences of transmission unavailability to transfer power throughout the Railbelt. This additional line will provide needed access to new inaccessible renewable energy opportunities such as wind, hydroelectric and PV. Phase 4 includes both a 230kV Substation and 230kV transmission line. D.3 WBS and Task Description Summary WBS Task Name Days *Resource Start Finish 1.000 Environmental/Permitting 20 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 1.001 Cent. BESS Station 90 P1 11/5/2022 3/11/2025 1.002 No. BESS Station 45 P2 11/5/2025 1/7/2026 1.003 Preliminary Design and NEPA Process - EIS 1095 P3 5/15/2024 7/30/2028 1.004 Soldotna Switchyard 90 P1 7/15/2027 11/18/2027 1.005 Nikiski HVDC 180 P1 6/3/2025 2/10/2026 1.006 Beluga HVDC 270 P1 6/3/2025 6/17/2026 1.007 Healy 230kV Sub 90 P2 11/10/2029 3/16/2030 1.100 Approval Milestone 1.200 Go/No Go 2.000 Design & Engineering 2.001 Cent. BESS 208 D1 1/15/2024 11/2/2024 2.002 No. BESS 208 D1 1/15/2025 11/3/2025 2.003 Soldotna Switchyard 180 D1 1/17/2028 9/26/2028 2.004 Soldotna/Nikiski 230kV 360 D1 6/1/2027 10/18/2028 2.005 Nikiski HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 360 D3 7/1/2027 11/17/2028 2.006 Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 360 D3 7/1/2027 11/17/2028 2.007 HVDC Submarine Cable 180 D4 1/15/2028 9/23/2028 2.008 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 270 D1 9/1/2028 9/15/2029 2.009 Beluga/Healy Transmission 1005 D2 1/15/2025 11/25/2028 2.010 Healy 230kV Sub 240 D2 12/1/2028 11/2/2029 2.100 Design Complete Milestone 3.000 Land Acquisition 3.001 No. BESS 90 L1 1/10/2026 5/16/2026 3.002 Soldotna/Nikiski 230kV 180 L2 8/10/2028 4/19/2029 3.003 Nikiski HVDC Terminal 180 L2 8/1/2028 4/10/2029 3.004 Beluga HVDC Terminal 270 L2 8/1/2028 8/15/2029 3.005 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 270 L2 8/10/2028 8/24/2029 3.006 Beluga/Healy Transmission 730 L1 8/10/2028 5/31/2031 3.007 Healy 230kV Sub 90 L1 3/20/2030 7/24/2030 3.100 Approval Milestone 3.200 Go/No Go 4.000 Long-lead Equipment Purchase 4.001 Cent. BESS 263 PO1 5/5/2023 5/9/2024 4.002 No. BESS 263 PO1 11/5/2025 11/9/2026 4.003 Soldotna/Nikiski 230kV 180 PO1 10/22/2028 7/1/2029 4.004 Nikiski HVDC Terminal 526 PO1 6/5/2025 6/13/2027 4.005 Beluga HVDC Terminal 526 PO1 6/5/2025 6/13/2027 4.006 HVDC Cable 526 PO1 9/25/2028 10/3/2030 4.007 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 180 PO1 9/20/2029 5/30/2030 4.008 Beluga/Healy 365 PO1 11/30/2028 4/26/2030 4.009 Healy 230kV Sub 526 PO1 11/10/2029 05/01/2031 4.100 Approval Milestone 21 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 4.200 Go/No Go 5.000 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep 5.001 Cent. BESS 30 C1 1/15/2025 2/26/2025 5.002 No. BESS 30 C2 1/15/2026 2/26/2026 5.003 Soldotna/Beluga Trans 125 R1 11/20/2028 5/14/2029 5.004 Nikiski HVDC 186 C1 6/10/2025 2/26/2026 5.005 Beluga HVDC 207 C1 6/10/2026 3/27/2027 5.006 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 25 R1 6/5/2029 7/10/2029 5.007 Beluga/Healy Trans 5.008 Section 1 283 R1 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.009 Section 2 283 R2 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.010 Section 3 283 R3 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.011 Section 4 283 R4 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.012 Healy 230kV Sub 90 C2 1/15/2030 5/21/2030 5.100 Right-of-Way Clearing Milestone 6.000 Construction 6.001 Cent. BESS Sub 403 E1 3/5/2025 9/21/2026 6.002 Cent. BESS 360 E1 10/1/2026 2/18/2028 6.003 No. BESS Building 396 G1 3/5/2026 9/11/2027 6.004 No. BESS Sub 403 E2 3/5/2026 9/21/2027 6.005 No. BESS 360 E2 10/1/2027 2/17/2029 6.006 Soldotna Switchyard 140 E3 6/1/2029 12/14/2029 6.007 Soldotna/Nikiski Landing 230kV 251 L1 6/1/2029 5/19/2030 6.008 Nikiski Landing Switchyard 140 E3 12/20/2029 7/4/2030 6.009 Nikiski HVDC Terminal 433 E4 12/20/2029 8/19/2031 6.010 Beluga Landing Switchyard 140 E5 12/20/2028 7/4/2029 6.011 Beluga HVDC Terminal 431 E5 7/10/2029 3/7/2031 6.012 HVDC Submarine Cable Laying 90 Sub1 8/1/2031 12/5/2031 6.013 Beluga Landing/Beluga 230kV 157 L1 6/1/2030 1/7/2031 6.014 Beluga/Healy 230kV 6.015 Section 1 656 L2 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.016 Section 2 656 L3 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.017 Section 3 656 L4 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.018 Section 4 656 L5 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.019 Healy 230kV Sub 623 E4 1/4/2029 5/28/2031 6.100 Construction Completion Milestone 7.000 Commissioning/Testing 7.010 Cent. BESS 90 D1 10/1/2026 2/4/2027 7.020 No. BESS 90 D2 2/20/2029 6/26/2029 7.030 Nikiski HVDC 49 D1 8/22/2031 10/29/2031 7.040 Beluga HVDC 49 D1 3/12/2031 5/19/2031 7.050 Soldotna/Beluga Trans 30 D1 5/22/2031 7/3/2031 22 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 7.060 Healy 230kV Sub 90 D2 5/30/2031 10/3/2031 7.070 Beluga/Healy Trans 30 D2 10/5/2031 11/16/2031 7.100 Commissioning/Testing Milestone Resource Description Resource Description C Civil Contractor D Design Engineering Firm E Electrical Contractor G General Contractor P Permit/Lands Company PO Purchasing Officer L Line Contractor R ROW Clearing Contractor Sub Submarine Cable Layer D.4 Milestone Summary Task Milestone Description Timeline Criteria 1.0 Project Management Plan and CBP 90 days Plan Submittal 2.0 Cybersecurity Plan 90 days Plan Submittal 3.0 Permits & CBP outreach complete Per schedule Record of Decision, permit issued, outreach 4.0 Land Acquisition Completion Per schedule Purchase/Easement documents executed 5.0 Long-lead Procurement Completion Per schedule Delivery Schedule Submitted 6.0 Construction Completion Monthly Monthly Progress Reports 7.0 Testing & Commissioning 120 days post Testing & Commissioning Report *Quarterly milestones will be added as the design is further refined. D. 5 Go/No Go Decision Points – Post NEPA Description Criteria Budget Period *Permitting Go/No Go Permit Issued 120 days Land Acquisition Go/No Go Purchase /Easement Agreement 180 days Long-lead Procurement Go/No Go P.O.’s secured 270 days Construction Go/No Go Construction Contract 540 days *Does not include NEPA Process Timeline- additional Go/No Go points will be added as design is further refined Go/No go conditions can occur through the routing, permitting and land acquisition process. Landowners/adjacent landowners/special interest groups and others can object to the use, view or construction method being proposed. The outcomes of the objections could be route adjustment, structure type change (wood pole to steel, fiberglass, or laminate), underground vs. overhead, longer conductor span lengths or specialized conductors. Generally, the No Go option results in a change rather than a complete loss of project. Transmission line materials such as submarine cable, power transformers, transmission structures, switches, breakers, anchors, and overhead conductor can have long lead times depending on the materials and design used. A No Go condition could arise when certain products are unavailable in the market to meet the project’s deadline. Options may include a change in design/material to accommodate the unavailability, such as using fiberglass structures rather than steel, or extending the completion time to accommodate the delivery schedule. Go/No Go on construction would generally occur if labor and equipment were unavailable or in short supply. Alternatives include using helicopter construction to reduce labor costs and speed construction. Project labor agreements can be used to minimize labor disruptions and increase available staffing using less skilled labor for less technical work such as hauling material , excavation, and general labor requirements. D.6 End of Project Goal 23 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Goal Description 1 Completion of transmission lines/HVDC submarine cable from Soldotna to Nikiski to Beluga and to Healy, using innovative and technical solutions in extreme environments. 2 Completion of BESS units in Northern and Central Regions to coordinate with existing BESS unit and HVDC in Southern region to eliminate small signal instability events and increase frequency control. 3 Significant increase in transfer capability between regions (75MW to 200-300 MW). The increased capacity will enable regional participation in clean energy projects, reduce capacity limitations, add redundancy, and improve economies of scale. 4 Reduce reliance on fossil fuels and carbon emissions and improve resiliency; virtually eliminate impacts of long-term outages due to extreme weather, wildfire, natural disaster and other disruptive events. 5 Document lessons learned that can be shared throughout Alaska, the nation, and the world. 6 Adoption of innovative rate-making techniques to incent transmission construction, easing member/ratepayer burden in procuring matching funds for the project. D.7 Project Schedule (Gantt Chart) *A more detailed version of this Gantt chart is available for review. D.8 Buy American Requirements for Infrastructure Projects This project will not include applicable infrastructure work. D.9 Project Management Overall Approach The project will use traditional project management techniques and controls such as change management, budget and cost control, and scope management as identified in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). A comprehensive risk log will be maintained by the project manager. All risk and mitigation strategies will be upda ted, at a minimum, at each milestone. The project will be managed by an overall project lead under the guidance of the Team. The Team is comprised of Railbelt utility engineers, system operators, and managers. Acting as the project steering committee, the Team will guide the project lead’s efforts and provide access to resources and data. The Team and DOE will validate and verify the performance of the systems at each milestone and go/no go point. Role Description Project Lead Manages overall project Engineering Liaison Evaluates process to secure needed design & engineering expertise Lands Liaison Evaluates process to secure land acquisition, easements, and permits Construction Liaison Evaluates the best method to secure construction contracts Labor Liaison Works with labor unions, workforce development organizations, universities, and trade schools to arrange for needed labor Project Management Lead Manages overall schedule and coordinates individual projects 24 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Finance & Grant Management Lead Coordinates work with AEA, utilities, DOE, RUS, and private lenders Government Relations Lead Communicates project details with local, state, and federal entities Purchasing & Materials Lead Assures key materials are available and monitors and works with vendors on unforeseen Buy America goals Public Relations Lead Communicates with key stakeholders and the general public, and executes the Community Benefit Plan outreach Legal & Contracts Lead Develops contracts and provides guidance with appropriate terms and conditions Accounting and Closeout Coordinator Coordinates with project leads, assuring all proper documentation is secured to timely close out projects; coordinates with Finance and Grant Management Lead Project Value and Change Management Projects will be competitively bid. Traditional project change control methods will be used. Quality Assurance/Control QA/QC Performed by the project management team; strict check-out and commissioning procedures will be developed in the Factory Acceptance (FAT)and Site Acceptance test (SAT) plans. Project Communication Project initiation documents, and Project Management Plan (PMP) will contain a project communications plan detailing chain of command and appropriate communication meeting cadence and tempo. E. Technical Qualifications and Resources Combined, the Team combined has two hundred years of Railbelt system operations, construction, and engineering experience. The Team is experienced and well versed in executing complex transmission line and substation projects in Alaska’s challenging environment. The Railbelt utilities have skilled engineers and designers, and the local work force includes IBEW journeymen, technicians, and linemen who have built the electrical system we have today. Engineering and design firms, who routinely propose projects as envisioned in the application , are available locally and in the Pacific Northwest. Alaska has multiple highly-skilled electrical contractors through the National Electrical Contractor Association (NECA), who employees workers from IBEW local 1547. They are versed in both high voltage transmission and substation construction. The IBEW has out-of-state traveler availability and a state-of-the-art apprenticeship school that can ramp up to meet demand. The NECA contractors have specialized tools and equipment to undertake remote offroad transmission construction. These specialized techniques have expedited construction and minimized environmental damage. E.1 Unique Qualifications and Expertise The Project Team is unique in that it includes all relevant decision makers in the Railbelt. The Team has decades of experience in constructing transmission lines and installing, operating, and maintaining high voltage (34.5kV 138 kV and 230kV Alternating Current (AC)) submarine cables in Cook Inlet. In addition, they have decades of experience with BESS systems. The existing BESS in Fairbanks at 46MW for 5 Minutes was the largest BESS in the world at the time of its installation in 2003, and, the Southern region BESS (46.5MW-2hours) was commissioned and installed in 2022. Further, with six Static VAR Compensators (SVCs) on the Railbelt the team is very familiar with installation, commissioning, and operation of high-power electronics like those used in 25 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 HVDC converters. The Team is currently rebuilding the 39-mile Sterling to Quarts Creek line to 230 kV. The Team has also collaborated on a number of other projects including the construction of the $350M Bradley Lake Hydroelectric facility in 1991, $47M Battle Creek diversion at Bradley Lake in 2020, and $10M Controls replacement on the Northern SVCS. Team members have also done significant transmission line construction individually. E.2 Existing Equipment and Facilities The Team’s systems have complex state-of-the-art SCADA/EMS systems with an interregional ICCP link for data transfer. A complex network of ringed SONET compatible digital microwave and fiber assets and hardened stations for high-speed communications. The microwave and fiber systems are currently used for SEL high speed mirrored bit communications to enable high speed transfer tripping. As noted above, several high voltage AC submarine cables and BESS systems and SVC’s as well as the equipment and technical know-how to work on them. E.3 Relevant, Previous Work Efforts, Demonstrated Innovations Numerous complex systems have been studied and successfully placed in the Railbelt by project team members. For example, as previously referenced, in 2003 the Northern region BESS, in 2022 the Southern region BESS, and the Central region BESS which is currently under procurement. High voltage AC Submarine cables have been installed, the earliest at 138kV in 1973. Static Var Compensators have been added, the earliest of which was 1985, and more recently the control systems on all the Alaska Intertie and Bradley Lake SVCs have been completely replaced. Installation of SCADA and EMS systems at all five utilities; installation of interregional digital microwave and fiber optic systems; installation of high-speed communication-assisted transfer trip and line current differential protection on all Railbelt transmission lines; eigenvector/value analysis that defined and mitigated, the small signal instability points between the weak summer valley Railbelt grid and the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric project. The study of development and installation of the Railbelt’s multi-stage, multi-delayed under frequency load shed schemes is another example of a complex real-time control system developed and installed by members of the project team. E.4 Key Team Members’ Time Commitment Key members will be assigned to this project as necessary to ensure successful completion. E.5 DOE Technical Services None CURTIS W. THAYER Experience and Achievements Alaska Energy Authority 2019-Present The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the state's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Position: Executive Director  The Executive Director serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority, responsible for all business and operations. I work closely with the Board as it sets Authority policies, goals, and objectives, and is responsible for the execution of Board directives. I have developed a close relationship with the Governor, Commissioners of principal State departments, the Legislature, business community, and the public to advance the mission of the Authority. Achievements: Increased the profile and developed a strategic action plan to advance the goal and objectives of the Authority  Worked with the Board to establish long-range vision, strategies, goals, policies, and plans; including leading the strategic planning process and working with the Board and Legislature to implement the strategy to achieve that vision.  Strengthening the working relationship with the five utilities is like shuttle diplomacy. A few of the key issues during the three years have included purchase of develop a strategy and bonding package for a $170 million upgrade for the transmission lines from Homer to Anchorage (closes 11/30/22), purchase SS/Q line ($17 million), Battle Creek diversion and construction delays and construction claims, ligation on the SQ line, and Governor’s goal of reducing the cost of power. Managing expectations of the Board, Governor’s Office, Legislature and our five utility partners has proved to be challenging (and rewarding).  Oversight responsibility of the Authority’s rural energy programs, including energy system upgrades, loan programs, alternative/renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the Power Cost Equalization program .  Reviewed and analyzed legislation, laws, regulations, and other public policies that may affect the Authority’s mission and programs and recommends changes when appropriate.  Developing and maintaining professional/cooperative relationships with local, state, and federal agencies, and Authority business partners.  Working with legislative or other government agencies regarding policies, programs, and budgets. Alaska State Chamber of Commerce 2015-2019 The Alaska Chamber is a non-profit, membership funded advocacy organization founded in 1953. The Chamber membership is comprised of companies, associations, and individuals from every business sector in Alaska. The Chamber’s core mission is to make Alaska the best place to do business through its advocacy for and defense of sound business policies based on the principles of free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. Position: President and CEO  As the President & Chief Executive Officer, I serve as the top administrative officer, principal spokesm an, chief advocate in Juneau and Washington DC, chief finance officer and team leader. Achievements: Raised the profile of the Alaska Chamber  Coordinated and guided the work of staff, lobbyists, counsel, committee, and volunteers in marshaling and expressing the Chamber’s business perspective on public policy issues which has increased the profile of the Alaska Chamber statewide through outreach and tackling tough legislative positions that benefit and promote business.  Lead efforts to develop and manage coalitions involving other business associations, advocacy groups local chambers and the US Chamber to achieve Chamber goals.  Grew Chamber membership for the last three straight years.  Developed and implemented a financial plan that has increased Chamber reserves by 15 percent within three years. State of Alaska, Department of Administration 2012 – 2014 With 1,100 employees and an annual budget of $350 million, DoA facilitates state government operations by providing policy leadership and management services in essential areas, including finance/accounting, payroll, human resources/retirement benefits, information technology, labor negotiations, legal services, procurement/facilities, and risk management. Positions: Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner  Served as the chief executive officer of DoA and as a member of Governor Sean Parnell’s cabinet. Unanimously confirmed by the Alaska State Legislature.  Advised Governor on IT, pensions, healthcare, and labor relations with the Legislature and business community.  Responsible for development and implementation of all DOA policies and programs. Hired and managed two deputy commissioners and ten division directors. Achievements: Reducing the Cost of Government  Reformed PERS/TERS (state/local government pension programs) to reduce annual state contribution and ensure long-term solvency. Annual savings are more than $300 million.  Restructured AlaskaCare (state healthcare program) to reduce state contribution without reducing core benefits . Annual savings are more than $60 million.  Negotiated with the state’s eleven public employee’s unions to limit automatic merit increases, reduce leave accruals, and cap benefit cash-outs, all without work stoppages. Annual savings are more than $20 million.  Worked with Legislature to revamp state procurement statutes to increase transparency and competition . Applied new statutes and best practices to major telecom procurement, which reduced annual state expenses by 50%. Previous Experience  2009-2012: Deputy Commissioner, State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development  2004-2009: Director, Corporate and External Affairs, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company  2002-2004: President & CEO, Thayer & Associates (political and corporate communications consulting)  2001-2002: External Affairs Advisor, Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team (BP, Phillips, Exxon)  1997-2000: Special Assistant, U.S Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska)  1993-1996: Professional Staff, U.S House Committee on Natural Resources  1991-1992: Management Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Education  University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Business/Justice  National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), Golden CO, Executive Energy Leadership Academy  University of Wisconsin, Institute of Organizational Management, U.S. Chamber  State of Alaska, Real Estate License Community Activities CURRENT  Alaska Board of Marine Pilots, Chair  Don Young Institute for Alaska, Chair  Alaska Leaders Archives, Treasurer PAST  Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation, Director  Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Director  Alaska Retirement Management Board, Trustee  Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board, Director  Abused Women Aid in Crisis (AWAIC), Director and Treasurer  Committee of 100 Top Chamber Executives, U.S. Chamber  Council of State Chamber Executives  Selected as “Top 40 under 40” community leader CLAY CHRISTIAN MBA, MS, CPA, CIA clay.christian@gmail.com • Cell: 301-706-1061• LinkedIn Profile • Chief Financial Officer • Chief financial officer with a long career of leadership for organizations undergoing major transitions. Creative and sound decision-making through changes in strategic direction, mergers and acquisitions, fundraising, debt and equity financing, performance improvement, financial audit restatements, and information systems. Focus areas include capital programs, investment, restructuring and alignment, asset management, procurement, real estate and construction, contract management, optimization, compliance, team building, and continuous training and process improvement. Deep experience with public and private partnerships, government sponsored entities, not-for-profit companies, investment tax credit, and qualified opportunity zone business development programs. Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, and Big 4 public auditor. • CORE COMPETENCIES • Chief Financial Officer • Strategic Planning • Risk Management • Capital Development • Not-for-Profit Mergers and Acquisitions • Financial and Management Reporting • Change Management • Optimization Excellent Written & Verbal Communication Skills • Leadership • Team Building and People Development Information Systems • Internal Controls • Training • Continuous Process Improvement • KEY ACHIEVEMENTS • • Chief Financial Officer for Alaska Infrastructure Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) • Vice President, Finance for 130-year-old company, Crowley Fuels, Alaska • Interim-Controller for start-up $3 billion Water Street Tampa real estate development • Independent consultant through Cross Services LLC for numerous companies undergoing substantial change (Fannie Mae, Muni Mae, Capital Petroleum Group, and above Water Street Tampa) • Worked remotely through pandemic and delivered outstanding results • Strong engagement with public auditors through new audits, consolidations, and financial restatements • Frequent meetings with boards, executives, general counsel, and operational leaders • Strategic and financial transformations • PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTING EXPERIENCE • Chief Financial Officer: Alaska Infrastructure Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) – Anchorage, Alaska 2023 – Present Leading team of more than 22 professionals for both entities who manage more than $3 billion in investment, federal, and state programs. Vice President, Finance: Crowley Fuels – Anchorage, Alaska 2021 – 2023 Lead for more than 20 professionals; equity raise of $120m; capital improvements of $20m; budgeting, forecasting, optimization, financial and compliance audits, investor presentations. CLAY CHRISTIAN • clay.christian@gmail.com • Cell: 301-706-1061 • Page 2 Private Equity Investment Firm (Cross Services LLC) – Remote to Tampa, Florida 2019 – 2021 Privately held $3B real estate investment, backed by wealthy individuals. • Interim controller; overseeing financial reporting, compliance, and leading accounting transformation on behalf of RSM and Deloitte, global public accounting firms. Capitol Petroleum Group (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2011 – 2018 Privately held $1B firm focused on wholesale and retail motor fuel sales in East Coast markets. • Led first-ever comprehensive audits of companies, developed compliance program and financial reporting system. Worked closely with mezzanine investors and bankers through budgeting, forecasting, financial restatements, and consolidations. • Designed and developed systems using SQL programs, created executive dashboards, trained accounting department, and implemented cloud-based applications to replace legacy systems. Miscellaneous Clients (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2009 – 2011 My private consulting firm, focusing on investment and capital raises for several non-public clients. Municipal Mortgage & Equity LLC (Cross Services LLC) – Baltimore, Maryland 2007 – 2009 Real estate management company with portfolio of municipal and mortgage revenue bonds. • Led team of 40 examining accounting and reporting of more than 20 business units subject to consolidation as variable interest entities. Designed and conducted cash flow modeling, valuation, and consolidation for 2,200 not-for-profit entities in affordable housing program. Fannie Mae (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2005 – 2006 Largest government sponsored entity providing mortgage capital to lenders, making housing more accessible and affordable. • Led team to review accounting policies and information systems for mortgage-backed securities programs and investments in not-for-profit affordable housing organizations. • Designed and developed SQL database to monitor and report operating performance. • EARLIER EXPERIENCE • Freddie Mac – Washington, DC Metro Area Ø Senior Director, Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance CohnReznick – Washington, DC Metro Area (lead CPA firm to low-income housing tax credit industry) Ø Senior Manager, Consulting and Audit Sodexo – Washington, DC Metro Area (global leader in food and facilities management services) Ø Senior Director, Strategic Information Analysis Ø Director, Internal Audit Ernst & Young – Boston, Massachusetts (global leader in public accounting) Ø Manager, Consulting and Audit • EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATIONS • MBA and MS, Accounting – Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts MS, Economics and BA, Geography – West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia Certified Public Accountant – CPA (Massachusetts License No. 16762) Certified Internal Auditor – CIA (Certificate No. 25966) Pamela J. Ellis Phone: (907) 771-3981 | Email: PEllis@akenergyauthority.org EDUCATION  Master Class for Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence University of Alaska Anchorage (Fall Semester 2015)  Bachelor of Arts, Major in Accounting / Minor in Management College of Saint Benedict – Saint Joseph, Minnesota (1987-1989) University of San Diego – San Diego, California (1985-1986) EXPERIENCE Alaska Energy Authority - Anchorage, Alaska Controller | December 19, 2022 to Present Supervisor: Curtis Thayer  Duties include supervision of the daily accounting functions, finance staff; Develop, design and implement policies, procedures, internal controls and work processes; oversees the Finance section for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA); Direct supervision of a Project Controller and Assistant Controller; conducts and oversees research and implementation of new accounting standards; controls budget and expenditures for both the AEA operations and capital budgets with restrictions by funding source; Manages federal receipts by reviewing federal grant applications for sufficient federal budget authorization and funding for match requirements; manages federal grant applications and ensures that finance components of the federal financial assistance award applications are properly completed; Manages the financial transactions of awarded federal grants and assures compliance with all federal financial reporting requirements; Reviews and assists with the publication and audit, by external auditors, of the AEA annual Single Audit; Manages the receipt and expenditure of all other funding sources of AEA. Including state funds and community grants that are managed by AEA on behalf of communities; reviews all AEA sub-recipient grants for initial or amendment. Reviews and approves all sub-recipient awards close outs; and responsible for the annual financial statements for AEA. Oversees the annual financial audit with external auditors. Municipality of Anchorage - Anchorage, Alaska Assistant Controller (Acting Controller 2011 & 2019) | February 2008 to Present December 16, 2022 Supervisors (Controllers/CFOs (when Acting for over 6 months)): Teresa Peterson, David Ryan, Lucinda Mahoney (CFO 2011), Nanette Spear, Tom Fink, Tammy Clayton, Alex Slivka (CFO 2019), and Mollie Mo rrison.  Supervision of up to seven staff accountants and up to four Contractors (Supervisory backfill during SAP implementation) as Assistant Controller and up to twenty-three staff accountants and four supervisors as Acting Controller for the Controller Division;  Duties of the Assistant Controller include review and creation of year-end workpapers, Detail Statements, capital asset schedules, footnotes, required supplementary schedules (RSI’s), and statistical tables for the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Coordination with internal and external auditors including audit field work and audit of the detailed statements and ACFR. As Acting Controller created the Letter of Transmittal and MD&A for the ACFR. Created audit finding recommended corrective action plans. Creation of the GASB 34 conversion entries and all required documentation. Recording of all debt financing activities at the governmental fund level and processing the conversion to the government-wide level for government-wide financial statement presentation.  Create and post in the General Ledger (GL) all required GL transactions required for G.O. debt refunding’s. Review all new G.O. debt GL postings for MOA’s Governmental Funds. Offer consultation with the Public Finance Division in regard to capitalization of capital assets for upcoming G.O. Bond issues.  Incorporation of three discretely presented component units and one trust fund in the form of four separate stand -alone audited financial statements into the government-wide financial statements for MOA.  Creation of a full set of stand-alone financial statements for CIVICVentures LLC (a blended component unit), including the MD&A, financial statements (in the full accrual and modified accrual presentation) with a two-year comparison and footnotes. Maintenance of inventory documentation and capital asset schedules. Participation in the annual audit.  Oversight of all daily accounting functions of Governmental Funds (to include the General Fund), Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Fiduciary Funds, and Suspense Funds (such as the Cash Pool Fund and the Employee Pay and Benefits Fund). Oversight of the MOA’s capital asset and construction work in progress (CWIP) daily accounting activities. The Assistant Controller supervises the Fixed Asset Accountant and Infrastructure Accountant for MOA. Daily review and approval of journal entries, fund certifications of Municipal Assembly documents, and reconciliations. Creation and management of month and year-end processing schedules. Responsible for period close coordination with other Finance Directors. Hold weekly meetings as required. Process the year-end split payroll postings and perform extensive reconciliations before posting.  Subject matter expert (SME) of the General Ledger (GL), Controlling Module (CO), Asset Management Module (AM), and the Projects Module of SAP.  Assist with implementation of all new GASB pronouncements. Review and update of Finance policy and procedures. Creation of internal control documentation and oversight of internal controls regarding the GL and creation of the ACFR per GAAP. Acting Controller as required. Fund / Reconciliation Accounting Supervisor | February 2005 to January 2008 Budget Coordinator Finance & CFO Departments Supervisors: Teresa Peterson, Wanda Tankersley, Michelle Drew, and David Richards  Supervised five Senior Staff Accountants. Two reconciliation accountants and three fund accountants. Oversight of the MOA’s daily accounting activities of the General Funds, Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Internal Service Funds and Trust Funds (Fiduciaries). To include review of all fund certifications created for the CFO for pending assembly legislation. Oversight of MOA’s capital asset module and creation of MOA’s capital asset footnote for the ACFR. Creation of various footnotes, RSI’s, and statistic tables of the ACFR. Review of MOA’s bank reconciliations, investment reconciliations, subledger to general ledger reconciliations and unclaimed property filings. Assist four Finance Divisions of the Finance Department and the CFO Department with review and creation of their annual operating budgets. Assist with review and updates to the intergovernmental cost allocation plans (IGCs) and methodologies for the Finance and CFO Departments. Acting Controller as required. General Fund Accountant | April 2004 to January 2005: Supervisor: Guy Baily  Create workpapers, detail statements, RSI’s, and statistical tables for all of MOA’s General Funds. Review and MOA wide department generated journal entries and creation of journal entries for all of MOA’s General Funds. Create fund balance worksheets for the General Funds of MOA. Reconcile all balance sheet accounts of the MOA General Funds and create year-end workpapers. Grant Fund Accountant | October 2001 to March 2004 Supervisor: Catherine Gettler-Amyott  Create monthly and quarterly grant reports for state, state pass thru federal, and federal grants awarded to MOA. Reconcile the GL to grant reports and make correcting entries in the GL as required. Receipt all grant proceeds and create year-end accrual / deferral entries. Create workpapers for the generation of the Single Audit. This was for MOA’s Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds and Special Revenue Funds. Assist in audit requests when being audited by external or internal auditors. Reconciliation Accountant | April 2001 to September 2001 Supervisor: David Richards  Reconciled the Accounts Payable subledger and Accounts Receivable subledger to the General Ledger. Reconciled the revenue postings to all Governmental Capital Project Funds and created corrective entries. PROFESSIONAL BOARDS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATES  Governmental Finance Officers Association – Member  Municipal Audit Committee – Member (when serving as the Acting Controller)  Lost Lake Run Board Member  GFOA certificate for Excellence in Financial Accounting and Reporting (2019 and 2020). COMPUTER SKILLS  Microsoft Word  Microsoft Excel  Microsoft PowerPoint  Microsoft Outlook  PeopleSoft Financial Systems  Corel WordPerfect  Corel Quattro Pro  IBM Lotus  Yardi Property Management Software  Microsoft Dynamics NAV 365 Business Central  Intuit Turbo Tax  Intuit QuickBooks Pro  SAP (to include completion of 1 semester SAP course at UAA on Hana, BW, and NetWeaver)  Kronos and NEOGOV  Libra Accounting Software  Skyline Software Systems  Onsite Manager  Various Web Based Reporting Systems BRANDY M. DIXON 13429 Karen Street Anchorage, AK 99515 (907) 764-3928 bmdinak@gmail.com SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Creative, forward thinking, resourceful Communications Professional with 15+ years experience in all facets of marketing, advertising, and public relations. Successfully promote diverse activities and events. Conduct public information, social marketing, and education campaigns. Strengths include:  Written and Oral Communication  Planning and Organizing  Managing and Mentoring  Researching and Evaluating Detail, results and goal oriented. Productive team member with dedication to quality and professionalism. Proven track record of putting ideas into motion and creating engaging, targeted marketing campaigns. SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS Written and Oral Communication  Executed mail and email broadcast campaigns, public relations, conferences shows, media advertisements, promotions, customer communications, and other marketing plans to inform the public.  Designed, scripted, edited and arranged production of internal/external newsletters, brochures, annual reports, corporate profiles and submissions, and internal/external communications.  Served as spokesperson for the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC). Responded in timely matter to media inquiries, arranged interviews, distributed press releases and media advisories to provide accurate information. Encouraged positive and discreet communication on controversial, sensitive and proprietary topics. Protected patients’ privacy and confidentiality according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act guidelines.  Ensured cross-system coordination between ANMC and its Tribal Health Organization partners throughout the state and interactions with media regarding personnel, programs, services and policies.  Managed interposition of vendors and contractors to successfully complete projects on time and on budget. Managing and Mentoring  Supervised team of five. Oversaw time and attendance, discipline, training, coaching, performance evaluations and ongoing development opportunities. Facilitated staff meetings.  Delegated responsibilities and assignments among staff and monitored timely completion of projects.  Identified and coordinated specific training opportunities for employees in alignment with their employee development plans.  Monitored and coached 25+ scholarship and internship participants throughout the course of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium’s (ANTHC) 9-week internship. Arranged travel, housing, onboarding, interviewed department heads for intern placement matching at ANMC and conducted periodic evaluations.  Managed database of 125+ scholarship and internship program participants via Microsoft Access to monitor program success.  Developed and presented information to executives on department activities and goals to sustain budget funding. Planning and Organizing  In collaboration with leadership, developed short and long-term strategic communication plans for ANMC to fulfill Board of Directors’ goals and objectives.  Planned and coordinated numerous company events for 2,000+ employees including Joint Commission celebration, employee picnic, employee appreciation celebrations and United Way campaigns. Provided key organization functions as a member of planning team for Annual Meeting for four years with 100+ attendees.  Successfully led marketing activities to promote the Healthy Alaska Natives Foundations’ annual fundraising ball for three years with an average attendance of 450+ attendees and celebrity guests.  Organized 20-30 employee forums over a two-year period with an average attendance of 30-40 people, which resulted in improved communication between hospital administration and staff. Researching and Evaluating  Conducted focus groups in partnership with external contractor to gain insight on needs of target audience. Developed communications plan based on results.  Initiated strategic planning and implementation on a variety of communication and marketing plans.  Reviewed ANTHC Scholarship and Internship applications, interviewed candidates and observed disciplinary procedures for program and departmental positions. Researched, developed and conducted trainings. Monitored and analyzed budgetary position for program. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Communications Director Communications and Events Director Client Insights Special Assistant to the CEO Marketing Manager Public Relations Manager Manager of Public Relations Senior Office Specialist Program Assistant Senior Office Assistant Office Manager Marketing Coordinator Alaska Energy Authority, AK Alaska Chamber, AK Solstice Advertising, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Southcentral Foundation, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Rizzo & Company, AK Microcom, AK 9/19 – Current 12/13 – 9-19 9/13 – 12/13 01/12 – 9/13 09/09 – 01/12 04/08 – 09/09 07/07 – 04/08 04/06 – 07/07 05/05 – 04/06 11/04 – 05/05 04/04 – 10/04 06/03 – 04/04 TECHNICAL SKILLS Microsoft Office Suite: Adobe Software:  Access  Excel  Outlook  PowerPoint  Publisher  Visio  Word  Acrobat  Bridge  InDesign  Illustrator  Photoshop PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS  American Marketing Association Alaska Chapter  Public Relations Society of America Alaska Chapter  Alaska Design Forum  Cook Inlet Regional Incorporation Shareholder EDUCATION  Bachelor of Art, Art, University of Alaska Anchorage, AK  Diploma, Robert Service High School, Anchorage, AK MARK ZIESMER (907) 771-3985 mziesmer@aidea.org EXPERIENCE July 2022 to Current ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, Anchorage, Alaska Project Controller – Owned Assets  Responsible for all accounting activities related to utility assets.  Establish, monitor, and enforce internal controls and accounting procedures.  Prepare, analyze, and distribute quarterly financial and compliance reports.  Work with management and utility partners for development of the annual budget.  Coordinate, plan, and serve as point of contact for the annual audit. July 2020 to July 2022 ALASKA SAUSAGE COMPANY, INC, Anchorage, Alaska Controller  Responsible for all company financial and accounting operations.  Evaluated procedures and processes for effectiveness and adherence to GAAP.  Administered 401k plans, payroll, health insurance, and workers compensation.  Collaborated with outside consultants to complete annual review and tax return.  Prepared bank reconciliations and cash forecasts. November 2010 to July 2020 DOYON UTILITIES, LLC, Fairbanks, Alaska Senior Regulatory Analyst (April 2019 – July 2020)  Prepared revenue requirement schedules and depreciation studies for rate filings.  Submitted quarterly and annual regulatory reports to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.  Assisted legal counsel with analyzing and developing regulatory strategic plans.  Aided the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in conducting utility audits and review of rate filings.  Provided guidance to corporate staff on regulatory matters. Senior Financial Analyst (July 2018 – April 2019)  Supervised and reviewed day-to-day work of financial analyst team.  Prepared the annual corporate budget, financial projections, and variance analyses.  Provided analysis for tariff rate changes and known and measurable adjustments. Business Systems Analyst (June 2017 – July 2018)  Maintained responsibilities held under Senior Utility Accountant/Analyst title.  Heavier focus on managing corporate wide system implementations and upgrades. Senior Utility Accountant/Analyst (November 2010 – June 2017)  Project manager for corporate wide system implementations and upgrades.  Spearheaded system process improvements and integration projects.  Provided ad hoc reporting support for all departments.  Reviewed work of accounts payable, payroll, and general ledger staff.  Supervised monthly accounting close and financial reporting.  Maintained corporate debt balances and compliance reporting.  Prepared bank reconciliations and cash flow forecasts. June 2010 to November 2010 KINROSS GOLD CORPORATION, Fairbanks, Alaska Senior Accountant  Finance team member for an enterprise resource planning system implementation.  Provided cost and fixed asset accounting for capital projects.  Supervised and reviewed day-to-day work of accounts payable and payroll staff. MARK ZIESMER (907) 771-3985 mziesmer@aidea.org EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) June 2009 to June 2010 DOYON UTILITIES, LLC, Fairbanks, Alaska Asset Guardian Coordinator / Project Accountant  Project manager for asset management software implementation.  Develop work order, preventive maintenance, and asset tagging processes.  Assist controller with identifying and developing project and cost reporting capability. April 2005 to May 2009 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES ALASKA, LLC, North Pole, Alaska Project Controls (May 2007 to May 2009) Accounts Payable Supervisor / Yield Analyst (December 2005 to April 2007) Project Cost Analyst (April 2005 to November 2005) October 2002 to March 2005 WILSON AND WILSON CPA’S, INC., Fairbanks, Alaska Senior Accountant EDUCATION University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska Master of Business Administration, Capital Markets University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma Bachelor of Arts, Economics CERTIFICATION IMA Data Analytics & Visualization Fundamentals Institute of Management Accountants IMA Robotic Process Automation Series Institute of Management Accountants UNIX System Administrator Cochise College PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Institute of Management Accountants – Member, Treasurer Government Finance Officers Association – Member COMPUTER SKILLS MS Office Suite, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Dynamics, MS SQL Server, Aspen Canopy, Oracle, Maximo, JD Edwards, QuickBooks, Jet Reports, IBM Cognos Connection, UNIX, Linux Bryan E. Carey, P.E. 13041 Ridgewood Road Anchorage, Alaska 99516 (907) 382-0949 E-mail B3Alaska@Outlook.com Summary of Qualifications Professional Engineer with over 30 years project experience at remote Alaskan sites. Experience in project management and working with varied teams of contractors and clients. Experience in design and construction at locations with challenging logistics. Strong verbal and written communication skills. Education and Professional Certifications Professional Engineer registration in Alaska CE - 10810 M.A., Business Administration, University of Alaska, Anchorage B.S., Petroleum Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Experience and Qualifications Director of Owned Assets, Project Manager, Alaska Energy Authority AEA), Anchorage, Alaska, 2001 to Present Project Manager at the two largest state owned but utility operated hydroelectric projects in the State (Bradley Lake and Snettisham). Responsibilities include insuring projects remain in compliance with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license and state permits, work with diverse group of utilities managers and professionals on project upgrades, insurance and legal agreements, and insure the State ownership interest is not impaired. Have recommended, worked with agencies and other stakeholders, and overseen multiple project license amendments through FERC to reduce land fees and flow releases. Oversee AEA owned Statewide transmission projects. Oversee planning and operation of AEA owned and utility operated & maintained projects. Ensure insurance and permits current and in compliance. Board Member Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) which is the certificated electric reliability organization for the Railbelt region of Alaska. The goal of the RRC is to ensure grid resilience and reduce long-term costs by developing and enforcing technically sound reliability standards, conduction grid-wide integration resource planning, and designing consistent interconnection protocols for grid users. Reviewed Renewable Energy Fund (REF) proposals and managed grantee’s. Proposed new West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Project for Bradley Lake hydroelectric Project to utilities. Oversaw all environmental and engineering studies. Filed FERC documents, and acquired license amendment. Managed acquiring funding, bidding, and oversaw construction of diversion project. Project completed on schedule and within budget of $47 million. Project increases annual energy of the largest hydroelectric project in Alaska by 10%. Project Manager for feasibility and conceptual engineering studies for the Susitna Hydropower Project. Oversaw engineering contractors to come up with conceptual designs and costs to fit within the Railbelt Integrated Resource Plan (Utilities future electrical demand and generation). Deliver presentations and question & answer at legislative committees and public organizations. Oversaw all engineering and environmental work for filing the Preliminary Application Document with FERC. Managed contractors to design, acquire site control, project funding, and construct energy projects at remote Alaskan communities. Projects required meeting with local community leaders and design engineers to develop a project design. Site control was then obtained and a Business Operating Plan developed and accepted by the project participants. Projects were built using contract construction managers or competitive bid. Negotiation of scope and changes occur at all phases with project participants and contractors. Bulk fuel, power plant, and small hydroelectric projects were completed at approximately 20 remote rural communities. Many of the projects had multiple energy projects completed. Remote work involved limited air or barge logistics. Steep terrain required several projects to be completed with extensive use of helicopters to move equipment William (Bill) Price Page | 1 William J. Price 25050 Cates Ave freedomsprice@live.com Eagle River Ak, 99577 907-903-3377 SUMMARY  20 years of experience as an Engineer and Project Manager.  Received Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering from Utah State University in 2002.  Professional Mechanical Engineer, State of Alaska License #129742. WORK EXPERIENCE Senior Infrastructure Engineer August 2019 – Present Alaska Energy Authority Anchorage AK  Maintain transmission & generation infrastructure owned by the Alaska Energy Authority. This includes the Alaska Intertie, Bradley Lake Hydro, and other related transmission infrastructure. Maintenance and operations managed through Committees consisting of utility engineers and executives.  Represent AEA on Railbelt Reliability Council, and participate in creation of the State Energy Security Plan.  Responsible for project planning. This includes collecting and analyzing energy and community data, identifying present and future needs, conceptualizing engineering solutions, and developing, reviewing, and analyzing plans and proposals in order to determine the feasibility and appropriate technology for a prospective project. Conduct site visits, including public meetings in order to discuss prospective projects with local entities and residents.  Direct design professionals and business consultants in the development of conceptual design reports, design documents, business plans and cost estimates appropriate to the scope of the project.  Perform project construction management functions including overseeing the preparation of construction budgets, schedules, work plans, quality control, oversight and on-site inspections during construction.  Administer technical services contracts including issuing invitation for bids, reviewing and evaluation bids, selecting contractors, preparing documents, negotiating and awarding contracts, monitoring and supervising contractors, preparing change orders, overseeing contract accounting, and evaluating contractor’s work.  Analyze data, research new technology, and propose solutions to technical problems. Develop comprehensive reports and technical analysis to propose solutions and effective actions to solve technical problems.  Coordinate with agency staff, rural community entities, federal and state agencies and the public on project and program-related topics. Mechanical Project Engineer March 2017 – August 2019 RSA Engineering Anchorage AK  Responsibilities included working with the clients to develop concept designs, calculations, equipment selections, mechanical design drawings, specifications and supporting documents. Work collaboratively with architects, structural, civil engineers and in house electrical engineers to complete projects on time and on budget. Significant projects summarized below:  Renovation of existing power plants in Kaktovik and Anaktuvuk Pass in the North Slope Borough. Project includes new radiators, heat exchangers, pumps, waste heat recovery loops, day tank, and related systems.  Replaced boilers and renovated mechanical rooms in multiple properties owned by the Municipality of Anchorage and the National Park Service. Replacement included site investigation, drawings, boiler selection and supporting equipment and piping design.  Developed plans and bidding documents for replacement of all domestic water piping in Valdez hospital.  Designed water and waste connections for North Slope Borough commercial and residential buildings. Installations included holding tanks, below and above grade sewer connections. William (Bill) Price Page | 2 Mechanical Project Engineer Jan 2011 – Jan 2017 Gray Stassel Engineering Anchorage AK  Designed or assisted in the design of 13 rural power systems for Alaskan villages. Communities included Atmautluak, Emmonak, Stebbins, Nunam Iqua, Teller, Togiak, Fort Yukon, Perryville, Kake and Heat Recovery renovations in Buckland and King Cove.  Project Engineer for Kvichak River RISEC (River In Stream Energy Conversion) Project. Deployed two hydrokinetic devices in the Kvichak River near Igiugig Alaska, which is home to one of the largest Salmon returns in the world (Bristol Bay). Both devices were connected to the Igiugig electric grid during testing.  Developed and maintained, budgetary estimates, project schedules, permit requirements, and stakeholder meetings.  Designed new power plant with a biomass and district heating system in Fort Yukon Alaska. System includes 4 diesel generators which provide prime power for the community of Fort Yukon. The district heating system will provide heat for 13 community buildings through nearly 9000 feet of arctic pipe and will offset approximately 50,000 gallons of heating oil annually in the community.  Assessed 7 rural Alaskan villages for new or updated heat recovery systems, resulting in construction of heat recovery systems in King Cove, Buckland and Atmautluak, which offset nearly 62,000 gallons of heating fuel annually. Director of Operations Support May 2009 – December 2010 212 Resources Salt Lake City UT  Operations Support for treatment of water produced during Natural Gas production in Wyoming and Colorado. Support included mechanical, process, and electrical engineering, IT, logistics, procurement, and corporate reporting.  Project Engineer for new produced water recycling facility in Colorado. Project vaporized produced water from nearby natural gas production. Super concentrated brine was stored for disposal, condensate (primarily methanol) was collected and clean water was discharged into a nearby tributary of the Colorado River.  Continued to serve as Field Engineer for both Colorado, and Wyoming sites. Supervised and assisted in installation of new equipment, engineering support and technical problem solving. Primary contact for vendors, contractors, consultants, manufacturers, and industry experts to solve problems and maintain field operations.  Developed and implemented a root cause analysis and corrective action program. Created documents and reporting systems to track failure events and corrective actions. Trained operations staff in data collection, and root cause investigation. Field Engineer Aug 2008 – May 2009 212 Resources Grand Junction CO  Provided technical support, stress analysis, vibration analysis, PLC trouble shooting, and general problem solving for 24 hr field operations. The remote facility, circulated, vaporized and concentrated produced and ‘frac’ water from natural gas production. The super condensed waste water, condensate and clean water were stored for the client use or disposal.  Monitored process efficiency through data collection and trend analysis, process improvements and preventative maintenance.  Supervise installation, repair or replacement of equipment, and manage corrective actions.  Support main office engineering staff through data collection, design engineering, testing and evaluation, field inspections utilizing AutoDesk Inventor and AutoCAD.  Support construction efforts and new site preparation.  Work with clients to determine operation requirements and design solutions.  Visit vendors and contractors to inspect equipment and construction to verify specifications were met. Ryan McLaughlin ryan.mclaughlin25@gmail.com 907.444.7886 Work Experience Alaska Energy Authority -Anchorage,Alaska (05/2023-present) Infrastructure Engineer (05/2023-present) -Assisted in engineering studies,field investigations,and development of engineering design for the Alaska Energy Authority’s owned assets. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium -Anchorage,Alaska (01/2022-present) Engineering Project Manager (01/2022-present) -Managed water,sanitation,and solid waste infrastructure projects for 7 Alaska Native communities in the Maniilaq and Norton Sound Regions of Alaska -Developed strong relationships with key tribal and city members to help identify and progress projects that were high priority community needs -Secured project funding through numerous sources and ensured engineering and construction was managed in compliance of funding requirements -Negotiated and administered engineering and construction contracts,tracked and adjusted consultant progress and ensured adherence to project scope,schedule,and budget Alaska Solar -Anchorage,Alaska (06/2021-10/2021) Solar Technician (06/2021-10/2021) -Worked on a small team to install ~700KW of residential solar in Southcentral Alaska -Interfaced with customers and provided easily digestible information on how the systems would operate and produce ConocoPhillips -Anchorage,Alaska (06/2015-03/2021) DataOps Engineer (05/2020-03/2021) -Collaborated with Amazon Web Services to develop a machine learning model that optimized wiper trips for the Coiled Tubing Drilling Program -Helped develop real-time and big data processing pipelines to support the Alaska Data Science team in an eort to move Company data from on-prem to the cloud -Acquired proficiency in multiple programming languages (SQL,Python)through on-the-job training and DataCamp curriculum Coiled Tubing Drilling Engineer (09/2018-05/2020) -Responsible for developing drilling programs and providing 24/7 engineering support during execution phases of Coiled Tubing Drilling projects -Delivered ~15 multi-million dollar projects on time and budget by working closely with multi-disciplinary teams and overseeing projects from start to finish -Managed all long-lead material and inventory needs for the Alaska CTD program -Developed new and innovative technologies with 3rd party vendors -Ensured strict compliance with government regulations and maintained close communication with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association throughout all activities Wells Supervisor (10/2016-09/2018) -Responsible for the on-site execution,supervision,and safety for a wide range of well intervention jobs including slickline,e-line,service coil,and frac work -Managed up to 6 crews at a time and ensured all crews had procedures,permits,and equipment necessary for daily activities -Collaborated with engineers and contractors to come up with quick decisions for issues that arose during Well Intervention operations Performance Engineer (06/2015-10/2016) -Created and provided near real-time performance reports and KPIs for Drilling Operations -Early adopter of Spotfire for data visualization and helped save over $1MM through small eciencies gained on highly repeatable tasks on the drilling rigs Education B.S.Petroleum Engineering,University of Alaska Fairbanks,2015 -President -Tau Beta Pi,Engineering Honor Society (2014-2015) -Chancellor’s List (3.95 GPA) -Minor,Music Performance -Fairbanks Symphony Orchestra (2013-2015) -Member of AADE and SPE (2011-2015) Extracurriculars American Association of Drilling Engineers,Alaska Chapter -Board Member,University Liaison (10/2019-03/2021) Ski Summit of Mount Denali (Self-Guided,2019) -Employed complex trip planning and risk management skills in a remote environment Wilderness First Responder (2021) -80 hr WFR certification to eectively identify and manage medical emergencies in the outdoors Bear 100 (2021) -100 mile mountain trail race in Utah,requiring a year of structured training,planning,and discipline Rebecca Garrett, PMP AEA Rural Programs Manager rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org Professional Work Experience State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Rural Programs Manager September 2022 - Present Oversee the Rural Programs Projects Managers and Grants section. Manage Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Program. Manage Bulk Fuel Upgrade (BFU) Program. Manage rural power system construction projects. Collaborate with other agency staff, rural community entities, and federal agencies to coordinate diverse interests in rural power system projects. Seek out and apply for funding for agency and partner energy projects. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Project Manager/Program Manager February 2018 – September 2022 Manager Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Program. Manage rural power system construction projects. Manage the active construction of 3 heat recovery systems around the state of Alaska. Manage State Clean Diesel (DERA) program for Alaska Energy Authority. Manage the DERA rural powerhouse engine replacement projects. Offer technical assistance to communities that need efficiency upgrades and/or are experiencing problems with the power system. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy projects and programs. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Assistant Project Manager June 2014 – January 2018 Manage end use (conservation) projects. Manage rural power system construction. Manage the construction of heat recovery systems around the state of Alaska. Manage State Clean Diesel (DERA) program for Alaska Energy Authority. Offer technical assistance to communities that need efficiency upgrades and/or are experiencing problems with the power system. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy conservation. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Project Development/Project Manager January 2009 - June 2014 Manage end use efficiency (conservation) projects. Develop and present regional energy fairs around the state with a focus on energy efficiency. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy conservation. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). Monitor section needs and lobby for additional support when necessary. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Section Program/Project Manager September 1999 – January 2009 Manage end use efficiency (conservation) program. Develop and present regional energy fairs around the state with a focus on energy conservation. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy efficiency. Authorize and release the Energy Cost Reduction RFP. Administer each project that results from the Cost Reduction RFP analysis. Facilitate bi-weekly section meetings, and collaborate with Accounting and Procurement. Oversee 20 projects with budgets totaling over $20 million all over the state of Alaska. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). Work History State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Programs Manager September 2022 - Present State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Project/Program Manager February 2018 – September 2022 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Assistant Project Manager June 2014 – January 2018 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Project Development January 2009 – June 2014 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Energy Efficiency Program May 2001 – May 2009 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Training Program Manager May 1997 – May 2001 State of Alaska – Division of Energy, Administrative Clerk III March 1997 – May 1997 Avis Rent-a-Car, Assistant Manager – Rental Counter September 1992 – December 1997 Certifications Project Management Professional (PMP) May 2018 Project Management Institute September 2015 Meeting Professionals International March 2007 Notary Public May 1997 – present E-Writing, Business and Technical Writing March 2006 Post Baccalaureate Course Work University of Alaska, Fairbanks May 2021 Sustainable Energy Occupational Endorsement University of Alaska, Anchorage September 2006 – May 2007 Organizational Behavior (BA 300), Technical Writing (ENGL 212) University of Alaska, Fairbanks March 1998 Cultural Awareness Education BA History, University of Alaska, Anchorage May 1996 Dimond High School, Anchorage Alaska June 1991 Volunteer Experience State of Alaska, Polling Place Worker, Anchorage AK August 2020 -Seasonal Primary and Election day worker at local polling station Gladys Wood Elementary School, Volunteer, Anchorage AK September 2006 – 2013 Parent working in the classroom and Parent-Teacher Organization Karin St. Clair AEA Grants Manager 907-771-3081 kstclair@akenergyauthority.org Professional Experience Alaska Energy Authority – Grants Manager - Dec 2011-2016 & Aug 2019-Present Maintain grants management database. Prepare reports from grants management software. Ensure data integrity in databases. Evaluate grantee proposal, plans and justifications to include cost factors. Process grant applications and obtain outstanding materials. Monitor and ensure timely receipt of reports from grantees. Monitor and administer federal and state grants and contracts. Collect and analyze grant data. Maintain electronic and physical files related to all aspects of the grant cycle. Prepare, scan, and verify historical documents for electronic conversion. Prepare grant agreements, notification letters, applications, and letters of inquiry. Communicate with Federal, State, and local agencies regarding award compliance. Review contracts for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with state regulations. Provide technical guidance to internal and external stakeholders on grant administration and financial policies, procedures, statutes, and regulations. Serve as liaison between the project managers and outside funding agencies; provides assistance in resolving issues and conflicts with funding agencies; participates in meetings and discussions in which decisions affecting projects are made. Inform grantees regarding regulation changes impacting grant opportunities. Process amendments, modifications, extensions, and terminations of contracts and subcontracts Alaska Energy Authority – Project Controls - Jul 2016-Jan 2020 Track status reporting, financial reporting, milestones, and deliverables of projects. Track and audit internal controls and guidelines associated with project controls. Monitor budget, scope, and milestones. Provide leadership and training to team members on internal controls and guidelines associated with project controls. Recommend and execute corrective actions to handle project compliance. Identify upcoming project milestones and customer requirements so that Project Managers can ensure satisfaction of project milestones and customer requirements. Monitor and implement approved project management plan changes. Management of less complex projects and close outs. Identify all funding sources and develop a monitoring system for funding opportunities. Assist communities in writing grant applications. Assist in writing grant applications for agency. Alaska Energy Authority – Administrative Assistant - Jun 2011-Dec 2011 Provided administrative support for various departments, including answering telephones, assisting visitors, resolving various problems, and assisting with inquiries. Prepared, transcribed, composed, typed, edited, and distributed agendas and minutes of numerous meetings. Scheduled and coordinated meetings, teleconferences, appointments, events, and other similar activities for staff, including travel and lodging arrangements. Assisted with Round V Grant Application data entry and file setup. Scanned, labeled, and tracked grant documents in award database (Navision). Entered milestones for grants in Navision. Created and maintained grant files and related paper documents. Tracked grant applications for Commercial Audit Program. Communicated with auditors and commercial owners regarding project progress and missing information. Prepared reimbursement paperwork for the finance department First National Bank Alaska - Administrative Assistant - 2009-2010 Prepared and assigned daily reports to Merchant Representatives. Logged and tracked the completion of reports by Merchant Representatives. Attended weekly staff meeting and transcribed meeting minutes. Arranged travel for Merchant Representatives. Monitored daily in town travel of merchant representatives. Monitored and ordered all supplies for department. Scheduled all trainings as well as reserved rooms and equipment needed. Composed and prepared mass mailings to merchants. Performed credit checks, acquired financial statements and business licenses for potential merchants. Worked with the IT Department in developing a new program for Merchant Services using Access and Excel. Responsible for merchant billing and collections. Answered multi-line phones, receive daily mail and incoming deliveries Law Offices of Thom F. Janidlo Anchorage - Administrative Assistant - 2006-2009 Scheduled all attorney court hearings, client meetings and consultations. Transcribed during appropriate trial setting conferences and client meetings. Transcribed and prepared legal court documents. Performed legal research to assist attorneys with preparation of court documents. Maintained accurate records for attorney’s billable hours. Identified more efficient and cost saving methods for ordering office supplies. Initiated the use of a credit card machine to assist in payment processing. Suggested the use of a scanner to replace paper processes, minimizing paper waste and expense. Answered multi-line phones, received daily mail and courier services. Computerized/Manual Accounts Payable/Receivable. Credit and Collections. Month-End- Closings. Account Reconciliation. Monthly Payroll Processing. Statement Billings. Customer Service/Client Relations. Office Management Education Project Management Institute- Project Management Foundation 2016 International Correspondence School- Medical Office Assistant Certificate 1999 Northwest College- General studies 1991-1992 Related Activities - Thompson Grants - Federal Grants Forum for State & Local Governments 2021 - Jim Hale - Writing for the Workplace (one day seminar) 2014 - Gil Tran, Senior Technical Manager, OMB - OMB’s Grant Reform and the Uniform Guidance (one day seminar) 2014 - Colleen Campbell, State of Alaska Single Audit Coordinator - State Single Audit Presentation (one day seminar) 2014 - Grants Management Workshop - Grants Management Certificate (two day workshop certificate attached) 2012 May 11, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20585 RE: Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Program – Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project To the U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA) is pleased to team with the State of Alaska, d/b/a the Alaska Energy Authority, and the other Railbelt electric utilities 1 to partner in the funding opportunity for the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) (DE-FOA-0002740). GVEA is a not-for-profit, member owned, electric cooperative that serves nearly 100,000 residents in Interior Alaska. We operate and maintain nearly 3,300 miles of power lines, 35 substations and nine generating facilities. GVEA’s electric system is interconnected with, and has the ability to serve, four critical military installations - Fort Wainwright, Eielson AFB, Fort Greely, and Clear AFS. GVEA is also interconnected to the other Railbelt electric utilities via a single transmission line, the majority of which is the Alaska Intertie – a 170 mile long, 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between Willow and Healy that operates at 138 kV. Together GVEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities comprise what is commonly referred to as the Alaska Railbelt electric system and provide electric service to approximately 75% of Alaska’s population. GVEA is supportive of the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project proposal and hopes that the proposal receives DOE approval. As a not-for-profit, member owned cooperative, GVEA has a fiduciary responsibility to our member-consumers, to ensure that GVEA’s resources are used wisely and prudently. As essential as the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project is to achieve meaningful, transformative, long-term benefits on the Railbelt electric system, and to Copper Valley Electric Association, the cost of achieving those benefits cannot, from a practical perspective, be borne solely by Railbelt Ratepayers. Financial support in the form of Department of Energy funding via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is critically necessary. For that reason, GVEA supports the cost allocation methodology 1 Chugach Electric Association, Inc., Homer Electric Association, Inc., Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., and the City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System. DOE Letter of Commitment (GVEA) – FOA-0002740 Page 2 of 2 outlined in this and other applications submitted by this project team to the DOE’s Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program that prioritizes securing Federal IIJA/IRA funds with State of Alaska matching funds for the “non-federal cost share requirement.” If necessary, additional funding will also come from GVEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities, subject to successful negotiation of the grant contract and receipt of Board of Directors, regulatory, and/or third-party approvals required to ensure that costs incurred by the utilities can appropriately be recovered from the Railbelt’s member-consumers. GVEA has been diligently working with the other Railbelt electric utilities and with the Alaska Energy Authority to ensure that the opportunities afforded by the DOE IIJA and IRA funding grants, once received, will meaningfully and positively transform the Alaska Railbelt electric system. GVEA fully supports the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project, as well as other aspects of the broader Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan that have been submitted to the DOE under separate applications. As the applications reflect, there exists unprecedented alignment amongst the Railbelt utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority to materially transform the Railbelt electric system. We are committed to work collaboratively in order to strengthen and build a smart, clean electrical grid that ensures residents, communities, and the military bases served by the Railbelt electric utilities have access to clean, reliable, low-cost energy. Sincerely, John J. Burns President & Chief Executive Officer May 12, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20585 RE: Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3 Grid Innovation Program; Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Dear Application Review Committee, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (MEA) is pleased to team with the State of Alaska, d/b/a the Alaska Energy Authority, and the other Rail belt electric utilities 1 to partner in the funding opportunity for Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) (DE-FOA-0002740). MEA is a not-for-profit, member owned, electric cooperative that serves almost 65,000 meters in the fastest-growing area of Alaska. We operate and maintain nearly 4700 miles of power lines, 26 substations and self-generate the majority of our power. MEA is interconnected to the other Rail belt electric utilities via a single transmission line, the majority of which is the Alaska lntertie -a 170 mile long, 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between Willow and Healy that operates at 138 kV. Together, MEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities comprise what is commonly referred to as the Alaska Rail belt Electric System and provides electric service to approximately 75°/o of Alaska's population. MEA is supportive of the Rail belt Innovative Resiliency Project proposal and hopes that the proposal receives DOE approval. As a not-for-profit, member owned cooperative, MEA has a fiduciary responsibility to our member-consumers, to ensure that MEA's resources are used wisely and prudently. As essential as the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project is to achieve meaningful, transformative, long-term benefits on the Railbelt Electric System, the cost of achieving those benefits cannot, from a practical perspective, be borne solely by our small number of Railbelt ratepayers. Financial support in the form of Department of Energy funding via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is critically necessary. For that reason, MEA supports the cost allocation methodology outlined in this and other applications being submitted by this project team to the DOE's Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program that prioritizes securing Federal IIJAIIRA funds with State of Alaska matching funds for the "non-federal cost share requirement." If necessary, additional funding will also come from MEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities, subject to successful negotiation of the grant contract and receipt of any necessary Board of Directors, regulatory, and/or third-party approvals required to ensure that costs incurred by the utilities can appropriately be recovered from the Railbelt's member-consumers. MEA has been diligently working with the other Rail belt electric utilities and with the Alaska Energy Authority to ensure that the opportunities afforded by the DOE IIJA and IRA funding grants, once received, will meaningfully and positively transform the Alaska Railbelt electric system. 1 Chugach Electric Association, Inc., Homer Electric Association , Inc., Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., and the City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System. MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION , INC . • P.O. Box 2929 • Palmer , Alaska 99645 • t 907.7 45.3231 • f 907 .7 61 .9368 • www .mea.coop U.S. Department of Energy Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3 May 12, 2023 Page 2 MEA fully supports the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency proposal, as well as other aspects of the broader Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan that has and will be submitted to the DOE under separate applications. As the application reflects, there exists unprecedented alignment amongst the Railbelt utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority to materially transform the Railbelt electric system. We are committed to work collaboratively in order to strengthen and build a smart, clean electrical grid that ensures residents, communities, and the military bases served by the Railbelt electric utilities have access to clean, reliable, low-cost energy. Sincerely, ~ci/)L ff11. lzzv Anthony M. WI Chief Executive Officer Corporate Office Central Peninsula Service Center 3977 Lake Street 280 Airport Way Homer, Alaska 99603-7680 Kenai, Alaska 99611-5280 Phone (907) 235-8551 Phone (907) 283-5831 FAX (907) 235-3313 FAX (907) 283-7122 May 11, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20585 RE: Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Dear Grid Deployment Office: Homer Electric Association, Inc. (HEA) is pleased to submit this letter expressing its support for the funding proposal for improving Grid Innovation. HEA is a not-for-profit, member owned, electric cooperative that serves the residents, businesses, and industrial facilities of the entire western Kenai Peninsula in the state of Alaska. HEA’s electric system is interconnected with the other Alaska Railbelt electric utilities via a single transmission line between the HEA and Chugach Electric systems. Together HEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities comprise what is commonly referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Electric System and provide electric service to approximately 75% of Alaska’s population. HEA supports the Railbelt Innovating Resiliency Project (RIRP) proposal and hopes that the proposal receives DOE approval. As a not-for-profit, member owned cooperative, HEA has a fiduciary responsibility to its member-consumers, to ensure that HEA’s resources are used wisely and prudently. As essential as transmission improvements are to achieving, transformative, long- term benefits on the Railbelt Electric System, the cost to HEA’s members of secure those benefits must be understood before HEA can make a financial commitment to participate in funding the project. For that reason, HEA expects financial support in the form of Department of Energy funding via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to be critically necessary. Accordingly, HEA commits to work with the other utilities and the State of Alaska to develop a firm cost allocation methodology for funding the “non-federal cost share requirement” of the initiatives as described in the applications being submitted by the Railbelt Utilities’ project team to the DOE’s Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. HEA’s funding obligation in this regard will be subject to HEA’s final approval of the terms of the grant agreement and any necessary or appropriate Board of Directors, regulatory, and/or third-party approvals. HEA fully supports the RIRP proposal, as well as other aspects of the broader Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan that have been submitted to the DOE under separate applications. As the application reflects, there exists unprecedented alignment among the Railbelt utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority to create a resilient, reliable Railbelt electric system that would be on a U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office May 11, 2023 Page 2 par with the systems currently enjoyed by the rest of the country. HEA is committed to work collaboratively in order to achieve that end. Sincerely, Bradley P. Janorschke General Manager 1 May 16, 2023 Gene Rodrigues, Assistant Secretary U.S. Department of Energy Office of Electricity 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Dear Assistant Secretary Rodrigues, We are writing in support of applications submitted by Matanuska Electric Association and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for FY2023 funding through Topic Areas 1, 2, and 3 the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five Alaska Railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s AEA are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will directly benefit the 75 percent of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the Railbelt but are eligible for Alaska’s innovative rural electric subsidy Power Cost Equalization program. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid by bringing it up to modern standards and enhancing resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disasters, climate change and rugged geographic terrain. These improvements are critical to preparing Alaska for a fuel-diverse clean energy future and integrating new sources of energy along the grid, which spans a distance equivalent to the space between Atlanta, GA and Washington, D.C. The benefit of this work reaches far beyond our state. The Railbelt grid supplies energy to five U.S. military bases of vital strategic importance to national security. These critical assets contribute to the national defense from a broad range of perspectives including missile defense, global telecommunications downlink infrastructure, and F-22 high-speed intercept capability. The Railbelt grid serves the Port of Alaska, a federally designated strategic seaport which provides virtually all of the cargo, food, fuel and building materials to the majority of Alaskans. And finally, the Railbelt grid serves Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport – the third busiest airport in the world in terms of cargo throughput. 2 With the U.S. Department of Energy as a partner, Alaska’s utilities and the State of Alaska will be positioned to demonstrate grid revitalization and decarbonization on a scale that can be replicated. Thank you for your consideration of this application. Consistent with applicable law, policy, and guidance, we respectfully ask that you give due consideration to the Matanuska Electric Association and AEA’s GRIP application. We ask that you keep our offices apprised of the outcome. 100 Cushman Street, Suite 102, Fairbanks, AK 99701 | www.fairbankschamber.org | 907-452-1105 April 3, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Re: FOA DE-FOA-0002740 To Whom it May Concern: We are writing today in support of the applications submitted by the members of the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1, 2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five railbelt electric utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization, which will directly benefit over 70% of the state’s population living connected to the railbelt grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern standards and creating resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disaster, climate change and rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing the state for the future and integrating new sources of energy, whatever they may be and wherever they are created. The Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce supports efficient, affordable and reliable power production for Interior Alaska. We have more than 600 members, and they rely on the Golden Valley Electric Association, one of the railbelt utilities, to power homes and businesses and drive manufacturing, support resource development and bolster community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. We hope the benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans, stimulates development opportunities and fosters growth. Sincerely, Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Jeremy Johnson Patrick Cotter President & CEO Board Chair Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 RE: Alaska’s Railbelt Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan To Whom It May Concern, The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a voluntary, nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide organization of 165 cities, boroughs, and unified municipalities, wherein over 97 percent of Alaskans reside. Since the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, AML has focused its efforts to support strategic regional projects that address the long-standing inadequacy of Alaska’s infrastructure. As part of this effort, we are proud to support projects that improve the condition of communities and intersect with Alaska’s municipalities. We are excited to see the proposed project for the Alaska Railbelt’s Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP) move forward. Working to decarbonize Alaska’s Railbelt grid is a particularly timely endeavor – state regulators have recently indicated that the natural gas supply that both power generation and other users rely on may not meet current demand within the next decade. This looming shortage puts economic activity throughout the state at risk by introducing long-term uncertainty to the key services that local governments and other organizations rely on from the Railbelt. With some of the highest energy prices in the country, solutions to control cost are a critical economic challenge facing Alaska’s communities and economic development. It’s important to note that in addressing costs on the Railbelt, these projects also stand to benefit communities across the state via the Power Cost Equalization program. The formula for this critical program ties subsidies for energy across the state to Railbelt prices – thus, if the cost of electricity on the Railbelt is lowered, it provides a greater subsidy to those communities who are experiencing high costs, and in effect lowering the cost to consumers. The GRMP is a strategic and collaborative effort that would go beyond the Railbelt to help make energy and the rural economies that depend on it more affordable and resilient. We fully support the GRMP and its associated projects. Sincerely, Nils Andreassen Executive Director 510 L Street, Suite 603, Anchorage, AK 99501 • 907-258-3700 • www.AEDCweb.com March 10, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Re: FOA DE-FOA-0002740 To Whom it May Concern: I’m writing today in support of the applications submitted by the members of Alaska’s Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1,2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five Railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s Alaska Energy Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will directly benefit over 70% of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the Railbelt. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern standards and bringing resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disaster, climate change and rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing Alaska for a fuel-diverse clean energy future and integrating new sources of energy, whatever they may be and wherever they are created. Anchorage Economic Development Corporation’s mission is to grow and diversify the economy of Anchorage and Alaska. The health and future success of the local economy relies on the Railbelt electric grid to power homes and businesses, drive manufacturing, support resource development and bolster community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. Going forward, we look forward to engaging with the utilities and the State and partnering to make sure the benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans. Thank you for your time and attention to Alaska’s infrastructure needs. You may reach me at 907-334-1206 or wpopp@aedcweb.com with any questions or requests for information. Sincerely, Bill Popp President & CEO March 10, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Re: FOA DE-FOA-0002740 Subject: Letter of Support for Alaska Railbelt GRIP Applications To Whom it May Concern: This letter expresses support for the applications submitted by the members of Alaska’s Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1, 2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s Alaska Energy Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will directly benefit over 70% of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the railbelt. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern standards and improving its resiliency against future natural disasters, climate change, and the ongoing challenges wrought by our rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing Alaska for a fuel-diverse clean energy future so new sources of energy can be fully integrated, whatever and wherever they may be. The Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) is a non-profit corporation certificated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) as the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) responsible for performing Integrated Resource Planning and developing and enforcing Reliability, Security, and Non- Discriminatory Open Access Transmission and Interconnection Standards for the railbelt bulk energy system. The capital projects proposed in the GRIP applications will directly impact the system under the RRC’s ERO jurisdiction. The RRC was certificated less than six months ago, and is still in the process of staffing and organizing. As such, the RRC cannot at this time render opinions on the specific projects included within the GRIP applications. The RRC can affirm that the existing Railbelt grid has multiple single contingency elements, capacity bottlenecks, and technical and operational constraints that prevent optimal dispatch of the region’s existing and potential future suite of generation resources. The RRC can also confirm that the existing Railbelt grid leaves some regions isolated for up to several months every year during periods of annual maintenance and, at times, for even longer due to natural disasters such as wildland fires. The projects within the GRIP applications will address these long-standing limitations, and the parties involved in developing the GRIP applications are the best-available team to advance current proposals GRIP Application Support letter March 10, 2023 Page 2 of 2 for railbelt system improvements to address these limitations. Over the timeframe that these capital projects would unfold, the RRC will become fully functional, implementing standards and integrated resource plans that will in time directly influence the refinement, execution, and operation of the capital upgrades proposed in the GRIP applications. The RRC Board of Directors is a balanced independent and stakeholder board whose directors represent the stakeholder interests of railbelt utilities, independent power producers, residential, industrial, and environmental consumers, and state agencies. The stakeholder interests represented on the RRC’s board individually and collectively rely on the railbelt electric grid to power homes and businesses, drive manufacturing, support resource development, and bolster community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. The RRC looks forward to continuing engagement with the utilities and the State in partnership to ensure the benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans. Thank you for your time and attention to Alaska’s infrastructure needs. You may reach me via e-mail with any questions or requests for information. Sincerely, RAILBELT RELIABILITY COUNCIL Joel D. Groves. P.E. President and Board Chair joel@polarconsult.net ALASKA JOINT ELECTRICAL APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING TRUST MELISSA CARESS Statewide Training Director Tom Cashen Training Center 5800 B Street Anchorage, AK 99518 Tel: (907) 337-9508 Fax: (907) 337-9500 CASEY PTACEK Training Coordinator Kornfeind Training Center 4782 Dale Road Fairbanks, AK 99709 Tel: (907) 479-4449 Fax: (907) 479-0425 May 18, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy  Grid Deployment Office   Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations  Re: FOA DE‐FOA‐0002740  To Whom it May Concern:  I’m writing today in support of the applications submitted by the members of Alaska’s Bradley Lake  Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1,2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation  Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five Railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s Alaska Energy  Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will  directly benefit over 75% of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural  Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the Railbelt.  This is a once‐in‐a‐generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern  standards and bringing resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disaster, climate change and  rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing  Alaska for a fuel‐diverse clean energy future and integrating new sources of energy, whatever they may  be and wherever they are created.  The Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship & Training Trust (AJEATT) is responsible for supplying  apprentice manpower to the IBEW Local 1547 and AK NECA. These organizations represent the majority  of the electrical work performed in the State of Alaska, whose members rely on the Railbelt electric grid  to power homes and businesses and drive manufacturing, support resource development and bolster  community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. Going  forward, we look forward to engaging with the utilities and the State and partnering to make sure the  benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans.   Thank you for your time and attention to Alaska’s infrastructure needs. You may reach me at   1‐907‐337‐9508, or melissa@ajeatt.org with any questions or requests for information.    Sincerely,  Melissa Caress  Statewide Training Director  AJEATT  Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 1 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES (SOPO) Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (RIR) A. OBJECTIVE The Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (RIR) aims to enhance resiliency and transfer capability among the three regions of the Railbelt. The Railbelt has experienced decreasing frequency regulation, slowed disturbance response and increasing magnitude natural frequency oscillations. The current configuration of the Railbelt system restricts the adoption of clean energy, diversification of the fuel supply, and Alaska’s preparation for a sustainable carbon-free future. A key priority to achieve this objective is to reinforce interconnections between the primary regions of the Railbelt by adding parallel lines and implementing Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) to resolve long-standing frequency control and instability issues. Alongside the High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable, these additions will alleviate transmission congestion and optimize interregional transfer capability. The project's innovative so lutions hold the promise of curbing escalating energy prices, which currently rank among the highest in the nation, while providing rural residents and disadvantaged communities with an opportunity to enhance community viability. Sharing these solutions with other communities will support collective efforts toward achieving clean, reliable, and affordable energy for all. B. SCOPE OF WORK The RIR project involves four primary components to meet the project’s objectives. The projects involve the interconnection of AC Transmission with a DC Bi-polar High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine circuit and three large capacity Battery Energy Storage systems (BESS). Coordinated interregional control and operations of the BESS and HVDC line will tie all the individual systems together to maximize stability and limit congestion. Phase 1 – New 230kV interconnection from Soldotna and Beluga to the terminals of the Phase 2 HVDC submarine cable) – these components are necessary to add a parallel interconnection between the Southern Region to the Central Region. Combined with the HVDC line they will provide a second path from the Southern Region to Central region that will provide redundancy and limit exposure to fire danger and avalanches and maintenance and construction outages which have been the major cause of system separation. Tying to Beluga is necessary to fully utilize the existing transmission connections to the Central and Northern Regions. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 2 Phase 2 - HVDC Submarine Circuit across Cook Inlet – The HVDC submarine Cable system provides for increased transfer capability and the ability to mitigate system stability challenges aiding in the elimination of interregional oscillations. Phase 3 - BESS units in both Central Northern Regions and Southern (existing) will work to control frequency caused by transmission line or generation trips from either unplanned unit trips or non-dispatchable power swings caused by wind and solar. The BESS units are necessary to fully integrate variable renewable generation and will work in concert with the HVDC controllers to minimize system oscillations. Phase 4 – New parallel interconnections between Central and Northern regions. Like Phase 1, the new path between the regions will not only improve resiliency and reliability but will increase energy transfer capability between the regions by 2-3 times. Providing a parallel path assures that all energy will continue to flow if the alternative path is lost. Major load swings between regions are also avoided by increasing system stability and allowing the lines to carry additional capacity reducing congestion. C. TASKS TO BE PERFORMED Task 1.0: Project Management and Planning (PMP): Subtask 1.1 – Project Management Plan (PMP): A PMP will be submitted within 60 days of the award. Subtask 1.2: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance The Applicant will undertake an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) with a lead agency (DOE) to identify and analyze possible adverse environmental impacts and investigate reasonable alternatives as appropriate. Subtask 1.3: Cybersecurity Plan (CSP) The Applicant will focus its efforts on protecting the Federal systems and its networks from cyber threats. The plan will incorporate processes to identify, investigate and mitigate threats from targeted phishing, denial of service attacks, and the introduction of malware into the system. A coordinated effort with the State, the utilities, and DOE will be undertaken to implement the tools necessary to provide continuous diagnostics and mitigation. The plan will be compliant with AKCIP standards. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 3 A full cybersecurity plan will be submitted during award negotiations and prior to receiving project funding. Subtask 1.4: Continuation Briefing(s): A continuation briefing will be done on an annual basis to explain the plans, progress, and results of the technical effort. Task 2.0: Preliminary Design, Community Benefit Plan (CBP) Outreach & Engineering – Design criteria for transmission lines, substations, submarine cable, converter stations, and BESS units. Subtask 2.1 – Risk Evaluation – Evaluate transmission components. Subtask 2.11 – Evaluate new transmission corridor for known events such as CBP input, avalanche, seismic, wildfire, heavy snow and ice loading. Subtask 2.12 – Evaluate subsea cable routing for CBP input, undersea obstructions, tidal currents, ice scouring, and Beluga whale migration. Subtask 2.13 – Evaluate BESS units for CBP input, fire suppression, temperature, and hazardous materials disposal. Subtask 2.2 – Design Criteria – Develop tailored and innovative design criteria to mitigate input and risks identified in 2.1. Evaluate alternative routing alignment as necessary. Subtask 2.3 – Preliminary Design – Engineer for submarine cable, converter stations, BESS units, foundations, anchors, guys, structure type, span length, conductor size, design, and sag. Evaluate potential right-of-way alignment, land ownership and permit requirements. Task 3.0: Public Notice – Provide public notice of intent to construct, provide data, seek input, and provide feedback. Adjust design and routing as necessary to secure permits. Task 4.0: Final Design & Engineering – Prepare final design documents for permitting and construction. Task 5.0: Permitting – Undertake EIS and apply for permits from appropriate agencies. Subtask 5.1 – Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 4 Subtask 5.2 – Scoping process –Federal agency begins the scoping process by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI). The NOI describes the project and provides background on potential impacts. The public provides comments on the proposed project, proposed alternatives, and environmental impacts. Applicant holds public meetings to obtain comments. Subtask 5.3 – Notice of Availability of Draft EIS – the Draft EIS presents, analyzes, and compares potential environmental impacts and proposed actions for mitigation. Subtask 5.4 – Notice of Availability of Final EIS – EIS prepared and distributed including comments from Draft EIS. Subtask 5.5 – Record of Decision – Notice of decision and rationale for decision giving factors such as cost, technical feasibility, agency and national objectives, and environmental impacts of any actions. Task 6.0: Procurement – Secure long-term materials such as submarine cable, inverters, converters, transformers, steel structures, and specialized equipment. Task 7.0: Construction – Undertake construction process Subtask 7.1 – Solicitation – prepare construction documents and evaluate most cost-effective method to seek bids. Subtask 7.2 – Award – Award contracts for construction Subtask 7.3 – Construction Management – Initiate project management office Subtask 7.4 – Construction Close Out Process Task 8.0: Testing & Commissioning – Undertake final inspection, energization, and cutovers as necessary. D. DELIVERABLES I. Management Reporting a. Progress Report b. Project Management Plan (PMP) c. Cybersecurity Plan d. Continuation Briefings II. Financial Reporting Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 5 III. Closeout Reporting E. BREIFINGS/TECHNCIAL PRESENTATIONS Briefings and technical presentations will be prepared as requested by the Federal Project Officer which may include a kickoff briefing, pre-continuation briefing, final project briefing and other technical, financial and/or administrative briefings as requested by the DOE. Award Number: Award Recipient: (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $103,376,300 $103,250,000 $206,626,300 49.97%1/1/2024-12/30/2025 Budget Period 2 $103,348,768 $103,250,000 $206,598,768 49.98%1/1/2026-12/30/2027 Budget Period 3 $102,801,234 $103,250,000 $206,051,234 50.11%1/1/2028-12/30/2029 Budget Period 4 $103,473,699 $103,250,000 $206,723,699 49.95%1/1/2030-12/30/2031 Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $413,000,000 $413,000,000 $826,000,000 50.00% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $3,249,314 $3,379,287 $3,509,259 $3,639,232 $0 $13,777,092 1.67% b. Fringe Benefits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% c. Travel $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $0 $470,400 0.06% d. Equipment $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0.01% e. Supplies $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $320,000 0.04% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Contractor $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 97.81% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 97.81% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $205,813,974 $205,753,946 $205,173,919 $205,813,891 $0 $822,555,729 99.58% i. Indirect Charges $812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 0.42% Total Costs $206,626,300 $206,598,768 $206,051,234 $206,723,699 $0 $826,000,000 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! Do not modify this template or any cells for formulas! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, contractors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows and columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 24 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 Sr. Engineer (EXAMPLE!!!)2000 $85.00 $170,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 2400 $190,000 2 Technicians (2)4000 $20.00 $80,000 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 4000 $80,000 1 thru 8 Contracting Officer 390 84.31 $32,881 390 $87.68 $34,196 390 $91.05 $35,511 390 $94.43 $36,827 - $0.00 $0 1560 $139,415 1 thru 8 Contracting Officer 1170 84.31 $98,643 1170 $87.68 $102,588 1170 $91.05 $106,534 1170 $94.43 $110,480 - $0.00 $0 4680 $418,245 1 thru 8 Executive Director 390 181.61 $70,828 390 $188.87 $73,661 390 $196.14 $76,494 390 $203.40 $79,327 - $0.00 $0 1560 $300,310 1 thru 8 Communication Director 1170 96.32 $112,694 1170 $100.17 $117,202 1170 $104.03 $121,710 1170 $107.88 $126,218 - $0.00 $0 4680 $477,824 1 thru 8 GIS 780 77.49 $60,442 780 $80.59 $62,860 780 $83.69 $65,278 780 $86.79 $67,695 - $0.00 $0 3120 $256,275 1 thru 8 Owned Assets Director 975 154.49 $150,628 975 $160.67 $156,653 975 $166.85 $162,678 975 $173.03 $168,703 - $0.00 $0 3900 $638,662 1 thru 8 Senior Infrastructure Engineer 1560 109.26 $170,446 1560 $113.63 $177,263 1560 $118.00 $184,081 1560 $122.37 $190,899 - $0.00 $0 6240 $722,689 1 thru 8 Infrastructure Engineer 1560 104.28 $162,677 1560 $108.45 $169,184 1560 $112.62 $175,691 1560 $116.79 $182,198 - $0.00 $0 6240 $689,750 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 150.00 $585,000 3,900 $156.00 $608,400 3,900 $162.00 $631,800 3,900 $168.00 $655,200 - $0.00 $0 15600 $2,480,400 1 thru 8 Environmental Engineer 3,900 150.00 $585,000 3,900 $156.00 $608,400 3,900 $162.00 $631,800 3,900 $168.00 $655,200 - $0.00 $0 15600 $2,480,400 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 104.28 $406,692 3,900 $108.45 $422,960 3,900 $112.62 $439,227 3,900 $116.79 $455,495 - $0.00 $0 15600 $1,724,374 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 104.28 $406,692 3,900 $108.45 $422,960 3,900 $112.62 $439,227 3,900 $116.79 $455,495 - $0.00 $0 15600 $1,724,374 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 104.28 $406,692 3,900 $108.45 $422,960 3,900 $112.62 $439,227 3,900 $116.79 $455,495 - $0.00 $0 15600 $1,724,374 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Total Personnel Costs 27495 $3,249,314 27495 $3,379,287 27495 $3,509,259 27495 $3,639,232 0 $0 109980 $13,777,092 Additional Explanation (as needed): Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and contractors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base hourly rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., rate negotiated for each hour worked on the project, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate BasisProject Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total EXAMPLE!!! Sr. Engineer $170,000 20%$34,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $38,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): Please use this box (or an attachment) to list the elements that comprise your fringe benefits and how they are applied to your base (e.g. Personnel) to arrive at your fringe benefit rate. INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. ______ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* ______ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at https://www.energy.gov/eere/funding/downloads/sample-indirect-rate-proposal-and-profit-compliance-audit , or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 1 EXAMPLE!!! Visit to PV manufacturer 2 2 $250 $500 $100 $160 $2,020 Current GSA rates 1 and 2 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 1 and 2 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 1 and 2 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 1 and 2 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel 3 and 4 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 3 and 4 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 3 and 4 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 3 and 4 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel 5 and 6 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 5 and 6 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 5 and 6 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 5 and 6 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel 7 and 8 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 7 and 8 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 7 and 8 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 7 and 8 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $470,400 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Only travel that is directly associated with this award should be included as a direct travel cost to the award. 4. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. 5. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 6. Columns E, F, G, H, I, J, and K are per trip. 7. The number of days is inclusive of the day of departure and the day of return. 8. Recipients should enter City and State (or City and Country for International travel) in the Depart from and Destination fields. 9. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3,4,5 EXAMPLE!!! Thermal shock chamber 2 $70,000 $140,000 Vendor Quote - Attached Reliability testing of PV modules- Task 4.3 1,2 Office set-up 10 $10,000 $100,000 Previous experience 10 new staff office set-up $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL EQUIPMENT $100,000 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. contractor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a contractor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the contractor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a contractor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 4,6 EXAMPLE!!! Wireless DAS components 10 $360.00 $3,600 Catalog price For Alpha prototype - Task 2.4 1,2 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $80,000 3,4 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $80,000 5,6 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $80,000 7,8 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL SUPPLIES $320,000 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. contractor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Sub-Recipient Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 2,4 EXAMPLE!!! XYZ Corp.Partner to develop optimal lens for Gen 2 product. Cost estimate based on personnel hours. $48,000 $32,000 $16,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 6 Contractor for developing robotics to perform lens inspection. Estimate provided by contractor. $32,900 $86,500 $119,400 1 thru 8 State of Alaska or competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $0 $1,600,000 1 thru 8 Competitive bid $42,059 $42,059 $42,059 $42,059 $168,237 2,3,4 Competitive bid $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000 2 thru 8 Competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,600,000 2,3,4 Lands Consultant Competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,600,000 2 thru 7 Labor/Governmental Consulting Competitive bid $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $900,000 1 thru 8 Project Coordination Committee Competitive bid $600,000 $600,000 $60,000 $600,000 $1,860,000 1 thru 8 Contractor Federal Project Reporting Competitive bid $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $600,000 2 thru 7 Contractor Projects Competitive bid $199,500,000 $199,500,000 $199,500,000 $199,500,000 $0 $798,000,000 2 thru 8 Accounting & Auditing Services Competitive bid $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $600,000 4,5 Insurance Consultant Competitive bid $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $130,000 4,5 Competitive bid $200,000 $200,000 $30,000 $0 $430,000 Sub-total $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237Total Contractual Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to sub-recipients, contractors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Sub-recipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 25% of total award costs. These sub-recipient forms may be completed by either the sub-recipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the sub-recipient's forms must match the sub-recipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. contractor status. 3. Contractors: List all contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Contractor cost with total project costs of $100,000 or more, a Contractor quote must be provided. A contractor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs.contractor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Contractor Name/Organization EXAMPLE!!! ABC Corp. Legal Services Public Relations Firm Cultural Consultation Design & Engineering Consultant NEPA Consultant FFRDC Name/Organization SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3 EXAMPLE ONLY!!! Three days of excavation for platform site $28,000 Engineering estimate Site must be prepared for construction of platform. Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a contractor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 5 EXAMPLE!!! Grad student tuition - tasks 1-3 $16,000 Established UCD costs Support of graduate students working on project Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 25.00%25.00%25.00%25.00%0.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $0 Total indirect costs requested:$812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim resulting cost as a Cost Share contribution, nor can the Recipient claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution . Neither of these costs can be reflected as actual indirect cost rates realized by the orgnaization, and therefore are not verifiable in the Recipient records as required by Federal Regulation (200.306(b)(1)) 5.. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE AEA is in the process of developing an indirect cost allocation plan (ICAP) and is working with independent contractor to develop a cost model to track and allocate indirect costs for federal cost recovery. AEA will seek approval of the ICAP by their cognizant agency as required. AEA understands that this process will take up to two years for development of the ICAP and the required approval. Currently, AEA utilized the 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). AEA fully expects to have an approved ICAP and indirect cost rate by July 1, 2025 and therefore, for budgetary purposes only, AEA has used an estimated rate of 25%. AEA will only request reimbursement based on the 10% de minimis rate or an approved indirect cost rate. Detailed Budget Justification You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. Example: Labor + Fringe ______ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. __X____ The organization does not have a current, federally approved indirect cost rate agreement and has provided an indirect rate proposal in support of the proposed costs. __X____ This organization has elected to apply a 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 State of Alaska 413000000 Subject to legislative approval, the state of Alaska will invest in this project $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $413,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SHARE $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $0 $413,000,000 $826,000,000 50.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 $103,376,300 $103,250,000 $206,626,300 2.Budget Period 2 $103,348,768 $103,250,000 $206,598,768 3.Budget Period 3 $102,801,234 $103,250,000 $206,051,234 4.Budget Period 4 $103,473,699 $103,250,000 $206,723,699 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $413,000,000 $413,000,000 $826,000,001 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $3,249,314 $3,379,287 $3,509,259 $3,639,232 $0 $13,777,092 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $0 $470,400 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $320,000 $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $205,813,974 $205,753,946 $205,173,919 $205,813,891 $0 $822,555,729 $812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 $206,626,300 $206,598,768 $206,051,234 $206,723,699 $0 $826,000,000 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:0 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Abstract The Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) is a crucial initiative aimed at building a resilient, clean, smart, and affordable electrical grid in Alaska. The project involves constructing new transmission lines, providing a looped transmission feed to the DOD ground-based missile defense facility at Fort Greeley, interconnecting the Copper Valley Electric Association with the Railbelt grid, and incorporating Battery Energy Storage (BESS) and a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable installed in a challenging marine environment. One of the primary objectives of the RIR is to address various challenges facing the electrical grid in the three Railbelt regions of Alaska. These challenges include decreasing system frequency regulation, slowing frequency response to disturbances, and increasing natural frequency power oscillations. To overcome these challenges, the project emphasizes the need for BESS and a new transmission line between the Northern, Central, and Southern regions of the Railbelt system. Not only will these projects solve the challenges above they will increase interregional transfer capacity, fuel supply diversity, interregional resilience and reliability, lower carbon emissions, reduce costs, and incentivize the introduction additional private sector clean energy projects into the Railbelt. Finally, they will allow for unconstrained interregional capacity planning and operation. The RIR work plan involves four phases, each with its own set of objectives and steps involved in construction, including permitting, routing, right-of-way access, and material delivery. The technical aspects of structure placement, soil conditions, foundation, and anchor design, as well as the switching and protection schemes required for the project, are also discussed. The RIR is a unique partnership between relevant decision makers in the Railbelt, including the State of Alaska, Railbelt Electric Cooperatives, Railbelt municipal utility, utility regulator, and labor unions. The project will incentivize wise transmission investment through innovative rate-making techniques. Furthermore, it will have a direct positive impact on tribal and disadvantaged communities within the Railbelt and rural Power Cost Equalization communities. Federal grant funding is critical to the success of the project. Without the significant rate increases that would negatively affect all ratepayers and would disproportionately affect disadvantaged and underserved communities, the investment required for this project exceeds the abilities of the Railbelt utilities, private sector, and the State. REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Prime Applicant: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Project Title: Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Total Project Costs $826 M Federal Share $413 M Match $413 M Executive Director Principal Investigator •Curtis Thayer •Bryan Carey Key Personnel •William Price •Clay Christian •Mark Ziesmer •Karin St. Clair Key Partners •Chugach Electric Association, Inc. •Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. •Homer Electric Association, Inc. •Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. •The City of Seward, Alaska dba Seward Electric System •Regulatory Commission of Alaska Proposed Project Duration •96 months REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR-The Project) aims to build a resilient, clean, smart, and low-cost electrical grid in Alaska. •The Project is part of the Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan to build a fuel-diverse, low-carbon economy in the Alaskan Railbelt. •The Project involves building new transmission lines, looped transmission feed to Fort Greeley, interconnecting Copper Valley Electric Association, and incorporating BESS and HVDC submarine cable. •BESS installations are needed to address challenges in the electrical grid such as decreasing system frequency regulation, slow frequency response to disturbances, and increasing natural frequency power oscillations. •New transmission is needed to allow for renewable resource development and eliminate constraints on renewable energy development in the Railbelt. •Objectives of the RIR and GMRP include increasing interregional transfer capability, resiliency, reliability, and reducing carbon emissions. •Unique partnership between all relevant decision-makers in the Railbelt includes the State of Alaska, Railbelt Electric Cooperatives, Railbelt municipal utility, utility regulator, and labor unions. •The Team has decades of experience in transmission line construction and operations including HV AC submarine cables, BESS installations, and power electronics like those used in HVDC-Ac converters. •The project will incentivize wise transmission investment through innovative rate-making techniques. •Federal grant funding is critical to the project's success as the investment required exceeds the abilities of the Railbelt utilities and the State, in the absence of significant rate increases that would disproportionately affect the disadvantaged and underserved. •The Project has significant community benefit to underserved, disadvantaged, and tribal communities throughout the Railbelt and to all Alaska through the Power Cost Equalization fund. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Community Benefits Plan : Job Quality and Equity The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, completed in 1991, brought together the State of Alaska (dba Alaska Energy Authority) and six of the Railbelt’s utility providers: 1) Chugach Electric Association, 2) Golden Valley Electric Association, 3) Homer Electric Association, 4) Matanuska Electric Association, 5) Seward Electric System, and 6) Municipal Light and Power1. The first four are member-owned cooperatives; Seward Electric System is owned and operated by City of Seward. Anchorage’s Municipal Light and Power was subsequently acquired by Chugach Electric Association. Together they provide approximately 80% of Alaska’s electricity.2 The State and these utilities have developed an efficient partnership through management and operation of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Acting jointly, they assembled a project team (the Team) and have drafted a Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP), which seeks to update Alaska’s outdated grid infrastructure in order to unconstrain the Bradley Lake project (the Project), improve the resiliency of power delivery from the Project and throughout the grid, reduce carbon emissions, ease the entry barriers to other clean power projects, and lighten the energy burden for three quarters of Alaska’s population. Included in GMRP is the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency (RIR) project—the subject of this application. In this funding cycle, the RIR seeks to construct an interregional transmission line (including a high voltage direct current submarine cable) parallel to the line that currently ties together the Railbelt’s Southern and Central regions, an interregional transmission line parallel to the line that currently ties the Central and Northern regions together, as well as two Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). In a future funding cycle, the RIR includes a transmission line from the Central region to the Copper Valley system, and on to the Ground Based Missile Defense System at Fort Greely in the Northern region. RIR is coordinated with, but distinct from, the Team’s requests in GRIP Topic Areas 1 and 2. The group’s GRIP Topic Area 1 proposal seeks to reconstruct the existing transmission system backbone, while our Topic Area 2 proposal seeks to design and procure the interregional battery-HVDC control and monitoring system. Given the interconnectedness of these three projects (which, taken together, compose the GMRP), community vetting for all three projects will be completed through a single coordinated public outreach effort as outlined below. 1. Community and Labor Engagement The Team recognizes that broad support for GMRP is necessary for successful project implementation. An effective public participation process draws on diverse perspectives from a broad cross-section of stakeholders. The Team looks forward to incorporating this public knowledge into both GMRP and RIR. The five utilities will form hubs for this process, since their properties will host many of the physical improvements and they already possess open communication channels with relevant stakeholders. Hiring a contractor to complete the GMRP 1 In 2020, Chugach Electric acquired Municipal Light and Power 2Alaska’s Energy Infrastructure | REAP (https://alaskarenewableenergy.org/ppf/alaskas-energy-infrastructure) 2 public participation plan is anticipated to cost $120,000. This cost is included in the project budget. GMRP Public Participation Plan Phase 1: Draft GMRP Public Participation Plan (1st and 2nd quarter 2024). Assuming we are selected for federal financial assistance and matching funds are in place, the Team intends to complete the following deliverables by 3rd quarter 20243: 1. 1. Define purpose and goals of GMRP public participation plan. 2. 2. Select the team members to manage the GMRP public participation plan. 3. 3. Select consulting firm to assist with GMRP public participation plan. 4. 4. Select environmental consultant to complete EIS for underwater HVDC submarine cable portion of RIR and field related stakeholder questions/input. 5. 5. Identify stakeholder groups affected by GMRP. 6. Draft stakeholder engagement strategies and outreach media. Include strategies designed to ensure participation from minority groups and disadvantaged communities affected by project. 7. Draft sample graphics and key messages. A focus group will be used to test the effectiveness of these materials on diverse populations. 8. Draft SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility) goals, including potential support for creation of minority business enterprises in disadvantaged communities; and SMART commitments to workers, stakeholders, and those vulnerable to project activities, including a commitment that work performed with GRIP funding will be done in compliance with Alaska public contracting law. 9. Finalize public participation plan schedule. 10. Launch GMRP website with public meeting schedule, GMRP description, and public comment section. This website will remain live until at least January 2031. Phase 2: Implement GMRP Public Participation Plan (2nd quarter 2024). The Alaska Energy Authority, representing the State of Alaska, is the lead applicant for this project. They are accustomed to engaging with local governments and tribal entities regarding permitting and regulatory processes for capital projects. Under the GMRP public participation plan, these conversations will begin early to inform project development in response to local communities’ needs and concerns. The Team believes that local governments and tribal entities are uniquely situated to identify actions the project can take to advance progressive workforce, DEIA, and environmental justice outcomes at the community level. Certain local meeting series may be accelerated as needed to allow time for sufficient public participation in individual projects represented in GMRP (such as RIR) that may be ready for construction as early as spring 2024. 3 All dates are subject to revision based on grant award date and the timing of successful obtainment of matching funds. 3 AEA will work closely with each utility provider to determine the appropriate time and setting for each community visit, taking care to avoid conflicts with other events. When possible, the AEA will use existing community events and meetings to gather input. The core team will devote special attention to ensuring diverse demographic participation at all meetings, including hosting all meetings outside of working hours. Task 1: Introductory Work Sessions (2nd or 3rd quarter 2024). Each of the five utility providers will host an introductory public work session. These work sessions will be advertised at least two weeks in advance via social media, public postings, utility cooperative mailers, text messages, and the GMRP website. Topics will include: Task 2: Data Collection and Materials Refinement (2nd or 3rd quarter 2024) A series of core team meetings will be held to refine the GMRP public participation plan in light of feedback gathered during initial work sessions. At this point, deadlines and core team leads will be decided for the following deliverables: 1. Conduct data collection and research as needed (including surveys) to address data gaps identified by the public. Surveys will be distributed electronically or made available at key community locations. We would not expect to get a statistically valid sample of the entire Railbelt population but enough feedback to assess community perspectives from a cross-section of stakeholders. 1. Review the GMRP: Communicate what it encompasses, costs, and its projected timeline and potential impacts; Identify stakeholders affected and their various value propositions; Provide extra detail about projects in GMRP that are shovel ready such as segments of RIR included in this GRIP application. 2. Communicate how the public can learn more, track project progress, and how their feedback will be used. 3. Share success stories as well as lessons learned from other electrical infrastructure upgrades conducted on the Railbelt. 4. Discuss structure of the Team and the roles and responsibilities of the six parties that constitute it. 5. Discuss metrics that will be used to measure the success of GMRP implementation. 6. Share proposed list of community organizations with whom the Team will conduct one-on-one outreach meetings, with an emphasis on organizations that serve disadvantaged populations. Solicit suggestions for additional organizations. 7. Present and solicit feedback on SMART DEIA goals, including support for creation of minority business enterprises in disadvantaged communities, and SMART commitments to workers, stakeholders, and those vulnerable to project activities, as developed during Phase 1. 8. Identify areas where stakeholders wish to have more data or information via questions like: “What should the Team consider that we haven't covered today?” “What information would you like to see at a future meeting?” “What additional questions do you have?” 9. Query and catalog any public concerns regarding the project. 4 2. Develop ArcGIS Online mapping tool for GMRP website. By hosting an interactive map of the project, the Team can solicit public comments that are geocoded by location, allowing identification of site-specific issues, needs, and themes. 3. Minutes from introductory work sessions as well as public comments from GMRP website coalesced to capture key themes and messages and posted to website. 4. Finalize: List of organizations with which to conduct one-on-one work sessions; SMART DEIA goals; SMART commitments. As part of this task, the core team will continue to utilize various stakeholder engagement tools to share project information, promote opportunities to get involved, and invite public input. Task 3: One-on-One Organizational Work Sessions and “Going to the People” (no later than 1st quarter 2025) Task 4: Public Feedback Sharing (3rdquarter 2024) 4 Asterisked organizations are those with whom preliminary contact about GMRP ha s already been made. 1. Work sessions with relevant organizations will be conducted. Early engagement with these groups will guide GMRP revisions and establish constructive relationships, as many of these groups will be critical partners throughout GMRP implementation. Discussion topics to include: environmental impacts (particularly around HVDC submarine cable included in RIR), viewshed impacts, subsistence impacts, state and federal land management, Power Cost Equalization, workforce development (including apprenticeships), support for minority business enterprises, DEIA recruitment, DEIA workplace policies, and state legislation. These meetings will follow the same template as the intro public work sessions (Task 1), communicating an overview of GMRP and inviting organizations to provide feedback. Minutes will be recorded. Examples of relevant organizations and Minority Serving Institutions with whom meetings will be sought include: Alaska Federation of Natives, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative*, University of Alaska, Alaska Pacific University, Alaska Black Caucus*, RurAL CAP, Alaska Municipal League*, IBEW Local 1547*, IUOE Local 302*, Alaska State Office of Veterans Affairs, Alaska Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association*, Alaska Operating Engineers Training Trust*, Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship & Training Trust*, Railbelt Tribal councils, and Railbelt City Councils.4 A. In addition to NEPA Process requirements, meetings will be sought with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Kenaitze and Knik Tribal Councils to discuss best practices to minimize environmental impacts from the placing of a submarine HVDC cable through Cook Inlet, which is home to an endangered population of Beluga whales. 2. Additional outreach will be conducted at existing meetings in each project area, such as: Tribal Council meetings, City Council meetings, and Chamber of Commerce lunches. Outreach will also be conducted in more informal settings in an attempt to recruit a more diverse group of stakeholders. The Team refers to this process as “G2P” or “Going to the People”. Examples of events suitable for G2P include: Alaska Federation of Natives Convention, Alaska Black Caucus Sunday night Zoom meetings, Alaska State Fair, community farmers’ markets, Juneteenth programming, Alaska Federation of Filipino Americans programming, Sportsman shows, music festivals, and more. 5 A second round of public meetings will be hosted by the five utilities as well as Alaska Energy Authority. Topics will include: Task 5: Internal GMRP Finalization (3rd quarter 2024) The Team will meet to discuss the Public Feedback Sharing and assign task leads for the following deliverables: Task 6: Board/Leadership Presentations (4th quarter 2024) 2. Investing in the American Workforce Alaska’s Economy Relies on the Railbelt RIR and GMRP will provide significant secondary benefits to most sectors of Alaska’s economy. In addition to serving as home to three quarters of Alaska’s population, the Railbelt, and 1. Recap GMRP purpose, goals, and timeline. 2. Themes and key takeaways from introductory work sessions, one-on-one org meetings, G2P events, and survey results. 3. Share SMART DEIA goal revisions and SMART commitments revisions. 4. Have stations set up around different topics: Participants can walk from station to station to learn about different elements of the project such as submarine HVDC cable, timeline, DEIA goals, labor commitments, environmental impacts, employment opportunities, homeowner impacts, and ask questions of project staff about the areas they are most interested in. 5. Demonstration and launch of ArcGIS mapping tool on GMRP website. 6. Request for additional feedback or concerns not captured thus far. 7. Minutes from this meeting will be posted to GMRP website. 1. GMRP final draft with incorporated stakeholder feedback. 2. Final draft of SMART DEIA goals and SMART commitments. 1. Final draft GMRP, SMART DEIA goals, and SMART commitments presented to each utility board and AEA leadership by the Team. Requested changes catalogued in detail. 2. Core Team meetings to incorporate requested changes from utility boards and AEA leadership. If funded through this application, these changes will be considered only whe re doing so allows GMRP to remain in compliance with Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office DE -FOA-0002740 job equality and equity, community and labor engagement, quality jobs, and DEIA requirements. 3. Revised final draft GMRP, SMART DEIA goals, and SMART commitments (including commitment to comply with State of Alaska public contracting law) presented to each board and AEA leadership. Presentations to focus on requested changes from previous meeting, and whether those changes were implemented. Each board will be asked to ratify these documents. If they do not approve the revised final drafts, a second round of edits and board presentations will be scheduled. 4. The board-ratified GMRP, SMART DEIA goals, and SMART commitments will be posted to the GMRP website. Outreach media—including emails to those who attended the previous two public meetings—will direct the public to these finalized documents. 6 particularly Anchorage, is the economic heart of Alaska, shunting labor, supplies, and goods to and from all corners of the state. While a quantitative analysis of the impact of the Railbelt on Alaska’s state economy lies outside the scope of this Community Benefits Plan, the magnitude of its import can be illustrated through a quick overview of the Port of Alaska, a potential beneficiary of this project as a customer of Chugach Electric Association: The Port of Alaska, located in Anchorage, is a federally designated Strategic Seaport, and serves 90% of Alaska’s population. It receives 50% of all freight shipped into Alaska by all modes (marine, truck, and air), and supports $14 billion of commercial activity in Alaska.5 74% of all waterborne freight and ninety-five percent of refined petroleum products entering the state are shipped through the Port of Alaska. This includes 100 % of the jet fuel supplied to Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson and 66 % of the jet fuel for Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport6, which is, as of April 2022, the third busiest cargo airport in the world.7 Despite its importance to the statewide economy, the Port of Alaska, like the rest of the Railbelt, is served by inadequate electrical infrastructure. Tony Izzo, general manager of Matanuska Electrical Authority, said: “We have one of the most fragile systems in the United States. I don’t refer to the Alaska Railbelt as first-world, because it’s not.”8 Unlike the contiguous forty-eight states, Alaska has received minimal federal investment in grid development. The Eklutna Hydroelectric Project, constructed in the 1950s, was the last major federal project in the Railbelt that included a transmission line component; RIR would change that. Employment at Chugach Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, and Seward Electric System More granularly, investment in RIR and GMRP will retain high-quality jobs with employer sponsored benefits at all five Railbelt utilities by creating new infrastructure that will require operation and maintenance for the next 25 years, as well as prepare the Railbelt grid for the development of low carbon energy infrastructure projects. Approximately 650 of the 1,100 total employees who work at these five utilities belong to labor unions.9 In addition, virtually all of the contractors that support the utilities are signatory to collective bargaining agreements. Alaska is not a Right to Work state; utility employees whose positions are covered by bargaining unit agreements are required to join unions consistent with those agreements. These are highly skilled and highly paid positions: the average wage of a journeyman lineman at these utilities ranges from $54.40 to $58.00 an hour. The utilities sponsor the following benefits: medical, dental, vision, life insurance, defined contribution retirement plans, 401(k), pension, short -term disability, long/short-term disability, tuition reimbursement, paid time off, and paid holidays. The 659 unionized workers these utilities employ suggests they possess access to sufficient supplies 5 Port of Alaska in Anchorage, The Logistical and Economic Advantages of Alaska's Primary Inbound Port, McDowell Group, October 2020. 6 Ten Year Tonnage Summary | Port of Alaska in Anchorage 7 Alaska Business Monthly, 04/13/23, "ANC Ranks 3rd in the World for Air Cargo" 8 Anchorage Daily News, 03/12/23, "Railbelt utilities again scramble to fill expected Cook Inlet gas shortages" 9 Email correspondence with Reagan M. Russel (see footnote 12); Justin Patterson (see footnote 13); phone correspondence with Charlene Flyum, (907)235-3369, Human Resources, Homer Electric Association, Friday, March 10, 2023 9:26 AM; Candice Strandberg, Human Resources, Chugach Electric Association, (907)762-4788, Friday, March 10, 2023, 9:16 AM; and Rob Montgomery, General Manager, Seward Electric System, (907)224-4073, Wednesday, March 8, 2023, 3:10 PM. 7 of skilled labor, while their longstanding track records of providing power to Alaska residents in remote and difficult environments demonstrates they are responsible employers. For perspective, each of these utilities is significantly older than the State of Alaska (which achieved statehood in 1959). Their years of founding are CEA: 1948; GVEA: 1947; HEA: 1945; MEA: 1941; and SES: 1921.10 Importantly, the Team includes the State of Alaska dba Alaska Energy Authority. With State support affirmed in this way, the GMRP public participation plan anticipates no issues establishing partnerships with tribal entities, local governments, and other State of Alaska departments with the goal of matching progressive workforce solutions to project needs. The Team has long-term relationships with organized labor in Alaska. They have used project labor agreements in the past for projects of this scale, such as construction of the Alaska Intertie. Each of the utilities has collective bargaining agreements with IBEW, among other unions. As outlined in detail in the GMRP public participation plan (Section 1), The Team plans to engage its labor partners early to initiate discussions around labor agreements, local and targeted hiring goals, card-check neutrality, and programs to attract, train, and retain new workers. HR directors at these utilities confirmed that their organizations possess plans to minimize the risk of labor disputes via contracts with “appropriate grievance resolution stipulations”11 and a staffed position of “Labor Relations Program Manager”.12 Melinda Taylor, Communications Director at IBEW Local 1547, wrote: “We would generally consider our relationship with each utility to be positive. We work well with each of these utilities and understand that the success of our membership is tied to the success of each utility. Because we have separate collective bargaining agreements with each utility (some of these utilities have multiple CBAs), the applicable work rules and expectations are much clearer than if there were no CBA in place. For these reasons, we believe that the IBEW is well-positioned to maintain strong labor relations with our partner utilities throughout any Railbelt grid modernization and revitalization projects.”13 Work performed with GRIP funding will be done in compliance with Alaska public contracting law, which contains provisions for local hire, apprenticeship training, prevailing wages and other forward-looking policies. Alaska has a unique labor market that results in construction employees on projects of this scale being dispatched by organized labor and benefiting from registered apprenticeship programs represented by the Alaska Apprenticeship Training Coordinators Association (AATCA). AATCA, composed of 16 different construction trades, is a member of the Alaska Works Partnership, a non-profit organization focused solely on getting Alaskans into careers in the construction industry. Alaska Works is jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the North American Building Trades Unions. By 10 Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association Inc., Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., and phone call with Rob Montgomery, General Manager, Seward Electric System, (907)2 24- 4073, Wednesday, March 8, 2023, 3:10 PM 11 Email correspondence between Reagan M. Russell, RMRussel@gvea.com, Human Resources at Golden Valley Electric Association, and Clare Boersma, clareboersma@northerncompassgroup.com, Monday, March 6, 2023, 10:39 AM. 12 Email correspondence between Justin Patterson, justin.patterson@mea.coop, Human Resources at Matanuska Electric Association, and Clare Boersma, clareboersma@northerncompassgroup.com, Monday, March 9, 2023, 3:27 PM. 13 Email correspondence between Melinda Taylor, mtaylor@ibew1547.org, Communications Director IBEW 1547, and Clare Boersma, clareboersma@northerncompassgroup.com, Tuesday, March 7, 2023, 6:00 PM. 8 complying with Alaska public contracting law and engaging registered apprentices in this project, the Team is assured of accessing the resources brought to bear by the Alaska Works Partnership in support of local hire, veteran hire, and as diverse a workforce as Alaska has to offer. Tasks Related to Quality Jobs 3. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) It is a fundamental policy of all five Railbelt utilities and Alaska Energy Authority to assure equal opportunity in employment to all individuals regardless of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, genetic information, veteran status, or disability. Each utility provides reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees who need them because of a disability or to practice their religion. They maintain strict policies fostering safe, inclusive workplaces free of discrimination and harassment. Hiring practices and standard operating procedures comply with all Local, State, and Federal laws. Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Homer Electric Association and Golden Valley Electric Association are federal contractors. The lone utility which is not—Seward Electric System—only has 10 employees. As federal contractors these utilities are subject to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ requirements for hiring and adhering to an Affirmative Action Plan. Alaska offers significant opportunities to engage underserved populations, including Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, and veterans. The GMRP public participation plan is designed to identify workforce partnerships to encourage participation of these and similar communities in the project, including meetings with organizations representing DACs to discuss how GMRP can best utilize and support minority business enterprises (MBEs), focus groups including minority populations to test communication materials effectiveness, “Going to the People” public outreach that target events with diverse populations, and hosting all public meetings after work to reduce barriers to participation. The Team will measure DEIA goals against data collected by Team HR departments related to workforce (including contractors), veteran status, ethnicity, gender, and disability status. Finalized DEIA goals will be evaluated against this dataset. Potential programs to increase diversity among project beneficiaries include affirmative action, scholarships, and anti-bias trainings for hirers. The Team’s members support continued development of a skilled, inclusive local workforce via the IBEW-NECA Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust, individual utility training programs, and the University of Alaska System. Under Task 3 of the GMRP public participation plan, meetings will be held between the Team, the Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust (AJEATT) and other relevant local training trusts. These meetings will assess how the apprenticeship programs these organizations offer serve workers facing systematic barriers to employment, and how to reduce those barriers through GMRP implementation. Given assumptions of a 1-cent/kWh reduction in the cost of power, cumulative annual benefits from the project in the form of reduced energy burdens of $18,215,330 will flow to DACs or Tribal 1. The Team will conduct one-on-one work sessions with IBEW Local 1547 and other relevant labor organizations about GMRP and input their feedback into the finalized plan. 2. The Team will meet with tribal entities, local governments, and State of Alaska departments to implement progressive workforce-related solutions into GMRP. 9 lands. For more detail on these benefits, see Section 4: “Project Benefits for Disadvantaged Communities”. Tasks Related to DEIA 1. Host public meetings outside of working hours; test communication materials on minority populations for effectiveness; target diverse populations with “G2P” outreach. 2. Invite one-on-one organizational meetings with organizations representing DACs affected by project, including tribal councils, Alaska Black Caucus, and Alaska Federation of Natives. 3. Share and refine SMART DEIA goals during GMRP public participation plan, including support for MBEs. 4. Assess how AOEETT and AJEATT apprenticeship programs serve workers facing systematic barriers to employment; implement improvements. 5. Collect data on workforce veteran status, ethnicity, gender, and disability throughout GMRP implementation. 6. Use collected data to evaluate success of DEIA goals throughout GRIP performance period. 4. Justice40 Initiative AEA is a state entity with obligations to the public interest, while the utilities are member-owned cooperatives (one is municipal with responsibilities to the city’s residents). GMRP’s public participation plan is designed to encourage local governments and tribes to identify actions the project can take to advance environmental justice in their individual communities through this project. This includes directing benefits to DACs and minority owned businesses through labor agreements, training programs, and reduced long-term energy burdens and CO2 emissions. The most significant potential negative environmental impact caused by RIR would be from the submarine HVDC cable through Cook Inlet. Although Cook Inlet already hosts numerous subsea petroleum and natural gas pipelines and high voltage AC submarine cables, it is home to an endangered subspecies of Beluga whale. In addition to complying with all federal and state environmental permitting requirements, including marine mammal monitoring during construction, the Team will endeavor to convene a joint meeting with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Kenaitze and Knik Tribal Councils (the governing bodies for the two Alaska Native Village Statistical Area s whose lands are adjacent to the intended path of the submarine cable through Cook Inlet) to discuss additional best practices for minimizing potential disruptions to this Beluga population. “America’s First Climate Refugees” Nowhere is climate change more visible--or occurring faster--than in the far north. Driven by a shift in popular sentiment, decarbonization policies and technological advancements are reshaping Alaska’s energy landscape. Uncertainty around Cook Inlet natural gas, which fuels approximately 70% of the Railbelt’s power, is a major challenge looming on the near-term horizon.14 The Alaska Department of Natural Resources forecasts there will be supply shortfalls of Cook Inlet gas starting around 2027; no alternative supply exists in-state.15 This economic 14 Alaska’s Energy Infrastructure | REAP (https://alaskarenewableenergy.org/ppf/alaskas-energy-infrastructure) 15 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas 2022-cook-inlet-gas-forecast-report.pdf 10 reality exists alongside complex moral and social issues: a thawing arctic disproportionately affects Alaska Native communities. For instance, Newtok Village, located on the Ninglick River, and the Native Village of Napakiak, located on the Kuskokwim River, are both currently being relocated to higher ground with over $60 million of federal aid; they are considered “America’s first climate change refugees.”16 Rob Montgomery, General Manager of Seward Electrical System, writes: “The biggest obstacle Railbelt utilities face in putting more renewable or carbon-free energy on the grid is the limited capacity of existing transmission infrastructure. The Railbelt’s transmission system simply is not robust enough to move electricity in large capacities that would ultimately drive down costs.” RIR will increase transfer capacity between the three Railbelt regions, paving the way for development of increased hydro-electric power generation and other clean energy solutions. This will help mitigate environmental impacts from the 3,218 natural-gas-produced GWh on the Railbelt each year, resulting in 1.61 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent.17 Additionally, RIR is projected to result in a 10-15% reduction in thermal spending due to decreased line losses and reduced reserves, and more efficient economic dispatch of generation units representing a non-cumulative decrease of over 200 million kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Project Benefits for Disadvantaged Communities Decreased Energy Burdens This project is anticipated to provide significant benefits to Alaska’s DACs, both on and off the Railbelt. There are 22 census tracts that qualify as disadvantaged18 on the Railbelt, with a combined population of 81,921.19 There are a further 17 Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas (ANVSA) on the Railbelt20, with a combined population of 160,486. These communities will receive direct benefits from GMRP via reduction of their energy burdens. As mentioned, Railbelt engineers believe GMRP’s decreased line losses and reduced reserves, due to increased transfer capability and improved economic dispatch, will result in thermal spending reductions of 10- 15%.21 Because the utilities are member-owned, these savings will transfer directly to reduced consumer costs. The Railbelt’s 260,00022 residential utility accounts serve 623,916 individuals23, 242,407 of whom live in a DAC or Alaska Native Village Statistical Area. Roughly speaking, Railbelt engineers project that the GMRP’s overall fuel savings of 10-15% of fuel and variable operations and maintenance could result in a reduction of approximately 0.5 cents/kWh to 1.5 cents/kWh for users24. The combined Railbelt utilities sold 4,408 GWh (Gigawatt-Hours) in 202025, yielding a potential total 16 See: Alaska on the edge: Newtok's residents race to stop village falling into sea | The Guardian; Impossible Choice Faces America's First 'Climate Refugees' : NPR; Alaska’s Climate Refugees - The Atlantic 17 Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity Generated from Conventionally Produced Natural Gas - O'Donoughue - 2014 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library 18 DOE Disadvantaged Communities Reporter 19 American Community Survey 2021 5 Year Population Estimates 20 2020 U.S. Census, DOE Disadvantaged Communities Reporter 21 Brian Hickey, Project Lead, P.E., Brian.Hickey@mea.coop, Zoom, 8:00-8:30 am, March 1st, 2023. 22 Summed from: Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association Inc., Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 23 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. 24 Production costing studies can be run to validate the accuracy of these estimates. 25 U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2020 11 savings of $44,080,000 for a 1-cent per kWh cost reduction based on historical generation data. A significant portion of those annual savings realized should pass through to member-owners; as a percentage of population served, 39% of these savings will flow to those who live in a DAC or on Tribal Land. A unique feature of RIR as a component of the GMRP is that it will also have significant economic impacts outside of the Railbelt due to Alaska’s Power Cost Equalization program (PCE). The PCE program was established in 1985 to provide economic assistance to residents and community facilities in rural Alaska, where electricity rates can be two to five times higher than in more urban areas. PCE was devised at the same time that state funds were used to construct major energy projects for urban Alaska, such as the Four Dam Pool, Bradley Lake, and the Alaska Intertie. The primary beneficiaries of PCE are residential customers, who are eligible for subsidy of actual consumption up to 750 kWh (starting FY23; it has historically been 500 kWh). If a household uses more than 750 kWh of electricity in a given month, the amount used above 750 kWh is not subsidized. Community facilities are also eligible for actual consumption up to 70 kWh per month per community resident. Community facilities must be nonprofit organizations that do not receive the majority of their funding from state and federal sources. AEA administers the PCE program by making payments directly to individual utilities enrolled in the program. The PCE program is funded by earnings of the PCE Endowment Fund. Alaska Statute 42.45.085 provides that five percent of the PCE Endowment Fund’s three-year monthly average market value may be appropriated to the PCE Program. In recent years the 5% draw on the endowment has been sufficient to fully fund PCE payments. PCE is determined for a utility as 95% of eligible power costs above the “Average Class Rate” and below $1.00 per kWh. The Average Class Rate is derived from the average electricity cost in Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks (20.03¢/kWh for FY 2022). Eligible costs are fuel expenses including transportation, and non-fuel expenses such as salaries, insurance, taxes, parts, supplies, and interest. By decreasing (or incrementally reducing over the long-term) electricity rates in Anchorage and Fairbanks, GMRP will correspondingly decrease the Average Class Rate AEA uses to calculate PCE for rural utilities, consequently increasing the PCE credit for eligible communities and residents. In FY22 PCE served 188 communities, 15426 (82%) of whom qualify as DACs or Tribal lands. Approximately 108,914,53027 of PCE-eligible kWh were produced between residential and community facilities in those 154 DACs. AEA has estimated, based on the statutory PCE credit formula, that the increased credit amount that would be issued by AEA to PCE-enrolled communities is estimated to be $1,263,000, when applying a one-cent reduction in the average class rate. Actual savings would be less than this, since Juneau, which is outside the Railbelt, is included in the “Average Class Rate”, and their rates would not be affected by thermal spending reductions from GMRP. It should also be noted that PCE payments received by a particular utility are not uniformly distributed and will vary from year-to-year based on the utilities’ energy cost reporting. In sum: GMRP and RIR’s projected 1-cent/kWh reduction in energy costs for users is estimated at a potential $44,080,000 in reduced energy burdens for on -Railbelt electricity users, 39% of 26 https://www.energy.gov/diversity/justice40-initiative 27 FY22 PCE Community Report.pdf (akenergyauthority.org) 12 whom belong to DACs or live on Tribal lands. Through AEA’s Power Cost Equalization program, that same 1-cent/kWh reduction in on-Railbelt energy costs is anticipated to result in an additional $1,263,00028 in PCE subsidies to off-Railbelt communities, 82% of which will flow to DACs or Tribal lands, on a representative percentage basis. The GMRP presents a unique opportunity for federal investment when considering the significant multiplier effects regarding both direct and indirect benefits to be realized by both on and off-Railbelt DACs, by virtue of long- standing existing programs seeking to equalize the cost of power between urban and rural areas of the state. Increased Energy Resilience The Railbelt region is home to some of the harshest conditions on earth, making grid resilience a top priority. Past disasters include volcanic activity, earthquakes, avalanches, forest fires, and landslides, which have left communities isolated and without power for days or weeks. 26% of Railbelt customers live in an ANVSA, many of which are located in remote areas with energy infrastructure that is particularly vulnerable to natural disaster. Increased grid resiliency is a primary goal of this project, best embodied by the interregional transmission line that will be installed parallel to the line that currently ties together the Railbelt’s Southern and Central region s, and which will allow for continued energy transmission between regions in the event of a major natural disaster. Additional resilience benefits include right-of-way clearing, aerial inspections, and refurbishment of existing lines and structures. Increased High Quality Job Creation Lastly, GMRP will create high paying jobs for members of DACs who live along the Railbelt. Working with IBEW-NECA Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust, individual utility training programs, and local colleges and the University of Alaska System, the project team will create apprenticeship and internship programs that streamline into jobs working on the grid. This will improve regional economies as well as help locals take ownership of the project, ultimately increasing energy democracy. Tasks Related to Justice40 Initiative 1. Provide numerous opportunities and means for disadvantaged communities to voice potential concerns over negative environmental impacts from GMRP through public participation process; host joint organizational meeting regarding submarine HVDC cable through Cook Inlet. 2. Me as ure decreased energy burdens for DACs on Railbelt. 3. Measure increased PCE credits for DACs off Railbelt. 4. Streamline apprenticeships and internships in remote communities into jobs working on Railbelt grid. 28 FY22 PCE Community Report.pdf (akenergyauthority.org) Prime or Sub Name City State Zip Code + 4 Prime Soldotna SubStation Soldotna Alaska 99669 Prime Sub Cable terminal Nikiski Alaska 99611 Prime Sub Cable terminal Beluga Alaska 99695 Prime Healy Substation Healy Alaska 99743 Prime Wilson Substation Fairbanks Alaska 99775 Prime International Substation Anchorage Alaska 99518 Locations of Work (DE-FOA-0002740) Confirmation Thank you for submitting your grant application package via Grants.gov. Your application is currently being processed by the Grants.gov system. Once your submission has been processed, Grants.gov will send email messages to advise you of the progress of your application through the system. Over the next 24 to 48 hours, you should receive two emails. The first will confirm receipt of your application by the Grants.gov system, and the second will indicate that the application has either been successfully validated by the system prior to transmission to the grantor agency or has been rejected due to errors. Please do not hit the back button on your browser. If your application is successfully validated and subsequently retrieved by the grantor agency from the Grants.gov system, you will receive an additional email. This email may be delivered several days or weeks from the date of submission, depending on when the grantor agency retrieves it. You may also monitor the processing status of your submission within the Grants.gov system by clicking on the “Track My Application” link listed at the end of this form. Note: Once the grantor agency has retrieved your application from Grants.gov, you will need to contact them directly for any subsequent status updates. Grants.gov does not participate in making any award decisions. IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you do not receive a receipt confirmation and either a validation confirmation or a rejection email message within 48 hours, please contact us. The Grants.gov Contact Center can be reached by email at support@grants.gov, or by telephone at 1-800-518-4726. Always include your Grants.gov tracking number in all correspondence. The tracking numbers issued by Grants.gov look like GRANTXXXXXXXXX. If you have questions please contact the Grants.gov Contact Center: support@grants.gov 1-800-518-4726 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Closed on federal holidays. The following application tracking information was generated by the system: Grants.gov Tracking Number:GRANT13888581 F3N8ZSHJXUH8UEI: Karin St. ClairSubmitter's Name: CFDA Number:81.254 CFDA Description:Grid Infrastructure Deployment and Resilience Funding Opportunity Number:DE-FOA-0002740 Funding Opportunity Description:BIL Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships ( GRIP) Agency Name:National Energy Technology Laboratory Application Name of this Submission:Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) Date/Time of Receipt: https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/spoExit.jsp?p=web/grants/applicants/track-my-application.html&tracking_num=GRANT13888581 TRACK MY APPLICATION – To check the status of this application, please click the link below: It is suggested you Save and/or Print this response for your records. May 18, 2023 05:14:34 PM EDT RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Technical and business points of contact: Business Point of Contact: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, cthayer@akenergyauthority.org, 907-771-3009 Technical Point of Contact: Rebecca Garrett, Rural Programs Manager, rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org, 907-771-3042 Names of all team member organizations: Alaska Municipal League Non-profit, local government association Alaska Center for Energy and Power University research center Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Non-profit, Tribal government services Alaska Energy Authority Conner Erickson, Director of Planning Alaska Energy Authority Audrey Alstrom, Director of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Alaska Energy Authority Tim Sandstrom, Chief Operating Officer Alaska Municipal League Nils Andreassen, Executive Director Alaska Center for Energy and Power Jeremy Kasper Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Dustin Madden Names of the senior/key personnel and their organizations: Project location(s): Alaska, statewide Rural, Tribal communities that are functioning as power production islands. All projects that will ultimately be forwarded under this application will be islanded from the Alaskan Railbelt, which is Alaska’s main power generation transmission system. Any statements regarding confidentiality: None PROJECT TITLERural Alaska Microgrid Transformation TOPIC AREAS 3Grid Innovation Program RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Project Overview Background of Organization and Development Baseline: The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is the State’s energy office and primary agency for statewide energy policy and program development. AEA’s mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA manages a broad portfolio of supply and demand side energy projects and takes a whole-community approach in addressing energy cost reduction issues. AEA provides technical assistance, training, energy planning, project development/management, and emergency maintenance services. AEA facilitates coordinative activities between planning, projects, funding sources, and assists local and Tribal govern- ments in the move to project-ready status. AEA also supports owners and operators once their power systems are up and running, with a robust system of capacity assistance. Power systems in Alaska are small and isolated. Alaskan grids off the main Railbelt are linear with little to no redundancy, are almost exclusively reliant on diesel generation, and are micro in size compared with grids in the contiguous United States. Most rural communities in Alaska are accessible only by air and river. They are power-is- landed, relying solely on diesel generation systems. Many of these communities have aging and failing powerhouses and distribution. These systems are fueled by large bulk fuel storage facilities, many of which have been in service for up to 60 years without significant upgrades. AEA manages a consistent assessment schedule to determine at-risk facilities and upgrade or replacement needs. Due to community remoteness, most diesel powerhouses cannot be entirely removed from a microgrid due to life-safety concerns. However, there are several communities that could replace the baseload diesel power production with renewable energy (see Figure 1). To properly upgrade an Alaskan microgrid, the renewable power source would need to be built out and then properly integrated to the back-up diesel power source. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Figure 1: Potential renewable energy projects in Alaska. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY The reliance on diesel negatively impacts the economy and public health of rural, disadvantaged communities. This project provides pathways to necessary improvements that will transform communities, displacing millions of gallons of diesel and reducing the carbon emissions thereof. Figure 1 provides a map of Alaska communities with microgrids that are eligible for Power Cost Equalization (PCE), where costs are significantly higher than their urban counterparts. Project Goal: The goal of these transformed community microgrids is to replace the baseload diesel power production with renewable energy. Hydro, solar, and wind are the primary renewable power sources found to be successful in Alaska. In addition, many of the possible hydro projects would produce more power than could be used by typical community demand. This excess power would be used for community heat and would enable increased capacity for energy storage, which is a critical resource in rural Alaska. This use of excess electricity for heat reduction would displace heating oil, wood burning, diesel, and other types of fuel. This project rests on multiple critical success factors: (1) Feasibility of project technologies in rural Alaska communities; (2) Process innovation, and the combination of technologies; (3) Partner contributions, and appropriate levels of analysis; (4) Cost of materials and services, and supply chain availability; and (5) Sustainability of operations, and planning for maintenance and operations. Project locations will be determined based on level of disadvantage and potential to meet the critical success factors. The project selection team will evaluate the availability of skilled workforce – and potential to offer skills training as part of a community benefits plan – and overall benefit to the community that includes lowering costs and addressing environ- mental justice factors. The U.S. Energy Information Administration1 (EIA) highlights key data points, which this project will contribute solutions to, 1) Alaska ranks second only to Hawaii in the share of its total elec- tricity--14% in 2022--generated from petroleum; and 2) in 2022, Alaska generated about 33% of its total electricity from renewable energy sources. The state has a non-binding goal to generate 50% of its electricity from renewable and alternative energy sources by 2025. DOE Impact: The incredible remoteness of rural Alaskan communities has the effect of extremely high project costs. This, along with the fact that the rural communities are paying very high energy costs, has made project funding a difficult process. The State of Alaska, local and Tribal governments, and utilities cannot bear this cost alone, and lack sufficient resources to enable a transition to lower carbon energy sources that will reduce emissions and lower costs. DOE funding would unlock dozens of community projects that have gathered enough funding for engineering and design but are waiting for funding sources to complete procurement and construction. For reference, AEA has managed the utilization of $300 million to implement more than 100 proj- ects from 2008 to 2022, through its Renewable Energy Grant Program (REF), which had variable and limited funding based on available State appropriations. The REF, in direct support of rural, majority tribal, disadvantaged communities has provided more than 80% of total funding towards projects in those rural communities. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Community Benefits Plan: Job Quality and Equity – The Community Benefits Plan identifies the potential for project activ- ities in an estimated twenty rural, disadvantaged communities with islanded micro-grids that are reliant on diesel power generation. These systems are emissions-intensive, expensive, and frequently experience disruption. These projects will result in reduced emissions, lower costs, and more reliable power delivery. Each project will include the deployment of clean power as part of the energy infrastructure. AEA’s process will include a focus on minority business enter- prises, and encouraging project delivery by Alaska Native regional and village corporations. AEA will provide training and skills development as part of its project planning and through construc- tion, and work with labor and workforce development partners to maintain job quality and equity. No limitations will be placed on ensuring workers have the free and fair chance to join a union. AEA will work through the Alaska Municipal League (AML) to engage the University of Alaska, Associated General Contractors, and Alaska AFL-CIO in this process. Project Benefits: AEA will partner with AML to conduct an equity assessment within and between communities, as part of the project identification and implementation process. The CBP provides an overview of DACs in Alaska that would be eligible applicants, and a process for working with municipal and Tribal leaders, utilities, and regional partners to deliver proj- ects. Each project will be located in a rural community where the majority of the population is Indigenous. Public engagement will feature ways in which the project activities may have ancil- lary community benefits – beyond the direct impact of the energy improvements – that include workforce and enterprise development, skills training, and resilience planning. Long-Term Constraints: AEA does not anticipate any long-term constraints or impacts to participating communities. The deployment of renewable power systems and carbon-re- ducing technologies in Alaska has been accomplished without diminishing access to natural resources, nor interference with Tribal cultural resources. Extensive stakeholder engagement ensures continued access to water and subsistence resources. Project cleanup costs, including waste, will be backhauled out of communities or repurposed through agreements with local government. Figure 2: Renewable Energy Investment in Alaska by Energy Source, 2010-2020 Primary Energy Source Investment ($millions) % of Total Hydroelectric $330 48% Wind $240 35% Biomass $30 5% Geothermal (Testing and Assessment)$30 4% Solar $10 2% Other Renewables $50 7% Total $690 100% Renewable Energy Investment in Alaska by Energy Source, 2010-2020 $690 million invested 260 Projects 160 Communities 448 million Pounds of CO2 Offset Annually 15-20 Construction Jobs per million Invested Investment in Alaska Renewable Energy Projects, 2010-2020 RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Climate Resilience Strategy: Alaska experiences the impacts of climate change at a higher rate than the rest of the nation, but AEA and community partners have extensive experience imple- menting resilient projects that can withstand change and high impact events. AEA project planning takes into account climate variability and change, and includes resilience as part of its overall strategy in developing projects. A key component of this strategy is to work with partners that are at the forefront of climate resilience, including the Denali Commission, an independent federal agency designed to provide critical infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska. Technical Description, Innovation, and Impact Relevance and Outcomes Description of the Project: AEA has successfully managed hundreds of grid improvement projects in rural Alaska’s, the majority of which have delivered benefits to disadvantaged communities. AEA envisions the “Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation” to significantly increase its scale and scope, and proposes to implement a carefully managed process to identify, vet, and support the deployment of multiple renewable energy projects in rural communities. This effort will leverage AEA’s technical expertise and program management, as well as experience working in rural Alaska, to engage partners, stakeholders, and project proponents in an efficient and effective system of project evaluation and deployment. This project will enable AEA to transform Alaska’s rural microgrids, making a significant investment toward Alaska’s future and helping to meet its renewable energy goals and carbon neutrality. AEA proposes to manage as much as $500 million through a competitive, focused application process that moves projects from concept through permitting to construction. AEA will initiate a call for expressions of interest through a request for application process that captures current needs of rural, disadvantaged communities. Local and Tribal governments, utili- ties, and private sector project proponents will provide relevant information that is consistent with program goals. A project review team will vet these proposals to determine where greatest impact can be achieved. By acting as an intermediary, and leveraging its considerable expertise working in and with disadvantaged Alaska communities, AEA will maximize the opportunity for community engagement and provide an efficient way in which to meet the needs of many communities at once. Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation will result in an estimated twenty projects across the state, managed through a multi-stage, multi-year process that delivers project development and technical assistance along a community’s energy pathway, from concept through engi- neering and design to construction. This intensive effort will include a cohort approach to similarly situated projects, all of which contribute to the project’s overall goals of resilience, carbon reduction, and community benefits. Grid Outcomes: This project is meant to transform rural micro-grids, isolated systems serving communities with fewer than 10,000 residents, which currently rely on diesel for the majority of their power production. The project’s grid-benefitting outcomes are Alaska-proven concepts of how to effectively integrate renewables into microgrids, thereby ensuring lower carbon emissions and more resilient systems. This project will transform community resilience by implementing a shift in generation and contemplating new and different load scenarios. AEA will prioritize proj- ects that demonstrate grid improvements relative to 1) current age, 2) system inefficiency and reliability, 3) high maintenance and operational costs, and 4) carbon emissions. Projects will contribute to a clean energy transition and anticipate and mitigate climate disruption. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Technologies Used: The project will utilize three proven renewable energy technologies through the deployment of small hydro, solar, and wind power. This project will contribute to the diversi- fication of community generation portfolio and facilitate clean energy development as part of its system benefits. AEA has identified battery and storage as a critical success factor for integration into existing and improved systems. Techno-economic analysis will accompany this integration, to ensure efficacy of operations for both transmission and distribution within these isolated systems. Principles: AEA is committed to lowering the cost of power in Alaska, an equity-driven approach includes principles of ensuring stronger access to economic and environmental benefits to disadvantaged communities. This project will rely on extensive partner and stakeholder engagement to coalesce around program goals and objectives, and to deliver projects that are consistent with equity and environmental justice. AEA recognizes the need for partnerships that enhance reliability, all-hazards resilience, and efficiency of the electric grid. Objectives: AEA’s project objectives are to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience, lower carbon emissions, decrease power costs, and improve public health and safety. These objectives are consis- tent with the FOA’s goals to advance community benefits, which align with the State’s energy policy goal to reach 50% renewable energy by 2025. At the same time, AEA will catalyze private sector and non-federal public capital, by contributing 50% of the overall project funding through state funds. Projects will be developed at-scale by identifying locations where significant economic bene- fits can be obtained, including those that reduce the transactional costs for local businesses. Relevance of Project to Goals and Objectives of the FOA: This project aligns well with the goals and objectives of DOE – more than 200 communities in Alaska rely on rural micro-grids for their life, health, and safety. AEA has created an innovative, climate-responsive, and equitable approach to delivering improved energy outcomes for disadvantaged communities. Projects that are funded through AEA will easily interconnect to new clean energy, improve system cost-effectiveness, and increase reliability. This project meets the FOA’s identified outcome to increase supply of a geographically and technologically diverse sets of location-constrained energy resources to enhance resource adequacy and reduce correlated generation outages. DOE identifies the need to consider all the opportunities that the BIL provides, and AEA will work through AML to connect projects with other federal investment opportunities, thereby maximizing and leveraging the whole-of-government approach that has been constructed. 98% of the communities AEA works with on a daily basis are disadvantaged communities. This project will more than double DOE’s goal in meeting Executive Order 14008 to deliver 40% of the overall benefits of federal investments to disadvantaged communities. Potential for Deployment of the Project to meet relevant performance targets: This project would provide a robust and repeatable model that other states and territories could duplicate (including within Hawaii, US Territories, and Tribal Communities). AEA will incentivize utili- ties and private sector development that harden systems and advance innovative solutions to enhance system resilience. Projects will be required to address in their merit criteria the poten- tial for future investments by industry, communities, and private capital. AEA will work with the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) to evaluate this criteria and iden- tify additional investment partners, which will be part of a replicable model. Expected Outcomes of the Project: This project will strengthen the nation’s energy prosperity, implementing proven energy technologies that help to meet climate goals while delivering RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 6 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY community benefits that include planning and implementation that is inclusive of labor and communities, equitable approaches to workforce and business development, and lowers costs and emissions for disadvantaged communities. Expected outcomes of this project are funda- mentally improved grid and community resilience. Feasibility Technical Feasibility of the Proposed Technology: Alaska has the potential for some of the most significant transformation from diesel power generation to renewables in the nation, and already has communities that have taken these steps. While overall adoption is high and the EIA identifies 33% of Alaska’s electricity generation comes from renewable sources, the isolated nature of its microgrids makes transformation a community-by-community effort. Funded proj- ects under this award will use technology that has been deployed with success in Alaska, with proven innovation that is adapted to remote, isolated systems that face challenging weather and operational extremes. The following section describes renewables that are applicable to and proven for rural microgrids, battery systems that complement their use, and integration expertise that has been demonstrated by project partners. Hydroelectric - Between 2010 and 2020, hydroelectric projects represented nearly half of renewable energy project investment in Alaska. Hydroelectric projects such as Blue Lake in Sitka, Allison Creek in Valdez, and expansion of AEA-owned Bradley Lake in Homer were among the largest projects in Alaska in terms of construction cost and generation capacity. The state also saw projects that used “lake tap” infrastructure requiring no dam and “run-of-river” hydro. Wind - Over the past decade, wind projects represented 35% of investment in renewables. Large wind projects developed between 2010 and 2020 include Eva Creek in Healy, Fire Island in Anchorage, Phase II of Kodiak’s Pillar Mountain development, and the Snake River project in Nome. Many wind projects developed over the past decade contributed to Alaska’s role as a leader in implementing wind-diesel hybrid systems. Investments in wind-diesel hybrid systems in rural communities included efforts such as Chaninik Wind Group’s project, which incorpo- rated thermal stoves for residential heating using excess wind generation. Enhancements in energy storage provided opportunity for further investment. Solar - Solar projects accounted for 2% of investment in Alaska in renewable energy between 2010 and 2020, including the state’s first utility-scale solar farms constructed in Healy and Willow. Solar generation in the spring and fall is often impressive in northern latitudes where clear skies, cool temperatures, dry air and bright, reflective snow all support solar generation. Solar photovoltaic systems can actually exceed their rated output during these times of year. The Native Village of Hughes recently installed a 120 kW solar photovoltaic system. The project is being developed to help advance the community’s renewable energy goal of 50 percent by 2025. When the project is completed, it will be the largest solar project in a small rural community in the state. Battery Storage - Residents need a reliable supply of electricity because many residents live in remote areas and winter temperatures can fall as low as minus 50 °F. Backup power therefore has to be available in the event of an outage. Utilities such as Golden Valley Electric and Homer Electric have chosen a battery backup solution as a cost-effective and reduced carbon emission solution, and implemented design and controls engineering for the whole system. In Fairbanks, the prime function of the BESS is to provide spinning reserve. At the end of the spinning reserve sequence, the BESS will automatically re-establish the operation mode, which was active prior RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 6 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY to the event. In Homer, the new battery energy storage system will be used to balance system demands with its greater ability to deliver or receive energy. This also allows base-loaded thermal units to be run more efficiently while allowing for increased integration of utility scale non-dispatchable renewable energy sources (i.e., wind & solar). The rural application is demonstrated, as well. Private companies have successfully deployed a hybrid solar + storage microgrid2 to support the residents of Shungnak, a remote community above the Arctic Circle in Alaska. Funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) the microgrid was designed to address the numerous challenges of operating in extreme conditions and break the community’s dependence on its expensive and polluting diesel generator power plant. The microgrid’s 225-kW solar array is able to offset much of Shungnak’s energy needs, while battery systems each store excess energy for later use. Uniquely designed to enable a “diesels off” operation, the system automatically coordinates between solar and energy storage to ensure lowest cost power and communicates with the utility’s power plant about the best times to turn diesel generation off. The microgrid is expected to save 25,000 gallons of fuel per year and an estimated $200,000 per year on fuel costs, based on $7 to $8 per gallon calculations. System Integration - The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) provides electricity to over 50 remote communities in Alaska, including several with wind or solar power. In 2018, AVEC installed a 900-kW wind turbine in St. Mary’s. They connected the two villages with an intertie in 2019, enabling them to share power. Combined, their peak electric load is 1000kW, allowing the 900-kW wind turbine to produce power greater than their electric load. This would enable diesels-off operation if there was another source of regulation and spinning reserves. AVEC identified this need and came up with the concept of a Grid Bridging System (GBS) that would provide regulation and spinning reserves. AVEC worked with ACEP to identify technical spec- ifications for the GBS as well as ideal energy storage technologies that would fit the need. The GBS requires a high-power capacity, the ability to supply a lot of power, but for a short period of time, a minimum of around 10 minutes. Therefore, a high-power and low-energy capacity system is needed. The team came up with three systems: 1) Ultracapacitor energy storage systems, 2) Lithium Titanium Oxide (LTO) batteries, and 3) Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries. Capability of Achieving Anticipated Performance Targets: AEA actively solicits and monitors community power generating status, current deficiencies, inventory of equipment, and assesses possible future need. This information is stored and maintained within AEA’s Powerhouse Assessment Dashboard. This live and current information can be reviewed and refined by AEA in order to select the best projects for community microgrid transformation, and to monitor and achieve anticipated performance targets. Figure 3 provides a demonstration of this tool, for one community. Figure 3: Community Inventory and Assessment Database. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Description of Previous Work and Prior Results: Between 2008 and 2022 the state legisla- ture appropriated $300 million for Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grants, that are managed by AEA.. Those state monies leveraged approximately $250 million in private and federal funds to complete project funding. The REF is managed by AEA in coordination with a nine-member REF Advisory Committee. The program provides grant funding for the development of quali- fying and competitively selected renewable energy projects. Since its inception 271 REF grants have been awarded and funded via legislative appropriations totaling $300 million. These funds have been matched by local and private contributions that have leveraged AEA’s investment. Over 100 operating projects have been built with REF contributions, collectively saving more than 30 million gallons of diesel each year. These investments have resulted in the reduction of 266,610 metric tons of carbon equivalent. At one point, Alaska was investing more per capita in renewable energy than any other state. AEA has identified nearly a dozen projects that have the engineering and planning already in place to move quickly into construction, if funded. AEA is an active participant and project manager in many of the projects. The completed studies have shown that many of the projects are viable and ready for implementation. A highlight of AEA’s program success is the implementation of the integrated wind-hydro- power-diesel system at Pillar Mountain, which provides the residents of Kodiak Island, the second- largest island in the U.S., with almost 100% renew- able and reliable energy. Winner of the Department of Energy and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association’s Wind Cooperative of the Year Award, the project is a model for advancing wind power in remote areas. This project was funded through AEA. In figure 3, AEA provides a noteworthy example of a successful hydro project in Southeast Alaska. Access to Necessary Infrastructure: Every community is unique, but has access to locally sourced potential renewable energy solutions. AEA has identified a diverse generation mix in all communities. The majority of off-grid communities rely on barge service to deliver fuel, supplies, and larger construction materials, while air travel provides year-round access for passengers, cargo, and services. Essentially, the transportation system is critical to deliver projects, but the high cost and logistics must be managed effectively to ensure the timeliness of project delivery. Current micro-grid systems have distribution in place, serving residents in communities large (10,000) and small (38). AEA and partners have delivered projects in every community in Alaska and understand the necessary infrastructure. The assessment of necessary infrastructure would be included in project identification and scoring metrics. Use of Existing Infrastructure: AEA anticipates utilization of existing infrastructure to the greatest extent possible, and project applicants will describe utilization of current distribution or transmission infrastructure. Current infrastructure includes utilities and operators, and AEA will SS UU CC CC EE SS SS SS TT OO RR YY Location: Hydaburg, Prince of Wales Island Total Project Cost: $31,300,000 REF: $4,000,000 PPF Loan: $19,130,000 Capacity: 5 MW Borrower: Haida Energy Hiilangaay Hydroelectric Project Financed by REF and PPF, the HiilangaayHydroelectric Project is a small dam constructed on Melon Lake near Hydaburg on Prince of Wales Island. Commissioned in January 2020, Hiilangaay is providing 100% clean renewable energy and has already displaced more than 110,000 gallons of costly imported diesel the isolated communities use for electrical generation. Haida Energy sells the output from its 5-megawatt (MW) turbines to Alaska Power & Telephone for distribution across Prince of Wales Island. Figure 4: Example of project success. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 9 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY prioritize projects that invest into current workforce and power system operators. Independent power producers must demonstrate collaboration and partnership with existing utility owners. Access to Skilled Workforce: Alaska’s utilities are experienced operators of power systems that experience challenging conditions. The local and regional workforce is skilled, and regularly provided training opportunities. In partnership with the Alaska Vocational and Technical school (AVTEC) AEA offers the Power Plant Operator training program that includes engine mainte- nance, troubleshooting and theory, electrical systems and generators, introduction to electrical distribution systems, diesel electric set operation, control panels, paralleling generator sets, load management, fuel management, waste heat recovery, plant management, and power plant safety. As part of this program, AEA will update course curriculum to be responsive to new and innovative system designs, and work with partners to deliver the course for project participants. At the same time, AEA’s Circuit Rider Program3 provides eligible utilities with technical assis- tance to improve the efficiency, safety, and reliability of their energy infrastructure. This program helps to reduce the risk and severity of emergency conditions. The Circuit Rider program develops strong ties with the remote Alaskan communities. The power system oper- ator ecosystem in Alaska is interdependent, with strong collaboration between the state and utilities in ensuring system operability and community health and safety. Innovation and Impacts As described above, this project anticipates utilizing technologies that are state-of-the-art and have been demonstrated for use in Alaska’s challenging conditions to improve rural community microgrids. Remote regions of the world such as Alaska, once viewed as disadvantaged due to a lack of conventional grid infrastructure, have proven to be fertile ground for sustainable energy innovation. This innovation flows from challenges associated with providing reliable electricity without the benefit of traditional transmission and distribution systems. Economic pressures linked to the high cost of delivering traditional fossil fuels for most energy applications in a part of the world with relatively low per capita income is also a factor and a trait Alaska shares with much of the world seeking solutions for energy access. Alaska has long been a pioneer in deploying high penetration renewable energy microgrids.4 These microgrid systems—some in continual operation for close to a century—built the busi- ness case for renewable energy integration well before the rest of the country, and the rest of the world, moved in this direction. When measured in terms of installed capacity, Alaska ranked No. 1 in the US as of 2021, with over 3,500 MW installed. Renewable energy is further incentivized by a highly deregulated utility market with dozens of utilities, state investment in infrastructure in the past, and modest subsidies that create niche markets where renewable energy projects are cost-competitive. Alaska’s small and rela- tively constant population also translates into a market focused on serving existing customers. Innovation has been incremental but steady, moving from basic isolated diesel systems to incorporating distributed energy resources (DER) at increasing levels fueled by a continuous improvement ethos that leans toward a greater and greater uptake of renewable energy resources. Most microgrids in Alaska are operated by local utilities, with over 100 certificated utilities active in the state, each serving a relatively small population. This stands in contrast to the RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 9 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY continental U.S., where most microgrids are deployed by third-parties serving critical facilities (such as military bases) and commercial and industrial customers. Cooperative utilities are the predominant model in Alaska, again a feature which aligns with much of the world’s utility structures that lean toward non-profit and government entities. Utilities play a more predom- inant role in microgrids globally than in the U.S., especially for island nations such as the Asia Pacific. In fact, Alaska’s public and rural cooperative approach to enhance regional grid resil- ience is an innovative feature of best practices that can be demonstrated through this project. Innovative Analysis: AEA will team with Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) – whose mission is to develop and disseminate practical, cost-effective and innovative energy solu- tions for Alaska and beyond. Their innovative power system modeling and analysis is built on Alaska expertise but with emerging technologies and integration in mind. ACEP will utilize techno-economic studies, dynamic modeling, and data analytics as part of this project’s approach to innovation. • Techno-Economic Studies - These studies and modeling work are critical for examining reli- ability and affordability as electric grids and microgrids transition to increased penetrations of renewable energy resources, inverter-based resources, and distributed energy resources. This work includes techno-economic analysis, including capacity expansion and production cost modeling, where the dispatch of generators and resources in the system are determined to ensure reliability through maintaining the load and generation balance and minimize the cost to run the system. • Dynamical Studies - Dynamical modeling of power systems is used to assess the stability of these systems in response to contingencies such as faults and scheduled or unplanned loss of generators or transmission lines. Dynamical modeling is performed when new generators, resources, or transmission lines are added to the system whether that be a part of near-term planned changes to the system or long-term decarbonization strategies. Traditionally, different modeling tools have been used based on the complexity or size of the system, the voltage level of the system or the area of interest, and the type of stability questions being raised. However, the proliferation of inverter-based resources (IBR) (including wind, solar and battery energy storage) and when to use which tool has raised the question of what level of detail should be included for the individual IBR models within those tools. • Data Analytics - In recent years, electric power systems have become digitalized with the introduction of the smart grid concept. In this digitization, tremendous opportunities in the power industry have opened due to the emergence of multi-scale data from synchropha- sors, advanced metering, weather forecasting and energy markets to dynamically learn and adaptively control a power system. Many applications such as supervisory control and data acquisition systems, state estimation, distribution energy management systems and machine learning are being employed to further the application of data-driven models in power system operation. Innovative Permitting: AEA will partner with the Denali Commission to identify ways in which federal permitting may be streamlined, and with Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of Project Management and Permitting, which has extensive experience in multi-jurisdictional permitting. These partnerships will result in more efficient approaches to permitting renewable energy projects in Alaska. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Overall Impact: The utilization of advanced technologies, systems of integration, and analysis will result in lower project costs, more resilient systems, and higher renewables adoption rate. This high level of innovation will maximize the reduction of carbon emissions. Support Resilience Goals Local/Tribal: The microgrid transformation projects would first support local community resil- ience, but also state resilience. The rural microgrid communities considered for this project are Tribal, and are underserved communities in need of a resilient power system. By transforming the community to clean and reliable energy, the community would be directly benefitted. This project responds to 23 identified5 climate action plans, adaptation plans, and impact assess- ments with associated response strategies. Local and Tribal governments have actively worked to develop resilience goals, including actions that reduce carbon emissions and promote renew- able energy integration. State: Alaska’s State Energy Policy has a goal of 80% utilization of renewables for power produc- tion by 2040 and AEA has been limited in its ability to meet this goal due to resource constraints that have limited available funding at the State level. Leveraging federal funding will significantly overcome this hurdle, and lead to transformation that moves Alaska communities closer to this goal than otherwise possible. National: This project contributes to the Administration’s effort to address climate change and environmental justice, and the Department’s goals to achieve 100% renewable energy. Development of projects that are critical to reliability and resilience of the grid has been iden- tified as a priority by DOE under this announcement, and this project will result in outcomes that increase the supply of location-constrained energy resources to enhance resource adequacy and reduce correlated generation outages. This project will result in the decarbon- ization of the electricity and broader energy system in a way that supports system resilience, reliability, and affordability. Risk Mitigation: AEA’s project identification and management process responds to the chal- lenging circumstances of rural renewables integration. AEA understands the risks of project deployment in communities where the size of power generation is very low relative to the loads in the community. Alaskan microgrids can be as small as 20 to 30 kW with 5 to 10 kW loads that cycle on and off. This results in a very unstable frequency and power factor. The small grids also suffer from very unbalanced distribution systems, which artificially increase the amount of generation required and decrease overall efficiency. This phenomenon is common in rural Alaska. Risk mitigation will evaluate these concerns relative to the fact that nearly all of the hardware designed to support renewable generation is designed for grid operations elsewhere in the nation. By AEA pioneering the technology needed for stable microgrid operations, future microgrids in other locations of the United States and territories could be serviced accordingly. Since all these projects will be islanded microgrids, it will be necessary to balance load with energy creation. All load demand and power creation will be designed for a balanced operation, mitigating the event of a microgrid failure. In addition, community building systems, distribu- tion systems, and energy storage will all be heavily involved with these community microgrid upgrades. Specifically, excess energy production has great benefit for affected communities. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Excess energy can be used for heat recovery systems, electric boilers, electric heaters, battery storage, and stored water. This holistic approach will ensure that projects are carefully selected and designed such that they produce a reliable microgrid for the affected community. AEA will evaluate and implement these processes throughout the project’s life-cycle. The innovative technology risk reduction would be accomplished by Alaska leveraging renew- able, microgrid integration expertise. There are cooperative utilities operating within the state such as Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) that already have experience with integrating renewables into microgrids. These partners’ resources pooled together with the experience housed at AEA will reduce project risk, along with creating a vetted template that can be scal- able amongst other communities as funding allows. AEA’s experience managing the $300 million REF program indicates that this project has the potential to leverage approximately 50% more funding from local and private sources. Local contributions to REF projects exceeded the State’s contribution. AEA will team with the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, with the mission to promote, develop, and advance general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of Alaska, to facilitate the ability for projects to secure additional public and/or private investment. Workplan Project Objectives: The project’s goals, outcomes, and objectives are multi-faceted and align with the Department’s and Administration’s priorities. Goal 1: Lower the costs of energy in rural, disadvantaged communities. • Objective 1.1 – Deliver projects that reduce the cost per kwh by more than 10%. • Objective 1.2 -Deliver projects that lower maintenance and operations costs. Goal 2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions of microgrid systems. • Objective 2.1 – Deliver projects that leverage locally sourced renewables, including wind, solar, and hydro. • Objective 2.2 – Deliver projects that lower the diesel fuel use by 50% or more. Goal 3: Deploy solutions that leverage process, financial, and technology innovation. • Objective 3.1 – Deliver projects in collaboration with project partners, utilizing broad tech- nical, economic, financial, and project management expertise. • Objective 3.2 – Deliver projects in ways that maximize stakeholder engagement, workforce development, and community benefits. Outcomes 1. Resilience – This project will result in rural community microgrids that deliver more stable, cost-effective, renewable power to residents. 2. Equity – This project will result in improved public health and economic benefits that will accrue to disadvantaged communities. 3. Climate Change – This project will lower Alaska’s carbon footprint and contribute to miti- gating climate change. Buy America Requirements: AEA recognizes that the project will involve the construction, alteration, maintenance and/or repair of public infrastructure in the United States and that Buy America Build America (BABA) requirements apply. AEA will ensure that sub-awardees comply RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY with BABA and/or have the necessary waivers in place, limited as they are. AEA understands the challenging landscape within which projects must be conducted, including timelines and envi- ronmental considerations in Alaska, at the end of the supply chain, and will comply with BABA, as well as all other federal requirements. Technical Scope Summary: The project’s work scope is divided into performance periods that are discrete annual decision points based on the State of Alaska’s fiscal year, with the first year adjusting for project award. Performance Period 1: FY24 1. Summary of Work – This first year of the project will focus on finalizing planning and strategic development of the partnerships and program delivery, which include robust stakeholder engagement and public outreach. Program requirements will be structured similar to AEA’s REF, which has a grant review team and process that will efficiently review projects based on merit criteria that corresponds to GRIP priorities and AEA’s goals. 2. End Result – Program fully developed, ready for a request for applications. 3. Decision Point – AEA will evaluate project contributions to meeting goals of carbon and cost reduction, and available non-federal match. 4. Community Benefits Plan Milestone – AEA will complete its teaming agreement with AML, and finalize the project components that include equity assessment, labor engagement, and implement a skills and workforce development strategy. Performance Period 2: FY25-FY29 1. Summary of Work – The program will be released for application and projects will be iden- tified per the requirements. AEA expects to make approximately twenty sub-awards for transformative projects. The project partners will implement a project development support process, to provide grantees with necessary technical assistance, and develop a cohort approach to project management. 2. End Result – Grant sub-awards completed to approximately twenty rural communities. 3. Decision Point - AEA will evaluate project contributions to meeting goals of carbon and cost reduction, and available non-federal match. 4. Community Benefits Plan Milestone – AEA will complete community benefit assessments and agreements in each project community, in collaboration with grantee and partners. Performance Period 3: FY30 1. Summary of Work – Project awards will be reviewed based on annual monitoring, and project close-outs. Partners will hold a workshop with all awardees to determine strengths and weaknesses of the program, and to finalize analysis of goals, objectives, and outcomes. 2. End Result – Approximately twenty communities will have had projects implemented and finalized, with expected objectives achieved. 3. Decision Point – Final reporting will satisfy the terms of the agreement with DOE. 4. Community Benefits Plan Milestone – The project team will report on equitable benefits delivered to communities, as well as environmental justice and climate change metrics that demonstrate outcome delivery. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 14 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY WBS and Task Description Summary: Workplan/Task/ Sub-Task Description Y1 Workplan Formational activities focused on partnerships, stakeholders, and process Task 1.1 Partnership team roles and responsibilities finalized, project scoping Sub-task 1.1.1 Finalize all partner agreements and project scope Task 1.2 Stakeholder engagement and outreach Sub-task 1.2.1 Conduct outreach to disadvantaged, rural communities Sub-task 1.2.2 Initiate targeted application support for known projects Task 1.3 Application development and review process Sub-task 1.3.1 Criteria and metrics developed for evaluating project benefits Sub-task 1.3.2 Review program for merit and finalize request for application Y2 - Y6 Workplan Project development and community benefit support activities Task 2.1 Conduct request for applications Sub-task 2.1.1 Review and award high scoring projects Task 2.2 Cohort development and community benefit agreements Sub-task 2.2.1 Bring project grantees together as part of cohort, with quarterly tech- nical support Sub-task 2.2.2 Work with communities on equitable project benefits Task 2.3 Initiate project development and NEPA process Sub-task 2.3.1 Work with communities on proper NEPA documentation, final engi- neering design and permitting Sub-task 2.3.2 Conduct project financing review for leveraged funding Y7 Workplan Project evaluation and analysis of outcomes Task 7.1 Finalize all project awards and activities Sub-task 7.1.1 Ensure completion of all projects and finalize reporting Task 7.2 Review impact of projects on goals and outcomes Sub-task 7.2.1 Partners review goals, objectives, and outcomes against project reporting Sub-task 7.2.2 Evaluate community benefit arrangements and impact Task 7.3 Produce final summary of findings Sub-task 7.3.1 Share findings on project website and in public forums Sub-task 7.3.2 Share findings with project grantee, participating and rural communities RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 15 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Milestone Summary: Figure 5 provides existing and potentially viable projects. Quarter Milestone Measure Verification 1 Partners establish teaming agreements.Progress Document 2, 3 Program developed Progress Announcement 4 Program released, request for applications Progress Applications 5 Community benefit agreements in place.Progress Document 6, 7 Applications received and evaluated for merit criteria.Progress Applications 8 Approximately twenty community awards result in project implementation. Technical Agreement 9 - 24 Projects are implemented Technical Document 10 Outreach conducted.Progress Announcement 13 Survey and interview results received and reviewed.Progress 90% response 14 Stakeholder listening session conducted.Progress Workshop held 15 Cohort evaluation finalized.Progress 90% response 16 Preliminary review of findings is released by the project team.Technical Document 25 Survey and interview results received and reviewed.Progress 80% response 26 Stakeholder listening session conducted.Progress Workshop held 27 Cohort evaluation finalized.Progress 80% response 28 Project delivers summary of outcomes to DOE.Technical Document Type of Project Cost of Energy $/ kWh “Anticipated Annual Gallons of Diesel Fuel Offset by Proposed Project” Project Status Village Hydro $0.61 115,000 Ready for Construction Village Hydro $0.61 20,000 Feasiblity Study Complete Connects Multiple Villages Hydro $0.45 1,558,033 Concept Design, and FERC Permiting Village Hydro $0.80 40,000 Partially Constructed Village Hydro $0.68 130,000 Ready for Construction Village Hydro $0.70 37,000 Ready for Construction Village Wind/Solar/Battery $0.38 2,448,293 Concept Multiple Individual Villages Solar/Battery $0.75 80,000 Concept on per village basis (10 total) Multiple Individual Villages Wind/Battery $0.75 80,000 Concept on per village basis (10 total) Village Hydro $0.65 20,138 Ready for Construction Connects 2 Villages Hydro $0.66 16,014 Concept Village Wind Expansion Wind/Battery $0.37 400,000 Ready for Construction Connects 2 Villages Wind & Electric Boiler $0.52 165,000 Design and Permitting Connects 2 Villages Wind/Battery $0.60 270,000 Ready for Construction RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 16 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Go/No-Go Decision Points The following summary of project-wide Go/No-Go decision points includes decision points and objective criteria by budget period, which are described more fully in the SOPO. Period Decision Point Objective Criteria FY24 Program developed Request for Applications with feasible, impactful project selection criteria developed. FY25 Approximately 20 projects funded Signed project agreements with 20 communities. FY26 Project development Projects that have cleared progress criteria with completed feasibility reports are moved forward. FY27 Project construction Projects that have cleared progress criteria with completed design and permitting are moved forward. FY28 Project construction Projects that have cleared progress criteria with groundbreaking construction are moved forward. FY29 Project construction Projects that have cleared progress criteria and are on budget and on schedule are moved forward. End of Project Goal: Goal 1: Lower the costs of energy in rural, disadvantaged communities. • The project will result in reduced power costs of at least 10% in 20 rural, disadvantaged communities. Goal 2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions of microgrid systems. • The project will result in the reduced use of imported diesel (by at least 50%) and increased use of locally sourced renewables, for an overall carbon reduction. Goal 3: Deploy solutions that leverage process, financial, and technology innovation. • Project partners will deliver innovative approaches to project delivery that include process management, leveraging of financial capital, and technology that responds to Alaska’s challenging circumstances. Project Schedule: (See following page) Tenakee Springs, Alaska. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 17 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Work plan Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Y1 Workplan Formational activities Task 1.1 Partners finalized Sub-task 1.1.1 Partner agreements Task 1.2 Stakeholder engagement Sub-task 1.2.1 Outreach to communities Sub-task 1.2.2 Targeted applications Task 1.3 Application development and review process Sub-task 1.3.1 Criteria and metrics developed Sub-task 1.3.2 Review program, request for applications Milestones reached Go/No-Go Decision Program ready for release Y2- 6 Workplan Project development and community benefit Task 2.1 Conduct request for applications Sub-task 2.1.1 Review and award Task 2.2 Cohort development and benefits Sub-task 2.2.1 Cohort established for TA Sub-task 2.2.2 Community benefit agreements Sub-task 2.2.3 Cohort working group meeting Task 2.3 Project development Sub-task 2.3.1 TA to unawarded applicants Sub-task 2.3.2 Project financing review Milestones reached Go/No-Go Decision Projects funded Y7 Workplan Project evaluation and analysis of outcomes Task 7.1 Finalize project awards and activities Sub-task 7.1.1 Ensure completion of projects Task 7.2 Review impact Sub-task 7.2.1 Partners assess goals and outcomes Sub-task 7.2.2 Evaluate community benefits Task 7.3 Produce findings Sub-task 7.3.1 Share on website and publicly Sub-task 7.3.2 Share with project sponsors and communities Milestones reached Go/No-Go Decision Evaluation finalized RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 18 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Project Management: Overall approach to and organization for managing the work: AEA will aggressively manage the project to ensure consistency of the interrelated community-level projects contributing to the proposed outcomes of the overall effort. AEA will maintain frequent communication with stake- holders through all stages of the project and establish project support infrastructure to ensure success. AEA will enforce appropriate standard project management practices and processes, and control for performance, scope, and budget. AEA will be responsible for initiation, reporting, moni- toring and measuring project outcomes, and project close-out. AEA will work with the following partners (described further below) to implement this program and support community benefits: • Alaska Municipal League (AML) – membership includes all local governments in Alaska • Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) – provides project planning and energy deployment to Alaska’s Tribal communities. • Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) – conducts techno-economic analysis for rural micro-grid project feasibility. The roles of each project team member: AEA will be responsible for program management, implementation, and reporting, as well as partner and stakeholder engagement. Additional roles have the following responsibilities performed by diverse team members: • Project development and identification – AEA will work with ACEP and ANTHC to identify feasible projects and to provide technical assistance to projects in need of development. • Stakeholder engagement – AEA will work with AML to develop a stakeholder engagement strategy that focuses on rural, disadvantaged communities and includes municipal and Tribal governments, and public and cooperative utilities. • Application support – AML will provide application support for project grantees, to overcome capacity barriers that might exist in disadvantaged communities. • Project review and analysis – AEA will convene a project review board comprised of project partners and technical experts to review projects for feasibility and impact. • Innovative financing – AEA will work with AIDEA to develop and implement a process of private and public capital mobilization in support of project delivery. • Project deployment and support – AEA will work with Denali Commission and ANTHC on effective ways to support project implementation, including through procurement and project management support. • Project evaluation – AEA will annually convene project partners to conduct a thorough analysis of projects both for their technical merit and community benefits. This will be a dedi- cated effort in year four of the project. • Reporting and compliance – AEA will expect quarterly reporting from all sub-awardees, and provide technical assistance through ANTHC and AML to ensure compliance. Any critical handoffs/interdependencies among project team members: There are multiple stages at which critical handoffs and interdependencies occur. • Project selection – Project team members will be involved in soliciting and identifying proj- ects, reviewing projects for greatest feasibility and impact, and selecting awards. • Project management – Project team members will establish working relationships with project proponents, and include technical assistance activities as part of project management, including workforce development, modeling and analysis, and project implementation support. • Benefits tracking – Project team members will work with recipients to establish systems to track technical and community benefits, which will include avoided diesel use, cost savings, and local and Tribal benefits. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 19 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY The technical and management aspects of the management plan, including systems and prac- tices, such as financial and project management practices: AEA is the State’s primary agency responsible for lowering the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA has experienced staff and management systems in place to administer this microgrid transformation, and the overall program manage- ment. AEA has a full suite of highly qualified individuals, and a strong system of internal controls in place that facilitates meeting all compliance requirements. AEA’s financial and project manage- ment capabilities are demonstrated by receipt of unqualified audit opinions for both our annual Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit report, located on AEA’s website. AEA provides grants and loans for qualified energy infrastructure projects and owns energy infrastructure for the benefit of Alaskans. AEA has the legal authority to enter into a financial assistance relationship with the U.S. Department of Energy, and is experienced with managing federal awards, including most recently the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) deployment, an award of $52 million. Additionally, as an authority of the State, AEA produces an annual financial report. The approach to project risk management: AEA will proactively manage project risk through continuous risk identification, evaluation, mitigation, monitoring, and measurement. Risks will be registered to track issues identified and analyzed to examine how project outcomes might change due to the impact of the event. The project team will develop plans to reduce or manage the impacts of the risk, as it is identified. Identified risks will be monitored for any necessary reassess- ments, including trigger conditions and criticality. The risk management process will be internally audited to determine the accuracy of the identification, severity, and impact of the event. Plan for securing a qualified workforce and mitigating risks to project performance including but not limited to community or labor disputes: The project team will go through a process of strategic workforce planning that includes an understanding of demographic changes, cost reductions, talent management, and flexibility. The project is responsive to current conditions, where a qualified workforce is critical for project delivery, but the availability of skilled workers has been reduced. AEA and partners will work with project proponents to design workforce strategies that limit vacancies and overstaffing, ensure critical competencies, include cost efficiency that is manageable, and maintain a workforce that is agile, resilient, and flexible. The project’s Community Benefits Plan outlines ways in which the project will work with and through Alaska’s labor ecosystem to strengthen workforce performance and mitigate disputes. This includes provisions that maximize local labor and competitive wages. A description of how project changes will be handled: Project changes will be managed with a systematic process for requesting, logging, evaluating, and approving (or denying) scope, schedule, and budget changes requested during the project according to the table on the following page. Overall Project Management and Planning (All Budget Periods) The recipient will perform project management activities to include project planning and control, financial management, data management, management of supplies and/or equipment, risk manage- ment, and reporting as required to successfully achieve the overall objectives of the project. Task 0.0 – Project Management and Planning:The Recipient shall develop and maintain the Project Management Plan (PMP). The content, organization, and requirements for revision of the PMP are identified in the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist and Instructions. AEA will manage and implement the project in accordance with the PMP. The PMP shall be revised and resubmitted as often as necessary, during the course of the project, to capture any major/signif- icant changes to the planned approach, budget, key personnel, major resources, etc. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 20 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Approach to Quality Assurance/Control: AEA will establish a customized quality manage- ment plan to assure quality standards and processes are agreed upon and followed. Key project quality measurements will be identified and defined, responsibilities will be assigned to appropriate staff and partners, and a checklist will be created to ensure the plan has been implemented. Maintaining communications among project team members: Internal communications strategies and tactics will be organized by type, frequency, and audience to ensure relevant information is shared with appropriate stakeholders based on their roles and responsibilities, as described below. Type Method Frequency Purpose Lead Audience Audience: Internal Project Team Only Project Update Meeting Daily Discuss project status and any immediate issues. Project manager Internal project team Task Update Project management software Daily Provide daily progress on assigned tasks. Project manager Internal project team Audience: Internal Project Team, PMO and Project Grantee Project Review Meeting At scheduled milestones Evaluate deliverables, discuss next steps. Project manager Internal project team, and project grantee Project evaluation Meeting At project conclusion Reflect on project performance and identify lessons learned. Project manager Internal project team, and project grantee Project Status Project management software Weekly Provide updates on project status and highlight any issues, challenges, problems, decisions and/or changes. Project manager Internal project team, and project grantee Responsible Process Step Description Requestor 1.Identify need for change.Submit complete change request form to the project manager. Project Manager 2.Log change in change request log.Maintain log of all submitted change requests throughout the project’s lifecycle. Project Manager, Team, Requestor 3.Evaluate change.Conduct preliminary analysis of potential impact of each change to risk, scope, schedule, and cost. Seek clarification as needed from team and change requestor. Project Manager 4.Submit change request to AEA.Submit change request and preliminary analysis to AEA for review. AEA 5.Make final decision to approve or deny change request. Discuss proposed change and decide whether it will be approved based on all submitted information. Project Manager 6.Communicate decision.Communicate decision to requestor, team members, and stakeholders. Project Manager 7.Implement change.If change is approved by AEA, update and re-baseline project documentation as necessary. Task 0.1- Kick-Off Meeting: AEA will participate in a project kickoff meeting with the DOE within 30 days of project initiation. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 21 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Technical Qualifications and Resources Project team’s unique qualifications and expertise, including those of key sub-recipients. AEA is an independent and public corporation of the State of Alaska, est. 1976. AEA is governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the State Energy Office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Whether building modern and code-compliant bulk fuel tank farms, upgrading to high- effi- ciency generators in rural powerhouse systems, or integrating renewable energy projects, AEA emphasizes community-based project management. AEA’s core programs work to diversify energy Alaska’s energy portfolio, lead energy planning and policy, invest in Alaska’s energy infra- structure, and provide rural Alaska with technical and community assistance. AEA has more than thirty-five professionals on staff, including but not limited to engineers, planners, project developers, project managers, accountants and finance officers, and policy analysts. As the state’s designated energy office, AEA has managed billions of dollars in federal, state, and private funds to plan and build infrastructure in urban and rural Alaska. AEA’s building is located conveniently in Anchorage with adequate technology, spacing, and facilitation equipment. AEA has capabilities for video conferencing, hosting meetings, and a team for procuring services and materials. AEA staff have worked with stakeholders in nearly every community in the state to deliver crit- ical supply and demand energy services. Critical relationships and partnerships are in place with the vast array of Alaska energy stakeholders that includes small rural non-profits and utilities, large regional and village Alaska Native Corporations and tribal governments, conservation organizations, municipal governments, and technology- or solution-oriented working groups. AEA has a strong capacity to conceptualize, implement, and successfully complete supply and demand energy projects. This is accomplished through an outcomes-focused process that leads to a coordinated, statewide approach to overcoming barriers and building new and improved energy infrastructure for rural Alaska communities. Such knowledge, capacity, and established working relationships with stakeholders, positions AEA and its partners to lead a coordinated joint team that will overcome barriers to implement the Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation project. AEA has the experience, expertise, equipment, and staff ready to achieve the project objectives set out in this opportunity. The Alaska Energy Authority has a whole team of staff specifically designated for grants, compliance, procurement, contracting, and finance. Each of these teams have adequate resources to ensure the project is on budget and on schedule. AEA is engaged in all levels of consumer energy from project and resource identification, appro- priate design, and to financing and maintenance. Over decades of experience developing energy projects in Alaska, AEA has continuously improved on process, application of technology, and delivery of service. AEA integrates energy technology and advances in grid services into all program areas both on the supply- and demand-side. AEA (as owner of significant generation and transmission assets in the Railbelt region of Alaska, and in furtherance of its mission to reduce the cost of energy in the State) plays an important role in ensuring that sound public policy and energy planning initiatives within the region maxi- mize the potential benefits to the broadest group of stakeholders. Without a specific certificated area, and as owners of assets which cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries, AEA is uniquely RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY positioned to facilitate discussions amongst stakeholder groups and find solutions for the region in its entirety. AEA does so through its leadership role on the management committees associ- ated with its assets. Project team’s existing equipment and facilities AEA’s project team has all necessary equipment and facilities from which to manage this project. This includes office space located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. ACEP has a testing facility in Fairbanks that may be used to evaluate the combination of technologies employed by rural microgrids. AEA will identify existing equipment and facilities at the site of projects that receive funding within the scope of this program. Applications will include criteria for identification of these assets and ways in which they will facilitate the successful completion of the proposed project. The application will also be required to justify any new equipment or facilities. Relevant, previous work efforts, and demonstrated innovations AEA manages the Renewable Energy Fund, the Rural Power System Upgrade Program, the Power Cost Equalization Program, and various Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs. AEA has been at the forefront of supporting technology and process improvements that move Alaska communities toward renewable integration within existing power systems. AEA has managed both its Renewable Energy Fund and Emerging Technology Fund since 2008, and programs like Power Cost Equalization since 1985. AEA annually reviews the potential for microgrid projects to lower costs and reduce diesel consumption, including through the use of renewables. In addition to advancing renewable energy production for disadvantaged communities, AEA has experience with improving, upgrading, and building out rural microgrids, including through: • Renewable power generation creation and system integration (hydro, wind, or solar) • Modern distribution systems and controls • Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) • Modern and emission efficient diesel back-up powerhouse systems • SCADA controls between renewables and diesel back-ups AEA has successfully managed and completed over three-hundred grants in the last decade from many different agencies as well as private funds from the Volkswagen Settlement and Wells Fargo. AEA was a successful applicant to the BUILD program in 2020 for the Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage Project. In 2022, the Department of Defense awarded AEA over $12 million to extend power to the Black Rapids training site near Delta Junction. AEA has thirty active awards from the Denali Commission, AEA’s current federal cognizant agency. These awards touch on every aspect of what the agency does. There are awards for design and construction of Rural Power System Upgrades (RPSU) and Bulk Fuel Upgrades (BFU); small renewable projects that will be integrated into a remote diesel power system; energy efficiency upgrades, Utility Clerk, Powerhouse Operator, and Bulk Fuel Operator training; small maintenance and improvements for both power systems and tank farms; as well as circuit rider technical assistance and on-site training. This wide array of current and past programs, and grant management experience, ensures that AEA is appropriately prepared to manage this project, including a sub-award and project delivery and assessment process. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 23 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Time commitment of the key team members to support the project. Business Point of Contact: Curtis Thayer serves as executive director of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the state’s energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Previously, he was the commissioner for the Department of Administration and cabinet member for Governor Sean Parnell, responsible for 1,100 public employees and an annual budget of $350 million. As part of his public service, he served as the deputy commissioner of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, and worked in Washington, D.C. with Alaska’s Congressional Delegation. A graduate of the United States Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory Executive Energy Leadership Institute program, Thayer has gained a comprehensive under- standing of advanced energy technologies that has helped him guide his organizations in making energy-related decisions. The project budget and work plan anticipate 10% of Thayer’s time committed to the project. Tim Sandstrom is AEA’s Chief Operating Officer and will represent Mr. Thayer in directly over- seeing the rural energy team. He has been with AEA since 2011 and previously served as director of rural programs. Sandstrom oversees the management of AEA’s Rural Power System Upgrade, Bulk Fuel Upgrade, Circuit Rider, Emergency Response, and Training Programs. As a member of the senior management team, he is also responsible for the implementation of AEA’s strategy and budget management for his programs. With over 35 years in construction, project management, and engineering project management throughout Alaska, Sandstrom brings a broad range of private sector experience to his work. The project budget and work plan anticipate 10% of Sandstrom’s time committed to the project. Technical Point of Contact: Rebecca Garrett, Rural Programs Manager, has been with Alaska Energy Authority since 1997 and has managed projects and programs in varying size and complexity since 1998. She earned her project management professional (PMP) certification and keeps an active registration. She will take on the day-to-day administration of this award starting by preparing the Project Management Plan. From there she will assign individual proj- ects to qualified project managers who will provide project oversight, review and accept plans, procedures, deliverables and reports. Ms. Garrett will be responsible for project communica- tions between contractors, consultants and the AEA team. She will track specific contractual deliverables against the schedule to ensure contractors are on track to meet critical milestones. She will be the primary point of contact for the award. The project budget and work plan antici- pate 50% of Garrett’s time committed to this project. Program/Project Managers: AEA has a team of highly qualified renewable energy project and program managers that work for Conner Erickson, Director of Planning and Audrey Alstrom Director of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. Staff assignments will be made as projects and the technologies they are going to implement become clear. Financial Management: AEA’s Controller will oversee the project’s financial progress. When the Project Management Plan is accepted, a grant agreement will be issued to the individual project sites. Each Project has a unique project code and grant number used for tracking each funding source and required match. The finance team will certify financial reports for Department of Energy reporting requirements. AEA’s Grants Manager will oversee the award from Department of Energy and the grant agreement documents with the remote Alaskan communities. They will ensure AEA’s compliance with grant requirements and related reporting. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 24 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Division of Environmental Health and Engineering (DEHE) offers numerous services to Tribal Health Organizations through its role as the Maintenance & Improvement (M&I) Program Custodian. ANTHC is the nation’s largest tribal health organization, providing statewide health service programs for Alaska Natives. ANTHC’s unique self-governance agreement with the Indian Health Service was authorized in 1997 by PL 105-83, Sec. 325. The Consortium works in cooperation with tribes, Tribal Health Organizations (THO), agencies, municipalities, and private foundations. ANTHC is a source of technical and engineering expertise, and will be included in project consultation and coordination, assisting AEA program staff with assessment of needs and project implementation. Alaska Municipal League (AML). The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a member-based service organization that works to strengthen Alaska’s 165 cities and boroughs. AML has responded to Executive Order 14008 and the federal prioritization of tackling climate change, environmental justice, and inequity by providing a suite of services that help local governments meet associated goals. AML members and associated Tribal governments can utilize our shared service program to contract for a coordinated approach to addressing equity and environ- mental justice within the context of project development and implementation. Nils Andreassen, AML’s Executive Director, has worked with communities across Alaska for more than 15 years, including to serve in a management role at nonprofit organizations for 10 years. Nils has contrib- uted to State efforts and helped draft its Arctic policy, as well as its Climate Action Plan. Nils serves on the Denali Commission, served on the Governor’s Broadband Task Force, and is on the board of directors of the National League of Cities (NLC). His role in this project is to main- tain and cultivate relationships that strengthen delivery of the program, assist with outreach to communities, and contribute input into the strategic direction and deployment of the project. The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP). The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) fosters innovative solutions to Alaska’s energy challenges and is a gateway for ener- gy-related activity at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. ACEP partners with a diverse range of stakeholders to meet the energy research needs of Alaska and beyond. They offer technical assistance to communities, tribal organizations, utilities and non-profits; innovation partner- ships for start-up companies; and industry-sponsored research to address specific technical, economic, social and scientific challenges. ACEP offers innovative research and testing facilities, as well as a wide range of energy systems modeling expertise, product testing, economic and technical feasibility assessments, data collection and analysis services and more. Technical services to be provided by DOE/NNSA FFRDCs None anticipated. Endnotes 1 https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=AK 2 https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Blue_Planet_Project_Shungnak.pdf 3 Circuit Rider Program (3 AAC 108.200 – 240) 4 https://uaf.edu/acep-blog/how-alaska-fits-into-the-global-microgrid-movement%20.php 5 https://uaf.edu/caps/our-work/CAPS-alaskas-climate-policy-development-report-29April2021.pdf CURTIS W. THAYER Experience and Achievements Alaska Energy Authority 2019-Present The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the state's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Position: Executive Director  The Executive Director serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority, responsible for all business and operations. I work closely with the Board as it sets Authority policies, goals, and objectives, and is responsible for the execution of Board directives. I have developed a close relationship with the Governor, Commissioners of principal State departments, the Legislature, business community, and the public to advance the mission of the Authority. Achievements: Increased the profile and developed a strategic action plan to advance the goal and objectives of the Authority  Worked with the Board to establish long-range vision, strategies, goals, policies, and plans; including leading the strategic planning process and working with the Board and Legislature to implement the strategy to achieve that vision.  Strengthening the working relationship with the five utilities is like shuttle diplomacy. A few of the key issues during the three years have included purchase of develop a strategy and bonding package for a $170 million upgrade for the transmission lines from Homer to Anchorage (closes 11/30/22), purchase SS/Q line ($17 million), Battle Creek diversion and construction delays and construction claims, ligation on the SQ line, and Governor’s goal of reducing the cost of power. Managing expectations of the Board, Governor’s Office, Legislature and our five utility partners has proved to be challenging (and rewarding).  Oversight responsibility of the Authority’s rural energy programs, including energy system upgrades, loan programs, alternative/renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the Power Cost Equalization program .  Reviewed and analyzed legislation, laws, regulations, and other public policies that may affect the Authority’s mission and programs and recommends changes when appropriate.  Developing and maintaining professional/cooperative relationships with local, state, and federal agencies, and Authority business partners.  Working with legislative or other government agencies regarding policies, programs, and budgets. Alaska State Chamber of Commerce 2015-2019 The Alaska Chamber is a non-profit, membership funded advocacy organization founded in 1953. The Chamber membership is comprised of companies, associations, and individuals from every business sector in Alaska. The Chamber’s core mission is to make Alaska the best place to do business through its advocacy for and defense of sound business policies based on the principles of free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. Position: President and CEO  As the President & Chief Executive Officer, I serve as the top administrative officer, principal spokesm an, chief advocate in Juneau and Washington DC, chief finance officer and team leader. Achievements: Raised the profile of the Alaska Chamber  Coordinated and guided the work of staff, lobbyists, counsel, committee, and volunteers in marshaling and expressing the Chamber’s business perspective on public policy issues which has increased the profile of the Alaska Chamber statewide through outreach and tackling tough legislative positions that benefit and promote business.  Lead efforts to develop and manage coalitions involving other business associations, advocacy groups local chambers and the US Chamber to achieve Chamber goals.  Grew Chamber membership for the last three straight years.  Developed and implemented a financial plan that has increased Chamber reserves by 15 percent within three years. State of Alaska, Department of Administration 2012 – 2014 With 1,100 employees and an annual budget of $350 million, DoA facilitates state government operations by providing policy leadership and management services in essential areas, including finance/accounting, payroll, human resources/retirement benefits, information technology, labor negotiations, legal services, procurement/facilities, and risk management. Positions: Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner  Served as the chief executive officer of DoA and as a member of Governor Sean Parnell’s cabinet. Unanimously confirmed by the Alaska State Legislature.  Advised Governor on IT, pensions, healthcare, and labor relations with the Legislature and business community.  Responsible for development and implementation of all DOA policies and programs. Hired and managed two deputy commissioners and ten division directors. Achievements: Reducing the Cost of Government  Reformed PERS/TERS (state/local government pension programs) to reduce annual state contribution and ensure long-term solvency. Annual savings are more than $300 million.  Restructured AlaskaCare (state healthcare program) to reduce state contribution without reducing core benefits . Annual savings are more than $60 million.  Negotiated with the state’s eleven public employee’s unions to limit automatic merit increases, reduce leave accruals, and cap benefit cash-outs, all without work stoppages. Annual savings are more than $20 million.  Worked with Legislature to revamp state procurement statutes to increase transparency and competition . Applied new statutes and best practices to major telecom procurement, which reduced annual state expenses by 50%. Previous Experience  2009-2012: Deputy Commissioner, State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development  2004-2009: Director, Corporate and External Affairs, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company  2002-2004: President & CEO, Thayer & Associates (political and corporate communications consulting)  2001-2002: External Affairs Advisor, Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team (BP, Phillips, Exxon)  1997-2000: Special Assistant, U.S Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska)  1993-1996: Professional Staff, U.S House Committee on Natural Resources  1991-1992: Management Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Education  University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Business/Justice  National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), Golden CO, Executive Energy Leadership Academy  University of Wisconsin, Institute of Organizational Management, U.S. Chamber  State of Alaska, Real Estate License Community Activities CURRENT  Alaska Board of Marine Pilots, Chair  Don Young Institute for Alaska, Chair  Alaska Leaders Archives, Treasurer PAST  Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation, Director  Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Director  Alaska Retirement Management Board, Trustee  Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board, Director  Abused Women Aid in Crisis (AWAIC), Director and Treasurer  Committee of 100 Top Chamber Executives, U.S. Chamber  Council of State Chamber Executives  Selected as “Top 40 under 40” community leader CLAY CHRISTIAN MBA, MS, CPA, CIA clay.christian@gmail.com • Cell: 301-706-1061• LinkedIn Profile • Chief Financial Officer • Chief financial officer with a long career of leadership for organizations undergoing major transitions. Creative and sound decision-making through changes in strategic direction, mergers and acquisitions, fundraising, debt and equity financing, performance improvement, financial audit restatements, and information systems. Focus areas include capital programs, investment, restructuring and alignment, asset management, procurement, real estate and construction, contract management, optimization, compliance, team building, and continuous training and process improvement. Deep experience with public and private partnerships, government sponsored entities, not-for-profit companies, investment tax credit, and qualified opportunity zone business development programs. Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, and Big 4 public auditor. • CORE COMPETENCIES • Chief Financial Officer • Strategic Planning • Risk Management • Capital Development • Not-for-Profit Mergers and Acquisitions • Financial and Management Reporting • Change Management • Optimization Excellent Written & Verbal Communication Skills • Leadership • Team Building and People Development Information Systems • Internal Controls • Training • Continuous Process Improvement • KEY ACHIEVEMENTS • • Chief Financial Officer for Alaska Infrastructure Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) • Vice President, Finance for 130-year-old company, Crowley Fuels, Alaska • Interim-Controller for start-up $3 billion Water Street Tampa real estate development • Independent consultant through Cross Services LLC for numerous companies undergoing substantial change (Fannie Mae, Muni Mae, Capital Petroleum Group, and above Water Street Tampa) • Worked remotely through pandemic and delivered outstanding results • Strong engagement with public auditors through new audits, consolidations, and financial restatements • Frequent meetings with boards, executives, general counsel, and operational leaders • Strategic and financial transformations • PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTING EXPERIENCE • Chief Financial Officer: Alaska Infrastructure Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) – Anchorage, Alaska 2023 – Present Leading team of more than 22 professionals for both entities who manage more than $3 billion in investment, federal, and state programs. Vice President, Finance: Crowley Fuels – Anchorage, Alaska 2021 – 2023 Lead for more than 20 professionals; equity raise of $120m; capital improvements of $20m; budgeting, forecasting, optimization, financial and compliance audits, investor presentations. CLAY CHRISTIAN • clay.christian@gmail.com • Cell: 301-706-1061 • Page 2 Private Equity Investment Firm (Cross Services LLC) – Remote to Tampa, Florida 2019 – 2021 Privately held $3B real estate investment, backed by wealthy individuals. • Interim controller; overseeing financial reporting, compliance, and leading accounting transformation on behalf of RSM and Deloitte, global public accounting firms. Capitol Petroleum Group (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2011 – 2018 Privately held $1B firm focused on wholesale and retail motor fuel sales in East Coast markets. • Led first-ever comprehensive audits of companies, developed compliance program and financial reporting system. Worked closely with mezzanine investors and bankers through budgeting, forecasting, financial restatements, and consolidations. • Designed and developed systems using SQL programs, created executive dashboards, trained accounting department, and implemented cloud-based applications to replace legacy systems. Miscellaneous Clients (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2009 – 2011 My private consulting firm, focusing on investment and capital raises for several non-public clients. Municipal Mortgage & Equity LLC (Cross Services LLC) – Baltimore, Maryland 2007 – 2009 Real estate management company with portfolio of municipal and mortgage revenue bonds. • Led team of 40 examining accounting and reporting of more than 20 business units subject to consolidation as variable interest entities. Designed and conducted cash flow modeling, valuation, and consolidation for 2,200 not-for-profit entities in affordable housing program. Fannie Mae (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2005 – 2006 Largest government sponsored entity providing mortgage capital to lenders, making housing more accessible and affordable. • Led team to review accounting policies and information systems for mortgage-backed securities programs and investments in not-for-profit affordable housing organizations. • Designed and developed SQL database to monitor and report operating performance. • EARLIER EXPERIENCE • Freddie Mac – Washington, DC Metro Area Ø Senior Director, Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance CohnReznick – Washington, DC Metro Area (lead CPA firm to low-income housing tax credit industry) Ø Senior Manager, Consulting and Audit Sodexo – Washington, DC Metro Area (global leader in food and facilities management services) Ø Senior Director, Strategic Information Analysis Ø Director, Internal Audit Ernst & Young – Boston, Massachusetts (global leader in public accounting) Ø Manager, Consulting and Audit • EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATIONS • MBA and MS, Accounting – Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts MS, Economics and BA, Geography – West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia Certified Public Accountant – CPA (Massachusetts License No. 16762) Certified Internal Auditor – CIA (Certificate No. 25966) Pamela J. Ellis Phone: (907) 771-3981 | Email: PEllis@akenergyauthority.org EDUCATION  Master Class for Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence University of Alaska Anchorage (Fall Semester 2015)  Bachelor of Arts, Major in Accounting / Minor in Management College of Saint Benedict – Saint Joseph, Minnesota (1987-1989) University of San Diego – San Diego, California (1985-1986) EXPERIENCE Alaska Energy Authority - Anchorage, Alaska Controller | December 19, 2022 to Present Supervisor: Curtis Thayer  Duties include supervision of the daily accounting functions, finance staff; Develop, design and implement policies, procedures, internal controls and work processes; oversees the Finance section for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA); Direct supervision of a Project Controller and Assistant Controller; conducts and oversees research and implementation of new accounting standards; controls budget and expenditures for both the AEA operations and capital budgets with restrictions by funding source; Manages federal receipts by reviewing federal grant applications for sufficient federal budget authorization and funding for match requirements; manages federal grant applications and ensures that finance components of the federal financial assistance award applications are properly completed; Manages the financial transactions of awarded federal grants and assures compliance with all federal financial reporting requirements; Reviews and assists with the publication and audit, by external auditors, of the AEA annual Single Audit; Manages the receipt and expenditure of all other funding sources of AEA. Including state funds and community grants that are managed by AEA on behalf of communities; reviews all AEA sub-recipient grants for initial or amendment. Reviews and approves all sub-recipient awards close outs; and responsible for the annual financial statements for AEA. Oversees the annual financial audit with external auditors. Municipality of Anchorage - Anchorage, Alaska Assistant Controller (Acting Controller 2011 & 2019) | February 2008 to Present December 16, 2022 Supervisors (Controllers/CFOs (when Acting for over 6 months)): Teresa Peterson, David Ryan, Lucinda Mahoney (CFO 2011), Nanette Spear, Tom Fink, Tammy Clayton, Alex Slivka (CFO 2019), and Mollie Mo rrison.  Supervision of up to seven staff accountants and up to four Contractors (Supervisory backfill during SAP implementation) as Assistant Controller and up to twenty-three staff accountants and four supervisors as Acting Controller for the Controller Division;  Duties of the Assistant Controller include review and creation of year-end workpapers, Detail Statements, capital asset schedules, footnotes, required supplementary schedules (RSI’s), and statistical tables for the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Coordination with internal and external auditors including audit field work and audit of the detailed statements and ACFR. As Acting Controller created the Letter of Transmittal and MD&A for the ACFR. Created audit finding recommended corrective action plans. Creation of the GASB 34 conversion entries and all required documentation. Recording of all debt financing activities at the governmental fund level and processing the conversion to the government-wide level for government-wide financial statement presentation.  Create and post in the General Ledger (GL) all required GL transactions required for G.O. debt refunding’s. Review all new G.O. debt GL postings for MOA’s Governmental Funds. Offer consultation with the Public Finance Division in regard to capitalization of capital assets for upcoming G.O. Bond issues.  Incorporation of three discretely presented component units and one trust fund in the form of four separate stand -alone audited financial statements into the government-wide financial statements for MOA.  Creation of a full set of stand-alone financial statements for CIVICVentures LLC (a blended component unit), including the MD&A, financial statements (in the full accrual and modified accrual presentation) with a two-year comparison and footnotes. Maintenance of inventory documentation and capital asset schedules. Participation in the annual audit.  Oversight of all daily accounting functions of Governmental Funds (to include the General Fund), Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Fiduciary Funds, and Suspense Funds (such as the Cash Pool Fund and the Employee Pay and Benefits Fund). Oversight of the MOA’s capital asset and construction work in progress (CWIP) daily accounting activities. The Assistant Controller supervises the Fixed Asset Accountant and Infrastructure Accountant for MOA. Daily review and approval of journal entries, fund certifications of Municipal Assembly documents, and reconciliations. Creation and management of month and year-end processing schedules. Responsible for period close coordination with other Finance Directors. Hold weekly meetings as required. Process the year-end split payroll postings and perform extensive reconciliations before posting.  Subject matter expert (SME) of the General Ledger (GL), Controlling Module (CO), Asset Management Module (AM), and the Projects Module of SAP.  Assist with implementation of all new GASB pronouncements. Review and update of Finance policy and procedures. Creation of internal control documentation and oversight of internal controls regarding the GL and creation of the ACFR per GAAP. Acting Controller as required. Fund / Reconciliation Accounting Supervisor | February 2005 to January 2008 Budget Coordinator Finance & CFO Departments Supervisors: Teresa Peterson, Wanda Tankersley, Michelle Drew, and David Richards  Supervised five Senior Staff Accountants. Two reconciliation accountants and three fund accountants. Oversight of the MOA’s daily accounting activities of the General Funds, Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Internal Service Funds and Trust Funds (Fiduciaries). To include review of all fund certifications created for the CFO for pending assembly legislation. Oversight of MOA’s capital asset module and creation of MOA’s capital asset footnote for the ACFR. Creation of various footnotes, RSI’s, and statistic tables of the ACFR. Review of MOA’s bank reconciliations, investment reconciliations, subledger to general ledger reconciliations and unclaimed property filings. Assist four Finance Divisions of the Finance Department and the CFO Department with review and creation of their annual operating budgets. Assist with review and updates to the intergovernmental cost allocation plans (IGCs) and methodologies for the Finance and CFO Departments. Acting Controller as required. General Fund Accountant | April 2004 to January 2005: Supervisor: Guy Baily  Create workpapers, detail statements, RSI’s, and statistical tables for all of MOA’s General Funds. Review and MOA wide department generated journal entries and creation of journal entries for all of MOA’s General Funds. Create fund balance worksheets for the General Funds of MOA. Reconcile all balance sheet accounts of the MOA General Funds and create year-end workpapers. Grant Fund Accountant | October 2001 to March 2004 Supervisor: Catherine Gettler-Amyott  Create monthly and quarterly grant reports for state, state pass thru federal, and federal grants awarded to MOA. Reconcile the GL to grant reports and make correcting entries in the GL as required. Receipt all grant proceeds and create year-end accrual / deferral entries. Create workpapers for the generation of the Single Audit. This was for MOA’s Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds and Special Revenue Funds. Assist in audit requests when being audited by external or internal auditors. Reconciliation Accountant | April 2001 to September 2001 Supervisor: David Richards  Reconciled the Accounts Payable subledger and Accounts Receivable subledger to the General Ledger. Reconciled the revenue postings to all Governmental Capital Project Funds and created corrective entries. PROFESSIONAL BOARDS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATES  Governmental Finance Officers Association – Member  Municipal Audit Committee – Member (when serving as the Acting Controller)  Lost Lake Run Board Member  GFOA certificate for Excellence in Financial Accounting and Reporting (2019 and 2020). COMPUTER SKILLS  Microsoft Word  Microsoft Excel  Microsoft PowerPoint  Microsoft Outlook  PeopleSoft Financial Systems  Corel WordPerfect  Corel Quattro Pro  IBM Lotus  Yardi Property Management Software  Microsoft Dynamics NAV 365 Business Central  Intuit Turbo Tax  Intuit QuickBooks Pro  SAP (to include completion of 1 semester SAP course at UAA on Hana, BW, and NetWeaver)  Kronos and NEOGOV  Libra Accounting Software  Skyline Software Systems  Onsite Manager  Various Web Based Reporting Systems Rebecca Garrett, PMP AEA Rural Programs Manager rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org Professional Work Experience State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Rural Programs Manager September 2022 - Present Oversee the Rural Programs Projects Managers and Grants section. Manage Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Program. Manage Bulk Fuel Upgrade (BFU) Program. Manage rural power system construction projects. Collaborate with other agency staff, rural community entities, and federal agencies to coordinate diverse interests in rural power system projects. Seek out and apply for funding for agency and partner energy projects. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Project Manager/Program Manager February 2018 – September 2022 Manager Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Program. Manage rural power system construction projects. Manage the active construction of 3 heat recovery systems around the state of Alaska. Manage State Clean Diesel (DERA) program for Alaska Energy Authority. Manage the DERA rural powerhouse engine replacement projects. Offer technical assistance to communities that need efficiency upgrades and/or are experiencing problems with the power system. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy projects and programs. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Assistant Project Manager June 2014 – January 2018 Manage end use (conservation) projects. Manage rural power system construction. Manage the construction of heat recovery systems around the state of Alaska. Manage State Clean Diesel (DERA) program for Alaska Energy Authority. Offer technical assistance to communities that need efficiency upgrades and/or are experiencing problems with the power system. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy conservation. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Project Development/Project Manager January 2009 - June 2014 Manage end use efficiency (conservation) projects. Develop and present regional energy fairs around the state with a focus on energy efficiency. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy conservation. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). Monitor section needs and lobby for additional support when necessary. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Section Program/Project Manager September 1999 – January 2009 Manage end use efficiency (conservation) program. Develop and present regional energy fairs around the state with a focus on energy conservation. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy efficiency. Authorize and release the Energy Cost Reduction RFP. Administer each project that results from the Cost Reduction RFP analysis. Facilitate bi-weekly section meetings, and collaborate with Accounting and Procurement. Oversee 20 projects with budgets totaling over $20 million all over the state of Alaska. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). Work History State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Programs Manager September 2022 - Present State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Project/Program Manager February 2018 – September 2022 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Assistant Project Manager June 2014 – January 2018 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Project Development January 2009 – June 2014 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Energy Efficiency Program May 2001 – May 2009 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Training Program Manager May 1997 – May 2001 State of Alaska – Division of Energy, Administrative Clerk III March 1997 – May 1997 Avis Rent-a-Car, Assistant Manager – Rental Counter September 1992 – December 1997 Certifications Project Management Professional (PMP) May 2018 Project Management Institute September 2015 Meeting Professionals International March 2007 Notary Public May 1997 – present E-Writing, Business and Technical Writing March 2006 Post Baccalaureate Course Work University of Alaska, Fairbanks May 2021 Sustainable Energy Occupational Endorsement University of Alaska, Anchorage September 2006 – May 2007 Organizational Behavior (BA 300), Technical Writing (ENGL 212) University of Alaska, Fairbanks March 1998 Cultural Awareness Education BA History, University of Alaska, Anchorage May 1996 Dimond High School, Anchorage Alaska June 1991 Volunteer Experience State of Alaska, Polling Place Worker, Anchorage AK August 2020 -Seasonal Primary and Election day worker at local polling station Gladys Wood Elementary School, Volunteer, Anchorage AK September 2006 – 2013 Parent working in the classroom and Parent-Teacher Organization Audrey Alstrom, P.E.  (907)‐771‐3058 | aalstrom@akenergyauthority.org | http://bit.ly/AAlstromLinkedIn  SKILLS  Project manager with experience in program development and management in rural energy and academia.  Technical Analyses   Economic Modeling   Personnel Management   Community and Brand Building     Data Management   Technical Writing   Cross‐cultural Communication   Familiar with: AutoCAD, ArcGIS, CRM  tools  EDUCATION AND LICENSES  Exec. Master of Public Administration – Evan’s School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington   Professional Engineering (P.E.) License – State of Alaska   Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering – University of Alaska Anchorage   Associate of Arts, General – University of Alaska Fairbanks, Kuskokwim Campus  PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE  Director – Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency, Alaska Energy Authority, 2022 – present   Responsible for the management and oversight of the Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency (renewable energy)  department and projects. Provides renewable energy expertise and guidance to internal staff and external  stakeholders on the relevant renewable technology, as well as providing technical assistance in the development of  grant applications for potential projects. Manages the planning, design, and construction of renewable energy  projects throughout Alaska.  Senior Director, UAA Alaska Native Science & Engineering Program, 2014 – 2022   Responsible for ANSEP’s University and Graduate programs. Advanced positive and effective relations between  external partners, such as state and federal agencies, industrial firms, community/civic groups, foundations, other  universities, Alaska Native Regional Corporations and their Nonprofit organizations, public schools and university  resources. Worked collaboratively with public school administrators, professors, students, parents, human resource  directors, and curriculum and staff development specialists, to promote programs. Oversaw hiring, training,  supervision and evaluation of 30+ program staff and program consultants. Managed annual budget for component  and made major budgetary and resource allocation decisions. Identified fundraising and development  opportunities. Developed and implemented middle school component to expand from 2 camps per year to 14.  2  Program Manager ‐ Hydroelectric, Alaska Energy Authority, 2013 – 2014   Responsible for management and development of hydroelectric program. Oversaw and managed annual budget for  program. Evaluated potential project proposals for funding of various energy supply options by assessing economic  benefits and costs, technical and environmentally feasibility. Provided technical project management and oversight  of the planning, design and construction of rural energy power systems. Co‐author of “Can the State of Alaska  Match its Energy Demand through Installed Hydropower Capacity?” April 2014.  Asst. Project Manager ‐ Hydroelectric, Alaska Energy Authority, 2010 – 2013   Provided technical assistance in planning, review, and implementation for reconnaissance, feasibility, permitting,  design and construction phases of hydroelectric development of AEA‐ funded hydroelectric projects under  guidance of hydroelectric project manager. Responsible and provided technical support for 35 projects, totaling  $25 million.  Helped screen and launch AEA hydro database.  Summer Engineer, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Summers 2008 & 2009  Initiated the start‐up and turnover of a Chemical Systems Upgrade project by working with project team, assigning  responsibilities, completing and uploading project documents to group server. Completed economic evaluations of  Prudhoe Bay Unit Renewal Cases in regard to possible gas sales using COP’s Economic Modeling Tool. Reviewed 43  projects, recommended 13 for consideration.  General Intern, CH2MHill, 2007 – 2008   Worked in Engineering Design Group West under supervision of civil engineer in environmental and transportation  design. Used AutoCAD and MicroStation to help design roads, walkways, and utilities for various client projects.  *Additional experience working with the local fishing industry, Alaska Native village corporations, and city and  tribal governments.  HONORS AND ORGANIZATIONS  American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006 – present  Yukon‐Kuskokwim Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Working Group, 2019 – present   Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program, alumni  Ciulamta Traditional Drummers and Dancers, founding member  University of Hawaii, U.S. Dept. of Defense High Performance Certificate  Alakanuk Traditional Council Board Member  Alakanuk Schools Advisory School Board Member Page 1 Conner Erickson Director of Planning Alaska Energy Authority CONTACT 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503  907-771-3025  cerickson@akenergyauthority.org  Alaska Energy Authority EDUCATION AND TRAINING University of Denver, Denver, CO – Bachelor of Arts, 2010  Major: B.A. Economics w/ Honors  Major: B.A. International Studies  Minor: Leadership Studies  Cum Laude RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2023 – Present Director of Planning • Alaska Energy Authority Administrator for the Renewable Energy Grant fund, a competitively solicited grant program, funded via state appropriations, which seeks to provide financial assistance to thoroughly vetted renewable energy projects across multiple project phases, including pre-construction. Administrator for the Power Project Fund Revolving Loan program, a patient capital loan program which seeks to provide low-cost financing to smaller-sized utility-scale energy development across the state. Co-manage multiple state applications for federal funding opportunities within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021, including but not limited to a $60 million competitive formula grant program aimed at grid resilience measures, and a $4.5 million revolving loan fund capitalization program. Perform bill analyses concerning the impact to the Alaska Energy Authority for proposed legislation by members of the legislature. 2021 – 2023 Planning Manager • Alaska Energy Authority Assisted in administering the Renewable Energy Fund Program, along with the Director of Planning. Successfully secured $19.75 million in state funding in support of 38 projects across Round 13 and Round 14 of the grant program. Administered the Power Project Revolving Loan Fund including but not limited to loan analysis and processing, loan due diligence, presentations to loan committee and AEA Board of Directors, loan loss reserve calculations, loan action follow -up and responding to audit requests. Grew outstanding loan portfolio by $2.7 million. Recapitalized available loan fund balance by $2.8 million through processing of committed, idle loan applications. Performed various ad-hoc economic analyses relating to prospective energy projects. Page 2 2020 – 2021 Economist • Alaska Energy Authority Performed various ad-hoc economic analyses relating to prospective energy projects and asset sales as requested by various state departments and offices. Conducted quality control / quality assurance on the economic evaluations of those applications to the Renewable Energy Fund as performed by third party, contracted economists. Performed economic and financial evaluations for applications to the Power Project Loan Fund. 2020 Sr. Business Analyst • Northern Air Cargo, LLC Served as the dedicated business analyst for Northern Air Cargo. In this capacity, provide business intelligence support via the reporting of operational and financial data of air cargo and maintenance operations. Budget analytics were provided primarily utilizing SAP Business Objects, for data querying, reporting and visualization . Provided analytical support including but not limited to budget creation and month-end variance analysis, integration of P&L into SAP Business Objects, and ad-hoc analysis as requested from executive level personnel. Acted as the dedicated capital analyst, managing capital expenditure planning and reporting for all business units. Created, reported on, and administered Northern Air Cargo’s 5 year capital plan through management of data submissions via regular consultation with business unit managers on their capital needs and requirements, including airline operations, ground services operations, and facility operations. 2016-2020 Sr. Analyst • Alaska Communications Provided business intelligence support to the Enterprise (B2B) sales team by combining disparate data sources into comprehensive real-time dashboards supporting daily business operations. Utilized multiple dataset types, including ETL, in combination with Transact-SQL, Excel, and PowerBI to provide such support. Provided real-time analytics for an array of requests utilized in formulating business strategy, corporate growth tactics, and internal and external reporting requirements. Translated using a combination of power-queries, macros, and dynamic formulae the Sales commissions payment agreement into spreadsheet form. Administered and maintained commission workbooks for monthly commission processing. Worked closely with C-suite executives, Compliance, and Human Resources personnel in this capacity. SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES  Renewable Energy Fund Program Administrator, Alaska Energy Authority, 2020 – Present  Power Project Fund Revolving Loan Program Administrator, Alaska Energy Authority, 2021 – Present  Business Intelligence Dashboard Data Administrator, Alaska Communications, 2018 - 2020  Level 1 Microsoft Access Certification, 2016  Feasibility consultant on 30+ international projects with an aggregate project value of $700+ million, Wert-Berater, Inc., 2012 - 2016  Graduate Pioneer Leadership Program, University of Denver, 2010 Page 1 Karen Bell Manager of Planning Alaska Energy Authority CONTACT 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503  907-771-3951  kbell@akenergyauthority.org  Alaska Energy Authority EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING Johns Hopkins University – Master of Science, 2021  Major: Applied Economics Fordham University – Bachelor of Science, 2001  Major: Business Administration  Concentration: Economics  Minor: Mathematics National Association of Business Economics – Professional Certificate, 2022  Economics of Strategy and Managerial Decision Making PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE STATE OF ALASKA - ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY • Manager of Planning, March 2023 – Present • Economist, May 2022 – March 2023 Assists with the administration of the Power Project Loan Fund including reviewing applications, performing due diligence, determining eligibility, conducting financial feasibility analyses, preparing written summaries for loan packets, and calculating loa n loss reserves. Prepares the Request for Application for the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grant program, including updating the assumptions in the economic evaluation model, preparing fuel price forecasts, and calculating household energy burden by community. Reviews REF grant applications and economic evaluations for accuracy and reasonableness. Participates in the scoring of REF application and preparation of the recommendation to the Alaska State Legislature. Prepares Request for Proposals and participates in scoring proposals from potential contractors. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE – ANCHORAGE HEALTH DEPARTMENT • Program Manager, November 2020 – December 2021 Principle officer responsible for the administration of the Municipality’s funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Development (HUD). Directed the allocation and procurement of $13 million in funding during 2020 and 2021. Responsible for federal reporting, monitoring of contractors, and managing grant budgets. Developed program specific policies and procedures and ensured compliance by grantees. Directed and oversaw the work of a four person staff. Contracted by the Municipality from August 2021 to December 2021 to onboard my successor. Page 2 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE – ANCHORAGE WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY • Regulatory Affairs Manager, December 2013 – November 2020 Responsible for the oversight of the Utility’s participation in regulatory proceedings. Directed and oversaw the work of a three person staff. Developed revenue requirement studies, cost of service studies, financial models, statistical analyses, and cost benefit analyses. Provided written and oral testimony before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in support of revisions to rates, changes to provisions of service, and changes to Alaska Administrative Code. Filled role of Acting Chief Financial Officer during 2017 and 2018. Played integral role in the development of the long‐range financial plan and budget 2017- 2020. Presented to the Anchorage Assembly, Utility Board of Directors, and Community Councils in support of Utility initiatives. • Utility Financial Analyst, July 2010 – December 2013 Analyzed financial data and developed pro forma financial statements based on rate making theory to better reflect the current operating environment. Assisted in the preparation of revenue requirements studies. Prepared discovery responses during rate cases. MACY’S CORPORATE • Planner, March 2007 – April 2010 Responsible for the allocation of merchandise to support over $300 million in annual revenue. Developed merchandise strategies for 600+ locations based on history, climate, and customer demographics. Forecasted sales and inventory by location and negotiated with vendors to mitigate loss. • Manager, Merchandise Information Organization, September 2003 – March 2007 Oversaw functions of the Allocation and Order Management departments and eight person staff. Supported enterprise system rollouts by creating business requirements, user testing, troubleshooting, and documenting business scenarios. Developed and implemented training curriculum throughout the organization. • Financial Analyst, July 2001 – September 2003 Developed and executed pricing strategies in support of financial, product, and marketing objectives. SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES  Renewable Energy Fund Program, Alaska Energy Authority, 2022 – Present  Power Project Fund Revolving Loan Program, Alaska Energy Authority, 2022 – Present  Administrator for the Municipality of Anchorage’s HUD Grants, 2020 -2021  National Association of Business Economic Member, 2021 – Present  Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis Member, 2021 - Present  Society of Depreciation Professionals, Depreciation Fundamentals Program Participant  Institute of Public Utilities, Fundamentals of Regulation Workshop & Advanced Regulatory Studies Program Participant Karin St. Clair AEA Grants Manager 907-771-3081 kstclair@akenergyauthority.org Professional Experience Alaska Energy Authority – Grants Manager - Dec 2011-2016 & Aug 2019-Present Maintain grants management database. Prepare reports from grants management software. Ensure data integrity in databases. Evaluate grantee proposal, plans and justifications to include cost factors. Process grant applications and obtain outstanding materials. Monitor and ensure timely receipt of reports from grantees. Monitor and administer federal and state grants and contracts. Collect and analyze grant data. Maintain electronic and physical files related to all aspects of the grant cycle. Prepare, scan, and verify historical documents for electronic conversion. Prepare grant agreements, notification letters, applications, and letters of inquiry. Communicate with Federal, State, and local agencies regarding award compliance. Review contracts for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with state regulations. Provide technical guidance to internal and external stakeholders on grant administration and financial policies, procedures, statutes, and regulations. Serve as liaison between the project managers and outside funding agencies; provides assistance in resolving issues and conflicts with funding agencies; participates in meetings and discussions in which decisions affecting projects are made. Inform grantees regarding regulation changes impacting grant opportunities. Process amendments, modifications, extensions, and terminations of contracts and subcontracts Alaska Energy Authority – Project Controls - Jul 2016-Jan 2020 Track status reporting, financial reporting, milestones, and deliverables of projects. Track and audit internal controls and guidelines associated with project controls. Monitor budget, scope, and milestones. Provide leadership and training to team members on internal controls and guidelines associated with project controls. Recommend and execute corrective actions to handle project compliance. Identify upcoming project milestones and customer requirements so that Project Managers can ensure satisfaction of project milestones and customer requirements. Monitor and implement approved project management plan changes. Management of less complex projects and close outs. Identify all funding sources and develop a monitoring system for funding opportunities. Assist communities in writing grant applications. Assist in writing grant applications for agency. Alaska Energy Authority – Administrative Assistant - Jun 2011-Dec 2011 Provided administrative support for various departments, including answering telephones, assisting visitors, resolving various problems, and assisting with inquiries. Prepared, transcribed, composed, typed, edited, and distributed agendas and minutes of numerous meetings. Scheduled and coordinated meetings, teleconferences, appointments, events, and other similar activities for staff, including travel and lodging arrangements. Assisted with Round V Grant Application data entry and file setup. Scanned, labeled, and tracked grant documents in award database (Navision). Entered milestones for grants in Navision. Created and maintained grant files and related paper documents. Tracked grant applications for Commercial Audit Program. Communicated with auditors and commercial owners regarding project progress and missing information. Prepared reimbursement paperwork for the finance department First National Bank Alaska - Administrative Assistant - 2009-2010 Prepared and assigned daily reports to Merchant Representatives. Logged and tracked the completion of reports by Merchant Representatives. Attended weekly staff meeting and transcribed meeting minutes. Arranged travel for Merchant Representatives. Monitored daily in town travel of merchant representatives. Monitored and ordered all supplies for department. Scheduled all trainings as well as reserved rooms and equipment needed. Composed and prepared mass mailings to merchants. Performed credit checks, acquired financial statements and business licenses for potential merchants. Worked with the IT Department in developing a new program for Merchant Services using Access and Excel. Responsible for merchant billing and collections. Answered multi-line phones, receive daily mail and incoming deliveries Law Offices of Thom F. Janidlo Anchorage - Administrative Assistant - 2006-2009 Scheduled all attorney court hearings, client meetings and consultations. Transcribed during appropriate trial setting conferences and client meetings. Transcribed and prepared legal court documents. Performed legal research to assist attorneys with preparation of court documents. Maintained accurate records for attorney’s billable hours. Identified more efficient and cost saving methods for ordering office supplies. Initiated the use of a credit card machine to assist in payment processing. Suggested the use of a scanner to replace paper processes, minimizing paper waste and expense. Answered multi-line phones, received daily mail and courier services. Computerized/Manual Accounts Payable/Receivable. Credit and Collections. Month-End- Closings. Account Reconciliation. Monthly Payroll Processing. Statement Billings. Customer Service/Client Relations. Office Management Education Project Management Institute- Project Management Foundation 2016 International Correspondence School- Medical Office Assistant Certificate 1999 Northwest College- General studies 1991-1992 Related Activities - Thompson Grants - Federal Grants Forum for State & Local Governments 2021 - Jim Hale - Writing for the Workplace (one day seminar) 2014 - Gil Tran, Senior Technical Manager, OMB - OMB’s Grant Reform and the Uniform Guidance (one day seminar) 2014 - Colleen Campbell, State of Alaska Single Audit Coordinator - State Single Audit Presentation (one day seminar) 2014 - Grants Management Workshop - Grants Management Certificate (two day workshop certificate attached) 2012 Page 1 Nils Andreassen Executive Director Alaska Municipal League CONTACT 1310 Tarn Court Juneau, AK 99801  907-351-4982  nils@akml.org  www.akml.org EDUCATION AND TRAINING University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan  Governance and Entrepreneurship in Northern and Indigenous Areas  Master of Arts  (Completion expected in December 2023) University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom  Peace and Development Studies  Bachelor of Arts, First Honours  2005 RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2018–Present Executive Director • Alaska Municipal League Supervise staff of twelve and support board of twenty-nine. Set strategic direction and implement member directed activities. Respond to 165 cities and boroughs, advocate for policy issues. Also serve as a Trustee of the Alaska Municipal League Joint Insurance Association, and as executive director of the Alaska Municipal League Investment Pool, overseeing $460 million in assets. Responsible for:  Alaska Remote Seller Sales Tax Commission, and $20 million in annual tax collection  Alaska Infrastructure Coordinating Committee, to maximize federal investment  Cities of Opportunity, evaluating social determinants of health  Annual Local Government Conference, with 1,000 attendees from across Alaska  Stakeholder Engagement, DOE Alaska Energyshed Tech Stack 2009–2018 Executive Director • Institute of the North Principal Investigator for the Arctic Council’s Arctic Energy Summit, Principal Investigator for Page 2 Control Number 2565-1547 the Arctic Council’s Arctic Maritime, and Aviation Transportation Infrastructure Initiative. Supervise staff of two to five people; manage funding of between $500,000 and $1,500,000 annually; and develop strategic plan and implementation process for the Institute of North. Support the high-level mission of the organization board of directors, and community outreach. Responsible for all fundraising, project development and project implementation. 2005–2009 VISTA Program Coordinator • Rural Alaska Community Action Program Coordination of VISTA Village Council Management Program in ten rural communities, development of community planning curriculum for VISTA members. Coordination of environmental activities for 20 AmeriCorps members in rural Alaska, overseeing completion of Fire Smart Alaska program. 2006-2007 Adjunct Professor • University of Alaska, Anchorage Preparation of lesson plans for weekly class of upper-level students covering topics that deal with the international political economy. Lecturing, providing a forum for discussion of issues and fielding questions. PUBLICATIONS  Alaska’s Arctic, An Overview, https://institutenorth.org/products-outcomes/alaskas- arctic-an-overview/  Lessons from the Arctic; The role of Regional Government in International Affairs, Thomas S. Axworthy, Sara French, Emily Tsui, Chapter 18, Page 297.  Numerous letters to the editor and commentary in various publications SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES  Commissioner for Denali Commission  National League of Cities Board of Directors  Commonwealth North Board Member  National Association of Counties Western Interstate Region Board of Directors  Member, Alaska Energy Security Task Force  Board Member, RurAL CAP Dustin M. Madden, CEM [4500 Diplomacy Dr., Anchorage, Alaska 99508] | [(907) 304-2142] | [dmmadden1@anthc.org] Employment Experience Rural Energy Program Manager, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (2020–Present) • Manage a team of 9 employees and $1.5 million annual operating budget • Oversee project managers implementing a portfolio of approximately $25 million in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in more than 50 rural Alaskan communities with funding from 16 different Federal, State, regional and philanthropic organizations • Oversee development of new renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, including project prioritization, feasibility work, engineering design, funding strategies, and grant applications • Responsible for hiring, team development, strategic planning, process improvement, coordination with internal departments and external partners and funding agencies. Policy Researcher / Data Scientist, Cold Climate Housing Research Center (2012-2020) • Develop and update energy efficiency standards for Alaska, including commercial and residential new construction standards, energy rating software standards, and residential renewable energy modeling software standards • Conduct energy and economic analyses of energy efficiency programs and standards in Alaska, including Home Energy Rebate Program, low-income Weatherization Assistance Program, Village Energy Efficiency Program, Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standard • Conduct economic analyses of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects • Contribute to project development: generate ideas for new projects, write scopes of work, create budgets, and assist with grant applications • Use Python / Pandas, SQL, and Excel to perform complex quantitative analyses of commercial and residential energy cost and consumption data • Contribute to the development of energy software tools such as AkWarm , BMON Building Monitoring System, Alaska Mini-Split Heat Pump Calculator, etc. Science Teacher, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. (2007-2012) • Develop and teach culturally relevant curricula for Alaska Native students in the Anchorage School District. Certifications, Areas of Expertise, and Tools Certified Energy Manager | Python / Pandas | SQL | BEopt AkWarm -R and AkWarm -C | Alaska Retrofit Information System | Tableau Education University of Alaska Southeast (2008-2010) Sitka, AK / Distance Master of Arts in Teaching Cumulative GPA: 3.97 / 4.00 Stanford University (2000-2004) Stanford, CA B.S. in Earth Systems Cumulative GPA: 3.65/4.00 Coursework includes: environmental policy, economics, energy efficiency, renewable energy Additional Educational Experiences University of California, Berkeley: InArch Summer Institute (2011) Berkeley, California Learned architectural design principles and became proficient in digital and analog tools, including Rhino 3D, Adobe Products (Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign), physical modeling and hand drafting. Additional Leadership Experience Founder, Alaska Midnight Sun Tango Camp, LLC (2018-Present) Anchorage, AK Board Member, Alaska Center for Appropriate Technology (2019-2021) Southcentral Alaska Board Member Alternate, Railbelt Reliability Council Implementation Committee (2021-2022) Alaska Awards 2021 Federal Energy and Water Management Award 2021 ANTHC Employee of the Year Selected Presentations and Publications Madden, D. (2023). Using Renewable Energy to Subsidize Water and Sewer Systems in Rural Alaska. Alaska Tribal Conference on Environmental Management. Muradur Rashedin, Barbara Johnson, Subhabrata Dev, Erin Whitney, Jennifer Schmidt, Dustin Madden, and Srijan Aggarwal (2022). Rural Alaska Water Treatment and Distribution Systems Incur High Energy Costs: Identifying Energy Drivers Using Panel Data Analysis for 78 Communities. ACS ES&T Wa- ter 2022 2 (12), 2668-2676. DOI: 10.1021/acsestwater.2c00417 Wiltse, N., Madden, D., (2019). Home Energy Rebate Program Impacts Report and Weatherization Program Impacts Report. Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Madden, D. (2019). Energy Efficiency Measures Implemented in the Home Energy Rebate Program. Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Wiltse, N., Madden, D. (2018). 2018 Alaska Housing Assessment. Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Madden, D. (2017). Building 6 Star Homes in Southcentral Alaska. 2017 EE Now Conference. Hill, D., Badger, C., Wiltse, N., Madden, D. (2016). Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation and Financing Needs Assessment. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation and Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Kasper CV 5/17/2023 1 Jeremy L. Kasper, Ph.D. Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power Marine Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Coastal Sciences Division University of Alaska Fairbanks, Room 405 Usibelli 1764 Tanana Loop, Fairbanks, AK 99775-5860 Phone: 907-474-5194; Fax: 907-474-7041; Email: jlkasper@alaska.edu Professional Preparation University of Alaska Fairbanks Oceanography Ph. D., 2010 Reed College Physics B. A., 1999 Recent Professional Appointments 2023 – present Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power 2022 – 2023 Interim Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power 2020 – present Marine Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 2019 – 2023 Research Associate Professor, Alaska Center for Energy and Power 2018 – 2022 Deputy Director of Research, Alaska Center for Energy and Power 2014 – 2022 Program Director, Alaska Hydrokinetic Energy Research Center 2014– 2022 Co-Director, Pacific Marine Energy Center 2018 – 2019 Research Associate Professor, Institute of Northern Engineering Recent Relevant Published Research Products (Reports, Publications and Data Sets) 1. Wilson, M., T. Ravens, A. King, E. Brown, J. Kasper, in press, Site Suitability Analysis of Riverine Hydrokinetic Energy Resources on the Kuskokwim River, Alaska, Renewable Energy 2. Dallman, A.R et al. 2021, Overcoming Wave Energy Converter (WEC) Grid Integration Challenges: Coupling Wave Forecasting, WEC Array Controls, and Power Production, Sandia Report SAND2022-13615. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. 3. Coe, R.G., et al. 2021, Modeling and predicting power from a WEC array, OCEANS 2021: San Diego – Porto, 2021, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.23919/OCEANS44145.2021.9706128. 4. Marsik, T., R. Bickford, C. Dennehy, R. Garber-Slaght, J. Kasper. 2021, Impact of Intake and Exhaust Ducts on the Recovery Efficiency of Heat Recovery Ventilation Systems. Energies 14, no. 2: 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020351 5. Browning, E.A.*, J. L. Kasper, P. X. Duvoy, and E. J. Brown, 2021, A time series and spectral analysis of turbulence effects on current energy converter power generation. Proc. Eur. Wave Tidal Energy Conf., vol. 99775, pp. 2091-1-2090–9. 6. Wise, M.*, M. Al-Badri, B. Loeffler and J. Kasper, 2021, A Novel Vertically Oscillating Hydrokinetic Energy Harvester. 2021 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech), pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1109/SusTech51236.2021.9467425. 7. Kulchitsky, A., J. Johnson, J. Kasper, P. Duvoy, 2019, Integrated DEM and SPH Model of Woody Debris Interaction with River Infrastructure. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Discrete Element Methods. 8. Date Set: Igiugig Village Council, 2017, Next Generation RivGen Power System: Kvichak River, AK Overwinter Ice Study [data set]. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.15473/1492960. 9. Tschetter, T.*, J. L. Kasper and P. X. Duvoy, 2016, Yakutat Area Wave Resource Assessment, Final Report to the Alaska Energy Authority, 37 pp. 10. Kasper, J. L., J. B. Johnson, P. X. Duvoy, N. Konefal, and J. Schmid, 2015, A Review of Debris Detection Methods, Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, U. S. Department of Energy Report, 15 pp. To: Curtis Thayer, Alaska Energy Authority RE: GRIP - Transforming Rural Alaska Microgrids May 9, 2023 The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a member-based service organization that works to strengthen Alaska’s 165 cities and boroughs. AML is a committed partner of this project, including to conduct a large portion of the work that is focused on the implementation of the Community Benefits Plan. AML has responded to Executive Order 14008 and the federal prioritization of tackling climate change, environmental justice, and inequity by providing a suite of services that help local governments meet associated goals. AEA can count on AML member services that include: 1. Review of available federal indices that provide criteria related to disadvantage, including the Justice 40 map and database, DOE’s Energy Justice tool, and EPA’s EJScreen. 2. AML staff can provide an equity assessment prior to or at the outset of a project, to ensure that more than 40% of project benefits are directed toward low-income and disadvantaged communities. 3. AML will include project sponsors in outreach to university and labor apprenticeships, skills training, and workforce development opportunities through an established network. 4. AML has initiated a broadly applicable engagement with the Alaska AFL-CIO to ensure that project sponsors have access to trade unions in the state, are able to commit to ensuring the free and fair opportunity to join a union, and include appropriate wage and benefit direction within their project. 5. AML will review applicable federal guidance on public engagement to ensure that project design and implementation includes appropriate and robust public participation. 6. AML will develop a model statement of policy and procedures that can be utilized by project sponsors to reflect commitments to diversity, equity, inclusion, and access. AML staff will be available to consult on implementation and adoption by project sponsors. 7. AML will manage the energy cohorts and ensure a robust program of technical assistance and capacity building is in place to support project beneficiaries, including through partnerships. AML has in place the necessary compliance and subrecipient protocols in place to manage federal funds and to respond to AEA’s reporting and grant management needs. We have submitted the required subrecipient budget justification, as well. AML staff work regularly with municipal officials in Alaska communities and depend on them to provide input into AML processes reflective of the needs of local governments. Over the last several years, AML has played a significant role in strengthening the effectiveness of federal and state relief and investment into Alaska local governments and Tribes. AML is pleased to make this commitment and is looking forward to the completion of a successful project. Sincerely, Nils Andreassen Executive Director May 10, 2023 To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), please accept this letter expressing ANTHC’s commitment to partner with the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) on the proposed “Transforming Rural Alaska Microgrids” project. If funded, ANTHC will serve as a subrecipient of funding awarded to AEA under the Department of Energy (DOE) Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program, opportunity #DE-FOA-0002740. Through this partnership with AEA, ANTHC will ensure that project benefits are made accessible to Alaska Native villages and that these benefits are distributed equitably to Alaska Native communities. Should DOE elect to fund AEA’s proposal, ANTHC is prepared to devote Rural Energy Program personnel time to the following project tasks: 1. Participating cooperatively with both the Alaska Municipal League (AML) and AEA in program design, including developing the application process, evaluation criteria, and the initial midway program evaluation; 2. Providing ongoing outreach to Tribal governments and other Tribal entities across the State of Alaska to ensure that Tribal Stakeholders are aware of the opportunities offered through the program and remain engaged throughout the project development and implementation process; 3. Creation of an easy-to-access technical assistance program - modeled after ANTHC’s current partnership with the DOE Office of Indian Energy and the Denali Commission – whereby the Rural Energy Program will provide technical assistance to prospective program applicants including, but not limited to, initial evaluations of project feasibility (technical and economic), HOMER microgrid modeling, existing energy infrastructure evaluation, economic modeling and renewable resource assessments; 4. Facilitation of quarterly working group meetings for sub grantee cohorts where subgrantees can share best practices for project management and implementation, receive support helping ensure they can meet all Federal reporting requirements, and grow their respective technical and project management capacity; and 5. Working cooperatively with the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) to conduct two techno- economic evaluations of the proposed program’s results, one at the projects midway point and another at its conclusion. The Rural Energy Program at ANTHC routinely works with communities and local stakeholders to make public health services more affordable through diverse energy projects. ANTHC is eager to lend its expertise and input to assist AEA in implementing this exciting opportunity for our Tribal partners. Sincerely, David Beveridge ANTHC Vice President of Environmental Health, Engineering, & Facilities Services Alaska Center for Energy and Power • University of Alaska Fairbanks • 1764 Tanana Loop – ELIF Suite 404 P.O. Box 755910 • Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5910 • Tel: (907) 474-5402 • Fax: (907) 474-5475 May 17, 2023 Secretary Jennifer Granholm Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW Washington, D.C. 20585 RE: DE-FOA-0002740 – Alaska Energy Authority Secretary Granholm, AEA’s Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids project is aligned with the work of the Alaska Center for Energy and Power’s (ACEP) work to increase the adoption of carbon -reducing energy technologies and lower energy costs in rural Alaska communities, many of which are considered disadvantaged. Therefore, ACEP strongly supports this project, knowing the difference it will make for stakeholders that we work with, and residents in our rural communities. The University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Alaska Center for Energy and Power is an applied research organization specializing in research on islanded microgrid systems in Alaska. Since its establishment in 2008, ACEP has worked closely with AEA, AML and ANTHC as well as other state, local and federal entities to carry out a nd document successful renewable energy projects throughout the state. This includes working with AEA on efforts such as the Renewable Energy Fund and the Emerging Energy Technology Fund, which helped propel the deployment of renewable energy in the state. Specifically if this is funded, ACEP could work with AEA and project partners on the following topics: 1) Program Design 2) Techno-Economic Studies 3) Dynamical Studies 4) Data Collection and Analytics 5) Project Identification and Development 6) Testing and Evaluation of Technologies in ACEP’s Energy Technology Facility 7) Developing metrics and methods for ensuring replicability and scaling of efforts 8) Dissemination of Project Outcomes through means such as technical reports; video and other methods of storytelling and peer-reviewed publications As an entity that works closely with AEA and to address the needs of rural communities, we know full -well that there is immense need for which current resources are simply insufficient. AEA’s approach to grid resilience is responsive to both, and we believe that AEA is capable of delivering on its goals and objectives effectively, including through close cooperation with organizations like ours. Respectfully, Jeremy Kasper, PhD Director Alaska Center for Energy and Power University of Alaska Fairbanks 809 Second Avenue, P.O. Box 889 Seward, AK 99664 phone: (907) 224-3322 fax: (907) 224-4400 www.avtec.edu AVTEC, as an employer and service provider, complies with Alaska Human Rights Law and federal civil rights laws. Individuals with disabilities who require reasonable accommodations are welcome to contact AVTEC at admissions@avtec.edu; or (907)224-3322, or for individuals with hearing impairments via Alaska Relay at 711 or (800)770-8973. AVTEC is a division of the State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development. May 12, 2023 Secretary Jennifer Granholm Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW Washington, D.C. 20585 RE: DE-FOA-0002740 – Alaska Energy Authority Secretary Granholm, The Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) fully supports the application of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids. AEA is known for its expertise in delivering technical assistance and critical projects in rural Alaska, which we know to result in improved livin g conditions. AEA is a strong partner with a robust system of evaluation and analysis that can be applied to the delivery of this project. As an entity that works closely with AEA and to address the needs of rural communities, we know full -well that there is immense need for which current resources are simply insufficient. AEA’s approach to grid resilience is responsive to both, and we bel ieve that AEA is capable of delivering on its goals and objectives effectively, including through close cooperation with organizations like ours. AVTEC is the State of Alaska’s agency that provides post-secondary career and technical workforce training and has been collaborating with the AEA for many years to deliver power generation training to Alaskans from rural villages across the state. The programs at AVTEC are accredited by the Council on Occupational Education (COE), a demonstration of quality in training. We have the ability to enhance our workforce development capacity with the curriculum needed to train Alaskans to deploy the energy systems of the future and with a student completion of training rate of over 90%, AVTEC has the expertise to serve a diverse student population to success. We are excited at the possibility to partner with AEA on this project and bring our curriculum flexibility and student service expertise to provide the workforce training that will be necessary to achieve resilience in Alaska’s rural and disadvantaged communities. This project is aligned with our work to increase the adoption of carbon-reducing energy technologies and lower energy costs in rural Alaska communities, many of which are considered disadvantaged. We strongly support this project, knowing the difference it will make for stakeholders that we work with, and residents in our rural communities. Respectfully, Cathy LeCompte, Director AVTEC 809 2nd Avenue/P.O. Box 889 Seward, AK 99664 Cc: David Crane, Director, Grid Deployment Office – Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations May 12, 2023 Secretary Jennifer Granholm Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW Washington, D.C. 20585 RE: DE-FOA-0002740 – Alaska Energy Authority Secretary Granholm, Kawerak, Inc. is in support of the application of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids. AEA is known for its expertise in delivering technical assistance and critical projects in rural Alaska, which we know to result in improved living conditions. AEA is a strong partner with a robust system of evaluation and analysis that can be applied to the delivery of this project. As an entity that works closely with AEA to address the needs of rural communities, we know that there is immense need for which current resources are simply insufficient. AEA’s approach to grid resilience is responsive to both, and we believe that AEA can deliver on its goals and objectives effectively, including through close cooperation with organizations like ours. Kawerak, Inc. is a non-profit tribal consortium representing twenty Alaska Native tribes in the Bering Strait Region. Kawerak manages the Bering Strait Development Council, which is the regional entity that develops the Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for our region. As part of our 2021-2026 CEDS report, improving, expanding, and upgrading our region’s infrastructure, including energy systems, is a high priority for our communities. This project is aligned with our own work to improve infrastructure and reduce energy burden in rural Alaska communities. Specifically, Kawerak’s 2022-2026 Strategic Plan focuses on growing community infrastructure and advocating for effective renewable energy systems in every community. We strongly support this project, knowing the difference it will make for stakeholders that we work with, and residents in our rural communities. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Respectfully, Melanie Bahnke CEO/President Cc: David Crane, Director, Grid Deployment Office – Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations 612 W. Willoughby Ave., Suite B P.O. Box 21989, Juneau, AK 99802 Phone (907) 586-4360 www.seconference.org Email info@seconference.org SOUTHEAST ALASKA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION May 3, 2023 Secretary Jennifer Granholm Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW Washington, D.C. 20585 RE: DE-FOA-0002740 – Alaska Energy Authority Dear Secretary Granholm: Southeast Conference supports application of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids. Southeast Conference is the State of Alaska Regional Development Organization for Southeast Alaska and the US Economic Development Administration’s (EDA), designated Economic Development District (EDD) for the region. Southeast Conference is responsible for developing a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for Southeast Alaska that is designed to identify regional priorities for economic and community development. One the critical areas to Rural southeast Alaska is Energy. This project would support many of the energy objectives identified in our 2021-2025 CEDS including promoting beneficial electrification and creating energy systems that provide sustainable, affordable, renewable energy. AEA, the State of Alaska’s Energy Office, is known for its expertise in delivering technical assistance and critical projects in rural Alaska, which we know to result in improved living conditions. AEA is a strong partner with a robust system of evaluation and analysis that can be applied to the delivery of this project. As an entity that works closely with AEA and to address the needs of rural communities, we know full-well that there is immense need for which current resources are simply insufficient. AEA’s approach to grid resilience is responsive to both, and we believe that AEA is capable of delivering on its goals and objectives effectively, including through close cooperation with organizations like ours. Thank you in advance for your fullest support possible of AEA’s application for Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids. This project will make a difference for our stakeholders and residents in our rural communities. Sincerely, Robert Venables Executive Director 122 1st Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99701 907-452-8251 www.tananachiefs.org May 01, 2023 Secretary Jennifer Granholm Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW Washington, D.C. 20585 RE: DE-FOA-0002740 – Alaska Energy Authority Secretary Granholm, Tanana Chiefs Conference fully supports the application of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids. AEA is known for its expertise in delivering technical assistance and critical projects in rural Alaska, which we know to result in improved living conditions. AEA is a strong partner with a robust system of evaluation and analysis that can be applied to the delivery of this project. As an entity that works closely with AEA and to address the needs of rural communities, we know full-well that there is immense need for which current resources are simply insufficient. AEA’s approach to grid resilience is responsive to both, and we believe that AEA is capable of delivering on its goals and objectives effectively, including through close cooperation with organizations like ours. Tanana Chiefs Conference is the inter-tribal consortium representing 37 federally recognized tribes across Alaska’s interior. For the past 50 years, TCC has been a voice advocating for tribal sovereignty, tribal unity and the prio rities of interior villages. As part of our commitment to supporting our tribes, TCC has been actively assisting with energy sovereignty and energy security projects in our region since 2008 when global oil prices took some of their steepest climbs in living memory. Tribes in the Tanana Chiefs Conference region have been leading the state in rural microgrids with high penetration, solar- diesel-battery systems since Hughes Village Council first broke ground on their 120kW solar system in 2018. TCC is actively working on 2 large-scale solar projects in Galena and Manley Hot Springs with 7 more communities developing their own large-scale solar projects as the technology matures and becomes more wide spread. The larger goal of TCC’s infrastructure department is to install community scale Solar-Battery systems in all of the microgrids in the TCC region and generate 100’s of MWhs of clean, solar electricity thus providing resiliency in rural Alaska. This project is aligned with our own work to increase the adoption of carbon-reducing energy technologies and lower energy costs in rural Alaska communities, many of which are considered disadvantaged. We strongly support this project, knowing the difference it will make for stakeholders that we work with, and residents in our rural communities. Respectfully, Dave Pelunis-Messier Infrastructure Division Director, Tanana Chiefs Conference Cc: David Crane, Director, Grid Deployment Office – Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations RURAL ALASKA MICROGR ID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 1 A L A S K A E NE R GY A UTH O R I TY Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation A. OBJECTIVES The project’s objectives are multi-faceted and align with the Department’s and Administration’s priorities. Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) project objectives are to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience, lower carbon emissions, decrease power costs, and improve public health and safety. These objectives are consistent with the FOA’s goals to advance community benefits, which align with the State’s energy policy goal to reach 80% renewable energy by 2040. At the same time, AEA will catalyze private sector and non -federal public capital by contributing 50% of the overall project funding through non-federal funds. Projects will be developed at- scale by identifying locations where significant economic benefits can be obtained, including those that reduce the transactional costs for local businesses. Specific objectives include to deliver projects:  that reduce the cost per kwh by more than 10%  that lower maintenance and operations costs  that leverage locally sourced renewables, including wind, solar, and hydro.  that lower the diesel fuel use by 50% or more.  in collaboration with project partners and communities  utilizing broad technical, economic, financial, and project management expertise  that maximize stakeholder engagement, workforce development, and community benefits. B. SCOPE OF WORK The first year of the project will focus on finalizing planning and strategic development of the partnerships and program delivery, including robust stakeholder engagement and public outreach. Program requirements will be structured similar to AEA’s Renewable Energy Fund, which has a grant review team and process that will efficiently review projects based on merit criteria that corresponds to GRIP priorities and AEA’s goals. AEA will evaluate project contributions to meet goals of carbon and cost reduction, and available non-federal match. AEA will complete its teaming agreement with Alaska Municipal League (AML), Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), and Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) to finalize the project components that include equity assessment, labor engagement, and implement a skills and workforce development strategy. This will result in a fully developed program, ready for a request for applications. The program will be released for application and projects will be identified per the requirements. AEA expects to make approximately 20 subawards for transformative projects. The project partners will implement a project development support process, to provide RURAL ALASKA MICROGR ID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 2 A L A S K A E NE R GY A UTH O R I TY grantees with necessary technical assistance, and develop a cohort approach to project management. AEA will complete community benefit assessments and agreements in each project community, in collaboration with grantee and partners. AEA will evaluate project contributions to meeting goals of carbon and cost reduction, and available non -federal match. Project awards will be reviewed based on annual monitoring, and project close -outs. Partners will hold a workshop with all awardees to determine strengths and weaknesses of the program, and to finalize analysis of goals, objectives, and outcomes. Approximately twenty communities will have had projects implemented and finalized, with expected objectives achieved. Final reporting will satisfy the terms of the agreement with DOE. The project team will report on equitable benefits delivered to communities, as well as environmental justice and climate change metrics that demonstrate outcome delivery. C. TASKS TO BE PERFORMED All Budget Periods Overall Project Management and Planning The recipient will perform project management activities to include project planning and control, financial management, data management, management of supplies and/or equipment, risk management, and reporting as required to successfully achieve the overall objectives of the project. Task 0.0 – Project Management and Planning: The Recipient shall develop and maintain the Project Management Plan (PMP). The content, organization, and requirements for revision of the PMP are identified in the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist and Instructions. AEA will manage and implement the project in accordance with the PMP. The PMP shall be revised and resubmitted as often as necessary, during the course of the project, to capture any major/significant changes to the planned approach, budget, key personnel, major resources, etc. Task 0.1- Kick-Off Meeting: AEA will participate in a project kickoff meeting with the DOE within 30 days of project initiation. Budget Period 1 (Year 1): Formational activities focused on partnerships and stakeholders. Task 1.1- Partnership team roles and responsibilities finalized, project scoping Subtask 1.1.1- AEA will finalize partner agreements with AML, ANTHC and ACEP that will outline the roles and responsibilities of each party and finalize the project scope. Task 1.2- Stakeholder engagement and outreach Subtask 1.2.1- AEA and partners will conduct outreach to disadvantaged, rural communities to engage decision makers and utility representatives on the program, benefits, and opportunities. RURAL ALASKA MICROGR ID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 3 A L A S K A E NE R GY A UTH O R I TY Subtask 1.2.2- AEA will initiate targeted application support by making calls, sending emails, and connecting with established contacts and offering support for existing, known projects. Task 1.3- Application development and review process Subtask 1.3.1- The team will develop and finalize criteria and metrics for evaluating project benefits. Subtask 1.3.2- The team will review the program for merit and finalize the solicitation or request for applications from interested communities for microgrid transformation projects. The application and scoring criteria will be reviewed and approved by DOE before being released. Quarter/ timeframe Milestone Type 1 Partners establish teaming agreements. Progress 2,3 Program Developed Progress 4 Program released, request for applications Progress FY 24 Request for Applications with feasible, impactful project selection criteria developed and approved by DOE Go/no go Continuation: The recipient is NOT authorized to initiate any scope in the next budget period without the DOE Contracting Officer’s prior written approval in accordance with the award terms and conditions. Budget Period 2 (Years 2-6): Project development and community benefit support activities Task 2.1- Conduct request for applications: Subtask 2.1.1- The team will review applications for completeness and alignment with project goals and objectives based on the previously developed metrics and will award high scoring projects. Task 2.2 - Cohort development and community benefit agreements Subtask 2.2.1 - AEA will bring project grantees together as part of a cohort, with quarterly technical support to share best practices and lessons learned, in order for the projects to develop as efficiently as possible. Subtask 2.2.2- The team will work with representatives from the selected communities on how to structure the project to maximize community benefits. Task 2.3 - Initiate project development and NEPA process Subtask 2.3.1 - AEA will work with the selected rural communities on proper NEPA documentation, final engineering, design, and permitting. RURAL ALASKA MICROGR ID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 4 A L A S K A E NE R GY A UTH O R I TY Subtask 2.3.2 - The team will conduct project financing review and work with each individual community on leveraging funding. Quarter/ timeframe Milestone Measure 5 Community benefit agreements in place. Progress 6,7 Applications received and evaluated for merit criteria Progress 8 Approximately twenty community awards result in project implementation. Technical FY 25 AEA has copies of signed grant agreements for twenty projects. Go/No Go 9-24 Projects are implemented Technical 10 Outreach conducted Progress FY 26 Projects that have cleared progress criteria with completed feasibility reports are moved forward. Go/No Go 13 Survey and interview results received and reviewed. Progress 14 Stakeholder listening session conducted. Progress 15 Cohort evaluation finalized. Progress 16 Preliminary review of findings is released by the project team. Technical FY 27 Projects that have cleared progress criteria with completed design and permitting are moved forward. Go/No Go FY28 Projects that have cleared progress criteria with groundbreaking construction are moved forward. Go/No Go FY 29 Projects that have cleared progress criteria and are on budget and on schedule are moved forward. Go/No Go Continuation: The recipient is NOT authorized to initiate any scope in the next budget period without the DOE Contracting Officer’s prior written approval in accordance with the award terms and conditions. Budget Period 3 (Year 7): Project evaluation and analysis of outcomes. Task 7.1- Finalize Project Awards and Activities: Subtask 7.1.1- AEA will ensure completion of all projects through a final project inspection and will finalize reporting to DOE. Task 7.2- Review impact of projects on goals and outcomes Subtask 7.2.1 Partners will review goals, objectives, and outcomes against project reporting to ensure project completion and alignment with the agreed upon plan. Subtask 7.2.2- The team will evaluate community benefit arrangements and impact by comparing outcomes against pre project data. RURAL ALASKA MICROGR ID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 5 A L A S K A E NE R GY A UTH O R I TY Task 7.3- Produce final summary of findings Subtask 7.3.1 - The team will share findings on a public facing project website and in public forums so that the project can be easily replicated, and information can be shared with decision makers. Subtask 7.3.3 - AEA will share findings with project partners and participating rural communities. Quarter Milestone Measure Verification 25 Survey and interview results received and reviewed. Progress 80% response 26 Stakeholder listening session conducted. Progress Workshop held 27 Cohort evaluation finalized. Progress 80% response 28 Project delivers summary of outcomes to DOE. Technical Document D. DELIVERABLES In addition to the reports specified in the "Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist ," the Recipient will provide the following to the DOE Project Officer:  Subtask 0.0 Project Management Plan (PMP)  Subtask 1.1.1 Final Partner Agreements  Subtask 1.3.2 Request for application and scoring criteria  Subtask 2.1.1 Signed project agreements between AEA and 20 disadvantaged communities  Subtask 3.1.1 NEPA documentation for each site  Subtask 3.1.1 Engineered design documents for all construction projects  Subtask 3.1.1 Copies of all necessary permits  Subtask 7.1.1 Close-out documentation and final reporting  Subtask 7.3.1 Link to public facing website with project outcomes E. BRIEFINGS AND TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS  Detailed project status update briefings at events in the contiguous United States once per year and via communication/conferencing media approximately once per year. Briefings will explain the plans, progress, and results of the project.  Technical paper(s) and presentations as appropriate at technical society meetings, or at technical exchange meetings. Award Number:5/19/2023 Award Recipient:Alaska Energy Authority (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $15,883,607 $15,883,607 $31,906,144 49.78%01/01/2024 - 05/30/2025 Budget Period 2 $199,932,841 $199,932,841 $400,793,211 49.88%06/01/2025 - 5/30/2030 Budget Period 3 $32,915,003 $32,915,004 $65,993,813 49.88%01/01/2030 - 12/31/2031 Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $248,731,451 $248,731,452 $498,693,168 49.88% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $3,718,800 $7,879,767 $4,164,927 $0 $0 $15,763,494 3.16% b. Fringe Benefits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% c. Travel $366,000 $732,000 $366,000 $0 $0 $1,464,000 0.29% d. Equipment $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0.02% e. Supplies $80,000 $160,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $320,000 0.06% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $25,766,979 $388,562,253 $59,398,059 $0 $0 $473,727,291 94.99% Contractor $944,640 $1,489,280 $944,640 $0 $0 $3,378,560 0.68% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $26,711,619 $390,051,533 $60,342,699 $0 $0 $477,105,851 95.67% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $30,976,419 $398,823,300 $64,953,626 $0 $0 $494,753,345 99.21% i. Indirect Charges $929,725 $1,969,912 $1,040,187 $0 $0 $3,939,823 0.79% Total Costs $31,906,144 $400,793,211 $65,993,813 $0 $0 $498,693,168 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Alaska Energy Authority Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! Do not modify this template or any cells for formulas! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, contractors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For- Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows and columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 24 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 Sr. Engineer (EXAMPLE!!!)2000 $85.00 $170,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 2400 $190,000 2 Technicians (2)4000 $20.00 $80,000 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 4000 $80,000 2 thru 7 Circuit Rider Technician 195 $67.65 $13,192 390 $71.67 $27,951 195 $75.69 $14,760 $0 $0 780 $55,903 2 thru 7 Circuit Rider Technician 195 $82.60 $16,107 390 $87.49 $34,121 195 $92.40 $18,018 $0 $0 780 $68,246 2 thru 7 Circuit Rider Technician 195 $78.27 $15,263 390 $82.92 $32,339 195 $87.56 $17,074 $0 $0 780 $64,676 1 thru 7 Circuit Rider Technician 3900 $78.26 $305,214 7800 $82.92 $646,776 3900 $87.56 $341,484 $0 $0 15600 $1,293,474 1 thru 7 Comms Directors 585 $97.28 $56,909 1170 $103.06 $120,580 585 $109.10 $63,824 $0 $0 2340 $241,313 1 thru 7 Contracting Officer 390 $85.15 $33,209 780 $90.21 $70,364 390 $95.75 $37,343 $0 $0 1560 $140,915 1 thru 7 Contracting Officer 1950 $85.15 $166,043 3900 $90.21 $351,819 1950 $95.50 $186,225 $0 $0 7800 $704,087 1 thru 7 Director AEEE 390 $131.04 $51,106 780 $138.85 $108,303 390 $146.85 $57,272 $0 $0 1560 $216,680 1 thru 7 Director of Planning 195 $103.48 $20,179 390 $109.63 $42,756 195 $118.83 $23,172 $0 $0 780 $86,106 1 thru 7 Economist 1170 $102.15 $119,516 2340 $108.22 $253,235 1170 $115.00 $134,550 $0 $0 4680 $507,300 1 thru 7 Executive Director 195 $183.43 $35,769 390 $194.32 $75,785 195 $205.22 $40,018 $0 $0 780 $151,572 1 thru 7 GIS 780 $78.26 $61,043 1560 $82.91 $129,340 780 $87.78 $68,468 $0 $0 3120 $258,851 1 thru 7 Infrastructure Engineer 390 $105.32 $41,075 780 $111.58 $87,032 390 $118.00 $46,020 $0 $0 1560 $174,127 2 thru 7 Program Project Manager 780 $100.08 $78,062 1560 $106.03 $165,407 780 $113.23 $88,319 $0 $0 3120 $331,789 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Rural Assistance Manager 390 $102.24 $39,874 780 $108.32 $84,490 390 $115.00 $44,850 $0 $0 1560 $169,213 1 thru 7 Rural Programs Manager 780 $123.12 $96,034 1560 $130.43 $203,471 780 $137.75 $107,445 $0 $0 3120 $406,949 2 thru 7 Senior Infrastructure Engineer 390 $110.35 $43,037 780 $116.97 $91,237 390 $124.35 $48,497 $0 $0 1560 $182,770 1 thru 7 Chief Operating Officer 390 $160.73 $62,685 780 $170.28 $132,818 390 $179.83 $70,134 $0 $0 1560 $265,637 Total Personnel Costs 36660 $3,718,800 73320 $7,879,767 36660 $4,164,927 0 $0 0 $0 146640 $15,763,494 Additional Explanation (as needed): Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and contractors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base hourly rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., rate negotiated for each hour worked on the project, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate BasisProject Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total EXAMPLE!!! Sr. Engineer $170,000 20%$34,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $38,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): Please use this box (or an attachment) to list the elements that comprise your fringe benefits and how they are applied to your base (e.g. Personnel) to arrive at your fringe benefit rate. INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. ______ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* ______ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at https://www.energy.gov/eere/funding/downloads/sample-indirect-rate-proposal-and-profit-compliance-audit , or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 1 EXAMPLE!!! Visit to PV manufacturer 2 2 $250 $500 $100 $160 $2,020 Current GSA rates 2 Rural site visits 3 trips per year per site; 2 people per trip - Assume 20 sites. Rural travel estimated at $1,500 per trip with an overnight stay. ANC Rural Alaska 2 240 $250 $1,100 $150 $360,000 Previous experience 2 One out of state conference per year ANC Out of state 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $6,000 Previous experience $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $366,000 Domestic Travel 3 thru 6 Rural site visits 3 trips per year per site; 2 people per trip - Assume 20 sites. Rural travel estimated at $1,500 per trip with an overnight stay. ANC Rural Alaska 2 480 $250 $1,100 $150 $720,000 Previous experience 3 thru 6 One out of state conference per year ANC Out of state 5 4 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $732,000 Domestic Travel 7 Rural site visits 3 trips per year per site; 2 people per trip - Assume 20 sites. Rural travel estimated at $1,500 per trip with an overnight stay. ANC Rural Alaska 2 240 $250 $1,100 $150 $360,000 Previous experience 7 One out of state conference per year ANC Out of state 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $6,000 Previous experience $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $366,000 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $1,464,000 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Only travel that is directly associated with this award should be included as a direct travel cost to the award. 4. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. 5. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 6. Columns E, F, G, H, I, J, and K are per trip. 7. The number of days is inclusive of the day of departure and the day of return. 8. Recipients should enter City and State (or City and Country for International travel) in the Depart from and Destination fields. 9. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Rural project sites are unknown. 3 trips per year to each project site, 2 people per trip. Typically it will be a project manager and circuit rider to inspect the project progress and offer any training opportunities. c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3,4,5 EXAMPLE!!! Thermal shock chamber 2 $70,000 $140,000 Vendor Quote - Attached Reliability testing of PV modules- Task 4.3 Office set-up 10 $10,000 $100,000 Previous experience 10 new staff office set-up $0 $0 $0 $0 1,2 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL EQUIPMENT $100,000 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. contractor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a contractor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the contractor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a contractor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 4,6 EXAMPLE!!! Wireless DAS components 10 $360.00 $3,600 Catalog price For Alpha prototype - Task 2.4 1,2 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $80,000 3 thr 6 Misc. Supplies 80 $2,000.00 $160,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $160,000 7 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL SUPPLIES $320,000 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. contractor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Sub-Recipient Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 2,4 EXAMPLE!!! XYZ Corp.Partner to develop optimal lens for Gen 2 product. Cost estimate based on personnel hours. $48,000 $32,000 $16,000 $96,000 1 thru 7 Anchorage Municipal League (AML)Cost estimate based on personnel hours $128,049 $889,724 $150,871 $1,168,644 1 thru 7 Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP)Cost estimate based on personnel hours $138,930 $927,529 $163,806 $1,230,265 1 thru 7 Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)Cost estimate based on personnel hours $500,000 $495,000 $333,382 $1,328,382 2 thru 7 Rural Alaskan Community/Village/Tribe/Utility Future request for proposal and potential projects know to AEA $25,000,000 $386,250,000 $58,750,000 $470,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $25,766,979 $388,562,253 $59,398,059 $0 $0 $473,727,291 SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 6 Contractor for developing robotics to perform lens inspection. Estimate provided by contractor. $32,900 $86,500 $119,400 1 thru 7 IIJA Program Coordinator 15 hours/month @ 124/hour. Coordination of all IIJA programs across the agency $44,640 $89,280 $44,640 $178,560 2,3,4,5 State of Alaska Department of Natural Resouces Permitting $200,000 $400,000 $200,000 $800,000 2,3,7 Economist Competitive bid. Analysis of applications and awards, program evaluation support $200,000 $200,000 $400,000 1 thru 7 Outreach Competitive bid. Program specific outreach and report development $100,000 $200,000 $100,000 $400,000 2,3,7 Engineering Support Competitice bid. Engineering service for application review, technical feasibility, design review. $200,000 $400,000 $200,000 $800,000 2,3,4,5 Legal Services State of Alaska or competitive bid $100,000 $200,000 $100,000 $400,000 1,2,3,4,5 State of Alaska Department of Law Internal legal services $100,000 $200,000 $100,000 $400,000 Sub-total $944,640 $1,489,280 $944,640 $0 $0 $3,378,560 SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,711,619 $390,051,533 $60,342,699 $0 $0 $477,105,851 Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to sub-recipients, contractors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Sub-recipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 25% of total award costs. These sub-recipient forms may be completed by either the sub-recipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the sub-recipient's forms must match the sub-recipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. contractor status. 3. Contractors: List all contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Contractor cost with total project costs of $100,000 or more, a Contractor quote must be provided. A contractor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs.contractor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Contractor Name/Organization EXAMPLE!!! ABC Corp. FFRDC Name/Organization Total Contractual SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3 EXAMPLE ONLY!!! Three days of excavation for platform site $28,000 Engineering estimate Site must be prepared for construction of platform. Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a contractor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 5 EXAMPLE!!! Grad student tuition - tasks 1-3 $16,000 Established UCD costs Support of graduate students working on project Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 25.00%25.00%25.00%0.00%0.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $929,725 $1,969,912 $1,040,187 $3,939,823 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $0 Total indirect costs requested:$929,725 $1,969,912 $1,040,187 $0 $0 $3,939,823 i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim resulting cost as a Cost Share contribution, nor can the Recipient claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution . Neither of these costs can be reflected as actual indirect cost rates realized by the orgnaization, and therefore are not verifiable in the Recipient records as required by Federal Regulation (200.306(b)(1)) 5.. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE AEA is in the process of developing an indirect cost allocation plan (ICAP) and is working with independent contractor to develop a cost model to track and allocate indirect costs for federal cost recovery. AEA will seek approval of the ICAP by their cognizant agency as required. AEA understands that this process will take up to two years for development of the ICAP and the required approval. Currently, AEA utilized the 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). AEA fully expects to have an approved ICAP and indirect cost rate by July 1, 2025 and therefore, for budgetary purposes only, AEA has used an estimated rate of 25%. AEA will only request reimbursement based on the 10% de minimis rate or an approved indirect cost rate. Detailed Budget Justification You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. Example: Labor + Fringe ______ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. __X___ The organization does not have a current, federally approved indirect cost rate agreement and has provided an indirect rate proposal in support of the proposed costs. __X___ This organization has elected to apply a 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 State of Alaska 250000000 Subject to legislative approval, the state of Alaska will invest in this project $37,190,906 $141,265,622 $70,906,800 $249,363,328 Financial Institutions $0 Economic Development Corps $0 Guarauntee Agencies $0 Private Investment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SHARE $37,190,906 $141,265,622 $70,906,800 $0 $0 $249,363,328 $498,693,168 50.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Projects will provide match, this program will be developed and then projects selected. Therefore all the sources of match are not known at this time. Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 -$5,284,762 $37,190,906 $31,906,144 2.Budget Period 2 $259,527,589 $141,265,622 $400,793,211 3.Budget Period 3 -$4,912,987 $70,906,800 $65,993,813 4.Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $249,329,840 $249,363,328 $498,693,168 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $3,718,800 $7,879,767 $4,164,927 $0 $0 $15,763,494 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $366,000 $732,000 $366,000 $0 $0 $1,464,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $80,000 $160,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $320,000 $26,711,619 $390,051,533 $60,342,699 $0 $0 $477,105,851 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,976,419 $398,823,300 $64,953,626 $0 $0 $494,753,345 $929,725 $1,969,912 $1,040,187 $0 $0 $3,939,823 $31,906,144 $400,793,211 $65,993,813 $0 $0 $498,693,168 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:Alaska Energy Authority 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | SUMMARY FOR PUBLIC RELEASE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation Topic Areas 3: Grid Innovation Program The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is the State’s energy office and primary agency for state- wide energy policy and program development. AEA’s mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA manages a broad portfolio of supply and demand side energy projects and takes a whole-community approach in addressing energy cost reduction issues. In partnership with the Alaska Municipal League (AML), Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), and the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP), AEA proposes to truly transform up to twenty rural Alaskan community microgrids from diesel power generation to clean, renewable energy. The goal of these transformed community microgrids is to replace the baseload diesel power production with renewable energy. Hydro, solar, and wind are the primary renewable power sources found to be successful in Alaska. In addition, many of the possible hydro projects would produce more power than could be used by typical community demand. This excess power would be used for community heat and would enable increased capacity for energy storage, which is a critical resource in rural Alaska. This use of excess electricity for heat reduction would displace heating oil, wood burning, diesel, and other types of fuel, thereby maximizing environ- mental benefits including carbon reduction. This project rests on critical success factors that leverage AEA’s experience with delivering projects in rural Alaska: (1) Feasibility of project technologies in rural Alaska communities (2) Process innovation, and the combination of technologies (3) Partner contributions, and appropriate levels of analysis (4) Cost of materials and services, and supply chain availability (5) Sustainability of operations, and planning for maintenance and operations AEA’s approach to stakeholder engagement will result in project locations that will be deter- mined based on level of disadvantage and the feasibility of meeting the critical success factors. The project selection team will evaluate the availability of a skilled workforce and potential to offer skills training as part of a community benefits plan. This will lower costs and address any environmental justice factors that may exist, while ensuring community benefits. Projects will be selected via a request for application with scoring that takes into account disadvantaged communities’ criteria, the ability to replace 100% of baseload diesel generation, reduce the cost of energy, create clean energy jobs, and mitigate health and safety risks. Alaska is in a critical position to leverage available federal infrastructure funding to make a trans- formative impact on the energy systems of disadvantaged, rural communities. AEA is proposing a carefully managed process to identify, vet, and support the implementation of projects in rural communities. This effort will leverage AEA’s technical expertise and program management, as well as experience working in rural Alaska, to engage partners, stakeholders, and project proponents in an efficient and effective system of project evaluation and deployment. REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Prime Applicant: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Project Title: Transforming Alaska's Rural Microgrids Project Impact/Takeaway:The majority of Alaska's rural microgrids are powered by diesel generators, and this project will transform participating communities by facilitating the transition to locally sourced renewables Project goals:Lowering the cost of energy in disadvantaged communities while reducing carbon emissions. Technology:This project will utilize local wind, solar, and hydro matched with battery storage systems. Impact:The combined use of these technologies will reduce rural community reliance on fossil fuels. Total Project Costs $500,000,000 Federal Share $250,000,000 Match $250,000,000 REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Transforming Alaska's Rural Microgrids REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Transforming Alaska's Rural Microgrids Principal Investigator •Rebecca Garrett Key Personnel •Audrey Alstrom •Conner Erickson •Karen Bell •Karin St. Clair Key Partners •Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP), •Alaska Municipal League, (AML) •Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Proposed Project Duration •96 months Project Team and Outcomes Award Number:19-May-23 Award Recipient:Alaska Municipal League (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $128,049 $0 $128,049 0.00%Example!!! 01/01/2014 - 12/31/2014 Budget Period 2 $889,724 $0 $889,724 0.00% Budget Period 3 $150,871 $0 $150,871 0.00% Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $1,168,644 $0 $1,168,644 0.00% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $85,566 $560,226 $101,713 $0 $0 $747,505 63.96% b. Fringe Benefits $28,117 $184,094 $33,422 $0 $0 $245,633 21.02% c. Travel $2,725 $64,520 $2,020 $0 $0 $69,265 5.93% d. Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% e. Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Vendor $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $116,408 $808,840 $137,155 $0 $0 $1,062,403 90.91% i. Indirect Charges $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 9.09% Total Costs $128,049 $889,724 $150,871 $0 $0 $1,168,644 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Alaska Energy Authority Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. If using this form for invoice submission, fill out tabs a. through j. with total costs for just the proposed invoice and fill out tab k. per the instructions on that tab. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, vendors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For- Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows or columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 Sr. Engineer (EXAMPLE!!!)2000 $85.00 $170,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 2400 $190,000 Actual Salary 2 Technicians (2)4000 $20.00 $80,000 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 4000 $80,000 Actual Salary Project Coordinator (Y1, 2, 8)1950 $40.38 $78,741 1950 $41.39 $80,710 1950 $48.00 $93,600 $0 $0 5850 $253,051 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y1, 2, 8)97.5 $70.00 $6,825 97.5 $71.75 $6,996 97.5 $83.21 $8,113 $0 $0 293 $21,934 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Coordinator (Y3)$0 1950 $42.42 $82,719 $0 $0 $0 1950 $82,719 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y3)$0 97.5 $73.54 $7,170 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,170 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Coordinator (Y4)$0 1950 $43.48 $84,786 $0 $0 $0 1950 $84,786 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y4)$0 97.5 $75.38 $7,350 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,350 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Coordinator (Y5)$0 1950 $44.57 $86,912 $0 $0 $0 1950 $86,912 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y5)$0 97.5 $77.27 $7,534 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,534 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Coordinator (Y6)$0 1950 $45.69 $89,096 $0 $0 $0 1950 $89,096 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y6)$0 97.5 $79.20 $7,722 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,722 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Coordinator (Y7)$0 1950 $46.83 $91,319 $0 $0 $0 1950 $91,319 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y7)$0 97.5 $81.18 $7,915 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,915 Actual, adjusted for annual increase $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Total Personnel Costs 2048 $85,566 12285 $560,226 2048 $101,713 0 $0 0 $0 16380 $747,505 Additional Explanation (as needed): Salaries are based on one full time project coordinator, dedicated to project support and implementation, starting at our current coordinator mid-level salary positions, adjusted by 2.5% each year as a COLA. The project manager position is based on current salaries, and represents 5% of annual hours, with the same salary adjustment of 2.5%. Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and vendors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base pay rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., actual salary, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate Basis Project Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total EXAMPLE!!! Sr. Engineer $170,000 20%$34,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $38,000 Project Coordinator $ 78,741.00 32.86%$25,874 $ 515,551.19 32.86%$169,410 $ 93,598.30 32.86%$30,756 $0 $0 $226,041 Project Manager $ 6,825.00 32.86%$2,243 $ 44,686.22 32.86%$14,684 $ 8,112.78 32.86%$2,666 $0 $0 $19,592 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$85,566 $28,117 $560,237 $184,094 $101,711 $33,422 $0 $0 $0 $0 $245,633 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): AML's fringe rate is based on actual average experience across all employees. It includes Social Security of 6.20%, Medicare of 1.45%, Unemployment of 1.00%, a health insurance and life insurance that is 19%, and deferred compensation retirement benefit of 5%. The total of these is 32.86%. INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. ______ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* __x____ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 1 EXAMPLE!!! Visit to PV manufacturer 2 2 $250 $500 $100 $160 $2,020 Current GSA rates Planning meeting Juneau Anchorage 2 2 $360 $400 $250 $2,020 Most recent experience. Planning meeting Juneau Anchorage 1 1 $180 $400 $125 $705 Most recent experience. $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $2,725 Domestic Travel Rural site visits to each participating community Anchorage Rural Alaska 40 1 $360 $750 $200 $52,400 Most recent experience. Planning meetings Juneau Anchorage 6 2 $360 $400 $250 $12,120 Most recent experience. $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $64,520 Domestic Travel Evaluation meetings Juneau Anchorage 2 2 $360 $400 $250 $2,020 Most recent experience. $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $2,020 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $69,265 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3,4,5 EXAMPLE!!! Thermal shock chamber 2 $70,000 $140,000 Vendor Quote - Attached Reliability testing of PV modules- Task 4.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a vendor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the vendor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a vendor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 4,6 EXAMPLE!!! Wireless DAS components 10 $360.00 $3,600 Catalog price For Alpha prototype - Task 2.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 2,4 EXAMPLE!!! XYZ Corp.Partner to develop optimal lens for Gen 2 product. Cost estimate based on personnel hours. $48,000 $32,000 $16,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # Vendor Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 6 EXAMPLE!!! ABC Corp.Vendor for developing robotics to perform lens inspection. Estimate provided by vendor. $32,900 $86,500 $119,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # FFRDC Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to subrecipients, vendors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Subrecipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 50% of total award costs. These subrecipient forms may be completed by either the subrecipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the subrecipient's forms must match the subrecipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 3. Vendors (including contractors): List all vendors and contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Vendor cost with total project costs of $250,000 or more, a Vendor quote must be provided. A vendor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3 EXAMPLE ONLY!!! Three days of excavation for platform site $28,000 Engineering estimate Site must be prepared for construction of platform. Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a vendor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 5 EXAMPLE!!! Grad student tuition - tasks 1-3 $16,000 Established UCD costs Support of graduate students working on project Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)0.00%0.00%0.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 10.00%10.00%10.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $0 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $106,241 Total indirect costs requested:$11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 Additional Explanation (as needed): AML is a non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, and is not a State, Local Government, or Indian Tribe. AML elects to charge a de minimiis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs. Detailed Budget Justification You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. De minimis ______ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application, and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. ___x___ There is not a current, federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available*. *When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided by your DOE contact, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in performance of the proposed project. Additionally, any non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200—States and Local Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph D.1.b, may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely.As described in §200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. If chosen, this methodology once elected must be used consistently for all Federal awards until such time as a non-Federal entity chooses to negotiate for a rate, which the non-Federal entity may apply to do at any time. i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,168,644 0.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Vendors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 $128,049 $0 $128,049 2.Budget Period 2 $889,724 $0 $889,724 3.Budget Period 3 $150,871 $0 $150,871 4.Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $1,168,644 $0 $1,168,644 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $85,566 $560,226 $101,713 $0 $0 $747,505 $28,117 $184,094 $33,422 $0 $0 $245,633 $2,725 $64,520 $2,020 $0 $0 $69,265 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $116,408 $808,840 $137,155 $0 $0 $1,062,403 $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 $128,049 $889,724 $150,871 $0 $0 $1,168,644 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:Alaska Energy Authority 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 Award Number:19-May-23 Award Recipient:ANTHC (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $350,144 $0 $350,144 0.00%01/01/2024 - 05/30/2025 Budget Period 2 $914,332 $0 $914,332 0.00%06/01/2025 - 05/30/230 Budget Period 3 $63,906 $0 $63,906 0.00%01/01/2030 - 12/31/2031 Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $1,328,382 $0 $1,328,382 0.00% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $215,791 $555,810 $43,085 $0 $0 $814,686 61.33% b. Fringe Benefits $49,811 $126,837 $10,565 $0 $0 $187,213 14.09% c. Travel $36,180 $108,540 $0 $0 $0 $144,720 10.89% d. Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% e. Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Vendor $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $301,783 $791,187 $53,649 $0 $0 $1,146,619 86.32% i. Indirect Charges $48,361 $123,145 $10,257 $0 $0 $181,763 13.68% Total Costs $350,144 $914,332 $63,906 $0 $0 $1,328,382 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Alaska Energy Authority Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. If using this form for invoice submission, fill out tabs a. through j. with total costs for just the proposed invoice and fill out tab k. per the instructions on that tab. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, vendors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For- Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows or columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 thru 7 Energy Project Manager II 526 $77.34 $40,699 1274 $77.34 $98,531 110 $77.34 $8,469 $0 $0 1910 $147,699 Employee salary, including pool 1 thru 7 Energy Mechanical Engineer III 600 $83.61 $50,166 1800 $83.61 $150,498 200 $83.61 $16,722 $0 $0 2600 $217,386 Employee salary, including pool 1 thru 7 Utility Operations Specialist IV 400 $80.18 $32,072 1200 $80.18 $96,216 $0 $0 $0 1600 $128,288 Employee salary, including pool 1 thru 7 Energy Mechanical Engineer II 400 $70.52 $28,208 1200 $70.52 $84,624 $0 $0 $0 1600 $112,832 Employee salary, including pool 1 thru 7 Rural Energy Program Manager 400 $89.47 $35,788 440 $89.47 $39,367 200 $89.47 $17,894 $0 $0 1040 $93,049 Employee salary, including pool 1 thru 7 Lead Mechanical Engineer 200 $144.29 $28,858 600 $144.29 $86,574 $0 $0 $0 800 $115,432 Employee salary, including pool $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Total Personnel Costs 2526.2 $215,791 6514 $555,810 510 $43,085 0 $0 0 $0 9550 $814,686 Additional Explanation (as needed): Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and vendors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base pay rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., actual salary, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate Basis Project Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Total Personnel (pool excluded)138,365 36.00%$49,811 352,325 36.00%$126,837 29,346 36.00%$10,565 $0 $0 $187,213 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$138,365 $49,811 $352,325 $126,837 $29,346 $10,565 $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,213 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): Please use this box (or an attachment) to list the elements that comprise your fringe benefits and how they are applied to your base (e.g. Personnel) to arrive at your fringe benefit rate. INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. __X__ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* ______ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 2 and 3 Technical assistance site visits: cost per community Anchorage, AK Various remote communities 3 2 $386 $1,000 $60 $363 $3,618 Current GSA rates for lodging and per diem; flight estimate based on Alaska Airlines to hub community, local carrier from hub to village. $20/day allowance for taxis/shuttles/etc. 2 and 3 10 technical assistance site visits to communities in first budget period Anchorage, AK Various remote communities $36,180 Row 8 multiplied by 10 site visits $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $36,180 Domestic Travel 2 and 3 Technical assistance site visits: cost per community Anchorage, AK Various remote communities 3 2 $386 $1,000 $60 $363 $3,618 Current GSA rates for lodging and per diem; flight estimate based on Alaska Airlines to hub community, local carrier from hub to village. $20/day allowance for taxis/shuttles/etc. 2 and 3 30 technical assistance site visits to communities in second budget period Anchorage, AK Various remote communities $108,540 Row 16 multiplied by 30 site visits $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $108,540 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $144,720 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a vendor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the vendor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a vendor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # Vendor Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # FFRDC Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to subrecipients, vendors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Subrecipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 50% of total award costs. These subrecipient forms may be completed by either the subrecipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the subrecipient's forms must match the subrecipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 3. Vendors (including contractors): List all vendors and contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Vendor cost with total project costs of $250,000 or more, a Vendor quote must be provided. A vendor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a vendor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 25.70%25.70%25.70%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $48,361 $123,145 $10,257 $181,763 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $0 Total indirect costs requested:$48,361 $123,145 $10,257 $0 $0 $181,763 i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE Additional Explanation (as needed): *IMPORTANT: Please use this box (or an attachment) to further explain how your total indirect costs were calculated. If the total indirect costs are a cumulative amount of more than one calculation or rate application, the explanation and calculations should identify all rates used, along with the base they were applied to (and how the base was derived), and a total for each (along with grand total). Detailed Budget Justification Rate applied to personnel and fringe per ANTHC's federally negotiated rate with HHS (excluding pool) You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. __X__ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application, and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. ______ There is not a current, federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available*. *When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided by your DOE contact, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in performance of the proposed project. Additionally, any non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200—States and Local Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph D.1.b, may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely.As described in §200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. If chosen, this methodology once elected must be used consistently for all Federal awards until such time as a non-Federal entity chooses to negotiate for a rate, which the non-Federal entity may apply to do at any time. Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,328,382 0.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Vendors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 $350,144 $0 $350,144 2.Budget Period 2 $914,332 $0 $914,332 3.Budget Period 3 $63,906 $0 $63,906 4.Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $1,328,382 $0 $1,328,382 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $215,791 $555,810 $43,085 $0 $0 $814,686 $49,811 $126,837 $10,565 $0 $0 $187,213 $36,180 $108,540 $0 $0 $0 $144,720 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $301,783 $791,187 $53,649 $0 $0 $1,146,619 $48,361 $123,145 $10,257 $0 $0 $181,763 $350,144 $914,332 $63,906 $0 $0 $1,328,382 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:Alaska Energy Authority 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 Award Number:19-May-23 Award Recipient:Alaska Center for Energy and Power (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $138,930 $0 $138,930 0.00%01/01/2024 - 05/30/2025 Budget Period 2 $927,528 $0 $927,528 0.00%06/01/2025 - 5/30/2030 Budget Period 3 $163,806 $0 $163,806 0.00%01/01/2030 - 12/31/2031 Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $1,230,265 $0 $1,230,265 0.00% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $91,621 $566,433 $108,911 $0 $0 $766,966 62.34% b. Fringe Benefits $32,943 $215,691 $39,159 $0 $0 $287,793 23.39% c. Travel $2,725 $64,520 $2,020 $0 $0 $69,265 5.63% d. Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% e. Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Vendor $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $127,289 $846,644 $150,090 $0 $0 $1,124,024 91.36% i. Indirect Charges $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 8.64% Total Costs $138,930 $927,528 $163,806 $0 $0 $1,230,265 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Alaska Energy Authority Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. If using this form for invoice submission, fill out tabs a. through j. with total costs for just the proposed invoice and fill out tab k. per the instructions on that tab. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, vendors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows or columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 Sr. Engineer (EXAMPLE!!!)2000 $85.00 $170,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 2400 $190,000 Actual Salary 2 Technicians (2)4000 $20.00 $80,000 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 4000 $80,000 Actual Salary 1,2,8 Research Engineer (Y1, 2, 8)2088 $40.38 $84,313 2088 $41.39 $86,421 2088 $48.00 $100,224 $0 $0 6264 $270,959 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 1,2,8 Senior Research Engineer (Y1, 2, 8)104.4 $70.00 $7,308 104.4 $71.75 $7,491 104.4 $83.21 $8,687 $0 $0 313 $23,486 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 3 Project Coordinator (Y3)$0 1950 $42.42 $82,719 $0 $0 $0 1950 $82,719 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 3 Project Manager (Y3)$0 97.5 $73.54 $7,170 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,170 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 4 Project Coordinator (Y4)$0 1950 $43.48 $84,786 $0 $0 $0 1950 $84,786 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 4 Project Manager (Y4)$0 97.5 $75.38 $7,350 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,350 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 5 Project Coordinator (Y5)$0 1950 $44.57 $86,912 $0 $0 $0 1950 $86,912 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 5 Project Manager (Y5)$0 97.5 $77.27 $7,534 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,534 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 6 Project Coordinator (Y6)$0 1950 $45.69 $89,096 $0 $0 $0 1950 $89,096 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 6 Project Manager (Y6)$0 97.5 $79.20 $7,722 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,722 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 7 Project Coordinator (Y7)$0 1950 $46.83 $91,319 $0 $0 $0 1950 $91,319 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 7 Project Manager (Y7)$0 97.5 $81.18 $7,915 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,915 Actual, adjusted for annual increase $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Total Personnel Costs 2192 $91,621 12430 $566,433 2192 $108,911 0 $0 0 $0 16815 $766,966 Additional Explanation (as needed): Salaries are based on one full time research engineer, dedicated to project support and implementation, starting at current mid-level salary, adjusted by 2.5% each year as a COLA. The senior research engineer is based on current salaries, and represents 5% of annual hours, with the same salary adjustment of 2.5%. Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and vendors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base pay rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., actual salary, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate Basis Project Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total EXAMPLE!!! Sr. Engineer $170,000 20%$34,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $38,000 Research Engineer $ 78,741.00 38.50%$30,315 $ 515,551.19 38.50%$198,487 $ 93,598.30 38.50%$36,035 $0 $0 $264,838 Senior Research Engineer $ 6,825.00 38.50%$2,628 $ 44,686.22 38.50%$17,204 $ 8,112.78 38.50%$3,123 $0 $0 $22,955 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$85,566 $32,943 $560,237 $215,691 $101,711 $39,159 $0 $0 $0 $0 $287,793 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): UAF's fringe benefit rate of 14.3% is calculated on total salary and wages and includes the employer contribution towards health insurance (medical and dental), disability and group life insurance, and paid time off (PTO). INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. ______ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* __x____ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 1 EXAMPLE!!! Visit to PV manufacturer 2 2 $250 $500 $100 $160 $2,020 Current GSA rates Planning meeting Fairbanks Anchorage 2 2 $360 $400 $250 $2,020 Most recent experience. Planning meeting Fairbanks Anchorage 1 1 $180 $400 $125 $705 Most recent experience. $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $2,725 Domestic Travel Rural site visits to each participating community Anchorage Rural Alaska 40 1 $360 $750 $200 $52,400 Most recent experience. Planning meetings Fairbanks Anchorage 6 2 $360 $400 $250 $12,120 Most recent experience. $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $64,520 Domestic Travel Evaluation meetings Fairbanks Anchorage 2 2 $360 $400 $250 $2,020 Most recent experience. $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $2,020 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $69,265 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3,4,5 EXAMPLE!!! Thermal shock chamber 2 $70,000 $140,000 Vendor Quote - Attached Reliability testing of PV modules- Task 4.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a vendor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the vendor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a vendor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 4,6 EXAMPLE!!! Wireless DAS components 10 $360.00 $3,600 Catalog price For Alpha prototype - Task 2.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 2,4 EXAMPLE!!! XYZ Corp.Partner to develop optimal lens for Gen 2 product. Cost estimate based on personnel hours. $48,000 $32,000 $16,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # Vendor Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 6 EXAMPLE!!! ABC Corp.Vendor for developing robotics to perform lens inspection. Estimate provided by vendor. $32,900 $86,500 $119,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # FFRDC Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to subrecipients, vendors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Subrecipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 50% of total award costs. These subrecipient forms may be completed by either the subrecipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the subrecipient's forms must match the subrecipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 3. Vendors (including contractors): List all vendors and contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Vendor cost with total project costs of $250,000 or more, a Vendor quote must be provided. A vendor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3 EXAMPLE ONLY!!! Three days of excavation for platform site $28,000 Engineering estimate Site must be prepared for construction of platform. Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a vendor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 5 EXAMPLE!!! Grad student tuition - tasks 1-3 $16,000 Established UCD costs Support of graduate students working on project Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)55.00%55.00%55.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 10.00%10.00%10.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $0 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $106,241 Total indirect costs requested:$11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 Additional Explanation (as needed): Facilities and administrative (F&A) costs are negotiated with the Office of Naval Research. The FY23-FY26 predetermined rate for sponsored research at UAF is calculated at 55% of Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each subaward in excess of $25,000. A copy of the rate agreement is available at: http://www.alaska.edu/cost-analysis/negotiation-agreements/. Detailed Budget Justification Modified Total Direct Costs You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. ___X__ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application, and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. ______ There is not a current, federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available*. *When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided by your DOE contact, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in performance of the proposed project. Additionally, any non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200—States and Local Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph D.1.b, may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely.As described in §200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. If chosen, this methodology once elected must be used consistently for all Federal awards until such time as a non-Federal entity chooses to negotiate for a rate, which the non-Federal entity may apply to do at any time. i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,230,265 0.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Vendors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 $138,930 $0 $138,930 2.Budget Period 2 $927,528 $0 $927,528 3.Budget Period 3 $163,806 $0 $163,806 4.Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $1,230,265 $0 $1,230,264 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $91,621 $566,433 $108,911 $0 $0 $766,966 $32,943 $215,691 $39,159 $0 $0 $287,793 $2,725 $64,520 $2,020 $0 $0 $69,265 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $127,289 $846,644 $150,090 $0 $0 $1,124,024 $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 $138,930 $927,528 $163,806 $0 $0 $1,230,265 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:Alaska Energy Authority 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Community Benefits Plan Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) has a successful record partnering both as owner and project manager in community capital projects and in advancing State energy goals and priorities. AEA also has established relationships with tribal entities, local governments, and other State depart- ments, with a focus on workforce, permitting, and community development. Early engagement with these stakeholders will help to ensure that the project is responsive to local energy plans and goals. AEA administers the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program – an endowed fund source with more than $1 billion in assets – that provides economic assistance to communities and residents of rural electric utilities where the cost of electricity can be three to five times higher than for customers in more urban areas of the state. AEA, along with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), administers the program that serves 82,000 Alaskans in 193 communities that are largely reliant on diesel fuel for power generation. AEA works to address and overcome chal- lenges within these disadvantaged communities on a monthly basis. AEA and Alaska’s public and cooperative utilities are accustomed to engaging with local govern- ments and tribal entities through permitting and regulatory processes for rural energy projects. The applicable projects would establish milestones urging earlier dialogue with local govern- ments and Tribal entities. These conversations should begin sufficiently early in order to inform project development in response to local communities’ needs and concerns. Local governments and Tribal entities are uniquely situated to help identify the most effective actions the projects can take toward partnerships that advance workforce issues; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and the flow of project benefits to disadvantaged communities. AEA and partner utilities have extensive experience engaging with residents and businesses in town halls and similar formats. AEA is a public entity with obligations to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska, in the public interest. In addition, AEA’s Circuit Rider Program provides skilled labor to address, diagnose, and repair rural powerhouses. In addition, the Circuit Rider Program provides training for local communities to create skilled power plant labor. As rural microgrids shift towards renewable systems, AEA will ensure that the Circuit Rider Program adapts and continues to support and train local communities in the use of improved power systems. This project’s Community Benefits Plan anticipates that community benefits will accrue within each project period as part of project activities, and as part of its objectives and outcomes. Aligning Project with Best Practices An NREL study on distributed renewables for Arctic energy1, found that community buy-in and ownership is essential, as this extract demonstrates and the project anticipates and responds to. AEA knows that projects must be community-driven and supported, with community members understanding and participating in the value proposition of moving to a stronger reliance on renewable energy. It is critical to include and receive buy-in from key stakeholders like utility managers, operators, project champions, and local government officials. Beyond project devel- opment, community engagement must be ongoing, and continue after the project is deployed to maintain community support and ownership. Long-term engagement is an essential element of sustainability. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY • For example, a strong community focus enabled a successful project in Kongiganak: the community trained and retained a local workforce, built community trust through presen- tations in village meetings, and received community leader and tribal council support. In Galena, hiring and training an all-local workforce provided enhanced job satisfaction, increased local capacity, and strengthened the community overall. AEA is planning to ensure that proposed systems should be commensurate with the training, education, and availability of the local workforce, through the on-going relationship with the Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) and the appropriate labor unions. AEA knows that the use of community-appropriate technology reduces system failures and the community’s dependence on long-term, expensive, external assistance. Local capacity will determine how simple or complex the system should be, and what assets it can include. Robust operations and maintenance plans must be considered from the start, and technical assistance provided to complete and maintain these. Communities have found that small, easy-to-maintain pilot systems with solar photovoltaics (PV), batteries, and/or wind can be a good stepping-stone to larger, more complex systems with higher contributions of renewable energy. Community-based technical capacity may be increased over time through community education and expanded experience from operating power systems. Many communities have been successful in engaging local youth, with energy providers gaining traction by speaking through credible, communi- ty-based educators. • In Kotzebue, installing small wind turbines provided the technical capacity for subsequent installations of much larger wind turbines, batteries, and solar PV systems. In Galena, a focus on community education and training allowed the community to perform increasing portions of system maintenance locally and has enabled it to set its sights on future solar projects. AEA knows that having a regional or statewide pool of support resources increases the like- lihood of success, which its cohort and technical assistance approach will support. Having a network of knowledgeable people actively engaged in operating projects, such as an energy cooperative, that can provide targeted education or technical knowledge, increases the likeli- hood of project success, and can allow communities to install systems that they may not be able to support on their own. Allowing a process for communities to access this network will stream- line the renewable energy development process including planning, financing, installation, and operations. Such a network is especially helpful for small communities with limited human capital. A face-to-face knowledge sharing network would increase the number and success rate of community projects. • Kongiganak is part of the Chaninik Wind Group (CWG), which helps secure wind energy project funding, shares training expenses, builds local capacity, and reduces energy costs. The CWG has built projects in each of its six member communities, leveraging the capacity built from each successful project. AEA will identify and support competent, practical project managers that are required to ensure the project’s success. The technical, financial, managerial, and community engagement compo- nents of a renewable energy project must be overseen by experienced personnel to help ensure effective delivery of projects. Managers must be able to validate project proposals from engi- neers and external entities, compare those proposals to community needs, and decline when necessary. Some communities also face rapid turnover of bookkeeping and managerial staff, RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY reducing their financial and managerial capacity for projects. Such seemingly minor problems can have long-term impacts. • In Kodiak, early renewable projects failed due to insufficient engineering and project management. Since then, a renewed focus on these components has enabled successful projects. Community and Labor Engagement Engaging with labor unions, local governments, and Tribal entities. AEA and partners have established, long-term, and mutually valued relationships with the orga- nized labor community in Alaska. Larger development often occurs within collective bargaining agreements of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the various trade unions, depending on location. While this is very much about scale, the Alaska approach will be to engage its labor partners early to initiate discussions toward labor agreements and overall benefits of the project. Alaska Municipal League (AML) will establish a relationship with the Alaska American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO) to assess the impact of project development on future community benefits and labor engagement. AEA has included in its timeline and milestones to discuss with organized labor the need for local and targeted hiring goals, card-check neutrality, and possible provisions advancing programs to attract, train and retain new workers. * Milestone: Produce summary of labor perspectives on rural renewable energy development and benefits thereof. AML is a critical part of the project’s community engagement, as it represents all city and borough (county-equivalent) governments in the state. While AEA and other partners are accustomed to engaging with local and Tribal governments through permitting and regulatory processes for capital projects, AML will be in a position to reach out directly to incorporate municipal perspectives and priorities into the project design and outputs. At the same time, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) presents incredible opportunities to work with Tribal governments and regional Tribal organizations to ensure that Tribal engagement is bene- ficial to the project and community. The project anticipates that community engagement will be initiated early and conducted often to inform project development and implementation. Local and Tribal governments are uniquely situated to help identify the most effective actions the projects can take toward partnerships that advance workforce issues; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and the flow of project benefits to disadvantaged communities. * Milestone: Establish municipal/Tribal working group to inform process and final product. Workforce and Community Agreements Partners anticipate that there will be opportunities for workforce or community strategies to be established as a direct result of the project. AML will be responsible through its stake- holder engagement role to work with community leaders to identify ways in which the project benefits can best accrue to the community. This will include planning for environmental justice, carbon reduction, workforce development, shared procurement, local hire, and asset management, including maintenance and operations planning and technical assistance. AML will reference DOE’s Community Benefit Agreement Toolkit2, recognizing that it doesn’t apply the same to federal projects as private, its intended purpose. The outcome of the CBA will be CBAs 40% percent of benefits should be allocated to communities of color, Indigenous peoples, RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY low-income communities, and other marginalized groups. Each project will evaluate the oppor- tunity for workforce agreements, as well, which will help ensure equity for women, people of color, and other historically disadvantaged or underrepresented groups in the project’s imple- mentation. Project sponsors will work through a facilitated community stakeholder process to identify ways in which workforce goals will be met. Goals include local hire, family-supporting jobs (wage parity), health insurance, diverse workforce, diverse workforce participation, and resources for continuing education and certification that result in a highly skilled workforce. Contractor solicitation should reference these goals as part of criteria for an award. * Milestone: Community Benefit Strategies will be established with each participating commu- nity, and Workforce Agreements with project sponsors. Approach to apprenticeships and local hiring goals AML will maintain a local workforce availability and hire tracking system throughout the life of the project, enabling local hire goals to be met and cross-promoting hire between projects that might occur within a region. This system will also track municipal and tribal workforce in-kind contributions, staff time that is applied to the project planning and implementation. The project team will work with the University of Alaska (UA), AVTEC, and Alaska Works Partnership to identify ways in which training, apprenticeships and local hiring can benefit from microgrid implementation. In addition, the project will reference the Alaska Workforce Investment Board’s strategies for workforce development, found in its Combined Plan for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity3. The UA is an important mechanism for workforce development, including for apprenticeships. 20 years ago, the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) created the Associate of Applied Science in Apprenticeship Technologies. The University of Alaska System, the UAA Community and Technical College, and several joint apprenticeship training programs have joined the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) Registered Apprenticeship-College Consortium, which simplifies the process for an apprentice to earn college credit. Alaska Works Partnership is a non-profit organization that gives Alaskans access to jobs and careers in the construction industry. Alaska Works educates Alaskans about good paying jobs, teaches basic skills, and establishes pathways for Alaskans to learn skills that last a lifetime and earn good pay with health care and retirement benefits. Alaska Works was created by Alaska’s Building and Construction Trade and their apprenticeship training trusts in 1996. Alaska Works partners with industry employers, community organizations, educators and the State of Alaska to develop Alaska’s workforce. Several thousand Alaskans living in over 140 communities have gotten a start in construction through one of their programs, illustrated below. • Apprenticeship Outreach • Alaska Construction Academy • Helmets to Hardhats • Women in the Trades • Building Maintenance * Milestone: Training and outreach includes pathways to apprenticeship and training programs. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Documented community and labor partnerships Both AML and ANTHC have inclusive and documented community partnerships. As member organizations, the two include municipal and Tribal governments in important ways and will ensure these perspectives and priorities are included in project design and implementation, and that outcomes are consistent with community interests. AML is working toward a teaming agreement with the Alaska AFL-CIO, which will inform future labor engagement. Labor agree- ments are otherwise developed at the project level and specific to community needs. AML will work through the Alaska AFL-CIO to provide project sponsors the opportunity to engage labor councils within regional districts. * Provide documentation of teaming agreement with the Alaska AFL-CIO in first year. Investing in the American Workforce This project has the ability to result in increased investment in America’s workforce. This project results in job creation and business development, and a team subcommittee will work through AML to engage with the Alaska Small Business Development Center to identify ways in which this can be maximized, not just in project development and delivery, but in the long-term. USDA’s Economic Risk Assessment Dashboard tracks COVID, Community Distress, Unemployment, and Social Equity and is a good example of where economic benefits might accrue. It produces a dashboard for Alaska that identifies fully half the state by geography as distressed, more than any other state in the nation. The majority of project-funded activities will occur in these distressed regions of Alaska. Creation and retention of quality jobs 1) Plan to attract, train, and retain a skilled and well qualified workforce. The majority of the work involved will be by partner staff, current and future. Contracts from the project sponsor will be available to partners, depending on scope and competency, and the goal of the project team is to maximize the investment in that workforce. In this way the project team can ensure that it is able to foster safe, healthy, and inclusive workplaces with equal opportunity, free from harassment and discrimination. In addition, the partners have considered ways in which to make investments in training, education, and skill development and supporting the corresponding mobility of workers to advance in their careers. The project will assess collec- tive bargaining agreements as identified through the life of the project. Figure 1: Programs offered by Alaska Works Partnership. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 6 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY i. Wages, benefits, and other worker support provided. The project sponsor and partners approach to quality jobs means that project staff will have (1) fair, transparent, and equitable pay that exceeds the local average wage for an industry, while delivering; (2) basic benefits (e.g., paid leave, health insurance, retirement/savings plan); (3) providing workers with an environment in which to have a collective voice; and (4) helps the employee develop the skills and experiences necessary to advance along a career path. In addition, the partners will offer good jobs that provide (5) predictable scheduling, and a safe, healthy, and accessible workplace devoid of hostility and harassment. With good jobs, (6) employees are properly classified with the limited use of independent contractors and tempo- rary workers. Workers have a (7) statutorily protected right to a free and fair choice to join a union under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). ii. Commitments to support workforce education and training. The partners will encourage project staff to participate in training programs and encourage contractors to offer paid time for employees to participate in skills training. This will include the provision of personalized, modularized, and flexible skill development opportunities, such as on-demand and self-directed virtual training. This will be included as part of the cohort support system established through the project. The project will identify and provide continuing educa- tion programs for employees to earn credentials and degrees relevant to their career pathways. * Milestone: Include workforce education and training opportunities in training and technical assistance. * Produce a guide for communities that includes methods by which to reduce employee turn- over costs for employers, increases productivity from a committed and engaged workforce, and promotes a stable workforce for projects in the community. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility The project team recognizes the value of a meaningful and targeted approach to advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The following is a description of the methodology the team will implement in project design and implementation. Equity: Project partners have shared commitments to 1) build a diverse workforce, supported by equitable operations and policies, and establish an informed culture that delivers authentic inclusivity; 2) promote economic opportunity for Alaskans through transportation investments, including working with businesses owned by Black, Indigenous, People of Color, women, and others who have been historically and/or are currently marginalized; 3) utilize the viewpoints of those who reside in the communities and who are likely to be affected by the outcomes of the project; and 4) invest in the protection of marginalized communities from environmental hazards. Diversity: Project partners have shared commitments to 1) a workforce that is talented, diverse, and committed to fostering a safe, fair, and inclusive workplace; 2) ensure all voices, regardless of social identity or social demographics, are heard and their views influence project decisions; 3) work with stakeholder groups to aid in communication with the community and project personnel. Inclusion: Project partners have shared commitments to 1) include the diverse perspectives within this project’s scope and deployment; 2) leveraging investments and increasing path- ways to opportunity for minority-owned and disadvantaged business enterprises, and for individuals who face systemic barriers; 3) meaningful engagement with communities that are diverse and underrepresented in the creation and implementation of the programs and projects RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1. Justice 40 Initiative AEA’s rural microgrid transformation is a statewide effort that will result in proj- ects in approximately 20 communities. The project team has utilized a variety of tools to assess disadvantage. EPA’s EJScreen identifies areas of the state experiencing low income, for instance. This is generally consis- tent with where Power Cost Equalization (PCE) communities fall in AEA’s 10 rural energy that impact the daily lives of their communities by creating more transparent, inclusive, and on-going consultation and collaboration process; 4) ensure the project includes practices based on community engagement to avoid harm to frontline and vulnerable; and 5 provide training to staff to promote inclusion internally and externally. Accessibility: Project partners have share commitments to 1) strengthen accountability poli- cies and procedures, create a more accessible and disability-inclusive workplace, and foster a greater respect for religious diversity; 2) ensure that reasonable accommodations are handled with tact and care to provide community members as well as employees the opportunity to fully participate in project activities; 3) develop and implement a process to Increase awareness of accessibility tools and disability inclusion; 4) review and evaluate disability inclusion policies and practices in crisis and emergency management including, but not limited to, planning and response for pandemics, disasters, and evacuations in the domestic context; 5) examine options to enhance technological accessibility; and 6) increase awareness of religious accommodations. Figure 2: EPA EJScreen Low Income Regions in Alaska. Figure 3: 193 PCE Communities that AEA works with monthly. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY City/Borough FIPS*Pop.Rural (OMB) National SVI* Ranking (CDC) APP* (DOT) DDA* (HUD) Distressed Communities Aleutians East Borough 2013 3,515 Yes Moderate to High No Yes No Aleutians West Census Area 2016 5,723 Yes Low to Moderate No Yes No Bethel Census Area 2050 18,216 Yes High Yes Yes Yes Bristol Bay Borough 2060 877 Yes Low to Moderate No No Yes Valdez- Cordova Census Area 2063 9,202 No Low to Moderate No No Yes Denali Borough 2068 2,059 Yes Low No Yes Yes Dillingham Census Area 2070 5,000 Yes High No Yes Yes Haines Borough 2100 2,474 Yes Low No No Yes Hoonah- Angoon Census Area 2105 2,151 Yes Low to Moderate No No Yes Ketchikan Gateway Borough 2130 13,918 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Kodiak Island Borough 2150 13,345 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Kusilvak Census Area 2158 8,049 Yes High Yes No Yes Lake and Peninsula Borough 2164 1,587 Yes High No No Yes Nome Census Area 2180 10,008 Yes High No Yes Yes North Slope Borough 2185 9,872 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Northwest Arctic Borough 2188 7,671 Yes High No Yes Yes Wrangell- Petersburg Census Area 2195 5,910 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Prince of Wales – Hyder Census Area 2198 6,422 Yes High No No Yes Sitka 2220 8,458 Yes Low to Moderate No No No Skagway 2230 1,240 Yes Low No Yes No Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 2240 6,918 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Wrangell 2275 2,127 Yes Moderate to High No No Yes Yakutat 2282 662 Yes Moderate to High No Yes No Yukon- Koyukuk Census Area 2290 5,327 Yes High Yes No Yes regions, where high cost is relative to an average of three urban communities. Excluding the Railbelt, which accounts for 75% of Alaska’s population, this project will focus on eligible projects in rural communities that are considered disadvantaged or Tribal. Disadvantaged communities within the Railbelt will be eligible as long as they are also rural. The table below demonstrates for relevant census areas and boroughs (county equivalent), their FIPS identification for reference, population, Rural status according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), their social vulnerability index according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whether they are Areas of Persistent Poverty according to United State Department of Transportation (USDOT), whether they are difficult to develop according to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and whether the Denali Commission considers communities within Distressed. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 9 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY An equity assessment will be conducted as part of project identification and as part of the award process. This will include review of available datasets to ensure distribution of project benefits to 40% disadvantaged communities, and to structure ways in which project sponsors and contractors can implement strategies that maximize equitable benefits. 2. Identification of applicable benefits that are quantifiable, measurable, and trackable. The project’s technical point of contact at AEA will track project benefits that are quantifi- able and measurable. Baseline measures will be secured prior to project implementation, and measured at the conclusion of each project for a pre- and post-project assessment. Benefits Quantifiable Measure Tracking Decrease in Energy Burden Tbtu / Million $Site Energy Savings Energy Costs Savings 2009 Baseline – annual and cumulative Decrease in environmental exposure MMT CO2 Reduction 2009 Baseline – annual and cumulative Increase in access to low-cost capital Million $Capital availability AAHA report on access to capital Increase in job creation and training Job #s Jobs and training opportunities ASHBA report/DOL&WD Increase in clean energy jobs and enterprise creation Business #s Business development ASHBA report/AKSBDC Increase in community ownership Municipal code Adoption or revision Community reporting/AML Increased parity in clean energy tech- nology access and adoption Municipal code Energy technology reference Community reporting/AML 3. Anticipated Negative and Cumulative Environmental Impacts on disadvantaged communities. While EPA’s EJScreen does not include sufficient data to assess the potential impact of the project to disadvantaged communities, the project team recognizes the research that exists to describe the value and impact of renewable energy development generally. Fuel transportation to remote Alaskan communities is becoming more susceptible to climate-re- lated disruptions. In these communities, fuel is typically delivered by barge, which for inland communities is only available during the summer when the rivers are free of ice. Changes in river paths, low water levels, increasing sediments, or unexpected storms can put shipments at risk, leaving a community without the energy stores needed to meet high heating loads during the long winter. Alternative methods of delivery, such as ice roads and winter-based overland routes, are becoming less secure as the climate warms. The emergency alternative— flying diesel in on small planes or even by helicopter—increases costs exponentially, with some communities paying over $16/gallon (Hughes 2022). Burning diesel also releases greenhouse gases and other pollutants, accelerating climate change and reducing local air quality. The effects of climate change are being experienced acutely in Arctic regions like Alaska, as melting permafrost further reduces transportation options and puts building foundations at risk. Remote Alaskan communities have and will continue to lead in community-based renewable energy development, serving as an example for similar communities throughout the world. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Many communities have excellent wind, solar, hydropower or biomass resources waiting to be used. 69 Alaskan communities have so far integrated some form of renewable energy4 , and between 2014 and 2018, 5,210 households in rural Alaska received building energy efficiency improvements to reduce overall energy demand5. A variety of funding sources and programs are available to support communities in the complex transition to renewable energy Remote locations may be rich in renewable energy sources, but the intermittent nature makes their inte- gration into the power grid a challenge. AEA’s approach to innovative microgrid solutions includes grid stabilization technology that enables high penetration of renewable power generation, and distributed control systems that provide intelligent power management and efficient hybrid power plant operation. By addressing integration issues, AEA is maximizing deployment of locally based renewable energy resources. Energy planning can offer enhanced protection against the threats of natural disasters and terrorism to make our communities more resilient, sustainable and livable for generations to come, which lowers the price of mitigation for building owners. The many challenges to public health and safety and environmental sustainability in our increasingly complex global society call for a holistic approach to public policy development and business models, including how we construct buildings. Thoughtful consideration of “performance goals” prior to taking action is important for budget planning and for establishing priorities, such as: public health and safety; protection of ecosystems and the important functions they serve; accessibility and mobility for all citizens; affordable housing; and economic sustainability. Implementation of new policies and practices should start by identifying the intersections and synergies that will achieve the perfor- mance goals (which may change) in the most responsible and cost-effective way possible. USDA Rural Development has data identifying Distressed Energy Communities6, which covers a large swath of Alaska. These are regions that will benefit most from locally sourced renewable energy projects. This will be part of the project review process for evaluation of eligibility and competitiveness. 4. Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities. Disadvantaged communities will directly and indirectly benefit from the outcomes of the project activities. By inclusive engagement in project development, scoping, and implementation, disadvantaged communities will be exposed to learning opportunities that will enable them to improve current practices and policies. Upon completion, the projects will provide public health and safety benefits to communities. * Milestone: Stakeholder exit interviews indicate benefits from process and outcomes, and incorporation of asset management principles for long-term sustainability. One of the hallmarks of this project will be the high level of technical assistance provided to project sponsors and to potential applicants. • A cohort approach – Each year’s project awardees will participate in an ever-expanding cohort, which will feature the addition of project awardees in the following years. Awardees will participate in quarterly web-based sessions that provide resources and trainings on project and grant management, asset management, maintenance and operations, and gover- nance and financial sustainability. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY • Technical assistance – Potential applicants, or applicants whose applications aren’t accepted in an award cycle, will be provided additional levels of support by project partners. AML and ANTHC will provide project development and application support to strengthen capacity for applications to be more successful, not just through this program but for other federal opportunities. • Leveraging financial opportunities – Funded projects will be evaluated by a team at AIDEA and in collaboration with project partners to determine feasibility of leveraging private capital, or other funding sources, to maximize the available federal funding and to increase the overall local contribution. This process will also identify ways in which rates will have to be structured for future maintenance and operations. Monitoring and Evaluation AEA will ensure that milestones are being met and that communities receive support necessary to track and report quarterly progress that includes surveying of stakeholders to determine the extent to which projects are on track to achieve beneficial outcomes for disadvantaged commu- nities. Communities with little capacity will receive support from AML and ANTHC to track and report without adding to their operational burdens. The project team has built into the performance periods a gap year during which extensive process review will identify any weaknesses in the program delivery. Project sponsors will be inter- viewed to learn about challenges and solutions, which will be applied to redevelopment of the program, as necessary, to strengthen implementation through the life of the rest of the project. Figure 4: USDA RD Distressed Energy Communities. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY The final year of the project will ensure that all microgrid conversions are completed in a timely and effective manner, consistent with scope and objectives. The project team will complete its evaluation process with an in-person workshop that includes a comprehensive review of all projects, project delivery, stakeholder engagement, and community benefits. A summary of findings will be released as a result of the project, developed in collaboration with participating communities and project sponsors, and shared with those communities and the public at large. This approach will ensure that learning drives future performance. Endnotes 1 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84391.pdf 2 https://www.energy.gov/diversity/community-benefit-agreement-cba-toolkit 3 https://awib.alaska.gov/pdf/WIOA_plan_2022-2023.pdf 4 McMahon et al. 2022 5 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, 2018 6 https://ruraldevelopment.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index. Figure 5: Twin Hills, Alaska. Prime or Sub Name City State Zip Code + 4 Prime Alaska Energy Authority Anchorage Alaska 99503-2401 Sub Alaska Municipal League Juneau Alaska 99801-1245 Sub Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Anchorage Alaska 99508-5909 Sub Alaska Center for Energy and Power Fairbanks Alaska 99775-5402 Sub Rural Alaska Tribes and Utilities Statewide Alaska Locations of Work (DE-FOA-0002740) Confirmation Thank you for submitting your grant application package via Grants.gov. Your application is currently being processed by the Grants.gov system. Once your submission has been processed, Grants.gov will send email messages to advise you of the progress of your application through the system. Over the next 24 to 48 hours, you should receive two emails. The first will confirm receipt of your application by the Grants.gov system, and the second will indicate that the application has either been successfully validated by the system prior to transmission to the grantor agency or has been rejected due to errors. Please do not hit the back button on your browser. If your application is successfully validated and subsequently retrieved by the grantor agency from the Grants.gov system, you will receive an additional email. This email may be delivered several days or weeks from the date of submission, depending on when the grantor agency retrieves it. You may also monitor the processing status of your submission within the Grants.gov system by clicking on the “Track My Application” link listed at the end of this form. Note: Once the grantor agency has retrieved your application from Grants.gov, you will need to contact them directly for any subsequent status updates. Grants.gov does not participate in making any award decisions. IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you do not receive a receipt confirmation and either a validation confirmation or a rejection email message within 48 hours, please contact us. The Grants.gov Contact Center can be reached by email at support@grants.gov, or by telephone at 1-800-518-4726. Always include your Grants.gov tracking number in all correspondence. The tracking numbers issued by Grants.gov look like GRANTXXXXXXXXX. If you have questions please contact the Grants.gov Contact Center: support@grants.gov 1-800-518-4726 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Closed on federal holidays. The following application tracking information was generated by the system: Grants.gov Tracking Number:GRANT13888586 F3N8ZSHJXUH8UEI: Karin St. ClairSubmitter's Name: CFDA Number:81.254 CFDA Description:Grid Infrastructure Deployment and Resilience Funding Opportunity Number:DE-FOA-0002740 Funding Opportunity Description:BIL Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships ( GRIP) Agency Name:National Energy Technology Laboratory Application Name of this Submission:Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation Date/Time of Receipt: https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/spoExit.jsp?p=web/grants/applicants/track-my-application.html&tracking_num=GRANT13888586 TRACK MY APPLICATION – To check the status of this application, please click the link below: It is suggested you Save and/or Print this response for your records. May 18, 2023 05:18:30 PM EDT RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Technical and business points of contact: Business Point of Contact: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, cthayer@akenergyauthority.org, 907-771-3009 Technical Point of Contact: Rebecca Garrett, Rural Programs Manager, rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org, 907-771-3042 Names of all team member organizations: Alaska Municipal League Non-profit, local government association Alaska Center for Energy and Power University research center Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Non-profit, Tribal government services Alaska Energy Authority Conner Erickson, Director of Planning Alaska Energy Authority Audrey Alstrom, Director of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Alaska Energy Authority Tim Sandstrom, Chief Operating Officer Alaska Municipal League Nils Andreassen, Executive Director Alaska Center for Energy and Power Jeremy Kasper Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Dustin Madden Names of the senior/key personnel and their organizations: Project location(s): Alaska, statewide Rural, Tribal communities that are functioning as power production islands. All projects that will ultimately be forwarded under this application will be islanded from the Alaskan Railbelt, which is Alaska’s main power generation transmission system. Any statements regarding confidentiality: None PROJECT TITLERural Alaska Microgrid Transformation TOPIC AREAS 3Grid Innovation Program RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Project Overview Background of Organization and Development Baseline: The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is the State’s energy office and primary agency for statewide energy policy and program development. AEA’s mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA manages a broad portfolio of supply and demand side energy projects and takes a whole-community approach in addressing energy cost reduction issues. AEA provides technical assistance, training, energy planning, project development/management, and emergency maintenance services. AEA facilitates coordinative activities between planning, projects, funding sources, and assists local and Tribal govern- ments in the move to project-ready status. AEA also supports owners and operators once their power systems are up and running, with a robust system of capacity assistance. Power systems in Alaska are small and isolated. Alaskan grids off the main Railbelt are linear with little to no redundancy, are almost exclusively reliant on diesel generation, and are micro in size compared with grids in the contiguous United States. Most rural communities in Alaska are accessible only by air and river. They are power-is- landed, relying solely on diesel generation systems. Many of these communities have aging and failing powerhouses and distribution. These systems are fueled by large bulk fuel storage facilities, many of which have been in service for up to 60 years without significant upgrades. AEA manages a consistent assessment schedule to determine at-risk facilities and upgrade or replacement needs. Due to community remoteness, most diesel powerhouses cannot be entirely removed from a microgrid due to life-safety concerns. However, there are several communities that could replace the baseload diesel power production with renewable energy (see Figure 1). To properly upgrade an Alaskan microgrid, the renewable power source would need to be built out and then properly integrated to the back-up diesel power source. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Figure 1: Potential renewable energy projects in Alaska. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY The reliance on diesel negatively impacts the economy and public health of rural, disadvantaged communities. This project provides pathways to necessary improvements that will transform communities, displacing millions of gallons of diesel and reducing the carbon emissions thereof. Figure 1 provides a map of Alaska communities with microgrids that are eligible for Power Cost Equalization (PCE), where costs are significantly higher than their urban counterparts. Project Goal: The goal of these transformed community microgrids is to replace the baseload diesel power production with renewable energy. Hydro, solar, and wind are the primary renewable power sources found to be successful in Alaska. In addition, many of the possible hydro projects would produce more power than could be used by typical community demand. This excess power would be used for community heat and would enable increased capacity for energy storage, which is a critical resource in rural Alaska. This use of excess electricity for heat reduction would displace heating oil, wood burning, diesel, and other types of fuel. This project rests on multiple critical success factors: (1) Feasibility of project technologies in rural Alaska communities; (2) Process innovation, and the combination of technologies; (3) Partner contributions, and appropriate levels of analysis; (4) Cost of materials and services, and supply chain availability; and (5) Sustainability of operations, and planning for maintenance and operations. Project locations will be determined based on level of disadvantage and potential to meet the critical success factors. The project selection team will evaluate the availability of skilled workforce – and potential to offer skills training as part of a community benefits plan – and overall benefit to the community that includes lowering costs and addressing environ- mental justice factors. The U.S. Energy Information Administration1 (EIA) highlights key data points, which this project will contribute solutions to, 1) Alaska ranks second only to Hawaii in the share of its total elec- tricity--14% in 2022--generated from petroleum; and 2) in 2022, Alaska generated about 33% of its total electricity from renewable energy sources. The state has a non-binding goal to generate 50% of its electricity from renewable and alternative energy sources by 2025. DOE Impact: The incredible remoteness of rural Alaskan communities has the effect of extremely high project costs. This, along with the fact that the rural communities are paying very high energy costs, has made project funding a difficult process. The State of Alaska, local and Tribal governments, and utilities cannot bear this cost alone, and lack sufficient resources to enable a transition to lower carbon energy sources that will reduce emissions and lower costs. DOE funding would unlock dozens of community projects that have gathered enough funding for engineering and design but are waiting for funding sources to complete procurement and construction. For reference, AEA has managed the utilization of $300 million to implement more than 100 proj- ects from 2008 to 2022, through its Renewable Energy Grant Program (REF), which had variable and limited funding based on available State appropriations. The REF, in direct support of rural, majority tribal, disadvantaged communities has provided more than 80% of total funding towards projects in those rural communities. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Community Benefits Plan: Job Quality and Equity – The Community Benefits Plan identifies the potential for project activ- ities in an estimated twenty rural, disadvantaged communities with islanded micro-grids that are reliant on diesel power generation. These systems are emissions-intensive, expensive, and frequently experience disruption. These projects will result in reduced emissions, lower costs, and more reliable power delivery. Each project will include the deployment of clean power as part of the energy infrastructure. AEA’s process will include a focus on minority business enter- prises, and encouraging project delivery by Alaska Native regional and village corporations. AEA will provide training and skills development as part of its project planning and through construc- tion, and work with labor and workforce development partners to maintain job quality and equity. No limitations will be placed on ensuring workers have the free and fair chance to join a union. AEA will work through the Alaska Municipal League (AML) to engage the University of Alaska, Associated General Contractors, and Alaska AFL-CIO in this process. Project Benefits: AEA will partner with AML to conduct an equity assessment within and between communities, as part of the project identification and implementation process. The CBP provides an overview of DACs in Alaska that would be eligible applicants, and a process for working with municipal and Tribal leaders, utilities, and regional partners to deliver proj- ects. Each project will be located in a rural community where the majority of the population is Indigenous. Public engagement will feature ways in which the project activities may have ancil- lary community benefits – beyond the direct impact of the energy improvements – that include workforce and enterprise development, skills training, and resilience planning. Long-Term Constraints: AEA does not anticipate any long-term constraints or impacts to participating communities. The deployment of renewable power systems and carbon-re- ducing technologies in Alaska has been accomplished without diminishing access to natural resources, nor interference with Tribal cultural resources. Extensive stakeholder engagement ensures continued access to water and subsistence resources. Project cleanup costs, including waste, will be backhauled out of communities or repurposed through agreements with local government. Figure 2: Renewable Energy Investment in Alaska by Energy Source, 2010-2020 Primary Energy Source Investment ($millions) % of Total Hydroelectric $330 48% Wind $240 35% Biomass $30 5% Geothermal (Testing and Assessment)$30 4% Solar $10 2% Other Renewables $50 7% Total $690 100% Renewable Energy Investment in Alaska by Energy Source, 2010-2020 $690 million invested 260 Projects 160 Communities 448 million Pounds of CO2 Offset Annually 15-20 Construction Jobs per million Invested Investment in Alaska Renewable Energy Projects, 2010-2020 RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Climate Resilience Strategy: Alaska experiences the impacts of climate change at a higher rate than the rest of the nation, but AEA and community partners have extensive experience imple- menting resilient projects that can withstand change and high impact events. AEA project planning takes into account climate variability and change, and includes resilience as part of its overall strategy in developing projects. A key component of this strategy is to work with partners that are at the forefront of climate resilience, including the Denali Commission, an independent federal agency designed to provide critical infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska. Technical Description, Innovation, and Impact Relevance and Outcomes Description of the Project: AEA has successfully managed hundreds of grid improvement projects in rural Alaska’s, the majority of which have delivered benefits to disadvantaged communities. AEA envisions the “Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation” to significantly increase its scale and scope, and proposes to implement a carefully managed process to identify, vet, and support the deployment of multiple renewable energy projects in rural communities. This effort will leverage AEA’s technical expertise and program management, as well as experience working in rural Alaska, to engage partners, stakeholders, and project proponents in an efficient and effective system of project evaluation and deployment. This project will enable AEA to transform Alaska’s rural microgrids, making a significant investment toward Alaska’s future and helping to meet its renewable energy goals and carbon neutrality. AEA proposes to manage as much as $500 million through a competitive, focused application process that moves projects from concept through permitting to construction. AEA will initiate a call for expressions of interest through a request for application process that captures current needs of rural, disadvantaged communities. Local and Tribal governments, utili- ties, and private sector project proponents will provide relevant information that is consistent with program goals. A project review team will vet these proposals to determine where greatest impact can be achieved. By acting as an intermediary, and leveraging its considerable expertise working in and with disadvantaged Alaska communities, AEA will maximize the opportunity for community engagement and provide an efficient way in which to meet the needs of many communities at once. Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation will result in an estimated twenty projects across the state, managed through a multi-stage, multi-year process that delivers project development and technical assistance along a community’s energy pathway, from concept through engi- neering and design to construction. This intensive effort will include a cohort approach to similarly situated projects, all of which contribute to the project’s overall goals of resilience, carbon reduction, and community benefits. Grid Outcomes: This project is meant to transform rural micro-grids, isolated systems serving communities with fewer than 10,000 residents, which currently rely on diesel for the majority of their power production. The project’s grid-benefitting outcomes are Alaska-proven concepts of how to effectively integrate renewables into microgrids, thereby ensuring lower carbon emissions and more resilient systems. This project will transform community resilience by implementing a shift in generation and contemplating new and different load scenarios. AEA will prioritize proj- ects that demonstrate grid improvements relative to 1) current age, 2) system inefficiency and reliability, 3) high maintenance and operational costs, and 4) carbon emissions. Projects will contribute to a clean energy transition and anticipate and mitigate climate disruption. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Technologies Used: The project will utilize three proven renewable energy technologies through the deployment of small hydro, solar, and wind power. This project will contribute to the diversi- fication of community generation portfolio and facilitate clean energy development as part of its system benefits. AEA has identified battery and storage as a critical success factor for integration into existing and improved systems. Techno-economic analysis will accompany this integration, to ensure efficacy of operations for both transmission and distribution within these isolated systems. Principles: AEA is committed to lowering the cost of power in Alaska, an equity-driven approach includes principles of ensuring stronger access to economic and environmental benefits to disadvantaged communities. This project will rely on extensive partner and stakeholder engagement to coalesce around program goals and objectives, and to deliver projects that are consistent with equity and environmental justice. AEA recognizes the need for partnerships that enhance reliability, all-hazards resilience, and efficiency of the electric grid. Objectives: AEA’s project objectives are to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience, lower carbon emissions, decrease power costs, and improve public health and safety. These objectives are consis- tent with the FOA’s goals to advance community benefits, which align with the State’s energy policy goal to reach 50% renewable energy by 2025. At the same time, AEA will catalyze private sector and non-federal public capital, by contributing 50% of the overall project funding through state funds. Projects will be developed at-scale by identifying locations where significant economic bene- fits can be obtained, including those that reduce the transactional costs for local businesses. Relevance of Project to Goals and Objectives of the FOA: This project aligns well with the goals and objectives of DOE – more than 200 communities in Alaska rely on rural micro-grids for their life, health, and safety. AEA has created an innovative, climate-responsive, and equitable approach to delivering improved energy outcomes for disadvantaged communities. Projects that are funded through AEA will easily interconnect to new clean energy, improve system cost-effectiveness, and increase reliability. This project meets the FOA’s identified outcome to increase supply of a geographically and technologically diverse sets of location-constrained energy resources to enhance resource adequacy and reduce correlated generation outages. DOE identifies the need to consider all the opportunities that the BIL provides, and AEA will work through AML to connect projects with other federal investment opportunities, thereby maximizing and leveraging the whole-of-government approach that has been constructed. 98% of the communities AEA works with on a daily basis are disadvantaged communities. This project will more than double DOE’s goal in meeting Executive Order 14008 to deliver 40% of the overall benefits of federal investments to disadvantaged communities. Potential for Deployment of the Project to meet relevant performance targets: This project would provide a robust and repeatable model that other states and territories could duplicate (including within Hawaii, US Territories, and Tribal Communities). AEA will incentivize utili- ties and private sector development that harden systems and advance innovative solutions to enhance system resilience. Projects will be required to address in their merit criteria the poten- tial for future investments by industry, communities, and private capital. AEA will work with the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) to evaluate this criteria and iden- tify additional investment partners, which will be part of a replicable model. Expected Outcomes of the Project: This project will strengthen the nation’s energy prosperity, implementing proven energy technologies that help to meet climate goals while delivering RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 6 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY community benefits that include planning and implementation that is inclusive of labor and communities, equitable approaches to workforce and business development, and lowers costs and emissions for disadvantaged communities. Expected outcomes of this project are funda- mentally improved grid and community resilience. Feasibility Technical Feasibility of the Proposed Technology: Alaska has the potential for some of the most significant transformation from diesel power generation to renewables in the nation, and already has communities that have taken these steps. While overall adoption is high and the EIA identifies 33% of Alaska’s electricity generation comes from renewable sources, the isolated nature of its microgrids makes transformation a community-by-community effort. Funded proj- ects under this award will use technology that has been deployed with success in Alaska, with proven innovation that is adapted to remote, isolated systems that face challenging weather and operational extremes. The following section describes renewables that are applicable to and proven for rural microgrids, battery systems that complement their use, and integration expertise that has been demonstrated by project partners. Hydroelectric - Between 2010 and 2020, hydroelectric projects represented nearly half of renewable energy project investment in Alaska. Hydroelectric projects such as Blue Lake in Sitka, Allison Creek in Valdez, and expansion of AEA-owned Bradley Lake in Homer were among the largest projects in Alaska in terms of construction cost and generation capacity. The state also saw projects that used “lake tap” infrastructure requiring no dam and “run-of-river” hydro. Wind - Over the past decade, wind projects represented 35% of investment in renewables. Large wind projects developed between 2010 and 2020 include Eva Creek in Healy, Fire Island in Anchorage, Phase II of Kodiak’s Pillar Mountain development, and the Snake River project in Nome. Many wind projects developed over the past decade contributed to Alaska’s role as a leader in implementing wind-diesel hybrid systems. Investments in wind-diesel hybrid systems in rural communities included efforts such as Chaninik Wind Group’s project, which incorpo- rated thermal stoves for residential heating using excess wind generation. Enhancements in energy storage provided opportunity for further investment. Solar - Solar projects accounted for 2% of investment in Alaska in renewable energy between 2010 and 2020, including the state’s first utility-scale solar farms constructed in Healy and Willow. Solar generation in the spring and fall is often impressive in northern latitudes where clear skies, cool temperatures, dry air and bright, reflective snow all support solar generation. Solar photovoltaic systems can actually exceed their rated output during these times of year. The Native Village of Hughes recently installed a 120 kW solar photovoltaic system. The project is being developed to help advance the community’s renewable energy goal of 50 percent by 2025. When the project is completed, it will be the largest solar project in a small rural community in the state. Battery Storage - Residents need a reliable supply of electricity because many residents live in remote areas and winter temperatures can fall as low as minus 50 °F. Backup power therefore has to be available in the event of an outage. Utilities such as Golden Valley Electric and Homer Electric have chosen a battery backup solution as a cost-effective and reduced carbon emission solution, and implemented design and controls engineering for the whole system. In Fairbanks, the prime function of the BESS is to provide spinning reserve. At the end of the spinning reserve sequence, the BESS will automatically re-establish the operation mode, which was active prior RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 6 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY to the event. In Homer, the new battery energy storage system will be used to balance system demands with its greater ability to deliver or receive energy. This also allows base-loaded thermal units to be run more efficiently while allowing for increased integration of utility scale non-dispatchable renewable energy sources (i.e., wind & solar). The rural application is demonstrated, as well. Private companies have successfully deployed a hybrid solar + storage microgrid2 to support the residents of Shungnak, a remote community above the Arctic Circle in Alaska. Funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) the microgrid was designed to address the numerous challenges of operating in extreme conditions and break the community’s dependence on its expensive and polluting diesel generator power plant. The microgrid’s 225-kW solar array is able to offset much of Shungnak’s energy needs, while battery systems each store excess energy for later use. Uniquely designed to enable a “diesels off” operation, the system automatically coordinates between solar and energy storage to ensure lowest cost power and communicates with the utility’s power plant about the best times to turn diesel generation off. The microgrid is expected to save 25,000 gallons of fuel per year and an estimated $200,000 per year on fuel costs, based on $7 to $8 per gallon calculations. System Integration - The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) provides electricity to over 50 remote communities in Alaska, including several with wind or solar power. In 2018, AVEC installed a 900-kW wind turbine in St. Mary’s. They connected the two villages with an intertie in 2019, enabling them to share power. Combined, their peak electric load is 1000kW, allowing the 900-kW wind turbine to produce power greater than their electric load. This would enable diesels-off operation if there was another source of regulation and spinning reserves. AVEC identified this need and came up with the concept of a Grid Bridging System (GBS) that would provide regulation and spinning reserves. AVEC worked with ACEP to identify technical spec- ifications for the GBS as well as ideal energy storage technologies that would fit the need. The GBS requires a high-power capacity, the ability to supply a lot of power, but for a short period of time, a minimum of around 10 minutes. Therefore, a high-power and low-energy capacity system is needed. The team came up with three systems: 1) Ultracapacitor energy storage systems, 2) Lithium Titanium Oxide (LTO) batteries, and 3) Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries. Capability of Achieving Anticipated Performance Targets: AEA actively solicits and monitors community power generating status, current deficiencies, inventory of equipment, and assesses possible future need. This information is stored and maintained within AEA’s Powerhouse Assessment Dashboard. This live and current information can be reviewed and refined by AEA in order to select the best projects for community microgrid transformation, and to monitor and achieve anticipated performance targets. Figure 3 provides a demonstration of this tool, for one community. Figure 3: Community Inventory and Assessment Database. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Description of Previous Work and Prior Results: Between 2008 and 2022 the state legisla- ture appropriated $300 million for Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grants, that are managed by AEA.. Those state monies leveraged approximately $250 million in private and federal funds to complete project funding. The REF is managed by AEA in coordination with a nine-member REF Advisory Committee. The program provides grant funding for the development of quali- fying and competitively selected renewable energy projects. Since its inception 271 REF grants have been awarded and funded via legislative appropriations totaling $300 million. These funds have been matched by local and private contributions that have leveraged AEA’s investment. Over 100 operating projects have been built with REF contributions, collectively saving more than 30 million gallons of diesel each year. These investments have resulted in the reduction of 266,610 metric tons of carbon equivalent. At one point, Alaska was investing more per capita in renewable energy than any other state. AEA has identified nearly a dozen projects that have the engineering and planning already in place to move quickly into construction, if funded. AEA is an active participant and project manager in many of the projects. The completed studies have shown that many of the projects are viable and ready for implementation. A highlight of AEA’s program success is the implementation of the integrated wind-hydro- power-diesel system at Pillar Mountain, which provides the residents of Kodiak Island, the second- largest island in the U.S., with almost 100% renew- able and reliable energy. Winner of the Department of Energy and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association’s Wind Cooperative of the Year Award, the project is a model for advancing wind power in remote areas. This project was funded through AEA. In figure 3, AEA provides a noteworthy example of a successful hydro project in Southeast Alaska. Access to Necessary Infrastructure: Every community is unique, but has access to locally sourced potential renewable energy solutions. AEA has identified a diverse generation mix in all communities. The majority of off-grid communities rely on barge service to deliver fuel, supplies, and larger construction materials, while air travel provides year-round access for passengers, cargo, and services. Essentially, the transportation system is critical to deliver projects, but the high cost and logistics must be managed effectively to ensure the timeliness of project delivery. Current micro-grid systems have distribution in place, serving residents in communities large (10,000) and small (38). AEA and partners have delivered projects in every community in Alaska and understand the necessary infrastructure. The assessment of necessary infrastructure would be included in project identification and scoring metrics. Use of Existing Infrastructure: AEA anticipates utilization of existing infrastructure to the greatest extent possible, and project applicants will describe utilization of current distribution or transmission infrastructure. Current infrastructure includes utilities and operators, and AEA will SS UU CC CC EE SS SS SS TT OO RR YY Location: Hydaburg, Prince of Wales Island Total Project Cost: $31,300,000 REF: $4,000,000 PPF Loan: $19,130,000 Capacity: 5 MW Borrower: Haida Energy Hiilangaay Hydroelectric Project Financed by REF and PPF, the HiilangaayHydroelectric Project is a small dam constructed on Melon Lake near Hydaburg on Prince of Wales Island. Commissioned in January 2020, Hiilangaay is providing 100% clean renewable energy and has already displaced more than 110,000 gallons of costly imported diesel the isolated communities use for electrical generation. Haida Energy sells the output from its 5-megawatt (MW) turbines to Alaska Power & Telephone for distribution across Prince of Wales Island. Figure 4: Example of project success. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 9 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY prioritize projects that invest into current workforce and power system operators. Independent power producers must demonstrate collaboration and partnership with existing utility owners. Access to Skilled Workforce: Alaska’s utilities are experienced operators of power systems that experience challenging conditions. The local and regional workforce is skilled, and regularly provided training opportunities. In partnership with the Alaska Vocational and Technical school (AVTEC) AEA offers the Power Plant Operator training program that includes engine mainte- nance, troubleshooting and theory, electrical systems and generators, introduction to electrical distribution systems, diesel electric set operation, control panels, paralleling generator sets, load management, fuel management, waste heat recovery, plant management, and power plant safety. As part of this program, AEA will update course curriculum to be responsive to new and innovative system designs, and work with partners to deliver the course for project participants. At the same time, AEA’s Circuit Rider Program3 provides eligible utilities with technical assis- tance to improve the efficiency, safety, and reliability of their energy infrastructure. This program helps to reduce the risk and severity of emergency conditions. The Circuit Rider program develops strong ties with the remote Alaskan communities. The power system oper- ator ecosystem in Alaska is interdependent, with strong collaboration between the state and utilities in ensuring system operability and community health and safety. Innovation and Impacts As described above, this project anticipates utilizing technologies that are state-of-the-art and have been demonstrated for use in Alaska’s challenging conditions to improve rural community microgrids. Remote regions of the world such as Alaska, once viewed as disadvantaged due to a lack of conventional grid infrastructure, have proven to be fertile ground for sustainable energy innovation. This innovation flows from challenges associated with providing reliable electricity without the benefit of traditional transmission and distribution systems. Economic pressures linked to the high cost of delivering traditional fossil fuels for most energy applications in a part of the world with relatively low per capita income is also a factor and a trait Alaska shares with much of the world seeking solutions for energy access. Alaska has long been a pioneer in deploying high penetration renewable energy microgrids.4 These microgrid systems—some in continual operation for close to a century—built the busi- ness case for renewable energy integration well before the rest of the country, and the rest of the world, moved in this direction. When measured in terms of installed capacity, Alaska ranked No. 1 in the US as of 2021, with over 3,500 MW installed. Renewable energy is further incentivized by a highly deregulated utility market with dozens of utilities, state investment in infrastructure in the past, and modest subsidies that create niche markets where renewable energy projects are cost-competitive. Alaska’s small and rela- tively constant population also translates into a market focused on serving existing customers. Innovation has been incremental but steady, moving from basic isolated diesel systems to incorporating distributed energy resources (DER) at increasing levels fueled by a continuous improvement ethos that leans toward a greater and greater uptake of renewable energy resources. Most microgrids in Alaska are operated by local utilities, with over 100 certificated utilities active in the state, each serving a relatively small population. This stands in contrast to the RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 9 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY continental U.S., where most microgrids are deployed by third-parties serving critical facilities (such as military bases) and commercial and industrial customers. Cooperative utilities are the predominant model in Alaska, again a feature which aligns with much of the world’s utility structures that lean toward non-profit and government entities. Utilities play a more predom- inant role in microgrids globally than in the U.S., especially for island nations such as the Asia Pacific. In fact, Alaska’s public and rural cooperative approach to enhance regional grid resil- ience is an innovative feature of best practices that can be demonstrated through this project. Innovative Analysis: AEA will team with Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) – whose mission is to develop and disseminate practical, cost-effective and innovative energy solu- tions for Alaska and beyond. Their innovative power system modeling and analysis is built on Alaska expertise but with emerging technologies and integration in mind. ACEP will utilize techno-economic studies, dynamic modeling, and data analytics as part of this project’s approach to innovation. • Techno-Economic Studies - These studies and modeling work are critical for examining reli- ability and affordability as electric grids and microgrids transition to increased penetrations of renewable energy resources, inverter-based resources, and distributed energy resources. This work includes techno-economic analysis, including capacity expansion and production cost modeling, where the dispatch of generators and resources in the system are determined to ensure reliability through maintaining the load and generation balance and minimize the cost to run the system. • Dynamical Studies - Dynamical modeling of power systems is used to assess the stability of these systems in response to contingencies such as faults and scheduled or unplanned loss of generators or transmission lines. Dynamical modeling is performed when new generators, resources, or transmission lines are added to the system whether that be a part of near-term planned changes to the system or long-term decarbonization strategies. Traditionally, different modeling tools have been used based on the complexity or size of the system, the voltage level of the system or the area of interest, and the type of stability questions being raised. However, the proliferation of inverter-based resources (IBR) (including wind, solar and battery energy storage) and when to use which tool has raised the question of what level of detail should be included for the individual IBR models within those tools. • Data Analytics - In recent years, electric power systems have become digitalized with the introduction of the smart grid concept. In this digitization, tremendous opportunities in the power industry have opened due to the emergence of multi-scale data from synchropha- sors, advanced metering, weather forecasting and energy markets to dynamically learn and adaptively control a power system. Many applications such as supervisory control and data acquisition systems, state estimation, distribution energy management systems and machine learning are being employed to further the application of data-driven models in power system operation. Innovative Permitting: AEA will partner with the Denali Commission to identify ways in which federal permitting may be streamlined, and with Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of Project Management and Permitting, which has extensive experience in multi-jurisdictional permitting. These partnerships will result in more efficient approaches to permitting renewable energy projects in Alaska. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Overall Impact: The utilization of advanced technologies, systems of integration, and analysis will result in lower project costs, more resilient systems, and higher renewables adoption rate. This high level of innovation will maximize the reduction of carbon emissions. Support Resilience Goals Local/Tribal: The microgrid transformation projects would first support local community resil- ience, but also state resilience. The rural microgrid communities considered for this project are Tribal, and are underserved communities in need of a resilient power system. By transforming the community to clean and reliable energy, the community would be directly benefitted. This project responds to 23 identified5 climate action plans, adaptation plans, and impact assess- ments with associated response strategies. Local and Tribal governments have actively worked to develop resilience goals, including actions that reduce carbon emissions and promote renew- able energy integration. State: Alaska’s State Energy Policy has a goal of 80% utilization of renewables for power produc- tion by 2040 and AEA has been limited in its ability to meet this goal due to resource constraints that have limited available funding at the State level. Leveraging federal funding will significantly overcome this hurdle, and lead to transformation that moves Alaska communities closer to this goal than otherwise possible. National: This project contributes to the Administration’s effort to address climate change and environmental justice, and the Department’s goals to achieve 100% renewable energy. Development of projects that are critical to reliability and resilience of the grid has been iden- tified as a priority by DOE under this announcement, and this project will result in outcomes that increase the supply of location-constrained energy resources to enhance resource adequacy and reduce correlated generation outages. This project will result in the decarbon- ization of the electricity and broader energy system in a way that supports system resilience, reliability, and affordability. Risk Mitigation: AEA’s project identification and management process responds to the chal- lenging circumstances of rural renewables integration. AEA understands the risks of project deployment in communities where the size of power generation is very low relative to the loads in the community. Alaskan microgrids can be as small as 20 to 30 kW with 5 to 10 kW loads that cycle on and off. This results in a very unstable frequency and power factor. The small grids also suffer from very unbalanced distribution systems, which artificially increase the amount of generation required and decrease overall efficiency. This phenomenon is common in rural Alaska. Risk mitigation will evaluate these concerns relative to the fact that nearly all of the hardware designed to support renewable generation is designed for grid operations elsewhere in the nation. By AEA pioneering the technology needed for stable microgrid operations, future microgrids in other locations of the United States and territories could be serviced accordingly. Since all these projects will be islanded microgrids, it will be necessary to balance load with energy creation. All load demand and power creation will be designed for a balanced operation, mitigating the event of a microgrid failure. In addition, community building systems, distribu- tion systems, and energy storage will all be heavily involved with these community microgrid upgrades. Specifically, excess energy production has great benefit for affected communities. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Excess energy can be used for heat recovery systems, electric boilers, electric heaters, battery storage, and stored water. This holistic approach will ensure that projects are carefully selected and designed such that they produce a reliable microgrid for the affected community. AEA will evaluate and implement these processes throughout the project’s life-cycle. The innovative technology risk reduction would be accomplished by Alaska leveraging renew- able, microgrid integration expertise. There are cooperative utilities operating within the state such as Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) that already have experience with integrating renewables into microgrids. These partners’ resources pooled together with the experience housed at AEA will reduce project risk, along with creating a vetted template that can be scal- able amongst other communities as funding allows. AEA’s experience managing the $300 million REF program indicates that this project has the potential to leverage approximately 50% more funding from local and private sources. Local contributions to REF projects exceeded the State’s contribution. AEA will team with the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, with the mission to promote, develop, and advance general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of Alaska, to facilitate the ability for projects to secure additional public and/or private investment. Workplan Project Objectives: The project’s goals, outcomes, and objectives are multi-faceted and align with the Department’s and Administration’s priorities. Goal 1: Lower the costs of energy in rural, disadvantaged communities. • Objective 1.1 – Deliver projects that reduce the cost per kwh by more than 10%. • Objective 1.2 -Deliver projects that lower maintenance and operations costs. Goal 2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions of microgrid systems. • Objective 2.1 – Deliver projects that leverage locally sourced renewables, including wind, solar, and hydro. • Objective 2.2 – Deliver projects that lower the diesel fuel use by 50% or more. Goal 3: Deploy solutions that leverage process, financial, and technology innovation. • Objective 3.1 – Deliver projects in collaboration with project partners, utilizing broad tech- nical, economic, financial, and project management expertise. • Objective 3.2 – Deliver projects in ways that maximize stakeholder engagement, workforce development, and community benefits. Outcomes 1. Resilience – This project will result in rural community microgrids that deliver more stable, cost-effective, renewable power to residents. 2. Equity – This project will result in improved public health and economic benefits that will accrue to disadvantaged communities. 3. Climate Change – This project will lower Alaska’s carbon footprint and contribute to miti- gating climate change. Buy America Requirements: AEA recognizes that the project will involve the construction, alteration, maintenance and/or repair of public infrastructure in the United States and that Buy America Build America (BABA) requirements apply. AEA will ensure that sub-awardees comply RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY with BABA and/or have the necessary waivers in place, limited as they are. AEA understands the challenging landscape within which projects must be conducted, including timelines and envi- ronmental considerations in Alaska, at the end of the supply chain, and will comply with BABA, as well as all other federal requirements. Technical Scope Summary: The project’s work scope is divided into performance periods that are discrete annual decision points based on the State of Alaska’s fiscal year, with the first year adjusting for project award. Performance Period 1: FY24 1. Summary of Work – This first year of the project will focus on finalizing planning and strategic development of the partnerships and program delivery, which include robust stakeholder engagement and public outreach. Program requirements will be structured similar to AEA’s REF, which has a grant review team and process that will efficiently review projects based on merit criteria that corresponds to GRIP priorities and AEA’s goals. 2. End Result – Program fully developed, ready for a request for applications. 3. Decision Point – AEA will evaluate project contributions to meeting goals of carbon and cost reduction, and available non-federal match. 4. Community Benefits Plan Milestone – AEA will complete its teaming agreement with AML, and finalize the project components that include equity assessment, labor engagement, and implement a skills and workforce development strategy. Performance Period 2: FY25-FY29 1. Summary of Work – The program will be released for application and projects will be iden- tified per the requirements. AEA expects to make approximately twenty sub-awards for transformative projects. The project partners will implement a project development support process, to provide grantees with necessary technical assistance, and develop a cohort approach to project management. 2. End Result – Grant sub-awards completed to approximately twenty rural communities. 3. Decision Point - AEA will evaluate project contributions to meeting goals of carbon and cost reduction, and available non-federal match. 4. Community Benefits Plan Milestone – AEA will complete community benefit assessments and agreements in each project community, in collaboration with grantee and partners. Performance Period 3: FY30 1. Summary of Work – Project awards will be reviewed based on annual monitoring, and project close-outs. Partners will hold a workshop with all awardees to determine strengths and weaknesses of the program, and to finalize analysis of goals, objectives, and outcomes. 2. End Result – Approximately twenty communities will have had projects implemented and finalized, with expected objectives achieved. 3. Decision Point – Final reporting will satisfy the terms of the agreement with DOE. 4. Community Benefits Plan Milestone – The project team will report on equitable benefits delivered to communities, as well as environmental justice and climate change metrics that demonstrate outcome delivery. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 14 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY WBS and Task Description Summary: Workplan/Task/ Sub-Task Description Y1 Workplan Formational activities focused on partnerships, stakeholders, and process Task 1.1 Partnership team roles and responsibilities finalized, project scoping Sub-task 1.1.1 Finalize all partner agreements and project scope Task 1.2 Stakeholder engagement and outreach Sub-task 1.2.1 Conduct outreach to disadvantaged, rural communities Sub-task 1.2.2 Initiate targeted application support for known projects Task 1.3 Application development and review process Sub-task 1.3.1 Criteria and metrics developed for evaluating project benefits Sub-task 1.3.2 Review program for merit and finalize request for application Y2 - Y6 Workplan Project development and community benefit support activities Task 2.1 Conduct request for applications Sub-task 2.1.1 Review and award high scoring projects Task 2.2 Cohort development and community benefit agreements Sub-task 2.2.1 Bring project grantees together as part of cohort, with quarterly tech- nical support Sub-task 2.2.2 Work with communities on equitable project benefits Task 2.3 Initiate project development and NEPA process Sub-task 2.3.1 Work with communities on proper NEPA documentation, final engi- neering design and permitting Sub-task 2.3.2 Conduct project financing review for leveraged funding Y7 Workplan Project evaluation and analysis of outcomes Task 7.1 Finalize all project awards and activities Sub-task 7.1.1 Ensure completion of all projects and finalize reporting Task 7.2 Review impact of projects on goals and outcomes Sub-task 7.2.1 Partners review goals, objectives, and outcomes against project reporting Sub-task 7.2.2 Evaluate community benefit arrangements and impact Task 7.3 Produce final summary of findings Sub-task 7.3.1 Share findings on project website and in public forums Sub-task 7.3.2 Share findings with project grantee, participating and rural communities RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 15 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Milestone Summary: Figure 5 provides existing and potentially viable projects. Quarter Milestone Measure Verification 1 Partners establish teaming agreements.Progress Document 2, 3 Program developed Progress Announcement 4 Program released, request for applications Progress Applications 5 Community benefit agreements in place.Progress Document 6, 7 Applications received and evaluated for merit criteria.Progress Applications 8 Approximately twenty community awards result in project implementation. Technical Agreement 9 - 24 Projects are implemented Technical Document 10 Outreach conducted.Progress Announcement 13 Survey and interview results received and reviewed.Progress 90% response 14 Stakeholder listening session conducted.Progress Workshop held 15 Cohort evaluation finalized.Progress 90% response 16 Preliminary review of findings is released by the project team.Technical Document 25 Survey and interview results received and reviewed.Progress 80% response 26 Stakeholder listening session conducted.Progress Workshop held 27 Cohort evaluation finalized.Progress 80% response 28 Project delivers summary of outcomes to DOE.Technical Document Type of Project Cost of Energy $/ kWh “Anticipated Annual Gallons of Diesel Fuel Offset by Proposed Project” Project Status Village Hydro $0.61 115,000 Ready for Construction Village Hydro $0.61 20,000 Feasiblity Study Complete Connects Multiple Villages Hydro $0.45 1,558,033 Concept Design, and FERC Permiting Village Hydro $0.80 40,000 Partially Constructed Village Hydro $0.68 130,000 Ready for Construction Village Hydro $0.70 37,000 Ready for Construction Village Wind/Solar/Battery $0.38 2,448,293 Concept Multiple Individual Villages Solar/Battery $0.75 80,000 Concept on per village basis (10 total) Multiple Individual Villages Wind/Battery $0.75 80,000 Concept on per village basis (10 total) Village Hydro $0.65 20,138 Ready for Construction Connects 2 Villages Hydro $0.66 16,014 Concept Village Wind Expansion Wind/Battery $0.37 400,000 Ready for Construction Connects 2 Villages Wind & Electric Boiler $0.52 165,000 Design and Permitting Connects 2 Villages Wind/Battery $0.60 270,000 Ready for Construction RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 16 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Go/No-Go Decision Points The following summary of project-wide Go/No-Go decision points includes decision points and objective criteria by budget period, which are described more fully in the SOPO. Period Decision Point Objective Criteria FY24 Program developed Request for Applications with feasible, impactful project selection criteria developed. FY25 Approximately 20 projects funded Signed project agreements with 20 communities. FY26 Project development Projects that have cleared progress criteria with completed feasibility reports are moved forward. FY27 Project construction Projects that have cleared progress criteria with completed design and permitting are moved forward. FY28 Project construction Projects that have cleared progress criteria with groundbreaking construction are moved forward. FY29 Project construction Projects that have cleared progress criteria and are on budget and on schedule are moved forward. End of Project Goal: Goal 1: Lower the costs of energy in rural, disadvantaged communities. • The project will result in reduced power costs of at least 10% in 20 rural, disadvantaged communities. Goal 2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions of microgrid systems. • The project will result in the reduced use of imported diesel (by at least 50%) and increased use of locally sourced renewables, for an overall carbon reduction. Goal 3: Deploy solutions that leverage process, financial, and technology innovation. • Project partners will deliver innovative approaches to project delivery that include process management, leveraging of financial capital, and technology that responds to Alaska’s challenging circumstances. Project Schedule: (See following page) Tenakee Springs, Alaska. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 17 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Work plan Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Y1 Workplan Formational activities Task 1.1 Partners finalized Sub-task 1.1.1 Partner agreements Task 1.2 Stakeholder engagement Sub-task 1.2.1 Outreach to communities Sub-task 1.2.2 Targeted applications Task 1.3 Application development and review process Sub-task 1.3.1 Criteria and metrics developed Sub-task 1.3.2 Review program, request for applications Milestones reached Go/No-Go Decision Program ready for release Y2- 6 Workplan Project development and community benefit Task 2.1 Conduct request for applications Sub-task 2.1.1 Review and award Task 2.2 Cohort development and benefits Sub-task 2.2.1 Cohort established for TA Sub-task 2.2.2 Community benefit agreements Sub-task 2.2.3 Cohort working group meeting Task 2.3 Project development Sub-task 2.3.1 TA to unawarded applicants Sub-task 2.3.2 Project financing review Milestones reached Go/No-Go Decision Projects funded Y7 Workplan Project evaluation and analysis of outcomes Task 7.1 Finalize project awards and activities Sub-task 7.1.1 Ensure completion of projects Task 7.2 Review impact Sub-task 7.2.1 Partners assess goals and outcomes Sub-task 7.2.2 Evaluate community benefits Task 7.3 Produce findings Sub-task 7.3.1 Share on website and publicly Sub-task 7.3.2 Share with project sponsors and communities Milestones reached Go/No-Go Decision Evaluation finalized RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 18 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Project Management: Overall approach to and organization for managing the work: AEA will aggressively manage the project to ensure consistency of the interrelated community-level projects contributing to the proposed outcomes of the overall effort. AEA will maintain frequent communication with stake- holders through all stages of the project and establish project support infrastructure to ensure success. AEA will enforce appropriate standard project management practices and processes, and control for performance, scope, and budget. AEA will be responsible for initiation, reporting, moni- toring and measuring project outcomes, and project close-out. AEA will work with the following partners (described further below) to implement this program and support community benefits: • Alaska Municipal League (AML) – membership includes all local governments in Alaska • Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) – provides project planning and energy deployment to Alaska’s Tribal communities. • Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) – conducts techno-economic analysis for rural micro-grid project feasibility. The roles of each project team member: AEA will be responsible for program management, implementation, and reporting, as well as partner and stakeholder engagement. Additional roles have the following responsibilities performed by diverse team members: • Project development and identification – AEA will work with ACEP and ANTHC to identify feasible projects and to provide technical assistance to projects in need of development. • Stakeholder engagement – AEA will work with AML to develop a stakeholder engagement strategy that focuses on rural, disadvantaged communities and includes municipal and Tribal governments, and public and cooperative utilities. • Application support – AML will provide application support for project grantees, to overcome capacity barriers that might exist in disadvantaged communities. • Project review and analysis – AEA will convene a project review board comprised of project partners and technical experts to review projects for feasibility and impact. • Innovative financing – AEA will work with AIDEA to develop and implement a process of private and public capital mobilization in support of project delivery. • Project deployment and support – AEA will work with Denali Commission and ANTHC on effective ways to support project implementation, including through procurement and project management support. • Project evaluation – AEA will annually convene project partners to conduct a thorough analysis of projects both for their technical merit and community benefits. This will be a dedi- cated effort in year four of the project. • Reporting and compliance – AEA will expect quarterly reporting from all sub-awardees, and provide technical assistance through ANTHC and AML to ensure compliance. Any critical handoffs/interdependencies among project team members: There are multiple stages at which critical handoffs and interdependencies occur. • Project selection – Project team members will be involved in soliciting and identifying proj- ects, reviewing projects for greatest feasibility and impact, and selecting awards. • Project management – Project team members will establish working relationships with project proponents, and include technical assistance activities as part of project management, including workforce development, modeling and analysis, and project implementation support. • Benefits tracking – Project team members will work with recipients to establish systems to track technical and community benefits, which will include avoided diesel use, cost savings, and local and Tribal benefits. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 19 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY The technical and management aspects of the management plan, including systems and prac- tices, such as financial and project management practices: AEA is the State’s primary agency responsible for lowering the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA has experienced staff and management systems in place to administer this microgrid transformation, and the overall program manage- ment. AEA has a full suite of highly qualified individuals, and a strong system of internal controls in place that facilitates meeting all compliance requirements. AEA’s financial and project manage- ment capabilities are demonstrated by receipt of unqualified audit opinions for both our annual Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit report, located on AEA’s website. AEA provides grants and loans for qualified energy infrastructure projects and owns energy infrastructure for the benefit of Alaskans. AEA has the legal authority to enter into a financial assistance relationship with the U.S. Department of Energy, and is experienced with managing federal awards, including most recently the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) deployment, an award of $52 million. Additionally, as an authority of the State, AEA produces an annual financial report. The approach to project risk management: AEA will proactively manage project risk through continuous risk identification, evaluation, mitigation, monitoring, and measurement. Risks will be registered to track issues identified and analyzed to examine how project outcomes might change due to the impact of the event. The project team will develop plans to reduce or manage the impacts of the risk, as it is identified. Identified risks will be monitored for any necessary reassess- ments, including trigger conditions and criticality. The risk management process will be internally audited to determine the accuracy of the identification, severity, and impact of the event. Plan for securing a qualified workforce and mitigating risks to project performance including but not limited to community or labor disputes: The project team will go through a process of strategic workforce planning that includes an understanding of demographic changes, cost reductions, talent management, and flexibility. The project is responsive to current conditions, where a qualified workforce is critical for project delivery, but the availability of skilled workers has been reduced. AEA and partners will work with project proponents to design workforce strategies that limit vacancies and overstaffing, ensure critical competencies, include cost efficiency that is manageable, and maintain a workforce that is agile, resilient, and flexible. The project’s Community Benefits Plan outlines ways in which the project will work with and through Alaska’s labor ecosystem to strengthen workforce performance and mitigate disputes. This includes provisions that maximize local labor and competitive wages. A description of how project changes will be handled: Project changes will be managed with a systematic process for requesting, logging, evaluating, and approving (or denying) scope, schedule, and budget changes requested during the project according to the table on the following page. Overall Project Management and Planning (All Budget Periods) The recipient will perform project management activities to include project planning and control, financial management, data management, management of supplies and/or equipment, risk manage- ment, and reporting as required to successfully achieve the overall objectives of the project. Task 0.0 – Project Management and Planning:The Recipient shall develop and maintain the Project Management Plan (PMP). The content, organization, and requirements for revision of the PMP are identified in the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist and Instructions. AEA will manage and implement the project in accordance with the PMP. The PMP shall be revised and resubmitted as often as necessary, during the course of the project, to capture any major/signif- icant changes to the planned approach, budget, key personnel, major resources, etc. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 20 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Approach to Quality Assurance/Control: AEA will establish a customized quality manage- ment plan to assure quality standards and processes are agreed upon and followed. Key project quality measurements will be identified and defined, responsibilities will be assigned to appropriate staff and partners, and a checklist will be created to ensure the plan has been implemented. Maintaining communications among project team members: Internal communications strategies and tactics will be organized by type, frequency, and audience to ensure relevant information is shared with appropriate stakeholders based on their roles and responsibilities, as described below. Type Method Frequency Purpose Lead Audience Audience: Internal Project Team Only Project Update Meeting Daily Discuss project status and any immediate issues. Project manager Internal project team Task Update Project management software Daily Provide daily progress on assigned tasks. Project manager Internal project team Audience: Internal Project Team, PMO and Project Grantee Project Review Meeting At scheduled milestones Evaluate deliverables, discuss next steps. Project manager Internal project team, and project grantee Project evaluation Meeting At project conclusion Reflect on project performance and identify lessons learned. Project manager Internal project team, and project grantee Project Status Project management software Weekly Provide updates on project status and highlight any issues, challenges, problems, decisions and/or changes. Project manager Internal project team, and project grantee Responsible Process Step Description Requestor 1.Identify need for change.Submit complete change request form to the project manager. Project Manager 2.Log change in change request log.Maintain log of all submitted change requests throughout the project’s lifecycle. Project Manager, Team, Requestor 3.Evaluate change.Conduct preliminary analysis of potential impact of each change to risk, scope, schedule, and cost. Seek clarification as needed from team and change requestor. Project Manager 4.Submit change request to AEA.Submit change request and preliminary analysis to AEA for review. AEA 5.Make final decision to approve or deny change request. Discuss proposed change and decide whether it will be approved based on all submitted information. Project Manager 6.Communicate decision.Communicate decision to requestor, team members, and stakeholders. Project Manager 7.Implement change.If change is approved by AEA, update and re-baseline project documentation as necessary. Task 0.1- Kick-Off Meeting: AEA will participate in a project kickoff meeting with the DOE within 30 days of project initiation. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 21 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Technical Qualifications and Resources Project team’s unique qualifications and expertise, including those of key sub-recipients. AEA is an independent and public corporation of the State of Alaska, est. 1976. AEA is governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the State Energy Office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Whether building modern and code-compliant bulk fuel tank farms, upgrading to high- effi- ciency generators in rural powerhouse systems, or integrating renewable energy projects, AEA emphasizes community-based project management. AEA’s core programs work to diversify energy Alaska’s energy portfolio, lead energy planning and policy, invest in Alaska’s energy infra- structure, and provide rural Alaska with technical and community assistance. AEA has more than thirty-five professionals on staff, including but not limited to engineers, planners, project developers, project managers, accountants and finance officers, and policy analysts. As the state’s designated energy office, AEA has managed billions of dollars in federal, state, and private funds to plan and build infrastructure in urban and rural Alaska. AEA’s building is located conveniently in Anchorage with adequate technology, spacing, and facilitation equipment. AEA has capabilities for video conferencing, hosting meetings, and a team for procuring services and materials. AEA staff have worked with stakeholders in nearly every community in the state to deliver crit- ical supply and demand energy services. Critical relationships and partnerships are in place with the vast array of Alaska energy stakeholders that includes small rural non-profits and utilities, large regional and village Alaska Native Corporations and tribal governments, conservation organizations, municipal governments, and technology- or solution-oriented working groups. AEA has a strong capacity to conceptualize, implement, and successfully complete supply and demand energy projects. This is accomplished through an outcomes-focused process that leads to a coordinated, statewide approach to overcoming barriers and building new and improved energy infrastructure for rural Alaska communities. Such knowledge, capacity, and established working relationships with stakeholders, positions AEA and its partners to lead a coordinated joint team that will overcome barriers to implement the Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation project. AEA has the experience, expertise, equipment, and staff ready to achieve the project objectives set out in this opportunity. The Alaska Energy Authority has a whole team of staff specifically designated for grants, compliance, procurement, contracting, and finance. Each of these teams have adequate resources to ensure the project is on budget and on schedule. AEA is engaged in all levels of consumer energy from project and resource identification, appro- priate design, and to financing and maintenance. Over decades of experience developing energy projects in Alaska, AEA has continuously improved on process, application of technology, and delivery of service. AEA integrates energy technology and advances in grid services into all program areas both on the supply- and demand-side. AEA (as owner of significant generation and transmission assets in the Railbelt region of Alaska, and in furtherance of its mission to reduce the cost of energy in the State) plays an important role in ensuring that sound public policy and energy planning initiatives within the region maxi- mize the potential benefits to the broadest group of stakeholders. Without a specific certificated area, and as owners of assets which cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries, AEA is uniquely RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY positioned to facilitate discussions amongst stakeholder groups and find solutions for the region in its entirety. AEA does so through its leadership role on the management committees associ- ated with its assets. Project team’s existing equipment and facilities AEA’s project team has all necessary equipment and facilities from which to manage this project. This includes office space located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. ACEP has a testing facility in Fairbanks that may be used to evaluate the combination of technologies employed by rural microgrids. AEA will identify existing equipment and facilities at the site of projects that receive funding within the scope of this program. Applications will include criteria for identification of these assets and ways in which they will facilitate the successful completion of the proposed project. The application will also be required to justify any new equipment or facilities. Relevant, previous work efforts, and demonstrated innovations AEA manages the Renewable Energy Fund, the Rural Power System Upgrade Program, the Power Cost Equalization Program, and various Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs. AEA has been at the forefront of supporting technology and process improvements that move Alaska communities toward renewable integration within existing power systems. AEA has managed both its Renewable Energy Fund and Emerging Technology Fund since 2008, and programs like Power Cost Equalization since 1985. AEA annually reviews the potential for microgrid projects to lower costs and reduce diesel consumption, including through the use of renewables. In addition to advancing renewable energy production for disadvantaged communities, AEA has experience with improving, upgrading, and building out rural microgrids, including through: • Renewable power generation creation and system integration (hydro, wind, or solar) • Modern distribution systems and controls • Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) • Modern and emission efficient diesel back-up powerhouse systems • SCADA controls between renewables and diesel back-ups AEA has successfully managed and completed over three-hundred grants in the last decade from many different agencies as well as private funds from the Volkswagen Settlement and Wells Fargo. AEA was a successful applicant to the BUILD program in 2020 for the Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage Project. In 2022, the Department of Defense awarded AEA over $12 million to extend power to the Black Rapids training site near Delta Junction. AEA has thirty active awards from the Denali Commission, AEA’s current federal cognizant agency. These awards touch on every aspect of what the agency does. There are awards for design and construction of Rural Power System Upgrades (RPSU) and Bulk Fuel Upgrades (BFU); small renewable projects that will be integrated into a remote diesel power system; energy efficiency upgrades, Utility Clerk, Powerhouse Operator, and Bulk Fuel Operator training; small maintenance and improvements for both power systems and tank farms; as well as circuit rider technical assistance and on-site training. This wide array of current and past programs, and grant management experience, ensures that AEA is appropriately prepared to manage this project, including a sub-award and project delivery and assessment process. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 23 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Time commitment of the key team members to support the project. Business Point of Contact: Curtis Thayer serves as executive director of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the state’s energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Previously, he was the commissioner for the Department of Administration and cabinet member for Governor Sean Parnell, responsible for 1,100 public employees and an annual budget of $350 million. As part of his public service, he served as the deputy commissioner of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, and worked in Washington, D.C. with Alaska’s Congressional Delegation. A graduate of the United States Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory Executive Energy Leadership Institute program, Thayer has gained a comprehensive under- standing of advanced energy technologies that has helped him guide his organizations in making energy-related decisions. The project budget and work plan anticipate 10% of Thayer’s time committed to the project. Tim Sandstrom is AEA’s Chief Operating Officer and will represent Mr. Thayer in directly over- seeing the rural energy team. He has been with AEA since 2011 and previously served as director of rural programs. Sandstrom oversees the management of AEA’s Rural Power System Upgrade, Bulk Fuel Upgrade, Circuit Rider, Emergency Response, and Training Programs. As a member of the senior management team, he is also responsible for the implementation of AEA’s strategy and budget management for his programs. With over 35 years in construction, project management, and engineering project management throughout Alaska, Sandstrom brings a broad range of private sector experience to his work. The project budget and work plan anticipate 10% of Sandstrom’s time committed to the project. Technical Point of Contact: Rebecca Garrett, Rural Programs Manager, has been with Alaska Energy Authority since 1997 and has managed projects and programs in varying size and complexity since 1998. She earned her project management professional (PMP) certification and keeps an active registration. She will take on the day-to-day administration of this award starting by preparing the Project Management Plan. From there she will assign individual proj- ects to qualified project managers who will provide project oversight, review and accept plans, procedures, deliverables and reports. Ms. Garrett will be responsible for project communica- tions between contractors, consultants and the AEA team. She will track specific contractual deliverables against the schedule to ensure contractors are on track to meet critical milestones. She will be the primary point of contact for the award. The project budget and work plan antici- pate 50% of Garrett’s time committed to this project. Program/Project Managers: AEA has a team of highly qualified renewable energy project and program managers that work for Conner Erickson, Director of Planning and Audrey Alstrom Director of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. Staff assignments will be made as projects and the technologies they are going to implement become clear. Financial Management: AEA’s Controller will oversee the project’s financial progress. When the Project Management Plan is accepted, a grant agreement will be issued to the individual project sites. Each Project has a unique project code and grant number used for tracking each funding source and required match. The finance team will certify financial reports for Department of Energy reporting requirements. AEA’s Grants Manager will oversee the award from Department of Energy and the grant agreement documents with the remote Alaskan communities. They will ensure AEA’s compliance with grant requirements and related reporting. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 24 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Division of Environmental Health and Engineering (DEHE) offers numerous services to Tribal Health Organizations through its role as the Maintenance & Improvement (M&I) Program Custodian. ANTHC is the nation’s largest tribal health organization, providing statewide health service programs for Alaska Natives. ANTHC’s unique self-governance agreement with the Indian Health Service was authorized in 1997 by PL 105-83, Sec. 325. The Consortium works in cooperation with tribes, Tribal Health Organizations (THO), agencies, municipalities, and private foundations. ANTHC is a source of technical and engineering expertise, and will be included in project consultation and coordination, assisting AEA program staff with assessment of needs and project implementation. Alaska Municipal League (AML). The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a member-based service organization that works to strengthen Alaska’s 165 cities and boroughs. AML has responded to Executive Order 14008 and the federal prioritization of tackling climate change, environmental justice, and inequity by providing a suite of services that help local governments meet associated goals. AML members and associated Tribal governments can utilize our shared service program to contract for a coordinated approach to addressing equity and environ- mental justice within the context of project development and implementation. Nils Andreassen, AML’s Executive Director, has worked with communities across Alaska for more than 15 years, including to serve in a management role at nonprofit organizations for 10 years. Nils has contrib- uted to State efforts and helped draft its Arctic policy, as well as its Climate Action Plan. Nils serves on the Denali Commission, served on the Governor’s Broadband Task Force, and is on the board of directors of the National League of Cities (NLC). His role in this project is to main- tain and cultivate relationships that strengthen delivery of the program, assist with outreach to communities, and contribute input into the strategic direction and deployment of the project. The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP). The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) fosters innovative solutions to Alaska’s energy challenges and is a gateway for ener- gy-related activity at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. ACEP partners with a diverse range of stakeholders to meet the energy research needs of Alaska and beyond. They offer technical assistance to communities, tribal organizations, utilities and non-profits; innovation partner- ships for start-up companies; and industry-sponsored research to address specific technical, economic, social and scientific challenges. ACEP offers innovative research and testing facilities, as well as a wide range of energy systems modeling expertise, product testing, economic and technical feasibility assessments, data collection and analysis services and more. Technical services to be provided by DOE/NNSA FFRDCs None anticipated. Endnotes 1 https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=AK 2 https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Blue_Planet_Project_Shungnak.pdf 3 Circuit Rider Program (3 AAC 108.200 – 240) 4 https://uaf.edu/acep-blog/how-alaska-fits-into-the-global-microgrid-movement%20.php 5 https://uaf.edu/caps/our-work/CAPS-alaskas-climate-policy-development-report-29April2021.pdf CURTIS W. THAYER Experience and Achievements Alaska Energy Authority 2019-Present The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the state's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Position: Executive Director  The Executive Director serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority, responsible for all business and operations. I work closely with the Board as it sets Authority policies, goals, and objectives, and is responsible for the execution of Board directives. I have developed a close relationship with the Governor, Commissioners of principal State departments, the Legislature, business community, and the public to advance the mission of the Authority. Achievements: Increased the profile and developed a strategic action plan to advance the goal and objectives of the Authority  Worked with the Board to establish long-range vision, strategies, goals, policies, and plans; including leading the strategic planning process and working with the Board and Legislature to implement the strategy to achieve that vision.  Strengthening the working relationship with the five utilities is like shuttle diplomacy. A few of the key issues during the three years have included purchase of develop a strategy and bonding package for a $170 million upgrade for the transmission lines from Homer to Anchorage (closes 11/30/22), purchase SS/Q line ($17 million), Battle Creek diversion and construction delays and construction claims, ligation on the SQ line, and Governor’s goal of reducing the cost of power. Managing expectations of the Board, Governor’s Office, Legislature and our five utility partners has proved to be challenging (and rewarding).  Oversight responsibility of the Authority’s rural energy programs, including energy system upgrades, loan programs, alternative/renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the Power Cost Equalization program .  Reviewed and analyzed legislation, laws, regulations, and other public policies that may affect the Authority’s mission and programs and recommends changes when appropriate.  Developing and maintaining professional/cooperative relationships with local, state, and federal agencies, and Authority business partners.  Working with legislative or other government agencies regarding policies, programs, and budgets. Alaska State Chamber of Commerce 2015-2019 The Alaska Chamber is a non-profit, membership funded advocacy organization founded in 1953. The Chamber membership is comprised of companies, associations, and individuals from every business sector in Alaska. The Chamber’s core mission is to make Alaska the best place to do business through its advocacy for and defense of sound business policies based on the principles of free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. Position: President and CEO  As the President & Chief Executive Officer, I serve as the top administrative officer, principal spokesm an, chief advocate in Juneau and Washington DC, chief finance officer and team leader. Achievements: Raised the profile of the Alaska Chamber  Coordinated and guided the work of staff, lobbyists, counsel, committee, and volunteers in marshaling and expressing the Chamber’s business perspective on public policy issues which has increased the profile of the Alaska Chamber statewide through outreach and tackling tough legislative positions that benefit and promote business.  Lead efforts to develop and manage coalitions involving other business associations, advocacy groups local chambers and the US Chamber to achieve Chamber goals.  Grew Chamber membership for the last three straight years.  Developed and implemented a financial plan that has increased Chamber reserves by 15 percent within three years. State of Alaska, Department of Administration 2012 – 2014 With 1,100 employees and an annual budget of $350 million, DoA facilitates state government operations by providing policy leadership and management services in essential areas, including finance/accounting, payroll, human resources/retirement benefits, information technology, labor negotiations, legal services, procurement/facilities, and risk management. Positions: Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner  Served as the chief executive officer of DoA and as a member of Governor Sean Parnell’s cabinet. Unanimously confirmed by the Alaska State Legislature.  Advised Governor on IT, pensions, healthcare, and labor relations with the Legislature and business community.  Responsible for development and implementation of all DOA policies and programs. Hired and managed two deputy commissioners and ten division directors. Achievements: Reducing the Cost of Government  Reformed PERS/TERS (state/local government pension programs) to reduce annual state contribution and ensure long-term solvency. Annual savings are more than $300 million.  Restructured AlaskaCare (state healthcare program) to reduce state contribution without reducing core benefits . Annual savings are more than $60 million.  Negotiated with the state’s eleven public employee’s unions to limit automatic merit increases, reduce leave accruals, and cap benefit cash-outs, all without work stoppages. Annual savings are more than $20 million.  Worked with Legislature to revamp state procurement statutes to increase transparency and competition . Applied new statutes and best practices to major telecom procurement, which reduced annual state expenses by 50%. Previous Experience  2009-2012: Deputy Commissioner, State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development  2004-2009: Director, Corporate and External Affairs, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company  2002-2004: President & CEO, Thayer & Associates (political and corporate communications consulting)  2001-2002: External Affairs Advisor, Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team (BP, Phillips, Exxon)  1997-2000: Special Assistant, U.S Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska)  1993-1996: Professional Staff, U.S House Committee on Natural Resources  1991-1992: Management Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Education  University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Business/Justice  National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), Golden CO, Executive Energy Leadership Academy  University of Wisconsin, Institute of Organizational Management, U.S. Chamber  State of Alaska, Real Estate License Community Activities CURRENT  Alaska Board of Marine Pilots, Chair  Don Young Institute for Alaska, Chair  Alaska Leaders Archives, Treasurer PAST  Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation, Director  Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Director  Alaska Retirement Management Board, Trustee  Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board, Director  Abused Women Aid in Crisis (AWAIC), Director and Treasurer  Committee of 100 Top Chamber Executives, U.S. Chamber  Council of State Chamber Executives  Selected as “Top 40 under 40” community leader CLAY CHRISTIAN MBA, MS, CPA, CIA clay.christian@gmail.com • Cell: 301-706-1061• LinkedIn Profile • Chief Financial Officer • Chief financial officer with a long career of leadership for organizations undergoing major transitions. Creative and sound decision-making through changes in strategic direction, mergers and acquisitions, fundraising, debt and equity financing, performance improvement, financial audit restatements, and information systems. Focus areas include capital programs, investment, restructuring and alignment, asset management, procurement, real estate and construction, contract management, optimization, compliance, team building, and continuous training and process improvement. Deep experience with public and private partnerships, government sponsored entities, not-for-profit companies, investment tax credit, and qualified opportunity zone business development programs. Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, and Big 4 public auditor. • CORE COMPETENCIES • Chief Financial Officer • Strategic Planning • Risk Management • Capital Development • Not-for-Profit Mergers and Acquisitions • Financial and Management Reporting • Change Management • Optimization Excellent Written & Verbal Communication Skills • Leadership • Team Building and People Development Information Systems • Internal Controls • Training • Continuous Process Improvement • KEY ACHIEVEMENTS • • Chief Financial Officer for Alaska Infrastructure Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) • Vice President, Finance for 130-year-old company, Crowley Fuels, Alaska • Interim-Controller for start-up $3 billion Water Street Tampa real estate development • Independent consultant through Cross Services LLC for numerous companies undergoing substantial change (Fannie Mae, Muni Mae, Capital Petroleum Group, and above Water Street Tampa) • Worked remotely through pandemic and delivered outstanding results • Strong engagement with public auditors through new audits, consolidations, and financial restatements • Frequent meetings with boards, executives, general counsel, and operational leaders • Strategic and financial transformations • PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTING EXPERIENCE • Chief Financial Officer: Alaska Infrastructure Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) – Anchorage, Alaska 2023 – Present Leading team of more than 22 professionals for both entities who manage more than $3 billion in investment, federal, and state programs. Vice President, Finance: Crowley Fuels – Anchorage, Alaska 2021 – 2023 Lead for more than 20 professionals; equity raise of $120m; capital improvements of $20m; budgeting, forecasting, optimization, financial and compliance audits, investor presentations. CLAY CHRISTIAN • clay.christian@gmail.com • Cell: 301-706-1061 • Page 2 Private Equity Investment Firm (Cross Services LLC) – Remote to Tampa, Florida 2019 – 2021 Privately held $3B real estate investment, backed by wealthy individuals. • Interim controller; overseeing financial reporting, compliance, and leading accounting transformation on behalf of RSM and Deloitte, global public accounting firms. Capitol Petroleum Group (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2011 – 2018 Privately held $1B firm focused on wholesale and retail motor fuel sales in East Coast markets. • Led first-ever comprehensive audits of companies, developed compliance program and financial reporting system. Worked closely with mezzanine investors and bankers through budgeting, forecasting, financial restatements, and consolidations. • Designed and developed systems using SQL programs, created executive dashboards, trained accounting department, and implemented cloud-based applications to replace legacy systems. Miscellaneous Clients (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2009 – 2011 My private consulting firm, focusing on investment and capital raises for several non-public clients. Municipal Mortgage & Equity LLC (Cross Services LLC) – Baltimore, Maryland 2007 – 2009 Real estate management company with portfolio of municipal and mortgage revenue bonds. • Led team of 40 examining accounting and reporting of more than 20 business units subject to consolidation as variable interest entities. Designed and conducted cash flow modeling, valuation, and consolidation for 2,200 not-for-profit entities in affordable housing program. Fannie Mae (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2005 – 2006 Largest government sponsored entity providing mortgage capital to lenders, making housing more accessible and affordable. • Led team to review accounting policies and information systems for mortgage-backed securities programs and investments in not-for-profit affordable housing organizations. • Designed and developed SQL database to monitor and report operating performance. • EARLIER EXPERIENCE • Freddie Mac – Washington, DC Metro Area Ø Senior Director, Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance CohnReznick – Washington, DC Metro Area (lead CPA firm to low-income housing tax credit industry) Ø Senior Manager, Consulting and Audit Sodexo – Washington, DC Metro Area (global leader in food and facilities management services) Ø Senior Director, Strategic Information Analysis Ø Director, Internal Audit Ernst & Young – Boston, Massachusetts (global leader in public accounting) Ø Manager, Consulting and Audit • EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATIONS • MBA and MS, Accounting – Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts MS, Economics and BA, Geography – West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia Certified Public Accountant – CPA (Massachusetts License No. 16762) Certified Internal Auditor – CIA (Certificate No. 25966) Pamela J. Ellis Phone: (907) 771-3981 | Email: PEllis@akenergyauthority.org EDUCATION  Master Class for Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence University of Alaska Anchorage (Fall Semester 2015)  Bachelor of Arts, Major in Accounting / Minor in Management College of Saint Benedict – Saint Joseph, Minnesota (1987-1989) University of San Diego – San Diego, California (1985-1986) EXPERIENCE Alaska Energy Authority - Anchorage, Alaska Controller | December 19, 2022 to Present Supervisor: Curtis Thayer  Duties include supervision of the daily accounting functions, finance staff; Develop, design and implement policies, procedures, internal controls and work processes; oversees the Finance section for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA); Direct supervision of a Project Controller and Assistant Controller; conducts and oversees research and implementation of new accounting standards; controls budget and expenditures for both the AEA operations and capital budgets with restrictions by funding source; Manages federal receipts by reviewing federal grant applications for sufficient federal budget authorization and funding for match requirements; manages federal grant applications and ensures that finance components of the federal financial assistance award applications are properly completed; Manages the financial transactions of awarded federal grants and assures compliance with all federal financial reporting requirements; Reviews and assists with the publication and audit, by external auditors, of the AEA annual Single Audit; Manages the receipt and expenditure of all other funding sources of AEA. Including state funds and community grants that are managed by AEA on behalf of communities; reviews all AEA sub-recipient grants for initial or amendment. Reviews and approves all sub-recipient awards close outs; and responsible for the annual financial statements for AEA. Oversees the annual financial audit with external auditors. Municipality of Anchorage - Anchorage, Alaska Assistant Controller (Acting Controller 2011 & 2019) | February 2008 to Present December 16, 2022 Supervisors (Controllers/CFOs (when Acting for over 6 months)): Teresa Peterson, David Ryan, Lucinda Mahoney (CFO 2011), Nanette Spear, Tom Fink, Tammy Clayton, Alex Slivka (CFO 2019), and Mollie Mo rrison.  Supervision of up to seven staff accountants and up to four Contractors (Supervisory backfill during SAP implementation) as Assistant Controller and up to twenty-three staff accountants and four supervisors as Acting Controller for the Controller Division;  Duties of the Assistant Controller include review and creation of year-end workpapers, Detail Statements, capital asset schedules, footnotes, required supplementary schedules (RSI’s), and statistical tables for the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Coordination with internal and external auditors including audit field work and audit of the detailed statements and ACFR. As Acting Controller created the Letter of Transmittal and MD&A for the ACFR. Created audit finding recommended corrective action plans. Creation of the GASB 34 conversion entries and all required documentation. Recording of all debt financing activities at the governmental fund level and processing the conversion to the government-wide level for government-wide financial statement presentation.  Create and post in the General Ledger (GL) all required GL transactions required for G.O. debt refunding’s. Review all new G.O. debt GL postings for MOA’s Governmental Funds. Offer consultation with the Public Finance Division in regard to capitalization of capital assets for upcoming G.O. Bond issues.  Incorporation of three discretely presented component units and one trust fund in the form of four separate stand -alone audited financial statements into the government-wide financial statements for MOA.  Creation of a full set of stand-alone financial statements for CIVICVentures LLC (a blended component unit), including the MD&A, financial statements (in the full accrual and modified accrual presentation) with a two-year comparison and footnotes. Maintenance of inventory documentation and capital asset schedules. Participation in the annual audit.  Oversight of all daily accounting functions of Governmental Funds (to include the General Fund), Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Fiduciary Funds, and Suspense Funds (such as the Cash Pool Fund and the Employee Pay and Benefits Fund). Oversight of the MOA’s capital asset and construction work in progress (CWIP) daily accounting activities. The Assistant Controller supervises the Fixed Asset Accountant and Infrastructure Accountant for MOA. Daily review and approval of journal entries, fund certifications of Municipal Assembly documents, and reconciliations. Creation and management of month and year-end processing schedules. Responsible for period close coordination with other Finance Directors. Hold weekly meetings as required. Process the year-end split payroll postings and perform extensive reconciliations before posting.  Subject matter expert (SME) of the General Ledger (GL), Controlling Module (CO), Asset Management Module (AM), and the Projects Module of SAP.  Assist with implementation of all new GASB pronouncements. Review and update of Finance policy and procedures. Creation of internal control documentation and oversight of internal controls regarding the GL and creation of the ACFR per GAAP. Acting Controller as required. Fund / Reconciliation Accounting Supervisor | February 2005 to January 2008 Budget Coordinator Finance & CFO Departments Supervisors: Teresa Peterson, Wanda Tankersley, Michelle Drew, and David Richards  Supervised five Senior Staff Accountants. Two reconciliation accountants and three fund accountants. Oversight of the MOA’s daily accounting activities of the General Funds, Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Internal Service Funds and Trust Funds (Fiduciaries). To include review of all fund certifications created for the CFO for pending assembly legislation. Oversight of MOA’s capital asset module and creation of MOA’s capital asset footnote for the ACFR. Creation of various footnotes, RSI’s, and statistic tables of the ACFR. Review of MOA’s bank reconciliations, investment reconciliations, subledger to general ledger reconciliations and unclaimed property filings. Assist four Finance Divisions of the Finance Department and the CFO Department with review and creation of their annual operating budgets. Assist with review and updates to the intergovernmental cost allocation plans (IGCs) and methodologies for the Finance and CFO Departments. Acting Controller as required. General Fund Accountant | April 2004 to January 2005: Supervisor: Guy Baily  Create workpapers, detail statements, RSI’s, and statistical tables for all of MOA’s General Funds. Review and MOA wide department generated journal entries and creation of journal entries for all of MOA’s General Funds. Create fund balance worksheets for the General Funds of MOA. Reconcile all balance sheet accounts of the MOA General Funds and create year-end workpapers. Grant Fund Accountant | October 2001 to March 2004 Supervisor: Catherine Gettler-Amyott  Create monthly and quarterly grant reports for state, state pass thru federal, and federal grants awarded to MOA. Reconcile the GL to grant reports and make correcting entries in the GL as required. Receipt all grant proceeds and create year-end accrual / deferral entries. Create workpapers for the generation of the Single Audit. This was for MOA’s Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds and Special Revenue Funds. Assist in audit requests when being audited by external or internal auditors. Reconciliation Accountant | April 2001 to September 2001 Supervisor: David Richards  Reconciled the Accounts Payable subledger and Accounts Receivable subledger to the General Ledger. Reconciled the revenue postings to all Governmental Capital Project Funds and created corrective entries. PROFESSIONAL BOARDS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATES  Governmental Finance Officers Association – Member  Municipal Audit Committee – Member (when serving as the Acting Controller)  Lost Lake Run Board Member  GFOA certificate for Excellence in Financial Accounting and Reporting (2019 and 2020). COMPUTER SKILLS  Microsoft Word  Microsoft Excel  Microsoft PowerPoint  Microsoft Outlook  PeopleSoft Financial Systems  Corel WordPerfect  Corel Quattro Pro  IBM Lotus  Yardi Property Management Software  Microsoft Dynamics NAV 365 Business Central  Intuit Turbo Tax  Intuit QuickBooks Pro  SAP (to include completion of 1 semester SAP course at UAA on Hana, BW, and NetWeaver)  Kronos and NEOGOV  Libra Accounting Software  Skyline Software Systems  Onsite Manager  Various Web Based Reporting Systems Rebecca Garrett, PMP AEA Rural Programs Manager rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org Professional Work Experience State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Rural Programs Manager September 2022 - Present Oversee the Rural Programs Projects Managers and Grants section. Manage Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Program. Manage Bulk Fuel Upgrade (BFU) Program. Manage rural power system construction projects. Collaborate with other agency staff, rural community entities, and federal agencies to coordinate diverse interests in rural power system projects. Seek out and apply for funding for agency and partner energy projects. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Project Manager/Program Manager February 2018 – September 2022 Manager Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Program. Manage rural power system construction projects. Manage the active construction of 3 heat recovery systems around the state of Alaska. Manage State Clean Diesel (DERA) program for Alaska Energy Authority. Manage the DERA rural powerhouse engine replacement projects. Offer technical assistance to communities that need efficiency upgrades and/or are experiencing problems with the power system. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy projects and programs. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Assistant Project Manager June 2014 – January 2018 Manage end use (conservation) projects. Manage rural power system construction. Manage the construction of heat recovery systems around the state of Alaska. Manage State Clean Diesel (DERA) program for Alaska Energy Authority. Offer technical assistance to communities that need efficiency upgrades and/or are experiencing problems with the power system. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy conservation. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Project Development/Project Manager January 2009 - June 2014 Manage end use efficiency (conservation) projects. Develop and present regional energy fairs around the state with a focus on energy efficiency. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy conservation. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). Monitor section needs and lobby for additional support when necessary. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Section Program/Project Manager September 1999 – January 2009 Manage end use efficiency (conservation) program. Develop and present regional energy fairs around the state with a focus on energy conservation. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy efficiency. Authorize and release the Energy Cost Reduction RFP. Administer each project that results from the Cost Reduction RFP analysis. Facilitate bi-weekly section meetings, and collaborate with Accounting and Procurement. Oversee 20 projects with budgets totaling over $20 million all over the state of Alaska. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). Work History State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Programs Manager September 2022 - Present State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Project/Program Manager February 2018 – September 2022 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Assistant Project Manager June 2014 – January 2018 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Project Development January 2009 – June 2014 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Energy Efficiency Program May 2001 – May 2009 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Training Program Manager May 1997 – May 2001 State of Alaska – Division of Energy, Administrative Clerk III March 1997 – May 1997 Avis Rent-a-Car, Assistant Manager – Rental Counter September 1992 – December 1997 Certifications Project Management Professional (PMP) May 2018 Project Management Institute September 2015 Meeting Professionals International March 2007 Notary Public May 1997 – present E-Writing, Business and Technical Writing March 2006 Post Baccalaureate Course Work University of Alaska, Fairbanks May 2021 Sustainable Energy Occupational Endorsement University of Alaska, Anchorage September 2006 – May 2007 Organizational Behavior (BA 300), Technical Writing (ENGL 212) University of Alaska, Fairbanks March 1998 Cultural Awareness Education BA History, University of Alaska, Anchorage May 1996 Dimond High School, Anchorage Alaska June 1991 Volunteer Experience State of Alaska, Polling Place Worker, Anchorage AK August 2020 -Seasonal Primary and Election day worker at local polling station Gladys Wood Elementary School, Volunteer, Anchorage AK September 2006 – 2013 Parent working in the classroom and Parent-Teacher Organization Audrey Alstrom, P.E.  (907)‐771‐3058 | aalstrom@akenergyauthority.org | http://bit.ly/AAlstromLinkedIn  SKILLS  Project manager with experience in program development and management in rural energy and academia.  Technical Analyses   Economic Modeling   Personnel Management   Community and Brand Building     Data Management   Technical Writing   Cross‐cultural Communication   Familiar with: AutoCAD, ArcGIS, CRM  tools  EDUCATION AND LICENSES  Exec. Master of Public Administration – Evan’s School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington   Professional Engineering (P.E.) License – State of Alaska   Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering – University of Alaska Anchorage   Associate of Arts, General – University of Alaska Fairbanks, Kuskokwim Campus  PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE  Director – Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency, Alaska Energy Authority, 2022 – present   Responsible for the management and oversight of the Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency (renewable energy)  department and projects. Provides renewable energy expertise and guidance to internal staff and external  stakeholders on the relevant renewable technology, as well as providing technical assistance in the development of  grant applications for potential projects. Manages the planning, design, and construction of renewable energy  projects throughout Alaska.  Senior Director, UAA Alaska Native Science & Engineering Program, 2014 – 2022   Responsible for ANSEP’s University and Graduate programs. Advanced positive and effective relations between  external partners, such as state and federal agencies, industrial firms, community/civic groups, foundations, other  universities, Alaska Native Regional Corporations and their Nonprofit organizations, public schools and university  resources. Worked collaboratively with public school administrators, professors, students, parents, human resource  directors, and curriculum and staff development specialists, to promote programs. Oversaw hiring, training,  supervision and evaluation of 30+ program staff and program consultants. Managed annual budget for component  and made major budgetary and resource allocation decisions. Identified fundraising and development  opportunities. Developed and implemented middle school component to expand from 2 camps per year to 14.  2  Program Manager ‐ Hydroelectric, Alaska Energy Authority, 2013 – 2014   Responsible for management and development of hydroelectric program. Oversaw and managed annual budget for  program. Evaluated potential project proposals for funding of various energy supply options by assessing economic  benefits and costs, technical and environmentally feasibility. Provided technical project management and oversight  of the planning, design and construction of rural energy power systems. Co‐author of “Can the State of Alaska  Match its Energy Demand through Installed Hydropower Capacity?” April 2014.  Asst. Project Manager ‐ Hydroelectric, Alaska Energy Authority, 2010 – 2013   Provided technical assistance in planning, review, and implementation for reconnaissance, feasibility, permitting,  design and construction phases of hydroelectric development of AEA‐ funded hydroelectric projects under  guidance of hydroelectric project manager. Responsible and provided technical support for 35 projects, totaling  $25 million.  Helped screen and launch AEA hydro database.  Summer Engineer, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Summers 2008 & 2009  Initiated the start‐up and turnover of a Chemical Systems Upgrade project by working with project team, assigning  responsibilities, completing and uploading project documents to group server. Completed economic evaluations of  Prudhoe Bay Unit Renewal Cases in regard to possible gas sales using COP’s Economic Modeling Tool. Reviewed 43  projects, recommended 13 for consideration.  General Intern, CH2MHill, 2007 – 2008   Worked in Engineering Design Group West under supervision of civil engineer in environmental and transportation  design. Used AutoCAD and MicroStation to help design roads, walkways, and utilities for various client projects.  *Additional experience working with the local fishing industry, Alaska Native village corporations, and city and  tribal governments.  HONORS AND ORGANIZATIONS  American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006 – present  Yukon‐Kuskokwim Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Working Group, 2019 – present   Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program, alumni  Ciulamta Traditional Drummers and Dancers, founding member  University of Hawaii, U.S. Dept. of Defense High Performance Certificate  Alakanuk Traditional Council Board Member  Alakanuk Schools Advisory School Board Member Page 1 Conner Erickson Director of Planning Alaska Energy Authority CONTACT 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503  907-771-3025  cerickson@akenergyauthority.org  Alaska Energy Authority EDUCATION AND TRAINING University of Denver, Denver, CO – Bachelor of Arts, 2010  Major: B.A. Economics w/ Honors  Major: B.A. International Studies  Minor: Leadership Studies  Cum Laude RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2023 – Present Director of Planning • Alaska Energy Authority Administrator for the Renewable Energy Grant fund, a competitively solicited grant program, funded via state appropriations, which seeks to provide financial assistance to thoroughly vetted renewable energy projects across multiple project phases, including pre-construction. Administrator for the Power Project Fund Revolving Loan program, a patient capital loan program which seeks to provide low-cost financing to smaller-sized utility-scale energy development across the state. Co-manage multiple state applications for federal funding opportunities within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021, including but not limited to a $60 million competitive formula grant program aimed at grid resilience measures, and a $4.5 million revolving loan fund capitalization program. Perform bill analyses concerning the impact to the Alaska Energy Authority for proposed legislation by members of the legislature. 2021 – 2023 Planning Manager • Alaska Energy Authority Assisted in administering the Renewable Energy Fund Program, along with the Director of Planning. Successfully secured $19.75 million in state funding in support of 38 projects across Round 13 and Round 14 of the grant program. Administered the Power Project Revolving Loan Fund including but not limited to loan analysis and processing, loan due diligence, presentations to loan committee and AEA Board of Directors, loan loss reserve calculations, loan action follow -up and responding to audit requests. Grew outstanding loan portfolio by $2.7 million. Recapitalized available loan fund balance by $2.8 million through processing of committed, idle loan applications. Performed various ad-hoc economic analyses relating to prospective energy projects. Page 2 2020 – 2021 Economist • Alaska Energy Authority Performed various ad-hoc economic analyses relating to prospective energy projects and asset sales as requested by various state departments and offices. Conducted quality control / quality assurance on the economic evaluations of those applications to the Renewable Energy Fund as performed by third party, contracted economists. Performed economic and financial evaluations for applications to the Power Project Loan Fund. 2020 Sr. Business Analyst • Northern Air Cargo, LLC Served as the dedicated business analyst for Northern Air Cargo. In this capacity, provide business intelligence support via the reporting of operational and financial data of air cargo and maintenance operations. Budget analytics were provided primarily utilizing SAP Business Objects, for data querying, reporting and visualization . Provided analytical support including but not limited to budget creation and month-end variance analysis, integration of P&L into SAP Business Objects, and ad-hoc analysis as requested from executive level personnel. Acted as the dedicated capital analyst, managing capital expenditure planning and reporting for all business units. Created, reported on, and administered Northern Air Cargo’s 5 year capital plan through management of data submissions via regular consultation with business unit managers on their capital needs and requirements, including airline operations, ground services operations, and facility operations. 2016-2020 Sr. Analyst • Alaska Communications Provided business intelligence support to the Enterprise (B2B) sales team by combining disparate data sources into comprehensive real-time dashboards supporting daily business operations. Utilized multiple dataset types, including ETL, in combination with Transact-SQL, Excel, and PowerBI to provide such support. Provided real-time analytics for an array of requests utilized in formulating business strategy, corporate growth tactics, and internal and external reporting requirements. Translated using a combination of power-queries, macros, and dynamic formulae the Sales commissions payment agreement into spreadsheet form. Administered and maintained commission workbooks for monthly commission processing. Worked closely with C-suite executives, Compliance, and Human Resources personnel in this capacity. SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES  Renewable Energy Fund Program Administrator, Alaska Energy Authority, 2020 – Present  Power Project Fund Revolving Loan Program Administrator, Alaska Energy Authority, 2021 – Present  Business Intelligence Dashboard Data Administrator, Alaska Communications, 2018 - 2020  Level 1 Microsoft Access Certification, 2016  Feasibility consultant on 30+ international projects with an aggregate project value of $700+ million, Wert-Berater, Inc., 2012 - 2016  Graduate Pioneer Leadership Program, University of Denver, 2010 Page 1 Karen Bell Manager of Planning Alaska Energy Authority CONTACT 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503  907-771-3951  kbell@akenergyauthority.org  Alaska Energy Authority EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING Johns Hopkins University – Master of Science, 2021  Major: Applied Economics Fordham University – Bachelor of Science, 2001  Major: Business Administration  Concentration: Economics  Minor: Mathematics National Association of Business Economics – Professional Certificate, 2022  Economics of Strategy and Managerial Decision Making PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE STATE OF ALASKA - ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY • Manager of Planning, March 2023 – Present • Economist, May 2022 – March 2023 Assists with the administration of the Power Project Loan Fund including reviewing applications, performing due diligence, determining eligibility, conducting financial feasibility analyses, preparing written summaries for loan packets, and calculating loa n loss reserves. Prepares the Request for Application for the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grant program, including updating the assumptions in the economic evaluation model, preparing fuel price forecasts, and calculating household energy burden by community. Reviews REF grant applications and economic evaluations for accuracy and reasonableness. Participates in the scoring of REF application and preparation of the recommendation to the Alaska State Legislature. Prepares Request for Proposals and participates in scoring proposals from potential contractors. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE – ANCHORAGE HEALTH DEPARTMENT • Program Manager, November 2020 – December 2021 Principle officer responsible for the administration of the Municipality’s funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Development (HUD). Directed the allocation and procurement of $13 million in funding during 2020 and 2021. Responsible for federal reporting, monitoring of contractors, and managing grant budgets. Developed program specific policies and procedures and ensured compliance by grantees. Directed and oversaw the work of a four person staff. Contracted by the Municipality from August 2021 to December 2021 to onboard my successor. Page 2 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE – ANCHORAGE WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY • Regulatory Affairs Manager, December 2013 – November 2020 Responsible for the oversight of the Utility’s participation in regulatory proceedings. Directed and oversaw the work of a three person staff. Developed revenue requirement studies, cost of service studies, financial models, statistical analyses, and cost benefit analyses. Provided written and oral testimony before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in support of revisions to rates, changes to provisions of service, and changes to Alaska Administrative Code. Filled role of Acting Chief Financial Officer during 2017 and 2018. Played integral role in the development of the long‐range financial plan and budget 2017- 2020. Presented to the Anchorage Assembly, Utility Board of Directors, and Community Councils in support of Utility initiatives. • Utility Financial Analyst, July 2010 – December 2013 Analyzed financial data and developed pro forma financial statements based on rate making theory to better reflect the current operating environment. Assisted in the preparation of revenue requirements studies. Prepared discovery responses during rate cases. MACY’S CORPORATE • Planner, March 2007 – April 2010 Responsible for the allocation of merchandise to support over $300 million in annual revenue. Developed merchandise strategies for 600+ locations based on history, climate, and customer demographics. Forecasted sales and inventory by location and negotiated with vendors to mitigate loss. • Manager, Merchandise Information Organization, September 2003 – March 2007 Oversaw functions of the Allocation and Order Management departments and eight person staff. Supported enterprise system rollouts by creating business requirements, user testing, troubleshooting, and documenting business scenarios. Developed and implemented training curriculum throughout the organization. • Financial Analyst, July 2001 – September 2003 Developed and executed pricing strategies in support of financial, product, and marketing objectives. SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES  Renewable Energy Fund Program, Alaska Energy Authority, 2022 – Present  Power Project Fund Revolving Loan Program, Alaska Energy Authority, 2022 – Present  Administrator for the Municipality of Anchorage’s HUD Grants, 2020 -2021  National Association of Business Economic Member, 2021 – Present  Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis Member, 2021 - Present  Society of Depreciation Professionals, Depreciation Fundamentals Program Participant  Institute of Public Utilities, Fundamentals of Regulation Workshop & Advanced Regulatory Studies Program Participant Karin St. Clair AEA Grants Manager 907-771-3081 kstclair@akenergyauthority.org Professional Experience Alaska Energy Authority – Grants Manager - Dec 2011-2016 & Aug 2019-Present Maintain grants management database. Prepare reports from grants management software. Ensure data integrity in databases. Evaluate grantee proposal, plans and justifications to include cost factors. Process grant applications and obtain outstanding materials. Monitor and ensure timely receipt of reports from grantees. Monitor and administer federal and state grants and contracts. Collect and analyze grant data. Maintain electronic and physical files related to all aspects of the grant cycle. Prepare, scan, and verify historical documents for electronic conversion. Prepare grant agreements, notification letters, applications, and letters of inquiry. Communicate with Federal, State, and local agencies regarding award compliance. Review contracts for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with state regulations. Provide technical guidance to internal and external stakeholders on grant administration and financial policies, procedures, statutes, and regulations. Serve as liaison between the project managers and outside funding agencies; provides assistance in resolving issues and conflicts with funding agencies; participates in meetings and discussions in which decisions affecting projects are made. Inform grantees regarding regulation changes impacting grant opportunities. Process amendments, modifications, extensions, and terminations of contracts and subcontracts Alaska Energy Authority – Project Controls - Jul 2016-Jan 2020 Track status reporting, financial reporting, milestones, and deliverables of projects. Track and audit internal controls and guidelines associated with project controls. Monitor budget, scope, and milestones. Provide leadership and training to team members on internal controls and guidelines associated with project controls. Recommend and execute corrective actions to handle project compliance. Identify upcoming project milestones and customer requirements so that Project Managers can ensure satisfaction of project milestones and customer requirements. Monitor and implement approved project management plan changes. Management of less complex projects and close outs. Identify all funding sources and develop a monitoring system for funding opportunities. Assist communities in writing grant applications. Assist in writing grant applications for agency. Alaska Energy Authority – Administrative Assistant - Jun 2011-Dec 2011 Provided administrative support for various departments, including answering telephones, assisting visitors, resolving various problems, and assisting with inquiries. Prepared, transcribed, composed, typed, edited, and distributed agendas and minutes of numerous meetings. Scheduled and coordinated meetings, teleconferences, appointments, events, and other similar activities for staff, including travel and lodging arrangements. Assisted with Round V Grant Application data entry and file setup. Scanned, labeled, and tracked grant documents in award database (Navision). Entered milestones for grants in Navision. Created and maintained grant files and related paper documents. Tracked grant applications for Commercial Audit Program. Communicated with auditors and commercial owners regarding project progress and missing information. Prepared reimbursement paperwork for the finance department First National Bank Alaska - Administrative Assistant - 2009-2010 Prepared and assigned daily reports to Merchant Representatives. Logged and tracked the completion of reports by Merchant Representatives. Attended weekly staff meeting and transcribed meeting minutes. Arranged travel for Merchant Representatives. Monitored daily in town travel of merchant representatives. Monitored and ordered all supplies for department. Scheduled all trainings as well as reserved rooms and equipment needed. Composed and prepared mass mailings to merchants. Performed credit checks, acquired financial statements and business licenses for potential merchants. Worked with the IT Department in developing a new program for Merchant Services using Access and Excel. Responsible for merchant billing and collections. Answered multi-line phones, receive daily mail and incoming deliveries Law Offices of Thom F. Janidlo Anchorage - Administrative Assistant - 2006-2009 Scheduled all attorney court hearings, client meetings and consultations. Transcribed during appropriate trial setting conferences and client meetings. Transcribed and prepared legal court documents. Performed legal research to assist attorneys with preparation of court documents. Maintained accurate records for attorney’s billable hours. Identified more efficient and cost saving methods for ordering office supplies. Initiated the use of a credit card machine to assist in payment processing. Suggested the use of a scanner to replace paper processes, minimizing paper waste and expense. Answered multi-line phones, received daily mail and courier services. Computerized/Manual Accounts Payable/Receivable. Credit and Collections. Month-End- Closings. Account Reconciliation. Monthly Payroll Processing. Statement Billings. Customer Service/Client Relations. Office Management Education Project Management Institute- Project Management Foundation 2016 International Correspondence School- Medical Office Assistant Certificate 1999 Northwest College- General studies 1991-1992 Related Activities - Thompson Grants - Federal Grants Forum for State & Local Governments 2021 - Jim Hale - Writing for the Workplace (one day seminar) 2014 - Gil Tran, Senior Technical Manager, OMB - OMB’s Grant Reform and the Uniform Guidance (one day seminar) 2014 - Colleen Campbell, State of Alaska Single Audit Coordinator - State Single Audit Presentation (one day seminar) 2014 - Grants Management Workshop - Grants Management Certificate (two day workshop certificate attached) 2012 Page 1 Nils Andreassen Executive Director Alaska Municipal League CONTACT 1310 Tarn Court Juneau, AK 99801  907-351-4982  nils@akml.org  www.akml.org EDUCATION AND TRAINING University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan  Governance and Entrepreneurship in Northern and Indigenous Areas  Master of Arts  (Completion expected in December 2023) University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom  Peace and Development Studies  Bachelor of Arts, First Honours  2005 RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2018–Present Executive Director • Alaska Municipal League Supervise staff of twelve and support board of twenty-nine. Set strategic direction and implement member directed activities. Respond to 165 cities and boroughs, advocate for policy issues. Also serve as a Trustee of the Alaska Municipal League Joint Insurance Association, and as executive director of the Alaska Municipal League Investment Pool, overseeing $460 million in assets. Responsible for:  Alaska Remote Seller Sales Tax Commission, and $20 million in annual tax collection  Alaska Infrastructure Coordinating Committee, to maximize federal investment  Cities of Opportunity, evaluating social determinants of health  Annual Local Government Conference, with 1,000 attendees from across Alaska  Stakeholder Engagement, DOE Alaska Energyshed Tech Stack 2009–2018 Executive Director • Institute of the North Principal Investigator for the Arctic Council’s Arctic Energy Summit, Principal Investigator for Page 2 Control Number 2565-1547 the Arctic Council’s Arctic Maritime, and Aviation Transportation Infrastructure Initiative. Supervise staff of two to five people; manage funding of between $500,000 and $1,500,000 annually; and develop strategic plan and implementation process for the Institute of North. Support the high-level mission of the organization board of directors, and community outreach. Responsible for all fundraising, project development and project implementation. 2005–2009 VISTA Program Coordinator • Rural Alaska Community Action Program Coordination of VISTA Village Council Management Program in ten rural communities, development of community planning curriculum for VISTA members. Coordination of environmental activities for 20 AmeriCorps members in rural Alaska, overseeing completion of Fire Smart Alaska program. 2006-2007 Adjunct Professor • University of Alaska, Anchorage Preparation of lesson plans for weekly class of upper-level students covering topics that deal with the international political economy. Lecturing, providing a forum for discussion of issues and fielding questions. PUBLICATIONS  Alaska’s Arctic, An Overview, https://institutenorth.org/products-outcomes/alaskas- arctic-an-overview/  Lessons from the Arctic; The role of Regional Government in International Affairs, Thomas S. Axworthy, Sara French, Emily Tsui, Chapter 18, Page 297.  Numerous letters to the editor and commentary in various publications SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES  Commissioner for Denali Commission  National League of Cities Board of Directors  Commonwealth North Board Member  National Association of Counties Western Interstate Region Board of Directors  Member, Alaska Energy Security Task Force  Board Member, RurAL CAP Dustin M. Madden, CEM [4500 Diplomacy Dr., Anchorage, Alaska 99508] | [(907) 304-2142] | [dmmadden1@anthc.org] Employment Experience Rural Energy Program Manager, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (2020–Present) • Manage a team of 9 employees and $1.5 million annual operating budget • Oversee project managers implementing a portfolio of approximately $25 million in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in more than 50 rural Alaskan communities with funding from 16 different Federal, State, regional and philanthropic organizations • Oversee development of new renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, including project prioritization, feasibility work, engineering design, funding strategies, and grant applications • Responsible for hiring, team development, strategic planning, process improvement, coordination with internal departments and external partners and funding agencies. Policy Researcher / Data Scientist, Cold Climate Housing Research Center (2012-2020) • Develop and update energy efficiency standards for Alaska, including commercial and residential new construction standards, energy rating software standards, and residential renewable energy modeling software standards • Conduct energy and economic analyses of energy efficiency programs and standards in Alaska, including Home Energy Rebate Program, low-income Weatherization Assistance Program, Village Energy Efficiency Program, Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standard • Conduct economic analyses of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects • Contribute to project development: generate ideas for new projects, write scopes of work, create budgets, and assist with grant applications • Use Python / Pandas, SQL, and Excel to perform complex quantitative analyses of commercial and residential energy cost and consumption data • Contribute to the development of energy software tools such as AkWarm , BMON Building Monitoring System, Alaska Mini-Split Heat Pump Calculator, etc. Science Teacher, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. (2007-2012) • Develop and teach culturally relevant curricula for Alaska Native students in the Anchorage School District. Certifications, Areas of Expertise, and Tools Certified Energy Manager | Python / Pandas | SQL | BEopt AkWarm -R and AkWarm -C | Alaska Retrofit Information System | Tableau Education University of Alaska Southeast (2008-2010) Sitka, AK / Distance Master of Arts in Teaching Cumulative GPA: 3.97 / 4.00 Stanford University (2000-2004) Stanford, CA B.S. in Earth Systems Cumulative GPA: 3.65/4.00 Coursework includes: environmental policy, economics, energy efficiency, renewable energy Additional Educational Experiences University of California, Berkeley: InArch Summer Institute (2011) Berkeley, California Learned architectural design principles and became proficient in digital and analog tools, including Rhino 3D, Adobe Products (Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign), physical modeling and hand drafting. Additional Leadership Experience Founder, Alaska Midnight Sun Tango Camp, LLC (2018-Present) Anchorage, AK Board Member, Alaska Center for Appropriate Technology (2019-2021) Southcentral Alaska Board Member Alternate, Railbelt Reliability Council Implementation Committee (2021-2022) Alaska Awards 2021 Federal Energy and Water Management Award 2021 ANTHC Employee of the Year Selected Presentations and Publications Madden, D. (2023). Using Renewable Energy to Subsidize Water and Sewer Systems in Rural Alaska. Alaska Tribal Conference on Environmental Management. Muradur Rashedin, Barbara Johnson, Subhabrata Dev, Erin Whitney, Jennifer Schmidt, Dustin Madden, and Srijan Aggarwal (2022). Rural Alaska Water Treatment and Distribution Systems Incur High Energy Costs: Identifying Energy Drivers Using Panel Data Analysis for 78 Communities. ACS ES&T Wa- ter 2022 2 (12), 2668-2676. DOI: 10.1021/acsestwater.2c00417 Wiltse, N., Madden, D., (2019). Home Energy Rebate Program Impacts Report and Weatherization Program Impacts Report. Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Madden, D. (2019). Energy Efficiency Measures Implemented in the Home Energy Rebate Program. Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Wiltse, N., Madden, D. (2018). 2018 Alaska Housing Assessment. Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Madden, D. (2017). Building 6 Star Homes in Southcentral Alaska. 2017 EE Now Conference. Hill, D., Badger, C., Wiltse, N., Madden, D. (2016). Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation and Financing Needs Assessment. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation and Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Kasper CV 5/17/2023 1 Jeremy L. Kasper, Ph.D. Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power Marine Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Coastal Sciences Division University of Alaska Fairbanks, Room 405 Usibelli 1764 Tanana Loop, Fairbanks, AK 99775-5860 Phone: 907-474-5194; Fax: 907-474-7041; Email: jlkasper@alaska.edu Professional Preparation University of Alaska Fairbanks Oceanography Ph. D., 2010 Reed College Physics B. A., 1999 Recent Professional Appointments 2023 – present Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power 2022 – 2023 Interim Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power 2020 – present Marine Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 2019 – 2023 Research Associate Professor, Alaska Center for Energy and Power 2018 – 2022 Deputy Director of Research, Alaska Center for Energy and Power 2014 – 2022 Program Director, Alaska Hydrokinetic Energy Research Center 2014– 2022 Co-Director, Pacific Marine Energy Center 2018 – 2019 Research Associate Professor, Institute of Northern Engineering Recent Relevant Published Research Products (Reports, Publications and Data Sets) 1. Wilson, M., T. Ravens, A. King, E. Brown, J. Kasper, in press, Site Suitability Analysis of Riverine Hydrokinetic Energy Resources on the Kuskokwim River, Alaska, Renewable Energy 2. Dallman, A.R et al. 2021, Overcoming Wave Energy Converter (WEC) Grid Integration Challenges: Coupling Wave Forecasting, WEC Array Controls, and Power Production, Sandia Report SAND2022-13615. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. 3. Coe, R.G., et al. 2021, Modeling and predicting power from a WEC array, OCEANS 2021: San Diego – Porto, 2021, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.23919/OCEANS44145.2021.9706128. 4. Marsik, T., R. Bickford, C. Dennehy, R. Garber-Slaght, J. Kasper. 2021, Impact of Intake and Exhaust Ducts on the Recovery Efficiency of Heat Recovery Ventilation Systems. Energies 14, no. 2: 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020351 5. Browning, E.A.*, J. L. Kasper, P. X. Duvoy, and E. J. Brown, 2021, A time series and spectral analysis of turbulence effects on current energy converter power generation. Proc. Eur. Wave Tidal Energy Conf., vol. 99775, pp. 2091-1-2090–9. 6. Wise, M.*, M. Al-Badri, B. Loeffler and J. Kasper, 2021, A Novel Vertically Oscillating Hydrokinetic Energy Harvester. 2021 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech), pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1109/SusTech51236.2021.9467425. 7. Kulchitsky, A., J. Johnson, J. Kasper, P. Duvoy, 2019, Integrated DEM and SPH Model of Woody Debris Interaction with River Infrastructure. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Discrete Element Methods. 8. Date Set: Igiugig Village Council, 2017, Next Generation RivGen Power System: Kvichak River, AK Overwinter Ice Study [data set]. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.15473/1492960. 9. Tschetter, T.*, J. L. Kasper and P. X. Duvoy, 2016, Yakutat Area Wave Resource Assessment, Final Report to the Alaska Energy Authority, 37 pp. 10. Kasper, J. L., J. B. Johnson, P. X. Duvoy, N. Konefal, and J. Schmid, 2015, A Review of Debris Detection Methods, Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, U. S. Department of Energy Report, 15 pp. To: Curtis Thayer, Alaska Energy Authority RE: GRIP - Transforming Rural Alaska Microgrids May 9, 2023 The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a member-based service organization that works to strengthen Alaska’s 165 cities and boroughs. AML is a committed partner of this project, including to conduct a large portion of the work that is focused on the implementation of the Community Benefits Plan. AML has responded to Executive Order 14008 and the federal prioritization of tackling climate change, environmental justice, and inequity by providing a suite of services that help local governments meet associated goals. AEA can count on AML member services that include: 1. Review of available federal indices that provide criteria related to disadvantage, including the Justice 40 map and database, DOE’s Energy Justice tool, and EPA’s EJScreen. 2. AML staff can provide an equity assessment prior to or at the outset of a project, to ensure that more than 40% of project benefits are directed toward low-income and disadvantaged communities. 3. AML will include project sponsors in outreach to university and labor apprenticeships, skills training, and workforce development opportunities through an established network. 4. AML has initiated a broadly applicable engagement with the Alaska AFL-CIO to ensure that project sponsors have access to trade unions in the state, are able to commit to ensuring the free and fair opportunity to join a union, and include appropriate wage and benefit direction within their project. 5. AML will review applicable federal guidance on public engagement to ensure that project design and implementation includes appropriate and robust public participation. 6. AML will develop a model statement of policy and procedures that can be utilized by project sponsors to reflect commitments to diversity, equity, inclusion, and access. AML staff will be available to consult on implementation and adoption by project sponsors. 7. AML will manage the energy cohorts and ensure a robust program of technical assistance and capacity building is in place to support project beneficiaries, including through partnerships. AML has in place the necessary compliance and subrecipient protocols in place to manage federal funds and to respond to AEA’s reporting and grant management needs. We have submitted the required subrecipient budget justification, as well. AML staff work regularly with municipal officials in Alaska communities and depend on them to provide input into AML processes reflective of the needs of local governments. Over the last several years, AML has played a significant role in strengthening the effectiveness of federal and state relief and investment into Alaska local governments and Tribes. AML is pleased to make this commitment and is looking forward to the completion of a successful project. Sincerely, Nils Andreassen Executive Director May 10, 2023 To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), please accept this letter expressing ANTHC’s commitment to partner with the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) on the proposed “Transforming Rural Alaska Microgrids” project. If funded, ANTHC will serve as a subrecipient of funding awarded to AEA under the Department of Energy (DOE) Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program, opportunity #DE-FOA-0002740. Through this partnership with AEA, ANTHC will ensure that project benefits are made accessible to Alaska Native villages and that these benefits are distributed equitably to Alaska Native communities. Should DOE elect to fund AEA’s proposal, ANTHC is prepared to devote Rural Energy Program personnel time to the following project tasks: 1. Participating cooperatively with both the Alaska Municipal League (AML) and AEA in program design, including developing the application process, evaluation criteria, and the initial midway program evaluation; 2. Providing ongoing outreach to Tribal governments and other Tribal entities across the State of Alaska to ensure that Tribal Stakeholders are aware of the opportunities offered through the program and remain engaged throughout the project development and implementation process; 3. Creation of an easy-to-access technical assistance program - modeled after ANTHC’s current partnership with the DOE Office of Indian Energy and the Denali Commission – whereby the Rural Energy Program will provide technical assistance to prospective program applicants including, but not limited to, initial evaluations of project feasibility (technical and economic), HOMER microgrid modeling, existing energy infrastructure evaluation, economic modeling and renewable resource assessments; 4. Facilitation of quarterly working group meetings for sub grantee cohorts where subgrantees can share best practices for project management and implementation, receive support helping ensure they can meet all Federal reporting requirements, and grow their respective technical and project management capacity; and 5. Working cooperatively with the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) to conduct two techno- economic evaluations of the proposed program’s results, one at the projects midway point and another at its conclusion. The Rural Energy Program at ANTHC routinely works with communities and local stakeholders to make public health services more affordable through diverse energy projects. ANTHC is eager to lend its expertise and input to assist AEA in implementing this exciting opportunity for our Tribal partners. Sincerely, David Beveridge ANTHC Vice President of Environmental Health, Engineering, & Facilities Services Alaska Center for Energy and Power • University of Alaska Fairbanks • 1764 Tanana Loop – ELIF Suite 404 P.O. Box 755910 • Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5910 • Tel: (907) 474-5402 • Fax: (907) 474-5475 May 17, 2023 Secretary Jennifer Granholm Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW Washington, D.C. 20585 RE: DE-FOA-0002740 – Alaska Energy Authority Secretary Granholm, AEA’s Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids project is aligned with the work of the Alaska Center for Energy and Power’s (ACEP) work to increase the adoption of carbon -reducing energy technologies and lower energy costs in rural Alaska communities, many of which are considered disadvantaged. Therefore, ACEP strongly supports this project, knowing the difference it will make for stakeholders that we work with, and residents in our rural communities. The University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Alaska Center for Energy and Power is an applied research organization specializing in research on islanded microgrid systems in Alaska. Since its establishment in 2008, ACEP has worked closely with AEA, AML and ANTHC as well as other state, local and federal entities to carry out a nd document successful renewable energy projects throughout the state. This includes working with AEA on efforts such as the Renewable Energy Fund and the Emerging Energy Technology Fund, which helped propel the deployment of renewable energy in the state. Specifically if this is funded, ACEP could work with AEA and project partners on the following topics: 1) Program Design 2) Techno-Economic Studies 3) Dynamical Studies 4) Data Collection and Analytics 5) Project Identification and Development 6) Testing and Evaluation of Technologies in ACEP’s Energy Technology Facility 7) Developing metrics and methods for ensuring replicability and scaling of efforts 8) Dissemination of Project Outcomes through means such as technical reports; video and other methods of storytelling and peer-reviewed publications As an entity that works closely with AEA and to address the needs of rural communities, we know full -well that there is immense need for which current resources are simply insufficient. AEA’s approach to grid resilience is responsive to both, and we believe that AEA is capable of delivering on its goals and objectives effectively, including through close cooperation with organizations like ours. Respectfully, Jeremy Kasper, PhD Director Alaska Center for Energy and Power University of Alaska Fairbanks 809 Second Avenue, P.O. Box 889 Seward, AK 99664 phone: (907) 224-3322 fax: (907) 224-4400 www.avtec.edu AVTEC, as an employer and service provider, complies with Alaska Human Rights Law and federal civil rights laws. Individuals with disabilities who require reasonable accommodations are welcome to contact AVTEC at admissions@avtec.edu; or (907)224-3322, or for individuals with hearing impairments via Alaska Relay at 711 or (800)770-8973. AVTEC is a division of the State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development. May 12, 2023 Secretary Jennifer Granholm Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW Washington, D.C. 20585 RE: DE-FOA-0002740 – Alaska Energy Authority Secretary Granholm, The Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) fully supports the application of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids. AEA is known for its expertise in delivering technical assistance and critical projects in rural Alaska, which we know to result in improved livin g conditions. AEA is a strong partner with a robust system of evaluation and analysis that can be applied to the delivery of this project. As an entity that works closely with AEA and to address the needs of rural communities, we know full -well that there is immense need for which current resources are simply insufficient. AEA’s approach to grid resilience is responsive to both, and we bel ieve that AEA is capable of delivering on its goals and objectives effectively, including through close cooperation with organizations like ours. AVTEC is the State of Alaska’s agency that provides post-secondary career and technical workforce training and has been collaborating with the AEA for many years to deliver power generation training to Alaskans from rural villages across the state. The programs at AVTEC are accredited by the Council on Occupational Education (COE), a demonstration of quality in training. We have the ability to enhance our workforce development capacity with the curriculum needed to train Alaskans to deploy the energy systems of the future and with a student completion of training rate of over 90%, AVTEC has the expertise to serve a diverse student population to success. We are excited at the possibility to partner with AEA on this project and bring our curriculum flexibility and student service expertise to provide the workforce training that will be necessary to achieve resilience in Alaska’s rural and disadvantaged communities. This project is aligned with our work to increase the adoption of carbon-reducing energy technologies and lower energy costs in rural Alaska communities, many of which are considered disadvantaged. We strongly support this project, knowing the difference it will make for stakeholders that we work with, and residents in our rural communities. Respectfully, Cathy LeCompte, Director AVTEC 809 2nd Avenue/P.O. Box 889 Seward, AK 99664 Cc: David Crane, Director, Grid Deployment Office – Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations May 12, 2023 Secretary Jennifer Granholm Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW Washington, D.C. 20585 RE: DE-FOA-0002740 – Alaska Energy Authority Secretary Granholm, Kawerak, Inc. is in support of the application of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids. AEA is known for its expertise in delivering technical assistance and critical projects in rural Alaska, which we know to result in improved living conditions. AEA is a strong partner with a robust system of evaluation and analysis that can be applied to the delivery of this project. As an entity that works closely with AEA to address the needs of rural communities, we know that there is immense need for which current resources are simply insufficient. AEA’s approach to grid resilience is responsive to both, and we believe that AEA can deliver on its goals and objectives effectively, including through close cooperation with organizations like ours. Kawerak, Inc. is a non-profit tribal consortium representing twenty Alaska Native tribes in the Bering Strait Region. Kawerak manages the Bering Strait Development Council, which is the regional entity that develops the Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for our region. As part of our 2021-2026 CEDS report, improving, expanding, and upgrading our region’s infrastructure, including energy systems, is a high priority for our communities. This project is aligned with our own work to improve infrastructure and reduce energy burden in rural Alaska communities. Specifically, Kawerak’s 2022-2026 Strategic Plan focuses on growing community infrastructure and advocating for effective renewable energy systems in every community. We strongly support this project, knowing the difference it will make for stakeholders that we work with, and residents in our rural communities. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Respectfully, Melanie Bahnke CEO/President Cc: David Crane, Director, Grid Deployment Office – Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations 612 W. Willoughby Ave., Suite B P.O. Box 21989, Juneau, AK 99802 Phone (907) 586-4360 www.seconference.org Email info@seconference.org SOUTHEAST ALASKA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION May 3, 2023 Secretary Jennifer Granholm Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW Washington, D.C. 20585 RE: DE-FOA-0002740 – Alaska Energy Authority Dear Secretary Granholm: Southeast Conference supports application of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids. Southeast Conference is the State of Alaska Regional Development Organization for Southeast Alaska and the US Economic Development Administration’s (EDA), designated Economic Development District (EDD) for the region. Southeast Conference is responsible for developing a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for Southeast Alaska that is designed to identify regional priorities for economic and community development. One the critical areas to Rural southeast Alaska is Energy. This project would support many of the energy objectives identified in our 2021-2025 CEDS including promoting beneficial electrification and creating energy systems that provide sustainable, affordable, renewable energy. AEA, the State of Alaska’s Energy Office, is known for its expertise in delivering technical assistance and critical projects in rural Alaska, which we know to result in improved living conditions. AEA is a strong partner with a robust system of evaluation and analysis that can be applied to the delivery of this project. As an entity that works closely with AEA and to address the needs of rural communities, we know full-well that there is immense need for which current resources are simply insufficient. AEA’s approach to grid resilience is responsive to both, and we believe that AEA is capable of delivering on its goals and objectives effectively, including through close cooperation with organizations like ours. Thank you in advance for your fullest support possible of AEA’s application for Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids. This project will make a difference for our stakeholders and residents in our rural communities. Sincerely, Robert Venables Executive Director 122 1st Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99701 907-452-8251 www.tananachiefs.org May 01, 2023 Secretary Jennifer Granholm Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW Washington, D.C. 20585 RE: DE-FOA-0002740 – Alaska Energy Authority Secretary Granholm, Tanana Chiefs Conference fully supports the application of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Transforming Alaska’s Rural Microgrids. AEA is known for its expertise in delivering technical assistance and critical projects in rural Alaska, which we know to result in improved living conditions. AEA is a strong partner with a robust system of evaluation and analysis that can be applied to the delivery of this project. As an entity that works closely with AEA and to address the needs of rural communities, we know full-well that there is immense need for which current resources are simply insufficient. AEA’s approach to grid resilience is responsive to both, and we believe that AEA is capable of delivering on its goals and objectives effectively, including through close cooperation with organizations like ours. Tanana Chiefs Conference is the inter-tribal consortium representing 37 federally recognized tribes across Alaska’s interior. For the past 50 years, TCC has been a voice advocating for tribal sovereignty, tribal unity and the prio rities of interior villages. As part of our commitment to supporting our tribes, TCC has been actively assisting with energy sovereignty and energy security projects in our region since 2008 when global oil prices took some of their steepest climbs in living memory. Tribes in the Tanana Chiefs Conference region have been leading the state in rural microgrids with high penetration, solar- diesel-battery systems since Hughes Village Council first broke ground on their 120kW solar system in 2018. TCC is actively working on 2 large-scale solar projects in Galena and Manley Hot Springs with 7 more communities developing their own large-scale solar projects as the technology matures and becomes more wide spread. The larger goal of TCC’s infrastructure department is to install community scale Solar-Battery systems in all of the microgrids in the TCC region and generate 100’s of MWhs of clean, solar electricity thus providing resiliency in rural Alaska. This project is aligned with our own work to increase the adoption of carbon-reducing energy technologies and lower energy costs in rural Alaska communities, many of which are considered disadvantaged. We strongly support this project, knowing the difference it will make for stakeholders that we work with, and residents in our rural communities. Respectfully, Dave Pelunis-Messier Infrastructure Division Director, Tanana Chiefs Conference Cc: David Crane, Director, Grid Deployment Office – Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations RURAL ALASKA MICROGR ID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 1 A L A S K A E NE R GY A UTH O R I TY Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation A. OBJECTIVES The project’s objectives are multi-faceted and align with the Department’s and Administration’s priorities. Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) project objectives are to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience, lower carbon emissions, decrease power costs, and improve public health and safety. These objectives are consistent with the FOA’s goals to advance community benefits, which align with the State’s energy policy goal to reach 80% renewable energy by 2040. At the same time, AEA will catalyze private sector and non -federal public capital by contributing 50% of the overall project funding through non-federal funds. Projects will be developed at- scale by identifying locations where significant economic benefits can be obtained, including those that reduce the transactional costs for local businesses. Specific objectives include to deliver projects:  that reduce the cost per kwh by more than 10%  that lower maintenance and operations costs  that leverage locally sourced renewables, including wind, solar, and hydro.  that lower the diesel fuel use by 50% or more.  in collaboration with project partners and communities  utilizing broad technical, economic, financial, and project management expertise  that maximize stakeholder engagement, workforce development, and community benefits. B. SCOPE OF WORK The first year of the project will focus on finalizing planning and strategic development of the partnerships and program delivery, including robust stakeholder engagement and public outreach. Program requirements will be structured similar to AEA’s Renewable Energy Fund, which has a grant review team and process that will efficiently review projects based on merit criteria that corresponds to GRIP priorities and AEA’s goals. AEA will evaluate project contributions to meet goals of carbon and cost reduction, and available non-federal match. AEA will complete its teaming agreement with Alaska Municipal League (AML), Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), and Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) to finalize the project components that include equity assessment, labor engagement, and implement a skills and workforce development strategy. This will result in a fully developed program, ready for a request for applications. The program will be released for application and projects will be identified per the requirements. AEA expects to make approximately 20 subawards for transformative projects. The project partners will implement a project development support process, to provide RURAL ALASKA MICROGR ID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 2 A L A S K A E NE R GY A UTH O R I TY grantees with necessary technical assistance, and develop a cohort approach to project management. AEA will complete community benefit assessments and agreements in each project community, in collaboration with grantee and partners. AEA will evaluate project contributions to meeting goals of carbon and cost reduction, and available non -federal match. Project awards will be reviewed based on annual monitoring, and project close -outs. Partners will hold a workshop with all awardees to determine strengths and weaknesses of the program, and to finalize analysis of goals, objectives, and outcomes. Approximately twenty communities will have had projects implemented and finalized, with expected objectives achieved. Final reporting will satisfy the terms of the agreement with DOE. The project team will report on equitable benefits delivered to communities, as well as environmental justice and climate change metrics that demonstrate outcome delivery. C. TASKS TO BE PERFORMED All Budget Periods Overall Project Management and Planning The recipient will perform project management activities to include project planning and control, financial management, data management, management of supplies and/or equipment, risk management, and reporting as required to successfully achieve the overall objectives of the project. Task 0.0 – Project Management and Planning: The Recipient shall develop and maintain the Project Management Plan (PMP). The content, organization, and requirements for revision of the PMP are identified in the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist and Instructions. AEA will manage and implement the project in accordance with the PMP. The PMP shall be revised and resubmitted as often as necessary, during the course of the project, to capture any major/significant changes to the planned approach, budget, key personnel, major resources, etc. Task 0.1- Kick-Off Meeting: AEA will participate in a project kickoff meeting with the DOE within 30 days of project initiation. Budget Period 1 (Year 1): Formational activities focused on partnerships and stakeholders. Task 1.1- Partnership team roles and responsibilities finalized, project scoping Subtask 1.1.1- AEA will finalize partner agreements with AML, ANTHC and ACEP that will outline the roles and responsibilities of each party and finalize the project scope. Task 1.2- Stakeholder engagement and outreach Subtask 1.2.1- AEA and partners will conduct outreach to disadvantaged, rural communities to engage decision makers and utility representatives on the program, benefits, and opportunities. RURAL ALASKA MICROGR ID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 3 A L A S K A E NE R GY A UTH O R I TY Subtask 1.2.2- AEA will initiate targeted application support by making calls, sending emails, and connecting with established contacts and offering support for existing, known projects. Task 1.3- Application development and review process Subtask 1.3.1- The team will develop and finalize criteria and metrics for evaluating project benefits. Subtask 1.3.2- The team will review the program for merit and finalize the solicitation or request for applications from interested communities for microgrid transformation projects. The application and scoring criteria will be reviewed and approved by DOE before being released. Quarter/ timeframe Milestone Type 1 Partners establish teaming agreements. Progress 2,3 Program Developed Progress 4 Program released, request for applications Progress FY 24 Request for Applications with feasible, impactful project selection criteria developed and approved by DOE Go/no go Continuation: The recipient is NOT authorized to initiate any scope in the next budget period without the DOE Contracting Officer’s prior written approval in accordance with the award terms and conditions. Budget Period 2 (Years 2-6): Project development and community benefit support activities Task 2.1- Conduct request for applications: Subtask 2.1.1- The team will review applications for completeness and alignment with project goals and objectives based on the previously developed metrics and will award high scoring projects. Task 2.2 - Cohort development and community benefit agreements Subtask 2.2.1 - AEA will bring project grantees together as part of a cohort, with quarterly technical support to share best practices and lessons learned, in order for the projects to develop as efficiently as possible. Subtask 2.2.2- The team will work with representatives from the selected communities on how to structure the project to maximize community benefits. Task 2.3 - Initiate project development and NEPA process Subtask 2.3.1 - AEA will work with the selected rural communities on proper NEPA documentation, final engineering, design, and permitting. RURAL ALASKA MICROGR ID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 4 A L A S K A E NE R GY A UTH O R I TY Subtask 2.3.2 - The team will conduct project financing review and work with each individual community on leveraging funding. Quarter/ timeframe Milestone Measure 5 Community benefit agreements in place. Progress 6,7 Applications received and evaluated for merit criteria Progress 8 Approximately twenty community awards result in project implementation. Technical FY 25 AEA has copies of signed grant agreements for twenty projects. Go/No Go 9-24 Projects are implemented Technical 10 Outreach conducted Progress FY 26 Projects that have cleared progress criteria with completed feasibility reports are moved forward. Go/No Go 13 Survey and interview results received and reviewed. Progress 14 Stakeholder listening session conducted. Progress 15 Cohort evaluation finalized. Progress 16 Preliminary review of findings is released by the project team. Technical FY 27 Projects that have cleared progress criteria with completed design and permitting are moved forward. Go/No Go FY28 Projects that have cleared progress criteria with groundbreaking construction are moved forward. Go/No Go FY 29 Projects that have cleared progress criteria and are on budget and on schedule are moved forward. Go/No Go Continuation: The recipient is NOT authorized to initiate any scope in the next budget period without the DOE Contracting Officer’s prior written approval in accordance with the award terms and conditions. Budget Period 3 (Year 7): Project evaluation and analysis of outcomes. Task 7.1- Finalize Project Awards and Activities: Subtask 7.1.1- AEA will ensure completion of all projects through a final project inspection and will finalize reporting to DOE. Task 7.2- Review impact of projects on goals and outcomes Subtask 7.2.1 Partners will review goals, objectives, and outcomes against project reporting to ensure project completion and alignment with the agreed upon plan. Subtask 7.2.2- The team will evaluate community benefit arrangements and impact by comparing outcomes against pre project data. RURAL ALASKA MICROGR ID TRANSFORMATION | TECHNICAL VOLUME 5 A L A S K A E NE R GY A UTH O R I TY Task 7.3- Produce final summary of findings Subtask 7.3.1 - The team will share findings on a public facing project website and in public forums so that the project can be easily replicated, and information can be shared with decision makers. Subtask 7.3.3 - AEA will share findings with project partners and participating rural communities. Quarter Milestone Measure Verification 25 Survey and interview results received and reviewed. Progress 80% response 26 Stakeholder listening session conducted. Progress Workshop held 27 Cohort evaluation finalized. Progress 80% response 28 Project delivers summary of outcomes to DOE. Technical Document D. DELIVERABLES In addition to the reports specified in the "Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist ," the Recipient will provide the following to the DOE Project Officer:  Subtask 0.0 Project Management Plan (PMP)  Subtask 1.1.1 Final Partner Agreements  Subtask 1.3.2 Request for application and scoring criteria  Subtask 2.1.1 Signed project agreements between AEA and 20 disadvantaged communities  Subtask 3.1.1 NEPA documentation for each site  Subtask 3.1.1 Engineered design documents for all construction projects  Subtask 3.1.1 Copies of all necessary permits  Subtask 7.1.1 Close-out documentation and final reporting  Subtask 7.3.1 Link to public facing website with project outcomes E. BRIEFINGS AND TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS  Detailed project status update briefings at events in the contiguous United States once per year and via communication/conferencing media approximately once per year. Briefings will explain the plans, progress, and results of the project.  Technical paper(s) and presentations as appropriate at technical society meetings, or at technical exchange meetings. Award Number:5/19/2023 Award Recipient:Alaska Energy Authority (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $15,883,607 $15,883,607 $31,906,144 49.78%01/01/2024 - 05/30/2025 Budget Period 2 $199,932,841 $199,932,841 $400,793,211 49.88%06/01/2025 - 5/30/2030 Budget Period 3 $32,915,003 $32,915,004 $65,993,813 49.88%01/01/2030 - 12/31/2031 Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $248,731,451 $248,731,452 $498,693,168 49.88% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $3,718,800 $7,879,767 $4,164,927 $0 $0 $15,763,494 3.16% b. Fringe Benefits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% c. Travel $366,000 $732,000 $366,000 $0 $0 $1,464,000 0.29% d. Equipment $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0.02% e. Supplies $80,000 $160,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $320,000 0.06% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $25,766,979 $388,562,253 $59,398,059 $0 $0 $473,727,291 94.99% Contractor $944,640 $1,489,280 $944,640 $0 $0 $3,378,560 0.68% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $26,711,619 $390,051,533 $60,342,699 $0 $0 $477,105,851 95.67% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $30,976,419 $398,823,300 $64,953,626 $0 $0 $494,753,345 99.21% i. Indirect Charges $929,725 $1,969,912 $1,040,187 $0 $0 $3,939,823 0.79% Total Costs $31,906,144 $400,793,211 $65,993,813 $0 $0 $498,693,168 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Alaska Energy Authority Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! Do not modify this template or any cells for formulas! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, contractors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For- Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows and columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 24 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 Sr. Engineer (EXAMPLE!!!)2000 $85.00 $170,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 2400 $190,000 2 Technicians (2)4000 $20.00 $80,000 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 4000 $80,000 2 thru 7 Circuit Rider Technician 195 $67.65 $13,192 390 $71.67 $27,951 195 $75.69 $14,760 $0 $0 780 $55,903 2 thru 7 Circuit Rider Technician 195 $82.60 $16,107 390 $87.49 $34,121 195 $92.40 $18,018 $0 $0 780 $68,246 2 thru 7 Circuit Rider Technician 195 $78.27 $15,263 390 $82.92 $32,339 195 $87.56 $17,074 $0 $0 780 $64,676 1 thru 7 Circuit Rider Technician 3900 $78.26 $305,214 7800 $82.92 $646,776 3900 $87.56 $341,484 $0 $0 15600 $1,293,474 1 thru 7 Comms Directors 585 $97.28 $56,909 1170 $103.06 $120,580 585 $109.10 $63,824 $0 $0 2340 $241,313 1 thru 7 Contracting Officer 390 $85.15 $33,209 780 $90.21 $70,364 390 $95.75 $37,343 $0 $0 1560 $140,915 1 thru 7 Contracting Officer 1950 $85.15 $166,043 3900 $90.21 $351,819 1950 $95.50 $186,225 $0 $0 7800 $704,087 1 thru 7 Director AEEE 390 $131.04 $51,106 780 $138.85 $108,303 390 $146.85 $57,272 $0 $0 1560 $216,680 1 thru 7 Director of Planning 195 $103.48 $20,179 390 $109.63 $42,756 195 $118.83 $23,172 $0 $0 780 $86,106 1 thru 7 Economist 1170 $102.15 $119,516 2340 $108.22 $253,235 1170 $115.00 $134,550 $0 $0 4680 $507,300 1 thru 7 Executive Director 195 $183.43 $35,769 390 $194.32 $75,785 195 $205.22 $40,018 $0 $0 780 $151,572 1 thru 7 GIS 780 $78.26 $61,043 1560 $82.91 $129,340 780 $87.78 $68,468 $0 $0 3120 $258,851 1 thru 7 Infrastructure Engineer 390 $105.32 $41,075 780 $111.58 $87,032 390 $118.00 $46,020 $0 $0 1560 $174,127 2 thru 7 Program Project Manager 780 $100.08 $78,062 1560 $106.03 $165,407 780 $113.23 $88,319 $0 $0 3120 $331,789 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Program Project Manager 3900 $105.32 $410,748 7800 $111.58 $870,324 3900 $117.84 $459,576 $0 $0 15600 $1,740,648 1 thru 7 Rural Assistance Manager 390 $102.24 $39,874 780 $108.32 $84,490 390 $115.00 $44,850 $0 $0 1560 $169,213 1 thru 7 Rural Programs Manager 780 $123.12 $96,034 1560 $130.43 $203,471 780 $137.75 $107,445 $0 $0 3120 $406,949 2 thru 7 Senior Infrastructure Engineer 390 $110.35 $43,037 780 $116.97 $91,237 390 $124.35 $48,497 $0 $0 1560 $182,770 1 thru 7 Chief Operating Officer 390 $160.73 $62,685 780 $170.28 $132,818 390 $179.83 $70,134 $0 $0 1560 $265,637 Total Personnel Costs 36660 $3,718,800 73320 $7,879,767 36660 $4,164,927 0 $0 0 $0 146640 $15,763,494 Additional Explanation (as needed): Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and contractors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base hourly rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., rate negotiated for each hour worked on the project, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate BasisProject Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total EXAMPLE!!! Sr. Engineer $170,000 20%$34,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $38,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): Please use this box (or an attachment) to list the elements that comprise your fringe benefits and how they are applied to your base (e.g. Personnel) to arrive at your fringe benefit rate. INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. ______ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* ______ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at https://www.energy.gov/eere/funding/downloads/sample-indirect-rate-proposal-and-profit-compliance-audit , or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 1 EXAMPLE!!! Visit to PV manufacturer 2 2 $250 $500 $100 $160 $2,020 Current GSA rates 2 Rural site visits 3 trips per year per site; 2 people per trip - Assume 20 sites. Rural travel estimated at $1,500 per trip with an overnight stay. ANC Rural Alaska 2 240 $250 $1,100 $150 $360,000 Previous experience 2 One out of state conference per year ANC Out of state 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $6,000 Previous experience $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $366,000 Domestic Travel 3 thru 6 Rural site visits 3 trips per year per site; 2 people per trip - Assume 20 sites. Rural travel estimated at $1,500 per trip with an overnight stay. ANC Rural Alaska 2 480 $250 $1,100 $150 $720,000 Previous experience 3 thru 6 One out of state conference per year ANC Out of state 5 4 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $732,000 Domestic Travel 7 Rural site visits 3 trips per year per site; 2 people per trip - Assume 20 sites. Rural travel estimated at $1,500 per trip with an overnight stay. ANC Rural Alaska 2 240 $250 $1,100 $150 $360,000 Previous experience 7 One out of state conference per year ANC Out of state 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $6,000 Previous experience $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $366,000 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $1,464,000 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Only travel that is directly associated with this award should be included as a direct travel cost to the award. 4. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. 5. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 6. Columns E, F, G, H, I, J, and K are per trip. 7. The number of days is inclusive of the day of departure and the day of return. 8. Recipients should enter City and State (or City and Country for International travel) in the Depart from and Destination fields. 9. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Rural project sites are unknown. 3 trips per year to each project site, 2 people per trip. Typically it will be a project manager and circuit rider to inspect the project progress and offer any training opportunities. c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3,4,5 EXAMPLE!!! Thermal shock chamber 2 $70,000 $140,000 Vendor Quote - Attached Reliability testing of PV modules- Task 4.3 Office set-up 10 $10,000 $100,000 Previous experience 10 new staff office set-up $0 $0 $0 $0 1,2 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL EQUIPMENT $100,000 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. contractor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a contractor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the contractor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a contractor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 4,6 EXAMPLE!!! Wireless DAS components 10 $360.00 $3,600 Catalog price For Alpha prototype - Task 2.4 1,2 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $80,000 3 thr 6 Misc. Supplies 80 $2,000.00 $160,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $160,000 7 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL SUPPLIES $320,000 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. contractor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Sub-Recipient Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 2,4 EXAMPLE!!! XYZ Corp.Partner to develop optimal lens for Gen 2 product. Cost estimate based on personnel hours. $48,000 $32,000 $16,000 $96,000 1 thru 7 Anchorage Municipal League (AML)Cost estimate based on personnel hours $128,049 $889,724 $150,871 $1,168,644 1 thru 7 Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP)Cost estimate based on personnel hours $138,930 $927,529 $163,806 $1,230,265 1 thru 7 Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)Cost estimate based on personnel hours $500,000 $495,000 $333,382 $1,328,382 2 thru 7 Rural Alaskan Community/Village/Tribe/Utility Future request for proposal and potential projects know to AEA $25,000,000 $386,250,000 $58,750,000 $470,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $25,766,979 $388,562,253 $59,398,059 $0 $0 $473,727,291 SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 6 Contractor for developing robotics to perform lens inspection. Estimate provided by contractor. $32,900 $86,500 $119,400 1 thru 7 IIJA Program Coordinator 15 hours/month @ 124/hour. Coordination of all IIJA programs across the agency $44,640 $89,280 $44,640 $178,560 2,3,4,5 State of Alaska Department of Natural Resouces Permitting $200,000 $400,000 $200,000 $800,000 2,3,7 Economist Competitive bid. Analysis of applications and awards, program evaluation support $200,000 $200,000 $400,000 1 thru 7 Outreach Competitive bid. Program specific outreach and report development $100,000 $200,000 $100,000 $400,000 2,3,7 Engineering Support Competitice bid. Engineering service for application review, technical feasibility, design review. $200,000 $400,000 $200,000 $800,000 2,3,4,5 Legal Services State of Alaska or competitive bid $100,000 $200,000 $100,000 $400,000 1,2,3,4,5 State of Alaska Department of Law Internal legal services $100,000 $200,000 $100,000 $400,000 Sub-total $944,640 $1,489,280 $944,640 $0 $0 $3,378,560 SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,711,619 $390,051,533 $60,342,699 $0 $0 $477,105,851 Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to sub-recipients, contractors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Sub-recipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 25% of total award costs. These sub-recipient forms may be completed by either the sub-recipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the sub-recipient's forms must match the sub-recipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. contractor status. 3. Contractors: List all contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Contractor cost with total project costs of $100,000 or more, a Contractor quote must be provided. A contractor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs.contractor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Contractor Name/Organization EXAMPLE!!! ABC Corp. FFRDC Name/Organization Total Contractual SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3 EXAMPLE ONLY!!! Three days of excavation for platform site $28,000 Engineering estimate Site must be prepared for construction of platform. Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a contractor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 5 EXAMPLE!!! Grad student tuition - tasks 1-3 $16,000 Established UCD costs Support of graduate students working on project Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 25.00%25.00%25.00%0.00%0.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $929,725 $1,969,912 $1,040,187 $3,939,823 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $0 Total indirect costs requested:$929,725 $1,969,912 $1,040,187 $0 $0 $3,939,823 i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim resulting cost as a Cost Share contribution, nor can the Recipient claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution . Neither of these costs can be reflected as actual indirect cost rates realized by the orgnaization, and therefore are not verifiable in the Recipient records as required by Federal Regulation (200.306(b)(1)) 5.. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE AEA is in the process of developing an indirect cost allocation plan (ICAP) and is working with independent contractor to develop a cost model to track and allocate indirect costs for federal cost recovery. AEA will seek approval of the ICAP by their cognizant agency as required. AEA understands that this process will take up to two years for development of the ICAP and the required approval. Currently, AEA utilized the 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). AEA fully expects to have an approved ICAP and indirect cost rate by July 1, 2025 and therefore, for budgetary purposes only, AEA has used an estimated rate of 25%. AEA will only request reimbursement based on the 10% de minimis rate or an approved indirect cost rate. Detailed Budget Justification You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. Example: Labor + Fringe ______ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. __X___ The organization does not have a current, federally approved indirect cost rate agreement and has provided an indirect rate proposal in support of the proposed costs. __X___ This organization has elected to apply a 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 State of Alaska 250000000 Subject to legislative approval, the state of Alaska will invest in this project $37,190,906 $141,265,622 $70,906,800 $249,363,328 Financial Institutions $0 Economic Development Corps $0 Guarauntee Agencies $0 Private Investment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SHARE $37,190,906 $141,265,622 $70,906,800 $0 $0 $249,363,328 $498,693,168 50.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Projects will provide match, this program will be developed and then projects selected. Therefore all the sources of match are not known at this time. Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 -$5,284,762 $37,190,906 $31,906,144 2.Budget Period 2 $259,527,589 $141,265,622 $400,793,211 3.Budget Period 3 -$4,912,987 $70,906,800 $65,993,813 4.Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $249,329,840 $249,363,328 $498,693,168 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $3,718,800 $7,879,767 $4,164,927 $0 $0 $15,763,494 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $366,000 $732,000 $366,000 $0 $0 $1,464,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $80,000 $160,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $320,000 $26,711,619 $390,051,533 $60,342,699 $0 $0 $477,105,851 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,976,419 $398,823,300 $64,953,626 $0 $0 $494,753,345 $929,725 $1,969,912 $1,040,187 $0 $0 $3,939,823 $31,906,144 $400,793,211 $65,993,813 $0 $0 $498,693,168 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:Alaska Energy Authority 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | SUMMARY FOR PUBLIC RELEASE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation Topic Areas 3: Grid Innovation Program The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is the State’s energy office and primary agency for state- wide energy policy and program development. AEA’s mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA manages a broad portfolio of supply and demand side energy projects and takes a whole-community approach in addressing energy cost reduction issues. In partnership with the Alaska Municipal League (AML), Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), and the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP), AEA proposes to truly transform up to twenty rural Alaskan community microgrids from diesel power generation to clean, renewable energy. The goal of these transformed community microgrids is to replace the baseload diesel power production with renewable energy. Hydro, solar, and wind are the primary renewable power sources found to be successful in Alaska. In addition, many of the possible hydro projects would produce more power than could be used by typical community demand. This excess power would be used for community heat and would enable increased capacity for energy storage, which is a critical resource in rural Alaska. This use of excess electricity for heat reduction would displace heating oil, wood burning, diesel, and other types of fuel, thereby maximizing environ- mental benefits including carbon reduction. This project rests on critical success factors that leverage AEA’s experience with delivering projects in rural Alaska: (1) Feasibility of project technologies in rural Alaska communities (2) Process innovation, and the combination of technologies (3) Partner contributions, and appropriate levels of analysis (4) Cost of materials and services, and supply chain availability (5) Sustainability of operations, and planning for maintenance and operations AEA’s approach to stakeholder engagement will result in project locations that will be deter- mined based on level of disadvantage and the feasibility of meeting the critical success factors. The project selection team will evaluate the availability of a skilled workforce and potential to offer skills training as part of a community benefits plan. This will lower costs and address any environmental justice factors that may exist, while ensuring community benefits. Projects will be selected via a request for application with scoring that takes into account disadvantaged communities’ criteria, the ability to replace 100% of baseload diesel generation, reduce the cost of energy, create clean energy jobs, and mitigate health and safety risks. Alaska is in a critical position to leverage available federal infrastructure funding to make a trans- formative impact on the energy systems of disadvantaged, rural communities. AEA is proposing a carefully managed process to identify, vet, and support the implementation of projects in rural communities. This effort will leverage AEA’s technical expertise and program management, as well as experience working in rural Alaska, to engage partners, stakeholders, and project proponents in an efficient and effective system of project evaluation and deployment. REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Prime Applicant: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Project Title: Transforming Alaska's Rural Microgrids Project Impact/Takeaway:The majority of Alaska's rural microgrids are powered by diesel generators, and this project will transform participating communities by facilitating the transition to locally sourced renewables Project goals:Lowering the cost of energy in disadvantaged communities while reducing carbon emissions. Technology:This project will utilize local wind, solar, and hydro matched with battery storage systems. Impact:The combined use of these technologies will reduce rural community reliance on fossil fuels. Total Project Costs $500,000,000 Federal Share $250,000,000 Match $250,000,000 REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Transforming Alaska's Rural Microgrids REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Transforming Alaska's Rural Microgrids Principal Investigator •Rebecca Garrett Key Personnel •Audrey Alstrom •Conner Erickson •Karen Bell •Karin St. Clair Key Partners •Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP), •Alaska Municipal League, (AML) •Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Proposed Project Duration •96 months Project Team and Outcomes Award Number:19-May-23 Award Recipient:Alaska Municipal League (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $128,049 $0 $128,049 0.00%Example!!! 01/01/2014 - 12/31/2014 Budget Period 2 $889,724 $0 $889,724 0.00% Budget Period 3 $150,871 $0 $150,871 0.00% Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $1,168,644 $0 $1,168,644 0.00% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $85,566 $560,226 $101,713 $0 $0 $747,505 63.96% b. Fringe Benefits $28,117 $184,094 $33,422 $0 $0 $245,633 21.02% c. Travel $2,725 $64,520 $2,020 $0 $0 $69,265 5.93% d. Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% e. Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Vendor $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $116,408 $808,840 $137,155 $0 $0 $1,062,403 90.91% i. Indirect Charges $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 9.09% Total Costs $128,049 $889,724 $150,871 $0 $0 $1,168,644 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Alaska Energy Authority Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. If using this form for invoice submission, fill out tabs a. through j. with total costs for just the proposed invoice and fill out tab k. per the instructions on that tab. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, vendors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For- Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows or columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 Sr. Engineer (EXAMPLE!!!)2000 $85.00 $170,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 2400 $190,000 Actual Salary 2 Technicians (2)4000 $20.00 $80,000 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 4000 $80,000 Actual Salary Project Coordinator (Y1, 2, 8)1950 $40.38 $78,741 1950 $41.39 $80,710 1950 $48.00 $93,600 $0 $0 5850 $253,051 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y1, 2, 8)97.5 $70.00 $6,825 97.5 $71.75 $6,996 97.5 $83.21 $8,113 $0 $0 293 $21,934 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Coordinator (Y3)$0 1950 $42.42 $82,719 $0 $0 $0 1950 $82,719 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y3)$0 97.5 $73.54 $7,170 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,170 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Coordinator (Y4)$0 1950 $43.48 $84,786 $0 $0 $0 1950 $84,786 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y4)$0 97.5 $75.38 $7,350 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,350 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Coordinator (Y5)$0 1950 $44.57 $86,912 $0 $0 $0 1950 $86,912 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y5)$0 97.5 $77.27 $7,534 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,534 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Coordinator (Y6)$0 1950 $45.69 $89,096 $0 $0 $0 1950 $89,096 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y6)$0 97.5 $79.20 $7,722 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,722 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Coordinator (Y7)$0 1950 $46.83 $91,319 $0 $0 $0 1950 $91,319 Actual, adjusted for annual increase Project Manager (Y7)$0 97.5 $81.18 $7,915 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,915 Actual, adjusted for annual increase $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Total Personnel Costs 2048 $85,566 12285 $560,226 2048 $101,713 0 $0 0 $0 16380 $747,505 Additional Explanation (as needed): Salaries are based on one full time project coordinator, dedicated to project support and implementation, starting at our current coordinator mid-level salary positions, adjusted by 2.5% each year as a COLA. The project manager position is based on current salaries, and represents 5% of annual hours, with the same salary adjustment of 2.5%. Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and vendors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base pay rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., actual salary, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate Basis Project Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total EXAMPLE!!! Sr. Engineer $170,000 20%$34,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $38,000 Project Coordinator $ 78,741.00 32.86%$25,874 $ 515,551.19 32.86%$169,410 $ 93,598.30 32.86%$30,756 $0 $0 $226,041 Project Manager $ 6,825.00 32.86%$2,243 $ 44,686.22 32.86%$14,684 $ 8,112.78 32.86%$2,666 $0 $0 $19,592 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$85,566 $28,117 $560,237 $184,094 $101,711 $33,422 $0 $0 $0 $0 $245,633 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): AML's fringe rate is based on actual average experience across all employees. It includes Social Security of 6.20%, Medicare of 1.45%, Unemployment of 1.00%, a health insurance and life insurance that is 19%, and deferred compensation retirement benefit of 5%. The total of these is 32.86%. INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. ______ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* __x____ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 1 EXAMPLE!!! Visit to PV manufacturer 2 2 $250 $500 $100 $160 $2,020 Current GSA rates Planning meeting Juneau Anchorage 2 2 $360 $400 $250 $2,020 Most recent experience. Planning meeting Juneau Anchorage 1 1 $180 $400 $125 $705 Most recent experience. $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $2,725 Domestic Travel Rural site visits to each participating community Anchorage Rural Alaska 40 1 $360 $750 $200 $52,400 Most recent experience. Planning meetings Juneau Anchorage 6 2 $360 $400 $250 $12,120 Most recent experience. $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $64,520 Domestic Travel Evaluation meetings Juneau Anchorage 2 2 $360 $400 $250 $2,020 Most recent experience. $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $2,020 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $69,265 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3,4,5 EXAMPLE!!! Thermal shock chamber 2 $70,000 $140,000 Vendor Quote - Attached Reliability testing of PV modules- Task 4.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a vendor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the vendor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a vendor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 4,6 EXAMPLE!!! Wireless DAS components 10 $360.00 $3,600 Catalog price For Alpha prototype - Task 2.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 2,4 EXAMPLE!!! XYZ Corp.Partner to develop optimal lens for Gen 2 product. Cost estimate based on personnel hours. $48,000 $32,000 $16,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # Vendor Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 6 EXAMPLE!!! ABC Corp.Vendor for developing robotics to perform lens inspection. Estimate provided by vendor. $32,900 $86,500 $119,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # FFRDC Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to subrecipients, vendors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Subrecipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 50% of total award costs. These subrecipient forms may be completed by either the subrecipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the subrecipient's forms must match the subrecipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 3. Vendors (including contractors): List all vendors and contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Vendor cost with total project costs of $250,000 or more, a Vendor quote must be provided. A vendor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3 EXAMPLE ONLY!!! Three days of excavation for platform site $28,000 Engineering estimate Site must be prepared for construction of platform. Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a vendor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 5 EXAMPLE!!! Grad student tuition - tasks 1-3 $16,000 Established UCD costs Support of graduate students working on project Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)0.00%0.00%0.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 10.00%10.00%10.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $0 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $106,241 Total indirect costs requested:$11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 Additional Explanation (as needed): AML is a non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, and is not a State, Local Government, or Indian Tribe. AML elects to charge a de minimiis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs. Detailed Budget Justification You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. De minimis ______ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application, and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. ___x___ There is not a current, federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available*. *When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided by your DOE contact, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in performance of the proposed project. Additionally, any non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200—States and Local Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph D.1.b, may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely.As described in §200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. If chosen, this methodology once elected must be used consistently for all Federal awards until such time as a non-Federal entity chooses to negotiate for a rate, which the non-Federal entity may apply to do at any time. i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,168,644 0.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Vendors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 $128,049 $0 $128,049 2.Budget Period 2 $889,724 $0 $889,724 3.Budget Period 3 $150,871 $0 $150,871 4.Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $1,168,644 $0 $1,168,644 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $85,566 $560,226 $101,713 $0 $0 $747,505 $28,117 $184,094 $33,422 $0 $0 $245,633 $2,725 $64,520 $2,020 $0 $0 $69,265 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $116,408 $808,840 $137,155 $0 $0 $1,062,403 $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 $128,049 $889,724 $150,871 $0 $0 $1,168,644 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:Alaska Energy Authority 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 Award Number:19-May-23 Award Recipient:ANTHC (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $350,144 $0 $350,144 0.00%01/01/2024 - 05/30/2025 Budget Period 2 $914,332 $0 $914,332 0.00%06/01/2025 - 05/30/230 Budget Period 3 $63,906 $0 $63,906 0.00%01/01/2030 - 12/31/2031 Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $1,328,382 $0 $1,328,382 0.00% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $215,791 $555,810 $43,085 $0 $0 $814,686 61.33% b. Fringe Benefits $49,811 $126,837 $10,565 $0 $0 $187,213 14.09% c. Travel $36,180 $108,540 $0 $0 $0 $144,720 10.89% d. Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% e. Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Vendor $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $301,783 $791,187 $53,649 $0 $0 $1,146,619 86.32% i. Indirect Charges $48,361 $123,145 $10,257 $0 $0 $181,763 13.68% Total Costs $350,144 $914,332 $63,906 $0 $0 $1,328,382 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Alaska Energy Authority Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. If using this form for invoice submission, fill out tabs a. through j. with total costs for just the proposed invoice and fill out tab k. per the instructions on that tab. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, vendors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For- Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows or columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 thru 7 Energy Project Manager II 526 $77.34 $40,699 1274 $77.34 $98,531 110 $77.34 $8,469 $0 $0 1910 $147,699 Employee salary, including pool 1 thru 7 Energy Mechanical Engineer III 600 $83.61 $50,166 1800 $83.61 $150,498 200 $83.61 $16,722 $0 $0 2600 $217,386 Employee salary, including pool 1 thru 7 Utility Operations Specialist IV 400 $80.18 $32,072 1200 $80.18 $96,216 $0 $0 $0 1600 $128,288 Employee salary, including pool 1 thru 7 Energy Mechanical Engineer II 400 $70.52 $28,208 1200 $70.52 $84,624 $0 $0 $0 1600 $112,832 Employee salary, including pool 1 thru 7 Rural Energy Program Manager 400 $89.47 $35,788 440 $89.47 $39,367 200 $89.47 $17,894 $0 $0 1040 $93,049 Employee salary, including pool 1 thru 7 Lead Mechanical Engineer 200 $144.29 $28,858 600 $144.29 $86,574 $0 $0 $0 800 $115,432 Employee salary, including pool $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Total Personnel Costs 2526.2 $215,791 6514 $555,810 510 $43,085 0 $0 0 $0 9550 $814,686 Additional Explanation (as needed): Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and vendors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base pay rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., actual salary, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate Basis Project Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Total Personnel (pool excluded)138,365 36.00%$49,811 352,325 36.00%$126,837 29,346 36.00%$10,565 $0 $0 $187,213 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$138,365 $49,811 $352,325 $126,837 $29,346 $10,565 $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,213 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): Please use this box (or an attachment) to list the elements that comprise your fringe benefits and how they are applied to your base (e.g. Personnel) to arrive at your fringe benefit rate. INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. __X__ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* ______ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 2 and 3 Technical assistance site visits: cost per community Anchorage, AK Various remote communities 3 2 $386 $1,000 $60 $363 $3,618 Current GSA rates for lodging and per diem; flight estimate based on Alaska Airlines to hub community, local carrier from hub to village. $20/day allowance for taxis/shuttles/etc. 2 and 3 10 technical assistance site visits to communities in first budget period Anchorage, AK Various remote communities $36,180 Row 8 multiplied by 10 site visits $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $36,180 Domestic Travel 2 and 3 Technical assistance site visits: cost per community Anchorage, AK Various remote communities 3 2 $386 $1,000 $60 $363 $3,618 Current GSA rates for lodging and per diem; flight estimate based on Alaska Airlines to hub community, local carrier from hub to village. $20/day allowance for taxis/shuttles/etc. 2 and 3 30 technical assistance site visits to communities in second budget period Anchorage, AK Various remote communities $108,540 Row 16 multiplied by 30 site visits $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $108,540 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $144,720 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a vendor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the vendor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a vendor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # Vendor Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # FFRDC Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to subrecipients, vendors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Subrecipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 50% of total award costs. These subrecipient forms may be completed by either the subrecipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the subrecipient's forms must match the subrecipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 3. Vendors (including contractors): List all vendors and contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Vendor cost with total project costs of $250,000 or more, a Vendor quote must be provided. A vendor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a vendor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 25.70%25.70%25.70%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $48,361 $123,145 $10,257 $181,763 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $0 Total indirect costs requested:$48,361 $123,145 $10,257 $0 $0 $181,763 i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE Additional Explanation (as needed): *IMPORTANT: Please use this box (or an attachment) to further explain how your total indirect costs were calculated. If the total indirect costs are a cumulative amount of more than one calculation or rate application, the explanation and calculations should identify all rates used, along with the base they were applied to (and how the base was derived), and a total for each (along with grand total). Detailed Budget Justification Rate applied to personnel and fringe per ANTHC's federally negotiated rate with HHS (excluding pool) You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. __X__ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application, and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. ______ There is not a current, federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available*. *When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided by your DOE contact, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in performance of the proposed project. Additionally, any non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200—States and Local Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph D.1.b, may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely.As described in §200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. If chosen, this methodology once elected must be used consistently for all Federal awards until such time as a non-Federal entity chooses to negotiate for a rate, which the non-Federal entity may apply to do at any time. Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,328,382 0.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Vendors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 $350,144 $0 $350,144 2.Budget Period 2 $914,332 $0 $914,332 3.Budget Period 3 $63,906 $0 $63,906 4.Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $1,328,382 $0 $1,328,382 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $215,791 $555,810 $43,085 $0 $0 $814,686 $49,811 $126,837 $10,565 $0 $0 $187,213 $36,180 $108,540 $0 $0 $0 $144,720 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $301,783 $791,187 $53,649 $0 $0 $1,146,619 $48,361 $123,145 $10,257 $0 $0 $181,763 $350,144 $914,332 $63,906 $0 $0 $1,328,382 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:Alaska Energy Authority 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 Award Number:19-May-23 Award Recipient:Alaska Center for Energy and Power (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $138,930 $0 $138,930 0.00%01/01/2024 - 05/30/2025 Budget Period 2 $927,528 $0 $927,528 0.00%06/01/2025 - 5/30/2030 Budget Period 3 $163,806 $0 $163,806 0.00%01/01/2030 - 12/31/2031 Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $1,230,265 $0 $1,230,265 0.00% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $91,621 $566,433 $108,911 $0 $0 $766,966 62.34% b. Fringe Benefits $32,943 $215,691 $39,159 $0 $0 $287,793 23.39% c. Travel $2,725 $64,520 $2,020 $0 $0 $69,265 5.63% d. Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% e. Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Vendor $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $127,289 $846,644 $150,090 $0 $0 $1,124,024 91.36% i. Indirect Charges $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 8.64% Total Costs $138,930 $927,528 $163,806 $0 $0 $1,230,265 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Alaska Energy Authority Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. If using this form for invoice submission, fill out tabs a. through j. with total costs for just the proposed invoice and fill out tab k. per the instructions on that tab. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, vendors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows or columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Pay Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 Sr. Engineer (EXAMPLE!!!)2000 $85.00 $170,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 2400 $190,000 Actual Salary 2 Technicians (2)4000 $20.00 $80,000 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 4000 $80,000 Actual Salary 1,2,8 Research Engineer (Y1, 2, 8)2088 $40.38 $84,313 2088 $41.39 $86,421 2088 $48.00 $100,224 $0 $0 6264 $270,959 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 1,2,8 Senior Research Engineer (Y1, 2, 8)104.4 $70.00 $7,308 104.4 $71.75 $7,491 104.4 $83.21 $8,687 $0 $0 313 $23,486 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 3 Project Coordinator (Y3)$0 1950 $42.42 $82,719 $0 $0 $0 1950 $82,719 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 3 Project Manager (Y3)$0 97.5 $73.54 $7,170 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,170 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 4 Project Coordinator (Y4)$0 1950 $43.48 $84,786 $0 $0 $0 1950 $84,786 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 4 Project Manager (Y4)$0 97.5 $75.38 $7,350 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,350 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 5 Project Coordinator (Y5)$0 1950 $44.57 $86,912 $0 $0 $0 1950 $86,912 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 5 Project Manager (Y5)$0 97.5 $77.27 $7,534 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,534 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 6 Project Coordinator (Y6)$0 1950 $45.69 $89,096 $0 $0 $0 1950 $89,096 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 6 Project Manager (Y6)$0 97.5 $79.20 $7,722 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,722 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 7 Project Coordinator (Y7)$0 1950 $46.83 $91,319 $0 $0 $0 1950 $91,319 Actual, adjusted for annual increase 7 Project Manager (Y7)$0 97.5 $81.18 $7,915 $0 $0 $0 98 $7,915 Actual, adjusted for annual increase $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Total Personnel Costs 2192 $91,621 12430 $566,433 2192 $108,911 0 $0 0 $0 16815 $766,966 Additional Explanation (as needed): Salaries are based on one full time research engineer, dedicated to project support and implementation, starting at current mid-level salary, adjusted by 2.5% each year as a COLA. The senior research engineer is based on current salaries, and represents 5% of annual hours, with the same salary adjustment of 2.5%. Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and vendors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base pay rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., actual salary, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate Basis Project Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total EXAMPLE!!! Sr. Engineer $170,000 20%$34,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $38,000 Research Engineer $ 78,741.00 38.50%$30,315 $ 515,551.19 38.50%$198,487 $ 93,598.30 38.50%$36,035 $0 $0 $264,838 Senior Research Engineer $ 6,825.00 38.50%$2,628 $ 44,686.22 38.50%$17,204 $ 8,112.78 38.50%$3,123 $0 $0 $22,955 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$85,566 $32,943 $560,237 $215,691 $101,711 $39,159 $0 $0 $0 $0 $287,793 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): UAF's fringe benefit rate of 14.3% is calculated on total salary and wages and includes the employer contribution towards health insurance (medical and dental), disability and group life insurance, and paid time off (PTO). INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. ______ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* __x____ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 1 EXAMPLE!!! Visit to PV manufacturer 2 2 $250 $500 $100 $160 $2,020 Current GSA rates Planning meeting Fairbanks Anchorage 2 2 $360 $400 $250 $2,020 Most recent experience. Planning meeting Fairbanks Anchorage 1 1 $180 $400 $125 $705 Most recent experience. $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $2,725 Domestic Travel Rural site visits to each participating community Anchorage Rural Alaska 40 1 $360 $750 $200 $52,400 Most recent experience. Planning meetings Fairbanks Anchorage 6 2 $360 $400 $250 $12,120 Most recent experience. $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $64,520 Domestic Travel Evaluation meetings Fairbanks Anchorage 2 2 $360 $400 $250 $2,020 Most recent experience. $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $2,020 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $69,265 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3,4,5 EXAMPLE!!! Thermal shock chamber 2 $70,000 $140,000 Vendor Quote - Attached Reliability testing of PV modules- Task 4.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a vendor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the vendor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a vendor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 4,6 EXAMPLE!!! Wireless DAS components 10 $360.00 $3,600 Catalog price For Alpha prototype - Task 2.4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 2,4 EXAMPLE!!! XYZ Corp.Partner to develop optimal lens for Gen 2 product. Cost estimate based on personnel hours. $48,000 $32,000 $16,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # Vendor Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 6 EXAMPLE!!! ABC Corp.Vendor for developing robotics to perform lens inspection. Estimate provided by vendor. $32,900 $86,500 $119,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task # FFRDC Name/Organization Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Contractual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to subrecipients, vendors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Subrecipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 50% of total award costs. These subrecipient forms may be completed by either the subrecipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the subrecipient's forms must match the subrecipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 3. Vendors (including contractors): List all vendors and contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Vendor cost with total project costs of $250,000 or more, a Vendor quote must be provided. A vendor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3 EXAMPLE ONLY!!! Three days of excavation for platform site $28,000 Engineering estimate Site must be prepared for construction of platform. Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a vendor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 5 EXAMPLE!!! Grad student tuition - tasks 1-3 $16,000 Established UCD costs Support of graduate students working on project Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)55.00%55.00%55.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 10.00%10.00%10.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $0 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $106,241 Total indirect costs requested:$11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 Additional Explanation (as needed): Facilities and administrative (F&A) costs are negotiated with the Office of Naval Research. The FY23-FY26 predetermined rate for sponsored research at UAF is calculated at 55% of Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each subaward in excess of $25,000. A copy of the rate agreement is available at: http://www.alaska.edu/cost-analysis/negotiation-agreements/. Detailed Budget Justification Modified Total Direct Costs You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. ___X__ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application, and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. ______ There is not a current, federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available*. *When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided by your DOE contact, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in performance of the proposed project. Additionally, any non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200—States and Local Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph D.1.b, may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely.As described in §200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. If chosen, this methodology once elected must be used consistently for all Federal awards until such time as a non-Federal entity chooses to negotiate for a rate, which the non-Federal entity may apply to do at any time. i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,230,265 0.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Vendors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 $138,930 $0 $138,930 2.Budget Period 2 $927,528 $0 $927,528 3.Budget Period 3 $163,806 $0 $163,806 4.Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $1,230,265 $0 $1,230,264 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $91,621 $566,433 $108,911 $0 $0 $766,966 $32,943 $215,691 $39,159 $0 $0 $287,793 $2,725 $64,520 $2,020 $0 $0 $69,265 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $127,289 $846,644 $150,090 $0 $0 $1,124,024 $11,641 $80,884 $13,716 $0 $0 $106,241 $138,930 $927,528 $163,806 $0 $0 $1,230,265 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:Alaska Energy Authority 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Community Benefits Plan Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) has a successful record partnering both as owner and project manager in community capital projects and in advancing State energy goals and priorities. AEA also has established relationships with tribal entities, local governments, and other State depart- ments, with a focus on workforce, permitting, and community development. Early engagement with these stakeholders will help to ensure that the project is responsive to local energy plans and goals. AEA administers the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program – an endowed fund source with more than $1 billion in assets – that provides economic assistance to communities and residents of rural electric utilities where the cost of electricity can be three to five times higher than for customers in more urban areas of the state. AEA, along with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), administers the program that serves 82,000 Alaskans in 193 communities that are largely reliant on diesel fuel for power generation. AEA works to address and overcome chal- lenges within these disadvantaged communities on a monthly basis. AEA and Alaska’s public and cooperative utilities are accustomed to engaging with local govern- ments and tribal entities through permitting and regulatory processes for rural energy projects. The applicable projects would establish milestones urging earlier dialogue with local govern- ments and Tribal entities. These conversations should begin sufficiently early in order to inform project development in response to local communities’ needs and concerns. Local governments and Tribal entities are uniquely situated to help identify the most effective actions the projects can take toward partnerships that advance workforce issues; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and the flow of project benefits to disadvantaged communities. AEA and partner utilities have extensive experience engaging with residents and businesses in town halls and similar formats. AEA is a public entity with obligations to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska, in the public interest. In addition, AEA’s Circuit Rider Program provides skilled labor to address, diagnose, and repair rural powerhouses. In addition, the Circuit Rider Program provides training for local communities to create skilled power plant labor. As rural microgrids shift towards renewable systems, AEA will ensure that the Circuit Rider Program adapts and continues to support and train local communities in the use of improved power systems. This project’s Community Benefits Plan anticipates that community benefits will accrue within each project period as part of project activities, and as part of its objectives and outcomes. Aligning Project with Best Practices An NREL study on distributed renewables for Arctic energy1, found that community buy-in and ownership is essential, as this extract demonstrates and the project anticipates and responds to. AEA knows that projects must be community-driven and supported, with community members understanding and participating in the value proposition of moving to a stronger reliance on renewable energy. It is critical to include and receive buy-in from key stakeholders like utility managers, operators, project champions, and local government officials. Beyond project devel- opment, community engagement must be ongoing, and continue after the project is deployed to maintain community support and ownership. Long-term engagement is an essential element of sustainability. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY • For example, a strong community focus enabled a successful project in Kongiganak: the community trained and retained a local workforce, built community trust through presen- tations in village meetings, and received community leader and tribal council support. In Galena, hiring and training an all-local workforce provided enhanced job satisfaction, increased local capacity, and strengthened the community overall. AEA is planning to ensure that proposed systems should be commensurate with the training, education, and availability of the local workforce, through the on-going relationship with the Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) and the appropriate labor unions. AEA knows that the use of community-appropriate technology reduces system failures and the community’s dependence on long-term, expensive, external assistance. Local capacity will determine how simple or complex the system should be, and what assets it can include. Robust operations and maintenance plans must be considered from the start, and technical assistance provided to complete and maintain these. Communities have found that small, easy-to-maintain pilot systems with solar photovoltaics (PV), batteries, and/or wind can be a good stepping-stone to larger, more complex systems with higher contributions of renewable energy. Community-based technical capacity may be increased over time through community education and expanded experience from operating power systems. Many communities have been successful in engaging local youth, with energy providers gaining traction by speaking through credible, communi- ty-based educators. • In Kotzebue, installing small wind turbines provided the technical capacity for subsequent installations of much larger wind turbines, batteries, and solar PV systems. In Galena, a focus on community education and training allowed the community to perform increasing portions of system maintenance locally and has enabled it to set its sights on future solar projects. AEA knows that having a regional or statewide pool of support resources increases the like- lihood of success, which its cohort and technical assistance approach will support. Having a network of knowledgeable people actively engaged in operating projects, such as an energy cooperative, that can provide targeted education or technical knowledge, increases the likeli- hood of project success, and can allow communities to install systems that they may not be able to support on their own. Allowing a process for communities to access this network will stream- line the renewable energy development process including planning, financing, installation, and operations. Such a network is especially helpful for small communities with limited human capital. A face-to-face knowledge sharing network would increase the number and success rate of community projects. • Kongiganak is part of the Chaninik Wind Group (CWG), which helps secure wind energy project funding, shares training expenses, builds local capacity, and reduces energy costs. The CWG has built projects in each of its six member communities, leveraging the capacity built from each successful project. AEA will identify and support competent, practical project managers that are required to ensure the project’s success. The technical, financial, managerial, and community engagement compo- nents of a renewable energy project must be overseen by experienced personnel to help ensure effective delivery of projects. Managers must be able to validate project proposals from engi- neers and external entities, compare those proposals to community needs, and decline when necessary. Some communities also face rapid turnover of bookkeeping and managerial staff, RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY reducing their financial and managerial capacity for projects. Such seemingly minor problems can have long-term impacts. • In Kodiak, early renewable projects failed due to insufficient engineering and project management. Since then, a renewed focus on these components has enabled successful projects. Community and Labor Engagement Engaging with labor unions, local governments, and Tribal entities. AEA and partners have established, long-term, and mutually valued relationships with the orga- nized labor community in Alaska. Larger development often occurs within collective bargaining agreements of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the various trade unions, depending on location. While this is very much about scale, the Alaska approach will be to engage its labor partners early to initiate discussions toward labor agreements and overall benefits of the project. Alaska Municipal League (AML) will establish a relationship with the Alaska American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO) to assess the impact of project development on future community benefits and labor engagement. AEA has included in its timeline and milestones to discuss with organized labor the need for local and targeted hiring goals, card-check neutrality, and possible provisions advancing programs to attract, train and retain new workers. * Milestone: Produce summary of labor perspectives on rural renewable energy development and benefits thereof. AML is a critical part of the project’s community engagement, as it represents all city and borough (county-equivalent) governments in the state. While AEA and other partners are accustomed to engaging with local and Tribal governments through permitting and regulatory processes for capital projects, AML will be in a position to reach out directly to incorporate municipal perspectives and priorities into the project design and outputs. At the same time, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) presents incredible opportunities to work with Tribal governments and regional Tribal organizations to ensure that Tribal engagement is bene- ficial to the project and community. The project anticipates that community engagement will be initiated early and conducted often to inform project development and implementation. Local and Tribal governments are uniquely situated to help identify the most effective actions the projects can take toward partnerships that advance workforce issues; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and the flow of project benefits to disadvantaged communities. * Milestone: Establish municipal/Tribal working group to inform process and final product. Workforce and Community Agreements Partners anticipate that there will be opportunities for workforce or community strategies to be established as a direct result of the project. AML will be responsible through its stake- holder engagement role to work with community leaders to identify ways in which the project benefits can best accrue to the community. This will include planning for environmental justice, carbon reduction, workforce development, shared procurement, local hire, and asset management, including maintenance and operations planning and technical assistance. AML will reference DOE’s Community Benefit Agreement Toolkit2, recognizing that it doesn’t apply the same to federal projects as private, its intended purpose. The outcome of the CBA will be CBAs 40% percent of benefits should be allocated to communities of color, Indigenous peoples, RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY low-income communities, and other marginalized groups. Each project will evaluate the oppor- tunity for workforce agreements, as well, which will help ensure equity for women, people of color, and other historically disadvantaged or underrepresented groups in the project’s imple- mentation. Project sponsors will work through a facilitated community stakeholder process to identify ways in which workforce goals will be met. Goals include local hire, family-supporting jobs (wage parity), health insurance, diverse workforce, diverse workforce participation, and resources for continuing education and certification that result in a highly skilled workforce. Contractor solicitation should reference these goals as part of criteria for an award. * Milestone: Community Benefit Strategies will be established with each participating commu- nity, and Workforce Agreements with project sponsors. Approach to apprenticeships and local hiring goals AML will maintain a local workforce availability and hire tracking system throughout the life of the project, enabling local hire goals to be met and cross-promoting hire between projects that might occur within a region. This system will also track municipal and tribal workforce in-kind contributions, staff time that is applied to the project planning and implementation. The project team will work with the University of Alaska (UA), AVTEC, and Alaska Works Partnership to identify ways in which training, apprenticeships and local hiring can benefit from microgrid implementation. In addition, the project will reference the Alaska Workforce Investment Board’s strategies for workforce development, found in its Combined Plan for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity3. The UA is an important mechanism for workforce development, including for apprenticeships. 20 years ago, the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) created the Associate of Applied Science in Apprenticeship Technologies. The University of Alaska System, the UAA Community and Technical College, and several joint apprenticeship training programs have joined the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) Registered Apprenticeship-College Consortium, which simplifies the process for an apprentice to earn college credit. Alaska Works Partnership is a non-profit organization that gives Alaskans access to jobs and careers in the construction industry. Alaska Works educates Alaskans about good paying jobs, teaches basic skills, and establishes pathways for Alaskans to learn skills that last a lifetime and earn good pay with health care and retirement benefits. Alaska Works was created by Alaska’s Building and Construction Trade and their apprenticeship training trusts in 1996. Alaska Works partners with industry employers, community organizations, educators and the State of Alaska to develop Alaska’s workforce. Several thousand Alaskans living in over 140 communities have gotten a start in construction through one of their programs, illustrated below. • Apprenticeship Outreach • Alaska Construction Academy • Helmets to Hardhats • Women in the Trades • Building Maintenance * Milestone: Training and outreach includes pathways to apprenticeship and training programs. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Documented community and labor partnerships Both AML and ANTHC have inclusive and documented community partnerships. As member organizations, the two include municipal and Tribal governments in important ways and will ensure these perspectives and priorities are included in project design and implementation, and that outcomes are consistent with community interests. AML is working toward a teaming agreement with the Alaska AFL-CIO, which will inform future labor engagement. Labor agree- ments are otherwise developed at the project level and specific to community needs. AML will work through the Alaska AFL-CIO to provide project sponsors the opportunity to engage labor councils within regional districts. * Provide documentation of teaming agreement with the Alaska AFL-CIO in first year. Investing in the American Workforce This project has the ability to result in increased investment in America’s workforce. This project results in job creation and business development, and a team subcommittee will work through AML to engage with the Alaska Small Business Development Center to identify ways in which this can be maximized, not just in project development and delivery, but in the long-term. USDA’s Economic Risk Assessment Dashboard tracks COVID, Community Distress, Unemployment, and Social Equity and is a good example of where economic benefits might accrue. It produces a dashboard for Alaska that identifies fully half the state by geography as distressed, more than any other state in the nation. The majority of project-funded activities will occur in these distressed regions of Alaska. Creation and retention of quality jobs 1) Plan to attract, train, and retain a skilled and well qualified workforce. The majority of the work involved will be by partner staff, current and future. Contracts from the project sponsor will be available to partners, depending on scope and competency, and the goal of the project team is to maximize the investment in that workforce. In this way the project team can ensure that it is able to foster safe, healthy, and inclusive workplaces with equal opportunity, free from harassment and discrimination. In addition, the partners have considered ways in which to make investments in training, education, and skill development and supporting the corresponding mobility of workers to advance in their careers. The project will assess collec- tive bargaining agreements as identified through the life of the project. Figure 1: Programs offered by Alaska Works Partnership. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 6 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY i. Wages, benefits, and other worker support provided. The project sponsor and partners approach to quality jobs means that project staff will have (1) fair, transparent, and equitable pay that exceeds the local average wage for an industry, while delivering; (2) basic benefits (e.g., paid leave, health insurance, retirement/savings plan); (3) providing workers with an environment in which to have a collective voice; and (4) helps the employee develop the skills and experiences necessary to advance along a career path. In addition, the partners will offer good jobs that provide (5) predictable scheduling, and a safe, healthy, and accessible workplace devoid of hostility and harassment. With good jobs, (6) employees are properly classified with the limited use of independent contractors and tempo- rary workers. Workers have a (7) statutorily protected right to a free and fair choice to join a union under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). ii. Commitments to support workforce education and training. The partners will encourage project staff to participate in training programs and encourage contractors to offer paid time for employees to participate in skills training. This will include the provision of personalized, modularized, and flexible skill development opportunities, such as on-demand and self-directed virtual training. This will be included as part of the cohort support system established through the project. The project will identify and provide continuing educa- tion programs for employees to earn credentials and degrees relevant to their career pathways. * Milestone: Include workforce education and training opportunities in training and technical assistance. * Produce a guide for communities that includes methods by which to reduce employee turn- over costs for employers, increases productivity from a committed and engaged workforce, and promotes a stable workforce for projects in the community. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility The project team recognizes the value of a meaningful and targeted approach to advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The following is a description of the methodology the team will implement in project design and implementation. Equity: Project partners have shared commitments to 1) build a diverse workforce, supported by equitable operations and policies, and establish an informed culture that delivers authentic inclusivity; 2) promote economic opportunity for Alaskans through transportation investments, including working with businesses owned by Black, Indigenous, People of Color, women, and others who have been historically and/or are currently marginalized; 3) utilize the viewpoints of those who reside in the communities and who are likely to be affected by the outcomes of the project; and 4) invest in the protection of marginalized communities from environmental hazards. Diversity: Project partners have shared commitments to 1) a workforce that is talented, diverse, and committed to fostering a safe, fair, and inclusive workplace; 2) ensure all voices, regardless of social identity or social demographics, are heard and their views influence project decisions; 3) work with stakeholder groups to aid in communication with the community and project personnel. Inclusion: Project partners have shared commitments to 1) include the diverse perspectives within this project’s scope and deployment; 2) leveraging investments and increasing path- ways to opportunity for minority-owned and disadvantaged business enterprises, and for individuals who face systemic barriers; 3) meaningful engagement with communities that are diverse and underrepresented in the creation and implementation of the programs and projects RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1. Justice 40 Initiative AEA’s rural microgrid transformation is a statewide effort that will result in proj- ects in approximately 20 communities. The project team has utilized a variety of tools to assess disadvantage. EPA’s EJScreen identifies areas of the state experiencing low income, for instance. This is generally consis- tent with where Power Cost Equalization (PCE) communities fall in AEA’s 10 rural energy that impact the daily lives of their communities by creating more transparent, inclusive, and on-going consultation and collaboration process; 4) ensure the project includes practices based on community engagement to avoid harm to frontline and vulnerable; and 5 provide training to staff to promote inclusion internally and externally. Accessibility: Project partners have share commitments to 1) strengthen accountability poli- cies and procedures, create a more accessible and disability-inclusive workplace, and foster a greater respect for religious diversity; 2) ensure that reasonable accommodations are handled with tact and care to provide community members as well as employees the opportunity to fully participate in project activities; 3) develop and implement a process to Increase awareness of accessibility tools and disability inclusion; 4) review and evaluate disability inclusion policies and practices in crisis and emergency management including, but not limited to, planning and response for pandemics, disasters, and evacuations in the domestic context; 5) examine options to enhance technological accessibility; and 6) increase awareness of religious accommodations. Figure 2: EPA EJScreen Low Income Regions in Alaska. Figure 3: 193 PCE Communities that AEA works with monthly. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY City/Borough FIPS*Pop.Rural (OMB) National SVI* Ranking (CDC) APP* (DOT) DDA* (HUD) Distressed Communities Aleutians East Borough 2013 3,515 Yes Moderate to High No Yes No Aleutians West Census Area 2016 5,723 Yes Low to Moderate No Yes No Bethel Census Area 2050 18,216 Yes High Yes Yes Yes Bristol Bay Borough 2060 877 Yes Low to Moderate No No Yes Valdez- Cordova Census Area 2063 9,202 No Low to Moderate No No Yes Denali Borough 2068 2,059 Yes Low No Yes Yes Dillingham Census Area 2070 5,000 Yes High No Yes Yes Haines Borough 2100 2,474 Yes Low No No Yes Hoonah- Angoon Census Area 2105 2,151 Yes Low to Moderate No No Yes Ketchikan Gateway Borough 2130 13,918 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Kodiak Island Borough 2150 13,345 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Kusilvak Census Area 2158 8,049 Yes High Yes No Yes Lake and Peninsula Borough 2164 1,587 Yes High No No Yes Nome Census Area 2180 10,008 Yes High No Yes Yes North Slope Borough 2185 9,872 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Northwest Arctic Borough 2188 7,671 Yes High No Yes Yes Wrangell- Petersburg Census Area 2195 5,910 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Prince of Wales – Hyder Census Area 2198 6,422 Yes High No No Yes Sitka 2220 8,458 Yes Low to Moderate No No No Skagway 2230 1,240 Yes Low No Yes No Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 2240 6,918 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Wrangell 2275 2,127 Yes Moderate to High No No Yes Yakutat 2282 662 Yes Moderate to High No Yes No Yukon- Koyukuk Census Area 2290 5,327 Yes High Yes No Yes regions, where high cost is relative to an average of three urban communities. Excluding the Railbelt, which accounts for 75% of Alaska’s population, this project will focus on eligible projects in rural communities that are considered disadvantaged or Tribal. Disadvantaged communities within the Railbelt will be eligible as long as they are also rural. The table below demonstrates for relevant census areas and boroughs (county equivalent), their FIPS identification for reference, population, Rural status according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), their social vulnerability index according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whether they are Areas of Persistent Poverty according to United State Department of Transportation (USDOT), whether they are difficult to develop according to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and whether the Denali Commission considers communities within Distressed. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 9 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY An equity assessment will be conducted as part of project identification and as part of the award process. This will include review of available datasets to ensure distribution of project benefits to 40% disadvantaged communities, and to structure ways in which project sponsors and contractors can implement strategies that maximize equitable benefits. 2. Identification of applicable benefits that are quantifiable, measurable, and trackable. The project’s technical point of contact at AEA will track project benefits that are quantifi- able and measurable. Baseline measures will be secured prior to project implementation, and measured at the conclusion of each project for a pre- and post-project assessment. Benefits Quantifiable Measure Tracking Decrease in Energy Burden Tbtu / Million $Site Energy Savings Energy Costs Savings 2009 Baseline – annual and cumulative Decrease in environmental exposure MMT CO2 Reduction 2009 Baseline – annual and cumulative Increase in access to low-cost capital Million $Capital availability AAHA report on access to capital Increase in job creation and training Job #s Jobs and training opportunities ASHBA report/DOL&WD Increase in clean energy jobs and enterprise creation Business #s Business development ASHBA report/AKSBDC Increase in community ownership Municipal code Adoption or revision Community reporting/AML Increased parity in clean energy tech- nology access and adoption Municipal code Energy technology reference Community reporting/AML 3. Anticipated Negative and Cumulative Environmental Impacts on disadvantaged communities. While EPA’s EJScreen does not include sufficient data to assess the potential impact of the project to disadvantaged communities, the project team recognizes the research that exists to describe the value and impact of renewable energy development generally. Fuel transportation to remote Alaskan communities is becoming more susceptible to climate-re- lated disruptions. In these communities, fuel is typically delivered by barge, which for inland communities is only available during the summer when the rivers are free of ice. Changes in river paths, low water levels, increasing sediments, or unexpected storms can put shipments at risk, leaving a community without the energy stores needed to meet high heating loads during the long winter. Alternative methods of delivery, such as ice roads and winter-based overland routes, are becoming less secure as the climate warms. The emergency alternative— flying diesel in on small planes or even by helicopter—increases costs exponentially, with some communities paying over $16/gallon (Hughes 2022). Burning diesel also releases greenhouse gases and other pollutants, accelerating climate change and reducing local air quality. The effects of climate change are being experienced acutely in Arctic regions like Alaska, as melting permafrost further reduces transportation options and puts building foundations at risk. Remote Alaskan communities have and will continue to lead in community-based renewable energy development, serving as an example for similar communities throughout the world. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Many communities have excellent wind, solar, hydropower or biomass resources waiting to be used. 69 Alaskan communities have so far integrated some form of renewable energy4 , and between 2014 and 2018, 5,210 households in rural Alaska received building energy efficiency improvements to reduce overall energy demand5. A variety of funding sources and programs are available to support communities in the complex transition to renewable energy Remote locations may be rich in renewable energy sources, but the intermittent nature makes their inte- gration into the power grid a challenge. AEA’s approach to innovative microgrid solutions includes grid stabilization technology that enables high penetration of renewable power generation, and distributed control systems that provide intelligent power management and efficient hybrid power plant operation. By addressing integration issues, AEA is maximizing deployment of locally based renewable energy resources. Energy planning can offer enhanced protection against the threats of natural disasters and terrorism to make our communities more resilient, sustainable and livable for generations to come, which lowers the price of mitigation for building owners. The many challenges to public health and safety and environmental sustainability in our increasingly complex global society call for a holistic approach to public policy development and business models, including how we construct buildings. Thoughtful consideration of “performance goals” prior to taking action is important for budget planning and for establishing priorities, such as: public health and safety; protection of ecosystems and the important functions they serve; accessibility and mobility for all citizens; affordable housing; and economic sustainability. Implementation of new policies and practices should start by identifying the intersections and synergies that will achieve the perfor- mance goals (which may change) in the most responsible and cost-effective way possible. USDA Rural Development has data identifying Distressed Energy Communities6, which covers a large swath of Alaska. These are regions that will benefit most from locally sourced renewable energy projects. This will be part of the project review process for evaluation of eligibility and competitiveness. 4. Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities. Disadvantaged communities will directly and indirectly benefit from the outcomes of the project activities. By inclusive engagement in project development, scoping, and implementation, disadvantaged communities will be exposed to learning opportunities that will enable them to improve current practices and policies. Upon completion, the projects will provide public health and safety benefits to communities. * Milestone: Stakeholder exit interviews indicate benefits from process and outcomes, and incorporation of asset management principles for long-term sustainability. One of the hallmarks of this project will be the high level of technical assistance provided to project sponsors and to potential applicants. • A cohort approach – Each year’s project awardees will participate in an ever-expanding cohort, which will feature the addition of project awardees in the following years. Awardees will participate in quarterly web-based sessions that provide resources and trainings on project and grant management, asset management, maintenance and operations, and gover- nance and financial sustainability. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY • Technical assistance – Potential applicants, or applicants whose applications aren’t accepted in an award cycle, will be provided additional levels of support by project partners. AML and ANTHC will provide project development and application support to strengthen capacity for applications to be more successful, not just through this program but for other federal opportunities. • Leveraging financial opportunities – Funded projects will be evaluated by a team at AIDEA and in collaboration with project partners to determine feasibility of leveraging private capital, or other funding sources, to maximize the available federal funding and to increase the overall local contribution. This process will also identify ways in which rates will have to be structured for future maintenance and operations. Monitoring and Evaluation AEA will ensure that milestones are being met and that communities receive support necessary to track and report quarterly progress that includes surveying of stakeholders to determine the extent to which projects are on track to achieve beneficial outcomes for disadvantaged commu- nities. Communities with little capacity will receive support from AML and ANTHC to track and report without adding to their operational burdens. The project team has built into the performance periods a gap year during which extensive process review will identify any weaknesses in the program delivery. Project sponsors will be inter- viewed to learn about challenges and solutions, which will be applied to redevelopment of the program, as necessary, to strengthen implementation through the life of the rest of the project. Figure 4: USDA RD Distressed Energy Communities. RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION | COMMUNITY BENEFITS PLAN 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY The final year of the project will ensure that all microgrid conversions are completed in a timely and effective manner, consistent with scope and objectives. The project team will complete its evaluation process with an in-person workshop that includes a comprehensive review of all projects, project delivery, stakeholder engagement, and community benefits. A summary of findings will be released as a result of the project, developed in collaboration with participating communities and project sponsors, and shared with those communities and the public at large. This approach will ensure that learning drives future performance. Endnotes 1 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84391.pdf 2 https://www.energy.gov/diversity/community-benefit-agreement-cba-toolkit 3 https://awib.alaska.gov/pdf/WIOA_plan_2022-2023.pdf 4 McMahon et al. 2022 5 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, 2018 6 https://ruraldevelopment.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index. Figure 5: Twin Hills, Alaska. Prime or Sub Name City State Zip Code + 4 Prime Alaska Energy Authority Anchorage Alaska 99503-2401 Sub Alaska Municipal League Juneau Alaska 99801-1245 Sub Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Anchorage Alaska 99508-5909 Sub Alaska Center for Energy and Power Fairbanks Alaska 99775-5402 Sub Rural Alaska Tribes and Utilities Statewide Alaska Locations of Work (DE-FOA-0002740) Confirmation Thank you for submitting your grant application package via Grants.gov. Your application is currently being processed by the Grants.gov system. Once your submission has been processed, Grants.gov will send email messages to advise you of the progress of your application through the system. Over the next 24 to 48 hours, you should receive two emails. The first will confirm receipt of your application by the Grants.gov system, and the second will indicate that the application has either been successfully validated by the system prior to transmission to the grantor agency or has been rejected due to errors. Please do not hit the back button on your browser. If your application is successfully validated and subsequently retrieved by the grantor agency from the Grants.gov system, you will receive an additional email. This email may be delivered several days or weeks from the date of submission, depending on when the grantor agency retrieves it. You may also monitor the processing status of your submission within the Grants.gov system by clicking on the “Track My Application” link listed at the end of this form. Note: Once the grantor agency has retrieved your application from Grants.gov, you will need to contact them directly for any subsequent status updates. Grants.gov does not participate in making any award decisions. IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you do not receive a receipt confirmation and either a validation confirmation or a rejection email message within 48 hours, please contact us. The Grants.gov Contact Center can be reached by email at support@grants.gov, or by telephone at 1-800-518-4726. Always include your Grants.gov tracking number in all correspondence. The tracking numbers issued by Grants.gov look like GRANTXXXXXXXXX. If you have questions please contact the Grants.gov Contact Center: support@grants.gov 1-800-518-4726 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Closed on federal holidays. The following application tracking information was generated by the system: Grants.gov Tracking Number:GRANT13888586 F3N8ZSHJXUH8UEI: Karin St. ClairSubmitter's Name: CFDA Number:81.254 CFDA Description:Grid Infrastructure Deployment and Resilience Funding Opportunity Number:DE-FOA-0002740 Funding Opportunity Description:BIL Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships ( GRIP) Agency Name:National Energy Technology Laboratory Application Name of this Submission:Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation Date/Time of Receipt: https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/spoExit.jsp?p=web/grants/applicants/track-my-application.html&tracking_num=GRANT13888586 TRACK MY APPLICATION – To check the status of this application, please click the link below: It is suggested you Save and/or Print this response for your records. May 18, 2023 05:18:30 PM EDT 1 Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund Capitalization Grant Program – Funding Allocations by State, Identification of Priority States, and Allocation Formula Total 40502 Funding Allocation by State (Alphabetical Order) Highlighted states indicate priority state Alabama $8,017,300 Alaska $4,569,780 American Samoa $544,210 Arizona $1,660,180 Arkansas $6,391,870 California $6,595,810 Colorado $1,602,890 Connecticut $1,247,230 Delaware $729,270 District of Columbia $4,431,790 Florida $3,803,700 Georgia $2,413,600 Guam $561,950 Hawaii $756,900 Idaho $885,100 Illinois $15,305,750 Indiana $9,569,310 Iowa $6,766,360 Kansas $6,415,220 Kentucky $7,719,310 Louisiana $8,842,900 Maine $845,120 Maryland $1,657,710 Massachusetts $1,865,970 Michigan $12,773,690 Minnesota $1,854,610 Mississippi $1,177,910 Missouri $9,149,840 Montana $4,884,800 Nebraska $5,600,420 Nevada $1,021,660 New Hampshire $813,450 New Jersey $2,349,120 New Mexico $5,440,860 New York $4,345,430 North Carolina $2,358,830 North Dakota $4,641,870 Northern Marianas $541,760 Ohio $3,202,320 Oklahoma $7,266,050 Oregon $1,300,570 Pennsylvania $3,306,830 Puerto Rico $1,050,860 Rhode Island $746,060 South Carolina $1,518,370 South Dakota $4,650,600 Tennessee $9,623,010 Texas $22,250,630 U.S. Virgin Islands $561,250 Utah $1,109,810 Vermont $674,070 Virginia $10,932,870 Washington $1,862,600 West Virginia $5,433,380 Wisconsin $1,881,930 Wyoming $4,475,310 2 Identification of Priority States Section 40501 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) defines a priority state as: “Among the 15 States with the highest per-capita combined residential and commercial sector energy consumption, as most recently reported by the Energy Information Administration; OR among the 15 States with highest annual per-capita energy-related carbon emissions by State, as most recently reported by the Energy Information Administration.” A state that meets either definition is a priority state. Per capita residential and commercial sector energy consumption data are sourced from the Energy Information Administration’s State Energy Data System, Total Energy Consumption Estimates per Capita by End-Use Sector, Ranked by State, 2019 (Table C14).1 Per capita energy-related carbon emissions data are sourced from the Energy Information Administration’s Environment Data, Per Capita Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions by State, 2019 (Table 4). Based on the above data sources, there are seven states that appear on both lists for a total of 22 priority states and the District of Columbia. Funding Allocation Formula Section 40502 of the IIJA specifies that 40 percent of the funding go to states that are eligible for funding under the State Energy Program, in accordance with the allocation formula in 10 CFR 420.11. All states, territories, and the District of Columbia receive funding under the 40 percent “base” funding. Additionally, section 40502 of the IIJA specifies that 60 percent supplemental shall go to priority states in accordance with a formula determined by the Secretary. The supplemental funding allocation formula is as follows: Step 1 • 50% allocated based on equal distribution for each priority state • 25% allocated based on number of households above each state’s average energy burden 2 • 25% allocated based on each state’s number of small businesses 3 Step 2 • Any state with an excess of $15 million in supplemental funding under the step 1 calculation receives a maximum of $15 million in supplemental funding as required in statute, and all funds exceeding the $15 million maximum are reallocated to the remaining states and District of Columbia according to the formula outlined in step 1. 1 Only per capita residential and commercial sector energy consumption are considered in determining Priority States (industrial and transportation energy consumption are excluded). 2 Data is sourced from DOE’s Low-Income Energy Affordability Tool available online at: Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool | Department of Energy. 3 Data is sourced from the Small Business Administration’s Small Business Profiles for the States, District of Columbia, and the U.S. (2021) available online at: 2021 Small Business Profiles For The States, The District of Columbia, and The U.S. – SBA's Office of Advocacy. OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 BUDGET INFORMATION - Non-Construction Programs 2. Program/Project Title1. Program/Project Identification No. State Energy Program: Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan FundEE0010323 Alaska Energy Authority3. Name and Address 4. Program/Project Start Date 5. Completion Date 08/01/2023 08/01/2028 813 W Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 995032407 Total (g) Non-Federal (f) Federal (e) Non-Federal (d) New or Revised BudgetEstimated Unobligated Funds Federal (c) Federal Catalog No. (b) Grant Program Function or Activity (a) SECTION A - BUDGET SUMMARY 81.041 $ 0.00 $ 4,569,780.001. Federal $ 4,569,780.00 2. 3. 4. $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 4,569,780.00 $ 0.005. TOTAL $ 4,569,780.00 SECTION B - BUDGET CATEGORIES Grant Program, Function or Activity Total6. Object Class Categories (5)(4)(3)(2)(1)DOE a. Personnel $ 82,580.00 $ 82,580.00 b. Fringe Benefits $ 0.00 $ 0.00 c. Travel $ 0.00 $ 0.00 d. Equipment $ 0.00 $ 0.00 e. Supplies $ 0.00 $ 0.00 f. Contract $ 4,476,442.00 $ 4,476,442.00 g. Construction $ 0.00 $ 0.00 h. Other Direct Costs $ 0.00 $ 0.00 i. Total Direct Charges $ 4,559,022.00 $ 4,559,022.00 j. Indirect Costs $ 10,758.00 $ 10,758.00 k. Totals $ 4,569,780.00 $ 4,569,780.00 7. Program Income $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Standard Form 424A (Rev. 7-97) Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 Previous Edition Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET JUSTIFICATION FOR FORMULA GRANTS Applicant: Alaska Energy Authority Budget period: 08/01/2023 - 08/01/2028 Award number: EE0010323 1. PERSONNEL - Prime Applicant only (all other participant costs are listed in 6 below and form SF-242A, Section B. Line 6.f. Contracts and Sub-Grants). Positions to be supported under the proposed award and brief description of the duties of professionals: Position Description of Duties of Professionals AEA Direct #1 DOE Compliance and Reporting as required by BIL Sec 40502 AEA Direct #2 DOE Compliance and Reporting as required by BIL Sec 40502 Position Salary/Rate Time Direct Pay Direct Personnel Compensation: 389.9900 hours $41,557.33$106.56AEA Direct #1 389.9900 hours $41,023.05$105.19AEA Direct #2 $82,580.38Direct Pay Total 2. FRINGE BENEFITS a.Are the fringe cost rates approved by a Federal Agency? If so, identify the agency and date of latest rate agreement or audit below, and attach a copy of the rate agreement to the application. If a. above does not apply, please use this box (or an attachment) to further explain how your total fringe benefits costs were calculated. Your calculations should identify all rates used, along with the base they were applied to (and how the base was derived), and a total for each (along with grand total). If there is an established computation methodology approved for state-wide use, please provide a copy. Also, please fill out the table below with the Fringe Benefits Calculations. b. 3. TRAVEL Please provide the purpose of travel, such as professional conference(s), DOE sponsored meeting(s), project management meeting, etc. If there is any foreign travel, please identify. a. Purpose of Trip Number of Trips Cost Per Trip Total 4. EQUIPMENT - Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. List all proposed equipment below and briefly justify its need as it applies to the objectives of the award.a. Total Cost Justification of NeedEquipmentNumberUnit Cost Page 1 of 305/19/2023 EE0010323 Budget Justification b.Please provide a basis of cost such as vendor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc. and justify need. If the Equipment is being proposed as Cost Share and was previously acquired, please provide the source and value of its contribution to the project and logical support for the estimated value shown. If it is new equipment which will retain a useful life upon completion of the project, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. Also, please indicate whether the Equipment is being used for other projects or is 100% dedicated to the DOE project. 5. SUPPLIES - Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. List all proposed supplies below, the estimated cost, and briefly justify the need for the supplies as they apply to the objectives of the award. Note that all direct costs, including Supply items, may not be duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. a. General Category Justification of NeedCost Please provide a basis of cost for each item listed above and justify need. Examples include vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. b. 6. CONTRACTS AND SUBGRANTS - Provide the following information for New proposed subrecipients and subcontractors. For ongoing subcontractors and subrecipients, this information does not have to be restated here, if it is provided elsewhere in the application; under Name of Proposed Sub, indicate purpose of work and where additional information can be found (i.e weatherization subgrants, Annual File section IV.1). Total Cost Basis of Cost*Name of Proposed Sub and Associated Market Title Alaska Housing Finance Corporation $4,476,442.00 Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) will transfer the $4,569,780 EE RLF capitalization, net of AEA's direct and indirect costs related to program compliance and reporting as the prime recipient, to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) under an Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA), and accompanying Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). AHFC is aware of the 10% administrative cap, inclusive of AEA's portion (2%), and will be integrating the EE RLF into their existing energy efficiency and residential loan programs, as described in the master file. This is the same practice, with respect to the RSA/MOA with AHFC, which is done for the standard State Energy Program (SEP) state formula allocation, of which AHFC administers a portion of the SEP funds, under their existing programs. $4,476,442.00Contracts and Subgrants Total *For example, Competitive, Historical, Quote, Catalog 7. OTHER DIRECT COSTS - Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs may not be duplicative of costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. Examples are: conference fees, subscription costs, printing costs, etc. Please provide a General Description, Cost and Justification of Need.a. General Description Justification of NeedCost Page 2 of 305/19/2023 EE0010323 Budget Justification Please provide a basis of cost for each item listed above. Examples include vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. b. a. Are the indirect cost rates approved by a Federal agency? If so, identify the agency and date of latest rate agreement or audit and provide a copy of the rate agreement. 8. INDIRECT COSTS If the above does not apply, indicate the basis for computation of rates, including the types of benefits to be provided, the rate(s) used, and the cost base for each rate. You may provide the information below or provide the calculations separately. b. AEA currently utilizes the 10% de Minimis rate allowed under 2 CFR 200.414(f) for indirect costs. AEA is in the process of developing an indirect cost allocation plan (ICAP) and is working with independent contractor to develop a cost model to track and allocate indirect costs for federal cost recovery. AEA will seek approval of the ICAP by their cognizant agency as required . The name and phone number of the individual responsible for negotiating the State's indirect cost rates. Pamela Ellis 9077713981Name:Phone Number: Indirect Cost Account Direct Total Indirect Rate Total Indirect Indirect costs calculations: 2500 $25,000.00 $2,500.0010.0000 % 8258 $82,580.00 $8,258.0010.0000 % $10,758.00Indirect Costs Total Page 3 of 305/19/2023 SEO title : Admin   Revision status: Active (pending add)  1. Activity  Economic Development Education and Outreach Energy Security Funding and/or Financing Policy, Planning, and/or Program Development Program Management Technical Assistance Training and/or Workforce Development Technology Action Group (TAG)    2. State: AK      3. Sector  Agriculture / Agricultural Institutional Not Applicable Buildings Landlord / Tenant Private Sector Commercial Local Government Residential Federal Government Low / Limited Income Rural General Public Manufacturing State or Territory Government K­12 Schools Multi­state Collaboration Transportation Higher Education Non­building Infrastructure Tribal / Native American Industrial Non­profits Utilities    4. Technology and/or Topic Areas  Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicle Technologies Environmental Justice Appliance Efficiency or Standards Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies Audits and Assessments (Energy, Water, and Process)Geothermal Benchmarking Grid Modernization Biofuels Hydropower / Hydrokinetic Power Biomass Natural Gas Building Energy Codes or Standards Not Applicable Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage Propane Clean Energy / Clean Energy Technologies Renewable Energy Combined Heat and Power Resiliency Cybersecurity Smart Grid Distributed Energy Resources STEM Education Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure Solar Energy Affordability Storage Energy Certification Programs U.S. DOE Accelerators Energy Conservation U.S. DOE Clean Cities Energy Efficiency Waste to Energy / Solid Waste Minimization Energy Equity Water Nexus Energy Management Weatherization Energy Savings Performance Contracting Wind ENERGY STAR    5. Estimated annual energy savings:  MBtus     6. Description (executive summary of goals and objectives)*  U.S. Department of Energy STATE ENERGY PROGRAM (SEP) NARRATIVE INFORMATION WORKSHEET Grant: EE0010323; Recipient: Alaska Energy Authority; Program Year: 2022 PAGE, 05/19/2023 04:24:37 PM Page 1 / 5 Alaska Energy Authority Admin portion for reporting and compliance required as part of the EE RLF program.  This is reflected in the Form 424 and  the associated budget justification.     7. Program year milestones     8. Program year metrics  a. Specific metric activity (required)**  b. User specified metrics (optional)*  No records found      9. Program year funds by source  a. SEP grant (all funds in the approved budget)   b. Leveraged funds anticipated (outside approved budget)  Fund Source Planned Amount  Federal  Fund Source Type: Federal $93,338.00 Total $93,338.00  Fund Source Planned Amount  No records found  Total $0.00        *Please use additional pages if more space is needed.  **Mandatory requirement  Metric area: 11. Other  Metric: 11a. Administrative  This is an administrative activity Yes U.S. Department of Energy STATE ENERGY PROGRAM (SEP) NARRATIVE INFORMATION WORKSHEET Grant: EE0010323; Recipient: Alaska Energy Authority; Program Year: 2022 PAGE, 05/19/2023 04:24:37 PM Page 2 / 5 SEO title : AHFC EE RLF Revision status: Active (pending add) 1. Activity Economic Development Education and Outreach Energy Security Funding and/or FinancingPolicy, Planning, and/or Program Development Program Management Technical Assistance Training and/or Workforce Development Technology Action Group (TAG)   2. State: AK   3. Sector Agriculture / Agricultural Institutional Not Applicable Buildings Landlord / Tenant Private Sector Commercial Local Government Residential Federal Government Low / Limited Income Rural General Public Manufacturing State or Territory Government K-12 Schools Multi-state Collaboration Transportation Higher Education Non-building Infrastructure Tribal / Native American Industrial Non-profits Utilities   4. Technology and/or Topic Areas Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicle Technologies Environmental Justice Appliance Efficiency or Standards Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies Audits and Assessments (Energy, Water, and Process)Geothermal Benchmarking Grid Modernization Biofuels Hydropower / Hydrokinetic Power Biomass Natural Gas Building Energy Codes or Standards Not Applicable Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage Propane Clean Energy / Clean Energy Technologies Renewable Energy Combined Heat and Power Resiliency Cybersecurity Smart Grid Distributed Energy Resources STEM Education Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure Solar Energy Affordability Storage Energy Certification Programs U.S. DOE Accelerators Energy Conservation U.S. DOE Clean Cities Energy EfficiencyWaste to Energy / Solid Waste Minimization Energy Equity Water Nexus Energy Management Weatherization Energy Savings Performance Contracting Wind ENERGY STAR   5. Estimated annual energy savings:  MBtus   6. Description (executive summary of goals and objectives)* U.S. Department of Energy STATE ENERGY PROGRAM (SEP) NARRATIVE INFORMATION WORKSHEET Grant: EE0010323; Recipient: Alaska Energy Authority; Program Year: 2022 PAGE, 05/19/2023 04:24:37 PM Page 3 / 5 With the use of AHFC corporate funds the Energy Efficiency Rate Reduction option promotes energy efficiency of existing properties by encouraging a borrower to make improvements to their home that will increase the home’s energy efficiency. The borrower has one year from the Note date to make the improvements. The amount of the interest rate reduction is based on the energy improvements made to the home. The rate deduction starts at .125% and moves is one-eighth increments up to .625% depending on the increased efficiency of the home.   7. Program year milestones Milestone Description Planned Amount Loans Approved 35   8. Program year metrics a. Specific metric activity (required)** b. User specified metrics (optional)* No records found   9. Program year funds by source a. SEP grant (all funds in the approved budget) b. Leveraged funds anticipated (outside approved budget) Fund Source Planned Amount Federal Fund Source Type: Federal $4,476,442.00 Total $4,476,442.00 Fund Source Planned Amount Other (Alaska Housing Finance Corporation) Fund Source Type: Leveraged Leveraged Category: Other Agency: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation $3,500,000.00 Total $3,500,000.00     Metric area: 7. Financial Instruments Metric: 7b. Existing or new financial programs utilized/created, by sector, program type, and savings unit type Sector: Residential Program type: Interest rate buy-downs Savings unit type: Energy savings ($) Number of customers newly utilizing program (count)35 Private dollars leveraged (dollars)$0 Total dollars invested as a result of financial mechanism (dollars)$0 Projected energy, cost savings (user-specified units)0 Number of financial programs developed or updated (count)1 U.S. Department of Energy STATE ENERGY PROGRAM (SEP) NARRATIVE INFORMATION WORKSHEET Grant: EE0010323; Recipient: Alaska Energy Authority; Program Year: 2022 PAGE, 05/19/2023 04:24:37 PM Page 4 / 5 *Please use additional pages if more space is needed. **Mandatory requirement U.S. Department of Energy STATE ENERGY PROGRAM (SEP) NARRATIVE INFORMATION WORKSHEET Grant: EE0010323; Recipient: Alaska Energy Authority; Program Year: 2022 PAGE, 05/19/2023 04:24:37 PM Page 5 / 5 This worksheet should be completed as specified in Section III of the State Energy Program Application Package.     1. How will the grant funds be used? Please include a detailed explanation describing whether the plan is to establish a new revolving loan fund or use  an existing revolving loan fund. Additionally, please describe other federal or non­federal funds that the state is considering strategically deploying in  coordination with these funds.  The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) has an existing Energy Efficiency Rate Reduction Program to promote the energy efficiency of  existing homes. AHFC offers interest rate reductions to homebuyers for properties meeting certain criteria. Alaska Housing offers interest rate  reductions when financing new or existing energy efficient homes or when borrowers make energy improvements to an existing home. Any property  that can be energy rated, and otherwise eligible for Alaska Housing financing, may qualify for this program.  With the use of AHFC corporate funds the Energy Efficiency Rate Reduction option promotes energy efficiency of existing properties by  encouraging a borrower to make improvements to their home that will increase the home’s energy efficiency. The borrower has one year from the  Note date to make the improvements. The amount of the interest rate reduction is based on the energy improvements made to the home. The rate  deduction starts at .125% and moves is one­eighth increments up to .625% depending on the increased efficiency of the home.   It is AHFC’s intent to modify this program to increase the interest rate reduction higher than the existing $200,000 of the loan amount. With this  extra money we would be able to increase the level that the interest rate will blend at.    The addition of the federal funds will mean that this program will be able to reach a larger potential pool of users statewide and will have the ability  to last longer than if only corporate funds were used.     2. What is the need of eligible recipients for loans and grants in the state to conduct energy audits and retrofits? Please describe the basis for needing  assistance and how the state is contemplating the use of loans vs. grants in meeting the needs of different types of eligible recipients in the building  sub­sectors described in section 2.2 of this document.  The majority of homes built in Alaska were built in the 1980’s and are not up to date with the energy standards.  Many of these areas are  considered to be disadvantaged communities.     3. In the case of a Priority State seeking a supplemental capitalization grant under subsection (b)(2): Please justify the need for supplemental funding.  N/A     4. What are the expected benefits that building infrastructure and energy system upgrades and retrofits will have on communities in the state?  Energy efficient homes use energy more efficiently, with respect to both heating and power applications. The reduced heating and electric utility use  results in lower costs to the homeowner which equates to an equal increase in the homeowner’s discretionary income, which will result in a greater  quality of life.     5. How will mandatory metrics in section 6.3D of the application instructions (e.g., auditor’s projection of energy savings, loan performance metrics) be  collected?  Since 2020 an average of 83 homeowners have entered into this loan each year.  For those that choose to participate in this loan program, energy  audits will be performed on the dwelling and the homeowner will be provided with a list of recommended improvement options. The homeowner  will have the option to choose which improvements, if not all, will be made.  An energy audit will be done after such chosen improvements are  installed, to validate the increase in energy efficiency and possible savings.      6. What are the existing or potential partnerships the state will use to facilitate loan origination and servicing activities? Please describe the state’s  identified and preferred pathways to leverage capital (e.g., credit enhancements, utility rebates, and/or creative financing structures such as on­bill or  C­PACE), estimated target leveraging ratio, as well as existing or potential partnerships to drive loan uptake, marketing, and stakeholder engagement.  Partners may include but not be limited to utilities, financial institutions (including Community Development Financial Institutions), contractors, and  U.S. Department of Energy STATE ENERGY PROGRAM (SEP) STATE PLAN / MASTER FILE WORKSHEET (Grant Number: EE0010323, State: AK, Program Year: 2022) PAGE, 05/19/2023 04:24:12 PM Page 1 / 2 other public or private organizations.  There are no partnerships outside of AHFC.  In addition to the EE RLF, AHFC will continue to use corporate funds to operate this program.     7. How will loans and grants be prioritized for disadvantaged communities as defined by DOE? Please include a description of existing or potential  partnerships with financial institutions (e.g., Community Development Financial Institutions) as well as environmental justice and community groups,  and the extent to which the program will promote consumer protections and meaningfully engage, and benefit, underserved communities.  This program is projected to continue well past the initial funding sources.  All Alaskan communities will be eligible to participate.  Outreach will be  focused in rural Alaskan communities, including but not limited to, native housing authorities and individuals in disadvantaged communities.     8. How will loans and grants be used to maximize energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions through deep retrofits, beneficial  electrification, and other high­impact measures?  Any improvements to a home will result in energy being conserved with the occupant comfort levels remaining the same.  Elimination of inefficient  energy use is the most cost effective use of money.  Assuming that there is no change in the occupant’s behavior after the energy improvements have  been made, the occupant will be able to budget the savings and spend those savings on other necessities perhaps not procured as part of the initial  retrofit.  This would mean that the housing stock becomes more resilient, energy use is decreased, and greenhouse gas emissions are consequentially  lowered.  Retrofits may require the use of specialty trades such as solar or heat pump installers as the homes might need additional retrofits to support that  technology.     9. How will workforce resources and partnerships be leveraged for program implementation? Please describe existing or potential partnerships with  audit training and certification organizations, youth corps, labor unions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority serving institutions, non­ profit organizations, colleges, and trade schools.  Through workforce development grants, AHFC corporate funds, personal and private individual company resources will be used to train energy  auditors and increase the number of auditors available around the state.  Focus for these additional raters will be from rural and underserved  communities. These additional energy auditors will lower overall audit costs, owing to reduced site visit costs, and can increase the demand for  energy audits.  We currently have working relationships with the various Housing Authorities in Alaska (AHAA), the Cold Climate Research Center (CCHRC), the  University of Alaska, and Alaska Vocational Technical Center (ACTEC) a State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development  program.  Other partnerships include non­profits, private and public entities.     10. What technical assistance support from DOE will help address anticipated barriers the state may face? Please describe the barriers and desired  outcomes from the technical assistance.  No technical assistance support will be required from DOE.  We are a state­wide corporation already offering a similar service which is both  currently operational and successful. We will improve this service by making it more readily available and more attractive to those interested  Alaskans.  U.S. Department of Energy STATE ENERGY PROGRAM (SEP) STATE PLAN / MASTER FILE WORKSHEET (Grant Number: EE0010323, State: AK, Program Year: 2022) PAGE, 05/19/2023 04:24:12 PM Page 2 / 2 From:Williamson, Sean To:Spencer, Michael; Bell, Kelsie; "Jeff Pitkin" Cc:Kidd, Amy; Conner T. Erickson; EERevolvingLoanFund Subject:RE: RLF Call Date:Monday, May 15, 2023 10:16:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of AIDEA / AEA. Do not click Hyper Links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Mike, The environmental questionnaire (EQ-1) is not applicable and does not need to be submitted with the application. It is only applicable if you know you’re going to fall outside of a bounded category and know the project location. We do not expect states to have this information at the time of application. Thanks, From: Michael Spencer <mspencer@ahfc.us> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 1:55 PM To: Bell, Kelsie <kelsie.bell@hq.doe.gov>; Williamson, Sean <sean.williamson@hq.doe.gov>; 'Jeff Pitkin' <jeff.pitkin@outlook.com> Cc: Kidd, Amy <amy.kidd@hq.doe.gov>; 'Conner T. Erickson' <CErickson@akenergyauthority.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RLF Call Kelsie, one last question (only because your days are numbered whereby you can help me) Is the EQ-1 NEPA Environmental submission required as we are not going to touch the homes, but the homeowners will be doing any and all work? Thanks Mike Michael Spencer Energy Program Manager, Research & Rural Development 4300 Boniface Parkway | Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Direct: 907-330-8197 | Fax: 907-330-8247 | ahfc.us The information transmitted in this email and any attachments is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients. This message may be or may contain privileged and confidential communications. If you as the reader are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any retention, review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or the information contained is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG MEMORANDUM TO: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Bryan Carey, P.E., Director of Owned Assets DATE: June 21, 2023 RE: Railbelt Owned Asset Update Below is an update on the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Owned Assets. Alaska Intertie • FY24 Budget approved. • Vegetation Management & Preventative Maintenance plan is Was approved in March. The 7 year plan will be implemented this season. The most overgrown sections of the intertie have been cleared this season, as verified by AEA inspection in January. • Drafting Wildfire Mitigation Plan for both northern and southern interties. • State Var Compensator (SVC) service contract extended. • Working on the implementation plan the Railbelt Syncrophaser system which will provide real-time measurement and collection of data from Homer to Fairbanks, and bring our data collection system closer lower 48 utility standards. • Replacing the communications system between Anchorage and Fairbanks. Currently, communications are piggybacking on other systems, as such utility communication are a second priority. • High penetration inverter based resource study, and 230 kV impact study being developed for the intertie. • Upgrading/replacing the Snow Load Management System on the northern Intertie. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project • Project crew are constructing a new kit house at Bradley. • Normal operations at Bradley Lake hydroelectric as new hires learn the plant. • 2022 generation was lower than normal but stormy fall weather caused lake to fill up for winter. • Battle Creek diversion diverted in 2022 approximately 20% greater volume of water than used for application and economics. • Chugach Electric Association (CEA), designated by the BPMC to perform design and procurement for the AEA owned Sterling-Quartz (SSQ) section upgrade, competitively selected engineering and environmental contractors. Design is proceeding. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 • Removal of 69 kV Sterling to Quartz line was bid out. Lineworks LLC won bid and removed all poles by the end of March. Refuge and USFS have both given acceptance of completed removal work. • Applications for transmission and storage upgrades were submitted to Department of Energy (DOE) May 18, 2023. AEA was the elgible applicant for Topic 3. Scope is new transmission Soldotna to Healy. Anticipated cost of $826 million with DOE grant request of $413 million. • Dixon Diversion Project focusing on determining energy and making changes to lower needed construction and cost estimate this summer and fall. • AEA bonded Required Project Work in December. Proceeds $166 million. BPMC has decided to spend proceeds on 65% transmission and 35% battery energy storage system. Rural Transmission • Shungnak-Kobuk Tieline Transfer Agreement in draft form, to be sent to AVEC for review in June. • Craig-Klawok Tieline Transfer Agreement in draft form, to be sent to AP&T for review in June. • Bethel-Oscarville Tieline Transfer is pending confirmation AEA has not transferred ownership already. Once confirmed, transfer agreement will be drafted for AVEC to review. AEA has committed to reimburse AVEC for repair work up to $100,000 as part of the MOA agreement for transfer. 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG RGYAUTHORITY.ORG MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1, 2023 TO: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director THROUGH: Audrey Alstrom, P.E., Director, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency FROM: Taylor Asher, Project Manager SUBJECT: State Energy Program (SEP) Update SEP – Annual Allocation (Fiscal Year) The State Energy Program funds agency work in many capacities. Funding for this current fiscal year is categorized into activity titles: Program Management (Admin), Outreach and Education, AEEE Program Development, and Technical Assistance. The program funds the Alaska Energy Efficiency Partnership, a stakeholder group of over 50 public, private, and non-profit entities around Alaska working together toward a shared vision of making Alaska more energy efficient. SEP activities also include outreach and education in the state’s eleven energy regions, including the annual Power Pledge Challenge that has continued to grow and gain statewide media attention, resulting in higher participation of students across the state; the past fiscal year supported more than 1,200 kindergarten through twelfth-grade students from 20 schools in eight regions around the state in the Power Pledge Challenge. The program supports the Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group (AEVWG), including quarterly meetings, technical meetings, and the quarterly newsletter. The program also supports staff time to participate in the Nuclear, Wind, and Solar Working Groups. The FY24 budget is $480,580, split equally between Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and AEA. AHFC plans to use the funds for Building Monitoring, Data Management and Analysis, Energy Efficiency Outreach and Education, and Energy Rater and Inspector Training. SEP – Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act Bill AEA will receive an additional $3,661,930 in total funding to the program through the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) for FY22-FY26 (section 40109) via formula funds to State Energy Offices for any eligible SEP activity, to be spent over five years, with no match required. Due to federal receipt authority, AEA has received $795,000, with the remaining amount expected on July 1, 2023. The bill adds mandatory electric transmission and distribution planning to SEP and strengthens transportation and alternative fuel planning options within the allowable SEP activities. The IIJA updated the program requirements to ensure that every state has a State Energy Security Plan (SESP) that is in place, updated, exercised, and meets specific guidelines set forth by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The plan DOE has on file for Alaska is from 2004 and does not meet the standards. The DOE made $200,000 of the anticipated IIJA SEP funds available for each state to update its Energy Security Plans. AEA received these funds and has been working with a contractor to develop the plan. A draft of the Alaska State Energy Security Plan is being reviewed internally and by the SESP advisory committee. In addition to the Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 3 required Grid Planning and State Energy Security Plan, AEA plans to use the IIJA SEP funds to support a Statewide Energy Plan, provide funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, training and workforce development, and outreach and education. AHFC will receive $795,000 of the IIJA SEP funds for Energy Modeling and Data updates, Housing and Energy Repositories, and Outreach and Education SEP – IIJA/IRA Other The DOE announced nearly $9 billion will be available to states and Tribes through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for consumer home energy rebate programs. DOE will use formula funding allocation to disburse funds to AEA, as the State Energy Office, for the two new programs, estimated at $74,519,420 total. The two programs are Home Energy Performance-Based, Whole- House Rebate Allocations, also known as The Alaska Hope for Homes (HOME Rebate) at $37,368,480 and the High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Allocation (HEERA) at $37,150,940. It is anticipated the funds will be passed through AEA to AHFC, and AEA will enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and Reimbursable Service Agreement (RSA) with AHFC. Through the IIJA (section 40552b), AEA will receive $1,627,450 in formula funds from the DOE Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program for FY22 to be used until expended. Funds are to assist in implementing strategies to reduce fossil fuel emissions, reduce total energy use, and improve energy efficiency. Applications for EECBG funds are due July 31, 2023. Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 3 SEP – Annual Allocation Budget FY24 SEP – IIJA SEP Budget Total Admin Program Development Outreach/ Education Technical Assistance AHFC Personnel 157,871 33,561 68,120 37,337 18,852 Travel 10,000 4,500 3,000 2,500 - Supplies 5,132 5,132 Contractual 40,000 40,000 - - AHFC 240,290 240,290 Other Direct Charges 5,000 5,000 Total Direct 458,293 38,061 111,120 47,469 21,352 240,290 Indirect Charges 22,287 Total Costs 480,580 38,061 111,120 47,469 21,352 240,290 Total SESP Grid Planning State Energy Plan EE/RE Construction Projects Training & Work Force Development Outreach & Education Program Development AHFC Personnel 799,558 145,443 112,717 95,369 147,453 163,906 89,205 45,463 - Subtotal 799,558 145,443 112,717 95,369 147,453 163,906 89,205 45,463 - Travel 45,750 - 3,750 12,000 - 10,000 20,000 - - Contractual 634,591 194,591 30,000 205,000 - 150,000 50,000 5,000 - AHFC 750,000 ]’ 750,000 Grants 1,300,000 - - - 1,200,000 100,000 - - - Total Direct 3,529,899 340,034 146,467 312,369 1,347,453 423,906 159,205 50,463 750,000 Indirect Charges 132,031 15,842 6,824 14,553 62,776 19,749 7,417 2,351 2,500 Total Costs 3,661,930 355,876 153,291 326,922 1,410,229 443,656 166,622 52,814 752,500 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG MEMORANDUM TO: Alaska Energy Authority Board THRU: Curtis. W. Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Conner Erickson, AEA Planning Manager DATE: May 30, 2023 RE: Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Update REF Round 15 (FY2024) Update On April 5th AEA held its meeting with the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee, as required by statute, to discuss AEA’s funding recommendations for Round 15 of the REF. Upon conclusion of the meeting, the REFAC voted unanimously in favor of those recommendations as presented by AEA. In its transmittal to the Legislature for Round 15, AEA recommended total funding in the amount of $25.25 million in support of 27 projects. In the Governor’s FY2024 initial amended budget, a placeholder amount of $7.5 million was set-aside for the funding of those recommended REF projects. The Governor was aware that the funding request would likely be in excess of the $7.5 million initially set aside, and was open to additional dollars being added in support of REF projects. The State budget, under House Bill (HB) 39, initially did not include any additional capital appropriations above the $7.5 million placeholder. On May 15th, amendment number 37 to HB 39 as proposed by Senator Hoffman was adopted by the Senate, and subsequently concurred by the House on May 18th. This amendment revised the appropriation allotted in support of those recommended REF projects upwards by $9.5 million from $7.5 million to $17 million. This additional appropriation more than doubled the number of projects to be funded under Round 15 of the REF from 8 to 18. Those projects to be funded under this $17 million appropriation are identified on Attachment A by those projects found above the purple line. Those projects above the orange line are those which were identified to be funded under the initial $7.5 million placeholder amount proposed for funding REF projects. The budget, as enrolled, remains with Governor Dunleavy for signing into law, however, AEA does not anticipate any line item changes to REF Round 15 funding. AEA remains pleased to see continued Legislative support for the REF with their $17 million appropriation for FY2024, a $2 million increase over FY2023 REF funding. The statutory 50% increase in eligible power consumption for the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program from 500 kWh to 750 kWh, and general poor market performance of the PCE Endowment Fund resulted in missing the earnings required for REF funding under the waterfall provision of the excess earnings of the Endowment Fund, as occurred in Round 14 (FY2023), and Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 6 as such the $17 million appropriated for REF Round 15 projects, as included the FY2024 budget, is to be sourced from the General Fund. REF Program Extension Update House Bill 62 (HB 62) was introduced this 33rd Legislative session by Representative Edgmon. From its introduction HB 62 has garnered significant support both representatives and senators alike. In its initial version, HB 62 proposed a simple 10 year extension for the REF program, which would be the second 10-year extension of the program. HB 62 passed the House on March 20th, with no effective opposition (Y35 N1 E4). While under consideration by Senate Finance, HB 62 was amended by repealing the sunset date provision, with no other changes, providing for the program to be extended into perpetuity. The Senate adopted these changes on April 26th, and passed the amended version on April 28th. The House then concurred with the amended version on May 3rd. The bill was signed into law by Governor Dunleavy on May 25th on the concluding day of the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference in Anchorage. AEA extends its thanks to the Legislature for its recognition of the efficacy of the REF program in its equitable and critical financial support for the sustained integration of renewable energy technologies within Alaska’s statewide energy portfolio. Attachments • Attachment A: Summary of Funded REF Round 15 Applications • Attachment B: Summary of Round 15 funded projects by technology and energy region • Attachment D: Copy of bill text for Enrolled HB 62 • Attachment E: Copy of Governor’s Bill Signing Invitation for HB 62 Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 6 Attachment A: Funded REF Round 15 Applications (pending signature by Governor) REF Round 15 Funded Projects (pending signature by Governor)Application NumberProject TitleTechnologyCommunityRecommended Funding Amount15007Hydropower - Feasibility and Conceptual DesignHydroAdak497,650$ 15018LIDAR Improvement to Interior Wind Energy AssessmentsWindRailbelt / GVEA Serving Area250,000$ 15025Mount Spurr Geothermal Feasibility and Conceptual DesignGeothermalRailbelt / HEA Serving Area45,500$ 15024Augustine Island Geothermal Feasibility and Conceptual DesignGeothermalRailbelt / HEA Serving Area68,000$ 15022Electric Battery Energy Storage System DesignStorageNaknek, South Naknek, King Salmon2,172,984$ 15001Woodchip Heating ProjectBiomassNative Village of Kluti-Kaah (Copper Center)500,000$ 15013Battery Installation, Integration and CommissioningWindKipnuk434,000$ 15028Water Supply Creek Hydro ConstructionHydroHoonah3,538,526$ 15005Beluga Area Renewable Resource AssessmentWindBeluga298,000$ 15011Battery Installation, Integration, and CommissioningWindChefornak437,000$ 15004Healy Area Renewable Resource AssessmentWind Healy298,000$ 15023Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind ProjectWindRailbelt / HEA Serving Area214,400$ 15006Community-Scale Solar PV and Battery ProjectSolarHuslia2,082,000$ 15009Railbelt Wind Feasbility Study and Conceptual DesignWindRailbelt / MEA Serving Area1,833,333$ 15003Solar PV ArraySolarSelawik1,134,500$ 15026Community Health Center Heat Recovery ProjectHeat RecoveryYakutat1,000,000$ 15016Wind Feasibility and Conceptual DesignWindKalskag267,300$ 15021Utility-Scale Railbelt Wind – Alaska RenewablesWindRailbelt2,000,000$ TOTAL (18 Projects)17,071,193$ Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 6 Attachment B: Summary of Round 15 funded projects by technology and energy region Round 15 Funded REF Projects - by Energy Region Energy Region N o. of Applications REF Funding Requested ($) Aleutians 1 497,650$ Bristol Bay 1 2,172,984$ Copper River Chugach 1 500,000$ Lower Yukon Kuskokwim 3 1,138,300$ Northwest Arctic 1 1,134,500$ Railbelt 8 5,007,233$ Southeast 2 4,538,526$ Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana 1 2,082,000$ TOTAL 18 17,071,193$ Round 15 Funded REF Projects - by Technology Technology No. of Applications REF Funding Requested ($) Biomass 1 500,000$ Geothermal 2 113,500$ Heat Recovery 1 1,000,000$ Hydro 2 4,036,176$ Solar 2 3,216,500$ Storage 1 2,172,984$ Wind 9 6,032,033$ TOTAL 18 17,071,193$ Alaska Energy Authority Page 5 of 6 Attachment C: Copy of bill text for Enrolled HB 62 Alaska Energy Authority Page 6 of 6 Attachment D: Copy of Governor’s Bill Signing Invitation for HB 62 PAYMENTS RECEIVED LATE FEES RECEIVED INTEREST + LATE FEES ($604,383) $3,493 $227,606 15 TOTAL # OF PPF LOANS $0 $0 TOTAL # OF DELINQUENT LOANS LOANS DELINQUENT AMOUNT ($) % OF DELINQUENT LOANS ($) TO PORTFOLIO BALANCE Loan Commitments $5,592,482.76 Total Loan Program $39,247,407.24 0 LOAN PROGRAM SUMMARY Outstanding Loans $26,985,001.42 Uncommitted Cash Balance $7,244,923.06 AEA Power Project Fund $27,534,898 $54,486 $26,985,001 $224,113 FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE LOAN PORTFOLIO ACTIVITY (07/01/2022 - 5/31/2023) LOAN ACTIVITY EARNINGS LOAN CATEGORY STARTING BALANCE FUNDS DISBURSED ENDING BALANCE INTEREST RECEIVED LOAN DASHBOARD REPORT For Board Meeting on 6/21/2023 AEA POWER PROJECT LOAN FUND Page 1 TOTAL ($) $2,342,282 $408,286 $828,680 $13,312,416 $18,586,957 $2,093,364 $37,571,984 TRANSMISSION 1 BIOMASS $71,764.80 BIOMASS 1 DIESEL $1,291,897.90 SOLAR 2 WIND $1,547,964.41 WIND 2 TRANSMISSION $1,966,667.00 HYDRO 4 SOLAR $10,505,299.35 DIESEL 5 HYDRO $22,188,390.72 AEA PPF LOANS BY PROJECT TYPE AEA PPF LOANS BY PROJECT TYPE - BALANCE (NEW & OUTSTANDING) PROJECT TYPE # OF PROJECTS PROJECT TYPE BALANCE TOTAL $26,985,001 $5,592,483 $4,994,500 15 YUKON-KOYUKUK/U TANA $1,495,381 $597,983 - 4 SOUTHEAST $18,586,957 - - 1 RAILBELT $3,323,416 $4,994,500 $4,994,500 4 - - 1 LOWER YUKO- KUSKOKWIM $828,680 - - 2 AEA POWER PROJECT FUND LOANS BY ENERGY REGION & PROJECT TYPE OUTSTANDING BALANCES & NEW ACTIVITY ENERGY REGION AEA PPF LOAN BALANCE REMAINING LOAN COMMITMENTS NEW APPLICATIONS IN PROCESS # OF AEA PPF LOANS ALEUTIANS $2,342,282 - - 3 BRISTOL BAY $408,286 Page 2 Page 1 of 2 Legislative Requests Date Request Who Assigned to Date answered 5/19/2023 Project Lists for Bulk Fuel Upgrades. Rural Power Systems Upgrades and REF Paula Labolle, Representative Fosters Office Conner / Rebecca/Tim 5/23/2023 (email) 4/19/2023 Bulk Fuel Upgrades Questions Tim Grussendorf, Senator Lyman Hoffman’s Office Curtis / Tim 4/20/2023 (email) 4/12/2023 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Representative Alyse Galvin Curtis 4/19/2023 4/4/2023 REF Legislative Appropriations by Year Courtney Owen, Rep Zack Fields Office Conner / Curtis 4/4/2023 (email) 3/31/2023 Power Cost Equalization (PCE) – SB98 questions Tim from Senator Hoffman’s Office Curtis 3/31/2023 (by phone) 3/30/2023 Inquiries of Tesla EV Warranties Representative Sarah Vance Curtis / Audrey 4/4/23 (email) 3/24/2023 Ref Project Descriptions Rep Zack Fields Curtis 4/3/2023 by email 3/21/2023 Active Projects and Services House Energy Committee Curtis / Brandy / Directors 4/24/2023 (email) 3/21/2023 REF Project List inquiry Representative Zack Fields Curtis / Conner 3/24/2023 (email) 3/20/2023 AEA – PCE Inquiry Dawson Verley – Representative Armstrong’s Office Curtis / Tim 3/20/2023 (email) 3/20/2023 Hydroelectric budget appropriation – Dixon and Godwin Cody Grussendorf - Senator Click Bishop’s Office Curtis / Bryan 3/20/2023 (email) 3/16/2023 Banner Peak Wind Farm kilowatt per hour cost House Finance Committee Curtis / Karen/ Josi 3/29/2023 (email) 3/14/2023 HB62 Renewable Energy Grant Fund – Rep Ortiz follow up on personnel Laib Allensworth – on behalf of Representative Ortiz Curtis 3/15/2023 (email) Page 2 of 2 3/13/2023 HB62 Renewable Energy Grant Fund – Rep Cronk, Rep Stapp and Rep Edgmon Laib Allensworth – Representative Edgmon’s Office Curtis / Conner 3/14/2023 (email) 3/9/2023 Renewable Energy Fund balance Edra Morledge – Representative Coulombe’s Office Curtis/Conner 3/15/2023 (email) 3/8/2023 Bulk Fuel Upgrade / Power Project questions from Senator Click Bishop Senator Click Bishop’s Office (Cody Grussendorf) Curtis / Tim 3/10/2023 (email) 3/7/2023 AEA Vacancies Senator Hoffman Curtis / Megan 3/14/2023 (email) 3/6/2023 Renewable Energy or Alternative Energy Inventory / opportunities Representative Dan Saddler Curtis / Audrey 3/8/2023 (email) 3/2/2023 Questions from meeting with Senator Stedman in Juneau on 3/2/23 Senator Stedman Curtis / Tim 3/8/2023 (email) 2/16/2023 Bristol Bay Communities considered for Renewable Energy Grants Dillingham Legislative information Office (Valerie Burgess) Conner / Curtis 2/16/2023 (email) 2/13/2023 SB33 – Renewable Energy Grant Fund – follow up questions Emma Torkelson – Senator Kaufman’s Office Conner 2/13/2023 (email) 2/10/2023 City of Pelican – increase in cost of Hydro Mayor of Pelican / Rep Himschoot / Senator Stedman / John Espindola Curtis / Tim 2/14/2023 (email) 2/6/2023 SB33 – Renewable Energy Grant Fund – REF Projects by Region and REF Fact Sheet Emma Torkelson – Senator Kaufman’s Office Conner 2/8/2023 (email) 2/6/2023 PCE Electrical Data - follow up Senator Bert Stedman office (Rose Foley) Tim 2/6/2023 (email) 1/27/2023 Community of Pelican – power challenges Thatcher Brown – Representative Himschoot’s office Tim 1/27/2023 (email) 1/26/2023 Su-Wa Historical Funding (2009 forward) House Energy Committee Pam Ellis 2/3/2023 (email) 1/25/2023 DOR on PCE re: Senate Finance Committee questions Senate Finance Committee through DOR Curtis 1/26/2023 (email) 6/5/23, 12:08 PM Alaska’s natural gas shortage: How did we get here and what comes next? - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/06/02/alaskas-natural-gas-shortage-how-did-we-get-here-and-what-comes-next/1/3 Alaska’s natural gas shor tage: How did we get here and what comes next? The Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska facility was built the last time there were warnings about potential shortages. (Sabine Poux/KDLL) Alaskans who rely on natural gas are on the verge of a shortage, as Hilcorp, the one big producer in Cook Inlet is running out of easily accessible gas and warns it might not sign future contracts with utilities. The State of Alaska says demand for gas might outpace supply as soon as 2027. KDLL’s Sabine Poux has been covering the looming shortages and reports that they don’t come as a surprise — and that, in fact, Alaska has seen them coming for decades. Listen: The following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity. Sabine Poux: Basically, a lot of Alaskans are dependent on natural gas. Many of us use it to heat our homes and keep our lights on. And for decades, the gas we’ve used has come from Cook Inlet — where it was discovered, kind of by accident, in the late 1950s. By Michael Fanelli, Alaska Public Media - Anchorage -June 2, 2023 0:000:00 / 3:38/ 3:38 6/5/23, 12:08 PM Alaska’s natural gas shortage: How did we get here and what comes next? - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/06/02/alaskas-natural-gas-shortage-how-did-we-get-here-and-what-comes-next/2/3 Companies found big gas fields there, and there’s still a lot of gas there today. But what’s long been a question mark is whether companies want to actually go find and extract that gas. Digging new wells in Cook Inlet is a really costly and uncertain process. We’re talking big platforms in the middle of the ocean. And the incentives for companies to put in all that work are somewhat low. Alaska’s utilities market is small and insulated. Basically, the producers wouldn’t make enough money to make drilling for gas worth their while. And back in 2010, a bunch of big oil and gas companies left the inlet for that reason. The situation was so dire that there were concerns about brownouts. Michael Fanelli: Ok so it sounds like we’ve actually been here before. So what happened last time? SP: Well, after those companies left, the Alaska Legislature passed a slew of incentives to subsidize activity in the inlet. One player in particular emerged out of that time — a Texas- based oil and gas company called Hilcorp. Their bread and butter is that they rehabilitate old oil and gas fields. So they came into Cook Inlet and basically turned the taps back on. And ever since, we’ve become really dependent on Hilcorp here on the Railbelt — that’s the area of Alaska spanning Fairbanks to the north and Homer to the south. Utilities in Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula, for example, get a huge amount of their energy supply from Hilcorp — more than 80%. But Hilcorp isn’t really in the business of drilling new wells. And now that the easiest-to- access gas has run out, it seems they’ve decided it no longer makes sense for them to be the major provider on the Railbelt. Hilcorp warned last spring that it won’t guarantee future contracts with utilities — so now, they’re going to need to figure out what to do. MF: So, what are they going to do? What are their options? SP: Right now, utilities aren’t saying much publicly about the options they’re considering. Six utilities have been meeting since last year to mull over those possibilities, and they say they’re going to come out with a report about their options in June. What seems likely is that they’re going to have to import gas. That’s a pretty stunning prospect, when you consider how Alaska used to ship out natural gas, a lot of it, from Cook Inlet overseas to Japan. And there’s way more on the North Slope, but, of course, no gas line to get it to the Railbelt. Renewables are also a big part of this. Utilities already get really cheap power from a hydroelectric project across Kachemak Bay from Homer, and all have talked in some way or another about adding more renewables. But it seems unlikely they’ll be able to get those numbers up really substantially before time runs out. MF: It sounds like this all means there will be a lot of change in how Alaskans get their power and heat. What does that mean for prices? 6/5/23, 12:08 PM Alaska’s natural gas shortage: How did we get here and what comes next? - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/06/02/alaskas-natural-gas-shortage-how-did-we-get-here-and-what-comes-next/3/3 SP: Well, what this means for Alaskans is that they’re going to see their utility bills go up. Even though natural gas on the Railbelt today is expensive when compared with prices in the Lower 48, it’s still relatively cheap for Alaska. If we start importing gas from somewhere else, that’s going to be more expensive — by some estimates, electricity rates in parts of Southcentral could go up by as much as 30%. And those costs will likely be more volatile than the costs we’re seeing now. The price of gas has remained relatively stable, again when compared with fluctuations in the world market. There are a lot of unknowns, right now. But it seems inevitable that utilities will have to import some amount of natural gas, to fill gaps. In any case, we should get a better sense of what utilities are considering — and what those options might cost — when they come out with this report in June. Michael Fanelli, Alaska Public Media - Anchorage 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/1/13 Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shor tage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices The Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska facility was built the last time there were warnings about potential shortages. (Sabine Poux/KDLL) Perched high above Kachemak Bay, Scott Waterman’s house in Homer is a museum of energy-efficient technology. A heat pump hangs on the side of his garage. Out front, a hulking row of blue solar panels angle toward the high April sun. Waterman, a retired energy programs manager, has been building his set up for more than a decade. But he said, today, there are more people considering upgrades of their own. “There are lots of people, now, thinking about how they can use solar to not necessarily just lower their costs of utilities, but to avoid the volatility,” he said. That volatility is going to be inevitable as heating and electric utilities from Homer to Fairbanks – an area known as Alaska’s Railbelt – have to reconsider where they’re getting their power. By Sabine Poux, KDLL - Soldotna -May 22, 2023 0:000:00 / 4:42/ 4:42 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/2/13 For a long time, they’ve sourced most of it from Cook Inlet natural gas. But now, for the second time in just over a decade, utilities and lawmakers in Southcentral Alaska are talking about importing liquified natural gas, amid looming gas shortages in Cook Inlet. Oil and gas producer Hilcorp — which has a sort of monopoly in Cook Inlet and provides some utilities with as much as 85% of their gas supply — recently warned it won’t commit to signing new gas contracts, and few other companies are interested in looking for more gas in the inlet. That means Alaskans will likely have to pay more — maybe even a lot more — in a state that already has some of the highest energy costs in the country. “That’s worrisome,” said Waterman, who worked for years with low-income renters at the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. “If that’s a trend that continues, many, many people are going to have hard times making the choice as to whether to pay their power bill or buy groceries for their children.” Years of warning The impending gas shortages have loomed for decades. Newspaper headlines in the 1990s warned that there wasn’t enough gas production in Cook Inlet to keep business going forever, and the state has long forecasted that demand for gas in Southcentral would outpace supply without more production. The most recent numbers estimate that could happen as soon as 2027. 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/3/13 Companies have long warned of potential shortages in Cook Inlet — as shown in this 1998 story from the Alaska Oil and Gas Reporter. (Courtesy Shana Loshbaugh) Still, over the years Alaska has largely remained dependent on natural gas, building storage facilities to hold more and subsidizing production through big legislative packages. “And we just have put all our eggs in that basket, ever since,” said McKibben Jackinsky, a retired oil and gas journalist in Ninilchik, on the southern Kenai Peninsula. She said Alaska has always known natural gas was a bridge between other hydrocarbons and greener sources of energy, and that Cook Inlet wasn’t going to have gas to last a lifetime. Now, she said Hilcorp wants to drill on her property as it looks for more gas to meet its contracts. “It’s the one leg under our stool and when it moves, we just collapse,” she said. “ And we can’t see beyond that, you know? We can’t see beyond developing something else that will sustain us, truly, without having to have this fear put in us every few years about running out.” Alaskans aren’t going to freeze, or face blackouts. What’s at stake here is cost. In the short term, utilities are considering new Cook Inlet gas supply contracts and imports of liquified natural gas, or LNG, which will be more expensive for Railbelt customers. To get that LNG, utilities could go out to the spot market — where gas can be purchased for immediate delivery, but where it can be more than twice as expensive as what they’re paying now. The price is much more volatile, too. The other option is utilities will have to lock into longer-term contracts, if they can get them. How much those contracts would cost is unknown, since Alaska has never before had to import gas. So — with decades of warning, how did Alaska get here? “I just think it’s a human nature thing,” said Peter Micciche, mayor of the Kenai Peninsula Borough and former manager of the liquified natural gas plant in Kenai. “We get very comfortable very quickly when things seem solved,” he said. “And we have a very difficult time having a long-term comprehensive plan and when we mobilize, and when we don’t.” He wonders what higher and more volatile energy costs could mean for his constituents. “And that’s going to be a problem for us,” he said. “I can’t imagine the Railbelt not having adequate supplies of natural gas.” 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/4/13  Deja vu all over again There’s a framed copy of a 1958 Anchorage newspaper hanging on the wall of Micciche’s Soldotna office. In big, block type, it reads, “WE’RE IN” — marking the moment Alaska became the 49th state. That was thanks, in no small part, to oil discoveries on the Kenai Peninsula. In their search for oil, companies stumbled across large reserves of natural gas, which they shipped out to Japan from a liquified natural gas plant in Kenai. Producers also sold a lot of gas to a fertilizer plant next door. Micciche, now mayor of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, remembers coming to work for Tesoro as a summer intern in Kenai in 1982. Later, under ConocoPhillips, he managed the export facility – which, for decades, was the country’s only exporter of LNG. “In 22 months, from conception to operation, they designed and built the LNG terminal, the platform, the pipelines, the receiving terminal in Tokyo harbor, the regasification facility in Tokyo, and the ships that would go back and forth and cross halfway through for 40 years,” he said. A tanker takes on a shipment at the Kenai LNG plant in October 2015. The plant, which used to be the only LNG export facility in the U.S., no longer exports natural gas overseas. Now-owner Marathon is considering turning it into a LNG import facility. (Rachel Waldholz/APRN) There was plenty of gas to go around — too much. Big companies like Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Marathon and Unocal produced gas from large fields and sold the excess to 0:000:00 / 5:22/ 5:22 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/5/13 Alaska utilities at very low prices. That kept costs low for Alaska consumers — well below the national average. Still, it was known that the market wasn’t going to last forever. The easiest-to-reach gas ran out, and without money flowing in from overseas, companies weren’t interested in drilling expensive new wells when they had better prospects elsewhere. Agrium, which used cheap gas to make fertilizer, closed its Kenai plant in 2007 when the price of gas went up. The export facility saw a steep drop off in shipments in 2005 and largely stopped exporting a few years later in 2013, with just a few small cargoes going out after that. ConocoPhillips mothballed the facility in 2017, citing competition. That left just one gas market intact — local utilities. And that market was too small to keep the big companies invested. They left, and Southcentral Alaska was left wondering if it had enough gas to keep the lights and the heat on. “It’s definitely history repeating itself,” saidAnchorage Democrat Sen. Bill Wielechowski, who co-chaired the Senate Resources Committee at that time. Without interest in new production, Southcentral Alaska was, like today, facing the possibility of not having enough local gas to meet its energy needs. “They’re saying we’re running out of gas in Cook Inlet. It’s the same exact scenario,” Wielechowski said. “I remember in Anchorage, going back a ways, people talking about brownouts.” Then, in 2010, the Alaska Legislature passed the Cook Inlet Recovery Act. The act provided incentives for oil and gas companies to make claims in the inlet and expanded existing tax credits.The Alaska Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, estimates that the state granted $1.64 billion in tax credits for oil and gas production between 2006 and 2016, when the Legislature retired those credits. Jackinsky, the retired oil and gas journalist, said those incentives were never about putting money in the state’s coffers. Officials were clear that they were meant to literally keep the lights on. “It was for us to continue our nice, easy lifestyle, dependent on natural gas,” she said. In some ways, the act was a short-term success. It helped usher in a new oil and gas production company and Alaska avoided having to import gas, as lawmakers had feared. But Wielechowski, who still serves on Senate Resources today, said it didn’t solve the root of the problem. “We’ve got these massive incentives that we’ve provided over the years,” he said. “And it just hasn’t worked. And so I think it’s time for us to look at what are some different policy 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/6/13 options we can look at? Because obviously what we’re doing is not working.” From the other side of the aisle, Micciche also took issue with the bill because he said it didn’t provide any production requirements for companies. “We have to get the Legislature to look more in advance at solutions so we don’t make sloppy decisions going forward,” he said. “You have to think about the behavior you want to see before you create an incentive.” There was another product of the recovery act: the Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska facility. Lindsey Hobson is a spokesperson for Enstar, the gas utility that runs the facility off Beaver Loop in Kenai. Enstar supplies gas to about half of Alaska’s population and gets all of its gas from Cook Inlet. Standing among CINGSA machines that compress gas before it heads into five underground wells, across the street, she said Enstar and other electric utilities dip into those reserves when they need gas most, on the coldest days. The facility can hold 11 billion cubic feet of gas — about a third of the amount Enstar customers use each year. “We can take greater volumes in the summer and store those volumes and call on them in the winter when we require more gas,” she said. Hobson said the utilities are considering more storage as another partial solution, this time. But storage alone won’t fix Southcentral’s problems. She said a crucial factor back in the 2010s was the entry of a new company into Cook Inlet. “And that’s an important piece, and something that we are looking for in terms of, what will that next step be? What will that major investment be?” Hobson said. A Goldilocks company When supermajor oil and gas companies lost interest in Cook Inlet and left in the early 2000s and 2010s, a new company entered — Hilcorp, a Houston, Texas-based company whose strategy of rehabilitating old oil and gas fields made them a good fit for the aging basin. “Hilcorp was a Goldilocks company,” said Antony Scott, who was a commercial analyst with the state’s Division of Oil and Gas when Hilcorp entered the inlet. He said Hilcorp was big enough that it had the capital to invest in the inlet and expertise to redevelop old fields. 0:000:00 / 4:53/ 4:53 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/7/13 “But they were also small enough that the prizes available were a pretty good fit for their capacities and their objectives as a company,” he said. Hilcorp had a strategy that worked for the aging oil and gas basin — squeeze the last bits of production out of existing rigs and platforms and get them going again. The company’s then-CEO described it as a “quick hit, remedial program,” according to a 2012 story from the Anchorage Daily News. Scott said that model was more economic for Hilcorp than building big new projects, which could cost millions of dollars and take years to permit. As a result, Hilcorp outlasted other companies that tried to come in and gained a sort-of monopoly on Cook Inlet natural gas. The company bought up Chevron’s assets, and then Marathon’s. It hired an all-Alaskan staff and signed long-term contracts with utilities. In the last decade, Hilcorp has ramped up its presence on the central Kenai Peninsula. Here, a sign thanks Hilcorp for its support in Ninilchik. (Sabine Poux/KDLL) But Scott said that strategy won’t keep the basin going forever. Without a willingness to build new platforms to access harder-to-get Cook Inlet gas, there has always been an expiration date, especially as future demand for gas in Southcentral remains an unknown. “What we need now are new resources,” Scott said. “And the problem with bringing on brand-new resources is that the geologic risk is much bigger. You really don’t know what you’re going to find.” 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/8/13 Last spring, Hilcorp told utilities it wouldn’t guarantee future contracts and that it would like utilities to be less reliant on the company to meet their energy needs. They’ve said little, publicly, about their reasoning. Company spokesperson Luke Miller, in an emailed statement, said the company is working with utilities to develop a way forward. “In recent years, as Hilcorp has been asked to shoulder more of the burden, we felt it was prudent and responsible to communicate with Railbelt utilities our long-term view of the Cook Inlet basin, particularly as other producers have exited and non-Hilcorp investment levels have fallen significantly,” Miller statement said, adding that the company plans on investing nearly a billion dollars or more on new projects in Cook Inlet over the next five years, including drilling new gas wells. Lackluster industry interest Economists and industry experts, like Scott, say business in the inlet isn’t as profitable for Hilcorp as it used to be. New development is getting harder and more expensive, while the market remains relatively small. “We just have a problem where the risks and the size of the market and the incentives don’t seem to be hanging together,” Scott said. At a State Senate hearing in January, Department of Natural Resources Commissioner John Boyle warned of low interest from new companies in the basin. Today, there are a myriad of smaller, local oil and gas companies in Cook Inlet, like HEX and Blue Crest. But they’re not producing enough to sign big contracts. “We do see an environment where there’s a need for policy discussion around if the path that we’re on is sustainable for providing energy to Southcentral into the future,” Boyle told lawmakers. Jackinsky, the retired journalist, said those discussions are overdue. “There was a need for policy discussion, how many years ago?” she said. She’s frustrated that the Railbelt is still so dependent on natural gas, even though it’s been clear for so long that gas was a finite resource and that supply shortages loomed. And now, it’s personal. With demand for gas high and years left on some of its contracts, Hilcorp is looking for gas in her backyard. The company is drilling new wells from onshore pads on the southern Kenai Peninsula, where it’s much cheaper and easier to explore. The gas from those wells won’t be a panacea to the shortages, and don’t replace the level of production that could come from new fields, but it could backfill some declines in Cook Inlet production. Jackinsky said Hilcorp has asked for the subsurface rights to her property — a parcel in Ninilchik passed down through generations from her homesteading ancestors. 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/9/13 She and her daughters have told Hilcorp no, repeatedly. Hilcorp won’t comment on conversations it’s had with property owners on the southern peninsula. But some of her neighbors have already signed with the company.Nearby, the company is burning off gas to get rid of the excess as it tests new wells — a noisy process known as flaring. “That comfortable lifestyle that the state talked about, and has subsidized — it may be continuing it for some people. But it’s ruined that lifestyle for me and my neighbors,” she said. Searching for the big homerun The gas-dependent Railbelt utilities are patching together other ways to get natural gas to power Alaskans’ homes in the next few years. They’re meeting monthly, along with two state groups, to brainstorm solutions to their Alaska supply woes. Hobson, Enstar’s spokesperson, said the group plans on coming out with a report with some possible solutions in June. “I think that all options are on the table, at this point,” she said earlier this year. So — what are the options? In the short term, utilities are looking for other ways to get natural gas. Some with near-expiring contracts are signing agreements to buy supply from other utilities that have years still before theirs run out. Homer Electric Association, for example, gets 85% of its power from Cook Inlet natural gas through a contract with Hilcorp that expires next year — the soonest expiration date on the Railbelt. Last month, the utility signed a procurement agreement with Enstar to get some of its gas; Enstar’s contract with Hilcorp doesn’t expire for another decade. As a gas utility, Enstar has fewer options to diversify its power generation away from gas on a short time frame than electric utilities do. The terms of the agreement between Enstar and HEA have not yet been approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and therefore aren’t public yet, according to HEA, so it’s hard to say how that will impact pricefor HEAcustomers. Fairbanks’s Golden Valley Electric Association signed a smaller contract with Enstar this year that included gas at a small markup over what Enstar currently gets for its gas. And now, utilities are talking about considering importing LNG from out of state. Imported LNG would be more expensive than the local gas utilities get and could raise residential 0:000:00 / 6:04/ 6:04 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/10/13 rates by as much as 30%, in some cases. Earlier this year, Chugach Electric Association CEO Arthur Miller told state legislators that importing is not a step utilities want to take. “We think that would be a very unfortunate situation,” Miller said. “A state as rich as Alaska is with natural gas to have to import LNG. However, we recognize we need gas, and we want to have a competitive price for that gas. And if that’s what it will take to get gas, then we will pursue that.” Homer Electric Association said it’s working on cost studies and analysis for getting LNG from multiple suppliers. Enstar also has a study in the works on gas supply options from out of state. Pricing would depend on whether utilities get that LNG from the spot market or through long-term contracts. Prices for spot market gas are much more volatile. But renewables advocates worry long-term contracts would lock utilities into expensive deals and that would take away any incentive to diversify into other energy sources. Any plan to import would also require building up infrastructure to bring in gas, and factoring in those costs. Marathon, which now owns the former export facility, is considering turning that plant into an import facility. Champions of the long-fought Alaska LNG project say it’s time to start talking about that plan again. The project would send natural gas down from the North Slope to Nikiski for export and use in the state. Cost has long been an obstacle to the Alaska LNG project, and previous employees of the project say it’s never going to happen. There’s also talk of a smaller project, known as the bullet line, or “ASAP line” — a 36-inch-diameter pipeline that would bring gas down from the North Slope for use domestically. But without buyers overseas helping to finance the project, it seems financially unviable. Micciche, the Kenai Peninsula Borough mayor, said hopes enthusiasm from potential buyers abroad could finally push the Alaska LNG project across the finish line. “I think it would buy us the time for a responsible transition, where renewables will fit into the global portfolio,” he said. Raising the standard Some renewables advocates say the time for that transition is now. Solar and wind projects are becoming cost competitive with natural gas and some private power producers have approached utilities and municipalities with plans to place large-scale projects on their grids. 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/11/13 Alaskans across the political spectrum are now acknowledging that renewable energy will have to provide a larger share of Alaska’s power in the future. Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s administration is working on a bill to make geothermal projects more affordable. And Hilcorp itself is looking into turning some of its old Cook Inlet oil platforms into tidal sites. That’s on top of multiple other permitted tidal projects that would turn Cook Inlet’s massive tides — some of the biggest in the world — into power, but would take years to come to fruition. Today, the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, across Kachemak Bay, provides the cheapest power to the Railbelt. Utilities across the Railbelt have a stake in, and get power from, the project. But that’s one of the only large-scale renewable energy projects in the region. Chris Rose with the Renewable Energy Alaska Project said utilities aren’t doing enough, and that it’s time to stop waiting around for the big homerun. “I think there’s always this notion that something is going to come in and change things,’ he said. “But the fact is is that we haven’t got a gas pipeline yet, even though we’ve been talking about it for 40 years, and we’ve also never gotten a hometown discount on oil and gas in Alaska, so even though we produce oil and gas, we have some of the highest energy costs in the country.” He has been trying to get legislation passed that would set a renewable portfolio standard, which would require electric utilities to get a certain percentage of their energy from renewables by a certain date. As it stands, those utilities have goals to incorporate renewables into their portfolio. Homer Electric Association, for example, has a goal of reaching 50% renewable energy by 2025 — a goal set by then-Gov. Sarah Palin’s administration. The utility says it’s in its best interest to not be so majorly dependent on one producer for power. But with two years away from that non-binding deadline, HEA gets just 14% of its power from the Bradley Lake hydro project. It estimates it could meet about 25% of its demand with renewables by 2027, the year gas demand is expected to outpace supply, through another hydro project, a solar project and a landfill gas project, according to a January filing with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Rose said aspirational goals are not good enough. His legislation would fine utilities about $20 per megawatt hour if they don’t meet certain standards — 25% renewable by 2027 and 80% by 2040. He said those standards would help create competition among private energy companies — something the Railbelt doesn’t have much of now — that would generate power in state to sell back to the utilities. 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/12/13 And he said unlike LNG on the world market, energy from renewable projects in Alaska could be more stably priced. He said it’s not just about Alaskans’ gas and electric bills, although that’s important. It matters a lot for the broader state economy. “We already have very high energy prices in the Railbelt,” Rose said. “And so we can’t really afford to be increasing our energy costs. That’s going to impact businesses, that’s going to impact people’s decisions to invest here, and to live here.” Scott Waterman has been working on making his Homer house more energy efficient for more than a decade. (Sabine Poux/KDLL) Rose’s standard, widely opposed by utilities, didn’t pass before the regular session ended. For most of the session, lawmakers were focused on big-ticket items like the PFD and school funding, rather than energy. In the absence of action from lawmakers and utilities, some Alaskans are taking matters into their own hands. Waterman, the Homer resident, said the solar panels, heat pumps and other energy efficient upgrades on his house help reduce the pressure he’s putting on the system. “If we could get 25% of the homes on the Kenai with 5 to 10 kilowatts of of solar on them, that would make a significant dent in the gas that Homer Electric has to purchase — and keep our costs from rising quite as rapidly,” he said. 6/9/23, 1:51 PM Despite decades of warning, looming natural gas shortage threatens to drive up Alaska energy prices - Alaska Public Media https://alaskapublic.org/2023/05/22/despite-decades-of-warning-looming-natural-gas-shortage-threatens-to-drive-up-alaska-energy-prices/13/13 As an energy efficiency enthusiast, Waterman is maybe more attuned to his own rates than most. But at the end of summer, when they switch on their lights and turn up their thermostats again, all Alaskans should be thinking more about how their lives could be impacted when the costs of doing so are a lot more expensive. Sabine Poux, KDLL - Soldotna 5/4/23, 8:23 AM Bill would extend state taxes to cover Hilcorp https://www.kdll.org/local-news/2023-05-02/bill-would-extend-state-taxes-to-cover-hilcorp 1/5 Support KDLL, make a donation today! Bill would extend state taxes to cover Hilcorp KDLL | By Sabine Poux Published May 2, 2023 at 10:57 PM AKDT Riley Board /KDLL A bill that would extend the state’s corporate income tax to companies like Hilcorp is making its way through the Alaska Legislature. Senate Bill 114 is sponsored by Anchorage Democrat Sen. Bill Wielechowski. It would extend income taxes to companies that are not publicly traded — like oil and gas company Hilcorp, which is Cook Inlet’s dominant oil and gas producer, and falls under the “S-Corporation” designation. As it stands, S-Corps do not pay income taxes to the state. Only publicly traded corporations like ConocoPhillips, Alaska Airlines and Walmart pay income tax in Alaska. Here & Now KDLL 5/4/23, 8:23 AM Bill would extend state taxes to cover Hilcorp https://www.kdll.org/local-news/2023-05-02/bill-would-extend-state-taxes-to-cover-hilcorp 2/5 The bill would also reduce the per-barrel break for companies by $3 per barrel of oil at certain price thresholds. At a Senate Finance hearing Monday, Fadil Limani with the state Department of Revenue said the legislation could have a positive short-term boost to the state’s nances, bringing in as much as an additional $1.1 billion in the next scal year, according to estimates from his department. “However, it could have long-term impacts, negative impacts, to the state, based on the decisions that oil companies will make as it pertains to their future investment outlook,” he said. The legislation comes in a heightened moment for the state’s oil and gas industry, with warnings about shortfalls in natural gas production in Cook Inlet. Kara Moriarty, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, said that’s one of the reasons her association opposes the bill. “Any change to Alaska’s tax system truly does need to be analyzed both on impacts of our state economy and North Slope, as well as the Cook Inlet,” Moriarty said at the hearing. The change in the production tax rate would not directly impact production in Cook Inlet. The state years ago set permanent tax ceilings on Cook Inlet oil and gas aimed at keeping Southcentral energy prices low. The majority of energy used on the Railbelt comes from Cook Inlet natural gas, from Hilcorp. But Department of Revenue Spokesperson Aimee Bushnell said in an email that the bill would raise taxes on production in the North Slope, which would impact companies that work in both areas. Hilcorp is the only such company. Anchorage attorney Robin Brena, who specializes in oil and gas taxes, spoke on behalf of the bill on Monday. He said it’s time for companies like Hilcorp to pay their fair share, as the state struggles to pay for public services, like education and the marine highway. “I cannot imagine how we could do an any-worse job of maximizing the benet to the people from our natural resources, than we are doing now,” Brena said. Donate Here & Now KDLL 5/4/23, 8:23 AM Bill would extend state taxes to cover Hilcorp https://www.kdll.org/local-news/2023-05-02/bill-would-extend-state-taxes-to-cover-hilcorp 3/5 He said the tax burden should be on private companies, not on the public. Legislators and the governor both are considering new taxes to address the budget shortfall. Senate Bill 114 will get another hearing Thursday. Tags Local News Kenai Peninsula News oil and gas 33rd legislature Sabine Poux Sabine Poux is the news director at KDLL. Originally from New York, she's lived and reported in Argentina and Vermont, where she fell in love with local news. She covers all things central peninsula but is especially interested in stories related to energy and shing. She'd love to hear your ideas at spoux@kdll.org. See stories by Sabine Poux Here & Now KDLL 5/2/23, 9:02 AM Senate Finance hears how SB 114 would drive investment from state - Must Read Alaska https://mustreadalaska.com/senate-finance-hears-how-sb-114-would-drive-investment-from-state/1/3 Home Politics Senate Finance hears how SB 114 would drive investment from state Politics Top News Senate Finance hears how SB 114 would drive investment from state By Suzanne Downing May 1, 2023 8 Senate Bill 114 would mean a 76% tax increase on oil production in Alaska, according to the State Department of Revenue. In bill sponsor Sen. Bill Wielechowski’s world, this is what is known as a “tweak.” - Advertisement - Kara Moriarty, speaking on behalf of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, reminded the committee that oil and gas industry contributes more to the economy than any other industry in the state, according to McKinley Research Group, which concluded that the oil and gas industry accounts for 24% of the 5/2/23, 9:02 AM Senate Finance hears how SB 114 would drive investment from state - Must Read Alaska https://mustreadalaska.com/senate-finance-hears-how-sb-114-would-drive-investment-from-state/2/3 jobs in the state. For every one job that is a direct oil and gas job, there are 15 that are created indirectly through indirect payments or tax payments. “Increasing taxes result in a higher net cost to oil and gas companies,” Moriarty said, and this means companies have less to invest. Less to invest will lead to impacts in Cook Inlet and the North Slope. She also reminded the senators that SB 21, which passed in 2013 and was ratified by voters even after Democrats were able to get a repeal initiative on the ballot, has helped stabilize production, and that actual oil production in Alaska has beat forecasts for the past 10 years. Critics note that SB 114 has not been subjected to current economic modeling, and its authors are ignoring how much the world has changed in the past 10 year, including how difficult and costly it is to get projects financed and approved. SB 114 is one more disincentive to companies who may want to invest in Alaska. The bill has also not been analyzed fully by tax experts and is being rushed through the Senate. SB 114 is a hugely complicated bill that runs 42 pages long with sections such as: Notwithstanding AS 43.55.020, a person subject to tax under AS 43.55.011(e), (f), 25 and (o); 43.55.020(a), (e), (g), (h), (j), and (l); 43.55.024(c), (e), (i), and (j); 43.55.030(e) and 26 (f); 43.55.040; 43.55.075(b); 43.55.160(a), (e), (f), (g), and (h); 43.55.165(a), (b), (e), (g), (h), 27 (l), (m), (n), (o), and (r); 43.55.170(a) and (b); 43.55.180(a); 43.55.890; and 43.55.895(b), as 28 amended by secs. 2 - 4, 6 - 15, 17 - 25, and 27 - 41 of this Act, and 43.55.011(q); 29 43.55.024(k); and 43.55.160(i), added by secs. 5, 16, and 26 of this Act, shall pay the balance 30 of the tax due before January 1, 2024, by January 1, 2024. Until January 1, 2024, the 31 Department of Revenue shall waive interest that would otherwise accrue under AS 43.05.225 01 and civil and criminal penalties accruing under AS 43.05.220, 43.05.245, and 43.05.290 that 02 are a result of the retroactivity of this Act. It’s nearly certain that most legislators will not able to read it or comprehend the unintended consequences of SB 114 fully, as this year’s Legislature is represented by many new lawmakers — three new senators and 17 new representatives, for a total of one third of the entire Legislature being freshmen. The entire bill is at this link. Testimony continues later this week in Senate Finance, including at 1:30 pm on Thursday, and 9 am on Friday. - Advertisement - 5/2/23, 9:02 AM Biden quietly backs behemoth natural gas project despite pleas from climate activists https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-backs-behemoth-natural-gas-pipeline-liquefied-natural-gas-lng-alaska-gasline-development-corporation-climat…1/3 Print Close Biden quietly backs behemoth natural gas project despite pleas from climate activists By Thomas Catenacci Published May 01, 2023 Fox News The Biden administration formally issued a record of decision Monday to green-light a massive Alaska natural gas pipeline and export project that's strongly opposed by environmental groups. The Department of Energy's (DOE) finalized decision reaffirms the original 2020 approval of the project under the Trump administration but amends it to include additional environmental protections, according to federal filings. The $38.7 billion project – which involves an 807-mile pipeline that traverses the length of Alaska and an export terminal – would significantly boost U.S. natural gas exports to Asia. Project developer Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), a state-owned venture founded to ensure Alaskans benefit financially from the state's natural gas reserves, applauded the record of decision, saying it would enable the U.S. to boost energy supplies to allies. "This order is terrific news for the Alaska LNG (liquefied natural gas) project," AGDC President Frank Richards said in April after the decision was first issued. "The Biden administration has reaffirmed the authorization for and climate benefits of Alaska LNG, which will provide Alaskans and U.S. allies with a significant source of low-emissions, responsibly produced energy consistent with international environmental priorities." BIDEN ADMIN DELIVERS BLOW TO FOSSIL FUEL PROJECT IN VICTORY FOR ECO GROUPS Liquefied natural gas infrastructure is shown in Alaska's Cook Inlet. (Farah Nosh / Getty Images / File) "This supplemental decision adds to the record of support for Alaska LNG and our work developing this important project continues," Richards added. DOE's decision, which prevents venting carbon dioxide and reaffirms prior environmental requirements, ultimately allows the project developer to export LNG to non-free trade agreement nations. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved construction of the project in May 2020, years after it was first proposed in 2014. Under the proposal, the developer would construct a pipeline that stretches from Alaska's natural gas-rich North Slope Borough to Cook Inlet in southern Alaska where an export terminal facility would be built. The project would be among the only LNG export 5/2/23, 9:02 AM Biden quietly backs behemoth natural gas project despite pleas from climate activists https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-backs-behemoth-natural-gas-pipeline-liquefied-natural-gas-lng-alaska-gasline-development-corporation-climat…2/3 terminals anywhere in the West. BIDEN ADMIN RECEIVES BACKLASH FROM NEARLY TWO DOZEN GROUPS FOR MOVE CRACKING DOWN ON GAS STOVES "It's the only major LNG project in America that's got all its permits – it's got state and federal. That's not easy to do," Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, who has advocated for the project, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "It's got its export license. That's also not easy to do, from DOE. And, importantly, it's got federal loan guarantees. So, it's the only major project in our country that's got the full faith and credit of the United States of America backing it." "These are great jobs. So, it's a win for the economy, win for American families, win for Alaskans getting clean-burning gas themselves, and helping our allies not only get off Russian oil and gas but flex the muscle that [President] Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party are scared to death of: American energy dominance. Especially if we're sending it to Asia," he continued. In October, Sullivan, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel and State Department senior energy adviser Amos Hochstein participated in a summit in Tokyo with Japanese officials to tout the benefits of the project. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and other lawmakers from the state have been strong proponents of the project. (Brandon Bell / Pool / Getty Images / File) Overall, according to AGDC, the project would create 10,000 jobs during construction and 1,000 permanent jobs. It would also have an average throughput of 3.1 billion cubic feet (bcf) of LNG per day, much of which would be delivered to Alaskans. The DOE decision published Monday authorizes the project to export 2.6 bcf of LNG per day. By comparison, the electric power sector across the entire West Coast — California, Oregon and Washington — consumed 2.4 bcf of natural gas per day last year, according to federal data. "I've always said that there is a split within this administration. The rational people understand that we're going to need energy, American energy, for decades to come," said Sullivan. "They should be touting it more. But, you know, they have to kowtow to their far-left wing." Environmental groups, meanwhile, blasted the Biden administration's approval of the project, saying it would lead to a massive uptick in greenhouse emissions. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP "Not only is the Alaska LNG project unnecessary given the widespread transition to clean-energy alternatives we expect to see in the years to come, it’s also a major threat to ecosystems and climate in Alaska," said Erin Colón, a senior attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental law firm that has challenged the project in court. "The state’s greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels would balloon by nearly 30% over today’s levels in an era where all other states will be scrambling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Colón added. "It’s frustrating to see the Department of Energy rubber-stamp a massive fossil fuel infrastructure project of this kind when it clearly conflicts with the urgent need to tackle the 5/2/23, 9:02 AM Biden quietly backs behemoth natural gas project despite pleas from climate activists https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-backs-behemoth-natural-gas-pipeline-liquefied-natural-gas-lng-alaska-gasline-development-corporation-climat…3/3 Print Close Home Video Politics U.S.Opinion Entertainment Tech Science Health Travel Lifestyle World Sports Weather Privacy Terms climate crisis." Thomas Catenacci is a politics writer for Fox News Digital. URL https://w ww.fox news .co m/p ol itics/b id e n -back s-behemoth-natur a l-gas -pipeli n e -liquefied-n a t ural-g as-l ng-alask a -gasl ine -devel o p m e nt-cor p orat ion- c limate-ac ti vis ts This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. © FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper.Do Not Sell my Personal Information - New Terms of Use - FAQ 5/4/23, 8:57 AM More gas at Granite Pt - April 30, 2023 - Petroleum News https://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/50514138.shtml 1/4 NOW READ OUR ARTICLES IN 40 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. Select Language Powered by Translate Vol. 28, No.18 Week of April 30, 2023 Providing coverage of Alaska and northern Canada's oil and gas industry More gas at Granite Pt Click here to go to the full PDF version of this issue, with any maps, photos or other artwork that appears in some of the articles. Hilcorp applies for gas pool at Granite Point field, now producing primarily oil Kristen Nelson Petroleum News Hilcorp Alaska would like to increase its natural gas production from Cook Inlet and with that goal in mind, has applied to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to define the Granite Point gas pool at the Granite Point field. Currently the field produces primarily oil, accounting for some 25% of Cook Inlet oil in February, according to AOGCC production data, and just 1.5% of Cook Inlet natural gas. In its application to the AOGCC, Hilcorp said defining a gas pool for Granite Point is “necessary to support anticipated drilling of new grassroots gas development wells from the Bruce Platform,” a drilling program anticipated to begin this fall, reflecting its “commitment to extend natural gas production from legacy offshore production facilities throughout Cook Inlet,” the company said. In its most recent plan of development for Granite Point, filed with the Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Oil and Gas earlier in April, the company does not mention drilling for gas, but does say it plans to drill as many as three grassroots wells from the Bruce platform targeting the Tyonek formation using Rig 151 in the fourth quarter of this year. Amour Ve 5/4/23, 8:57 AM More gas at Granite Pt - April 30, 2023 - Petroleum News https://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/50514138.shtml 2/4 In its March 1 request, Hilcorp proposed amending the conservation order for Granite Point to establish the Granite Point gas pool and gas well spacing rules. Hearing scheduled Hilcorp said it met with AOGCC staff in December for an informal technical meeting on the proposed Bruce platform gas development. The commission has scheduled a public hearing on the request for June 6 at 10 a.m. in its Anchorage offices. Call-in information for the hearing is 907-202-7104, conference ID 491 156 598#. Comments on the proposal must be received no later than the conclusion of the June 6 hearing. There are six state oil and gas leases at Granite Point, which produces from three platforms, Anna, Bruce and Granite Point, with oil and gas produced from Anna going by subsea pipelines to the Bruce platform, and from there to the Granite Point Tank Farm onshore. Another subsea pipeline system takes oil and gas from the Granite Point platform to the GPTF, where production is processed, metered and shipped, with produced gas compressed and used for fuel, as lift gas, or shipped to market via the Kenai Beluga Pipe Line. The field produces from the Granite Point Middle Kenai oil pool (correlating to drilled depths of 7,725 feet to 10,855 feet in the Granite Point 1 well) and the Granite Point Hemlock oil pool (correlating to drilled depths of 10,885 feet to 11,280 feet in the Granite Point 1 well). Hilcorp is proposing that the Granite Point gas pool be added, “defined as the accumulation of gas common to and which correlates with the accumulation” in the Granite Point 1 well “between the drilled depths of 3,095 feet MD and 7,725 feet MD.” The company is requesting a spacing rule which would provide for no restrictions on gas well spacing, except that no well “shall be completed less than 1,500 feet from the external boundary” of the area except where owners are the same on both sides of the line. Development Leases were first issued within what is now the Granite Point field in 1962, three acquired by Pan American Petroleum Corp. and one acquired by Union Oil Company of California and Socony Mobil Oil Co. Oil was discovered in the Granite Point field in 1965. The Anna, Bruce and Granite Point platforms were built in 1966, and the DNR certified the Granite Point No. 1 as capable of producing in paying quantities that same year. Oil and gas are produced from the Tyonek and Hemlock formations. Union had 100% working interest in the Pan American leases by 1991 and became operator of the four Granite Point leases and the platforms, acquiring two additional oil and gas leases that same year. The company transferred 75% working interest in three of the leases to Mobil Rocky Mountain (later ExxonMobil Alaska Production) in 1995, and the jointly owned leases (35% Union, 75% Exxon) 5/4/23, 8:57 AM More gas at Granite Pt - April 30, 2023 - Petroleum News https://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/50514138.shtml 3/4 were unitized as the South Granite Point unit, with Union retaining operatorship. DNR approved formation of the South Granite Point sands participating area and the Hemlock participating area in 2008 the SGPU contracted to the participating areas, with the remainder of the Granite Point field not unitized. Hilcorp acquired Chevron’s (successor to Union) Cook Inlet assets in 2012 and became operator. In 2014, as sole WIO and operator of both the Granite Point field and the SGPU, Hilcorp requested an expansion of the SGPU to include three non-unitized operations associated with the Anna and Bruce platforms, a unit expansion approved by DNR in 2015, along with a change of name of the consolidated SGPU and Grant Point field to the Granite Point unit. In 2019, Hilcorp said, AOGCC approved the vertical alignment of the Middle Kenai oil pool and the Granite Point oil pool, adjusted the affected area of the pools, eliminated interwell oil spacing and established a minimum set-back distance from exterior oil pool boundaries. Print this story | Email it to an associate. State intervenes to protect federal oil and gas lease in Cook Inlet https://www.kinyradio.com/news/news-of-the-north/state-intervenes-to-protect-federal-oil-and-gas-lease-in-cook-inlet/ 1/3 Anchorage, Alaska (KINY) - The State of Alaska filed to intervene Wednesday in a lawsuit that seeks to block congressionally-directed oil and gas leasing on federal land in Cook Inlet. The State is defending the opportunity to develop through the federal government’s Cook Inlet Lease Sale 258, which was held by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in Dec. 2022 after being mandated to do so by Congress. “Given the federal government’s reluctance to encourage robust leasing on its land, the task has fallen to Alaska to defend what leasing has been made available--all the more so when the development directly impacts the energy security of such a large number of Alaskans,” said Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy. “Development of the oil and gas resources in Alaska, whether on federal or State land, is vital to maintaining Alaska’s sovereignty, strengthening its economy, and fostering an environment where our residents can build homes and raise a family.” Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor stated “Ensuring the responsible development of Alaska’s abundant resources is a right shared by all Alaskans. The Inflation Reduction Act provides a clear congressional mandate for development of federal oil and gas leases in Cook Inlet. By intervening in this litigation, the State is advocating for that mandate to be followed through.” NOAA Cook Inlet photo State intervenes to protect federal oil and gas lease in Cook Inlet https://www.kinyradio.com/news/news-of-the-north/state-intervenes-to-protect-federal-oil-and-gas-lease-in-cook-inlet/ 2/3 The administrative process began in Sept. 2020 but was then halted when President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14008, pausing all federal oil and gas leasing activity on public lands or offshore waters. Alaska, along with several other states, successfully litigated for an injunction ending the federal government’s pause on leasing—only to have the BOEM cancel the proposed lease sale in May 2022. With the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Congress required the BOEM to resurrect Cook Inlet Lease Sale 258 and hold a lease sale by Dec. 31, 2022. Yet before the BOEM could do so, five environmental groups—Cook Inletkeeper, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Center for Biological Diversity, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, and Natural Resources Defense Council—sued the federal government. While not seeking to stop the lease sale, the plaintiffs allege the BOEM’s administrative process violated several federal laws and have requested the federal court for the District of Alaska to vacate the leases sold as part of Cook Inlet Lease Sale 258. By intervening this week, Alaska joins the federal government in defending Cook Inlet Lease Sale 258. In addition to serving as another source of energy security, making federal lands available for oil and gas development may provide Alaska with revenue in the form of property, production, and corporate income tax, and benefit Alaska’s citizens with jobs in the oil and gas and support industries, the State of Alaska press release states. Because oil and gas producers are more likely to invest in projects where they can take advantage of economies of scale and develop projects on both federal and State land, the development of federal lands in the Cook Inlet is vital to Alaska’s economy, the State of Alaska press release says. “Alaska’s interest in Cook Inlet goes beyond economic benefits to our core need for secure supplies of energy for the people of Alaska,” said DNR Commissioner- designee John Boyle. “The residents of Alaska’s Railbelt—the state’s most populated State intervenes to protect federal oil and gas lease in Cook Inlet https://www.kinyradio.com/news/news-of-the-north/state-intervenes-to-protect-federal-oil-and-gas-lease-in-cook-inlet/ 3/3 region—rely on the energy produced in Cook Inlet to power their homes and businesses. We must have further exploration and development of Cook Inlet to meet Alaska’s energy needs.” Read the motion here. Read the motion here. 5/4/23, 8:45 AM Chugach Electric pursuing clean energy - April 23, 2023 - Petroleum News https://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/921042475.shtml 1/4 NOW READ OUR ARTICLES IN 40 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. Select Language Powered by Translate SEARCH our ARCHIVE of over 14,000 articles Vol. 28, No.17 Week of April 23, 2023 Providing coverage of Alaska and northern Canada's oil and gas industry Chugach Electric pursuing clean energy Utility says that it is making progress in integrating variable wind and solar with its firm hydro and gas energy sources Alan Bailey for Petroleum News Anchorage based electric utility Chugach Electric Association says that it is making meaningful progress in its efforts to integrate variable wind and solar energy supplies with its firm power from hydroelectricity and gas-fired power generation. The statement comes amid growing concerns about future natural gas supplies from Cook Inlet and increasing interest in new low-carbon energy resources. Bettina Chastain, Chugach Electric board chair, and Arthur Miller, the company’s chief executive officer, have commented that the utility recognizes the need to diversify its energy production to include new low-carbon, renewable energy resources that complement the utility’s dwindling natural gas resources, in the context of the continuing need for reliable and affordable electricity. “We are aggressively pursuing new clean energy projects in a manner that allows us to maintain the lowest rates on the Railbelt, supported by new technologies that enhance the potential of our existing assets to balance, or integrate, variable clean energy resources,” the two executives said. Expanding the generation mix 5/4/23, 8:45 AM Chugach Electric pursuing clean energy - April 23, 2023 - Petroleum News https://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/921042475.shtml 2/4 Currently about 82% of the utility’s electricity comes from natural gas fueled power generation, 15% from hydro and 3% from wind. In addition, about 0.1% of the utility’s power comes from solar energy bought back from the utility’s members. The utility’s strategy for assuring reliable electricity supplies is to avoid dependence on any one energy source by expanding its generation mix to include proven technologies such as hydro, wind and solar. “Together with our efficient natural gas generators, energy storage technologies, and modern control systems, we can diversify our energy mix and provide reliable power when it is needed throughout the year,” the executives said. In 2022 the Chugach Electric board added decarbonization goals to the utility’s strategic plan, to reduce the utility’s carbon intensity by at least 35% by 2030 and at least 50% by 2040, relative to the carbon intensity in 2012. The plan is to achieve this without negatively impacting electricity rates. Integrating variable energy The utility says that it is making meaningful progress in integrating variable clean energy into its existing hydro and gas-fueled firm power sources. For example, with support from the Alaska Energy Authority and the state Emerging Energy Technology Fund, the utility has implemented a hybrid flywheel and battery energy storage system to help regulate the varying power output from a wind farm on Fire Island, offshore Anchorage. And in 2021 the utility issued a request for proposals for renewable energy projects to add at least 100,000 megawatt hours of energy per year to its power supplies. As a consequence, the utility is now conducting feasibility studies for two utility-scale projects, one a wind project and the other a solar project. If these projects prove to be economically viable, without negatively impacting electricity rates, they could exceed Chugach Electric’s original goal for the RFP by supplying more than 20% of the utility’s annual energy, the executives said. In addition, last year the Regulatory Commission of Alaska approved a request by the utility to triple the utility’s net metering allowance that compensates members for small-scale solar and wind power that they feed back into the electricity grid. Battery storage In another initiative, Chugach Electric is purchasing a large-scale battery energy storage system that it plans to install in Anchorage in 2024, to improve the reliability and quality of its services. The utility is also evaluating and pursuing U.S. Department of Energy funding opportunities for other potential initiatives, including long-term energy storage; modern protection and control systems; and carbon capture technology. The utility also says that it is partnering with other utilities, Alaska Native corporations, the state of Alaska and other organizations to enhance the benefits from advances in technology 5/4/23, 8:45 AM Chugach Electric pursuing clean energy - April 23, 2023 - Petroleum News https://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/921042475.shtml 3/4 for all Alaskans. “We will continue to work towards diversifying our energy resources, while maximizing the value of our existing investments and maintaining reliable service to our members,” the executives said. “Chugach is proud to innovate and invest in clean energy and we are committed to our vision of responsibly developing clean energy resources for a clean, sustainable future for Alaska.” Railbelt initiatives In a broader context, the utilities in the Railbelt region, including Chugach Electric, are pursuing a plan for major upgrades to the region’s electricity transmission system. The elimination of single points of failure in the system and an increase to the system’s power carrying capacity would significantly improve the system’s capability to support new clean energy power generation. With a potential cost of just under $3 billion, the utilities are seeking federal and state funding assistance for the proposed upgrades, Chugach Electric said. Another factor that relates to the future mix of power generation on the Railbelt is the recent Regulatory Commission of Alaska certification of the Railbelt Reliability Council as the electric reliability organization for the Railbelt. One of the RRC’s roles will be to develop and maintain an integrated resource plan for the Railbelt’s high voltage electrical system. That plan will presumably encompass a strategy for the deployment of renewal energy power generation. Chugach Electric says that it looks forward to integrating its plans and efforts into the RRC’s procedures, once those procedures are fully developed. Currently the RRC is in the process of ramping up its organization and moving into operation, with the integrated resource plan potentially taking several years to develop. “While the RRC grows and matures, Chugach will continue to pursue technologies to support decarbonization and diversification of our energy resources, and collaborate with other utilities to improve transmission projects across the state,” Chugach Electric told Petroleum News. Click here to subscribe to Petroleum News for as low as $89 per year. Notice: Only paid subscribers have access to the pdf version of this story, which carries maps and other art. Petroleum News - Phone: 1-907 522-9469 circulation@PetroleumNews.com --- https://www.petroleumnews.com --- S U B S C R I B E 5/4/23, 8:44 AM Two more aged Cook Inlet oil platforms may be headed for permanent shut-down | Local News Stories | frontiersman.com https://www.frontiersman.com/news/two-more-aged-cook-inlet-oil-platforms-may-be-headed-for-permanent-shut-down/article_9a7f90c4-e00c-11ed-8e…1/3 https://www.frontiersman.com/news/two-more-aged-cook-inlet-oil-platforms-may-be-headed-for-permanent-shut- down/article_9a7f90c4-e00c-11ed-8e91-1bea9f53b3ab.html Two more aged Cook Inlet oil platforms may be headed for permanent shut-down By Tim Bradner For the Frontiersman Apr 20, 2023 Hilcorp Cook-Inlet-platform Monopod Courtesy photo More aging Cook Inlet, Alaska oil platforms are being shut down, possibly for good. It could also be the end for one of the rst oshore oil elds developed in Cook Inlet, Middle Ground Shoal. Hilcorp Energy, the major operator in the Inlet, told state ocials in a ling that repair of a damaged fuel gas line serving two platforms in the Middle Ground Shoal eld cannot be repaired.Privacy - Terms 5/4/23, 8:44 AM Two more aged Cook Inlet oil platforms may be headed for permanent shut-down | Local News Stories | frontiersman.com https://www.frontiersman.com/news/two-more-aged-cook-inlet-oil-platforms-may-be-headed-for-permanent-shut-down/article_9a7f90c4-e00c-11ed-8e…2/3 The fuel gas pipeline along with Platforms A and C in the Middle Ground Shoal eld that it served have been shut down since a gas leak was discovered in 2021. Hilcorp has been evaluating repair options but has now told the state Division of Oil and Gas that it can’t be done economically. Platform C, one of two production platforms served by the gas line, will be shut down permanently but the company is still looking at possibilities of restarting Platform A with fuel supplied from an undeveloped nearby gas deposit. There are three million barrels of recoverable oil le in the Platform A area but fuel gas is needed to operate the platform. Hilcorp is studying whether this can be done by drilling from the existing platform or whether a small, separate gas production platform will be needed, which could make the venture uneconomic. Two other Middle Ground Shoal platforms, Baker and Dillon, were shut down in 2003 and 2012. Middle Ground Shoal is the rst of Cook Inlet’s oshore oil eld brought into development. All four of its platforms were installed between 1964 and 1967. Permanently closing Alaska oshore platforms raises issues for both the owner companies and the state. Under terms of the state oil and gas leases companies are obligated to remove platforms when production operations cease. This will be expensive, and it is a cost that Hilcorp would prefer to stave o as long as possible. The state has a concern in that removing the platform could be more damaging to the environment than just letting it sit. Some Inlet platforms no longer producing have been sitting for years, such as the Dillon platform in Middle Ground Shoal that last saw production in 2003. Companies have argued that as long as there is some chance that the platforms can be used the state shouldn’t impose the removal obligation and so far state agencies have gone along with this. Hilcorp wants to preserve options for someday tapping nearby small pockets of undeveloped oil and is also considering using the platforms to site tidal power generation facilities. 5/4/23, 8:44 AM Two more aged Cook Inlet oil platforms may be headed for permanent shut-down | Local News Stories | frontiersman.com https://www.frontiersman.com/news/two-more-aged-cook-inlet-oil-platforms-may-be-headed-for-permanent-shut-down/article_9a7f90c4-e00c-11ed-8e…3/3 Cook Inlet has the second-highest tides in North America and companies working on renewable energy are working on tidal-generation from locations near shore, taking advantage of the Inlet’s strong twice-daily tidal currents. Seventeen platforms for both oil and natural gas have been installed in Cook Inlet since the 1960s. Seven are now shut in as no longer economic, but 11 are still operating including one oil platform, the Osprey, operated by Glacier Oil and Gas, a small independent, and the Julius R platform, for gas production, operated by Furie Operating Alaska, another small independent. Over the years the state has worked to help the Inlet producers keep the oil platforms limping along, with reductions of the one-eighth state royalty and special tax terms. Production at most of the shut-in platforms is also just suspended, meaning in theory the wells can be restarted, but Hilcorp has also told the state that it will begin Plugging and Abandoning operations this year on platform wells with suspended operations. Plugging and Abandoning means that wells will be permanently closed o with cement snd eith surface casing removed. While Cook Inlet is a historic Alaska producing province many believe the basin still has potential for new oil discoveries. However, more attention is now focused on nding new natural gas to replace declining gas production in the region. Alaska’s largest communities are in Southcentral Alaska and they mostly depend on gas for residential and building heating. Most power generation is also fueled by gas. Alaska Economic Report No. 6/2023 Page 6 Petroleum: Oil Search to begin Pikka drilling Santos/Oil Search will begin drilling production wells on May 15 for its Pikka project this summer, the company has told state officials. The first drill program is for 43 wells including 22 production wells and 21 injector wells on Pad ND-B, Pikka’s phase one production pad. There is one other dis- posal well planned for injection of used drill fluids and cuttings. Construction of pipelines will begin in November with activities underway until May, the end of the winter season. Two other production pads are planned, ND-A and ND-C, in Pikka’s phase two. The company also told state officials it has established 165 million barrels of oil for its phase one, currently under construction. This is the 51 percent share of reserves held by Santos, Ltd., the Oil Search parent company. Repsol is a 49 percent owner in Pikka. The company also said it hopes to begin production before a May, 2026 target currently set. It also said refinements in planning have helped lower Pikka’s break-even production costs to below $40 a barrel, which would include a 10 percent rate of return. *** Funds being raised for Sourdough Independent Jade Energy LLC is pushing ahead with plans to drill a new well in its eastern North Slope leases where BP drilled years ago and made the Sourdough oil discovery. To comply with its development plan filed with the state Jade must demonstrate that it has funds sufficient to drill by July 1 and to have a contract for a drill rig by September. The well would be drilled in the first or second quarter of 2024. Jade’s current plan is to use one of the lighter-weight exploration rigs Funds for Sourdough testing (Cont.) - Continued top right available on the slope and to move it to the location late this year on a compacted snow road similar to those used in recent National Petroleum Re- serve-Alaska exploration, including by Jade affiliate 88 Energy. Jade told Petroleum News in late March that it has funds committed from two investors and is waiting on a third and final investor. The Sourdough discovery, and Jade’s leases, are on state lands adja- cent to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge state/fed- eral boundary on the Canning River. There is some evidence that the reservoir in which BP discovered oil extends under the river into ANWR, in which case production from the state lands could drain oil from parts of the reservoir under the refuge. *** More Inlet platforms being shut down More aged Cook Inlet platforms could be shut down for good. Hilcorp Energy told state officials that re- pair of a damaged fuel gas line serving two offshore platforms in the Middle Ground Shoal field cannot be done economically. The pipeline and platforms have been shut down since a gas leak was discovered in 2021. Hilcorp has been evaluating repair options since then but has now told the state Division of Oil and Gas that it won’t be done. Platform C, one of two operating platforms served by the gas line, cannot now be operated profitably and will be shut down permanently. The company is still studying restart possibilities at Platform A in the field with fuel supplied from an undeveloped nearby gas deposit, assuming it can be drilled economically, either from an existing platform or a new exploration/production platform can be installed. There are 3 million barrels of recoverable oil left in the Platform A area. Two other Middle Ground Shoal platforms, B and D, were shut down in 2003 and 2012. *** DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCELOCATION TEAM MEMBERJune 5-8, 2023 AttendeeAlaska Power Association (APA) Federal Legislative Conference: Joined APA and the Railbelt Utility CEOs in several meetings with Alaska's Congressional Delegation and the United States Department of EnergyWashington, DC Curtis W. ThayerJune 2, 2023 Attendee National Hydropower Association: 2023 Alaska Regional Meeting Steering Committee Call 3 PhoneCurtis W. Thayer Brandy M. DixonMay 25, 2023 Media Interview 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference, Amy Demboski, 650 KENI Phone Curtis W. ThayerMay 22-25, 2023 Moderator/Panelist/Speaker 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy ConferenceDena'ina Center, Anchorage, AKAudrey Alstrom, Justin Tuomi, Rebecca Cameron Dean, Tim Sandstrom, Curtis W. ThayerMay 22-25, 2023 Exhibitor Booth 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy ConferenceDena'ina Center, Anchorage, AKBrandy Dixon, Taylor Asher, Katherine Aurbey, Jennifer Bertolini, Karen Bell, Bryan Carey, Cameron Dean, Conner Erickson, Rebecca Garrett, Josi Hartley, Khae Pasao, Daniela Patterson, Bill Price May 22, 2023 Host/Presenter Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Meeting In-Person/Virtual Josi HartleyMay 22, 2023 Attendee National Hydropower Association: 2023 Alaska Regional Meeting Steering Committee Call 2 PhoneBryan Carey, PE Brandy M. DixonMay 18, 2023 Media InquiryAlaska National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Request for Applications, Madeleine Ngo, The New York TimesEmailAudrey Alstrom, PE Josi HartleyMay 11, 2023 Attendee National Hydropower Association: 2023 Alaska Regional Meeting Steering Committee Call 1 PhoneBryan Carey, PE Brandy M. DixonMay 9, 2023 Host with Lt. Governor Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting In-Person/Virtual Curtis W. ThayerMay 4, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA PCE Overview Presentation to House Energy Committee Virtual Curtis W. ThayerApril 25, 2023 Host with Lt. Governor Alaska Energy Security Task Force Kickoff Meeting In-Person/Virtual Curtis W. ThayerApril 21, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA Capital Budget Presentation to House Finance Committee Virtual Curtis W. ThayerAEA COMMUNITY OUTREACHLast Updated on June 9, 2023 (6-Month Look Back) 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 • Phone: (907) 771‐3000  Fax: (907) 771‐3044 • Email: info@akenergyauthority.org • Website: akenergyauthority.org DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCELOCATION TEAM MEMBERApril 17, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan Workshop in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley In-Person/Virtual Josi HartleyApril 10, 2023 Media Interview Renewable Energy Fund Round 15, Tim Ellis, KUAC Phone Curtis W. ThayerApril 7, 2023 Presentation AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Status Report to 33rd Alaska State Legislature Email Curtis W. ThayerApril 7, 2023 Media Inquiry Dixon Diversion, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Digest/Alaska Legislative Report Email Bryan Carey, PEApril 6, 2023 Media Inquiry Dixon Diversion, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Digest/Alaska Legislative Report Email Bryan Carey, PEApril 5, 2023 Media Inquiry Dixon Diversion, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Digest/Alaska Legislative Report Email Bryan Carey, PEApril 5, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA Modernizing Alaska's Largest Electric System Presentation to Senate Resources Committee VirtualCurtis W. Thayer Bryan Carey, PEApril 3, 2023 Host/Presenter AEA Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program Presentation to AKEVWG Technical Session In-Person/Virtual Josi HartleyApril 3, 2023 Media Interview Diomede Power Outage, Megan Gannon, The Nome Nugget Phone Curtis W. ThayerMarch 31, 2023 Media Interview EV Infrastructure in Alaska, Sophie Applin, Alaska Beacon PhoneCurtis W. Thayer Audrey Alstrom, PEMarch 22, 2023 Host/Presenter Alaska Rural Power Plant Operator Working Group Quarterly Meeting Virtual Justin TuomiMarch 21, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA Overview Presentation to House Energy Committee Virtual Curtis W. ThayerMarch 16, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA Overview Presentation to House Finance Committee Virtual Curtis W. ThayerMarch 15, 2023 Media Interview GRIP Grant Timeline, Brian Kassof, Alaska Energy Transparency Project Phone Curtis W. ThayerMarch 15, 2023 Host/Presenter Alaska NEVI Pre-Application Presentation to Public In-Person/Virtual Josi HartleyMarch 15, 2023 Host/Presenter Bulk Fuel Working Group with Multiple statewide Agencies In-Person/VirtualBill Price Khae PasaoMarch 10, 2023 Host/Presenter Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Technical Session: Uptime Requirements Presentation In-Person/Virtual Josi HartleyMarch 9, 2023 Host/Presenter Alaska Wind Working Group Quarterly Meeting In-Person/Virtual Josi HartleyMarch 8, 2023 PresenterAEA Hydropower Opportunities with Change to Alaska Section of the American Water Resources AssociationIn-Person Bryan Carey, PEMarch 7, 2023 Host/Presenter State Energy Security Plan Advisory Group Meeting In-Person/Virtual Rebecca GarrettMarch 7, 2023 Brief Remarks2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference: Pre-Event Workshop 1: Low Carbon Energy Transitions WorkshopVirtual Curtis W. ThayerMarch 3, 2023 Media Interview Solar Projects in Alaska, Alex Kay, Alaska Business Phone Curtis W. ThayerMarch 3, 2023 Media Interview Opportunities in the Latest Energy Infrastructure Bill, Sabine Poux, KDLL Phone Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 21, 2023 Presenter AEA Hydropower Opportunities Presentation to Alaska Dam Owners In-Person Bryan Carey, PEFebruary 9, 2023 Panelist Inflation Reduction Act to Alaska Forum on the Environment In-Person Conner EricksonAEA Community OutreachPage 2 of 3 DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCELOCATION TEAM MEMBERFebruary 9, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan Workshop on the Kenai Peninsula In-Person Taylor AsherFebruary 7-10, 2023 Attendee NASEO Energy Policy Outlook Conference In-Person Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 4-10, 2023 Meetings AEA Overview to Alaska Congressional Delegation, Washington, DC In-Person Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 1, 2023 Presenter AEA Update Alaska Power Association State Legislative Conference In-Person Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 1, 2023 PanelistEnergy Committee Panel to Southeast Conference Mid-Session Summit and Transportation SymposiumIn-Person Curtis W. ThayerJanuary 27, 2023 Media Interview AEA update, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Report Phone Curtis W. ThayerJanuary 26, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA Susitna-Watana Presentation to House Energy Committee VirtualCurtis W. Thayer Bryan Carey, PEJanuary 24, 2023 Attendee Idaho National Laboratory Alaska Visit In-Person Curtis W. ThayerJanuary 24, 2023 Presenter AEA State Energy Security Plan Presentation to SESP Committee Virtual Audrey Alstrom, PEJanuary 19, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan Overview to Alaska EV Working Group In-Person/Virtual Josi HartleyJanuary 12, 2023 Exhibitor Alaska NEVI Plan to Anchorage Transportation Fair In-Person Taylor AsherJanuary 12, 2023 Presenter Alaska Draft Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid In-Person/VirtualConner Erickson Daniel MillerAEA Community OutreachPage 3 of 3 View this email in your browser Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Newsletter, June 8, 2023 AEA Negotiates Future Funding In July 2022, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which is under the Department of Energy, released a funding opportunity announcement DE-FOA-0002611, “Fiscal Year 2022 Vehicle Technologies Office Program Wide Funding Opportunity Announcement.” This opportunity sought to fund research projects that addressed the following topics: Cost-effective deployment of electric vehicle (EV) charging for people who don’t have access to home charging, Subscribe Past Issues Translate Innovative solutions to improve mobility options for underserved communities, Community engagement to accelerate clean transportation opportunities in underserved communities, Batteries and electrification, Materials technologies, Energy-efficient commercial off-road vehicle technologies, Medium/heavy duty vehicle corridor charging, and Advanced engine and fuel technologies to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), together with its partners Alaska Center for Energy and Power, Ahtna, Incorporated, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska Municipal League, Launch Alaska, and Yellowstone-Teton Clean Cities Coalition, developed an application for a project titled, “Alaska EVSE Deployment and Best Practices in Rural and Underserved Communities.” In May 2023, AEA received notice from EERE of an intent to negotiate a financial award for AEA’s submitted project. This intent to negotiate does not guarantee any funding at this point. Negotiations can take up to three months, but it is the first step in obtaining funding for this project. If negotiations are successful, AEA and partners will receive $1,669,983 with 20 percent cost- share required. If funding is received, AEA and partners will work to electrify areas throughout Alaska, with an emphasis on rural and disadvantaged communities. Nine out of the 11 energy regions in the state will be targeted (the Railbelt and Southeast will not be targeted since they are supported during the first two phases of the Alaska National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Deployment Plan). AEA will specifically work with the following nine energy regions: Aleutians Bering straits Bristol Bay Copper River Kodiak Borough Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim North Slope Northwest Arctic Yukon Koyukuk Subscribe Past Issues Translate Project work would include engaging with communities to see if they have the support, capacity, and infrastructure for charging stations, educating areas on electric transportation benefits, and working with communities to develop, manage, and maintain charging station sites. Throughout the project, the team will collect, analyze, and publish data that can be used to help inform future EV charging investments in cold climates. We’ll keep you updated as this project progresses! EV Charging News Ford Motor Company and Tesla Motors recently worked out a deal that will provide Ford EV owners access to Tesla’s Superchargers across the United States and Canada. This will enable access to Tesla’s network of over 12,000 Superchargers. Starting next year, Mustang Mach-E, F-150 Lightning, and E- Transit drivers will be able to charge at the Superchargers using an adapter that allows the existing Combined Charging System (CCS) to work with Tesla’s North American Charging Standard (NACS) system. In 2025, all Ford EVs will have a NACS connector built in, allowing access to the Superchargers without an adapter. This announcement has caused quite a stir in the EV community. Many are wondering how the existing CCS standard will be impacted now that two of the major EV manufacturers in the US have adopted NACS. With Ford’s integration of NACS into their future vehicles, at least one EVSE manufacturer, Freewire Technologies, has announced that they plan to add NACS ports to future chargers. However, on the flip side, CharIN, a non-profit organization that Subscribe Past Issues Translate promotes interoperability and CCS as a global standard, issued a statement stating they don’t believe the EV industry can thrive with multiple competing charging systems. They encouraged the further use of CCS as a global standard. June Workshop Series Join the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for a National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Plan and Program Update Workshop Series. Get to know Alaska's Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan (The Plan) and provide your feedback, as we prepare to submit an updated version later this year. The Plan details how the state will utilize the approximately $52 million AEA will receive over the next five years through the NEVI Formula Program. In June, we will host four hybrid workshops in Anchorage, MatSu, Juneau, and Fairbanks. We welcome feedback on The Plan even if you’re unable to attend one of these workshops. Comments and questions can be emailed to electricvehicles@akenergyauthority.org. AEA NEVI Plan and Program Update Workshop Schedule Subscribe Past Issues Translate Anchorage Workshop – Monday, June 12, 4-5:30 p.m. In person: AEA Board Room, 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 Zoom meeting: Click this link, or use the information below: Meeting ID: 857 3358 2599 Passcode: 691665 833 548 0282 US Toll-free 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free MatSu Workshop – Tuesday, June 13, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m. In person: Wasilla Museum, 391 N Main Street, Wasilla, AK 99654 Zoom meeting: Click this link, or use the information below: Meeting ID: 814 6184 5526 Passcode: 856250 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free 833 548 0282 US Toll-free Juneau Workshop – Wednesday, June 14, Noon–1:30 p.m. In person: Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Green Conference Room, 233 Willoughby Ave, 9th Floor, State Office Building, Juneau, AK 99801 Zoom meeting: Click this link, or use the information below: Meeting ID: 854 2056 1243 Passcode: 137379 833 548 0282 US Toll-free 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free Fairbanks Workshop – Thursday, June 15, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m. In Person: Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center, 3605 Cartwright Ct., Fairbanks, AK 99709 Zoom: Click this link, or use the information below: Meeting ID: 835 5949 0506 Passcode: 852821 877 853 5257 US Toll-free Subscribe Past Issues Translate 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free 833 548 0282 US Toll-free Facebook LinkedIn Website The Alaska Energy Authority’s Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group involves collaborative stakeholders focused on promoting the use of electric vehicles (EVs) in Alaska by removing barriers to EV adoption and increasing access to charging infrastructure. Stay up to date on AEA's EV efforts at our website here. Copyright © 2023 Alaska Energy Authority, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Subscribe Past Issues Translate 6/7/23, 3:38 PM Recap: Deputy Secretary David Turk Visits the 49th State | Department of Energy https://www.energy.gov/arctic/articles/recap-deputy-secretary-david-turk-visits-49th-state 1/6 Arctic Energy Office Recap: Deputy Secretary David Turk Visits the 49th State JUNE 5, 2023 Arctic Energy Office » Recap: Deputy Secretary David Turk Visits the 49th State Saying Alaska is unique feels like an understatement. It has more coastline than the entire eastern seaboard combined. It has the most airspace of any state, the highest mountain, the largest glacier. There’s over 70 potentially active volcanoes, 97 known thermal springs, one of the greatest tidal resources on Earth, rainforests and permafrost – and there are 228 federally recognized tribes living throughout the state. Within this vast and industrious state, there’s endless potential for renewable energy. Alaska.Gov 6/7/23, 3:38 PM Recap: Deputy Secretary David Turk Visits the 49th State | Department of Energy https://www.energy.gov/arctic/articles/recap-deputy-secretary-david-turk-visits-49th-state 2/6 At the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference last week (May 22-25), hosted by Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy, a range of Department of Energy and Administration officials were on hand for plenaries, panels, events, and consults as nearly 1,000 attendees connected about boosting the clean energy transition in Alaska. Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk joined Arctic Energy Office Director Dr. Erin Whitney and Assistant Secretary of State for Energy and Natural Resources, Geoffrey Pyatt, for a conversation about taking big and bold steps to invest in Alaska, bring good-paying clean energy jobs to the state, and spur on energy developments with a focus on bringing reliable clean energy access and resources to previously underserved communities. While Alaska is the “coal capital of the United States,” as Gov. Dunleavy said, there’s tremendous opportunity for hydropower, biomass energy, battery storage, wind, solar, geothermal, energy efficiency upgrades, and nuclear energy, to name a few of the key conversation topics at the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference. DOE staff from the Arctic Energy Office were joined by teams from the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, the Grid Deployment Office, Sandia National Laboratories, Loan Programs Office, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Idaho National Laboratory, ARPA-E, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at the conference, indicating how much investment the Department of Energy is making (and is poised to make) in the 49th State. Deputy Secretary Turk also made visits to rural Alaska while in the state, flying to Nome, Teller, and Kotzebue to visit local officials, utility companies, Port of Nome officials, the Alaska Native Corporation - NANA Regional Corporation, and Alaska residents to understand energy challenges and needs. He also met with the Alaska Federation of Natives’ leadership and staff, Calista Corporation, DOE’s National Labs’ Alaskan collaborators in a briefing with Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel, and spoke with the many DOE staff members who are based in the state. 6/7/23, 3:38 PM Recap: Deputy Secretary David Turk Visits the 49th State | Department of Energy https://www.energy.gov/arctic/articles/recap-deputy-secretary-david-turk-visits-49th-state 3/6 courtesy of Photo Emporium AK Deputy Secretary Turk in conversation with Arctic Energy Office's Director Erin Whitney at the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference on May 23, 2023. 6/7/23, 3:38 PM Recap: Deputy Secretary David Turk Visits the 49th State | Department of Energy https://www.energy.gov/arctic/articles/recap-deputy-secretary-david-turk-visits-49th-state 4/6 See more photos from his trip on DOE’s Flickr page. “It is routine that we get to say ‘for the first time ever…’ at the Department of Energy, said Deputy Secretary Turk in his panel remarks. “We’ve got the nerds, the technology, the policy, the tools in our toolbox,” he said. “We need to roll up our sleeves and execute.” That’s exactly what the Arctic Energy Office is here to enable. Anyone working on Arctic energy issues is encouraged to reach out to us at Arctic.Energy@hq.doe.gov and get in touch to tap in our ability to guide you in working with the vast resources of the Department of Energy, like our technical assistance for tribal communities, our funding opportunities through President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, our STEM workforce development efforts, our world-class research and technology transfer work. We’re ready to help the Arctic lead the way. courtesy of Photo Emporium AK Arctic Energy's Senior Advisor on Alaska, Givey Kochanowski (center), in conversation with attendees at the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference. Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s second annual energy and economic sustainability conference in Anchorage came off with a splash, heavily attended and with a high note on the final day as the governor shared the stage with famed energy consultant and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Yergin (the Prize) at Yergin’s keynote remarks on the final day, May 25. Dunleavy clearly relished sharing the stage with Yergin. The conference itself mainly focused on presentations about renewable energy and emerging energy technologies like micro-reactors, both interests of the governor, but included sustainable agri- culture and other topics. The interest of many attendees was on how to cash in on new federal alterna- tive energy grants and tax credits, and overall the conference reminded us of the annual Alaska Native Federation convention where the side-conferences and lobbying were as important, if not more so, that what was said at the podium. Dunleavy is clearly looking for a legacy for his second and final term as governor and sustainability seems part of this. The conference is to become an annual event. Yergin was interesting with his global perspective. He said nice things about Alaska, appropriate given the audience, and that the state’s role in the energy transition underway is still unrecognized (the confer- ence will help that, he said). World energy markets have been turned upside down by Ukraine. Russia is no longer an oil and gas superpower; LNG from the U.S. Gulf Coast helped get Europe through the first winter of being shut off from Russian gas, and there appears to be no going back. Yergin sees LNG as- suming strategic importance. With the U.S.-China relationship now strained, Japan is moving ever closer to the U.S. With U.S. LNG exports coming only from the Gulf Coast, “we need LNG capacity from the west coast,” Yergin said. Alaska should play a significant role in that. Yergin was just back from the G-7 Summit in Japan, where the closing statements, though a little ambiguous, were definitely in support of expanded LNG trade, and not just to reduce coal-burning and carbon but as a security matter. “Energy security is back on the table.” Yergin noted strategic and critical minerals as key in the energy transition, particularly copper, and Alaska’s potential in metals. But he also mentioned the permitting and litigation delay hampering devel- opment of high-grade copper in the Ambler region in Northwest Alaska (see page 7). On a more sober note, in an answer to one of the governor’s closing questions, Yergin said the world is reverting back to regionalism in trade. “The era of globalism is over. Borders are going up again, which means costs and (trade) regulatory issues will rise. These will be more challenging times,” he said. Page 3 Alaska Economic Report No. 8/2023 Governor’s sustainable energy summit Dunleavy basks in Daniel Yergin’s glow Dunleavy says Alaska can boost fossil fuels and renewables. Clean energy advocates disagree. https://alaskapublic.org/2023/06/05/dunleavy-says-alaska-can-boost-fossil-fuels-and-renewables-clean-energy-advocates-disagree/ 1/5 Dunleavy says Alaska can boost fossil fuels and renewables. Clean energy advocates disagree. By Kavitha George, Alaska Public Media - Anchorage - June 5, 2023 Wind turbines in Wales, Alaska. (Photo courtesy of Alaska Center for Energy and Power) Standing in front of a crowd of energy experts and industry leaders in Anchorage last week, Gov. Mike Dunleavy outlined his vision for Alaska’s energy policy. “When we talk about energy, for Alaska, it is going to be all -in,” Dunleavy told the audience at the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference, which his administration helped organize. Dunleavy says Alaska can boost fossil fuels and renewables. Clean energy advocates disagree. https://alaskapublic.org/2023/06/05/dunleavy-says-alaska-can-boost-fossil-fuels-and-renewables-clean-energy-advocates-disagree/ 2/5 Alaska is an oil and gas state, Dunleavy said, but it can no longer only be an oil and gas state. Going forward, he said, “it is going to be oil, it is going to be gas, it’s going to be wind, it’s going to be solar, it’s going to be geothermal, it’s going to be biomass , it’s going to be nukes.” Alaska officials at the conference repeatedly made the case that the state should both increase fossil fuel production and boost renewables like wind and solar. But critics argue this vision ignores the devastating impacts of c limate change. Alaska has long faced an energy paradox. The state is a major oil producer, and oil taxes and royalties have for decades been a major revenue source, supporting state spending on everything from schools to roads. But most of that oil is shi pped out of state. Meanwhile, rural communities in Alaska face some of the highest energy costs in the nation, often relying on expensive imported diesel and heating oil. In an interview with Alaska Public Media, Dunleavy laid out his vision for how to a ddress this dilemma. He argued that Alaska should double down on the production of fossil fuels as a revenue source, while building more renewable energy in -state to lower bills at home. As part of that vision, Dunleavy and other Alaska officials used th e conference to reiterate support for the Alaska LNG project: a proposed 800 -mile natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to the Kenai Peninsula, which would potentially allow Alaska to export liquified natural gas to buyers in Asia. “We want to be a p layer on the world stage in oil and gas, as well as coal, as well as biomass,” Dunleavy said in the interview. But, he added, “internally, we have to lower the cost of energy and make it stable. And that’s where you see a lot of the renewable concepts come into play.” Dunleavy says Alaska can boost fossil fuels and renewables. Clean energy advocates disagree. https://alaskapublic.org/2023/06/05/dunleavy-says-alaska-can-boost-fossil-fuels-and-renewables-clean-energy-advocates-disagree/ 3/5 Dunleavy said for him, investing in renewables is not about lowering carbon emissions or combatting climate change, it’s about securing cheap energy for Alaskans that’s not tied to the volatile price of oil. The cost to operate renewable ener gy projects has dropped dramatically in recent years. “From my perspective, if a diesel generator could be producing electricity at a very low cost consistently, we would consider that as well,” Dunleavy said. But critics say this vision is short -sighted and fails to take climate change into account. Phillip Wight, an energy historian at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, said Alaska has pursued a similar approach for decades. “Historically, Alaskans have not pursued renewable energy because of climate benefits. We have pursued renewable energy because it has reduced our reliance on diesel and other higher cost fossil fuels,” Wight said. “We’ve done it for economic reasons, not climate reasons.” But Wight said today, as climate change accelerates, Alaska needs to consider more than just economic benefit. Alaska faces growing impacts from climate change, from sea ice loss and thawing permafrost to species die -offs. Scientists say the world must slash carbon emissions, including from burning fossil fuels, nearly in half by the end of this decade to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The state’s total contribution to the global oil and gas market is relatively small, but Wight argued that as lon g as Alaska continues to drill, it’s contributing to its own environmental problems. “We’re still exacerbating a global problem, and a global problem where Alaska is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet,” Wight Dunleavy says Alaska can boost fossil fuels and renewables. Clean energy advocates disagree. https://alaskapublic.org/2023/06/05/dunleavy-says-alaska-can-boost-fossil-fuels-and-renewables-clean-energy-advocates-disagree/ 4/5 said. “We’re not escaping t hat problem. We’re on the front lines of the climate crisis.” Proponents of fossil fuel production point out that there’s no clear alternative state revenue source that could replace oil production. But experts like Wight predict that as the world transit ions away from fossil fuels, eventually Alaska will have to stop drilling. The International Energy Agency warned in 2021 that any new fossil fuel infrastructure would make it harder to meet global climate targets. Meanwhile, some clean energy advocates s ay the state still isn’t doing enough to invest in renewables at home. Rachel Christensen with The Alaska Center, an Anchorage -based nonprofit, said she’d like to see the governor make renewable policy a bigger priority. “What we’re seeing is just talk ab out the potential of solutions,” Christiansen said. “We need to see him actually taking action on putting those into place.” Christiansen pointed to two proposals that were before the legislature this year: one would have required utilities to source a c ertain amount of their energy from renewable projects. The other would have created a “green bank” to help finance renewable projects in small communities. Dunleavy supported both, but neither passed. In response to Christiansen’s criticisms, a Dunleavy s pokesperson reiterated the governor’s goal to provide Alaskans with low -cost, reliable sources of energy. Christensaid would also like to see the administration take climate change more s eriously in its energy policy. Dunleavy says Alaska can boost fossil fuels and renewables. Clean energy advocates disagree. https://alaskapublic.org/2023/06/05/dunleavy-says-alaska-can-boost-fossil-fuels-and-renewables-clean-energy-advocates-disagree/ 5/5 “It should be more than just an econ omic move,” Christiansen said. “Our people and industries are already feeling the effects of the climate crisis. And we can’t keep pushing these large scale extraction projects for export, just because it’s what we’ve always done.” 6/2/23, 11:58 AM Alaska sustainable energy independence - North of 60 Mining News https://www.miningnewsnorth.com/story/2023/06/02/editorial/alaska-sustainable-energy-independence/7963.html 1/5 By A.J. Roan Mining News North of 60 Mining News - The mining newspaper for Alaska and Canada's North Alaska sustainable energy independence Last Frontier State at the forefront of everything renewable – critical minerals, ideal environment for US clean energy model North of 60 Mining News – June 2, 2023 Wikimedia Commons 1.5MW wind turbines deliver clean electricity to Kodiak, Alaska. Coming together to recognize the potential Alaska can bring to the table for the global transition to renewable energy, the 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference invited leaders in government, academia, industry, and investment from across the globe to participate in discussions and to be educated on the challenges and opportunities that the Last Frontier State presents as it looks forward to the next century of energy. Alaskans often remark about their home being a state that is behind the curve in technology, accessibility, and development. Laws, regulations, and equipment implemented in the Lower 48 don't often see adoption in the Last Frontier State until years or even decades after they've already begun to change in the South. This is driven by many factors, such as geographical limitations, technological shortcomings, inadequate infrastructure, necessity expenses as well as lack of access to industry leaders within various markets to provide the expertise needed to spur change. Yet, with the onset of the renewable energy transition, Alaska has found itself behind the curtain, ready to take the stage, and the ASEC was that stage. Recognizing the potential of the 49th State, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy organized an assembly of possibility to illuminate what the state can do but, perhaps more importantly, highlight the needs and wants of the now to begin transitioning to energy security and independence. With a basic understanding that Alaska as a whole has the capability to harness all the energy it needs for itself, the difficulties in taking advantage of that fact ultimately boil down to transportation, economics, and policy. With a state so large, combined with an indifferent climate, transportation has plagued Alaska as a problem for decades. Often used as an example during the Alaska Sustainable Energy conference, rural communities face exorbitant prices for many common goods those further south take for granted each day. 6/2/23, 11:58 AM Alaska sustainable energy independence - North of 60 Mining News https://www.miningnewsnorth.com/story/2023/06/02/editorial/alaska-sustainable-energy-independence/7963.html 2/5 Economics, while broad, could ultimately be summed up in one question: is it worth it to spend money in Alaska? Even now, many do not answer this question positively. Finally, policy – or, more precisely, an unwieldy federal permitting process holds back Alaska's potential. Aptly phrased as the "permitting pandemic" by S&P Global Vice Chairman Dan Yergin during his appearance at the Alaska Sustainable Energy conference, this is something nearly all Alaskans in resource development are familiar with. Despite the extensive care and consideration taken to protect their home, development is too often hampered by organizations or individuals or the swamp of paperwork that takes a generation or more to complete. And even if permitting somehow manages to work its way through the pipeline, litigation or protestation disrupts the process as public opinion is always taken into account. Nevertheless, the Alaska Sustainable Energy conference was a gathering of hope and promise. With energy becoming the commodity of the future, more so than the resources used to provide that energy, this changing viewpoint is shifting the approach to nearly every facet of life, and many are beginning to realize Alaska is where that energy can be provided. Alaskan energy According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2019, Alaska had a total summer capacity of 2,760 megawatts through all its power plants and a net generation of 5,944 gigawatt-hours. At the time, the distribution of energy was provided by 41% natural gas, 27.6% hydroelectric, 14.9 petroleum, 13.6% coal, 2.1% wind, 0.6% biomass, and 0.2% solar. Despite these seemingly abundant numbers, according to the Energy Information Administration, the average price of residential electricity in Alaska is 22.86 cents per kilowatt-hour as opposed to the national average of 15.96 cents per kWh. Pair this with the volatile nature of fuel prices that power and heat rural Alaska, with prices running as high as $15 per gallon in some of the state's most remote communities and hundreds of thousands of gallons needed as generally rural areas only receive one shipment per year, it is basically the largest part of a village's fiscal year. Many rural areas also rely solely on million-gallon diesel tanks to provide the necessary power needs for their communities, so it can be imagined how much energy costs for these places. While more well-connected towns and villages have begun supplementing their energy needs with wind and solar, this ignores the heat production needed to keep these places warm during the frigid winter months. In the more populace region of Alaska, a grid known as "the Railbelt" that extends from the Kenai Peninsula through Anchorage and all the way up to Interior Alaska's Fairbanks serves about two-thirds of the state's residents. For Interior Alaska, coal is still the only truly viable power supply for the region as it provides the necessary heat to survive the negative 40 Fahrenheit or below temperatures in the winter. Quick fun fact, Alaska holds the extreme U.S. record low temperatures for every month except September and October. While it is admirable to want renewable power generation everywhere, wind and solar cannot do it all. Thus, the discussions around the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference were more than just replacing current energy production but supplementing and improving it so that it can cause less damage and provide the most good for people and the environment. 6/2/23, 11:58 AM Alaska sustainable energy independence - North of 60 Mining News https://www.miningnewsnorth.com/story/2023/06/02/editorial/alaska-sustainable-energy-independence/7963.html 3/5 Energy supply was split between modular nuclear reactors that could possibly replace the diesel tanks, geothermal that could provide stable baseload power to backbone intermittent energy production like wind and solar, hydrokinetic, hydroelectric, possible hydrogen production, battery storage, etc.; basically, every technology at the forefront of renewable can be implemented in some form or fashion in Alaska. Over the years, regional utilities have continued to strive toward more reasonable prices for their members by innovating, by navigating permitting for land development, such as the Bradley Lake hydroelectric plant – the current largest hydroelectric facility in Alaska, accounting for 27% of the state's power – but most importantly by partnering with other utilities to solve problems unique to each region in a concerted effort to combat prices. However, to meet the zero-carbon goals of the future, development has to happen now and with the roadblocks impairing that development in the form of policy, as it stands now, it will not happen. Mining to build America The transition to zero-carbon energy is a noble goal. If resource development and energy consumption can mitigate and even eliminate damage or risk to the only home humanity has, it is a win – no one wants to come home after work to sleep in garbage. Yet, this noble goal is little more than a pipe dream, with the requirements of the technology contingent on resource development or, more specifically, mining. Alaska is where it is today due to resource development, and Alaskans want to develop more of its resources and in a way that doesn't turn the state into a landfill. Alaska serendipitously holds 49 of the 50 minerals and metals deemed critical to the United States and others not on that list, such as copper and silver, but are critical to the low-carbon future. From zinc and germanium already being produced at the Red Dog Mine in far Northwest Alaska to the cobalt- enriched copper deposits in the Ambler Mining District, the largest graphite deposit in the U.S. found on the Seward Peninsula, rare earths at the Bokan Mountain project on the Southeast Alaska Panhandle, and the thousands of deposits and prospects found throughout everywhere else, the bounty of Alaska is begging to be tapped into, and now is the best time to begin the work. If a mineral exploration project bears fruit, a mine can provide income for the state in the form of taxes and jobs for locals, but more importantly, an impetus for clean energy that can be strategically built to help rural communities if possible. While this wouldn't be feasible for every location in the state, for an exploration project such as Nova Minerals' Estelle project roughly 100 miles west of Anchorage, a geothermal power plant at the Crater Peak vent of Mt. Spurr would provide a minimum of 10 megawatts of baseload power to the Railbelt grid as well as a future facility at Estelle if it were ever to begin production. Incentivizing energy development through the lens of mineral development, while a little roundabout, is perhaps the best current method to capitalize on that energy, as those very minerals and metals would be needed to construct such technologies – so why not create a possible creditable action for such raw material production to further incentivize it? Mining to power Alaska If incentive is needed to provide ample motive for development, Alaska need only lean into what it knows – its resources. 6/2/23, 11:58 AM Alaska sustainable energy independence - North of 60 Mining News https://www.miningnewsnorth.com/story/2023/06/02/editorial/alaska-sustainable-energy-independence/7963.html 4/5 Already navigating the rough waters of policy, mining has established that incentive by its very nature. Dozens of mining companies have already made the leap to begin development, despite the red tape it wades through. Due to the growing pressures of investors looking for conscientious operations, miners are now held to higher environmental, societal, and governance standards – which Alaska has already been implementing for decades. Even with these expectations, the allure of rich lodes to develop far outweigh the complex regulatory and ESG landscape mining companies must now navigate. U.S. National Archives Giant fuel tanks on the north slope of Barter Island near Kaktovik, Alaska. Many Alaska villages use use similar tanks to store energy to power and heat their homes. With a mine to be developed, all the factors needed to be considered to complete a supply chain from mine to market could be used in and for itself to further develop the mine if stipulations for energy production with its mined resources were retained toward those clean energy technologies. Perhaps wishful thinking, but much like the tax credits toward electric vehicles requiring resources to be sourced domestically or from allied nations, it would not be too farfetched to employ a similar system for mining companies if they directed some of their resources to clean renewable energy, therefore accomplishing ESG standards and creating a foundation for future generations to benefit as much as the miner has from the resources the state shares. With ideal geothermal, tidal, and onshore and offshore locations for wind energy, and all the materials needed to build next-generation energy production, Alaska is easily the scaffolding to build a model for the rest of the United States on how to implement renewable technologies. Because if it can be built here, it can be built anywhere. You might be interested in: Calm before the 2019 exploration storm A glimmer of hope for the Arctic ... humanity Keeping the main thing, the main thing The 2019 mining game is afoot in Alaska Mining risks change often, dramatically CLEAN ENERGY MAY 30, 2023  Wind turbines at sunset 100% Renewable Victory: Renewable Energy Grant Fund extended permanently Late last week, Governor Dunleavy signed HB 62, legislation extending the Renewable Energy Grant Fund, into law. The Renewable Energy Grant Fund bill was sponsored by Rep. Bryce Edgmon who is an independent representing much of southwest Alaska. The fund was rst created in 2008.  Over the last fteen years, it has directed approximately $300 million to over 100 completed renewable Werner Slocum, National Renewable Energy Laboratory | Public Domain TRENDING Save the bees Beyond plastic Forests The Latest Events Resources Media Center About Careers States Part of the Public Interest Network  Our Work TAKE ACTION DONATE energy projects in the state. More are in progress.  The fund helps directly fund projects and secure matching private and federal funds. A few years ago, the Alaska Energy Authority estimated that projects awarded funding through the Renewable Energy Grant Fund are responsible for saving the equivalent of 30 million gallons of diesel every year. That number will only have gone up since then, and continue to climb with this permanent extension.  If you’re curious, you can ip through some of the projects here. Funds have gone towards run-of-river sh safe hydroelectric projects, wind projects, heat recovery, solar projects, and more.  The fund was initially set to sunset this year, and Rep. Edgmon started by asking for a 10 year extension. After legislators learned more about the fund, they decided to eliminate any expiration date. The bill had broad bipartisan support in both the house and the senate. Dyani Chapman State Director, Alaska Environment Action SEE THE CAMPAIGN Ask your state lawmakers to support a renewable energy portfolio standard Ask your lawmakers to ensure that electric utilities add more renewable energy into their mix. TAKE ACTION CLEAN ENERGY 100% Renewable CLEAN ENERGY Sustainable energy conference kicks off in Anchorage https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/05/24/sustainable-energy-conference-kicks-off-anchorage/ 1/5 Sustainable Energy: ‘A Model for the World’ BY SCOTT RHODE | MAY 30, 2023 | ENERGY, FEATURED, GOVERNMENT, NEWS UAF Associate Vice Chancellor of Research Gwen Holdmann (far left) moderates a panel including Richard Voorberg of Siemens Energy (center) and Laurent Nassif of Hawaii Gas (far right). ALASKA BUSINESS The second annual Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference has grown since the debut event a year ago. The 800 or so attendees are nearly double the amount from 2022, and exhibitors have spread from the third-floor hallway of the Dena’ina Convention Center to fill the ground floor Idlughet Hall instead. Sustainable energy conference kicks off in Anchorage https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/05/24/sustainable-energy-conference-kicks-off-anchorage/ 2/5 Revenue from Thin Air The office of Governor Mike Dunleavy, which is hosting the event, is also taking advantage of Chugach Electric Association’s pilot program for Renewable Energy Certificates (REC). Each REC is worth 1 MWh (megawatt hour) of renewable electricity. The utility pays a fee to the North American Renewables registry, which enables Chugach Electric to sell the “attributes” of the Fire Island Wind project, in addition to the power the eleven turbines offshore from Anchorage add to the Railbelt grid. For the conference, the State of Alaska retired 20 MWh worth of REC from Fire Island Wind. According to Chugach Electric, the turbines generate approximately 49,000 MWh per year, or 5.6 MW in any given hour. Thus, the twenty REC account for about three and a half hours of the three-day conference. On the first day, Dunleavy put his signature on legislation to access an ancillary market for climate-conscious buyers. Senate Bill 48 enables the state to sell carbon offset credits for unused land, essentially monetizing the storage capacity of trees and soil. As with REC, the key is the ledger that tracks the tradeable instruments. “Alaska’s definitely gonna be a mover and shaker as we move forward,” Dunleavy said in his welcome message. “Together, I think we’re going to build an Alaska that, quite frankly, can be a model for the world.” On the second day, the governor’s office unveiled what it bills as the state’s first sustainability report. “The Alaska Standard” is a document compiled by Bridge House Advisors, a Chicago-based consulting firm. The report describes the history of resource development in Alaska and how those industries support state services and quality of life. “From our legacy resource industries that will sustain us for decades to come to our investments in renewables and emerging energy technologies, we want the world to know that Alaska is the best place on the planet to do business that strikes the right balance between what’s best for both people and our environment,” Dunleavy says. Bridge House Advisors chief growth officer Jeff Gibbons adds, “In my opinion, for the last six-plus decades, the State of Alaska has demonstrated the spirit Sustainable energy conference kicks off in Anchorage https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/05/24/sustainable-energy-conference-kicks-off-anchorage/ 3/5 and intent of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, and the State and its people are uniquely positioned to lead on the global energy transition.” The report highlights work by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to reduce the cost of energy, particularly in rural communities. Dunleavy told conference attendees that affordability is his top priority, based on his experience living in Northwest Alaska. Toward that end, AEA has supported efforts to improve efficiency and displace diesel-powered generators. “During the last four years, the State has invested heavily in renewable energy, including hydropower, solar, and wind, as well as looking at emerging technologies such as hydrogen and micronuclear,” says AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer. “By accelerating the transition to renewable energy, Alaska is positioning itself to provide long-term, affordable, and secure energy, while creating new jobs for the evolving sustainable economy.” All of the Above A certificate displayed at the registration desk confirms that the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference claimed ownership of 20 MWh worth of renewable energy. A typical American home uses 10 MWh per year, but the Dena’ina Convention Center is much bigger. ALASKA BUSINESS Sustainable energy conference kicks off in Anchorage https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/05/24/sustainable-energy-conference-kicks-off-anchorage/ 4/5 Very few states are as well positioned to innovate in the energy transition, according to Geoffrey R. Pyatt, Assistant Secretary for Energy Resources at the US Department of State. “Whether it’s fossil resources, the enormous potential that Alaska has for renewables, the role of minerals from this state in the energy transition,” Pyatt says, “this is a state that really brings home so much of what I’m responsible for.” Exactly how much fossil fuels will continue to be part of that transition is up for debate. Inside the exhibition hall, the Climate Action Coalition distributed flyers from its booth that label some of Dunleavy’s favorite projects—carbon capture and storage, micronuclear, or a North Slope natural gas pipeline—as “false solutions.” True solutions, according to organizer Arleigh (last name withheld) would include renewables and battery storage. The renewable sources on the flipside of the flyer—wind, solar, geothermal, and microhydro—were well represented at the conference as part of the “all of the above” mix that Dunleavy prefers. Arleigh adds that trucking liquified natural gas to Fairbanks—which the Interior Gas Utility is pursuing from Cook Inlet and, eventually, from the North Slope— is a better option than a pipeline. Multi-billion-dollar infrastructure would lock- in dependence on fossil fuel, whereas trucks are a more transitional solution, though the flyer still lists it as “false” because of its relatively high cost. Power to X Sustainable energy conference kicks off in Anchorage https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/05/24/sustainable-energy-conference-kicks-off-anchorage/ 5/5 All-electric vehicles demonstrated by Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, and Homer Electric Association on display in Idlughet Hall. ALASKA BUSINESS A gasline would solve the looming shortage in the Cook Inlet region, where Hilcorp is warning utilities that production won’t keep up with demand by 2030. Another way to extend the Cook Inlet supply would be to blend it with hydrogen. Laurent Nassif, senior director of clean energy and innovation at Hawaii Gas, told attendees that the Aloha State utility has filled its pipes with 15 percent hydrogen since 1974. The blend dilutes the energy content of natural gas, since gaseous hydrogen is not as potent as methane, but Nassif says the supplement works with existing natural gas infrastructure. The hydrogen is reclaimed from industrial processes and wastewater treatment on Oahu. The Cook Inlet watershed could supply hydrogen, cracked out of H20 from groundwater or streams. Nassif shared a conference panel with Richard Voorberg, the North America president of Siemens Energy, which makes electrolyzers that split water into its component atoms. The latest model can turn 17.5 MW into a tonne of hydrogen every three hours, from ten times as much water. That amount of electricity happens to be the rated output of Fire Island Wind. Instead of powering the lights, sound, and escalators at the Dena’ina Convention Center during the conference, the turbines might someday manufacture hydrogen for gas-burning appliances or electric-propelled aircraft. Surplus electricity could also catalyze carbon dioxide back into fuel or produce ammonia for fertilizer, a pathway called “Power to X,” where X is whatever medium can store energy tapped from renewable sources. “What is Alaska going to look like in fifty years?” Dunleavy asked in his welcome message. “What is it going to look like in twenty years? It’s this conference that’s going to help us get there, and succeeding conferences that we’ll have as well.” ECONOMY & ENVIRONMENT GOVERNMENT & POLITICS AL AS K A I N BR I EF Gov. Dunleavy signs bill permanently extending Alaska’s renewable energy grant fund BY: JAMES BROOKS - MAY 26, 2023 2:31 PM        Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy signs House Bill 62, permanently extending the state’s renewable energy grant fund, on Thursday, May 25, 2023, at the conclusion of the second annual Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference in Anchorage. (Screenshot) Gov. Mike Dunleavy closed Alaska’s second annual sustainable energy conference on Thursday by signing legislation that permanently establishes the state’s renewable energy grant fund. The Alaska Legislature passed House Bill 62, from Rep. Bryce Edgmon, I- Dillingham, by a combined 53-1 margin this spring, with six lawmakers not  voting. The grant fund was established in 2008 and has been irregularly funded by the Legislature since then, distributing a combined total of more than $300 million over 15 years. “I think of it as the little train that could, because it’s a program that doesn’t get headline status, but in those 15 years, it’s worked to create over 100 operating projects, and there’s 44 more in the pipeline,” Edgmon said during Thursday’s signing ceremony. State law included an expiration date for the program, and HB 62 erases that date, keeping it on the books permanently. Curtis Thayer, director of the Alaska Energy Authority, called the fund “a catalyst” for renewable energy projects in Alaska, and Dunleavy said he has “a lot of faith in innovation and a lot of faith in where we’re going.” GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX S U B S C R I B E R E P U B L I S H Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics. JA M E S BR OOKS  James Brooks is a longtime Alaska reporter, having previously worked at the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, Kodiak Mirror and Fairbanks Daily News- Miner. A graduate of Virginia Tech, he is married to Caitlyn Ellis, owns a house in Juneau and has a small sled dog named Barley. He can be contacted at jbrooks@alaskabeacon.com. M O R E F R O M A U T H O R R E L ATED NEWS https://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/dunleavy-releases-inaugural-sustainability- report/article_6a219e1c-fa8e-11ed-a0f9-d7798d712667.html Dunleavy releases inaugural sustainability report Jack Barnwell May 25, 2023 Photo courtesy Fran Mauer A moose rests near the solar panel array belonging to Fran Mauer. Photo courtesy Fran Mauer The state of Alaska unveiled its first sustainability report Wednesday at the height of a sustainability conference held in Anchorage, detailing what Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s office said ”documents the state’s history of responsible resource development.” The 32-page report, titled “The Alaska Standard,” provides information on planned or ongoing projects and the state’s goal to develop its resources from oil and gas to critical minerals and timber. “Alaskans know that we’ve been doing resource development better than anyone since statehood by following our constitutional mandates to develop our resources for the maximum benefit of our people, adhere to the sustained yield principle, and to safeguard the public interest,” said Dunleavy in a prepared statement Wednesday. Dunleavy commissioned the report from Chicago-based firm Bridge House Advisors, with contributions by multiple state agencies and corporations, the University of Alaska, and independent stakeholder groups including the ANCSA Regional Association and the Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat. Economic, educational and historical information is also included related to Alaska Native corporation’s involvement in sustainability, including the partnership between NANA Regional Corporation and Red Dog Mine. The sustainability report also takes aim at the federal government for placing overly burdensome regulations or lawsuits filed by environmental groups for slowing down the state’s resource development goals. “For far too long we’ve allowed our story to be told by others, often to the detriment of our ability to develop those resources,” Dunleavy said. He said the sustainability “report allows us to tell our story to the world, and demonstrate that the standards ... set the bar for best practices that should be adopted across the globe.” The report advocates the need for major North Slope oil developments such as ConocoPhillips’ Willow project, which currently has the federal green light to go into development. Willow is projected to produce about 600 million barrels of oil equivalent over its lifetime and deliver a minimum of $8 billion in revenue for federal, state and North Slope Borough governments and communities. Environmental groups have tried to legally challenge the project and slow or stop the development, calling it a “carbon bomb” that could produce 70 million metric tons of additional CO2 emissions. The report also stresses the need for the state to diversify its energy portfolio and branch out to renewables — from wind and solar, to tidal, geothermal and micronuclear, all while cultivating resources for such projects in Alaska itself. “Alaska is enriched with the minerals needed to support the global transition to clean energy and electrification both for the United States and globally,” the report states. The plan references the ongoing wintertime particulate matter pollution (PM2.5) problem in the Fairbanks North Star Borough nonattainment area (which encompasses Fairbanks and North Pole), the need to address the issue and arguments against strict federal guidelines proposed the Environmental Protection Agency. The Alaska LNG Project, a proposed 800-mile natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Nikiski, is being billed as a both a source of revenue leveraging North Slope gas for export and an “affordable a long-term source of natural gas for home heating, power generation, and industrial need for Alaskans.” A separate project for a lateral pipeline to Fairbanks is linked to the project, and the report mentions the LNG Project could reduce the borough’s PM2.5 levels. “By creating a long-term, reliable, and low-cost supply of clean burning natural gas for Fairbanks via a future interconnection from the main Project pipeline, human health and air quality would be significantly improved in the region,” the report states. The White House in April signed off on authorizing the sale of liquefied natural gas from the proposed project to authorized international markets. However, the project must still find investors to build the estimated $40 billion project. The report also highlights the work of the Alaska Energy Authority to reduce the cost of energy and displace diesel fuel in communities off the main power grids through decades of work in energy efficiency and renewable power projects. “Throughout our 47-year history, AEA has collaborated with local and regional partners to implement innovative energy solutions that positively affect rural and urban Alaskans,” said AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer in a prepared statement. “During the last four years, the State has invested heavily in renewable energy, including hydropower, solar, and wind, as well as looking at emerging technologies such as hydrogen and micronuclear.” The sustainability report also highlights planned improvements to the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, which provides power to Railbelt utilities including Golden Valley Electric Association. jbarnwell The improvements, called the Dixon Diversion, would provide a 50% boost in annual energy production, enough for at least an additional 25,000 homes across the Railbelt. The report touches on electric vehicle corridor from Homer to Healy, which includes a network of charging stations. The state will use $52 million in federal funding to build out the network over five years. The full report is available online at gov.alaska.gov. Editorial note: This version corrects the name of the Dixon Diversion project. Contact reporter Jack Barnwell at 907-459-7587 or jbarnwell@newsminer.com. Governor Dunleavy's office releases inaugural Alaska Sustainability Report Governor Dunleavy's office releases inaugural Alaska Sustainability Report 1/2 Anchorage, Alaska (KINY) - At the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference, the Office of Governor Mike Dunleavy released “The Alaska Standard”, an inaugural Sustainability Report that documents the State’s history of responsible resource development. “The Alaska Sta ndard” was produced by Bridge House Advisors under a contract with the Office of the Governor and includes contributions by multiple state agencies and corporations, the University of Alaska, and independent stakeholder groups including the ANCSA Regional Association and the Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat. Information in the report is documented through more than 130 citations from public sources “In my opinion, for the last 6+ decades, the State of Alaska has demonstrated the spirit and intent of the UN’s Su stainable Development Goals and the State and its people are uniquely positioned to lead on the global energy transition,” said Jeff Gibbons, Chief Growth Officer of Bridge House Advisors. Governor Dunleavy's office releases inaugural Alaska Sustainability Report Governor Dunleavy's office releases inaugural Alaska Sustainability Report 2/2 Bridge House Advisors is an ESG and sustainability consulting firm headquartered in Chicago. Founded in 2017, Bridge House has more than 50 technical experts from varied backgrounds with extensive and varied environmental and sustainability experience. “Alaskans know that we’ve been doing resource development better tha n anyone since statehood by following our Constitutional mandates to develop our resources for the maximum benefit of our people, adhere to the sustained yield principle, and to safeguard the public interest,” Governor Mike Dunleavy said. “However, for far too long we’ve allowed our story to be told by others, often to the detriment of our ability to develop those resources. This report allows us to tell our story to the world, and demonstrate that the standards ratified by our people at statehood and put into action since then have set the bar for best practices that should be adopted across the globe. You can read the full report here. Dunleavy signs carbon ‘trees’ bill at sustainable energy conference https://www.juneauempire.com/news/dunleavy-signs-carbon-trees-bill-at-sustainable-energy-conference/ 1/4 Dunleavy signs carbon ‘trees’ bill at sustainable energy conference National and state leaders discuss Alaska’s green market prospects in-state and internationally A bill allowing Alaska to enter carbon credit markets was signed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, and top U.S. officials expressed optimism about the state’s alternative energy potential amidst turbulent global times during the second annual Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference that began Tuesday in Anchorage. Dunleavy signs carbon ‘trees’ bill at sustainable energy conference https://www.juneauempire.com/news/dunleavy-signs-carbon-trees-bill-at-sustainable-energy-conference/ 2/4 Vast changes in the global situation during the past few years due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine means Europe has largely abandoned Russia as an energy supplier, while large parts of eastern and central Asia are rapidly emerging markets, according to featured opening-day speakers. “There’s no way I can see that Europe will ever again go and be vulnerable by tying itself to Russia’s natural gas,” U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel told Dunleavy during a 20-minute question-and-answer session. “(Russia is) now turning very quickly to the Indo-Pacific region. That’s where I think the future battle is, getting to that market.” Both men acknowledged it was an unusual meeting of the minds between the Republican governor and Emanuel, who was chief of staff to former President Barack Obama and Chicago’s mayor for two terms before his ambassador appointment by President Joe Biden. Similar alignment was expressed by state and federal officials from both sides of the political aisle about other sustainable energy goals such as lowering costs and reducing environmental impacts. Events at the conference feature presentations and panel discussions on topics such as decarbonizing various forms of transportation, opportunities for investors, sustainable production of non-energy resources such as food through agriculture and mariculture, and how carbon markets are being implemented globally. A bipartisan group of legislators stood behind Dunleavy during his ceremonial signing of Senate Bill 48, nicknamed the “trees bill,” which primarily seeks to generate revenue by selling carbon offset credits to polluters and other entities in exchange for leaving carbon-absorbing natural areas such as forests intact. The bill passed during the final days of the legislative session with 58 of 60 members voting in favor, following months of in-depth hearings where some lawmakers voiced plenty of questions and skepticism. “I think it speaks volumes for their optimism as well,” said Dunleavy, who made two carbon bills he introduced early in session a major part of his legislative and fiscal agenda as he began his second four-year term. “This bill is going to allow us to have conversations worldwide with individuals that are involved in the carbon markets.” Dunleavy initially argued carbon markets could provide billion -dollar sums of revenue annually to the state within a few years to help its long -term financial situation, although subsequent analysis on behalf of state and legislative entities suggest the amount will be far less — and the bill’s fiscal notes declare a reliable revenue estimate isn’t currently possible. Dunleavy signs carbon ‘trees’ bill at sustainable energy conference https://www.juneauempire.com/news/dunleavy-signs-carbon-trees-bill-at-sustainable-energy-conference/ 3/4 Ongoing doubts are also being expressed, in some instances by legislators who said they hesitatingly voted for the bill. Among the range of doubts is potential security threats if an adversarial nation like China is allowed to lease a large amount of land for carbon credit purposes, perhaps limiting Alaska’s ability to develop its natural resources in the process. Dunleavy sought to calm such doubts during the bill signing. “This does not prohibit the state from doing other activities on its land,” he said. “We’re going to be able to hunt, fish, live, mine, produce oil and produce gas. This is just in addition to the other commodities that we already monetize.” Indeed, continuing Alaska’s aggressive efforts to drill for fossil fuels was emphasized by U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, who along delivered brief introductory remarks via video shortly after the conference began. While Sullivan and the rest of Alaska’s congressional delegation has devoted considerable effort during the past year to opening the Willow oil field on the North Slope to drilling, he spent most of his remarks Tuesday focusing on natural gas. “In short we have so much of what we need to counter authoritarian aggression,” he said. SB48, which takes effect immediately, contains three main provisions: 1) authorizing the state to develop carbon management projects on state lands where it sells carbon offset credits, 2) leasing state lands to individual entities for carbon management purposes, and 3) allowing the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to seek state rather than federal authority for underground injection wells used for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. The latter provision adopted during the legislative process is a precursor to Dunleavy’s other carbon bill, which focuses on revenue from entities paying for underground storage of carbon emissions. House and Senate versions of the bill both got several hearings during the session, but neither made it past the committee process to a floor vote. Legislative leaders with both chambers have said the bills will get further serious consideration next year. Emanuel, in his conversation with Dunleavy that followed a keynote address to the convention audience of about 800, emphasized a multitude of sustainable energy elements such as hydrogen, geothermal and micronuclear — in addition to well- known alternatives such as wind and solar — are needed to address the broad range of needs and available resources in Alaska and various countries. Dunleavy signs carbon ‘trees’ bill at sustainable energy conference https://www.juneauempire.com/news/dunleavy-signs-carbon-trees-bill-at-sustainable-energy-conference/ 4/4 That, Emanuel said, is part of the rapidly increasing value being placed on both a reliable resource and supplier. “Companies today pay a predictability premium for sustainability and stability,” he said. Investments the federal government is making in sustainable energy, ranging from infrastructure projects to tribal loans, were highlighted by David Turk, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy. He said incentives have led to nationwide investments such as $100 billion in battery manufacturing and recent actions such as the bipartisan infrastructure bill are providing a million jobs a year. “Also we’re really prioritizing energy communities,” he said. “Alaska is certainly an energy community and we’re making sure there are a huge range of economic opportunities going forward.” Not everything was in lockstep among officials featured at the conference. Sullivan mentioned his “disagreements with Biden on many issues” and Emanuel, following Sullivan’s heated advocacy for natural gas extraction, called it a “transition fuel” that has its own drawbacks such as methane emissions. “We need to make sure ours is better on the issue of methane,” Emanuel said. “It is a serious challenge to climate change.” • Contact reporter Mark Sabbatini at mark.sabbatini@juneauempire.com Sustainable energy conference kicks off in Anchorage https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/05/24/sustainable-energy-conference-kicks-off-anchorage/ 1/2 ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) - The three-day Alaska Sustainable Energy conference kicked off Tuesday in Anchorage. Gov. Mike Dunleavy said the conference is about discussing new ideas to help Alaska and people’s individual communities. “Together, I think we’re going to build Alaska. And quite frankly, I think we can be a model for the world in terms of how we once again generate electricity, distribute electricity, store electricity,” Dunleavy said. Sen. Dan Sullivan also spoke during Tuesday morning’s opening remarks. He said Alaska’s opportunities with regard to resource development in energy are endless. Sustainable energy conference kicks off in Anchorage https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/05/24/sustainable-energy-conference-kicks-off-anchorage/ 2/2 “This conference will showcase these opportunities both for developing traditional energy, transitional energy, alternative energy, carbon capture,” Sullivan said. “We have wind, we have sun to harvest energy, we have enormous hydropower potential, river power, potential all being utilized, but can be more utilized across the state,” Sullivan said. During a panel, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Dave Turk was asked about what clean energy success stories the state has already seen. Turk spoke about Shugnak, a village that’s made a big change toward sustainability. “They’ve actually saved $200,000 a year off of expensive diesel and building out the wind, the solar and some storage. And we see some replication of that again and again across the state. Doesn’t mean it’s easy. It doesn’t mean it’s quick,” Turk said. Turk says Alaska does have some success stories, but there’s a huge opportunity for them moving forward. Copyright 2023 KTUU. All rights reserved. Governor Dunleavy welcomes experts and innovators to Anchorage for the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference https://www.kinyradio.com/news/news-of-the-north/governor-dunleavy-welcomes-experts-and-innovators-to-anchorage-for-the-alaska-sustainable-energy-conference/ 1/2 Anchorage, Alaska (KINY) - Governor Dunleavy will kick off the 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference with special guest Erin Brockovich. The Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference will focus on Alaska's role in leading the energy transition from established renewable sources to innovative and emerging technologies. World-renowned speakers and experts will highlight the agenda, along with breakout tracks, panel discussions, and multiple networking opportunities. Tonight, environ mental and consumer advocate Erin Brockovich will join Governor Dunleavy in a discussion at the conference Kickoff Celebration. Comedy duo the Sklar Brothers will emcee the event, and Craig Wayne Boyd, winner of Season 7 of the Voice will perform along wit h local favorites Nothin' But Trouble. Tickets for this event can be purchased without registering for the entire conference. Governor Dunleavy welcomes experts and innovators to Anchorage for the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference https://www.kinyradio.com/news/news-of-the-north/governor-dunleavy-welcomes-experts-and-innovators-to-anchorage-for-the-alaska-sustainable-energy-conference/ 2/2 Tuesday's agenda will highlight Alaska's significance to worldwide energy demands. U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel will del iver the morning keynote address. Geoffrey Pyatt, Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources, and David Turk, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy will discuss Alaska's central role in global energy. Wednesday's agenda will focus on th e technologies that will power the future and how Alaska can provide both provide the raw materials needed to develop technology and serve as a proving ground for devices. Thursday's agenda will focus on emerging technologies, including micronuclear and A I. Daniel Yergin, Vice -Chairman of S&P Global and Pulitzer -winning energy author will deliver Thursday's keynote address. In addition to the technical expertise and policy perspectives that will be shared, the 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference will feature investors including venture capital and several of the largest investment institutions in the world. Counting onl y the firms that publicly disclose financial information, presenters at Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference hold more than $1.7 trillion in assets under management. View this email in your browser Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Newsletter, May 12, 2023 Alaska NEVI RFA Deadline Ahead We are looking forward to reviewing applications for Alaska's National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure EV Charging Sites! This is a friendly reminder that applications must be submitted to AEA by no later than 4 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2023, either by email or physical delivery. If you have any questions or need assistance, please email grants@akenergyauthority.org. Subscribe Past Issues Translate New Standards May Boost EV Production Have you ever been walking down a city street and felt choked out by all the tailpipe exhaust coming from the vehicles? We know we have. The transportation industry contributes about 27 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, which is the largest of any industry. Looking to tackle this issue, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed the Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light- Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles, which aim to combat greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Emissions standards for model years (MY) 2023-2026 currently exist, and these newly proposed standards would aim to build off old standards and tighten regulations on MY 2027-2032 vehicles. One proposed rule is to decrease the MY 2026 light-duty vehicle CO2 emissions target by 56 percent by 2032. This is quantified by setting a maximum allowable limit of 82 grams CO2/mile driven average emissions across companies’ production for MY 2032 vehicles. Essentially, this means that by MY 2032, some of a manufacturer’s vehicles could emit more than 82 grams CO2 per mile driven, and some less, but the average for all vehicles produced by a manufacturer must fall below 82 grams CO2/mile for light-duty vehicles. Similar standards have been proposed for medium-duty vehicles, aiming to decrease CO2 emissions by 44 percent by 2032. Technically speaking, vehicle manufacturers can try to meet these proposed standards in any way that’s feasible for them. That could mean adopting any Subscribe Past Issues Translate type of clean vehicle technology they’d like, for example, hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, or figuring out ways to scrub and filter out more emissions from tailpipe exhaust. Realistically speaking, many manufacturers will likely move in the direction of incorporating more electric vehicles (EVs) into their fleet. In fact, the EPA estimates that up to 67 percent of new vehicles sold by 2032 would need to be electric in order for car manufacturers to meet the newly proposed requirements. These proposed standards haven’t been formally adopted yet and are still under review and open for public comment. If you’re interested in attending a public hearing or leaving a comment, you can visit the EPA’s website here. Clean Vehicle Tax Credit Update Remember the February newsletter in which we laid out all the requirements consumers must keep in mind if trying to qualify for the $7,500 Clean Vehicle Tax Credit? We detailed all the regulations and listed an important caveat that “vehicle eligibility [for the tax credit] is subject to a major change in March 2023.” Well, it’s post-March, and the major changes have been published! The $7,500 credit is two separate credits of $3,750, and the new rules, which took effect on April 18, 2023, dictate that EVs can qualify for either, both, or neither of the credits. The two new requirements deal specifically with battery manufacturing and materials sourcing. Subscribe Past Issues Translate Critical Mineral Requirement: To be eligible for this $3,750 credit, 40 percent of the critical minerals that make up the battery, like lithium, must be extracted or processed in the United States or a United States free- trade agreement partner, or recycled in North America. The percentage of minerals that must meet this requirement will increase 10 percent annually until 2027 at which time 80 percent of the battery minerals must meet the requirements. Batter Component Requirement: Also worth $3,750, vehicles that are eligible for this credit must have batteries in which 50 percent of the value of the battery components are manufactured or assembled in North America. This requirement will increase 10 percent annually until 2029 when 100 percent of battery components must be manufactured or assembled in North America. Applicable to Both Credits: Starting in 2024, to remain eligible for the tax credit, no battery components will be able to be manufactured by a “foreign entity of concern,” and starting in 2025 eligible vehicles will not be able to contain batteries made with critical minerals which were extracted, processed, or recycled by a “foreign entity of concern.” The federal government will release guidance on which areas are considered “foreign entities of concern” at a later date. Keep in mind that even if the vehicle you’re interested in meets the above requirements, it still must meet all the other requirements, such as the price cap and requirement to undergo final assembly in North America, to remain eligible for the credit. Consumers can visit fueleconomy.gov to see a list of eligible vehicles and the amount of credit they’re eligible for. Subscribe Past Issues Translate Nor th to Alaska — EV’s on the Haul Road Two EV enthusiasts, Rainer Zietlow and Derek Collins, recently completed an Alaska Tour in their fully electric Volkswagen ID.4. They drove from Homer to the northernmost point of the United States Highway System in Deadhorse. The two made the trek, difficult for any vehicle at this time of year, without any support vehicle. They charged at public chargers along the way as well and stopped at Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities’ stations on the Dalton Highway. As one can imagine, it was at times a perilous journey. They camped out in their vehicle in sub-zero temperatures, tried to keep warm in negative 30-degree Fahrenheit weather, and traversed through stretches of road with avalanche warnings. None of that deterred the drivers, and they reached Deadhorse on April 4, 2023. After successfully reaching the northernmost point of their drive, the two decided to ditch the cold and head to the southernmost point of the United States Highway System in Key West, Florida. Visit their website here to see photos, learn more about their journey, and keep up with their progress. Subscribe Past Issues Translate GVEA kWh Rate for DC Fast Chargers The Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) board of directors recently approved a proposed change in the kilowatt-hour (kWh) rate for DC fast chargers. The previous rate of $0.676/kWh will be reduced to $0.149/kWh plus the cost of power adder, which changes from quarter to quarter. With this quarter ’s cost of power adder at $0.121/kWh, the kWH rate for DC fast chargers would be $0.27/kWh. This change has been submitted to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska for approval in June 2023. Upcoming Events Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Meeting Monday, May 22, 12 p.m.-1 p.m. This will be a hybrid meeting. Join us in person at the Alaska Energy Authority's office located at 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503. Subscribe Past Issues Translate Join on Zoom here, or with the info below: Meeting ID: 870 8674 1042 Passcode: 325150 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free 833 548 0282 US Toll-free Resources A look at the EPA's proposed stringent auto emission rules (NPR) Section 30D New Clean Vehicle Credit (Federal Register) A look at the updated list of electric cars that can get a tax credit. (NPR) Treasury Releases Proposed Guidance on New Clean Vehicle Credit to Lower Costs for Consumers, Build U.S. Industrial Base, Strengthen Supply Chains (U.S. Department of the Treasury) Facebook LinkedIn Website The Alaska Energy Authority’s Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group involves collaborative stakeholders focused on promoting the use of electric vehicles (EVs) in Subscribe Past Issues Translate Alaska by removing barriers to EV adoption and increasing access to charging infrastructure. Stay up to date on AEA's EV efforts at our website here. Copyright © 2023 Alaska Energy Authority, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Subscribe Past Issues Translate