Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2024-05-15 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, May 15, 2024 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 – April 17, 2024 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (2 minutes per person) see call in number above 6. NEW BUSINESS – A. YTD Financials (March 31) vs. actuals 7. OLD BUSINESS – A. IIJA-IRA Funding Opportunities MEMO Revised 8. DIRECTOR COMMENTS A. Response to Public testimony B. IIJA Update i. IIJA Tracker ii. GRIP 3, Round 1 – HVDC Line (see updated binder) iii. Solar for All Grant (see binder) iv. MARAD Port Infrastructure Development Program Grant C. Rural Emergencies - Communities with minimal generation D. Renewables Update E. Denali Commission Update F. AEA Library Update G. Legislative Update H. Community Outreach I. Articles of Interest J. Next Regularly Scheduled AEA Board Meeting Thursday, June 20, 2024 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION – Discuss confidential personnel matters. 10. BOARD COMMENTS 11. 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. 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. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 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 RGYAUTHORITY.ORG Alaska Energy Authority BOARD MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, April 17, 2024 Anchorage, Alaska 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pruhs called the meeting of the Alaska Energy Authority to order on April 17, 2024, at 8:30 am. 2. ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS Members present: Chair Dana Pruhs (Public Member); Vice-Chair Bill Kendig (Public Member); Albert Fogle (Public Member); Julie Sande (Commissioner DCCED); Adam Crum (Commissioner DOR); and Randy Eledge (Public Member). Absent, Bill Vivlamore (Public Member). A quorum was established. 3. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Fogle. The motion to approve the agenda passed without objection. 4. PRIOR MINUTES – March 6, 2024 MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to approve the prior minutes of March 6, 2024. Motion seconded by Mr. Fogle. The motion to approve the minutes of March 6, 2024 passed without objection. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (2 minutes per person) There were no public comments. Chair Pruhs requested that Jennifer Bertolini, AEA, make him aware if anyone comes online at a later point. 6. NEW BUSINESS – None 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution No. 2024-04 Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project, GRIP 3, Round 2 Application Submittal Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 12 Executive Director Curtis Thayer explained that Resolution No. 2024-04 is the application that is to be submitted by today’s noon deadline for the high voltage direct current (HVDC) line from Beluga to Healy. He provided background information that the GRIP 3, Round 1 application was approved and funded for the HVDC line from Nikiski/Kenai to Beluga, and Department of Energy (DOE) requested that the Beluga to Healy line portion be submitted in a subsequent round. The concept paper was originally provided to Board members in January with the final draft provided to members yesterday. The concept paper was selected by DOE in March to submit a full grant application by today’s deadline, giving approximately 3 weeks after the selection for final preparation. The application is for $730 million, of which $365 million is the federal share and $365 million is a match. The State is not assumed to provide the match funding. The match is expected to be provided primarily by the utilities. Letters of support by the utilities are included in the Board packet. Mr. Thayer explained that the utilities have spent $175,000 in consultant fees to help staff submit the application by today’s deadline. Mr. Thayer read the resolution. Chair Pruhs asked if it is normal for federal agencies to give such short three-week application deadlines for extensive applications as this one. Mr. Thayer expressed his understanding that the shortened timeframe is normal and may be due to the upcoming election and trying to commit the available funding. Chair Pruhs noted that Mr. Thayer provided a memorandum to Board members. The memorandum will be discussed and adopted at the next Board meeting. Mr. Thayer advised that since Commissioner Sande is attending remotely today, he would ensure that she is provided the memorandum. Chair Pruhs expressed appreciation to everyone who has worked tirelessly over the last 3 weeks to meet the submittal deadline. Ms. Bertolini informed Chair Pruhs of a hand-raised online. Chair Pruhs indicated that Agenda Item 7. Old Business will be concluded before addressing anyone online. There was no objection. Commissioner Crum echoed the comments of appreciation for the diligent work. He noted that the utilities’ plans for the funding match for the previous GRIP application was eight years. He asked if the timeframe was the same for this application. Mr. Thayer agreed, and explained that negotiations are ongoing and will be subject to the approval of the utilities’ boards, which is only one portion of the much larger and extensive grant negotiation process. Commissioner Crum asked who would own the asset. Mr. Thayer discussed that AEA would be the owner of the asset. Commissioner Crum explained that a revenue bond on this type of asset would be tied to the life of the asset from 50 years to 75 years, and would be amortized over that long lifespan. Chair Pruhs commented that Round 1 and Round 2 are expected to take eight years and utilize Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 12 funding of approximately $1.2 billion. Chair Pruhs asked if AEA has the internal infrastructure to achieve this goal. Mr. Thayer commented that AEA would have to add internal staff accordingly. He believes that there will be challenges for this project regarding the contracted work and skilled workforce that is needed. Chair Pruhs requested Mr. Thayer provide a high-level overview of the major projects within the next eight years. Mr. Thayer highlighted the timeframe and possible funding for the projects of Dixon Diversion, SSQ Line upgrade, and Nikiski HVDC Line with contingent BESS acquisitions. This current HVDC application, if approved by DOE, would be awarded in August or September 2024, and would require the Governor and the Legislature to seek federal receipt authority for an effective date of July 1, 2025. Commissioner Sande expressed appreciation for staff’s efforts on the project applications and for providing the extensive information within the Board packet. She commented on the challenges of keeping pace with the information, especially since there are multiple phases within the GRIP 1, 2, 3 applications. Commissioner Sande requested that for the Board’s clarity, the projects be identified by a name, rather than by numbers. She suggested to Chair Pruhs that the Board meet after this session is complete to discuss the current two projects. Commissioner Sande highlighted the substantial increase in project applications since she joined the Board four years ago, which she believes requires more time from the Board and staff. She commented that there would be a better understanding post-session as to the direction of AEA and AIDEA. She advocated for two days of meetings for the Board to remain knowledgeable about the applications and projects. Commissioner Sande asked Mr. Thayer if her understanding is accurate that staff is seeking AEA Board support for this application, which has the full support of the Railbelt utilities for both its reliability and redundancy, as shown by their monetary contribution to meet the application deadline. Mr. Thayer agreed and reiterated that the utilities have contributed up to a total of $175,000 to move the application forward within the prescribed timeline. Commissioner Sande emphasized the high level of support for this project. She believes it will provide a great opportunity for Alaskans. Commissioner Crum informed that there is also a letter of support from all the utilities acknowledging their commitment to working together on the funding perspective and the training and apprenticeship perspectives. He complemented the team for compiling the robust letters of support. Vice-Chair Kendig echoed the comments of support and noted that the collaboration of the Railbelt utilities is a recognition of the strategic importance of the project. Chair Pruhs requested a brief at-ease. There was no objection. A brief at-ease was taken. The Board resumed the regular meeting. Chair Pruhs acknowledged this step of the process is almost complete. He requested that Mr. Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 12 Thayer soon describe the theoretical schedule to execute the project of this magnitude. Vice-Chair Kendig informed that he has a conflict of interest as the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) Board President. He recused himself from the vote. There were no objections and there were no additional questions or comments. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Fogle to approve Resolution No. 2024-04 Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project, GRIP 3, Round 2 Application Submittal. Motion seconded by Commissioner Crum. A roll call was taken, and the motion to approve Resolution No. 2024-04 passed, with Vice- Chair Kendig recused. B. FY25 Budget Update Mr. Thayer explained the Governor’s budget amendments provided in the Board’s packet. Mr. Thayer discussed the updated budget numbers for the upgrades to the SSQ Line and the work on the HVDC line that are now in the spending phase of the budget. The information is included in the Board packet. Mr. Thayer informed that with the inclusion of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funding, the budget has increased 1,673% in five years. With the inclusion of the bonding, the budget has increased 2,600% in five years. Mr. Fogle noted that the operating budget increased by $2 million. He asked if that funding will be used to hire personnel or if personnel will be included in the capital budget. Mr. Thayer explained that all, but one, personnel positions will be within the capital budget. The one operating position is an additional accountant for Bradley Lake. Mr. Thayer discussed that all requested personnel positions are included during the budget process. The next budget process will begin in July. There were no further questions. C. Indirect Cost Allocation Plan Update Mr. Thayer reviewed that the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan is an AEA goal to negotiate the indirect cost rate agreement with the federal government. For the last 40 years, the de minimis indirect rate of 10% has been utilized. Mr. Thayer discussed that the project was spearheaded by the finance staff, including staff returning from retirement to work on the project. An accounting firm was contracted to audit the books. Staff was able to negotiate a true rate with the federal government of 31.85% for the indirect administrative and overhead costs. This increased rate allows AEA to collect more on the federal dollars. Mr. Thayer noted that in FY 2023, approximately $300,000 was received for indirect costs. With this new rate, that total would have been a little over $1 million for the indirect costs charged to the federal government. Mr. Thayer complimented the finance team who achieved this goal. He noted that the team submitted to the federal government an indirect rate of 31.86%, and after the federal government’s audit, they agreed with an indirect rate of 31.85%. Mr. Thayer explained that the major impact of approximately $7 million in indirect rates would be seen with the larger GRIP funding awards. There were no additional Alaska Energy Authority Page 5 of 12 questions. Chair Pruhs asked Ms. Bertolini if it is necessary to return to Public Comments. Ms. Bertolini indicated there is one hand-raised online. There was no objection from Board members to reopening Public Comments. Ben Hopkins, lifelong Alaska resident and owner of 49th State Power, commented on his concerns with recent actions of AEA that circumvent regulations with no public process, review of accountability that are in favor of individual contractors. In late November 2023, a contractor shared with AEA staff that they found a catastrophic failure of a powerplant. The contractor did not have materials available to perform the repairs and contacted AEA to advise on the situation. The community at that time had two operable generators. By definition, this was not an emergency. Mr. Hopkins explained that AEA staff stated in an email, chain dated November 11, 2023, that they could supply the contractor with State-loaned equipment for the installation. Mr. Hopkins explained that AEA staff indicated that since the community had a contract with the contractor AEA could trade State asset 0814450 for a forthcoming engine from the contractor of equivalent output. However, the community and the contractor were not in contract until after the trade was approved by AEA on December 14, 2023. There was no discussion about specifications, warranty, or suitability for purposes of the equipment offered in trade to AEA. The equipment provided by the private contractor is different and not equal to the equipment provided by AEA, even though it has equivalent output and displacement. The engine is surplus and not new. It has a different engine model, a different EPA emissions kit, different fuel economy, and no warranty. Mr. Hopkins informed that there was no bill of materials, no bill of lading, and not even a photo of the engine data plate to document what was accepted as a trade by AEA. He previously requested staff to explain which part of the procurement code permitted this series of events to transpire. He noted that staff’s response was that the procurement code did not apply; rather that AEA has a statutory right to exchange property in which it has an interest in the judgement of the Authority. Mr. Hopkins believes this trade was taken out of context and the methods used in this circumstance are a violation of the public trust and are an abuse of power. Mr. Hopkins requested that AEA Board take action to review the series of events and to clarify the language of the governing statutes to ensure that AEA and staff always seek open and fair public competitive bids for all purchases of goods and services. Mr. Hopkins commented that the Board’s consideration of these matters and solutions is much appreciated. Chair Pruhs expressed appreciation to Mr. Hopkins for his comments. Chair Pruhs asked staff to research the occurrence and to provide the Board with an overview of the procurement process during this instance. Mr. Thayer agreed and noted a response will be provided at the next meeting. Mr. Eledge asked if Mr. Hopkins’ comments were submitted in writing. Mr. Thayer indicated that Mr. Hopkins has not submitted those comments in writing. Chair Pruhs requested that Ms. Bertolini obtain Mr. Hopkins’ comments in writing and provide them to members. There were no Alaska Energy Authority Page 6 of 12 objections and no further public comments. Chair Pruhs returned to the scheduled agenda. 8. DIRECTORS COMMENTS A. Railbelt Opportunities – Map and Pitch Sheets Mr. Thayer discussed the maps and pitch sheets included in the Board packet and contained within the PowerPoint, which has been shared with the Senate and House Resources Committee and the Governor. Mr. Thayer gave an overview of the Subsea HVDC Line Project between the Kenai Peninsula and Beluga from the GRIP selections that includes battery energy storage systems (BESS) for grid stabilization. The completion date is expected in 2031. Mr. Thayer highlighted the project information regarding the SSQ Transmission Upgrade. He discussed that the summary list of major renewable energy projects being considered on the Railbelt identifies the project name, the technology, the annual output, and the amount of gas the project could displace in Cook Inlet. Mr. Fogle requested Mr. Thayer to create a dynamic map, which is similar to the map provided that can be updated as the projects are finalized. Mr. Thayer agreed. Chair Pruhs requested Mr. Thayer create a spreadsheet that shows the cost to the ratepayer for every $100 million of debt that the Railbelt utilities incur for the GRIP projects. Mr. Thayer noted that same request was received yesterday and staff is currently working to provide the information, which will include different possible funding solutions and other scenarios that could have a positive net effect for the ratepayers. Commissioner Crum noted that DOR has ratepayer modeling and offered the information to staff. Mr. Thayer expressed appreciation and agreed that collaboration would be helpful. Commissioner Crum discussed other financial modeling DOR is exploring to be presented to the Legislature next year. He believes a higher level of collaboration with AEA and the Railbelt utilities will contribute to the modeling provided to the Legislature. Commissioner Sande requested Mr. Thayer review for the record the benefits to rural utilities and the relation to Power Cost Equalization (PCE). Mr. Thayer explained that the PCE formula is established by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) and creates a floor and a cap for electric rates in rural Alaska. The floor rate varies and is based on the weighted cost from Juneau, Anchorage and Fairbanks. The cap rate is fixed. AEA’s goal is to lower the cost of electricity. The lower the cost of electricity is on the Railbelt, the more funding is available to rural Alaska through the PCE Program. Mr. Thayer gave an overview of the benefits to the military from the Black Rapids project work and proposed redundancy. Mr. Thayer discussed the partnership with Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) on the Solar for All competition application entry. If awarded, AEA would utilize the grant style program of the Renewable Energy Fund to focus on the development of community solar projects in disadvantage communities, while AHFC would focus on residential Alaska Energy Authority Page 7 of 12 rooftop solar for low-income housing. The announcement is expected soon. Mr. Fogle agreed with Commissioner Crum that the outlined work is a generational investment into Alaska. Mr. Fogle asked if the route has been determined for the HVDC line from the Anchorage area to Healy. Mr. Thayer discussed that the proposed route is in alignment with the potential gas line corridor. However, the specific route has not yet been identified and there are challenges with that gas line corridor. Mr. Fogle inquired as to what funding applications will be submitted for the proposed Railbelt line from Glennallen to Tok to Delta. Mr. Thayer noted that preliminary studies conducted by the Denali Commission identified that there is no grant money available for funding that transmission line. One of the challenges is that there is not necessarily a champion for the complete routing. There are currently not many residents and not much load in the area to economically support a line of that size or to support building a line of that size. Mr. Thayer explained the proposal considers a 20-year to 30-year outlook. Mr. Eledge asked for clarification if the proposed Roadbelt Intertie Project includes the Delta Junction to the Black Rapids training site. Mr. Thayer explained that the Roadbelt Intertie Project begins at Sutton to Glennallen to Gulkana and terminates at the Black Rapids training site. Additionally, there is potentially another 30 miles of routing to Delta Junction, and alternate routing from Gulkana to Tok to Delta Junction. The project would be segmented. However, there is not currently the load in Tok, Delta Junction, or Glennallen to justify the $2.5 million per mile cost to build the line. Mr. Eledge commented that he believes the Delta Junction to Black Rapids training site is a different opportunity than Gulkana to the Black Rapids training site. Mr. Thayer agreed, and noted that the Delta Junction to Black Rapids line is presently under construction. Chair Pruhs asked if any Bradley Lake power reaches Delta Junction. Mr. Thayer explained that Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) receives 17% of Bradley Lake power and disperses it within their system. There were no other questions. B. IIJA Update i. IIJA Tracker Mr. Thayer discussed the included proposed draft memorandum concerning Board approval of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding opportunities in which AEA is the primary applicant. The purpose is to bring prospects that are greater than $5 million before the Board for approval to proceed to the application phase. Staff will provide the Board with a White Paper for each specific application. Mr. Thayer noted that the passage of Board resolutions for grant agreements are part of the final procedures by OMB, the Governor’s Office, and the Legislature for the approval of receipt of federal funds. Mr. Thayer explained that many of the applications come up on short notice with expedient Alaska Energy Authority Page 8 of 12 deadlines. He highlighted the White Paper included in today’s Board packet is an example that the Board could take action on today. The application is due on May 10, 2024, which is prior to the next scheduled Board meeting. Mr. Thayer requested to move forward with the application process. Chair Pruhs commented that today’s meeting is too soon for the Board to review and to decide on the provided information. He suggested that in this instance, Mr. Thayer inform the Board members if the application is worthwhile to pursue. Chair Pruhs requested legal counsel to research and comment on the possible ways of facilitating Board acknowledgement for applications that have short timelines without violating the Open Meetings Act. Kent Sullivan, AEA Counsel, speaker commented that he understands the request and will research and provide a complete response. Mr. Thayer discussed that the grant negotiations and agreements typically have a 120-day deadline for action. He highlighted that the partial grant agreement provided to the Board today for the GRIP 3, Round 1, Phase 1 award of $413 million currently contains 405 pages and is expected to increase to over 1,000 pages after four additional documents are received. The documentation will be provided electronically as much as possible. However, portions of the document will be provided in hard copy. Mr. Thayer explained that the document and final resolution would be reviewed by legal counsel before it comes before the Board for approval. Chair Pruhs asked what process staff uses to track and delineate their time and efforts among the various grants. He asked if there is a separate cost code that can be filtered at the end of the year to provide the total time attributed to grant applications. Mr. Thayer explained that in the first year of IIJA, the Legislature designated $250,000 that AEA staff could charge into. That amount has not been extended. Many of the new applications have an option for the current cost to be applied when the grant is approved. Mr. Thayer agreed that staff time is being tracked and identified per application with the goal of reimbursement. Chair Pruhs commented that he is curious to see staff’s business development costs and staff’s capture rate. Mr. Thayer requested Board members provide recommendations on the provided memorandum for discussion at the next Board meeting. Chair Pruhs asked Board members to send their comments and questions to Mr. Thayer a week before the next meeting. Chair Pruhs suggested that the total amount of anticipated staff-hours are identified in the white papers given to the Board. Mr. Fogle asked for the reasons why the Executive Director would not determine which grant applications to pursue. Ultimately, all projects come before the Board. Chair Pruhs commented that discussion would occur offline. There were no other questions. ii.Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (GRIP 3) Update – Included in Board Packet iii.EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) – Dixon Diversion Alaska Energy Authority Page 9 of 12 Mr. Thayer advised that the CPRG – Dixon Diversion has been discussed at previous Board meetings. The actual application is included in the Board packet and is in conjunction with the DEC grant application. There is no match required. iv. EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) – Rural Energy Programs Mr. Thayer advised that the CPRG – Rural Energy Programs has been discussed at previous Board meetings. The actual application is included in the Board packet. Mr. Fogle asked if there are downside conditions for AEA to apply for the EPA grants. Mr. Thayer noted that the Governor’s Office has a process to review the conditions on the federal grants and that the Governor ultimately makes the decision to pursue the grants and to receive federal receipt authority. The EPA applications have been submitted and the approval will not be determined until August or September. v. Energy Auditor Training Grant Concept Paper – Commercial (AEA) - Included in Board Packet vi. Energy Auditor Training Grant Concept Paper – Residential (AEA for AHFC) - Included in Board Packet vii. Naknek – Dillingham Intertie & BESS Project (GRIP 2, SmartGrid Grants) Mr. Thayer discussed the Naknek – Dillingham Intertie & BESS Project grant. He highlighted that AEA staff wrote a letter of support for the project, and in turn, the applicant wrote the concept paper with AEA as the lead and indicating that AEA would be responsible for the grant and the required match. AEA staff was unaware of that role in the concept paper. Meanwhile, the concept paper moved to the application phase, at which time, AEA staff discovered this unapproved role. AEA staff communicated that AEA will not be the lead and will not be responsible for the match. AEA staff again expressed support for the application, but not in its current format. The applicant acknowledged. C. Power Cost Equalization (PCE Endowment Fund Update) Mr. Thayer indicated that the PCE Endowment Fund Update included in the Board packet is for informational purposes only. As of February 2024, the rate of return was 4.3%. D. Rural Update Mr. Thayer noted that Rebecca Garret, Rural Programs Manager, is available to discuss the Rural Update provided in the Board packet. Mr. Fogle noted that prior Rural Update reports included a listing of the status of the monitored powerhouses. He asked if that information was still available. Mr. Thayer indicated that information is available and is on a particular schedule as to when it is included in the Board packet. He noted that several communities in rural Alaska are down to only one generator. The Alaska Energy Authority Page 10 of 12 emergency response team has been notified. Mr. Thayer acknowledged this challenge, and he expects a budget increase request for emergency response for next year. The list and information that is provided to the Board is the same information provided to the Legislature. Chair Pruhs commented on the emergency power issues in rural Alaska this past winter. He requested additional information on the rural communities on one generator. Mr. Thayer requested that Tim Sandstrom, Chief Operating Officer, and Ms. Garrett respond. Mr. Sandstrom noted that the list that was recently provided to the Legislature identifies the communities with minimal power generation and the list will be shared with the Board. Chair Pruhs asked for an update regarding the fuel spill in the rural community where the pump was accidentally left running all night, and he asked if the community has replaced the fuel. Mr. Sandstrom responded that AEA is not involved in that situation. Ms. Garrett noted the spill occurred in Kwingillingok by the private operator Kwik Inc. During a recent meeting with Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), she learned that DEC would require a spring cleanup of the fuel spill and the fuel would not be replenished until the spring barge delivery. The community has enough fuel until that delivery. Contaminated snow has been removed and placed on a liner. It is unknown if the fuel breached the nearby water source. The cost of the cleanup is expected to approach $1 million, and Ms. Garrett believes that the federal government will pay for the cleanup. Chair Pruhs asked if staff has any suggestions for changes to statute, policy or regulations that would assist and improve AEA’s ability for emergency response. Mr. Thayer discussed that the emergency response improvements call for additional funding and a greater financial commitment. He noted that the Legislature has granted AEA approximately $200,000 per year for power emergencies. The average cost per emergency is typically about $45,000. However, the cost for the emergency response in Manokotak last year was $220,000. Mr. Thayer continued that the Circuit Rider staff travel in rural Alaska to conduct training and to respond to emergencies. They have been primarily funded by the Denali Commission, which at its funding high point was $1.2 million. The level now is approximately $75,000, and funds from the State have not been received since 2016. This area needs to be augmented financially, and serious conversations need to occur with the Board and with the Governor’s Office regarding funding levels. Mr. Thayer commented that the federal government is not generous in providing funding that relates to fossil fuels, diesel generators, and tank farms. Chair Pruhs commented that a planned approach is necessary and that there should be a mechanism in which the Legislature replenishes funding each year for emergency responses. Mr. Thayer informed that staff is in conversation with the State’s emergency response services to identify the policies AEA should follow to respond to electrical issues or other power issues that are emergencies due to maintenance rather than emergencies due to national disasters or other designations. Mr. Eledge asked if AEA receives any compensation, in addition to the $200,000 the Legislature Alaska Energy Authority Page 11 of 12 provides for emergencies, for the involvement of the Circuit Rider staff during the emergencies. Ms. Garrett explained that if an emergency is declared, the staff time is charged to the emergency. If no emergency is declared, staff time is charged to the Circuit Rider program. Mr. Eledge commented that the Manokotak emergency has increased the average cost per emergency. He asked if staff has taken a proactive approach to inform the Legislature of the amount of funding that is needed in the Circuit Rider program, as well as in the emergency funds. Mr. Thayer agreed those conversations are occurring, and the Legislature has the list of the challenged communities, which have been further identified per legislative district. Continued dialog is essential in order to make the recommendations for the necessary increase in the funding amount. Mr. Eledge asked if there is benefit to creating a separate category for the villages that go brown or black due to lack of maintenance and sharing that information with the Legislature. Mr. Thayer acknowledged that information is tracked and is shared with the Legislature and the Board. The Board received the maintenance list in December. Mr. Thayer explained that while some communities can purchase and install replacement generators, for example, many communities depend completely on the State for assistance. He commented that it is important to highlight that the legislation states AEA “may” provide in rural Alaska, and does not mandate “shall” provide in rural Alaska. However, for the last 40 years, AEA has assumed that AEA “shall” provide in rural Alaska. Mr. Thayer discussed the multiplier effect that occurs when the power goes out, and sewer and water utilities are impacted as well. Chair Pruhs inquired what happens after the $200,000 of emergency funding has been depleted and from where is the additional funding sourced. Ms. Garrett explained that situation is approaching. If the spring floods are harsh and an emergency is declared, then a Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) from Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) will be utilized. Mr. Thayer commented that the AEA construction projects in rural Alaska can multi- task and team up for training time. Chair Pruhs commented that level of consternation should not occur, and the challenge should be addressed straight on. Chair Pruhs expressed his support for AEA to focus on solving the problem rather than being in a position of having to ask another organization to provide funding to solve the problem. There were no additional questions. E. Legislative Update Mr. Thayer discussed the included Bill Tracker status information for the 33rd Legislature. There are currently more than 20 bills in the Legislature. This amount is higher than normal for AEA. Vice-Chair Kendig requested additional information on HB 390, AIDEA & AEA Gas Offtake Power Agreements. Mr. Thayer indicated that it is within the House Energy Committee, and it is primarily under AIDEA’s domain. He will provide additional information. He noted that HB 388 and HB 394 are also outside of AEA’s domain. AEA has been removed from HB 388, and will probably be removed from HB 394. There were no other questions. Alaska Energy Authority Page 12 of 12 F. Community Outreach Mr. Thayer highlighted AEA’s recent activities, including his business outreach in Kenai last week. G. Articles of Interest H. Next Regularly Schedule AEA Board Meeting Wednesday, May 15, 2024 Mr. Thayer commented that the next regularly scheduled AEA Board meeting on May 15, 2024 coincides with the anticipated adjournment of the Legislature. 9. BOARD COMMENTS Vice-Chair Kendig expressed appreciation for staff’s work and efficiency in their successful efforts. Mr. Thayer commented that the AEA team does a great job. He highlighted the picture of the AEA team that is included in the PowerPoint. Commissioner Sande echoed the comments of appreciation. Chair Pruhs reiterated his appreciation for staff’s efforts, especially in working weekends to complete the 50 applications totaling approximately 10% of the available $3 billion of GRIP funding. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business of the Board, the AEA meeting adjourned at 10:07 am. __________________________________________ Curtis W. Thayer, Secretary AEA - Budget to Actual as of 03/31/2024 Operating Budget Summary (in thousands) FY24 FY24 Encumbrance + Remaining Remaining Management Plan Actual Commitment Projected Remaining Budget YTD Budget YTD % Expenditure Categories Travel 250.5 113.0 - 14.5 123.0 49% Contractual Services 1,485.6 505.2 350.9 168.4 461.2 31% AEA Staff-Prof Services 8,468.8 4,538.1 - 2,097.6 1,833.1 22% Supplies 106.0 80.9 0.8 24.2 0.0 0% Equipment 15.0 1.3 - 0.4 13.2 88% Grants*47,794.8 27,138.7 - 20,656.1 - 0% Totals 58,120.7$ 32,377.3$ 351.7$ 22,961.2$ 2,430.6$ 4% * FY23 Grants were $42,061, Management Plan is based on an estimate with a 750kw usage and AEA is expected to exhaust budgeted amount by end of the fiscal year. AEA FY24 Owned Facilities Ops-AEA Rcpts (Other) 781.3 542.8 - 180.9 57.6 F-AEA FY24 - Operatining GAD Clearing 584.9 (584.9) Program Receipts 50.0 - - - 50.0 i/A Receipts 124.3 - - - 124.3 AEA FY24 Power Cost Equalization-(PCE) Endow 48,283.7 27,666.6 56.6 20,560.5 - F-AEA FY24 Rural Energy Assistance-Fed Rcpts (Fed) 1,208.6 458.3 133.1 126.8 490.4 AEA FY24 Rural Energy Assistance (PCE) Endow (DGF) 381.8 13.5 - 276.1 92.3 S-AEA FY24 Rural Energy Assistance-Gen Fund (UGF) 1,215.3 835.1 39.5 278.4 62.4 AEA FY24 Rural Energy Assistance (DGF) (PPF) 996.4 106.4 4.0 35.5 850.5 AEA FY24 CIP Rcpts (Other) 3,528.1 2,164.7 - 721.6 641.8 AEA FY24 Rural Energy Assist-Stat Desig(Other) 150.0 1.2 - 0.4 148.4 AEA FY24 Statewide PJ, AEE (DGF) (REF) 1,401.2 588.6 118.6 196.2 497.8 Totals 58,120.7$ 32,377.3$ 351.7$ 22,961.2$ 2,430.6$ AR Codes Breakdown FY24 58,120,700$ FY25 Gov Amend 60,541,800$ Federal State Other Total FY23 41,024,363$ 38,583,158$ 400,000$ 80,007,521$ FY24 143,715,793$ 49,568,579$ 193,284,372$ FY25 (Gov Amend) & FY24 Supp 284,676,588$ 25,596,279$ 310,272,867$ SSQ Upgrades HVDC GRIP BESS Total FY25 90,000,000$ 20,000,000$ 56,000,000$ 166,000,000$ Alaska Energy Authority Operating Budget Alaska Energy Authority - Capital Budget Alaska Energy Authority - Transmission/BESS Bonds 4/5/2024 24/5/2024 34/5/2024 AEA Receipts, $781 , 8% Federal Receipts, $1,209 , 12% General Fund (UGF), $1,215 , 12% I/A Receipts (Other), $124 , 1% CIP Receipts, $3,528 , 34% PPF (DGF), $996 , 10% SDPR (Other), $150 , 1% GF Program Receipts (DGF), $50 , 0% PCE, $971 , 9% Renew Energy (DGF), $1,401 , 13% Alaska Energy Authority FY24 Governor's Authorized Operating Budget ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Capital Budget Gov Request- FY2025 4/4/24 1:40 PM Project Name Federal Receipt (Gov) Federal Receipt (Gov Amd) State Funding (Gov) State Funding (Gov Amd) Total Fund Code Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Topic 3 - Railbelt Utilities $ 206,500,000 $ 12,700,000 $ 219,200,000 1002 - Fed Receipts /1003 G/F Match IIJA Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund Capitalization - Formula FY2025 $ 252,700 $ - $ 252,700 1002 - Fed Receipts IIJA - Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability $ 12,110,523 $ 17,627,018 $ 1,816,579 $ 1,816,579 $ 19,443,597 1002 - Fed Receipts / 1003 G/F Match IRA Sec. 60103: Green House Gas Reduction Fund (Solar for All) $ 20,000,000 $ 20,000,000 $ - $ - $ 20,000,000 1002 Fed Receipts IRA Sec. 50123: State Based Energy Efficiency Contractor $ 1,296,870 $ 1,296,870 $ - $ - $ 1,296,870 1002 Fed Receipts Total IIJA/IRA/GRIP Capital Requests: $ 33,407,393 $ 245,676,588 $ 1,816,579 $ 14,516,579 $ 260,193,167 Reapprop Alaska-British Colombia Intertie to Dixon Diversion - Bradley Lake Hydro Power $ 1,379,700 $ 1,379,700 1012 - Railbelt energy Fund UGF Bulk Fuel Upgrades (state dollars are matching funds) $ 11,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 13,000,000 1002 - Fed Receipts / 1003 G/F Match Electrical Emergency Response $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1004 - General Fund Renewable Energy Grant Fund - Round 16 $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 1004 - UGF Rural Power Systems Upgrades (state dollars are matching funds) $ 25,000,000 $ 25,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 27,500,000 1002 - Fed Receipts /1003 G/F Match Total $ 69,407,393 $ 281,676,588 $ 11,516,579 $ 25,596,279 $ 307,272,867 * Note: Univerity of AK - $1M for Alaska Energy Data Storage and Revitalization Program p11 FY2024 Supplemental - Request Project Name Federal Receipt Authority (Gov) Federal Receipt (Gov Amd) State Funding (Gov) State Funding (Gov Amd) Total Fund Code Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program - Black Rapids Training Site $ - $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ 3,000,000 1002 Fed Receipts Total $ - $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ 3,000,000 AEA has been selected for a $206.5 million grant from the DOE for a Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project. A 100% cost share of $206.5 million is required. AEA, the Railbelt utilities, and the RCA are partners in this project as collaborative decision makers representing all primary transmission owners and operators of the Railbelt. A once-in-a-generation opportunity to build resiliency and develop a fuel-diverse, low-carbon economy, by investing in essential electric infrastructure. $20M for Bradley Lake required project work funded by $166M of bonds. Additional request of $252,700 for Federal Receipt Authority necessary to fully fund the project under the SEP program requirements to begin using capitalization grant not more than 180 days after the date on which the grant is received. Request for fund capitalization to REF program for Round 16 of REF projects. FY25 Capital Budget - Request Brief Summary IIJA - 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 $60M. IIJA - Competitive application to be submitted September 2023. This project will enable AEA and AHFC to develop programs and deploy rooftop solar panels and community solar arrays to benefit low-income Training for energy audits of commercial and residential buildings. AEA will RSA with AHFC. 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. Critical 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 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. Brief Summary 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. Estimates for the preliminary studies for the Dixon Diversion are $12 million. These studies were partially funded by a $5 million appropriation in FY2024. This appropriation will enable engineering and environmental studies to continue during the upcoming field season. 44/5/2024 IIJA, $260,193,167 Dixon Diversion, $1,379,700 Bulk Fuel, $13,000,000 Electrical Emergency Response , $200,000 Renewable Energy Grant Fund Program, $5,000,000 Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program, $3,000,000 Rural Power Systems Upgrades , $27,500,000 Alaska Energy Authority FY25 Gov Amend & FY24 Supp Capital Budget - $310,272,867 54/5/2024 FY21 , 12,500,000 FY22 , 25,000,000 FY23 , 41,024,363 FY24 , 143,715,793 FY25 , 284,676,588 FY21 , 5,000,000 FY22 , 15,450,973 FY23 , 38,583,158 FY24 , 49,568,579 FY25 , 25,596,279 - 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000 300,000,000 350,000,000 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 Alaska Energy Authority Total Capital Appropriations FY21 - FY25 Federal State FY21-FY22 increased 131% FY22-FY23 increased 97% FY23-FY24 increased 143% FY24-FY25 increased 61% FY21-FY25 increased 1673% FY25 , 166,000,000 - 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000 300,000,000 350,000,000 FY25 Alaska Energy Authority Transmission/BESS Bonds FY25 RPW Bond FY21-FY25 w/ RPW Bond, increased 2622% 4/5/2024 AEA Capital Appropriation Status Report Summary As of March 31, 2024 CASR Division Current Budget Actual Encumbered Unobligated Renewable Energy Programs, Alternative Energy & Energy Efficiency-- Federal funds Primarily DOE, USDA, with State Matching Requirements; Programs ongoing 48,800,000$ 11,153,790$ 1,273,587$ 36,372,623$ Bulk Fuel Programs-- Denali Commission funded projects selected based on need / priority based. Matching funds required - 20% to 50%. AEA Managed Grants. 115,494,691$ 67,221,231$ 8,150,356$ 40,123,103$ Rural Power System Upgrade Program-- Denali Commission funded projects selected based on need / priority based. Matching funds required - 20% to 50%. AEA Managed Grants.157,856,000$ 77,722,843$ 12,154,678$ 67,978,479$ Electrical Emergencies - State funds. 930,000$ 769,535$ 127,459$ 33,007$ Energy Planning - State 4,500,000$ 2,289,401$ 784,076$ 1,426,524$ Railbelt Projects:19,527,407$ 9,789,893$ 1,837,128$ 7,900,385$ Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) 117,929,113$ 1,376,730$ 869,621$ 115,682,762$ Other Projects:37,277,540$ 11,268,310$ 16,077,480$ 9,931,751$ Renewable Energy Grant Fund Projects:48,035,473$ 10,357,092$ 28,693,112$ 8,985,270$ TOTAL 550,350,224$ 191,948,824$ 69,967,497$ 288,433,903$ Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 1 Renewable Energy Programs, Alternative Energy & Energy Efficiency--Federal funds Primarily DOE, USDA, with State Matching Requirements; Programs ongoing 2 AEA DE09 2024 2028 AEEE-UGF AEA Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Programs ORIG24 U 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 370,988.88 - 4,629,011.12 State funds budgeted for ongoing programs: Biomass, Heat Recovery, Village Energy Efficiency Program, Solar, Wind, Hydro, EV, and the Data Library. Funds are used for personnel costs to manage the programs, provide technical assistance, fund preliminary efforts for federal applications, and match federal programs as required. 3 AEA DF0K 2022 2026 AEEE - Fed AEA Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage ORIG22 F 21,000,000.00 21,000,000.00 - - 21,000,000.00 Air Cargo project. In negotiations with Federal DOT FHWA for pre-award conditions. Award is pending. 4 AEA DF0L 2022 2026 AEEE - Fed AEA Alternative Energy & Energy Efficiency ORIG22 F 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 16,187.59 60,990.08 4,922,822.33 Federal receipt authorization is for federal awards that are expected for on- going programs (DOE Statewide Energy Programs, Biomass, Village Energy Efficiency Program). 5 AEA D005 2014 2025 AEEE-UGF Alt Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs (HD 1-40) GF U 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,459,457.15 212,623.09 327,919.76 Expended to date used for Hydro, Heat Recovery, Wind, Solar, Energy Data Inventory & Analysis. Encumbered for Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP) and Biomass. Remaining unobligated is for active projects: Biomass, Heat Recovery, Village Energy Efficiency Program, Solar, Wind, Hydro, EV, and the Data Library. Funds are used for personnel costs to manage the programs, provide technical assistance, fund preliminary efforts for federal applications, and match federal programs as required. 6 AEA D063 2013 2025 AEEE-UGF Alt Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs (HD 1-40) U 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,785,815.10 48,263.88 165,921.02 Expended to date used for Education & Outreach , Wind, Solar, Energy Data Management, Program Development for Biomass, and State Energy Program (SEP) Development. Encumbered for Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP) and Biomass. Remaining unobligated is for biomass grant match (Hear back May 2024),DOE Statewide Energy Programs, and Village Energy Efficiency Program. 7 AEA D063 2013 2025 AEEE-Fed Alt Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs (HD 1-40) F 2,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 658,576.14 190,211.58 4,151,212.28 AEA received authorization for Chitina Hydro through LB&A for Denali Commission award. Receipt authorization is needed. Denali Commission funds have not been expended or encumbered at this time. REF funding is currently awarded for this project. 8 AEA D063 2013 2025 AEEE-Other Alt Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs (HD 1-40) O 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - 200,000.00 Other = I/A Receipts. Keep open until we close FY13 AR 13110005. 9 AEA D063 2013 2025 AEEE-Other Alt Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs (HD 1-40) O 600,000.00 600,000.00 14,312.50 - 585,687.50 Other = SDPR. Keep open until we close FY13 AR 13110005. 10 AEA D240 2011 2025 AEEE-Fed Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency (HD 1-40) F 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 3,983,749.87 704,844.09 311,406.04 Expended to date used for EV Charging, Biomass Resource Assessment and Outreach, Wood Energy Project , VEEP, SEP Security Plan, Wind Energy, START communities Tech Assistance, Rural Development, and Data Library. Encumbered for Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP), SEP Formula Grants and Biomass. Remaining unobligated funds for biomass grant authorization (Hear back May 2024), SEP, VEEP, and Technical Assistance. 11 AEA D240 2011 2025 AEEE-UGF Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency (HD 1-40) U 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,864,702.72 56,654.68 78,642.60 Expended to date used for EV Charging, Biomass Resource Assessment and Outreach, Wood Energy Project , VEEP, SEP Security Plan, C-PACE, Wind Energy, START communities Tech Assistance, Rural Development, and Data Library. Encumbered for Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP), SEP Formula Grants and Biomass. Remaining unobligated is for biomass grant match (Hear back May 2024) Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 12 TOTALS - Renewable Energy, AEEE Programs 45,800,000.00 48,800,000.00 11,153,789.95 1,273,587.40 36,372,622.65 $21M of remaining authorization is for the Air Cargo award. 13 Bulk Fuel Programs-- Denali Commission funded projects selected based on need / priority based. Matching funds required - 20% to 50%. AEA Managed Grants. 14 AEA DE03 2024 2028 BULK FUEL-FAEA Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG24 F 11,000,000.00 11,000,000.00 - - 11,000,000.00 Identified Projects Scammon Bay, Ekwok, Shageluk and Birch Creek. 15 AEA DE03 2024 2028 BULK FUEL-UAEA Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG24 U 8,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 320,045.81 436,068.53 7,243,885.66 Identified Projects Scammon Bay, Ekwok, Shageluk and Birch Creek. 16 AEA DW01 2023 2027 BULK FUEL-FAlaska Energy Authority - Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG23 F 7,500,000.00 7,500,000.00 249,662.43 314,288.84 6,936,048.73 Identified Projects Venetie, Scammon Bay, Shungnak, and Ewok. 17 AEA DW01 2023 2027 BULK FUEL-UAlaska Energy Authority - Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG23 U 5,500,000.00 5,500,000.00 958,147.08 3,393,816.12 1,148,036.80 State matching funds are required for Denali Commission funded construction projects. A match of 20% for distressed communities and 50% for non-distressed communities. The distressed community list is maintained by the Denali Commission 18 AEA DF0M 2022 2026 BULK FUEL-FAlaska Energy Authority - Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG22 F 7,500,000.00 7,500,000.00 416,501.96 139,812.39 6,943,685.65 Identified Projects Shaktoolik, Ewok, Shageluk, and Marshall. 19 AEA DF0M 2022 2026 BULK FUEL-UAlaska Energy Authority - Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG22 U 5,500,000.00 5,500,000.00 2,262,448.58 1,145,080.14 2,092,471.28 State matching funds are required for Denali Commission funded construction projects. A match of 20% for distressed communities and 50% for non-distressed communities. The distressed community list is maintained by the Denali Commission 20 AEA DF01 2019 2025 BULK FUEL-FAlaska Energy Authority - Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG19 F 12,000,000.00 12,000,000.00 6,863,057.11 1,830,879.49 3,306,063.40 Expended funds to date Bulk Fuel M&I, Bulk Fuel Inventory, Nunapitchuk, Ekwok, Kwigillingok, Shishmaref, Gampbell, Savoonga, Port Graham, Kongiganak, Kwigiillingok and Nelson. Encumbered funds for active Projects: Scammon, Chignik, and Shungnak. Remaining Unobligated funds reserved for top 20 BFU projects. 21 AEA DF01 2019 2025 BULK FUEL-UAlaska Energy Authority - Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG19 U 208,000.00 208,000.00 208,000.00 - - Federal authorization still needed, will remain open until both Fed and State are fully expended. 22 AEA DF01 2019 2025 BULK FUEL-UAlaska Energy Authority - Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG19 U 4,792,000.00 4,792,000.00 3,866,555.16 658,382.53 267,062.31 Expended funds to date Bulk Fuel M&I, Rampart, Tatiklek, Kasaan, Holy Cross, Ekwok, Shageluk, Port Graham, Shishmaref, Gambell, Savoonga, and Wales. Encumbered funds for active projects: Scammon, Nunapitchuk, Venetie, and Kongiganak. Remaining Unobligated funds reserved for top 20 BFU projects. 23 AEA DG10 2018 2025 BULK FUEL-UAlaska Energy Authority - Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG18 SBRF U 2,420,000.00 2,420,000.00 2,290,278.21 38,392.59 91,329.20 Expended funds to date: Chalkytsik, Holy Cross, Gambell Barge Header, Ekwok, Akiak, Venetie, and Mertarvik. Encumbered funds for active projects: Beaver, Kasaan, Barge Header and Fill Lines, Port Heiden, and Nikolai Fuel Header. Remaining Unobligated funds reserved for top 20 BFU projects. 24 AEA DH05 2017 2025 BULK FUEL-PAlaska Energy Authority - Bulk Fuel Upgrades ORIG17 PCEEF D 1,300,000.00 1,300,000.00 1,212,683.64 20,000.00 67,316.36 Expended funds for BFU Project Admin, Kasaan, and Shaktoolik. Encumbered and unobligated funds for active projects: Venetie and Tatitlek. 25 AEA D006 2014 2025 BULK FUEL-UBulk Fuel Upgrades (HD 1-40) 14 U 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 - - Expended funds for Beaver, Kipnuk, Kake, Shishmaref, Tatitlek, Port Alsworth, Port Heiden, Chalkytsik, Holy Cross, and Mertavik Newtok. Federal authorization still needed, will remain open until both Fed and State are fully expended. Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 26 AEA D006 2014 2025 BULK FUEL-FBulk Fuel Upgrades (HD 1-40) 14 F 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,962,533.93 - 37,466.07 Expended funds for Beaver, Kipnuk, Port Heiden, Nunapitchuk , and Ekwok. Remaining unobligated funds is for Chalkytsik. 27 AEA D065 2013 2025 BULK FUEL-UBulk Fuel Upgrades (HD 1-40) 13 U 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 - - Expended funds for Kipnuk, Kake, Edna, Shishmaref, Tatitlek, Kasaan, Port Alsworth, Port Heiden, Mertarvik Newtok, Gambell, Shugnak, and Ekwok. Remaining unobligated funds is for Nunapitchuk. 28 AEA D065 2013 2025 BULK FUEL-FBulk Fuel Upgrades (HD 1-40) 13 F 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 - - Expended funds for Beaver, Pre-design Bulk Fuel Facility Assessment, Kake, Tatitlek, Bulk Fuel Inventory Assessment, Nunapitchuk, Ekwok, and Mertarvik Energy Planning & Design. State authorization still needed, will remain open until both Fed and State are fully expended. 29 AEA D122 2012 2025 BULK FUEL-UBulk Fuel Upgrades (HD 1-40) 12 U 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 - - Expended funds for Tuluksak, Kake, Edna Bay, Nunam Iqua, Kasaan, Holy Cross, Mertarvik Newtok, Nunapitchuk, Gambell Barge Header, and Port Heiden. Encumbered funds for Barge Headers and Fill Lines and Shugnak. Remaining unobligated funds is reserved for Nunapitchuk and Tuluksak. 30 AEA D122 2012 2025 BULK FUEL-FBulk Fuel Upgrades (HD 1-40) 12 F 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,967,629.79 3,190.58 29,179.63 Expended funds for Beaver BFU, Pre-design Bulk Fuel Facility Assessment, Mertarvik Energy Planning & Design and Nunapitchuk. Encumbered and remaining unobligated funds are reserved for Nunapitchuk & Tuluksak, 31 AEA D241 2011 2024 BULK FUEL-UBulk Fuel Upgrades (HD 1-40)U 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 - - Expended funds for Repairs and Replacement, Kake, Alkanuk, Bulk Fuel Regulatory Analysis, Shishmaref, Nunam Iqua, and Kasaan. Federal authorization still needed, will remain open until both Fed and State are fully expended. 32 AEA D241 2011 2025 BULK FUEL-FBulk Fuel Upgrades (HD 1-40)F 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,061,755.75 90,153.75 848,090.50 Expended funds for Beaver, Chalkytsik, Nunapitchuk, Port Heiden, Akiak Barge Header. Encumbered funds and remaining unobligated funds are for active projects: Beaver, Port Heiden, and Nikolai Barge Headers & Fill Lines. 33 AEA D321 2002 2027 BULK FUEL-FAEA Fuel Tank Remediation Tran AK Pipeline Liability GF F 26,774,690.68 26,774,690.68 26,581,931.54 80,291.40 112,467.74 34 TOTALS - Bulk Fuel Program 115,494,690.68 115,494,690.68 67,221,230.99 8,150,356.36 40,123,103.33 35 Rural Power System Upgrade Program-- Denali Commission funded projects selected based on need / priority based. Matching funds required - 20% to 50%. AEA Managed Grants. 36 AEA DE04 2024 2028 RURAL POW AEA Rural Power Systems Upgrades ORIG24 F 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 - - 25,000,000.00 Identified Projects: Red Devil, Karluk, Chalkytsik, and Koyukuk. 37 AEA DE04 2024 2028 RURAL POW AEA Rural Power Systems Upgrades ORIG24 U 7,500,000.00 7,500,000.00 302,523.44 1,467,836.53 5,729,640.03 Expended and Encumbered funds for Venetie, Statewide Maintenance & Improvement Program, Napaskiak, and Circle M&I. Unobligated funds are identified for Red Devil, Karluk, and Koyukuk. 38 AEA DW04 2023 2027 RURAL POW AEA Rural Power Systems Upgrades ORIG23 F 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 112,978.29 147,614.22 9,739,407.49 Expended and encumbered funds for Statewide Electric Distribution Inventory and Assessment. Unobligated funds are for identified Projects Aniak, Bettles, Metlakatla, and False Pass. Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 39 AEA DW04 2023 2027 RURAL POW AEA Rural Power Systems Upgrades ORIG23 D 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 2,739,027.57 2,639,341.37 4,621,631.06 Expended funds for Project Admin, Nikolai, Venetie, Inventory & Assessment, Atka, Akiachak, Beaver, Napaskiak, Nelson Lagoon, Rampart, Karluk, Tenakee Springs M&I, Chitina M&I, Pilot Point M&I, Unalakleet M&I, Hoonah M&I, Manokotak, Akiachak, Tenakee Springs (DERA), Bettles (DERA), Kipnuk Distribution, Circle M&I, Tuluksak, Circuit Rider Tech Assistance, Emergency Inventory Maintenance, Regulatory and DERA Program Support. Encumbered and unobligated funds are for active projects: Rural Energy Technical Support, Rural Program Training, Venetie, Nikolai, Statewide Maintenance & improvement Program, Beaver M&I, Napaskiak, Nelson Lagoon, Rampart, Chitina M&I, Pilot Point M&I, Hoonah M&I, Manokotak, , EPA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Akiachak, Minto, Tenakee Springs (DERA), Bettles (DERA), Kipnuk Distribution, Statewide Electric Distribution Inventory Assessment, Circle M&I, Statewide Electric Distribution Inventory Assessment, Circle M&I, Tuluksak, Circuit Rider Tech Assistance, Emergency Inventory Maintenance and Regulatory and DERA Program Support. 40 AEA DF0N 2022 2026 RURAL POW Alaska Energy Authority- Rural Power Systems Upgrades ORIG22 F 12,500,000.00 12,500,000.00 - - 12,500,000.00 Identified projects: Rampart, Nikolai, Nelson Lagoon, and Napaskiak. 41 AEA DF0N 2022 2026 RURAL POW Alaska Energy Authority- Rural Power Systems Upgrades ORIG22 U 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 4,201,813.17 327,525.72 470,661.11 Expended funds for REG Warehouse(inspections, etc. for programs supported), Shoreside Power Application, Rural Energy Programs Tech Support, RPSU Project Admin, Nikolai, Chignik Lake Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Koyukuk M&I, Napaskiak, Kwigillingok Power House M&I, EPA DERA Clean Diesel, Akiachak (DERA), Ruby Powerplant Leveling, and Kwethluk RPSU M&I Emergency Generator. Encumbered and unobligated funds are for active projects: Rural Energy Programs Tech Support, Nikolai, Napaskiak, DERA Clean Diesel, Akiachak (DERA), Ruby Powerplant Leveling, Tuluksak, Kwethluk RPSU M&I Emergency Generator, and Circuit Rider Tech Assistance. 42 AEA DF83 2021 2025 RURAL POW AEA Rural Power Systems Upgrade (HD 1- 40)ORIG21 F 12,500,000.00 12,500,000.00 2,530,270.16 1,271,025.86 8,698,703.98 Expended funds for Venetie, Maintenance & improvement Program, Nelson Lagoon, Tenakee, Bettles, Kipnuk, Ruby Powerplant, and Circle M&I. Encumbered and Unobligated funds are for active projects: Rampart, Venetie, Statewide Maintenance & Improvement, Nelson Lagoon, EPA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Kipnuk, AVTEC Powerplant Lab upgrade, Circle M&I, Ruby Power Plant, Chalkyitsik, Middle Kuskokwim Electric Coop, Kwethluk M&I Emergency Generator, and other Top 20 RPSU distressed communities. 43 AEA DF83 2021 2025 RURAL POW AEA Rural Power Systems Upgrade (HD 1- 40)ORIG21 U 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 2,521,097.78 2,010,920.35 467,981.87 Expended funds are State matched funds required for Denali Commission funded construction projects for RPSU Inventory Purchase, Venetie, Nelson Lagoon, Rampart, Platinum, and Ruby Powerplant, which all are still active with encumbered funds. A match of 20% for distressed communities and 50% for non-distressed communities. Unobligated funds are reserved for other Top 20 RPSU distressed communities. Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 44 AEA DF03 2019 2025 RURAL POW Alaska Energy Authority - Rural Power System Upgrades ORIG19 F 10,900,000.00 10,900,000.00 7,785,950.51 2,983,271.80 130,777.69 Expended funds for Denali Commission Rural Program Support, Nikolai, Statewide Maintenance & improvement Program, Chignik, Stevens Village, Atka, Koyukuk, Akiachak, Beaver, Chefornak, Diomede, Napaskiak, Nelson Lagoon, Rampart, EPA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Karluk, Ouzinkie, Tenakee Springs, Angoon, Chignik, Chitina, Pilot Point, Kwethluk, Levelock, Unalakleet, Hoonah, Igiugig, Anvik, Arctic Village, Chenega Bay, and Port Heiden Distribution Upgrades. Encumbered and remaining unobligated funds are for active projects: Port Heiden, Grayling (DERA), Akiachak (DERA), Rampart, Nelson Lagoon, Rampart, Statewide Maintenance & Improvement Program, and Denali Commission Rural Program Support. 45 AEA DF03 2019 2025 RURAL POW Alaska Energy Authority - Rural Power System Upgrades ORIG19 D 11,000,000.00 11,000,000.00 9,407,881.46 1,300,663.40 291,455.14 Expended funds for Rural Energy Technical Support, Project Admin, Training, Nikolai, Twin hills, Chignik Lagoon EPA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Akhiok, Venetie, Inventory & Assessment, Statewide Maintenance & improvement Program, Safety training, Circle (DERA), Chignik Lake (DERA), Stevens Village M&I, Takotna M&I, Togiak, Rampart, Karluk M&I, Ouzinkie M&I, Kwethluk M&I, Hoonah M&I, Anvik (DERA), Arctic Village (DERA), Chenega Bay (DERA), Port Heiden Distribution Upgrades, Manokotak, Grayling (DERA), Platinum (DERA), Rudy (DERA), Kwigillingok Power House M&I, Akiachak (DERA), Circuit Rider Tech Assistance, Emergency inventory Maintenance, Regulatory and DERA Program Support, Mertarvik Energy Planning & Design, and Tuluksak Assistance. Encumbered and Unobligated funds are for active projects: RPSU Training, Nikolai, Venetie, Statewide Inventory & Assessment, Statewide Maintenance 7 Improvement Program, Safety Training, Stevens Village M&I, Rampart, Galena M&I, Port Heiden Distribution Upgrades, Manokotak, Ruby (DERA), Akiachak (DERA), Grayling (DERA), AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade, Circuit Rider Tech Assistance, Regulatory and DERA Program Support, and Tuluksak Assistance. 46 AEA DG64 2017 2025 RURAL POW Alaska Energy Authority - Rural Power Systems Upgrd 17 REF D 3,156,000.00 3,156,000.00 3,150,750.00 - 5,250.00 Expended funds for Project Admin, Program Training, Twin Hills, Port Heiden, Manokotak, Statewide Inventory & Assessment, Regulatory and DERA Program Support, and Tuluksak Assistance. Encumbered and Unobligated funds are for Statewide Inventory & Assessment and RPSU Training 47 AEA DH10 2017 2025 RURAL POW Alaska Energy Authority - Rural Power Systems Upgrd 17 PCEEF D 1,446,142.00 1,446,142.00 1,415,804.92 6,478.89 23,858.19 Expended funds for Project Admin, Twin Hills, Kake, Port Heiden, EPA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Statewide Inventory & Assessment, Statewide Maintenance & Improvement, St. George Wind Turbine Repair, Circle (DERA), Takotna (DERA), Tuluksak (DERA), Chignik Lake (DERA), Diomede M&I, Chignik Bay M&I, AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade, Regulatory and DERA Program Support. Encumbered and Unobligated funds are for active projects: Statewide Inventory & Assessment and AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade. 48 AEA DH88 2016 2024 RURAL POW Alaska Energy Authority Rural Power Systems Upgrades ORIG16 U 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 - - Expended funds for Kake, EPA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Hughes (DERA), Kokhanok (DERA), Chignik Lagoon (DERA), and Diomede M&I. Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 49 AEA DH88 2016 2024 RURAL POW Alaska Energy Authority Rural Power Systems Upgrades ORIG16 O 553,858.39 553,858.39 553,858.39 - - Expended funds for Clark's Point, Venetie, Akiachak M&I, Angoon M&I, Chignik Bay M&I, and Kwethluk M&I. 50 AEA D008 2014 2025 RURAL POW Rural Power Systems Upgrade (HD 1-40) 14 U 7,800,000.00 7,800,000.00 7,800,000.00 - - Expended funds for Yakutat Powerhouse, Hoonah, Fort Yukon, Atmautluak, St. George, Tatitlek, Larsen Bay, Tuntutuliak, Red Devil, Chignik Lake Distribution Upgrade, Nunam iqua, Kake, Port Alsworth, Clark's Point, Koliganek, Perryville, Port Heiden, Port Alsworth, Napaskiak Generators, Chignik Lagoon (DERA), Statewide Inventory & Assessment, Safety Training, St George Wind Turbine Repair, Circle (DERA), Diomede M&I, RPSU FA Labor, Metering/Remote Monitoring, and Regulatory & DERA Program Support. Unobligated funds are for Statewide Inventory & Assessment. 51 AEA D008 2014 2025 RURAL POW Rural Power Systems Upgrade (HD 1-40) 14 F 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,938,036.33 - 61,963.67 Expended funds for Clark's Point, Koliganek, State Clean Diesel (Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA)), Akhiok, Statewide Maintenance & improvement Program, Circle (DERA), Takotna (DERA), Tuluksak (DERA), Chignik Lake (DERA), Atka M&I, Koyukuk M&I, Chefornak M&I, Diomede M&I, Gustavus M&I, AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade. Encumbered and Unobligated funds are for active project: AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade. 52 AEA D067 2013 2025 RURAL POW Rural Power Systems Upgrade ORIG13 U 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 - - Expended funds for REG Warehouse, Fort Yukon, Atmautluak, Central, Twin Hills, EPA Emissions, St. George, Egegik, Larsen Bay, Powerhouse Module ID/IQ Contract, Powerhouse Generator Inventory, King Cove, Heat Recovery, Red Devil, Chignik Lake Distribution Upgrade, Nunam Iqua, Hughes Switchgear Upgrade, Kake, Koliganek, Perryville, Port Heiden, State Clean Diesel (Diesel Emissions Reduction Act(DERA)), Akhiok, Statewide Inventory &Assessment, Safety Training, Takotna M&I, Diomede M&I, RPSU FA Labor, Kwigikkingok Powerhouse M&I, Metering/Remote Monitoring, Pelican Hydroelectric Upgrade Project, and Regulatory and DERA Program Support. Federal authorization still needed, will remain open until both Fed and State are fully expended. 53 AEA D067 2013 2025 RURAL POW Rural Power Systems Upgrade ORIG13 F 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,918,135.06 - 81,864.94 Expended funds for State Clean Diesel (Diesel Emissions Reduction Act(DERA)), Venetie, Statewide Inventory and Assessment, Statewide Maintenance & Improvement Program, TCC (DERA), Circle (DERA), Takotna (DERA), Tuluksak (DERA), Chignik Lake (DERA), Stevens Village M&I, Arctic Village M&I, Atka M&I, Koyukuk M&I, Takotna M&I, Akiachak M&I, Beaver M&I, Chefornak M&I, Tuluksak M&I, Galena M&I, Karluk M&I, Ouzinkee M&I, Tenakee Springs M&I, Angoon M&I, Chignik Bay M&I, Chitina M&I, Pilot Point M&I, Kwethluk M&I, Levelock M&I, Unalakleet M&I, Hoonah M&I, Igiugig M&I, AVTEC Powerplant Lab upgrade, and Mertarvik Energy Planning & Design. Encumbered funds are for active projects: Venetie and Statewide Maintenance & Improvement Program. Unobligated funds are reserved for active Nunapitchuk Project. Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 54 AEA D124 2012 2025 RURAL POW Rural Power System Upgrades (HD 1-40)U 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 - - Expended funds for Yakutat, Hoonah, Central, Twin Hills, EPA Emissions, Newhalen, St. George, Egegik, Tatitlek, Pedro Bay Switchgear Upgrades, Golovin Switchgear Upgrade, Larsen Bay, Galena, Kake, State Clean Diesel (Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA)), and Metering/Remote Monitoring. Federal authorization still needed, will remain open until both Fed and State are fully expended. 55 AEA D124 2012 2025 RURAL POW Rural Power System Upgrades (HD 1-40)F 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,982,654.27 - 17,345.73 Expended funds for Twin Hills, Venetie, and AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade. Encumbered and Unobligated funds are for AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade. 56 AEA D242 2011 2025 RURAL POW Rural Power System Upgrades (HD 1-40)U 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 - - Expended funds for Newtok, Karluk, Yakutat, Angoon, Elfin Cove, Igiugig, Hoonah, EPA Emissions, Newhalen, St. George, Golovin Switchgear Upgrade, Chignik Lake Distribution Upgrade, Nunam Iqua, Metering/Remote Monitoring, McGrath Heat Recovery Construction, and Pelican Hydro Retrofit. Federal authorization still needed, will remain open until both Fed and State are fully expended. 57 AEA D242 2011 2025 RURAL POW Rural Power System Upgrades (HD 1-40)F 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 6,862,061.67 - 137,938.33 Expended funds for Denali Commission Rural Program Support, Twin Hills, Nunam Iqua, Clark's Point, Perryville, Port Heiden, EPA Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA), Hughes (DERA), Kokhanok (DERA), Chignik Lagoon (DERA), DERA Project Development - Tribal Communities, Venetie, TCC DERA, Nelson Lagoon, Port Heiden Distribution Upgrades, AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade and Regulatory and DERA Program Support. Encumbered funds are for active AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade Project. Unobligated funds is budgeted for Federal indirect, awaiting allocation. 58 TOTALS - Rural Power System Upgrades 157,856,000.39 157,856,000.39 77,722,843.02 12,154,678.14 67,978,479.23 59 Electrical Emergencies - State funds. 60 AEA DE02 2024 2028 ELECTRICAL AEA Electrical Emergencies Program ORIG23 GF U 200,000.00 200,000.00 117,170.48 74,027.58 8,801.94 Expended, Encumbered, and Unobligated funds are for Manokotak Emergency. 61 AEA DW02 2023 2027 ELECTRICAL AEA Electrical Emergencies Program ORIG23 GF U 200,000.00 200,000.00 172,837.14 6,286.50 20,876.36 Expended funds for Emergency Inventory Maintenance, Oscarville-Bethel Tie-Line Emergency Repair, Electrical Emergency Assistance - Circle Generation, Crooked Creek and Russian Mission Emergency, and Electrical Emergency Assistance - Manokotak. Remaining Unobligated funds is reserved for Manokotak Emergency. 62 AEA DF0A 2021 2025 ELECTRICAL Electrical Emergencies SUPP21 GF U - 200,000.00 149,527.29 47,144.51 3,328.20 Expended funds for Emergency Inventory Maintenance, Oscarville-Bethel Tie-Line Emergency Repair, and Chignik Bay Distribution Emergency. Encumbered funds are for Emergency Inventory Maintenance. Remaining Unobligated funds is reserved for Manokotak Emergency. 63 AEA DF02 2019 2025 ELECTRICAL AEA Electrical Emergencies Program ORIG19 GF U 330,000.00 330,000.00 330,000.00 - - Expended funds for Emergency Inventory Maintenance, Tuluksak - Generation Emergency, Tuluksak School Generation, SEOC Genset Dillingham, SEOC - Emergency Genset Maintenance, Chuathbaluk - Generation Emergency, Akiachak - Generation Emergency, Chalkyitsik - Distribution Emergency, Chuathbaluk Generation - Electrical Emergency Assistance, Nelson Lagoon - Electrical Emergency Assistance, Oscarville- Bethel Tie-Line Emergency Repair, and Electrical Emergency Assistance - Manokotak. 64 TOTALS - Electrical Emergencies 730,000.00 930,000.00 769,534.91 127,458.59 33,006.50 65 Energy Planning - State Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 66 AEA DW05 2023 2027 ENERGY PLAAEA Strategic Plan for Railbelt Assets ORIG23 GF U 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 289,400.80 784,075.57 1,426,523.63 Expended funds for Strategic Asset plan - Railbelt, Grip 3 Railbelt HVDC, and Data Library. Encumbered and Unobligated funds are for active projects: Grip 3 HVDC and Strategic Asset Plan - Railbelt. These funds are being used to develop an updated Strategic Plan focusing on un-constraining transmission congestion on the bulk power system and utilizing the least cost power opportunities on the interconnected transmission system. The study was at the request of Governor in 2022. A contractor is currently conducting system modeling and project costing work this Spring 2024. Initial study results shall be ready by early summer 2024 to inform AEA on high priority projects and if projects are needed for the Railbelt. Initial results will direct additional studies in in the fall and winter 2024. Reports on feasibility of projects and priorities to plan for future transmission systems to handle changing generation locations and types will be completed in FY2026. Encumbered funds are for two active contracts for Strategic Plan Development and for GRIP 3 Consulting. 67 AEA D062 2013 2024 ENERGY PLAAlaska Energy Plan Implementation (HD 1- 40)FY13 GF U 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 - - Expended funds for Energy data Management, Statewide Energy Planning, Data Library, Regional Plan Technical Review, Regulatory and DERA Program Support, Rural Outreach and Engagement, and Regional Plans for Bristol Bay, Bering Straits, Northwest Arctic, Copper Valley, Chugach, Interior, Aleutians, and Kodiak. Projects funds fully expended and closed. 68 AEA D121 2012 2025 ENERGY PLAAlaska Energy Plan Implementation (HD 1- 40)FY12 GF U 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 - - Expended funds for Energy Data Management, Statewide Energy Planning, Data Library, Rural Infrastructure Alternative Financing, Community Assistance & Rural Business Planning, SWAMC Tech Assistance Network, Regional Plan Southeast, RPSU Inventory & Ranking, Rural Outreach and Engagement, and Regional Plans for Lower Yukon/Nuvista, Bristol Bay, Bering Straits, Copper Valley, Chugach, Interior, Aleutians, Kodiak, and North Slope. Projects funds fully expended and closed. 69 TOTALS - Energy Planning 4,500,000.00 4,500,000.00 2,289,400.80 784,075.57 1,426,523.63 70 Railbelt Projects: 71 AEA DE07 2024 2028 RAILBELT PR AEA Hydroelectric Development ORIG24 U 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 64,860.88 1,458,560.42 3,476,578.70 Committing to Dixon Diversion Project - Expansion of Bradley Lake Project. $4.5 million of the FY2024 $5 million appropriation for planning, developing cost estimates ($1.5 million environmental studies and consulting with agencies. $3 million geotechnical drilling and engineering studies) , and initiating procurements scheduled for 2025 in the next three to four months December 2023 through March 2024. Procurement initiated. 72 AEA D098 2012 2025 RAILBELT PR AEA Anch - Fbks Trans SLA1200501307 U 8,160,564.92 4,527,406.92 1,483,307.66 - 3,044,099.26 Procurement in progress for $750k for Douglas Communication Equipment Upgrade. Recommend remaining unobligated funds be re-appropriated to provide IIJA GRIP 3 required match. 73 AEA D283 2008 2025 RAILBELT PR AEA AK Intertie Static Upgr/Rpr U 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 8,241,724.50 378,568.00 1,379,707.50 Recommend remaining unobligated funds be re-appropriated to Dixon Diversion environmental and engineering studies to advance the project (Bradley Lake power). 74 TOTALS - Railbelt Projects 23,160,564.92 19,527,406.92 9,789,893.04 1,837,128.42 7,900,385.46 75 Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) 76 AEA DE05 2024 2028 IIJA-FED AEA EV Charging Equipment Deployment IIJA ORIG24 F 1,670,000.00 1,670,000.00 8,322.23 - 1,661,677.77 Competitive grant has been awarded to AEA. AEA plans on 1 charging station per energy region at a minimum; Project Management Plan submitted to DOE; Currently working on subawards. $1.5M in FY23 (1004 UGF) for competitive matches. Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 77 AEA DW27 2022 2026 IIJA AEA Electrical Vehicle Infrastructure Plan SUPP22 U 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 223,868.80 11,945.76 1,264,185.44 $1.5M matches competitive solicitations. See above competitive federal award. 78 AEA DE06 2024 2028 IIJA-FED AEA New Energy Auditor Training Grant Program ORIG24 F 63,600.00 63,600.00 - - 63,600.00 Section 40503 Training for energy audits of commercial and residential buildings. Application is open and is due June 28, 2024. Competitive Award. AEA is working with AHFC for use/scope. No match is required. 79 AEA DW23 2023 2027 IIJA-FED AEA New Energy Auditor Training Grant Program ORIG23 F 63,600.00 63,600.00 - - 63,600.00 See above. Total funding opportunity depending on further guidance. Estimated $63.6 per year x 5 years. No match requirement. 80 AEA DE10 2024 2028 IIJA-FED AEA New Energy Efficiency RLF Capitalization Prog ORIG24 F 3,733,780.00 3,733,780.00 - - 3,733,780.00 Year 2 authorization. Federal award provides capitalization for an energy efficiency revolving loan fund. Application submitted by AEA. Award Pending. No match requirement. Total funding anticipated $4.8M. Additional receipts is Governor's amended. 81 AEA DW24 2023 2027 IIJA-FED AEA New Energy Efficiency RLF Capitalization Prog ORIG23 F 796,000.00 796,000.00 - - 796,000.00 See above. Year 1 authorization. Provides capitalization for an energy efficiency revolving loan fund. Application submitted by AEA. Award Pending. No match requirement. Total funding anticipated $4.8M. Additional receipts is Governor's amended. 82 AEA DE11 2024 2028 IIJA-FED AEA Home Energy & High Efficiency Rebate Alloc ORIG24 F 74,519,420.00 74,519,420.00 - - 74,519,420.00 Funds two programs. Formula grants - no match requirement. 1) $37.4M - Grants to states to provide home energy efficiency rebates. 2) $37.1M - Home Electrification and Appliance Rebate program. MOU with AHFC has been signed. Application for early admin funds $900.0 submitted 10/2023. Full application due January 2025 however early submittal is planned and in process with AHFC partnership. 83 AEA DE08 2024 2028 IIJA-FED AEA Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability IIJA ORIG24 F 12,110,523.00 12,110,523.00 - - 12,110,523.00 AEA awarded $22.1M for first 2 years. 15% State match is required. AEA has received matching authorization $3.6M in Railbelt funds and $1.8M in UGF. Request for Application period closed 02/2024. AEA is evaluating the applications for recommendation to DOE by the end of March. Additional funding will be available and AEA will apply for funding FY24-FY26. 84 AEA DE08 2024 2028 IIJA-UGF AEA Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability IIJA ORIG24 U 1,816,579.00 1,816,579.00 11,227.27 - 1,805,351.73 See above for status. This appropriation provides match for IIJA 40101 (d) Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability. 85 AEA DW00 2023 2027 IIJA-FED AEA Alaska Grid Resilience and Reliability - Formula ORIG23 F 12,110,523.00 12,110,523.00 - - 12,110,523.00 See above for status. This is the first of two years federal funding awarded to AEA for IIJA 40101 (d) Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability. 86 AEA DW87 2022 2025 IIJA Alaska Energy Auth SW Grid Resilience & Reliability SUPP22 U 3,633,158.00 3,633,158.00 195,253.59 28,049.91 3,409,854.50 See above for status. This appropriation provides match for IIJA 40101 (d) Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability. 87 AEA DEA3 2023 2027 IIJA-FED AEA State Energy Program IIJA Formula SUPP23 F - 2,865,930.00 155,220.53 779,709.25 1,931,000.22 Section 40109 "State Energy Program" Award received $3.7M April 2023. Formula funding. No state match is required. USDOE SEP formula funds to develop and implement clean energy programs and projects. Five year spending plan. 88 AEA DW25 2023 2027 IIJA-FED AEA State Energy Program ORIG23 F 796,000.00 796,000.00 567,783.15 1,500.00 226,716.85 See above 40109 SEP - Awarded in full to AEA. 89 AEA DW26 2023 2027 IIJA-FED AEA Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grants ORIG23 F 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 20,804.12 - 1,979,195.88 AEA received award of $1.67M from USDOE. These funds assist states, local governments, and Tribes in implementing strategies to reduce energy use, to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and to improve energy efficiency. This is a one-time allocation and no match is required. Request for Applications, through existing Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP) program completed in February 2024. AEA is evaluating applications for subaward. 90 AEA DW29 2022 2026 IIJA Grid Modernization, Reliabil Resil Trans Proj SUPP22 GF U 250,000.00 250,000.00 194,249.98 48,416.53 7,333.49 Provides administrative funding for IIJA applications and program administration when federal funds are not available. Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 91 TOTALS - IIJA 115,063,183.00 117,929,113.00 1,376,729.67 869,621.45 115,682,761.88 92 Other Projects: 93 AEA DEA2 2023 2027 FED DOD AEA Defense Community Inf Pilot Prog SUPP23 F - 12,752,540.00 5,847.01 12,602,648.00 144,044.99 DoD - Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program - Black Rapids Training Site. AEA applied on behalf of GVEA. Award has been received. GVEA will provide the required match. Total project funding is $15.6M. The additional $3M to complete was included in the Governor's amended budget for FY24 supplemental. 94 AEA DE28 2024 2028 FED GRANTSGVEA Three-Phase Power Ext and Upg to Delta Farm ORIG24 GF U 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 - 3,000,000.00 - Encumbered funds is to GVEA for the purpose of extending three-phase power throughout the Delta region to enhance production, incentivize expansion, and lower input costs for producers as well as customers. 95 AEA DE15 2024 2028 OTHER-VESSAEA Port Electrification ORIG24 O 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 1,463.85 - 4,998,536.15 Whittier Port Electrification Project. Project starting, MOA with Chugach Electric and Holland America. 96 AEA DW85 2023 2027 VW-SDPR Alaska Energy Authority - Volkswagen Settlement ORIG23 O 400,000.00 400,000.00 - - 400,000.00 Unobligated funds is for administration and disbursement of $400,000 in interest earnings from the Volkswagen (VW) Settlement environmental mitigation trust. Represents investment earnings that are allowed to be used for authorized projects. 97 AEA DG74 2018 2025 VW-SDPR Alaska Energy Authority - Volkswagen Settlement O - 8,125,000.00 7,199,887.65 396,719.22 528,393.13 Eight grants are open and active. This includes EV Charging Stations (Dimond Center, Three Bears); Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) projects at Grayling, Ruby, and Akiachak. 98 AEA DF40 2020 2025 WELL FARGOAEA - Rural Outdoor Lighting Efficiency Retrofit ORIG20 O 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 820,157.55 78,112.65 127,653.64 Remaining funds are being allocated to the Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP) augmenting federal IIJA Conservation Block Grant funds. 99 AEA DF0G 2021 2025 COVID FUNDGrants Electric Utilities Delinquent Payments SUPP21 F 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 3,240,953.51 - 3,759,046.49 CARES grant funds that were returned to SOA was on 03.10.23. This project is Closed. 100 TOTALS - Other 16,400,000.00 37,277,540.00 11,268,309.57 16,077,479.87 9,957,674.40 101 Renewable Energy Grant Fund Projects: 102 AEA DE12 2024 2028 REF (ugf)AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 ORIG24 U 9,552,000.00 9,552,000.00 261,886.39 8,694,113.61 596,000.00 REF XV ( 18 Projects) 103 AEA DE12 2024 2028 REF AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 ORIG24 D 7,500,000.00 7,500,000.00 974,601.31 6,481,611.89 43,786.80 REF XV ( 18 Projects) 104 AEA DW03 2023 2027 REF AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round XIV ORIG23 D 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 4,260,489.26 9,955,286.64 784,224.10 REF XIV (27 Projects) 105 AEA DF2A 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII City of Unalaska Wind Power ORIG22 REGF D 139,000.00 139,000.00 67,584.78 71,415.22 - REF XIII (11 Projects) 106 AEA DF2B 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII Kotzebue Comm-Scale Energy ORIG22 REGF D 325,000.00 325,000.00 49,309.41 275,690.59 - REF XIII (11 Projects) 107 AEA DF2C 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII Naknek SA Wind & Solar Power ORIG22 REGF D 103,500.00 103,500.00 34,435.75 69,064.25 - REF XIII (11 Projects) 108 AEA DF2D 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII Kotlik Wind Energy ORIG22 REGF D 237,500.00 237,500.00 67,760.00 169,740.00 - REF XIII (11 Projects) 109 AEA DF2E 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII Dillingham Nuyakuk River ORIG22 REGF D 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 - - REF XIII (11 Projects) 110 AEA DF2F 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII Goodnews Bay Wind Energy ORIG22 REGF D 128,250.00 128,250.00 58,851.00 69,399.00 - REF XIII (11 Projects) 111 AEA DF2G 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII Shungnak Heat Recovery Exp ORIG22 REGF D 1,303,607.00 1,303,607.00 181,536.37 1,114,401.90 7,668.73 REF XIII (11 Projects) 112 AEA DF2H 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII Kongiganak Improved Airfoil ORIG22 REGF D 108,000.00 108,000.00 - 108,000.00 - REF XIII (11 Projects) Line CASR Division AR Type Orig. year Term Year ABS Description Fund Group 03/23 Original Budget 03/23 Current Budget 03/23 Actual 03/23 Encumbered 03/23 Unobligated NOTES 113 AEA DF2I 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII Walter Northway Sch Wood Chip ORIG22 REGF D 650,000.00 650,000.00 321,101.78 328,898.22 - REF XIII (11 Projects) 114 AEA DF2J 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII Hoonah Water Supply Creek ORIG22 REGF D 461,474.00 461,474.00 455,658.98 5,815.02 0.00 REF XIII (11 Projects) 115 AEA DF2K 2022 2026 REF AEA REF Round XIII Cordova Hydro Storage ORIG22 REGF D 294,642.00 294,642.00 294,642.00 - - REF XIII (11 Projects) 116 AEA DF04 2019 2025 REF AEA Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project ORIG19 D 3,400,000.00 3,400,000.00 504,841.24 196,885.76 2,698,273.00 REF XIII (11 Projects) 117 AEA DF08 2019 2025 REF AEA Shishmaref Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design 19 REGF D 152,000.00 107,500.00 87,647.00 19,853.00 - REF XIII (11 Projects) 118 AEA DF09 2019 2025 REF AEA Heat Pump System for City of Seward 19 REGF D 725,000.00 725,000.00 88,000.00 637,000.00 - REF XIII (11 Projects) 119 AEA D073 2013 2025 REF Thayer Lake Hydropower Transmission /Generation (HD 5) D 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 1,648,746.50 495,936.50 4,855,317.00 REF XIII (11 Projects) 120 TOTALS - Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program 48,079,973.00 48,035,473.00 10,357,091.77 28,693,111.60 8,985,269.63 813 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 DATE: TO: FROM: REVISED MEMORANDUM April 16, 2024 Board of Directors Curtis Thayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: IIJA and IRA Funding Opportunities and Board approval The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska. Its 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. As the State’s energy office, AEA routinely submits applications for, and negotiates competitive awards for non-recurring Department of Energy Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) federal funding. It is appropriate for the AEA Board of Directors (Board) to review and formally approve IIJA and IRA competitive applications and awards. As such, I make the following recommendations: •The AEA Board shall review and approve, by resolution, all IIJA and IRA award agreement terms and conditions over $10 million, and/or third party approvals at scheduled Board meetings, or by special meeting. •AEA will provide the Board with a weekly status update of all potential IIJA and IRA applications and awards/status. In addition to the Board, all federal awards require “federal receipt authority” by Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Alaska State Legislature, and the Governor for approval. 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 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Curtis Thayer, Executive Director Tim Sandstrom, Chief Procurement Officer April 30, 2024 Public Testimony of April 17, 2024 AEA Board Meeting Mr. Ben Hopkins made public comments at the Alaska Energy Authority Board meeting on April 17, 2024. Those comments are also attached to this memo. AEA has responded previously to Mr. Hopkins public information requests regarding these issues. In summary, AEA is fully within its authority under Alaska Statute 44.83.080 (7) to exchange the engines in question. There is no requirement to determine equal value or specification. The statute allows the exchange, “when, in the judgement of the authority, the action is in furtherance of its corporate purposes”. AEA took this action to minimize the likelihood of a significant disruption of electrical service, as authorized in 3 AAC 108.230 (a) (b). Mr. Hopkins reference to the contract between Ungusraq Power Company and Northern Generation and Power and its timing is irrelevant to this situation as AEA has no standing in that agreement. Mr. Hopkins mentions not finding information regarding this issue in 3 AAC 100 (incorrect citation as this is AIDEA’s procurement code, although AEA’s procurement code is substantially similar) is because there was no procurement. Therefore, there is no violation procurement code. AEA did use the required internal documentation and approval of transfer form, as is appropriate in this situation. Regarding the assertion that this exchange was, “a closed door, non-public process,” there is no public notice requirement for AEA to act within its statutes and regulations in this matter. As AEA’s Chief Procurement Officer, it is my formal finding that the exchange of engines is fully compliant with all applicable statutes and regulations. From:ben@49state.com To:publiccomment Subject:AEA trade of State assets, transparency in procurement Date:Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:21:56 PM Attachments:image001.png Alaska Public Records Act Request RE Mertarvik John Deere engine.msg 1 - Nov 21 2024 email thread.pdf 2 - Transfer Documentation.pdf 4 - Mertarvik replacement engine via NGP.pdf 3 - Northern Generation Contract with Mertarvik.pdf 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. To whom it may concern: I am writing today first as a lifelong resident of the State of Alaska and secondly as an owner of an Alaskan small business with concerns about procurement processes and lack of transparency at the Alaska Energy Authority. In the interest of full disclosure, my company, 49th State Power, LLC, is a factory authorized John Deere Dealer and is engaged in the business of selling new John Deere engines within the State of Alaska, including to the Alaska Energy Authority. The contractor involved in this event, while not a John Deere Dealer, is a direct competitor of my business. Through a freedom of information request I have gained knowledge of a State of Alaska asset administered by the Alaska Energy Authority being “traded” with no public visibility of the process. Simply put, AEA traded state asset #08-14450 for a surplus engine provided by a contractor with no review of specifications, configuration, or suitability for purpose sight unseen. While the two engines in question have some commonalities, they are different models, different EPA emission tiers, and in general, configured differently. State asset #08-14450 was transferred to Ungusraq Power Company from Alaska Energy Authority. This asset was a John Deere 6090AFM75 diesel engine, serial number RG6090G014642. AEA accepted a surplus John Deere 6090AFM85 diesel engine, serial number RG6090L139455 from Northern Generation & Power in trade for the SOA/AEA supplied engine. Northern Generation & Power entered into a contract with Ungusraq Power Company to perform an engine replacement for them after AEA agreed to accept this “trade” – refer to the attachments, contract was signed 12/14/23, AEA seemingly “authorized” the trade 11/21/23. Photos provided in response to request show that the surplus engine received by AEA in trade from the aforementioned contractor was still wrapped in plastic. It appeared to have some equipment removed, the only identifying marks shared with me are a model and serial number hand written on a piece of duct tape. How has AEA ensured they received equal value for the asset released in this trade, assuming an equal value trade was in fact the intent of this transaction? If there is a known difference in value how has that been addressed? If this is normal, acceptable practice for the Alaska Energy Authority I am formally requesting that the documented guidelines in place to ensure this process is not abused and/or used as a means to avoid standard procurement regulations be shared publicly. I have not found this information in my review of 3 AAC 100, perhaps I missed it? How is value of a state asset determined when a trade is made? How is value of the equipment to be taken in trade determined? For what reasons would an “asset trade” be a closed door, non-public process? Please consider the information contained in this correspondence and share my concerns with the Alaska Energy Authority Board of Directors for consideration. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter to gain an understanding of why this series of events has been deemed as acceptable practice for a state agency. Regards, Ben Ben Hopkins 49th State Power, LLC (907)313-5775 Main (907)830-8132 Cell ben@49state.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential information that may not be further distributed by any means without permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are not permitted to read its content and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the message and its attachments without saving in any manner. AEA IIJA/IRA Funding Opportunities Note: New information is in bold font in cells highlighted yellow Page 1 of 2 last updated 5/1/2024 %$ Awarded Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot - National Defense Authorization Act Black Rapids Training Site $ 15,602,648 0%$0 AEA partnered with GVEA. $12.6M federal receipt authority approved in FY24 and requested additional $3M to bury line per DOD in FY24 supplemental budget for a total of $15.6M. Awarded Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant - IIJA 40552b $ 1,627,450 0%$0 Solicitation for RE-VEEP subawards Round 1 closed 2/27/24. Round 2 closes 5/28/24. Awarded High Energy Cost Grants - USDA RUS $ 2,000,000 0%$0 AEA awarded grant for Manokotak. Awarded National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program (NEVI) - IIJA 11401- Formula Funding FFY22-FFY26 $ 52,415,020 20%$10,483,004 AEA is a partner, DOT responsible for future receipt authority. Total expected is $52M. FFY 22-24 awarded for $30.1M. FFY25-26 allocations pending for ~$22.3M. Awarded Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid to States and Indian Tribes - IIJA 40101d Formula Funding FFY22-FFY26 $ 64,022,556 15%$9,603,383 AEA has receipt authority for $24.2M federal award and $5.4M match. Requested federal receipt authority for additional $17.6M and match of $1.8M in FY25 budget. FFY 25-26 allocations pending for ~$24.2M, remaining match of ~$2.3M needed in future years. Awarded State Energy Program Funding - IIJA 40109 $ 3,661,930 0%$0 AEA applicant. Funding split 70% AEA and 30% AHFC. Awarded Vehicle Technology Office FFY 2022 $ 1,670,000 20%$417,500 Match to be provided by site partners. $161,503,491 $ 140,999,604 $20,503,887 Conditional Award Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Capitalization Program - IIJA 40502 $ 4,782,480 0%$0 AEA resubmitted application 11/1/23. Requested additional $240k in federal receipt authority in FY24 supplemental budget. AEA and AHFC are partners. Conditional Award Energy Future Grant $ 496,725 0%$0 AEA partnered with AML for proposal to evaluate energy permitting in 45 municipalities. Application was selected for award pending negotiations. Requested federal receipt authority in FY25 budget. Conditional Award Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Program Topic 3 - IIJA 40103b $ 206,500,000 100%$206,500,000 AEA notified by DOE for negotiation of financial assistance award in the amount of $206.5M. 100% match required or $206.5M, funding source unknown. Conditional Award Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund - Solar For All Competition - IRA 134a $ 62,450,000 0%$0 AEA/AHFC partners, selected for an award on 4/22/24. Requested $20M federal receipt authority in FY25 budget. Federal receipt authority of $42.45M needed for remainder of award. Conditional Award Home Efficiency Rebates (formula funding) - IRA 50121 $ 37,368,480 0%$0 AEA applicant as State Energy Office. AHFC administer the program. Application due 1/31/25. Conditional Award Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates (formula funding) - IRA 50122 $ 37,150,940 0%$0 AEA applicant as State Energy Office. AHFC administer the program. Application due 1/31/25. Conditional Award Training for Residential Energy Contractors (TREC) - IRA 50123 - Formula Funding $ 1,293,870 0%$0 AEA submitted application as State Energy Office. AHFC to administer the program. Requested federal receipt authority in FY25 budget. $556,542,495 $ 350,042,495 $ 206,500,000 AK Funding Award / Request Comments Required Match Status GO Federal Receipt Authority Grant Program Name Total Awarded: Total Conditional Award: AEA IIJA/IRA Funding Opportunities Note: New information is in bold font in cells highlighted yellow Page 2 of 2 last updated 5/1/2024 %$ AK Funding Award / Request Comments Required Match Status GO Federal Receipt Authority Grant Program Name Pending Clean Energy Innovator Fellowship Program NA NA NA AEA submitted 2 applications. Fellows would be paid by stipend from DOE, receipt authority not needed. Pending Climate Pollution Reduction Grants Competition - Dixon Diversion Measure - IRA 60114 $ 348,415,151 0%$0 AEA submitted application March 29, 2024. Pending Climate Pollution Reduction Grants Competition - Rural Energy Programs- IRA 60114 $ 49,986,112 0%$0 AEA submitted application March 29, 2024. AEA lead applicant of coalition with Northwest Arctic Borough and Tanana Chiefs Conference. Pending Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot - National Defense Authorization Act $ 10,106,603 0%$0 Application deadline 6/17/24. AEA considering re- submitting for Eielson upgrades with partner GVEA. GVEA would supply cost share, if required. Pending Energy Auditor Training Program - IIJA 40503 $ 2,000,000 0%$0 AEA submitted 2 concept papers. AEA would administer commercial and AHFC would administer residential program. Application due 7/12/24. Pending Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Program Topic 3 - IIJA 40103b $ 365,000,000 100% $ 365,000,000 Application submitted by AEA 4/17/24. Pending MARAD Port Infrastructure Development Program - IIJA Title VIII $ 5,000,000 20%$0 AEA considering potential application for 3 rural communities. Match may be waived for rural communities. Application due May 10, 2024. Pending Waste to Energy Technical Assistance for State, Local and Tribal Governments NA NA NA AEA submitted an application for technical assistance (TA). Federal receipt authority not needed for TA. Pending Wood Innovations Grant Program FFY 2024 - IRA 23002 $ 500,000 100%$500,000 Application submitted. $1,146,507,866 $ 781,007,866 $ 365,500,000 Considering Clean Heavy Duty Vehicles - IRA 60101 TBD TBD TBD Funding opportunity not issued at this time. Considering Clean Ports Program - IRA 60102 TBD 0-20%TBD Application due May 28, 2024. Considering State-Based Home Energy Efficiency Contractor Training Competitive Grant Program TBD 0%$0 Letter of intent due 5/9/24. Application deadline 7/12/24. Considering Watersmart Grants: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants for FY2024 & 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Opportunity No. R24AS00052 TBD 100%TBD Application Period 2 deadline 10/30/24. AEA may apply for part of Dixon Diversion Project. TBD TBDTotal Considering: Total Pending: 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 TO: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Jim Mendenhall, P.E., Program Manager DATE: May 1, 2024 SUBJECT: Railbelt Innovation and Resliency Project, Phase 1 GRIP Topic 3, Round 1 Update We have been working on completing requirements for DOE. AEA has submitted all the documents requested by DOE. DOE is still reviewing several of the documents and we expect minor feedback on Statement of Projected Outcomes Community Benefits Plan – Submitted Community Benefits Outcomes & Objectives Funding match level is currently at $32.7M total of which, $20M is from the Bradley Bonds and $12.7M is dedicated from State funds. DOE recognizes that an award need to be made. DOE will make a project award of matching reimbursement with AEA limited funds. The State has dedicated $32.7M in funds and the first year projection for spending was ~$15M. DOE has been given the budget justification for the first year. They have reviewed it, responded that it looks good and requested some additional information. Additional Federal funds will be released as more matching funds are dedicated to the project. The Federal approval process has multiple approval steps so we are in discussions with DOE about securing authorization for pre-award costs that can be incorporated into the project prior to a formal award. DOE has forwarded a set of “sample Terms & Conditions. We have asked DOE for the contract Terms & Conditions specific to our project. The initial focus is System studies, design, permitting and siting issues related to the HVDC line. We did include some design costs related to the BESS because we know those systems need to be evaluated for integration in the Railbelt system regardless of when they are integrated. April 9th - Hatch provided a virtual 101 on HVDC lines. April 10th – Curtis & Jim went to Kenai, gave an overview of the project to a joint meeting of the Kenai & Soldotna chambers. We also were given a site tour by Larry Jorgenson (HEA) of a potential landing site at Nikiski and a tour of the Soldotna substation & BESS. 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 RAILBELT INNOVATIVE RESILIENCY PROJECT HVDC Submarine Cable and BESS Updated: •Statement of Project Objectives (pgs.383-390B) 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 RAILBELT INNOVATIVE RESILIENCY PROJECT HVDC Submarine Cable and BESS Table of Contents Page 1.Grid Resilience Innovation Partnership ...................................................................................................... 1 2.Funding Opportunity Announcement ........................................................................................................ 7 3.Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (CONCEPT PAPER) ............................................................. 149 4.DOE Notification of Selection of Concept Paper .............................................................................. 171 5.Application ...................................................................................................................................................... 173 6.DOE Notification of Selection of Application ..................................................................................... 299 7.AEA Questions for Department of Energy ......................................................................................... 305 8.Contract Terms and Conditions (SAMPLE ONLY) ............................................................................. 309 9.Alaska Energy Authority Budget Justification (BUDGET PERIOD 1) ........................................... 345 10.Project Schedule (Preliminary) ................................................................................................................. 361 11.Project Management Plan Template ..................................................................................................... 363 12.Statement of Project Objectives (updated).......................................................................................... 383 13.Community Benefits Outcomes and Objectives (DRAFT) .............................................................. 391 14.National Environmental Policy Act (DRAFT) ....................................................................................... 399 15.Cybersecurity Plan December 2024 (CONFIDENTIAL) .................................................................... 401 16.Project Funding Plan .................................................................................................................................... 405 17.Future Initial Award Notice (in progress) 18.Contract Terms and Conditions (in progress) 19.Project Budget (in progress) 20.Project Schedule (in progress) Updated 5/8/24 Grid Resilience Innovation Partnership Task and Purpose AcƟon Item: Support State investment in the Grid Resilience Innovation Partnership (GRIP) Project. Background: The Railbelt electric transmission system is an electric transmission system comprised of interconnected transmission infrastructure assets owned by four independent member- owned electric cooperatives1; one municipal electric utility2; and the State-owned Alaska Intertie and Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (“Bradley Lake”) transmission assets. This transmission system serves over 75 percent of Alaska’s population and spans a distance of over 700 miles from the Bradley Lake near Homer, Alaska at its southernmost point, to Delta Junction in interior Alaska at its northernmost point. At present, the Railbelt transmission system is in effect, a single transmission line. The costs of such a lack in reliability and redundancy was evidenced with the Swan Lake Fire in 2019. This event caused prevented load centers north of the incident (Anchorage, Matanuska Susitna Valley, and Fairbanks area) from drawing on low-cost hydroelectric power from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric facility. A future event could prevent Anchorage area sharing energy with Fairbanks or Kenai areas. Ability to share energy between areas are especially important during the winter months. In 2023, AEA, representing the State of Alaska, in association with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), and five electric utilities that make up the Railbelt electric grid assembled a team that applied for and were successful in securing a highly competitive $206.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to assist in financing a sub-sea high-voltage direct-current (“HVDC”) transmission line which would serve to provide a redundant pathway for the transmission of energy off the Kenai Peninsula to the Central region, and the procurement and installation of multiple battery energy storage systems (“BESS”). The total cost of the project is expected to be $413 million. Value ProposiƟon: Provides for redundancy between the southern and central regions. HVDC transmission line will significantly increase the ability to share power between the South, Central, and North load centers. The most economic power can be used at all times. Expanded capacity will enable new renewable energy projects to be constructed and deliver power to other load centers. BESS assets will provide for increased efficiency of existing and future intermittent low-cost renewable energy generation units with their ability to store renewable 1 The four member‐owned electric cooperaƟves are: Chugach Electric AssociaƟon, Inc.; Golden Valley Electric AssociaƟon, Inc.; Homer Electric AssociaƟon, Inc.; and Matanuska Electric AssociaƟon, Inc. 2 Municipal UƟlity: City of Seward d.b.a. Seward Electric System 1 energy and transmit such energy for times when it would be needed, optimizing economic energy generation. BESS will reduce generation and operational costs for the Railbelt utilities, by reducing the need (and fuel) to provide spinning reserve. Long term lower energy costs on the Railbelt and lower rural energy costs through Power Cost EqualizaƟon (PCE). How we get there (Roadmap): AEA is currently performing due diligence of a potential award from the Department of Energy (DOE). AEA is providing various required documents to DOE. Once commitment of the State provided then AEA will receive the award. The term for the project is eight years from the time of the award which is not very much time. Thus, AEA is working on lining up engineering and environmental contractors to assist in the design and permitting of the project. The main project components include: Sub-sea HVDC transmission cable from the Kenai Peninsula under Cook Inlet to Beluga Power Plant. BESS Central region BESS Northern region Project Schedule 2024‐2025 – Preliminary Design, revised cost estimate, and outreach. 2025‐2027 – Design and permitting Licensing o Outreach o An Environmental Analysis (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will need to be prepared. o Order long lead items. o Acquire site control. 2028‐2031 – Construction o Many items will need to be ordered several years prior to construction. Project Economics: Total cost: $413 million Indirect benefits are substanƟal such as sharing of lowest cost energy, sharing of energy during shortages, allowing new generaƟon to connect to the grid. Future gas cost increases will only enhance project economics. 2 Benefit of sharing of energy between regions in winter to prevent power outages in sub‐ zero weather are substanƟal but hard to quanƟfy. Project Funding Funds requested from the Alaska Legislature in FY25 to provide commitment to DOE and fund engineering and environmental contractors to start design and permitting. See Funding Plan. 33 4 5 6 Page 1 of 142 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT Department of Energy (DOE) Grid Deployment Office (GDO) Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) BIL – Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number: DE-FOA-0002740 FOA Type: Amendment 000007 Assistance Listing Number: 81.254 FOA Amendment 000007 Issue Date:04/11/2023 1st Informational Webinar:11/29/2022 2:00pm ET 2nd Informational Webinar:02/08/2023 2:00pm ET 3rd Informational Webinar 02/27/2023 1:00pm ET 4th Informational Webinar 02/28/2023 1:00pm ET Additional Webinars To Be Announced* Submission Deadline for Concept Papers (Topic Area 1):12/16/2022 5:00pm ET Submission Deadline for Concept Papers (Topic Area 2):12/16/2022 5:00pm ET Submission Deadline for Concept Papers (Topic Area 3):01/13/2023 5:00pm ET Submission Deadline for Full Applications (Topic Area 1):04/06/2023 5:00pm ET Submission Deadline for Full Applications (Topic Area 2):03/17/2023 5:00pm ET Submission Deadline for Full Applications (Topic Area 3):05/19/2023 5:00pm ET Expected Date for DOE Selection Notifications (Topic Area 1):Summer 2023 Expected Date for DOE Selection Notifications (Topic Area 2):Summer 2023 Expected Date for DOE Selection Notifications (Topic Area 3):Fall 2023 Expected Timeframe for Award Negotiations (Topic Area 1):Fall 2023 Expected Timeframe for Award Negotiations (Topic Area 2):Fall 2023 Expected Timeframe for Award Negotiations (Topic Area 3):Winter 2023 7 Page 2 of 142 Applicants must submit a Concept Paper by 5:00pm ET on the due date listed above to be eligible to submit a Full Application. *See Section VIII.P for more information on additional webinar(s). To apply to this FOA, applicants must register with and submit application materials through Grants.gov at https://www.grants.gov/. Applicants must designate primary and backup points-of-contact with whom DOE will communicate to conduct award negotiations. If an application is selected for award negotiations, it is not a commitment to issue an award. It is imperative that the applicant/selectee be responsive during award negotiations and meet negotiation deadlines. Failure to do so may result in cancelation of further award negotiations and rescission of the selection. 8 Page 3 of 142 Registration Requirements There are several one-time actions that must be completed before submitting an application in response to this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) (e.g., register with the System for Award Management (SAM), obtain a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number, register with Grants.gov, and register with FedConnect.net to submit questions). It is vital that applicants address these items as soon as possible. Some may take several weeks, and failure to complete them could interfere with an applicant’s ability to apply to this FOA. SAM – Applicants must register with SAM at https://www.sam.gov/ prior to submitting an application in response to this FOA. Designating an Electronic Business Point of Contact (EBiz POC) and obtaining a special password called an MPIN are important steps in SAM registration. Failure to register with SAM will prevent your organization from applying through Grants.gov. The applicant must maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or application under consideration. More information about SAM registration for applicants is found at: https://www.fsd.gov/gsafsd_sp?id=gsafsd_kb_articles&sys_id=650d493e1bab7c105465 eaccac4bcbcb . NOTE: If clicking the SAM links do not work, please copy and paste the link into your browser. Due to the high demand of SAM registrations and UEI requests, entity legal business name and address validations are taking longer than expected to process. Entities should start the SAM and UEI registration process as soon as possible. If entities have technical difficulties with the SAM registration or UEI validation process they should utilize the HELP feature on SAM.gov. SAM.gov will work entity service tickets in the order in which they are received and asks that entities not create multiple service tickets for the same request or technical issue. Additional entity validation resources can be found here: GSAFSD Tier 0 Knowledge Base - Validating your Entity. UEI – Applicants must obtain an UEI from the SAM to uniquely identify the entity. The UEI is available in the SAM entity registration record. NOTE: Subawardees/subrecipients at all tiers must also obtain an UEI from the SAM and provide the UEI to the Prime Recipient before the subaward can be issued. Grants.gov – Applicants must register with Grants.gov and set up your WorkSpace. You cannot submit an application through Grants.gov unless you are registered. Please read the registration requirements carefully and start the process immediately. 1) The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must register at: https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/OrcRegister . 9 Page 4 of 142 2) An email is sent to the E-Business (E-Biz) POC listed in SAM. The E-Biz POC must approve the AOR registration using their MPIN from their SAM registration. More information about the registration steps for Grants.gov is provided at: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/registration.html. In addition: o Add a Profile to a Grants.gov Account: A profile in Grants.gov corresponds to a single applicant organization the user represents (i.e., an applicant) or an individual applicant. If you work for or consult with multiple organizations and have a profile for each, you may log in to one Grants.gov account to access all of your grant applications. To add an organizational profile to your Grants.gov account, enter the UEI for the organization in the UEI field while adding a profile. For more detailed instructions about creating a profile on Grants.gov, refer to: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/registration/add-profile.html . o EBiz POC Authorized Profile Roles: After you register with Grants.gov and create an Organization Applicant Profile, the organization applicant's request for Grants.gov roles and access is sent to the EBiz POC. The EBiz POC will then log in to Grants.gov and authorize the appropriate roles, which may include the AOR role, thereby giving you permission to complete and submit applications on behalf of the organization. You will be able to submit your application online any time after you have been assigned the AOR role. NOTE: When applications are submitted through Grants.gov, the name of the organization applicant with the AOR role that submitted the application is inserted into the signature line of the application, serving as the electronic signature. The EBiz POC must authorize people who are able to make legally binding commitments on behalf of the organization as a user with the AOR role; this step is often missed and it is crucial for valid and timely submissions. For more detailed instructions about creating a profile on Grants.gov, refer to: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/registration/authorize- roles.html . To track your role request, refer to: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/registration/track-role- status.html . Questions relating to the registration process, system requirements, or how an application form works must be directed to Grants.gov at 1-800-518-4726 or support@grants.gov. 10 Page 5 of 142 FedConnect.net – Applicants must register with FedConnect to submit questions. FedConnect website: https://www.fedconnect.net/ All questions and answers related to this FOA will be posted on the FedConnect portal at: https://www.FedConnect.net and on the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program web page at: Grid Resilience Innovation Partnership Programs | Department of Energy. See Section IV for Application and Submission Information (including how to create a WorkSpace). 11 Page 6 of 142 Amendments Amend. No.Date Description of Amendment 000001 11/18/2022 This Amendment is to issue the initial version of the FOA. This version (Amendment 00001) supersedes the previous draft version that was released for public comment (the Draft). The Draft version is now obsolete. Applicants are advised to use Amendment 00001 to prepare the concept paper and full application. 000002 11/29/2022 This Amendment is to revise Section IV.D.xvi to replace the hyperlink to the Community Benefits Plan Scoring Rubric; to remove a reference to program-specific Community Benefits Plan Guidance; and to move the instructions for submitting the Community Benefits Plan to the end of the section. Text that is revised or newly incorporated with this amendment is highlighted in yellow. 000003 12/13/2022 This Amendment revises the following sections: the Registration Requirements section and Section VII to include the GRIP web page as an additional resource for Applicants to view FOA questions and answers. Section I.B.ii to include the GRIP web page as an additional resource for Applicants to view the Teaming Partner List and any updates to it. Section II.A.ii to include additional funding information, including plans for issuing the second competitive funding opportunity for GRIP in Fiscal Year 2024. Section IV.A. and IV.C. to clarify concept paper submission information. Text that is revised or newly incorporated with this amendment is highlighted in yellow. 000004 02/06/2023 The Amendment revises the following: The FOA Cover Page and Section VIII.P to notify applicants that additional informational webinars are planned. Please see Section VIII.P for additional webinar information. Section I.B and I.C to reflect that for Topic Area 1, new distribution lines below 69 kV, reconductoring, undergrounding and other upgrades to existing transmission infrastructure are considered eligible; and applications that include new transmission lines at or 12 Page 7 of 142 above 69 kV are not of interest. A correction to Footnote 40 was also made in this section. Section IV.D.xvi to remove the hyperlink to the Community Benefits Plan Scoring Rubric. The Community Benefits Plan Scoring Rubric will no longer be available. Section IV.D.xx to correctly reflect the reference to the Project Description and Assurances Document Template (PDAD) template as Appendix F. Text that is revised or newly incorporated with this amendment is highlighted in yellow. 000005 02/23/2023 The Amendment revises the following: The FOA Cover Page and Section VIII.P to notify applicants that additional informational webinars are scheduled. Please see Section VIII.P for additional webinar information. Section II.A.ii to correct the anticipated length of the period of performance. Section IV.D.xx to add the text of the “Locations of Work” full application content requirement. The Locations of Work template is now available as an attachment to this announcement for use. Text that is revised or newly incorporated with this amendment is highlighted in yellow. 000006 03/20/2023 The purpose of this Amendment is to re-open the FOA to accommodate the submission of full applications to Topic Area 1 and Topic Area 3 only. See the FOA Cover Page for Application Due Dates and Times. Please note, the application period for Topic Area 2 is closed. There are no changes being made to the FOA document as a result of this amendment. 000007 04/11/2023 The purpose of this Amendment is to re-open the FOA to accommodate the submission of full applications to Topic Area 3 only. See the FOA Cover Page for Application Due Dates and Times. Please note, the application period is now closed for Topic Area 1 and Topic Area 2. This amendment also revises Section VII to increase the number of days for which questions and comments concerning this FOA shall be submitted, from 3 business days to not later than 5 13 Page 8 of 142 business days, prior to the application due date for Topic Area 3. Text that is revised or newly incorporated with this amendment is highlighted in yellow. 14 Page 9 of 142 Table of Contents Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................................8 I. Funding Opportunity Description...............................................................................................................12 A. Background and Context...............................................................................................................................12 i. Program Purpose......................................................................................................................................13 ii. Strategic Goals..........................................................................................................................................15 iii. Community Benefits Plan: Job Quality and Equity...................................................................................17 B. Topic Areas....................................................................................................................................................20 i. Topic Areas...............................................................................................................................................20 ii. Teaming Partner List.................................................................................................................................36 C. Applications Specifically Not of Interest .......................................................................................................37 D. Authorizing Statutes......................................................................................................................................37 E. Notice of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law-Specific Requirements...................................................................37 II. Award Information....................................................................................................................................38 A. Award Overview............................................................................................................................................38 i. Estimated Funding....................................................................................................................................38 ii. Period of Performance.............................................................................................................................40 iii. New Applications Only .............................................................................................................................40 B. DOE Funding Agreements.............................................................................................................................40 i. Cooperative Agreements (applies to Topic Area 3 ONLY)........................................................................40 ii. Grants (applies to Topic Area 1 and 2 ONLY) ...........................................................................................40 III. Eligibility Information................................................................................................................................41 A. Eligible Applicants.........................................................................................................................................41 i. Topic Area 1 (Section 40101(c)) ...............................................................................................................41 ii. Topic Area 2 (Section 40107)....................................................................................................................41 iii. Topic Area 3 (40103(b))...........................................................................................................................41 iv. General Requirements for Eligible Applicants For Topic Areas 1, 2, and 3 ............................................41 v. Restricted Eligibility (applies to Topic Area 1 and Topic Area 3 ONLY).....................................................43 B. Cost Sharing ..................................................................................................................................................43 i. Legal Responsibility..................................................................................................................................44 ii. Cost Share Allocation ...............................................................................................................................44 iii. Cost Share Types and Allowability............................................................................................................44 iv. Cost Share Verification.............................................................................................................................45 v. Cost Share Payment .................................................................................................................................46 C. Compliance Criteria.......................................................................................................................................46 i. Concept Papers.........................................................................................................................................46 D. Responsiveness Criteria ................................................................................................................................47 E. Other Eligibility Requirements (Reserved)....................................................................................................47 F. Limitation on Number of Concept Papers and Full Applications Eligible for Review....................................47 G. Questions Regarding Eligibility......................................................................................................................47 IV. Application and Submission Information ...................................................................................................47 A. Application Process.......................................................................................................................................47 B. Application Forms.........................................................................................................................................48 C. Content and Form of the Concept Paper......................................................................................................49 D. Content and Form of the Full Application.....................................................................................................51 i. Full Application Content Requirements ...................................................................................................51 15 Page 10 of 142 ii. SF-424: Application for Federal Assistance ..............................................................................................52 iii. Project/Performance Site Location(s) ......................................................................................................53 iv. Technical Volume.....................................................................................................................................53 v. Resumes...................................................................................................................................................59 vi. Letters of Commitment............................................................................................................................59 vii. Community Partnership Documentation .................................................................................................59 viii. Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO)..................................................................................................60 ix. Budget Justification Workbook ................................................................................................................60 x. Summary/Abstract for Public Release......................................................................................................60 xi. Summary Slide..........................................................................................................................................61 xii. Subrecipient Budget Justification (if applicable)......................................................................................61 xiii. Environmental Questionnaire..................................................................................................................61 xiv. SF-LLL: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (required).................................................................................62 xv. Waiver Requests (if applicable)................................................................................................................62 xvi. Community Benefits Plan: Job Quality and Equity (Community Benefits Plan).......................................63 xvii. Requirement to Report Potentially Duplicative Funding..........................................................................68 xviii. Report on Resilience Investments (Topic Area 1 ONLY)...........................................................................69 xix. EIA 861 Report (Topic Area 1, small utilities ONLY)..................................................................................69 xx. Locations of Work.....................................................................................................................................69 xxi. Project Description and Assurances Document (PDAD)...........................................................................70 E. Post Selection Information Requests............................................................................................................70 F. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and System for Award Management (SAM)..................................................70 G. Submission Dates and Times.........................................................................................................................71 H. Intergovernmental Review............................................................................................................................71 I. Funding Restrictions......................................................................................................................................71 i. Allowable Costs........................................................................................................................................71 ii. Pre-Award Costs.......................................................................................................................................71 iii. Performance of Work in the United States (Foreign Work Waiver).........................................................72 iv. Construction.............................................................................................................................................73 v. Foreign Travel...........................................................................................................................................73 vi. Equipment and Supplies...........................................................................................................................73 vii. Buy America Requirements for Infrastructure Projects...........................................................................73 viii. Davis-Bacon Act Requirements................................................................................................................74 ix. Lobbying...................................................................................................................................................76 x. Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................................................77 xi. Invoice Review and Approval...................................................................................................................78 xii. Prohibition related to Foreign Government-Sponsored Talent Recruitment Programs..........................78 xiii. Affirmative Action and Pay Transparency Requirements.........................................................................79 V. Application Review Information ................................................................................................................80 A. Technical Review Criteria..............................................................................................................................80 i. Concept Papers.........................................................................................................................................80 ii. Full Applications.......................................................................................................................................81 B. Standards for Application Evaluation............................................................................................................93 C. Other Selection Factors.................................................................................................................................93 i. Program Policy Factors.............................................................................................................................93 D. Evaluation and Selection Process..................................................................................................................95 i. Overview ..................................................................................................................................................95 ii. Pre-Selection Interviews...........................................................................................................................95 iii. Pre-Selection Clarification........................................................................................................................96 iv. Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters..........................................................................................96 v. Selection...................................................................................................................................................97 E. Anticipated Notice of Selection and Award Negotiation Dates....................................................................97 16 Page 11 of 142 VI. Award Administration Information............................................................................................................97 A. Award Notices...............................................................................................................................................97 i. Ineligible Submissions ..............................................................................................................................97 ii. Concept Paper Notifications.....................................................................................................................97 iii. Full Application Notifications ...................................................................................................................98 iv. Successful Applicants ...............................................................................................................................98 v. Alternate Selection Determinations.........................................................................................................98 vi. Unsuccessful Applicants...........................................................................................................................98 B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements .......................................................................................99 i. Registration Requirements.......................................................................................................................99 ii. Award Administrative Requirements.......................................................................................................99 iii. Foreign National Participation (September 2021)....................................................................................99 iv. Subaward and Executive Reporting........................................................................................................100 v. National Policy Requirements................................................................................................................100 vi. Environmental Review in Accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)........................100 vii. Flood Resilience......................................................................................................................................101 viii. Applicant Representations and Certifications........................................................................................101 ix. Statement of Federal Stewardship.........................................................................................................103 x. Statement of Substantial Involvement (Applies to Topic Area 3 ONLY).................................................103 xi. Intellectual Property Management Plan (IPMP).....................................................................................104 xii. Intellectual Property Provisions .............................................................................................................104 xiii. Reporting................................................................................................................................................104 xiv. Go/No-Go Review...................................................................................................................................105 xv. Conference Spending .............................................................................................................................106 xvi. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Financing Statements .......................................................................107 xvii. Implementation of Executive Order 13798, Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty..................107 xviii. Participants and Collaborating Organizations........................................................................................107 xix. Requirement to Report Potentially Duplicative Funding........................................................................107 xx. Interim Conflict of Interest Policy for Financial Assistance....................................................................108 xxi. Fraud, Waste and Abuse ........................................................................................................................109 xxii. Human Subjects Research......................................................................................................................109 xxiii. Cybersecurity Plan (Applies to Topic Areas 2 & 3 ONLY)........................................................................110 xxiv. Domestic Content Commitments...........................................................................................................111 xxv. Real Property and Equipment ................................................................................................................111 VII. Questions/Agency Contacts.....................................................................................................................112 VIII. Other Information ...................................................................................................................................112 A. FOA Modifications.......................................................................................................................................112 B. Government Right to Reject or Negotiate ..................................................................................................113 C. Commitment of Public Funds......................................................................................................................113 D. Treatment of Application Information........................................................................................................113 E. Evaluation and Administration by Non-Federal Personnel.........................................................................114 F. Notice Regarding Eligible/Ineligible Activities.............................................................................................114 G. Notice of Right to Conduct a Review of Financial Capability ......................................................................115 H. Requirement for Full and Complete Disclosure..........................................................................................115 I. Retention of Submissions............................................................................................................................115 J. Rights in Technical Data..............................................................................................................................115 K. Copyright.....................................................................................................................................................116 L. Export Control.............................................................................................................................................116 M. Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment....................116 N. Personally Identifiable Information (PII).....................................................................................................117 O. Annual Independent Audits ........................................................................................................................117 17 Page 12 of 142 P. Informational Webinars..............................................................................................................................118 Appendix A – Cost Share Information ...............................................................................................................119 Appendix B – Waiver Requests For: Foreign Entity Participation; and Foreign Work .........................................125 Waiver Criteria .................................................................................................................................................125 Appendix C – Required Use of Iron, Steel, Manufactured Products, and Construction Materials Produced in the United States....................................................................................................................................................128 Buy America Requirements for infrastructure projects .....................................................................................128 Appendix D – Statement of Project Objectives..................................................................................................132 Appendix E – Cybersecurity Plan.......................................................................................................................136 Appendix F – Project Description And Assurances Document Template (PDAD)................................................138 18 Page 13 of 142 I.Funding Opportunity Description A. Background and Context The Grid Deployment Office (GDO), in conjunction with the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), is issuing this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). Awards made under this FOA will be funded, in whole or in part, with funds appropriated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act1 (IIJA), also more commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). The BIL is a once-in-a-generation investment in infrastructure, designed to modernize and upgrade American infrastructure to enhance U.S. competitiveness, driving the creation of good-paying union jobs, tackling the climate crisis, and ensuring stronger access to economic, environmental, and other benefits for disadvantaged communities (DACs). The BIL appropriates more than $62 billion to the Department of Energy (DOE)2 including funding to support investments to build a clean and equitable energy economy that achieves pollution free electricity by 2035 and puts the United States on a path to achieve net-zero emissions economy- wide by no later than 2050“3 to benefit all Americans. As new load and generation come online as the market moves in line with these goals, deploying the projects that will support a more resilient and reliable grid will be critical. At present, aging grid infrastructure leaves the grid increasingly vulnerable to attacks.4 The increasing frequency of extreme weather events is leading to energy supply disruptions that threaten the economy, put public health and safety at risk, and can devastate affected communities all over the country. Among other programs DOE has to support the grid, three BIL programs covered by this FOA – each with specific statutory requirements– will invest approximately $10.5 billion for the five-year period encompassing FY22 through FY26 to deploy technologies to increase grid reliability and resilience. The activities to be funded under this FOA support three BIL sections including 40101(c), 40107 and 40103(b).5 Together DOE refers to these programs as the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) program. 1 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58 (November 15, 2021). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684. This FOA uses the more common name “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”. 2 U.S. Department of Energy. November 2021. “DOE Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Will Deliver For American Workers, Families and Usher in the Clean Energy Future.” https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-fact- sheet-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal-will-deliver-american-workers-families-and-0 3 Executive Order (EO) 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” January 27, 2021. 4 See ICF International, Electric Grid Security and Resilience: Establishing a Baseline for Adversarial Threats, at 26 (June 2016) 5 42 USC §18711(c); 42 USC §18712(b); 42 USC §17386 19 Page 14 of 142 Principles of equity, justice, and advancing accessible good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union will guide implementation of this program, in alignment with the Administration’s Justice40 Initiative and commitment to American workers. The Department commits to robust engagement and collaboration with States, U.S. Territories, and Indian Tribes, as well as with other interested stakeholders, including industry, unions, and local communities, for successful implementation of the GRIP program. These BIL sections that make up the GRIP program are: Section 40101(c): Grid Resilience Grants Section 40107: Smart Grid Grants Section 40103(b): Grid Innovation Program i. Program Purpose Climate change is increasing the threats to our power system infrastructure. Disruptive weather events are more intense in terms of temperature extremes and precipitation and are becoming broader in scope and affecting larger areas at a time. Other climate impacts like droughts are long-lasting, compounding the potential impact of disruptive events and increasing other threats such as wildfires, floods, and mudslides. Previous methods and approaches to prepare for disruptions are no longer sufficient to meet the increasing threats to the power system due to climate change. Increasing interdependencies between critical infrastructure systems will continue to impact our power system. With these trends in mind, building a more resilient and reliable grid is critical. Studies indicate a more resilient and reliable grid must inherently have the following characteristics: increased grid reliability and flexibility, the ability to easily interconnect new clean energy to enhance generation mix diversity, and improved system cost-effectiveness.6 There is currently insufficient development of projects that will support these characteristics that are critical to reliability and resilience of the grid, particularly in projects that would achieve the following outcomes: 1) increasing transfer capacity between regions, 2) addressing the most consequential system needs and challenges that cause or contribute to the problematic and increasing interconnection queue time for clean energy, and 3) increasing supply of a geographically and technologically diverse sets of location-constrained energy resources to enhance resource adequacy and reduce correlated generation outages.7 Therefore, DOE is eager to leverage federal dollars under the GRIP program to bring together state, Tribal, 6 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Interconnections Seam Study. October 2020. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/seams.html 7 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). “Queued Up: Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection.” April 2022. https://emp.lbl.gov/queues 20 Page 15 of 142 community, and industry stakeholders to support these outcomes and others of equal or greater public benefit to build the grid that America needs. Additionally, as the need for grid investment that can enhance reliability and resilience grows, historical trends show that investments by major U.S. electric utilities—representing about 70% of total U.S. electric load—into the distribution system has been more than double that into the transmission system.8,9 DOE is looking to leverage funding to unlock transformative projects that would not be built and deployed without the federal funding under the GRIP program across the transmission system, distribution system, and combination system approaches – including catalyzing and unlocking increased investment into the transmission system to support greater overall grid resilience and reliability at the greatest scale. With the funding provided by the BIL across these three programs there is an opportunity to not only invest in power system infrastructure that addresses critical national, interregional, and regional needs, but also a unique chance to build partnerships between states, local governments, Tribes, and power system operators that align industry objectives with broader regional, interregional, and national goals to enhance reliability, all- hazards resilience, and efficiency of the electric grid. A comprehensive approach that considers all the opportunities available within the BIL can result in more coordinated efforts across relevant stakeholders that can ultimately guide investment strategies for improving resilience beyond what the BIL can support directly. Concurrently, infrastructure investments in power system resilience offer the opportunity to include a diverse set of populations, including underserved and disadvantaged communities, in the development of resilience strategies that focus on communities, and equitable access to opportunities and the benefits that derive from them. DOE believes there are significant benefits to be realized by coordinating the implementation of the three BIL programs focused on power sector infrastructure, grid reliability and resilience. As part of the whole-of-government approach to advance equity and encourage worker organizing and collective bargaining10,11,12 and in alignment with BIL sections 40101(c), 40107, and 40103(b), this FOA and any related activities will seek to encourage meaningful engagement and participation of labor unions and 8 Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Utilities continue to increase spending on transmission infrastructure.” February 9, 2018. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34892 9 EIA. “Major utilities continue to increase spending on U.S. electric distribution systems.” July 20, 2018. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36675 10 EO 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” (Jan. 20, 2021). 11 EO 14025, “Worker Organizing and Empowerment,” April 26, 2021. 12 EO 14052, “Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” November 18, 2021. 21 Page 16 of 142 underserved communities and underrepresented groups, including consultation with Tribal Nations13,14. Consistent with Executive Order 14008, this FOA is designed to help meet the goal that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities and drive the creation of accessible good-paying jobs with the free and fair chance for workers to join a union. ii. Strategic Goals This FOA seeks applications to address these three goals: 1. Transform community, regional, interregional, and national resilience, including in consideration of future shifts in generation and load 2. Catalyze and leverage private sector and non-federal public capital for impactful technology and infrastructure deployment 3. Advance community benefits 1.Transform community, regional, interregional, and national resilience, including in consideration of future shifts in generation and load As explained in DOE’s Building a Better Grid Initiative Notice of Intent, modernizing, hardening, and expanding the grid will enhance the resilience of our entire electric system, and ensure that electricity is available to customers when it is needed most.15 Projects funded by the GRIP program should be designed to enable significant national, regional, or community resilience improvements, consistent with grid needs that will manifest as a result of aging grid infrastructure, increasing climate change-related or other hazards to reliability, and the clean energy transition. An important objective of community and regional resilience and transformation is improving the electric grid’s ability to avoid, mitigate and recover from major disruptions and plan for future disruptions across all hazards. Grid investments can enhance resilience by, among other things: i.increasing regional and interregional electricity transfer capacity, ii.addressing the most consequential system needs and challenges that cause or contribute to the problematic and increasing interconnection queue time for clean energy, 13 EO 13175, November 6, 2000 “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments”, charges all executive departments and agencies with engaging in regular, meaningful, and robust consultation with Tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have Tribal implications. 14 Presidential Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships. January 26, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-tribal- consultation-and-strengthening-nation-to-nation-relationships/ 15 Building a Better Grid Initiative To Upgrade and Expand the Nation's Electric Transmission Grid To Support Resilience, Reliability, and Decarbonization. 87 FR 2769 22 Page 17 of 142 iii.facilitating clean energy deployment, generation mix diversity, and other system benefits. A systemic approach can consider all aspects of physical infrastructure and the ability of power system owners and operators to mitigate outages and restore power to communities as well as the ability of communities to work towards recovery. Therefore, alignment with state, regional, and national energy planning is important to understand threats, mitigation approaches, and system needs, and to help with the prioritization of funding. BIL investments can leverage these plans as well as industry and other investments to assist in community transformation. Applications may consider emphasis on a specific threat, such as wildfire or flooding, and how an approach can transform a region or community resulting in a significant resilience and other economic benefits, with an emphasis on equity. 2.Catalyze and leveraging private sector and non-federal public capital for impactful technology and infrastructure deployment Investments should prioritize driving innovative approaches to achieving grid infrastructure deployment at-scale where significant economic benefits to mitigate threats and impacts of disruptive events to communities can be attained. DOE is looking for applications that will leverage private sector and non-federal public capital to advance deployment goals. These efforts will be aligned with state, regional, or other planning activities and goals. As state resilience plans continue to be updated annually and evaluate future risks, DOE is interested in how Federal funds will leverage industry investments towards hardening their system and/or advancing innovative solutions to enhance system resilience. DOE is also interested in leveraging Federal infrastructure funding to maximize grid infrastructure deployment at-scale. Successful projects will demonstrate how federal investments under the GRIP program can lead to additional future investments by industry, communities, venture capital, and other private debt and equity capital. Investments should prioritize grid improvements especially in cases where GRIP investments can overcome institutional barriers, perceived risk, and the like so as to both deliver beneficial grid outcomes and demonstrate an approach suitable for replication. 3.Advance Community Benefits Increasing grid reliability and resilience provides notable benefits such as reducing outages resulting from extreme events and/or other causes, by 23 Page 18 of 142 reducing restoration times from such outages, or by reducing risks to health and safety for the affected community. In keeping with the Administration’s goals, and as an agency whose mission includes strengthening our country’s energy prosperity, DOE seeks projects that should not only contribute to the country’s energy technology and climate goals, but also meet the following four priority goals (1) support meaningful community and labor engagement; (2) invest in the American workforce; (3) advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and (4) contribute to the goal that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities (the Justice40 Initiative). iii. Community Benefits Plan: Job Quality and Equity To support the goal of building a clean and equitable energy economy, the BIL- funded projects are expected to (1) support meaningful community and labor engagement; (2) invest in America’s workforce; (3) advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and (4) contribute to the President’s goal that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities (the Justice40 Initiative). To ensure these goals are met, applications must include a Community Benefits Plan that describes how the proposed project would incorporate the four objectives stated above. Applicants are encouraged to submit Community and Labor Partnership Documentation from established labor and community-based organizations that demonstrate the applicant’s ability to achieve the above goals as outlined in the Community Benefits Plan. Within the Community Benefits Plan, the applicant is encouraged to provide specific detail on how to ensure the delivery of measurable community and jobs benefits, ideally through the use of negotiated agreements between the applicant and the community, and/or the applicant and labor unions referred to collectively here as “Workforce and Community Agreements.” These include good neighbor agreements, community benefits agreements, community workforce agreements, project labor agreements, and other collective bargaining agreements. See Section IV.D.xv for the Community Benefits Plan content requirements. a. Community and Labor Engagement The project planning should include engagement with an inclusive collection of local labor unions, governments Tribal entities, and other stakeholders -- such as, residents and businesses, entities that carry out workforce development programs, and community-based organizations that support or work with disadvantaged communities. Considering the importance of the four priorities listed above and the financial investment in the projects to be funded under this FOA, stakeholder engagement is a relatively small cost that delivers high value. 24 Page 19 of 142 Proactive and meaningful engagement with stakeholders ensures stakeholders’ perspectives can be incorporated into the project plan, allows for transparency, and helps reduce or eliminate certain risks associated with the project. b. Quality Jobs In keeping with the Administration’s goals, and to ensure the agency’s energy projects contribute to overall economic prosperity, the DOE strongly supports investments that expand accessible good-paying jobs, with assurances that workers will have a free and fair chance to join a union; promote worker power for marginalized workers and in hard-to-organize and changing industries; improve job quality through the adoption of strong labor standards; support responsible employers; and foster safe, healthy, and inclusive workplaces and communities free from harassment and discrimination, and support strategies that develop a skilled and inclusive local workforce to build and maintain the country’s energy infrastructure and grow domestic manufacturing. c. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is a key priority of the Biden Administration. The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.16 As part of a whole of government approach to advancing equity, this FOA seeks to encourage the participation of underserved communities17 and underrepresented groups, ensure equitable access to business opportunities, good-paying jobs, career-track training, and other economic opportunities. Partnerships with community-based organizations, comprehensive support services to reduce barriers to access to opportunities and ensuring business and employment opportunities for members of DACs are key tools. Applicants are 16 Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” (Jan. 20, 2021). 17 The term “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, as exemplified by the list of in the definition of “equity.” E.O. 13985. For purposes of this FOA, communities identified as disadvantaged or underserved communities by their respective States; communities identified on the Index of Deep Disadvantage referenced at https://news.umich.edu/new-index- ranks-americas-100-most-disadvantaged-communities/, and communities that otherwise meet the definition of “underserved communities” stated above. 25 Page 20 of 142 required to describe how diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility objectives will be incorporated in the project. Further, Applicants are highly encouraged to include individuals from groups historically underrepresented18,19 in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields on their project teams. Minority Serving Institutions20, Minority Business Enterprises, Minority Owned Businesses, Woman Owned Businesses, Veteran Owned Businesses, Tribal Colleges and Universities, or entities located in an underserved community that meet the eligibility requirements (See Section III) are encouraged to apply as the prime applicant or participate on an application as a proposed partner to the prime applicant. The Selection Official may consider the inclusion of these types of entities as part of the selection decision (See Section V.C.i. Program Policy Factors). d. Justice40 Initiative In addition to the Federal government’s initiative to achieve greater participation from underserved communities and underrepresented groups, this FOA supports DOE’s commitment to the Justice40 Initiative.21 Benefits include (but are not 18 According to the National Science Foundation’s 2019 report titled, “Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering”, women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minority groups—blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and American Indians or Alaska Natives—are vastly underrepresented in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields that drive the energy sector. That is, their representation in STEM education and STEM employment is smaller than their representation in the U.S. population. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/digest/about-this-report For example, in the U.S., Hispanics, African Americans and American Indians or Alaska Natives make up 24 percent of the overall workforce, yet only account for 9 percent of the country’s science and engineering workforce. DOE seeks to inspire underrepresented Americans to pursue careers in energy and support their advancement into leadership positions. https://www.energy.gov/articles/introducing-minorities-energy-initiative 19 See also. Note that Congress recognized in Section 305 of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2017, Public Law 114-329: (1) [I]t is critical to our Nation’s economic leadership and global competitiveness that the United States educate, train, and retain more scientists, engineers, and computer scientists; (2) there is currently a disconnect between the availability of and growing demand for STEM-skilled workers; (3) historically, underrepresented populations are the largest untapped STEM talent pools in the United States; and (4) given the shifting demographic landscape, the United States should encourage full participation of individuals from underrepresented populations in STEM fields. 20 Minority Serving Institutions refers to universities and colleges that serve a significant percentage of students from minority groups, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Other Minority Institutions as educational entities recognized by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education, and identified on the OCR's Department of Education U.S. accredited postsecondary minorities’ institution list. See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/edlite-minorityinst.html. 21 The Justice40 initiative, created by E.O. 14008, establishes a goal that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities. The Justice40 Interim Guidance provides a broad 26 Page 21 of 142 limited to) measurable direct or indirect investments or positive project outcomes that achieve or contribute to the following in DACs: (1) a decrease in energy burden; (2) a decrease in environmental exposure and burdens; (3) an increase in access to low-cost capital; (4) an increase in high-quality job creation, the clean energy job pipeline, and job training for individuals; (5) increases in clean energy enterprise creation and contracting (e.g., minority-owned or disadvantaged business enterprises); (6) increases in energy democracy, including community ownership; (7) increased parity in clean energy technology access and adoption; and (8) an increase in energy resilience. B. Topic Areas i. Topic Areas The proposed objectives, eligibility, and the technical approach for each of the three programs within the GRIP program are outlined below. DOE will be requesting and reviewing concept papers as part of the application process. Based on DOE’s review of the concept papers, DOE will encourage a subset of applicants to submit Full Applications. Topic Area 1: Grid Resilience Grants (BIL section 40101(c)) Topic Area 2: Smart Grid Grants (BIL section 4010722) Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Program (BIL section 40103(b)) Topic Area 1: Grid Resilience Grants (40101(c)) Objectives: This program supports activities that reduce the likelihood and consequence of impacts to the electric grid due to extreme weather, wildfire, and natural disaster. The statutory language requires prioritization of projects that will generate the greatest regional or community benefit (whether rural or urban) in reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events.23 definition of disadvantaged communities (Page 2): https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/M- 21-28.pdf. The DOE, Office of Management and Budget, and/or the Federal Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) may issue additional and subsequent guidance regarding the designation of disadvantaged communities and recognized benefits under the Justice40 Initiative. DOE will also recognize disadvantaged communities as defined and identified by the White House Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), which can be located at https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/ 22 Topic Area 2 is authorized under section 1306 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was later amended by section 40107 of the BIL. The authority is codified at 42 USC §17386. 23 42 USC §18711(c)(4) 27 Page 22 of 142 DOE is seeking projects that address comprehensive transformational transmission and distribution technology solutions that will mitigate one or multiple hazards across a region or within a community, including but not limited to wildfires, floods, hurricanes, extreme heat, extreme cold, storms, and any other event that can cause a disruption to the power system. Consistent with the broader overall objectives of the GRIP programs, projects in this area should demonstrate that they will provide significant economic and justice benefits to communities, can leverage capital investment, and lead to repeatable solutions for other entities. Technical approaches of interest include (but are not limited to) the following: Grants under this program are for projects and activities that increase the ability of applicants to reduce the likelihood and consequences of impacts to the electric grid due to extreme weather, wildfire, natural disaster and other disruptive events. Applicants will demonstrate a transformational, comprehensive approach to mitigating one or more hazards across a region or within a community. Concurrently, DOE encourages applicants to align proposed grid resilience and grid hardening investments with broader State, Tribal, or regional resilience or energy security plans. DOE is particularly interested in applications for adaptive storage deployment, microgrid deployment, and the undergrounding of existing distribution and transmission lines – in addition to other eligible projects and solutions that provide significant benefit. In the selection process, DOE will prioritize applications that address community transformation or the ability to leverage capital investments. For Topic Area 1, there are a broad range of activities, technologies, equipment, and hardening measures to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events that are eligible for funding24, which include: (A) weatherization technologies and equipment; (B) fire-resistant technologies and fire prevention systems; (C) monitoring and control technologies; (D) the undergrounding of electrical equipment; (E) utility pole management; (F) the relocation of power lines or the reconductoring of power lines with low- sag, advanced conductors; 24 See BIL section 40101(e)(1)(A)-(L), as codified at 42 USC 18711(e)(1)(A)-(L). 28 Page 23 of 142 (G) vegetation and fuel-load management; (H) the use or construction of distributed energy resources for enhancing system adaptive capacity during disruptive events, including— a. microgrids; and b. battery-storage subcomponents; (I) adaptive protection technologies; (J) advanced modeling technologies; (K) hardening of power lines, facilities, substations, of other systems; (L) the replacement of old overhead conductors and underground cables; and (M)new distribution lines below 69 kV, reconductoring, undergrounding and other upgrades to existing transmission infrastructure. The following activities are NOT eligible25 for funding under Topic Area 1: construction of a new— (I) electric generating facility; or (II) large-scale battery- storage facility that is not used for enhancing system adaptive capacity during disruptive events; (III) transmission lines at or above 69 kV; nor cybersecurity. Topic Area 1 Requirements Small utility set-aside. Thirty percent (30%) of the total funding available for Topic Area 1 will be set aside for small utilities, which are defined as entities that sell no more than 4,000,000 MWh of electricity per year.26 Entities applying for this set aside must demonstrate their eligibility by submitting their total retail electricity sales to ultimate customers as reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) on Form 861 for the last reporting year. In addition to submission of the Form 861, applications to Topic Area 1 must include a Project Description and Assurances Document (PDAD) certifying the applicant is a Small Utility (sells no more than 4,000,000 MWh of electricity per year). The PDAD template is provided as Appendix F. Report on Resilience Investments. An applicant must submit as part of their application, a report detailing past, current, and future efforts by the eligible entity to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events.27 The report must summarize any program and related approved funding that the applicant’s organization has implemented over the past 3 years to reduce the likelihood of events 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. The report must also summarize current and 25 See BIL section 40101(e)(2), as codified at 42 USC 18711(e)(2). 26 42 USC §18711(c)(5) 27 42 USC §18711(c)(2)(B) 29 Page 24 of 142 future efforts planned over at least the next 3 years to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events. In addition to submission of the report, applications to Topic Area 1 must include a PDAD that confirms the total amount (USD) of qualifying resilience investments that have been spent for the previous 3 years and the time period utilized for calculation of the reported amount by completing and certifying the PDAD. The PDAD template is provided as Appendix F. Funding supplemental to existing efforts. Grants under this program are in general intended to be supplemental to existing hardening efforts of applicants for any given year.28 The applicant should describe in a narrative how the grant funding provided by this program would result in proposed activities that are additional to efforts that would have been undertaken but- for the funding and will generate the greatest community or regional resilience benefit in reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events. This may include the acceleration or expansion of planned activities that would not be accelerated or expanded but-for the funding. The narrative should reference the Report on Resilience Investments to demonstrate how the proposed activities would be additional to existing planned investments. Biennial Report to Congress. Every two years DOE will submit a report to Congress covering data on the cost of projects, the types of activities funded, and the extent to which the ability of the power grid to withstand disruptive events has increased.29 Awardees will be required to track and report this data to DOE. Section 40101(d), ALRD 2736. Per BIL section 40101(e)(2) (C) APPLICATION LIMITATIONS.—An eligible entity may not submit an application for a grant provided by the Secretary under subsection (c) and a grant provided by a State or Indian Tribe pursuant to subsection (d) during the same application cycle. If the applicant is a subaward/subcontract recipient for an application submitted under IIJA Section 40101(d), ALRD 2736, the applicant must describe the differences between the GRIP FOA 2740 application [40101(c)] and the ALRD 2736 [40101(d)] application in the PDAD. The PDAD template is provided as Appendix F. Topic Area 1 Teaming Arrangements Eligible applicants include electric grid operators; electricity generators; electricity storage operators; transmission owners or operators; distribution 28 42 USC §18711(c)(1)(A) 29 42 USC §18711(i) 30 Page 25 of 142 providers; and fuel suppliers.30 Applicants must certify that the prime applicant is an eligible entity type as listed above via completion and submission of the PDAD. The PDAD template is provided as Appendix F. As appropriate, ensuring that the state, Indian Tribe or territory is engaged in the approach is important. The expectation of the Department is that regulatory stakeholders will be engaged in this process to ensure cost recovery of the concepts are achieved. Topic Area 2: Smart Grid Grants (40107) Objectives Topic Area 2 seeks to deploy and catalyze technology solutions that increase the flexibility, efficiency, reliability, and resilience of the electric power system, with particular focus on enhancing the system’s capabilities to meet the following objectives: increase the capacity of transmission facilities or the capability of the transmission system to reliably transfer increased amounts of electric energy; prevent faults that may lead to wildfires or other system disturbances; integrate variable renewable energy resources at the transmission and distribution levels; and, facilitate the aggregation and integration (edge-computing) of electric vehicles and other grid-edge devices or electrified loads. According to a 2018 DOE report, the sum of real-time congestion cost for 2016 among major system operators— specifically, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), Independent System Operator New England (ISO-NE), Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), and PJM — was $4.8 billion.31 Another study from DOE found that grid- enhancing technologies (GETs) have significant potential to modernize the grid to increase capacity to reduce clean energy curtailment, unlock additional clean energy generation, and enable more resilient grid operation.32 Complimentary modeling of the impact of deploying three specific types of GETs – Advanced Power Flow Control, Dynamic Line Ratings and Topology Optimization – at a national scale could deliver $5 billion in yearly energy production cost savings, with upfront investment paid back in just 6 months, and double the amount of renewables that can be integrated into the electricity grid prior to building new 30 42 USC §18711(a)(2) 31 U.S. Department of Energy. "Annual U.S. transmission data review." 2018. 32 U.S. Department of Energy. “Grid-Enhancing Technologies: A Case Study on Ratepayer Impact.” February 2022. 31 Page 26 of 142 large-scale transmission lines. A more granular assessment conducted under the same study looked at the Southwest Power Pool system and found that deploying the same three types of GETs could enable 2 adjoining states, to integrate 5,200 MW of wind and solar generation currently in interconnection queues by 2025 without any new large-scale transmission buildout, more than double the development possible without the technologies.33 DOE is interested in applications that deploy GETs to modernize the grid and unlock significant public benefit, and therefore demonstrate the suggested benefit shown by various studies. DOE is also interested in other eligible types of applications that deploy scalable solutions that deliver significant public benefit. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate with and support broader State, local, Tribal, and regional strategies on resilience, energy security, energy & environmental justice, and decarbonization. In addition, smart grid technologies funded and deployed at-scale under this program should have a pathway to wider market adoption such that the funding significantly encourages and facilitates the development of a smart grid.34 Aggregation of smart grid technologies is encouraged to accelerate deployment. Technical approaches of interest include (but are not limited to) the following: A broad set of eligible smart grid investments and capabilities is allowed under statute,35 and any combination of smart grid investments and functions that support the objectives are eligible. DOE will require that projects support data standards (e.g., Green Button Connect36), interoperability, and non- discriminatory data access on a real-time basis. Priority investments in Topic Area 2 include the following: Increasing transmission capacity and operational transfer capacity through grid enhancing technologies such as dynamic line rating, flow control devices, advanced conductors, and network topology optimization, to improve system efficiency and reliability. Improving the visibility of the electrical system to grid operators, to help quickly rebalance the electrical system with autonomous controls, through data analytics, software, and sensors. 33 The Brattle Group. “Unlocking the Queue with Grid-Enhancing Technologies.” February 1, 2021. 34 42 USC §17386(e)(1)(C) 35 42 USC §17386(b) and (d) 36 Green Button Connect is the energy industry standard enabling easy access to, and secure sharing of, utility- customer energy-usage data. 32 Page 27 of 142 Enhance secure communication and data flow between distribution components, through investments in optical ground wire, dark fiber, operational fiber, and wireless broadband communications networks. Aggregation and integration of distributed energy resources and other “grid- edge” devices to provide system benefits, such as renewable energy resources, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, vehicle-to-grid technologies and capabilities, and smart building technologies. Enhancing interoperability and data architecture of systems that support two-way flow of both electric power and localized analytics to provide information between electricity system operators and consumers. Anticipate and mitigate the impacts of extreme weather or natural disaster on grid resiliency, including investments to increase the ability to redirect or shut of power to minimize blackouts, prevent wildfires, and avoid further damage. Complete list of qualifying investments under Topic Area 237 includes: 1. In the case of appliances covered for purposes of establishing energy conservation standards under part B of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975,38 the documented expenditures incurred by a manufacturer of such appliances associated with purchasing or designing, creating the ability to manufacture, and manufacturing and installing for one calendar year, internal devices that allow the appliance to engage in Smart Grid functions. 2. In the case of specialized electricity-using equipment, including motors and drivers, installed in industrial or commercial applications, the documented expenditures incurred by its owner or its manufacturer of installing devices or modifying that equipment to engage in Smart Grid functions. 3. In the case of transmission and distribution equipment fitted with monitoring and communications devices to enable smart grid functions, the documented expenditures incurred by the electric utility to purchase and install such monitoring and communications devices. 4. In the case of metering devices, sensors, control devices, and other devices integrated with and attached to an electric utility system or retail distributor or marketer of electricity that are capable of engaging in Smart 37 42 USC §17386(b) 38 42 USC §6291 33 Page 28 of 142 Grid functions, the documented expenditures incurred by the electric utility, distributor, or marketer and its customers to purchase and install such devices. 5. In the case of software that enables devices or computers to engage in Smart Grid functions, the documented purchase costs of the software. 6. In the case of entities that operate or coordinate operations of regional electric grids, the documented expenditures for purchasing and installing such equipment that allows Smart Grid functions to operate and be combined or coordinated among multiple electric utilities and between that region and other regions. 7. In the case of persons or entities other than electric utilities owning and operating a distributed electricity generator, the documented expenditures of enabling that generator to be monitored, controlled, or otherwise integrated into grid operations and electricity flows on the grid utilizing Smart Grid functions. 8. In the case of electric or hybrid-electric vehicles, the documented expenses for devices that allow the vehicle to engage in Smart Grid functions (but not the costs of electricity storage for the vehicle). 9. In the case of data analytics that enable software to engage in Smart Grid functions, the documented purchase costs of the data analytics. 10. In the case of buildings, the documented expenses for devices and software, including for installation, that allow buildings to engage in demand flexibility or Smart Grid functions. 11. In the case of utility communications, the documented expenditures incurred by the electric utility to purchase and install operational fiber and wireless broadband communications networks to enable data flow between distribution system components. 12. In the case of advanced transmission technologies such as dynamic line rating, flow control devices, advanced conductors, network topology optimization, or other hardware, software, and associated protocols applied to existing transmission facilities that increase the operational transfer capacity of a transmission network, the documented expenditures to purchase and install those advanced transmission technologies. 13. In the case of extreme weather or natural disasters, the documented expenses for monitoring, control devices and other equipment that enable 34 Page 29 of 142 the ability to redirect or shut off power to minimize blackouts and avoid further damage. The following expenditures and investments are not eligible for Smart Grid grant funding under Topic Area 239: 1. Investments or expenditures for Smart Grid technologies, devices, or equipment that utilize specific tax credits or deductions under the Internal Revenue Code, as amended. 2. Expenditures for electricity generation, transmission, or distribution infrastructure or equipment not directly related to enabling Smart Grid functions. 3. After the final date for State consideration of the Smart Grid Information Standard under section 2621(d)(17) of title 16, an investment that is not in compliance with such standard. 4. After the development and publication by the Institute22 of protocols and model standards for interoperability of smart grid devices and technologies, an investment that fails to incorporate any of such protocols or model standards. 5. Expenditures for physical interconnection of generators or other devices to the grid except those that are directly related to enabling Smart Grid functions. 6. Expenditures for ongoing salaries, benefits, or personnel costs not incurred in the initial installation, training, or startup of smart grid functions. 7. Expenditures for travel, lodging, meals or other personal costs. 8. Ongoing or routine operation, billing, customer relations, security, and maintenance expenditures. Teaming Arrangements DOE encourages applicant teams to include a broad set of stakeholders, including but not limited to, electric grid operator or owners, technology vendors, system integrators, subject matter experts, local energy and environmental justice organizations, and community leaders. In addition, State, 39 42 USC §17386(c) 35 Page 30 of 142 Tribal, territory, or regulatory stakeholders should be engaged in the approach as appropriate. Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Program (40103(b)) DOE is interested in both technical and non-technical approaches that improve grid reliability and resilience on a local, regional, and interregional scale. Innovative approaches can include advanced technologies, innovative partnerships, financial arrangements, deployment of projects identified by innovative planning and cost allocation approaches, and environmental siting and permitting strategies. Applications may address the transmission system, the distribution system, or both, and may include elements such as: distributed generation assets; load point flexibility enhancements; energy storage systems and other flexibility enhancements; technologies to increase the capacity of the transmission and distribution system; grid-edge technologies; sensing, communications, and control technologies and approaches; grid-forming power electronics; integrated system designs; projects with innovative financing and permitting solutions; projects with uncommon or innovative regulatory structures, projects that are a product of innovative planning, modeling, or cost- allocation approaches, and other similar projects. There is currently insufficient development of projects that are critical to reliability and resilience of the grid, particularly in projects that would achieve the following outcomes for the transmission system: 1) increasing transfer capacity between regions, 2) addressing the most consequential system needs and challenges that cause or contribute to long and increasing interconnection queue time for clean energy, and 3) increasing supply of a geographically and technologically diverse sets of location-constrained energy resources to enhance resource adequacy and reduce correlated generation outages. DOE is particularly interested in applications that demonstrate innovative models, methods, technologies, or other ways to achieve these outcomes that enable grid resilience and reliability. DOE is also interested in all other eligible grid projects that support similar or greater public resilience and reliability benefit. Applications combining multiple approaches are encouraged, and all applications should demonstrate how the proposed new, innovative approaches interact with each other and any existing infrastructure to increase overall system resiliency. Hardening of assets and infrastructure may be included but must show a clear contribution to overall system resiliency. Project results should enable asset owners and operators to effectively articulate within local, state, and Federal decision-making frameworks the economic, technical, and societal benefits of new innovative approaches that improve system reliability and resilience. Applications that invest in America’s workforce; advance energy and environmental justice and support the goals of the Justice40 Initiative; engage in 36 Page 31 of 142 meaningful community and stakeholder engagement; and advance diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility are of particular importance in this topic area. Entities who are eligible to apply to Topic Area 3 include States, local governments, Tribes, and public utility commissions. Applicants must certify that the prime applicant is an eligible entity via completion and submission of the PDAD. The PDAD template is provided as Appendix F. Objectives This program seeks to provide financial assistance to eligible entities (States, local governments, Tribes, public utility commissions) to facilitate coordination, and collaboration with electric sector owners and operators to: demonstrate innovative approaches to transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure to harden and enhance resilience and reliability; and demonstrate new approaches to enhance regional grid resilience, implemented through States by public and rural electric cooperative entities on a cost-shared basis.40 DOE is soliciting projects that contribute significantly to one or more of the following primary objectives: Ensuring reliable grid operations by reducing the frequency, scale, and/or duration of disruptions, reducing capacity interconnection time, increasing regional and interregional transfer capacity, or reducing costs associated with increased reliability. Improving overall grid resilience in terms of avoiding, withstanding, responding to, and recovering from disruptions, including deliberate attacks, accidents, the growing threats of extreme weather events and climate change, and other naturally occurring threats or incidents. Projects may demonstrate: o Individual technologies and solutions (or multiple technologies and solutions working as a system) that address resilience in one part of the power system (e.g., transmission system). o Technologies and solutions that address resilience across the traditional boundaries in the power system (e.g., between transmission and distribution). Enhancing collaboration between and among eligible entities and private and public sector owners and operators on grid resilience, including in alignment with regional resilience strategies and plans. This includes collaboration across state and other territorial boundaries such as grid operators or other balancing authorities, with a particular focus on innovating planning processes, 40 42 USC 18712: Electric grid reliability and resilience research, development, and demonstration (house.gov) 37 Page 32 of 142 modeling, cost allocation, permitting, reduction of interconnection queue waiting time, inter-regional projects and other activities aided by collaborative approaches. Contributing to the decarbonization of the electricity and broader energy system in a way that supports system resilience, reliability, and affordability by improving access to technologically and geographically diverse energy resources, including distributed energy resources and electrification opportunities. Providing enhanced system value, improving current and future system cost- effectiveness, and delivering economic benefits to community members, underrepresented regions, or other stakeholders. Applications should clearly identify their value proposition for each individual stakeholder group. Project results should enable asset owners and operators to effectively articulate within local, state, regional and federal decision-making frameworks the economic, technical, and societal benefits of deploying new innovative technologies that improve system reliability and resilience. Technical Approaches of interest include (but are not limited to) the following: Applications to this topic area may address the transmission system, the distribution system, storage, or a combination. Applications combining multiple approaches are encouraged, and all applications should demonstrate how proposed innovative approaches interact with each other and any existing infrastructure to increase overall system resilience. Innovative approaches can include advanced technologies; innovative partnerships; new financial arrangements; deployment of projects identified by innovative planning, modeling, or cost allocation approaches; and/or innovative environmental siting, permitting strategies, or community engagement practices. Hardening of assets and infrastructure may be included but must show a clear contribution to overall system resilience. DOE has identified the three areas of interest for this program spanning the transmission system, distribution system, and combination system approaches. These are not exhaustive, nor intended to be fully independent. Applications that address more than one area of interest, or that present alternative approaches to accomplish the key objectives outside of the specified areas of interest, are encouraged. Area of Interest 1: Transmission system applications The transmission system in operation today is the backbone of the electricity delivery system that connects all grid resources and acts as the path for electricity to flow from generation to demand. Transmission capacity constraints and 38 Page 33 of 142 congestion can prevent delivery of clean, cost-effective electricity to consumers, harming overall system reliability. Advanced transmission technologies, coupled with advanced computational and advanced dynamic situational awareness, are a suite of tools that can help address transmission challenges, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of electricity delivery, and increase the reliability and resilience of the system. Innovative project approaches, including those leveraging advanced transmission technologies can reduce or remove the existing technical, economic, and/or regulatory barrier(s) necessary to accelerate widescale transmission expansion and renewable energy interconnection. Proposed solutions should demonstrate enhanced transmission system operational flexibility or capacity while enhancing reliability. Applications in this area could include technologies, solutions, and advanced functionalities such as: Investments and strategies that accelerate interconnection of clean energy generation and/or storage; Interregional or cross-ISO/RTO projects that address key grid reliability, flexibility, and/or resilience challenges; Projects addressing grid access challenges for remote, stranded, or novel low-carbon resources; Planning, modeling, cost allocation, or other approaches that enable a transition to innovative financial and/or regulatory constructs that accelerate transmission expansion; Underground or underwater HVDC systems in challenging environments; Capacity enhancing approaches such as advanced conductors or dynamic line rating systems; Congestion management techniques including energy storage and integrated controls; Transmission-scale reactive power devices; Flexible alternating current transmission system (FACTS) devices; Solid state transformers; Power flow controllers for AC or High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) systems. Area of Interest 2: Distribution system applications The distribution system serves as a highly interconnected system providing reliable electricity to consumers. The integration of variable distributed energy sources such wind and solar power, new loads such as electric vehicle charging, and energy storage into these networks is creating new challenges and opportunities for power system control and operation. Solutions should demonstrate improved cost-value characteristics relative to alternative approaches, managing distribution grid integration costs and traditional asset 39 Page 34 of 142 upgrade costs while maintaining or enhancing system reliability and service provision. In addition, extreme weather events have led to an increase in the frequency and duration of de-energization events. These occurrences, along with other experienced or potential disruptions of the distribution grid highlight the importance of improved system resilience. Solutions should demonstrate improved system resilience in response to disruptions and/or recovery from these events with an emphasis on community transformation. Applications in this area could include demonstration of technologies, solutions, and advanced functionalities such as: Adaptive microgrid formation, reliable islanded operations, and service provision during grid-tied operations; Demonstration of reliable and resilient system operations utilizing high levels of distributed renewable generation and energy storage, or increased levels of non-emitting, non-electric distributed energy resources (e.g., renewable heating or cooling); Black-start capable systems and control approaches to minimize negative impacts during power grid disruptions; Provision of grid services from distributed, advanced grid-forming inverter- based systems at sufficient scale and system complexity; Behind the meter asset operations, aggregation, and coordination to provide demand response and grid services, including building systems, distributed generation, energy storage, electric vehicle fleets and others. Area of Interest 3: Combination systems applications While there is a clear differentiation between transmission and distribution systems in the current electrical grid, they both function within the same overall systems. Area of Interest 3 is intended to highlight opportunities to improve joint resilience and functionality across both grid sectors. This could involve using assets in one sector to provide services to the other in a manner that reduces upgrade or expansion requirements, or efforts to improve visibility and communication across sectors to allow for more complete optimization of grid operations. Applications in this area could include demonstration of technologies, solutions, and advanced functionalities such as: Utilization of distribution grid assets to provide backup power and reduce transmission requirements; 40 Page 35 of 142 Utilization of distribution grid dispatchable loads, distributed generation, and energy storage to manage transmission congestion and limit required upgrades; Optimized integrated management of transmission and distribution systems; Monitoring and control technologies, that can provide improved resilience and extend grid visibility & situational awareness across the entire electric delivery system by providing real-time situational awareness across the system. Requirements Topic Area 3 will prioritize large scale and complex system projects that demonstrate innovative approaches while offering the greatest public benefit with a clear path to replication, scale, and ability to impact decarbonization objectives; projects that provide equitable access to innovative technologies and business models; and demonstrations that involve multiple communities and diverse asset compositions including electrical, thermal, building and transportation solutions. Successful applications in this Topic Area 3 will clearly explain: The scale of the proposed project and the differentiated value that this scale will bring to the project and the subject area. The replicability, extensibility, and scalability of the method, model, financing, planning, regulatory approach, technology, or other solution given the system in which it will be demonstrated. Estimated costs and value propositions for the proposed project including contribution to system cost effectiveness, as well as a relative value comparison to alternative approaches. How quantitative, measurable metrics relating to the intended improvements in grid outcomes will be utilized to evaluate success. The readiness, viability, and expected timing of the deployment strategy, including key milestones relating to critical financial, development, and implementation stages of the project. The project management strategy, including use of project funds to secure subrecipient or vendor expertise to support prime recipients on project management, accounting, environmental justice community engagement, federal reporting, and technical oversight. 41 Page 36 of 142 o Note: this approach has been identified as a potential path forward to address resource limitations at recipient organizations. It is not required that external expertise and groups be included, but use of project funds to support these functions will be allowed in accordance with applicable federal cost principles (Section I.i Allowable Costs) How federal funding to address the risks identified in the application will increase the likelihood of securing additional public and/or private investment. How the project will invest in America’s workforce, meaningfully engage communities and stakeholders, advance energy and environmental justice, and ensure diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. Teaming Arrangements This topic area seeks to support demonstrations at sufficient scale and within a system of sufficient complexity to establish confidence in the value proposition of the proposed approach. Applicants are encouraged to assemble diverse and multi-functional project teams capable of receiving and managing federal and matching funds, executing on technology deployments and upgrades, conducting operational testing and validation, analyzing resultant data and performance, and clearly communicating and disseminating findings to key stakeholders and decision makers. The team must designate one team member to serve as the prime recipient and that team member must qualify as an eligible applicant. See Section III. In addition, all teams should clearly articulate their strategy to enable wide- scale adoption of their proposed solutions following a successful demonstration and their intended commitment to utilize these or resultant solutions within their own systems and jurisdictions. Projects selected under this topic area will attempt to resolve technical and commercial adoption barriers by increasing stakeholder confidence in the performance, cost, and value characteristics of their proposed system. In order to ensure maximum impact following these demonstrations, a clear plan to disseminate findings, replicate successes, incorporate the outcomes of the demonstrations into investment decision- making frameworks, and activate additional public and private capital is crucial. These plans should consider which stakeholders and decision makers must be informed as to the demonstration results, what types and quality of information would lead to concrete investment decisions, and how to integrate with local, Tribal, state, and regional energy strategies and transition plans to amplify overall impact and rate of adoption. Initial strategies should be presented in the 42 Page 37 of 142 application, but it is expected that these plans will be developed more fully over the course of the project. All work for projects selected under this FOA must be performed in the United States. See Section IV.I.iii. and Appendix B. Project Management Plan: Successful applicants under all topic areas will be required to prepare a Project Management Plan (PMP). The initial PMP is due 30 days after award. 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. A sample PMP is available at: BIL-GRIP Application Forms and Templates | netl.doe.gov. ii. Teaming Partner List DOE is compiling a “Teaming Partner List” to facilitate the formation of new project teams for this FOA. The Teaming Partner List allows organizations who may wish to participate on an application to express their interest to other applicants and to explore potential partnerships. Updates to the Teaming Partner List will be available in the FedConnect (https://www.fedconnect.net/) website and on the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program web page: Grid Resilience Innovation Partnership Programs | Department of Energy. The Teaming Partner List will be regularly updated to reflect new teaming partners who provide their organization’s information. Applicants must register with FedConnect to have access to the Teaming Partner List (and any updates to it) in FedConnect. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: Any organization that would like to be included on this list should submit the following information: Organization Name, Contact Name, Contact Address, Contact Email, Contact Phone, Organization Type, Area of Technical Expertise, Brief Description of Capabilities, and Topic Area(s) of Interest. Interested parties should complete the Excel file titled DOE-FOA- 0002740 Teaming Partner List provided as an attachment to this announcement and email it to GDOFOA@hq.doe.gov with the subject line “Teaming Partner Information.” DISCLAIMER: By submitting a request to be included on the Teaming Partner List, the requesting organization consents to the publication of the above-referenced information. By facilitating the Teaming Partner List, DOE is not endorsing, sponsoring, or otherwise evaluating the qualifications of the individuals and organizations that are self-identifying themselves for placement on this Teaming Partner List. DOE will not pay for the provision of any information, nor will it 43 Page 38 of 142 compensate any applicants or requesting organizations for the development of such information. C. Applications Specifically Not of Interest The following types of applications will be deemed nonresponsive and will not be reviewed or considered (See Section III.D. of the FOA): Applications that fall outside the technical parameters specified in Sections I.A. and I.B. of the FOA. Applications for proposed technologies that are not based on sound scientific principles (e.g., violates the laws of thermodynamics). Topic Area 1: Applications that propose the construction of a new—(I) electric generating facility; or (II) large-scale battery-storage facility that is not used for enhancing system adaptive capacity during disruptive events; (III) transmission lines at or above 69 kV; nor cybersecurity. Topic Area 2: See full list of investments not included in section I.B. D. Authorizing Statutes The programmatic authorizing statute is as follows: • Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL): o Section 40101(c) – 42 USC §18711(c); o Section 40107 – 42 USC §17386; o Section 40103(b) – 42 USC §18712(b). • Public Law (PL) 95-91, DOE Organization Act; • PL 109-58, Energy Policy Act 2005; • PL 110-140 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Awards made under this announcement will fall under the purview of 2 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 200 as amended by 2 CFR Part 910. E. Notice of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law-Specific Requirements Be advised that special terms and conditions apply to projects funded by the BIL relating to: Reporting, tracking and segregation of incurred costs; Reporting on job creation and preservation; Publication of information on the Internet; Access to records by Inspectors General and the Government Accountability Office; 44 Page 39 of 142 Requiring all of the iron, steel, manufactured goods, and construction materials used in the infrastructure activities of applicable projects are produced in the United States; Ensuring laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on BIL-funded projects are paid wages equivalent to prevailing wages on similar projects in the area; Protecting whistleblowers and requiring prompt referral of evidence of a false claim to an appropriate inspector general; and Certification and Registration. Recipients of funding appropriated by the BIL must comply with requirements of all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, DOE policy and guidance, and instructions in this FOA. Recipients must flow down the requirements to subrecipients to ensure the recipient’s compliance with the requirements. II.Award Information A. Award Overview i. Estimated Funding Under BIL sections 40101(c), 40107, and 40103(b), the BIL appropriated approximately $10.5 billion for the five-year period encompassing FY22 through FY26, via annual release of competitive FOAs. This FOA will include both fiscal years 2022 and 2023, totaling approximately $3.9 Billion of federal funding that DOE expects to make available for new awards under this FOA, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. DOE anticipates making approximately 40-100 awards under this FOA. DOE may issue one, multiple, or no awards. Individual award amounts vary by topic area, see details below. Please note, the second competitive funding opportunity is expected to be issued in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2024 and will include approximately $2 Billion in federal funding for FY 2024, subject to the availability of appropriated funds, along with any unspent funds from the current FY22-23 funding cycle. DOE may issue awards in one, multiple, or none of the following topic areas: Topic Area Number Topic Area Title Anticipated Number of Awards Anticipated Minimum Award Size for Any One Individual Anticipated Maximum Award Size for Any One Individual Approximate Total Federal Funding Anticipated Period of Performance (months) 45 Page 40 of 142 Award (Fed Share) Award (Fed Share) Available for All Awards 1 Grid Resilience Grants (40101(c)) 10*N/A Either the total of the applicant’s last three years of resilience investments or $100 million, whichever is lower** $918 Million 60 months 2 Smart Grid Grants (40107) 25-40 N/A $50 Million $1,080 Million 60 months 3 Grid Innovation Program (40103(b)) 4-40 N/A $250 Million (Increased award size of $1 Billion per award for interregional transmission projects only) $1,820 Million 60-96 months *Approximately 3 of the anticipated number of awards will be made to small utilities. Thirty percent (30%) of the total funding available will be set aside for small utilities, which are defined as entities that sell no more than 4,000,000 MWh of electricity per year.41 **DOE may not award a grant to an eligible entity in an amount that is greater than “the total amount that the eligible entity has spent in the previous 3 years on efforts to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events”. 42 DOE is including an additional discretionary limit of $100 million in federal funds per award. DOE will interpret “efforts to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events” as those activities, technologies, equipment, and hardening measures that are eligible for grants under this provision.43 DOE may establish more than one budget period for each award and fund only the initial budget period(s). Funding for all budget periods, including the initial budget period, is not guaranteed. 41 42 USC §18711(c)(5) 42 42 USC §18711(c)(3) 43 42 USC §18711(e)1 46 Page 41 of 142 ii. Period of Performance DOE anticipates making awards that will run from 60 months to 96 months in length (see table below), comprised of one or more budget periods. Project continuation will be contingent upon several elements, including satisfactory performance and DOE’s Go/No-Go decision. For a complete list and more information on the Go/No-Go review, see Section VI.B.xv. iii. New Applications Only DOE will accept only new applications under this FOA. DOE will not consider applications for renewals of existing DOE-funded awards through this FOA. B. DOE Funding Agreements Through cooperative agreements and other similar agreements, DOE provides financial and other support to projects that have the potential to realize the FOA objectives. DOE does not use such agreements to acquire property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States government. i. Cooperative Agreements (applies to Topic Area 3 ONLY) DOE anticipates funding projects selected under Topic Area 3 through cooperative agreements. In the event funding is awarded to another federal agency, the funding may be provided directly to the agency through an interagency agreement. Through cooperative agreements, DOE provides financial or other support to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by federal statute. Under cooperative agreements, the government and prime recipients share responsibility for the direction of projects. DOE has substantial involvement in all projects funded via cooperative agreement. See Section VI.B.x of the FOA for more information on what substantial involvement may involve. ii. Grants (applies to Topic Area 1 and 2 ONLY) DOE anticipates funding projects selected under Topic Areas 1 and 2 through grants. In the event funding is awarded to another federal agency, the funding may be provided directly to the agency through an interagency agreement. Topic Area Period of Performance 1 60 months 2 60 months 3 60 - 96 months 47 Page 42 of 142 III.Eligibility Information To be considered for substantive evaluation, an applicant’s submission must meet the criteria set forth below. If the application does not meet these eligibility requirements, it will be considered ineligible and removed from further evaluation. A. Eligible Applicants i. Topic Area 1 (Section 40101(c)) The following domestic entities are eligible to apply: electric grid operator; electricity storage operator; electricity generator; transmission owner or operator; distribution provider; and fuel supplier. ii. Topic Area 2 (Section 40107) The following domestic entities are eligible to apply: Institutions of higher education; For-profit entities; Non-profit entities; and State and local governmental entities, and tribal nations. iii. Topic Area 3 (40103(b)) The following domestic entities are eligible to apply: a State; a combination of 2 or more States; an Indian Tribe; a unit of local government; and a public utility commission. iv. General Requirements for Eligible Applicants For Topic Areas 1, 2, and 3 a. Domestic Entities Under this FOA, to qualify as a domestic entity, an entity other than a State or Indian Tribe must be organized, chartered or incorporated (or otherwise formed) under the laws of the United States or of a particular state or territory of the United States and have a physical place of business in the United States. Both 48 Page 43 of 142 recipients and subrecipients must be domestic entities absent an approved waiver. b. Foreign Entities In limited circumstances, DOE may approve a waiver to allow a foreign entity to participate as a prime recipient or subrecipient. A foreign entity may submit a Full Application to this FOA, but the Full Application must be accompanied by an explicit written waiver request. Likewise, if the applicant seeks to include a foreign entity as a subrecipient, the applicant must submit a separate explicit written waiver request in the Full Application for each proposed foreign subrecipient. Appendix B lists the information that must be included in a foreign entity waiver request. The applicant does not have the right to appeal DOE’s decision concerning a waiver request. c. National Laboratories/FFRDCs National Laboratories and Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) are not eligible to apply for funding as a prime recipient and may not be proposed as a subrecipient on another entity’s application. This restriction is applicable to both DOE/NNSA and non-DOE/NNSA National Laboratories and FFRDCs. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is not eligible for award under this announcement and may not be proposed as a subrecipient on another entity’s application. An application that includes NETL as a prime recipient or subrecipient will be considered non-responsive. d. Federal agencies Federal agencies, instrumentalities, and corporations (other than DOE) are eligible to participate as a subrecipient if the agency, instrumentality, or corporation satisfies the statutory requirements, but are not eligible to apply as a prime recipient; except for the Tennessee Valley Authority (under Topic Area 1), who is eligible to participate as a prime recipient and as a subrecipient. e. Teaming Arrangements The project team must designate one team member to serve as the prime recipient and that team member must qualify as an eligible entity. If the project team will operate as an incorporated or unincorporated consortium, DOE may request the applicant to provide additional information, such as any collaboration agreement, that describes management structure and the rights and responsibilities of each consortium member. f. Additional Restrictions 49 Page 44 of 142 Entities banned from doing business with the U.S. government such as entities debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participating in Federal programs are not eligible. Nonprofit organizations described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engaged in lobbying activities after December 31, 1995 are not eligible to apply for funding. Nonprofit organizations described in section 501(c)5 of the Internal Revenue Code are eligible to apply for funding. v. Restricted Eligibility (applies to Topic Area 1 and Topic Area 3 ONLY) In accordance with 2 CFR 910.126, DOE restricted eligibility for Topic Area 1 and Topic Area 3 to incorporate the eligibility requirements set forth in sections 40101(c) and 40103(b) of the BIL, as codified at 42 USC 18711 and 42 USC 18712(c), respectively. B. Cost Sharing Applicants are bound by the cost share proposed in their Full Applications if selected for award negotiations. Topic Area Topic Area Title Cost Match/Share Requirement 1 Section 40101(c) – “Grants to Eligible Entities on Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid (Grid Resilience Grants)” An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall be required to match 100% of the amount of the grant (at least 50% of the Federal funds only, rather than the Total Project Cost). Exception for small utilities: An eligible entity that sells not more than 4,000,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year shall be required to match 1/3 of the grant.* 2 Section 40107 – “Deployment of Technologies to Enhance Grid Flexibility (Smart Grid Grants)” The cost share must be at least 50% of the total project costs. The cost share must come from non-federal sources unless otherwise allowed by law. 3 Section 40103 (b) – “Program Upgrading Our Electric Grid and Ensuring Reliability and Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352) shall apply. The cost share must be at least 50% of the total project costs.44,45 The 44 Total project costs is the sum of the government share, , and the recipient share of project costs. 45 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-58, sec. 988. Also see 2 CFR 200.306 and 2 CFR 910.130 for additional cost sharing requirements. 50 Page 45 of 142 Resiliency (Grid Innovation Program)” cost share must come from non-federal sources unless otherwise allowed by law. *Cost matching: “Cost matching” for the non-federal share is calculated as a percentage of the Federal funds only, rather than the Total Project Cost. To assist applicants in calculating proper cost match/share amounts, DOE has included a cost share information sheet and sample cost share calculation as Appendix A to this FOA. i. Legal Responsibility Although the cost share requirement applies to the project as a whole, including work performed by members of the project team other than the prime recipient, the prime recipient is legally responsible for paying the entire cost share. If the funding agreement is terminated prior to the end of the project period, the prime recipient is required to contribute at least the cost share percentage of total expenditures incurred through the date of termination. The prime recipient is solely responsible for managing cost share contributions by the project team and enforcing cost share obligation assumed by project team members in subawards or related agreements. ii. Cost Share Allocation Each project team is free to determine how best to allocate the cost share requirement among the team members. The amount contributed by individual project team members may vary, as long as the cost share requirement for the project as a whole is met. iii. Cost Share Types and Allowability Every cost share contribution must be allowable under the applicable federal cost principles, as described in Section IV.I.i. of the FOA. In addition, cost share must be verifiable upon submission of the Full Application. Project teams may provide cost share in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. Cost share may be provided by the prime recipient, subrecipients, or third parties (entities that do not have a role in performing the scope of work). Vendors/contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. Cash contributions include, but are not limited to: personnel costs, fringe costs, supply and equipment costs, indirect costs and other direct costs. In-kind contributions are those where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in 51 Page 46 of 142 securing the good or service comprising the contribution. Allowable in-kind contributions include, but are not limited to: the donation of volunteer time or the donation of space or use of equipment. Project teams may use funding or property received from state or local governments to meet the cost share requirement, so long as the funding was not provided to the state or local government by the Federal government. The prime recipient may not use the following sources to meet its cost share obligations including, but not limited to: Revenues or royalties from the prospective operation of an activity beyond the project period; Proceeds from the prospective sale of an asset of an activity; Federal funding or property (e.g., federal grants, equipment owned by the federal government); or Expenditures that were reimbursed under a separate federal program. Project teams may not use the same cash or in-kind contributions to meet cost share requirements for more than one project or program. Cost share contributions must be specified in the project budget, verifiable from the prime recipient’s records, and necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of the project. As all sources of cost share are considered part of total project cost, the cost share dollars will be scrutinized under the same federal regulations as federal dollars to the project. Every cost share contribution must be reviewed and approved in advance by the Contracting Officer and incorporated into the project budget before the expenditures are incurred. Applicants are encouraged to refer to 2 CFR 200.306 and 2 CFR 910.130 for additional cost sharing requirements. iv. Cost Share Verification Applicants are required to provide written assurance of their proposed cost share contributions in their Full Applications. Upon selection for award negotiations, applicants are required to provide additional information and documentation regarding their cost share contributions. Please refer to Appendix A of the FOA. 52 Page 47 of 142 v. Cost Share Payment DOE requires prime recipients to contribute the cost share amount incrementally over the life of the award. Specifically, the prime recipient’s cost share for each billing period must always reflect the overall cost share ratio negotiated by the parties (i.e., the total amount of cost sharing on each invoice when considered cumulatively with previous invoices must reflect, at a minimum, the cost sharing percentage negotiated). In limited circumstances, and where it is in the government’s interest, the DOE Contracting Officer may approve a request by the prime recipient to meet its cost share requirements on a less frequent basis, such as monthly or quarterly. Regardless of the interval requested, the prime recipient must be up-to-date on cost share at each interval. Such requests must be sent to the Contracting Officer during award negotiations and include the following information: (1) a detailed justification for the request; (2) a proposed schedule of payments, including amounts and dates; (3) a written commitment to meet that schedule; and (4) such evidence as necessary to demonstrate that the prime recipient has complied with its cost share obligations to date. The Contracting Officer must approve all such requests before they go into effect. C. Compliance Criteria Concept Papers and Full Applications must meet all compliance criteria listed below or they will be considered noncompliant. DOE will not review or consider noncompliant submissions, including Concept Papers and Full Applications that were: submitted through means other than specifically stated in the FOA; submitted after the applicable deadline; and/or submitted incomplete. DOE will not extend the submission deadline for applicants that fail to submit required information by the applicable deadline due to server/connection congestion. i. Concept Papers Concept Papers are deemed compliant if: The Concept Paper complies with the content and form requirements in Section IV.C. of the FOA; and The applicant successfully emailed all required documents to FOA2740@netl.doe.gov by the deadline stated in this FOA. ii. Full Applications Full Applications are deemed compliant if: The Full Application complies with the content and form requirements in Section IV.D. of the FOA; and 53 Page 48 of 142 The applicant successfully uploaded all required documents and clicked the “Submit” button in Grants.gov by the deadline stated in the FOA. D. Responsiveness Criteria All “Applications Specifically Not of Interest,” as described in Section I.C. of the FOA, are deemed nonresponsive and are not reviewed or considered. E. Other Eligibility Requirements (Reserved) F. Limitation on Number of Concept Papers and Full Applications Eligible for Review An entity may submit more than one Concept Paper and Full Application to this FOA, provided that each application describes a unique, scientifically distinct project and provided that an eligible Concept Paper was submitted for each Full Application. G. Questions Regarding Eligibility DOE will not make eligibility determinations for potential applicants prior to the date on which applications to this FOA must be submitted. The decision whether to submit an application in response to this FOA lies solely with the applicant. IV.Application and Submission Information A. Application Process The application process will include two phases: a Concept Paper phase and a Full Application phase. Only applicants who have submitted an eligible Concept Paper will be eligible to submit a Full Application. At each phase, DOE performs an initial eligibility review of the applicant submissions to determine whether they meet the eligibility requirements of Section III of the FOA. DOE will not review or consider submissions that do not meet the eligibility requirements of Section III. All submissions must conform to the following form and content requirements, including maximum page lengths (described below). Concept papers must be emailed to FOA2740@netl.doe.gov, and full applications must be submitted via Grants.gov at https://www.grants.gov/. DOE will not review or consider submissions submitted through means other than specifically stated in the FOA, submissions submitted after the applicable deadline, or incomplete 54 Page 49 of 142 submissions. DOE will not extend deadlines for applicants who fail to submit required information and documents due to server/connection congestion. The Concept Paper and Full Application must conform to the following requirements: Each must be submitted in Adobe PDF format unless stated otherwise; Each must be written in English; All pages must be formatted to fit on 8.5 x 11-inch paper with margins not less than one inch on every side. Use Calibri typeface, a black font color, and a font size of 12 point or larger (except in figures or tables, which may be 10-point font). A symbol font may be used to insert Greek letters or special characters, but the font size requirement still applies. References must be included as footnotes or endnotes in a font size of 10 or larger. Footnotes and endnotes are counted toward the maximum page requirement; and Each submission must not exceed the specified maximum page limit, including cover page, charts, graphs, maps, and photographs when printed using the formatting requirements set forth above and single spaced. If applicants exceed the maximum page lengths indicated below, DOE will review only the authorized number of pages and disregard any additional pages. Applicants are responsible for meeting each submission deadline. Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit their Concept Papers and Full Applications at least 48 hours in advance of the submission deadline. Under normal conditions (i.e., at least 48 hours in advance of the submission deadline), applicants should allow at least 1 hour to submit a Concept Paper and Full Application. Once the Concept Paper and Full Application is submitted as specifically stated in the FOA, applicants may revise or update that submission until the expiration of the applicable deadline. If changes are made to any of these documents, the applicant must resubmit the Concept Paper and Full Application before the applicable deadline. DOE urges applicants to carefully review their Concept Paper and Full Application to allow sufficient time for the submission of required information and documents. Full Applications that pass the initial eligibility review will undergo comprehensive technical merit review according to the criteria identified in Section V of the FOA. B. Application Forms The application forms and instructions are available on Grants.gov at https://www.grants.gov/. 55 Page 50 of 142 Note: The maximum file size that can be uploaded to the Grants.gov website is 10MB. Files in excess of 10MB cannot be uploaded, and hence cannot be submitted for review. If a file exceeds 10MB but is still within the maximum page limit specified in the FOA, it must be broken into parts and denoted to that effect. For example: TechnicalVolume_Part_1 TechnicalVolume_Part_2 DOE will not accept late submissions that resulted from technical difficulties due to uploading files that exceed 10MB. C. Content and Form of the Concept Paper Each Concept Paper must be limited to a single Topic Area. Do not consolidate multiple Topic Areas into a single Concept Paper. The Concept Paper must conform to the following content and form requirements and must not exceed the stated page limits. If applicants exceed the maximum page lengths indicated below, DOE will review only the authorized number of pages and disregard any additional pages. Applicants are encouraged to include the following information in the subject line of the email that includes the concept paper submission: Applicant Name – Topic Area X (insert topic area number to which you are applying for the X) – Concept Paper. Section Page Limit*Description Cover Page 1 page maximum The cover page should include the project title, the specific announcement Topic Area being addressed, entity type of the applicant organization (e.g., electric grid operator, State, etc.), both the technical and business points of contact, names of all team member organizations, the project location(s), and any statements regarding confidentiality. Project and/or Technology Description 12 pages maximum Applicants are required to describe succinctly: How the project addresses the topic area’s eligible uses and technical approaches. How the project supports State, local, Tribal, community and regional resilience, in reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events, decarbonization, or other energy strategies and plans. The grid-benefitting outcomes to be delivered by the project. 56 Page 51 of 142 The impact of the project to reduce innovative technology risk; achieve further deployment at- scale; and lead to additional private sector investments. The impact that DOE funding would have on the proposed project. The readiness, viability, and expected timing of the project. Community Benefits Plan 5 Pages maximum Applicants are required to describe succinctly the approach to be taken with the Community Benefits Plan, addressing the four core elements: community and labor engagement leading to negotiated agreements; investing in job quality and workforce continuity; advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and contributing to the Justice40 Initiative goal that 40% of the overall benefits of certain climate and clean energy investments flow to disadvantaged communities. Addendum A 5 pages maximum Applicants are required to describe succinctly the qualifications, experience, and capabilities of the proposed Project Team, including: Whether the Project Manager and Project Team have the skill and expertise needed to successfully execute the project plan; Whether the applicant has prior experience that demonstrates an ability to perform tasks of similar risk and complexity; Whether the applicant has worked together with its teaming partners on prior projects or programs; and Whether the applicant has adequate access to equipment and facilities necessary to accomplish the effort and/or clearly explain how it intends to obtain access to the necessary equipment and facilities. Applicants may provide graphs, charts, or other data to supplement their Project and/or Technology Description. Addendum B Topic Area 1 ONLY, if applicable** N/A Applicants who are small utilities applying to Topic Area 1 must submit the EIA Form 861 for the last reporting year showing the total retail electricity sales to ultimate customers to ensure status as a small utility. *Applicants are encouraged to include page numbers in the footer of every page. **Small utilities ONLY: 30% of the total funding available will be set aside for small utilities, which are defined as entities that sell no more than 4,000,000 MWh of electricity per year.46 46 42 USC §18711(c)(5) 57 Page 52 of 142 DOE makes an independent assessment of each Concept Paper based on the criteria in Section V of the FOA. DOE will encourage a subset of applicants to submit Full Applications. Other applicants will be discouraged from submitting a Full Application. An applicant who receives a “discouraged” notification may still submit a Full Application. DOE will review all eligible Full Applications. However, by discouraging the submission of a Full Application, DOE intends to convey its lack of programmatic interest in the proposed project in an effort to save the applicant the time and expense of preparing an application that is unlikely to be selected for award negotiations. DOE may include general comments provided from reviewers on an applicant’s Concept Paper in the encourage/discourage notification sent via email at the close of that phase. D. Content and Form of the Full Application Applicants must submit a Full Application by the specified due date and time to be considered for funding under this FOA. Applicants must complete the following application forms found on the Grants.gov website at https://www.grants.gov/ in accordance with the instructions. Applicants should reference the date and time stated on the FOA cover page to plan for the number of days from receipt of the Concept Paper Encourage/Discourage notification to preparing and submitting a Full Application. Regardless of the date the applicant receives the Encourage/Discourage notification, the submission deadline for the Full Application remains the date and time stated on the FOA cover page. i. Full Application Content Requirements Each Full Application must be limited to a single concept or technology. Do not consolidate unrelated concepts and technologies in a single Full Application. Full Applications must conform to the following content and form requirements and must not exceed the stated page limits. If applicants exceed the maximum page lengths indicated below, DOE will review only the authorized number of pages and disregard any additional pages. Component File Format Page Limit File Name SF-424 Form N/A N/A Project/Performance Site Location(s) Form N/A N/A Technical Volume PDF 25 TechnicalVolume.pdf 58 Page 53 of 142 Resumes PDF 2 pages each Resumes.pdf Letters of Commitment PDF 1 page each LOC.pdf Community Partnership Documentation PDF 1 page each LeadOrganization_Partner.pdf Statement of Project Objectives MS Word 5 SOPO.doc or docx Budget Justification Workbook MS Excel N/A Budget_Justification.xls or xlsx Summary/Abstract for Public Release PDF 1 Summary.pdf Summary Slide MS PowerPoint Up to 3 Slide.ppt or pptx Subrecipient Budget Justification MS Excel N/A Subrecipient_Budget_Justification.xls or xlsx Environmental Questionnaire PDF N/A Env.pdf SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Form N/A N/A Foreign Entity Waiver Requests and Foreign Work Waiver Requests PDF N/A FN_Waiver.pdf Buy America Requirements for Infrastructure Projects Waiver Requests PDF N/A BAWaiver.pdf Community Benefits Plan: Job Quality and Equity PDF 12 CBenefits.pdf Potentially Duplicative Funding Notice (if applicable) PDF N/A PDFN.pdf Report on Resilience Investments Topic Area 1 ONLY PDF 10 ResilienceInvestments.pdf EIA 861 Topic Area 1 ONLY, if applicable* PDF N/A EIA861.pdf Locations of Work MS Excel N/A LOW.xls or xlsx Project Description and Assurances Document (PDAD) PDF N/A PDAD.pdf *Small utilities ONLY: 30% of the total funding available will be set aside for small utilities, which are defined as entities that sell no more than 4,000,000 MWh of electricity per year.47 DOE provides detailed guidance on the content and form of each component below. ii. SF-424: Application for Federal Assistance Complete the SF 424 form first to populate data in other forms. Complete all required fields in accordance with the instructions on the form. The list of certifications and assurances in Field 21 can be found at https://www.energy.gov/management/financial-assistance-forms-and- 47 42 USC §18711(c)(5) 59 Page 54 of 142 information-applicants-and-recipients, under Certifications and Assurances. Note: The dates and dollar amounts on the SF-424 are for the complete project period of performance and not just the first project year, first phase or other subset of the project period of performance. iii. Project/Performance Site Location(s) Indicate the primary site where the work will be performed. If a portion of the project will be performed at any other site(s), identify the site location(s) in the blocks provided. Note that the Project/Performance Site Congressional District is entered in the format of the 2-digit state code followed by a dash and a 3-digit Congressional district code, for example VA-001. Hover over this field for additional instructions. Use the Next Site button to expand the form to add additional Project/Performance Site Locations. iv. Technical Volume The Technical Volume must be submitted in PDF format. The Technical Volume must conform to the following content and form requirements, including maximum page lengths. This volume must address the technical review criteria as discussed in Section V of the FOA. Save the Technical Volume in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “TechnicalVolume.pdf” and click on "Add Mandatory Other Attachment" to attach. Note: If a file exceeds 10 MB but is still within the maximum page limit specified in the FOA, it must be broken into parts and denoted to that effect. For example: TechnicalVolume_Part_1 TechnicalVolume_Part_2 Applicants must provide sufficient citations and references to the primary research literature to justify the claims and approaches made in the Technical Volume. However, DOE and reviewers are under no obligation to review cited sources. The Technical Volume to the Full Application may not be more than 25 pages, including the cover page, table of contents, and all citations, charts, graphs, maps, photos, or other graphics, and must include all of the information in the table below. The applicant should consider the weighting of each of the technical review criterion (see Section V of the FOA) when preparing the Technical Volume. 60 Page 55 of 142 The Technical Volume should clearly describe and expand upon information provided in the Concept Paper. The Technical Volume must conform to the following content requirements: Technical Volume Content Requirements SECTION/PAGE LIMIT DESCRIPTION Cover Page The cover page should include the project title, the specific FOA Topic Area being addressed, both the technical and business points of contact, names of all team member organizations, names of the senior/key personnel and their organizations, the project location(s), and any statements regarding confidentiality. Project Overview (Approximately 10% of the Technical Volume) The Project Overview should contain the following information: Background: The applicant should discuss the background of their organization, including the history, successes, and current project development status (i.e., the development baseline) relevant to the technical topic being addressed in the Full Application. Project Goal: The applicant should explicitly identify the targeted improvements to the baseline infrastructure, practices and regulatory framework, and/or technology and the critical success factors in achieving that goal, including the ways in which the proposed project location and related infrastructure, skilled workforce, community benefits, etc. will contribute to the success of the overall project. DOE Impact: The applicant should discuss the impact that DOE funding would have on the proposed project. Applicants should specifically explain how DOE funding, relative to prior, current, or anticipated funding from other public and private sources, is necessary to enable the project to progress, and to achieve its intended objectives. Community Benefits Plan: Job Quality and Equity – The applicant should summarize the overall anticipated benefits that will accrue to the local community and DACs (including, but not limited to, decreased duration, frequency, or impact of power disruption; increased access to clean power; and the support of minority business enterprises). The applicant should summarize a plan to attract, train, and retain a skilled labor force with strong labor standards, ensure workers’ free and fair chance to join a union, and identify potential partners they are working with to support these objectives. The applicant should articulate a strategy for sharing and maximizing the project’s benefits across disadvantaged communities and include a discussion of how resident and community leadership will be engaged throughout the project’s duration. DOE encourages efforts to reach historically underserved populations, racial minorities, and women. These strategies should create the connectivity and conditions for growth where they may not exist, such as in rural, underserved, and disadvantaged communities. 61 Page 56 of 142 Identify any potential long-term constraints the project will have on the community’s access to natural resources (e.g., water) and Tribal cultural resources. If applicable, describe a long-term cleanup strategy that ensures communities and neighborhoods remain healthy and safe and not burdened with cleanup costs and waste. The applicant should outline a climate resilience strategy that accounts for climate impacts and extreme weather patterns such as high winds (tornadoes and hurricanes), heat and freezing temperatures, drought, wildfire, and floods. Technical Description, Innovation, and Impact (Approximately 30% of the Technical Volume) The Technical Description should contain the following information: Relevance and Outcomes: The applicant should provide a detailed description of the project, including grid outcomes, the technology used, and other principles and objectives that will be pursued during the project. This section should describe the relevance of the proposed project to the goals and objectives of the FOA, including the potential for the deployment of the project to meet specific desired grid outcomes and other relevant performance targets. The applicant should clearly specify the expected outcomes of the project. Feasibility: The applicant should demonstrate the technical feasibility of the proposed technology and capability of achieving the anticipated performance targets, including a description of previous work done and prior results. This section should also address the project’s access to necessary infrastructure (e.g., transportation, water, electric transmission), including any use of existing infrastructure, as well as to a skilled workforce. Innovation and Impacts: The applicant should describe the current standard practice and/or state-of-the-art technology in the applicable field, the specific innovation (which can include advanced technologies; innovative partnerships; new financial arrangements; deployment of projects identified by innovative planning, modeling, or cost allocation approaches; and/or innovative environmental siting, permitting strategies, or community engagement practices) of the proposed technology, the advantages of proposed technology over current and emerging technologies, and the overall impact on advancing the state-of- the-art/technical baseline if the project is successful. The applicant should describe how the project supports State, local, Tribal, regional and national resilience, decarbonization, or other energy goals, strategies and plans. The applicant should address the potential impact of the project to reduce perceived risk for project deployment; achieve further deployment at-scale to; and lead to additional private sector investments. Topic Area 1 (Grid Resilience Grants) applications must: o Address how the proposed project will generate the greatest community, regional, or interregional resilience benefit in reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events. 62 Page 57 of 142 o Address how the project (1) comprehensively mitigates one or more hazards faced by community or region; (2) comprehensively mitigates the potential for equipment to cause a wildfire in a community or region; (3) fully addresses the consequences of an outage caused by a natural hazard; or (4) mitigates economic risk as derived from outage duration or outage frequency. o Address how the grant funding provided by this program would result in proposed activities that go beyond and are additional to efforts that would have been undertaken but-for the funding and will generate the greatest community or regional resilience benefit in reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events. The narrative should reference the Report on Resilience Investments to demonstrate how the proposed activities would be additional to existing planned investments. Topic Area 2 (Smart Grid Grants) applications must: o Describe how the project will have a significant effect in encouraging and facilitating the development of smart grid functions identified as priority focus areas in 1.B.Topic Area 2 o Describe how the project would enhance the system flexibility to meet program objectives. Topic Area 3 (Grid Innovation Program) applications must: o Describe how the project will address innovative approaches and deployment goals across transmission systems, distribution, or both as identified as priority focus areas in 1.B.Topic Area 3. o Describe how federal funding to address the risks identified in the application will increase the likelihood of securing additional public and/or private investment or otherwise enable the project to proceed. o Include how the concept will provide economic benefit to communities or regions that mitigate impacts from extreme events and disruptions. o Describe how the project has the potential to deliver near-term impact, with appropriate quantitative metrics o Describe project’s readiness, viability, and expected timing. Workplan (Approximately 40% of the Technical Volume) The Workplan should include a summary of the Project Objectives, Technical Scope, Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), Milestones, Go/No-Go Decision Points, and Project Schedule. A detailed SOPO is separately requested. The Workplan should contain the following information: Project Objectives: The applicant should provide a clear and concise (high-level) statement of the goals and objectives of the project as well as the expected outcomes. 63 Page 58 of 142 Technical Scope Summary: The applicant should provide a summary description of the overall work scope and approach to achieve the objective(s). The overall work scope is to be divided by performance periods that are separated by discrete, approximately annual decision points (see below for more information on Go/No-Go decision points). The applicant should describe the specific expected end result of each performance period, including milestones detailed in the Community Benefits Plan. WBS and Task Description Summary: The Workplan should describe the work to be accomplished and how the applicant will achieve the milestones, will accomplish the final project goal(s), and will produce all deliverables. The Workplan is to be structured with a hierarchy of performance period (approximately annual), task and subtasks, which is typical of a standard WBS for any project. The Workplan shall contain a concise description of the specific activities to be conducted over the life of the project. The description shall be a full explanation and disclosure of the project being proposed (i.e., a statement such as “we will then complete a proprietary process” is unacceptable). It is the applicant’s responsibility to prepare an adequately detailed task plan to describe the proposed project and the plan for addressing the objectives of this FOA. The summary provided should be consistent with the SOPO. The SOPO will contain a more detailed description of the WBS and tasks. Milestone Summary: The applicant should provide a summary of appropriate milestones throughout the project to demonstrate success. A milestone may be either a progress measure (which can be activity based) or a SMART technical milestone. SMART milestones should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timely, and must demonstrate a technical achievement rather than simply completing a task. Unless otherwise specified in the FOA, the minimum requirement is that each project must have at least one milestone per quarter for the duration of the project with at least one SMART technical milestone per year (depending on the project, more milestones may be necessary to comprehensively demonstrate progress). The applicant should also provide the means by which the milestone will be verified. Go/No-Go Decision Points (See Section VI.B.xv for more information on the Go/No-Go Review): provide a summary of project-wide Go/No-Go decision points at appropriate points in the Workplan. At a minimum, each project must have at least one project-wide Go/No-Go decision point for each budget period (12 to 18-month period) of the project. The applicant should also provide the specific objective criteria to be used to evaluate the project at the Go/No-Go decision point. The summary provided should be consistent with the SOPO. Go/No-Go decision points are considered “SMART” and can fulfill the requirement for an annual SMART milestone. End of Project Goal: The applicant should provide a summary of the end of project goal(s). At a minimum, each project must have one SMART end 64 Page 59 of 142 of project goal. The summary provided should be consistent with the SOPO. Project Schedule (Gantt Chart or similar): The applicant should provide a schedule for the entire project, including task and subtask durations, milestones, and Go/No-Go decision points. Buy America Requirements for Infrastructure Projects: Within the first 2 pages of the Workplan or project description, include a short statement on whether the project will involve the construction, alteration, maintenance and/or repair of public infrastructure in the United States. See Appendix C for applicable definitions and other information regarding Infrastructure Projects and the Buy America Requirement. Project Management: The applicant should discuss the team’s proposed management plan, including the following: o The overall approach to and organization for managing the work o The roles of each project team member o Any critical handoffs/interdependencies among project team members o The technical and management aspects of the management plan, including systems and practices, such as financial and project management practices o The approach to project risk management, including a plan for securing a qualified workforce and mitigating risks to project performance including but not limited to community or labor disputes. o A description of how project changes will be handled o If applicable, the approach to Quality Assurance/Control o How communications will be maintained among project team members Technical Qualifications and Resources (Approximately 20% of the Technical Volume) The Technical Qualifications and Resources should contain the following information: Describe the project team’s unique qualifications and expertise, including those of key subrecipients. Describe the project team’s existing equipment and facilities, or equipment or facilities already in place on the proposed project site, that will facilitate the successful completion of the proposed project; include a justification of any new equipment or facilities requested as part of the project. This section should also include relevant, previous work efforts, demonstrated innovations, and how these enable the applicant to achieve the project objectives. Describe the time commitment of the key team members to support the project. 65 Page 60 of 142 Describe the technical services to be provided by DOE/NNSA FFRDCs, if applicable. v. Resumes A resume provides information that can be used by reviewers to evaluate the individual’s skills and experience of the key project personnel. Applicants are required to submit two-page resumes for each project manager and key personnel that include the following: 1. Contact Information; 2. Education: Include all academic institutions attended, major/area, degree; 3. Training: (e.g.,) certification or credential from a Registered Apprenticeship or Labor Management Partnership 4. Professional Experience: Beginning with the current position, list professional/academic positions in chronological order with a brief description; 5. List all current academic, professional, or institutional appointments, foreign or domestic, at the applicant institution or elsewhere, whether or not remuneration is received, and, whether full-time, part-time, or voluntary; and 6. There should be no lapses in time over the past ten years or since age 18, which ever time period is shorter. Save the resumes in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “Resumes.pdf” and click on "Add Optional Other Attachment" to attach. vi. Letters of Commitment Submit letters of commitment from all subrecipient and third-party cost share providers. If applicable, also include any letters of commitment from suppliers/partners/end users/future customers/labor unions/community-based organizations (one-page maximum per letter). Save the letters of commitment in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “LOC.pdf” and click on "Add Optional Other Attachment" to attach. Letters of support or endorsement for the project from entities that do not have a substantive role in the project are not required nor desired. vii. Community Partnership Documentation In support of the Community Benefits Plan, applicants may submit documentation to demonstrate existing or planned partnerships with community entities, such as, organizations that work with local stakeholders most vulnerable to or affected by the project, such as organizations that carry out workforce development programs, labor unions, Tribal organizations, and 66 Page 61 of 142 community-based organizations that work with disadvantaged communities. The partnership documentation could be in the form of a letter on the partner’s letterhead outlining the planned partnership signed by an officer of the entity, a Memorandum of Understanding, or other similar agreement. Such letters must state the specific nature of the partnership and must not be general letters of support. If the applicant intends to enter into Workforce and Community Agreements as part of the Community Benefits Plan, please include letters from proposed partners as appropriate. Each letter must not exceed 1 page. In total, the partnership documentation must not exceed 10 pages. Save the partnership documentation in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “LeadOrganization_Partner.pdf”. viii. Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) Applicants are required to complete a SOPO. A SOPO template is available as Appendix D of the FOA. The SOPO, including the Milestone Table, must not exceed 5 pages when printed using standard 8.5 x 11 paper with 1” margins (top, bottom, left, and right) with font not smaller than 12-point (except in figures or tables, which may be 10-point font). Save the SOPO in a single Microsoft Word file using the following convention for the title “SOPO.doc or docx” and click on "Add Optional Other Attachment" to attach. ix. Budget Justification Workbook Applicants are required to complete the Budget Justification Workbook. This workbook is included as an attachment to this announcement for use and to describe the level of detail required in the budget justification. Although the data requested is mandatory, the use of the budget justification workbook is not. Prime recipients must complete each tab of the Budget Justification Workbook for the project as a whole, including all work to be performed by the prime recipient and its subrecipients and contractors. Applicants should include costs associated with required annual audits and incurred cost proposals in their proposed budget documents. The “Instructions and Summary” included with the Budget Justification Workbook will auto-populate as the applicant enters information into the Workbook. Applicants must carefully read the “Instructions and Summary” tab provided within the Budget Justification Workbook. Save the Budget Justification Workbook in a single Microsoft Excel file using the following convention for the title “Recipient_Budget_Justification.xls or xlsx” and click on “Add Optional Other Attachment” to attach. x. Summary/Abstract for Public Release Applicants are required to submit a one-page summary/abstract of their project. The project summary/abstract must contain a summary of the proposed activity suitable for dissemination to the public. It should be a self-contained document that identifies the name of the applicant, the project manager, the project title, 67 Page 62 of 142 the objectives of the project, a description of the project, including methods to be employed, the potential impact of the project (e.g., benefits, outcomes), and major participants (for collaborative projects). This document must not include any proprietary or sensitive business information as DOE may make it available to the public after selections are made. The project summary must not exceed 1 page when printed using standard 8.5 x 11 paper with 1” margins (top, bottom, left, and right) with font not smaller than 12-point. Save the Summary for Public Release in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “Summary.pdf” and click on “Add Optional Other Attachment” to attach. xi. Summary Slide Applicants are required to provide up to 3 slides summarizing the proposed project. This slide is used during the evaluation process. The Summary Slide template requires the following information: A technology summary; A description of the technology’s impact; Proposed project goals; Any key graphics (illustrations, charts and/or tables); The project’s key idea/takeaway; Project title, prime recipient, project manager and key personnel information; and Requested DOE funds and proposed applicant cost share. Save the Summary Slide in a single Microsoft PowerPoint file using the following convention for the title “Slide.ppt or pptx” and click on “Add Optional Other Attachment” to attach. xii. Subrecipient Budget Justification (if applicable) Applicants must provide a separate budget justification for each subrecipient that is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $250,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less). The budget justification must include the same justification information described in the “Budget Justification” section above. Save each subrecipient budget justification in a Microsoft Excel file using the following convention for the title “Subrecipient_Budget_Justification.xls or xlsx” and click on “Add Optional Other Attachment” to attach. xiii. Environmental Questionnaire The Applicant must submit an environmental questionnaire providing for the work of the entire project. The Applicant is also responsible for submitting a separate environmental questionnaire for each proposed subrecipient performing at a different location. The environmental questionnaire is available 68 Page 63 of 142 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Business/forms/451_1-1-3.pdf. Save the questionnaire in a single file named "Env.pdf" (or “Env-FILL IN TEAM MEMBER.pdf” if more than questionnaire is submitted) and click on "Add Optional Other Attachment” to attach. NOTE: If selected for award and if a subrecipient’s location is not known at the time of application, a subsequent environmental questionnaire will be needed prior to them beginning work at an alternate location. xiv. SF-LLL: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (required) Prime recipients and subrecipients may not use any federal funds to influence or attempt to influence, directly or indirectly, congressional action on any legislative or appropriation matters. Prime recipients and subrecipients are required to complete and submit SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” to ensure that non-federal funds have not been paid and will not be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence any of the following in connection with the application: An officer or employee of any federal agency; A Member of Congress; xv. Waiver Requests (if applicable) i.Foreign Entity Participation For projects selected under this FOA, as set forth in Section III, all prime recipients and subrecipients must qualify as domestic entities. To request a waiver of this requirement, the applicant must submit an explicit waiver request in the Full Application. Appendix B lists the information that must be included in a waiver request. ii.Performance of Work in the United States (Foreign Work Waiver) As set forth in Section IV.I.iii., all work for projects selected under this FOA must be performed in the United States. To request a waiver of this requirement, the applicant must submit an explicit waiver request in the Full Application. Appendix B lists the information that must be included in a foreign work waiver request. Save the Waivers in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “FN_Waiver.pdf” and click on “Add Optional Other Attachment” to attach. iii.Waiver of the Buy America Requirement for Infrastructure Projects 69 Page 64 of 142 As set forth in Section IV.I.vii., federally assisted projects which involve infrastructure work, undertaken by applicable recipient types, require that: all iron, steel, and manufactured products used in the infrastructure work are produced in the United States; and all construction materials used in the infrastructure work are manufactured in the United States. The award agreement for funding between DOE and the awardee will require each recipient: (1) to fulfill the commitments made in its application regarding the procurement of U.S.-produced products, subject to a waiver process by DOE assessing the availability and cost (increasing the cost of the overall project by >25%), and (2) to fulfill the commitments made in its application regarding the procurement of other key component metals and manufactured products domestically that are deemed available in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality at the time of award negotiation, again subject to a DOE waiver process. In limited circumstances, DOE may grant a waiver of this requirement. Appendix C to this FOA provides guidance on how “infrastructure work” is defined, explains the applicable justifications under which a waiver may be granted, and lists the information that must be included in the waiver request. Save the Waivers in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “BAWaiver.pdf” and click on “Add Optional Other Attachment” to attach. xvi. Community Benefits Plan: Job Quality and Equity (Community Benefits Plan) When Community Benefits Plan: Job Quality and Equity (Community Benefits Plan or Plan) must set forth the applicant’s framework to ensure that federal investments in the power sector advance the following four priorities: (1) community and labor engagement; (2) investing in the American workforce; (3) advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA); and (4) the Justice40 Initiative. The below sections set forth the Plan requirements in each of the foregoing areas. At this stage of the application process, the Community Benefits Plan should indicate the applicant’s intention to engage meaningfully with labor and community stakeholders on these goals, including the potential of entering into formal Workforce and Community Agreements. Given project complexity and sensitivities, applicants should consider pursuing multiple agreements. 70 Page 65 of 142 Applicants should complete each portion of the initial Community Benefits Plan to the greatest extent possible. In cases where information is incomplete, applicants should clearly explain the reason for missing information and provide plans to address those gaps during the project. If the applicant has prior or ongoing efforts to advance energy and environmental justice, DEIA, community and labor engagement, or quality jobs, the application should discuss how they are incorporating lessons learned and building on these prior/ongoing efforts. At this stage of the application process, the Community Benefits Plan should indicate the applicant’s intention to engage meaningfully with community and labor stakeholders on these goals, including the potential of entering into a formal Workforce and Community Agreement. DOE expects the information contained in the Community Benefits Plan to deepen and evolve during each phase. The applicant’s Community Benefits Plan must include at least one SMART (Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic and Time-Related) milestone per budget period supported by metrics to measure the success of the proposed actions. Each of the four sections should also include information about the resources intended to implement the Community Benefits Plan, including staff time and budget to convene public meetings to engage and negotiate agreements with relevant labor unions, communities, and other stakeholders. The initial Community Benefits Plan should provide the most details regarding actions the applicant would take during the initial stages of project development but should also describe in a higher-level summary what goals, deliverables, outcomes, and implementation strategies the applicant would pursue as the project moves through the development, construction, and operational stages. The Community Benefits Plan will be evaluated as part of the technical review process. If the project is selected, DOE will incorporate relevant elements of the Community Benefits Plan, including any proposed Workforce and Community Agreement(s), into the award as part of the project requirements. During the life of the DOE award, DOE will evaluate the recipient’s progress in formatting and implementing this Plan. For additional information, see Community Benefits Plan Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) | Department of Energy. 1. Community and Labor Engagement: The Community Benefits Plan must set forth the applicant’s prior actions and future plans to engage with labor unions, local governments and Tribal entities, and an inclusive collection of local stakeholders, including community-based organizations that support or work with disadvantaged communities. By facilitating community input and social buy-in and strengthening accountability, such agreements substantially reduce 71 Page 66 of 142 or eliminate certain risks associated with the project. These agreements ideally lay the groundwork for the eventual negotiation of Workforce and Community Agreements, which could take the form of one or more kinds of negotiated agreements with communities, labor unions, or, ideally, both. Registered apprenticeship programs, labor-management training partnerships, quality pre- apprenticeship programs, card check neutrality, and local and targeted hiring goals are all examples of provisions that Workforce and Community Agreements could cover that would increase the success of a DOE-funded project. Applicants should also provide Community and Labor Partnership Documentation from representative organizations reflecting substantive engagement and feedback on applicant’s approach to community benefits including job quality and workforce continuity; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and the Justice40 Initiative detailed below. If selected for funding, applicants will be expected to execute on any proposed Workforce and Community Agreements that identify how community and labor concerns, vulnerabilities, and benefits will be addressed. 2. Investing in the American Workforce: A well-qualified, skilled, and trained workforce is necessary to ensure project stability, continuity, and success, and to meet program goals. High-quality jobs are critical to attracting and retaining the qualified workforce required. The Community Benefits Plan must provide an approach to the creation and retention of quality jobs.48 The Plan is an opportunity for the applicant to detail their approach to investing in the American workforce. Successful applicants will be required to provide more detail and identify SMART milestones to ensure accountability with plan implementation. Letters of support may bolster, but not replace, the descriptions requested below. Specific components of the plan must include: 1) Summarize the applicant’s plan to attract, train, and retain a skilled and well qualified workforce for both (a) construction and (b) ongoing operations/production activities. An available workforce is necessary to ensure project stability, continuity, and success. A collective bargaining 48 A “quality job” is defined as a job that (1) exceeds the local prevailing wage for an industry in the region, includes basic benefits (e.g., paid leave, health insurance, retirement/savings plan), and/or is unionized, and (2) helps the employee develop the skills and experiences necessary to advance along a career path. See Economic Development Administration, ARPA Good Jobs Challenge NOFO, EDAHDQ-ARPGJ-2021-2006964, at n. 1, available at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/viewopportunity.html?oppId=334720. 72 Page 67 of 142 agreement, labor-management partnership, or other such agreement would provide evidence of such a plan. Alternatively, applicants may describe: i. Wages, benefits, and other worker supports provided ii. Commitments to support workforce education and training, including which reduces employee turnover costs for employers, increases productivity from a committed and engaged workforce, and promotes a nimble, resilient, and stable workforce for the project. iii. Efforts to engage employees in the design and execution of a workplace safety and health plan to safeguard worker health and well-being. NOTE: Because Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) have been shown to reduce project costs, avoid work delays, and improve efficiency, they are preferred on construction projects of all sizes and may be required for large construction projects (above $35M or possibly lower, on a case-by-case basis). Assessment of applicability will be conducted on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with recipients to ensure project feasibility. 2) Please disclose any violations found within the past two years under the National Labor Relations Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Service Contract Act, Davis-Bacon Act, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and any steps taken to improve your workforce practices following this violation. Describe whether workers can form and join unions of their choosing, exercising collective voice. Employees’ ability to organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their choosing in decisions which affect them, helps build meaningful economic power, safeguard the public interest, contribute to the effective conduct of business, and facilitate amicable settlements of disputes between employees and their employers, thus providing assurances of project efficiency, continuity, and multiple public benefits. 3) Describe the job retention and/or transition and other workforce development opportunities associated with the project noting efforts to create or retain jobs. 3. DEIA: The Community Benefits Plan must include a section describing how DEIA objectives will be incorporated into the project. The section should detail how the applicant will partner with underrepresented businesses, training organizations serving workers facing system barriers to access quality jobs, and other project partners to help address DEIA. The plan should include at least one SMART milestone per Budget Period supported by metrics to measure the success of the proposed actions and will be incorporated into the award if selected. 73 Page 68 of 142 The following is a non-exhaustive list of potential DEIA actions that can serve as examples of ways the proposed project could incorporate DEIA elements. These examples should not be considered either comprehensive or prescriptive. Applicants may include appropriate actions not covered by these examples and should include a comprehensive set of specific DEIA actions anticipated in connection with the project. a. Commit to supplier diversity and identify Minority Business Enterprises, Minority Owned Businesses, Woman Owned Businesses, and Veteran Owned Businesses to solicit as vendors and sub-contractors for bids on supplies, services and equipment; b. Identify and partner with workforce training organizations serving under- represented individuals and those facing barriers to quality employment such as those with disabilities, returning citizens, opportunity youth, and veterans; c. Offer anti-bias training and education to ensure hiring professionals can recognize unconscious bias and can learn how to reduce discriminatory barriers; d. Support for quality apprenticeship-readiness and/or pre-apprenticeship programs in the local community that are integrated with registered apprenticeship, including cyber apprenticeship-readiness programs and cyber-registered apprenticeship programs; e. Provide funding for or partner with organization that can provide comprehensive support services such as training stipends, mental health supports, transportation assistance, and access to child care to improve access to career-track training and quality jobs for underrepresented and disadvantaged workers; f. Describe Local and/or Economic Hire efforts (e.g., recruitment preferences for economically disadvantaged populations 4. Justice40 Initiative: Applicants must provide an overview of benefits that can be supported by measurable metrics and describe the benefits to DACs. Such benefits framework shall include appropriate milestones for benefit delivery and will be incorporated into the award. Specifically, the Justice40 Initiative section must include: 1. Identification of applicable disadvantaged communities to which the anticipated project benefits will flow. 2. Identification of applicable benefits that are quantifiable, measurable, and trackable. a. Benefits include (but are not limited to) measurable direct or indirect investments or positive project outcomes that achieve or contribute to the following in disadvantaged communities: (1) a decrease in 74 Page 69 of 142 energy burden; (2) a decrease in environmental exposure and burdens; (3) an increase in access to low-cost capital; (4) an increase in high-quality job creation, the clean energy job pipeline, and job training for individuals; (5) increases in clean energy enterprise creation and contracting (e.g., minority-owned or disadvantaged business enterprises); (6) increases in energy democracy, including community ownership; (7) increased parity in clean energy technology access and adoption; and (8) an increase in energy resilience including reduced outage frequency and/or duration. In addition, applicants, should also discuss how the project will maximize all of the benefits listed herein. 3. A Discussion of Anticipated Negative and Cumulative Environmental Impacts on disadvantaged communities. For example, what are the anticipated environmental impacts associated with the project, and how will the applicant mitigate such impacts? Within the context of cumulative impacts created by the project, applicants should use Environmental Protection Agency EJSCREEN49 tool to quantitatively discuss existing environmental impacts in the project area. 4. A Description of How and when Anticipated Benefits Are Expected to Flow to disadvantaged communities. For example, will the benefits be provided directly within the disadvantaged communities identified in the Justice40 Initiative Plan, or are the benefits expected to flow in another way? Further, will the benefits flow during project development or after project completion, and how will applicant track benefits delivered? For projects funded under this FOA, DOE will provide specific reporting guidance for a subset of the eight policy priorities described above; however, recipients must also report how project benefits flow to applicable disadvantaged communities, in furtherance of the advancement of the policy priorities outlined above. For example, a recipient can describe how a project will increase access to clean energy and decrease harmful emissions in disadvantaged communities and provide methods for tracking the progress of these outcomes. Save the Community Benefits Plan in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “CBenefits.pdf” and click on “Add Optional Other Attachment” to attach. xvii. Requirement to Report Potentially Duplicative Funding If the applicant or project team member has other active awards of federal funds, the applicant must determine whether the activities of those awards potentially overlap with the activities set forth in its application to this FOA. If 49 Environmental Justice (EJ) Screening and Mapping Tool from the Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen 75 Page 70 of 142 there is a potential overlap, the applicant must notify DOE in writing of the potential overlap and state how it will ensure any project funds (i.e., recipient cost share and federal funds) will not be used for identical cost items under multiple awards. Likewise, for projects that receive funding under this FOA, if a recipient or project team member receives any other award of federal funds for activities that potentially overlap with the activities funded under the DOE award, the recipient must promptly notify DOE in writing of the potential overlap and state whether project funds from any of those other federal awards have been, are being, or are to be used (in whole or in part) for one or more of the identical cost items under the DOE award. If there are identical cost items, the recipient must promptly notify the DOE Contracting Officer in writing of the potential duplication and eliminate any inappropriate duplication of funding. Save the Potential Duplicative Funding Notice in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “PDFN.pdf” and click on “Add Optional Other Attachment” to attach. xviii. Report on Resilience Investments (Topic Area 1 ONLY) Applicants must submit a report detailing past, current, and future efforts by the eligible entity to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events. The report must summarize any programs and related approved funding that your organization has implemented over the past 3 years to reduce the likelihood of events 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. The report must also summarize current and future efforts planned over at least the next 3 years to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events. Save the Report on Resilience Investments in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “ResilienceInvestments.pdf”. xix. EIA 861 Report (Topic Area 1, small utilities ONLY) Applicants who are small utilities applying to Topic Area 1 must submit the EIA Form 861 for the last reporting year showing the total retail electricity sales to ultimate customers to ensure status as a small utility. Save the EIA 861 Report in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “EIA861.pdf”. xx. Locations of Work The applicant must complete the supplied template by listing the city, state, and zip code + 4 for each location where project work will be performed by the prime recipient or subrecipient(s). This template is included as an attachment to this announcement for use. Save the Location of Work in a single Microsoft Excel file 76 Page 71 of 142 using the following naming convention for the title “LOW.xls or xlsx” and click on “Add Optional Other Attachment” to attach xxi. Project Description and Assurances Document (PDAD) Applicants for all three topic areas must complete and submit the PDAD. Note that there are requirements specific to Topic Area 1 and Topic Area 3, for which the applicant will respond and certify responses via the PDAD, as described in Section I.B. Applicants shall prepare the PDAD in the format provided in Appendix F of the FOA. The PDAD must be signed by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) on behalf of the organization and be submitted in PDF format. Save the PDAD in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “PDAD.pdf”. E. Post Selection Information Requests If selected for award, DOE reserves the right to request additional or clarifying information regarding the following (non-exhaustive list): Personnel proposed to work on the project and collaborating organizations (See Section VI.B.xix. Participants and Collaborating Organizations); An Intellectual Property Management Plan (if applicable) describing how the project team/consortia members will handle intellectual property rights and issues between themselves while ensuring compliance with federal intellectual property laws, regulations, and policies in accordance with VI.B.xi Intellectual Property Management Plan; Indirect cost information; Other budget information; Commitment Letters from Third Parties Contributing to Cost Share, if applicable; Name and phone number of the Designated Responsible Employee for complying with national policies prohibiting discrimination (See 10 CFR 1040.5); Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Software, if applicable; Information related to Davis-Bacon Act Requirements; Information related to Community Benefits Agreements, as defined above in “Community Benefits Plan: Jobs Quality and Equity,” that applicants may have made with the relevant community; Updated Environmental Questionnaire(s). F. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and System for Award Management (SAM) Each applicant (unless the applicant is an individual or federal awarding agency that is excepted from those requirements under 2 CFR 25.110(b) or (c), or has an 77 Page 72 of 142 exception approved by the federal awarding agency under 2 CFR 25.110(d)) is required to: (1) Be registered in the SAM at https://www.sam.gov before submitting its application; (2) provide a valid UEI number in its application; and (3) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a federal awarding agency. DOE may not make a federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable UEI and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time DOE is ready to make a federal award, the DOE will determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a federal award to another applicant. G. Submission Dates and Times All required submissions must be submitted as specifically stated in the announcement no later than 5 p.m. ET on the dates provided on the cover page of this FOA. H. Intergovernmental Review This FOA is not subject to Executive Order 12372 – Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. I.Funding Restrictions i. Allowable Costs All expenditures must be allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the applicable federal cost principles. Pursuant to 2 CFR 910.352, the cost principles in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR Part 31.2) apply to for- profit entities. The cost principles contained in 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E apply to all entities other than for-profits. Costs to support or oppose union organizing, whether directly or as an offset for other funds, are unallowable. ii. Pre-Award Costs Applicants selected for award negotiations (selectee) must request prior written approval to charge pre-award costs. Pre-award costs are those incurred prior to the effective date of the federal award directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the federal award where such costs are necessary for efficient and timely performance of the scope of work. Such costs are allowable only to the extent that they would have been allowable if incurred after the date of the federal award and only with the written approval of the federal awarding agency, through the DOE Contracting Officer. Pre-award costs cannot be incurred prior to the Selection Official signing the Selection Statement and Analysis. 78 Page 73 of 142 Pre-award expenditures are made at the selectee’s risk. DOE is not obligated to reimburse costs: (1) in the absence of appropriations; (2) if an award is not made; or (3) if an award is made for a lesser amount than the selectee anticipated. 1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements Related to Pre-Award Costs DOE’s decision whether and how to distribute federal funds under this FOA is subject to NEPA. Applicants should carefully consider and should seek legal counsel or other expert advice before taking any action related to the proposed project that would have an adverse effect on the environment or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives prior to DOE completing the NEPA review process. DOE does not guarantee or assume any obligation to reimburse pre- award costs incurred prior to receiving written authorization from the Contracting Officer. If the applicant elects to undertake activities that DOE determines may have an adverse effect on the environment or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives prior to receiving such written authorization from the Contracting Officer, the applicant is doing so at risk of not receiving federal funding for their project and such costs may not be recognized as allowable cost share. Nothing contained in the pre-award cost reimbursement regulations or any pre- award costs approval letter from the Contracting Officer override the requirement to obtain the written authorization from the Contracting Officer prior to taking any action that may have an adverse effect on the environment or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. Likewise, if an application is selected for negotiation of award, and the prime recipient elects to undertake activities that are not authorized for federal funding by the Contracting Officer in advance of DOE completing a NEPA review, the prime recipient is doing so at risk of not receiving federal funding and such costs may not be recognized as allowable cost share. iii. Performance of Work in the United States (Foreign Work Waiver) 1. Requirement All work performed under DOE awards issued under this FOA must be performed in the United States. The prime recipient must flow down this requirement to its subrecipients. 2. Failure to Comply 79 Page 74 of 142 If the prime recipient fails to comply with the Performance of Work in the United States requirement, DOE may deny reimbursement for the work conducted outside the United States and such costs may not be recognized as allowable recipient cost share. The prime recipient is responsible should any work under this award be performed outside the United States, absent a waiver, regardless of whether the work is performed by the prime recipient, subrecipients, contractors or other project partners. 3. Waiver To seek a foreign work waiver, the applicant must submit a written waiver request to DOE. Appendix B lists the information that must be included in a request for a foreign work waiver. Save the waiver request(s) in a single PDF file. The applicant does not have the right to appeal DOE’s decision concerning a waiver request. iv. Construction Recipients are required to obtain written authorization from the Contracting Officer before incurring any major construction costs. v. Foreign Travel Foreign travel costs are not allowable under this FOA. vi. Equipment and Supplies Property disposition may be required at the end of a project if the current fair market value of property exceeds $5,000. For-profit entity disposition requirements are set forth at 2 CFR 910.360. Property disposition requirements for other non-federal entities are set forth in 2 CFR 200.310 – 200.316. vii. Buy America Requirements for Infrastructure Projects Awards funded through this FOA that are for, or contain, construction, alteration, maintenance or repair of public infrastructure in the United States, undertaken by applicable recipient types, require that: All iron, steel, and manufactured products used in the infrastructure project are produced in the United States; and All construction materials used in the infrastructure project are manufactured in the United States. In general, whether a given project must apply this requirement is dependent on several factors, such as the recipient’s entity type, whether the work involves “infrastructure,” as that term is defined in Section 70914 of the BIL (discussed in more detail in Appendix C), based in part on whether the infrastructure in question is publicly owned or serves a public function. For this FOA specifically, 80 Page 75 of 142 all projects subject to this FOA are considered “infrastructure” within the Buy America provision of BIL, based on implementation guidance from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-22-11 issued on April 18, 2022. Moreover, based on M-22-11, the Buy America requirements of the BIL do not apply to DOE projects in which the prime recipient is a for-profit entity; the requirements only apply to projects whose prime recipient is a “non-Federal entity,” e.g., a State, local government, Indian Tribe, Institution of Higher Education, or nonprofit organization. Subawards should conform to the terms of the prime award from which they flow; in other words, for-profit prime recipients are not required to flow down these Buy America requirements to subrecipients, even if those subrecipients are non-Federal entities as defined above. Conversely, prime recipients which are non-Federal entities must flow the Buy America requirements down to all subrecipients, even if those subrecipients are for-profit entities. Finally, for all applicants—both non-Federal entities and for-profit entities—DOE is including a Program Policy Factor that the Selection Official may consider in determining which Full Applications to select for award negotiations that considers whether the applicant has made a commitment to procure U.S. iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials in its project. The Cooperative Agreement between DOE and the awardee will require each recipient: (1) to fulfill the commitments made in its application regarding the procurement of U.S.-produced products, and (2) to fulfill the commitments made in its application regarding the procurement of other key component metals and manufactured products domestically that are deemed available in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality at the time of award negotiation. Applicants may seek waivers of these requirements in very limited circumstances and for good cause shown. Further details on requesting a waiver can be found in Appendix C and the terms and conditions of the applicant’s award. Applicants are strongly encouraged to consult Appendix C for more information. viii. Davis-Bacon Act Requirements Projects awarded under this FOA will be funded under Division D of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Accordingly, per section 41101 of that law, all laborers and mechanics employed by the applicant, subrecipients, contractors or subcontractors in the performance of construction, alteration, or repair work funded in whole or in part under this FOA shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar projects in the locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code commonly referred to as the “Davis-Bacon Act” (DBA). 81 Page 76 of 142 Applicants shall provide written assurance acknowledging the DBA requirements above, and confirming that the laborers and mechanics performing construction, alteration, or repair work on projects funded in whole or in part by awards made as a result of this FOA are paid or will be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a character similar in the locality as determined by subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of Title 40, United States Code (Davis-Bacon Act). Applicants acknowledge that they will comply with all of the Davis-Bacon Act requirements, including but not limited to: (1) ensuring that the wage determination(s) and appropriate Davis-Bacon clauses and requirements are flowed down to and incorporated into any applicable subcontracts or subrecipient awards. (2) ensuring that if wage determination(s) and appropriate Davis-Bacon clauses and requirements are improperly omitted from contracts and subrecipient awards, the applicable wage determination(s) and clauses are retroactively incorporated to the start of performance. (3) being responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or subrecipient with the Davis-Bacon labor standards. (4) receiving and reviewing certified weekly payrolls submitted by all subcontractors and subrecipients for accuracy and to identify potential compliance issues. (5) maintaining original certified weekly payrolls for 3 years after the completion of the project and must make those payrolls available to the DOE or the Department of Labor upon request, as required by 29 CFR 5.6(a)(2). (6) conducting payroll and job-site reviews for construction work, including interviews with employees, with such frequency as may be necessary to assure compliance by its subcontractors and subrecipients and as requested or directed by the DOE. (7) cooperating with any authorized representative of the Department of Labor in their inspection of records, interviews with employees, and other actions undertaken as part of a Department of Labor investigation. (8) posting in a prominent and accessible place the wage determination(s) and Department of Labor Publication: WH-1321, Notice to Employees Working on Federal or Federally Assisted Construction Projects. 82 Page 77 of 142 (9) notifying the Contracting Officer of all labor standards issues, including all complaints regarding incorrect payment of prevailing wages and/or fringe benefits, received from the recipient, subrecipient, contractor, or subcontractor employees; significant labor standards violations, as defined in 29 CFR 5.7; disputes concerning labor standards pursuant to 29 CFR parts 4, 6, and 8 and as defined in FAR 52.222-14; disputed labor standards determinations; Department of Labor investigations; or legal or judicial proceedings related to the labor standards under this Contract, a subcontract, or subrecipient award. (10) preparing and submitting to the Contracting Officer, the Office of Management and Budget Control Number 1910-5165, Davis Bacon Semi- Annual Labor Compliance Report, by April 21 and October 21 of each year. Form submittal will be administered through the iBenefits system (https://doeibenefits2.energy.gov) or its successor system. Recipients of funding under this FOA will also be required to undergo Davis- Bacon Act compliance training and to maintain competency in Davis-Bacon Act compliance. The Contracting Officer will notify the recipient of any DOE sponsored Davis-Bacon Act compliance trainings. The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) offers free Prevailing Wage Seminars several times a year that meet this requirement, at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government- contracts/construction/seminars/events. For additional guidance on how to comply with the Davis-Bacon provisions and clauses, see https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government- contracts/construction and https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government- contracts/protections-for-workers-in-construction . DOE anticipates contracting with a third party for a Davis-Bacon Act electronic payroll compliance software application. Recipients of funding under this FOA must ensure the timely electronic submission of weekly certified payrolls through this software as part of its compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act unless a waiver is granted to a particular contractor or subcontractor because they are unable or limited in their ability to use or access. Applicants should indicate if a waiver will be sought. ix. Lobbying Recipients and subrecipients may not use any federal funds to influence or attempt to influence, directly or indirectly, congressional action on any legislative or appropriation matters. 83 Page 78 of 142 Recipients and subrecipients are required to complete and submit SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” (https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-individual-family.html) to ensure that non-federal funds have not been paid and will not be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence any of the following in connection with the application: An officer or employee of any federal agency; A Member of Congress; An officer or employee of Congress; or An employee of a Member of Congress. x. Risk Assessment Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.206, DOE will conduct an additional review of the risk posed by applicants submitted under this FOA. Such risk assessment will consider: 1. Financial stability; 2. Quality of management systems and ability to meet the management standards prescribed in 2 CFR 200 as amended and adopted by 2 CFR 910; 3. History of performance; 4. Audit reports and findings; and 5. The applicant’s ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or other requirements imposed on non-federal entities. DOE may make use of other publicly available information and the history of an applicant’s performance under DOE or other federal agency awards. Depending on the severity of the findings and whether the findings were resolved, DOE may elect not to fund the applicant. In addition to this review, DOE must comply with the guidelines on government- wide suspension and debarment in 2 CFR 180 and must require non-federal entities to comply with these provisions. These provisions restrict federal awards, subawards and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal programs or activities. Further, as DOE funds critical and emerging technology areas, DOE also considers possible vectors of undue foreign influence in evaluating risk. If high risks are identified and cannot be sufficiently mitigated, DOE may elect to not fund the applicant. 84 Page 79 of 142 xi. Invoice Review and Approval DOE employs a risk-based approach to determine the level of supporting documentation required for approving invoice payments. Recipients may be required to provide some or all of the following items with their requests for reimbursement: Summary of costs by cost categories; Timesheets or personnel hours report; Proof of compliance with Davis-Bacon and electronic submittals of certified payroll reports; Disclosure of any citations related to NLRA, FLSA, OSH, SCA, or DBA, or Title VII; Invoices/receipts for all travel, equipment, supplies, contractual, and other costs; UCC filing proof for equipment acquired with project funds by for-profit recipients and subrecipients; Explanation of cost share for invoicing period; Analogous information for some subrecipients; and Other items as required by DOE. xii. Prohibition related to Foreign Government-Sponsored Talent Recruitment Programs a. Prohibition Persons participating in a Foreign Government-Sponsored Talent Recruitment Program of a Foreign Country of Risk are prohibited from participating in projects selected for federal funding under this FOA. Should an award result from this FOA, the recipient must exercise ongoing due diligence to reasonably ensure that no individuals participating on the DOE-funded project are participating in a Foreign Government-Sponsored Talent Recruitment Program of a Foreign Country of Risk. Consequences for violations of this prohibition will be determined according to applicable law, regulations, and policy. Further, the recipient must notify DOE within five (5) business days upon learning that an individual on the project team is or is believed to be participating in a foreign government talent recruitment program of a foreign country of risk. DOE may modify and add requirements related to this prohibition to the extent required by law. b. Definitions 1. Foreign Government-Sponsored Talent Recruitment Program. An effort directly or indirectly organized, managed, or funded by a foreign government, or a foreign government instrumentality or entity, to recruit science and technology professionals or students (regardless of citizenship or national origin, or whether having a full-time or part-time 85 Page 80 of 142 position). Some foreign government-sponsored talent recruitment programs operate with the intent to import or otherwise acquire from abroad, sometimes through illicit means, proprietary technology or software, unpublished data and methods, and intellectual property to further the military modernization goals and/or economic goals of a foreign government. Many, but not all, programs aim to incentivize the targeted individual to relocate physically to the foreign state for the above purpose. Some programs allow for or encourage continued employment at U.S. research facilities or receipt of Federal research funds while concurrently working at and/or receiving compensation from a foreign institution, and some direct participants not to disclose their participation to U.S. entities. Compensation could take many forms including cash, research funding, complimentary foreign travel, honorific titles, career advancement opportunities, promised future compensation, or other types of remuneration or consideration, including in-kind compensation. 2. Foreign Country of Risk. DOE has designated the following countries as foreign countries of risk: Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. This list is subject to change. xiii. Affirmative Action and Pay Transparency Requirements All f federally assisted construction contracts exceeding $10,000 annually will be subject to the requirements of Executive Order 11246: (1) Recipients, subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin. (2)Recipients and Contractors are required to take affirmative action to ensure that equal opportunity is provided in all aspects of their employment. This includes flowing down the appropriate language to all subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors. (3)Recipients, subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from taking adverse employment actions against applicants and employees for asking about, discussing, or sharing information about their pay or, under certain circumstances, the pay of their co-workers. The Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP) uses a neutral process to schedule contractors for 86 Page 81 of 142 compliance evaluations. OFCCP’s Technical Assistance Guide50 should be consulted to gain an understanding of the requirements and possible actions the recipients, subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors must take. Additionally, for construction projects valued at $35 million or more and lasting more than one year, the recipients, subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors may be assigned by OFCCP as a mega construction project and may be neutrally selected for a compliance evaluation by OFCCP.51 V.Application Review Information A. Technical Review Criteria i. Concept Papers Concept Papers are evaluated based on consideration the following factors. All sub-criteria are of equal weight. Applicable to All Topic Areas Concept Paper Criterion: Overall FOA Responsiveness and Viability of the Project (Weight: 100%) This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: The proposed work, if successfully accomplished, would clearly meet the objectives as stated in the FOA for the specific topic area. The proposed work aligns with and supports State, local, Tribal, regional resilience, decarbonization, or other energy strategies and plans. The applicant has identified risks and challenges, including possible mitigation strategies, and has shown the impact that DOE funding and the proposed project would have on the relevant field and application. The applicant has proposed strategies to ensure meaningful community and labor engagement; quality jobs and workforce development; EEJ and the Justice40 Initiative; and diversity, inclusion, accessibility—including methods to ensure accountability. The applicant has the qualifications, experience, capabilities and other resources necessary to complete the proposed project. 50 See OFCCP’s Technical Assistance Guide at: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ofccp/Construction/files/ConstructionTAG.pdf?msclkid=9e397d68c4b111e c9d8e6fecb6c710ec Also see the National Policy Assurances http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/rtc.jsp 51 For more information regarding this program, see https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/construction/mega- program. 87 Page 82 of 142 ii. Full Applications Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria shown below. All sub-criteria are of equal weight. Criterion 1 for Topic Area 1: Impact, Transformation, and Technical Merit (50%): This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Extent to which the project supports the Topic Area 1 objectives and desired outcomes. The magnitude of the community or regional resilience benefit that the project will generate by reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events. The extent to which the has application specifically and convincingly demonstrates the applicant’s technical ability to: o comprehensively mitigate one or more hazards faced by community or region o fully mitigate the potential for equipment to cause a wildfire in a community or region o minimize the consequences of an outage caused by a natural hazard o minimize economic impact resulting from outage duration or outage frequency. Extent to which project supports and works in tandem with State, local, Tribal, regional resilience, decarbonization, or other energy strategies and plans. Extent to which the project aligns with and is additive to the current resilience investments described by the applicant outlined in the Report on Resilience Investments. Sufficiency of technical detail to demonstrate that the proposed project is technically feasible and would likely result in the described community or regional resilience benefits. The potential impact of the project to lead to catalyze additional private sector investments and/or non-federal public or regulated capital. Criterion 2 for Topic Area 1: Project Plan and Project Financial Feasibility (20%) This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Project Approach, Workplan, and Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) Degree to which the approach and critical path have been clearly described and thoughtfully considered. 88 Page 83 of 142 Degree to which the task descriptions are clear, detailed, timely, and reasonable, resulting in a high likelihood that the proposed Workplan and SOPO will succeed in meeting the project goals. Identification of Risks Discussion and demonstrated understanding of the key anticipated risks (e.g. technical, financial, market, environmental, regulatory) involved in the proposed work and the quality of the mitigation strategies to address them. Baseline, Metrics, and Deliverables The level of clarity in the definition of the baseline, metrics, and milestones. Relative to a clearly defined baseline, the strength of the quantifiable metrics, milestones, and mid-point deliverables defined in the application, such that meaningful interim progress will be made. Project Financial Feasibility The reasonableness of the budget and spend plan for the proposed project and objectives. Soundness of proposed cost share; level of dedication as demonstrated by letter(s) of commitment that clearly identify type and amount of proposed cost share. Proposed cost share meets requirements outlined in the FOA. The degree to which the proposed project yields additive benefit(s) from the federal funding to undertake additional efforts that would not be taken but-for the funding or to accelerate or expand planned activities that would not be accelerated or expanded but-for the funding. The degree to which the applicant justifies the project’s economic viability. The degree to which the project provides enhanced system value and/or provides improved current and future system cost-effectiveness and delivers economic benefit. Criterion 3 for Topic Area 1: Management Team and Project Partners (10%) This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Project Management Clarity and appropriateness of the roles and responsibilities of the project management organization and the project team, including relevant and critical subrecipients and vendors. 89 Page 84 of 142 The capability of the Project Manager(s) and the proposed team to manage and address all aspects of the proposed work with a high probability of success. The qualifications, relevant expertise, and time commitment of the individuals on the team. The level of participation by project participants as evidenced by letter(s) of commitment and how well they are integrated into the Project Plan/Workplan. The degree to which the applicant has defined and described a project management structure that addresses interfaces with DOE. Partners Degree to which the applicant includes partnerships with critical entities that will help ensure project success, as well as any partnerships with entities (including other states) outside of the applicant’s jurisdiction, who will commit to encourage asset operators (e.g., utilities, merchant developers) to replicate the proposed approaches, technologies or solutions, as applicable. Criterion 4 for Topic Area 1: Community Benefits Plan (20%) Every BIL-funded project is expected to contribute to the country’s energy infrastructure modernization goals, energy technology demonstration and deployment goals, and climate goals, and also to (1) support meaningful community and labor engagement; (2) support quality jobs and ensure workforce continuity; (3) advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and (4) contribute to the Justice40 Initiative’s goal that 40% of the overall project benefits flow to disadvantaged communities. To ensure these goals are met, applications must include a Community Benefits Plan that illustrates how the proposed project plans to incorporate the four goals stated above and are encouraged to submit Community Partnership Documentation from established labor unions, Tribal entities, and community-based organizations that demonstrate the applicant’s ability to achieve the above goals as outlined in the Community Benefits Plan. This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Community and Labor Engagement Extent to which the applicant demonstrates community and labor engagement to date that results in support for the proposed project. Extent to which the applicant has a clear and appropriately robust plan to engage—ideally through a clear commitment to negotiate an enforceable Workforce & Community Agreements--with labor unions, Tribal entities, 90 Page 85 of 142 and community-based organizations that support or work with disadvantaged communities and other affected stakeholders. Extent to which the applicant has considered accountability to affected workers and community stakeholders, including those most vulnerable to project activities with a plan to publicly share SMART community benefits plan commitments. Extent to which the applicant demonstrates that community and labor engagement will lead to the delivery of high-quality jobs, minimal environmental impact, and allocation of project benefits to disadvantaged communities. Quality Jobs Quality and manner in which the proposed project will create and/or retain high quality, good-paying jobs with employer-sponsored benefits for all classifications and phases of work. Extent to which the project provides employees with the ability to organize, bargain collectively, and participate, through labor. organizations of their choosing, in decisions that affect them and that contribute to the effective conduct of business and facilitates amicable settlements of any potential disputes between employees and employers, providing assurances of project efficiency, continuity, and multiple public benefits. Extent to which applicant demonstrates that they are a responsible employer, with ready access to a sufficient supply of appropriately skilled labor, and an effective plan to minimize the risk of labor disputes or disruptions. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) The quality and manner in which the proposed project incorporates and measures diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility goals in the project, as reflected in the applicant’s Community Benefits Plan. Extent to which the project supports the development or demonstration in disadvantaged communities, supports existing minority business enterprises (MBEs) or promotes the creation of MBEs and underrepresented businesses in disadvantaged communities. Quality of any partnerships and agreements with apprenticeship readiness programs, or community-based workforce training and support organizations serving workers facing systematic barriers to employment to facilitate participation in the project’s construction and operations. Extent of engagement of organizations that represent underserved communities as core element of their mission to include Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), MBEs, associations, and non-profit organizations. 91 Page 86 of 142 Extent to which the project illustrates the ability to meet or exceed the objectives of the Justice40 initiative, including the extent to which the project benefits disadvantaged, underserved communities or partners with Tribal Nations. Justice40 Initiative Extent to which the Community Benefits Plan identifies: specific, measurable benefits for disadvantaged communities, how the benefits will flow to disadvantaged communities, and how negative environmental impacts affecting disadvantaged communities would be mitigated. Extent to which the project would contribute to meeting the objective that 40% of the benefits of climate and clean energy investments flow to disadvantaged communities. Criterion 1 Topic Area 2: Impact, Transformation, and Technical Merit (50%): This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Extent to which the project supports the Topic Area 2 objectives and desired outcomes. Extent to which the project deploys technology solutions that address Topic Area 2 priority investments. Extent to which the project deploys technology solutions that increase the flexibility, efficiency, reliability and resilience of the electric power system. Extent to which the project supports State, local, Tribal, regional resilience, decarbonization, or other energy strategies and plans. Extent to which the application provides sufficient technical detail to demonstrate that the proposed project is technically feasible and would likely result in the described smart grid benefits. The potential impact of the project to reduce risk for deployment of innovative technologies or solutions and lead to further deployment at- scale. The potential impact of the project to catalyze additional private sector investments and/or non-federal public or regulated capital. Criterion 2 for Topic Area 2: Project Plan and Project Financial Feasibility (20%) This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Project Approach, Workplan, and Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) 92 Page 87 of 142 Degree to which the approach and critical path have been clearly described and thoughtfully considered. Degree to which the task descriptions are clear, detailed, timely, and reasonable, resulting in a high likelihood that the proposed Workplan and SOPO will succeed in meeting the project goals. Identification of Risks Discussion and demonstrated understanding of the key anticipated risks (e.g., technical, financial, market, environmental, regulatory) involved in the proposed work and the quality of the mitigation strategies to address them. Baseline, Metrics, and Deliverables The level of clarity in the definition of the baseline, metrics, and milestones. Relative to a clearly defined baseline, the strength of the quantifiable metrics, milestones, and mid-point deliverables defined in the application, such that meaningful interim progress will be made. Project Financial Feasibility The reasonableness of the budget and spend plan for the proposed project and objectives. Soundness of proposed cost share; level of dedication as demonstrated by letter(s) of commitment that clearly identify type and amount of proposed cost share. Proposed cost share meets requirements outlined in the FOA. The degree to which the proposed project yields additive benefit(s) from the federal funding to undertake additional efforts that would not be taken but-for the funding or to accelerate or expand planned activities that would not be accelerated or expanded but-for the funding. The degree to which the applicant justifies the project’s economic viability. The degree to which the project provides enhanced system value and/or provides improved current and future system cost-effectiveness and delivers economic benefit. Criterion 3 for Topic Area 2: Management Team and Project Partners (10%) This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Project Management Clarity and appropriateness of the roles and responsibilities of the project management organization and the project team, including relevant and critical subrecipients and vendors. 93 Page 88 of 142 The capability of the Project Manager(s) and the proposed team to manage and address all aspects of the proposed work with a high probability of success. The qualifications, relevant expertise, and time commitment of the key individuals on the team. The level of participation by project participants as evidenced by letter(s) of commitment and how well they are integrated into the Project Plan/Workplan. The degree to which the applicant has defined and described a project management structure that addresses interfaces with DOE. Partners Degree to which the applicant includes partnerships with critical entities that will help ensure project success, as well as any partnerships with entities (including other states) outside of the applicant’s jurisdiction, who will commit to encourage asset operators (e.g., utilities, merchant developers) to replicate the proposed approaches, technologies or solutions, as applicable. Criterion 4 for Topic Area 2: Community Benefits Plan (20%) Every BIL-funded project is expected to contribute to the country’s energy infrastructure modernization goals, energy technology demonstration and deployment goals, and climate goals, and also to (1) support meaningful community and labor engagement; (2) support quality jobs and ensure workforce continuity; (3) advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and (4) contribute to the Justice40 Initiative’s goal that 40% of the overall project benefits flow to disadvantaged communities. To ensure these goals are met, applications must include a Community Benefits Plan that illustrates how the proposed project plans to incorporate the four goals stated above and are encouraged to submit Community Partnership Documentation from established labor unions, Tribal entities, and community-based organizations that demonstrate the applicant’s ability to achieve the above goals as outlined in the Community Benefits Plan. This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Community and Labor Engagement Extent to which the applicant demonstrates community and labor engagement to date that results in support for the proposed project. Extent to which the applicant has a clear and appropriately robust plan to engage—ideally through a clear commitment to negotiate an enforceable Workforce & Community Agreements--with labor unions, Tribal entities, 94 Page 89 of 142 and community-based organizations that support or work with disadvantaged communities and other affected stakeholders. Extent to which the applicant has considered accountability to affected workers and community stakeholders, including those most vulnerable to project activities with a plan to publicly share SMART community benefits plan commitments. Extent to which the applicant demonstrates that community and labor engagement will lead to the delivery of high-quality jobs, minimal environmental impact, and allocation of project benefits to disadvantaged communities. Quality Jobs Quality and manner in which the proposed project will create and/or retain high quality, good-paying jobs with employer-sponsored benefits for all classifications and phases of work. Extent to which the project provides employees with the ability to organize, bargain collectively, and participate, through labor organizations of their choosing, in decisions that affect them and that contribute to the effective conduct of business and facilitates amicable settlements of any potential disputes between employees and employers, providing assurances of project efficiency, continuity, and multiple public benefits. Extent to which applicant demonstrates that they are a responsible employer, with ready access to a sufficient supply of appropriately skilled labor, and an effective plan to minimize the risk of labor disputes or disruptions. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) The quality and manner in which the proposed project incorporates and measures diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility goals in the project, as reflected in the applicant’s Community Benefits Plan. Extent to which the project supports the development or demonstration in disadvantaged communities, supports existing minority business enterprises (MBEs) or promotes the creation of MBEs and underrepresented businesses in disadvantaged communities. Quality of any partnerships and agreements with apprenticeship readiness programs, or community-based workforce training and support organizations serving workers facing systematic barriers to employment to facilitate participation in the project’s construction and operations. Extent of engagement of organizations that represent underserved communities as core element of their mission to include Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), MBEs, associations, and non-profit organizations. 95 Page 90 of 142 Extent to which the project illustrates the ability to meet or exceed the objectives of the Justice40 initiative, including the extent to which the project benefits disadvantaged, underserved communities or partners with Tribal Nations. Justice40 Initiative Extent to which the Community Benefits Plan identifies: specific, measurable benefits for disadvantaged communities, how the benefits will flow to disadvantaged communities, and how negative environmental impacts affecting disadvantaged communities would be mitigated. Extent to which the project would contribute to meeting the objective that 40% of the benefits of climate and clean energy investments flow to disadvantaged communities. Criterion 1 for Topic Area 3: Impact and Market Viability (50%) This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Extent to which the project supports Topic Area 3 objectives and will deliver the desired Topic Area 3 outcomes. Extent to which the project demonstrates innovative approaches to support deployment goals across transmission system, distribution system, storage or a combination to achieve Topic Area 3 primary objectives. Extent to which the project clearly enhances collaboration between eligible entities and owners/operators to meet Topic Area 3 objectives. Extent to which the project offers the greatest public benefit with a clear path to replication, scale and ability to ensure electricity system reliability and/or resilience, provide enhanced system value and economic benefit, and contribute to the decarbonization of the electricity and broader energy systems. Extent that the project has the potential to deliver near-term impact. Extent to which project supports State, local, Tribal, and regional resilience, decarbonization, or other energy strategies and plans. The potential impact of the project to increase adoption of innovative approach(es), for example to lead to more widespread deployment of advanced technologies; innovative partnerships; new financial arrangements; increased non-Federal investment; deployment of projects identified by innovative planning, modeling, or cost allocation approaches; and/or innovative environmental siting, permitting strategies, or community engagement practices. 96 Page 91 of 142 Criterion 2 for Topic Area 3: Project Plan and Project Financial Feasibility (20%) This criterion involves consideration of the following factors. Project Approach, Workplan, and Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) Degree to which the approach and critical path have been clearly described and thoughtfully considered. Degree to which the task descriptions are clear, detailed, timely, and reasonable, resulting in a high likelihood that the proposed Workplan and SOPO will succeed in meeting the project goals. Identification of Risks Discussion and demonstrated understanding of the key anticipated risks (e.g., technical, financial, market, environmental, regulatory) involved in the proposed work and the quality of the mitigation strategies to address them. Baseline, Metrics, and Deliverables The level of clarity in the definition of the baseline, metrics, and milestones. Relative to a clearly defined baseline, the strength of the quantifiable metrics, milestones, and mid-point deliverables defined in the application, such that meaningful interim progress will be made. Project Financial Feasibility The reasonableness of the budget and spend plan for the proposed project and objectives. Soundness of proposed cost share; level of dedication as demonstrated by letter(s) of commitment that clearly identify type and amount of proposed cost share. Proposed cost share meets requirements outlined in the FOA. The degree to which the proposed project yields additive benefit(s) from the federal funding to undertake additional efforts that would not be taken but-for the funding or to accelerate or expand planned activities that would not be accelerated or expanded but-for the funding. The degree to which the applicant justifies the project’s economic viability. The degree to which the project provides enhanced system value and/or provides improved current and future system cost-effectiveness and delivers economic benefit. Project Viability, Readiness, and Timing 97 Page 92 of 142 Evidence to support the state of project planning, development, including depth, stage and degree of completeness of engineering design; status of critical agreements and permits; customer expressions of interest; and financial commitments beyond the support sought under this FOA. Criterion 3 for Topic Area 3: Management Team and Project Partners (10%) This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Project Management Clarity and appropriateness of the roles and responsibilities of the project management organization and the project team, including relevant and critical subrecipients and vendors. The capability of the Project Manager(s) and the proposed team to manage and address all aspects of the proposed work with a high probability of success. The qualifications, relevant expertise, and time commitment of the key individuals on project team. The level of participation by project participants as evidenced by letter(s) of commitment and how well they are integrated into the Project Plan/Workplan. The degree to which the applicant has defined and described a project management structure that addresses interfaces with DOE. Partners Degree to which the applicant includes partnerships with critical entities that will help ensure project success, as well as any partnerships with entities (including other states) outside of the applicant’s jurisdiction, who will commit to encourage asset operators (e.g., utilities, merchant developers) to replicate the proposed approaches, technologies or solutions, as applicable. Criterion 4 for Topic Area 3: Community Benefits Plan (20%) Every BIL-funded project is expected to contribute to the country’s energy infrastructure modernization goals, energy technology demonstration and deployment goals, and climate goals, and also to (1) support meaningful community and labor engagement; (2) support quality jobs and ensure workforce continuity; (3) advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and (4) contribute to the Justice40 Initiative’s goal that 40% of the overall project benefits flow to disadvantaged communities. 98 Page 93 of 142 To ensure these goals are met, applications must include a Community Benefits Plan that illustrates how the proposed project plans to incorporate the four goals stated above and are encouraged to submit Community Partnership Documentation from established labor unions, Tribal entities, and community-based organizations that demonstrate the applicant’s ability to achieve the above goals as outlined in the Community Benefits Plan. This criterion involves consideration of the following factors: Community and Labor Engagement Extent to which the applicant demonstrates community and labor engagement to date that results in support for the proposed project. Extent to which the applicant has a clear and appropriately robust plan to engage—ideally through a clear commitment to negotiate an enforceable Workforce & Community Agreements--with labor unions, Tribal entities, and community-based organizations that support or work with disadvantaged communities and other affected stakeholders. Extent to which the applicant has considered accountability to affected workers and community stakeholders, including those most vulnerable to project activities with a plan to publicly share SMART community benefits plan commitments. Extent to which the applicant demonstrates that community and labor engagement will lead to the delivery of high-quality jobs, minimal environmental impact, and allocation of project benefits to disadvantaged communities. Quality Jobs Quality and manner in which the proposed project will create and/or retain high quality, good-paying jobs with employer-sponsored benefits for all classifications and phases of work. Extent to which the project provides employees with the ability to organize, bargain collectively, and participate, through labor organizations of their choosing, in decisions that affect them and that contribute to the effective conduct of business and facilitates amicable settlements of any potential disputes between employees and employers, providing assurances of project efficiency, continuity, and multiple public benefits. Extent to which applicant demonstrates that they are a responsible employer, with ready access to a sufficient supply of appropriately skilled labor, and an effective plan to minimize the risk of labor disputes or disruptions. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) 99 Page 94 of 142 The quality and manner in which the proposed project incorporates and measures diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility goals in the project, as reflected in the applicant’s Community Benefits Plan. Extent to which the project supports the development or demonstration in disadvantaged communities, supports existing minority business enterprises (MBEs) or promotes the creation of MBEs and underrepresented businesses in disadvantaged communities. Quality of any partnerships and agreements with apprenticeship readiness programs, or community-based workforce training and support organizations serving workers facing systematic barriers to employment to facilitate participation in the project’s construction and operations. Extent of engagement of organizations that represent underserved communities as core element of their mission to include Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), MBEs, associations, and non-profit organizations. Extent to which the project illustrates the ability to meet or exceed the objectives of the Justice40 initiative, including the extent to which the project benefits disadvantaged, underserved communities or partners with Tribal Nations. Justice40 Initiative Extent to which the Community Benefits Plan identifies: specific, measurable benefits for disadvantaged communities, how the benefits will flow to disadvantaged communities, and how negative environmental impacts affecting disadvantaged communities would be mitigated. Extent to which the project would contribute to meeting the objective that 40% of the benefits of climate and clean energy investments flow to disadvantaged communities. B. Standards for Application Evaluation Applications that are determined to be eligible will be evaluated in accordance with this FOA and the guidance provided in the “DOE Merit Review Guide for Financial Assistance,” effective September 2020, which is available at: https://energy.gov/management/downloads/merit-review-guide-financial- assistance-and-unsolicited-proposals-current. C. Other Selection Factors i. Program Policy Factors In addition to the above criteria, the Selection Official may consider the following program policy factors in determining which Full Applications to select for award negotiations: 100 Page 95 of 142 The degree to which the proposed project exhibits technological diversity when compared to the existing DOE project portfolio and other projects selected from the subject FOA; The degree to which the proposed project, including proposed cost share, optimizes the use of available DOE funding to achieve programmatic objectives; The degree to which the proposed project will deliver the greatest benefits for less Federal cost share; The level of industry involvement and demonstrated ability to accelerate commercialization and overcome key market barriers; For Topic Area 1, the degree to which the applicant supports the availability of information before during and after resilience events through participation in the Outage Data Initiative Nationwide (ODIN),52 a voluntary program to promote increasing standardization of outage data, accessible and achievable by any size utility; The degree to which the proposed project is likely to lead to increased high- quality employment and manufacturing in the United States; The degree to which the proposed project will accelerate transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty; The degree to which the proposed project, or group of projects, represent a desired geographic distribution (considering past awards and current applications), including whether the project is in a community facing job loss in the energy transition; The degree to which the proposed project incorporates diversity, equity, and inclusion elements, including, but not limited to, applicant or team members from Minority Serving Institutions (e.g. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)/Other Minority Institutions), Minority Business Enterprises, Minority Owned Businesses, Woman Owned Businesses, Veteran Owned Businesses, Tribal Nations, or members within underserved communities; The degree to which the proposed project maximizes benefits to disadvantaged communities; The degree to which the proposed project minimizes environmental impacts to disadvantaged communities; The degree to which the project’s solution or strategy will maximize deployment or replication; The degree to which the proposed project leverages existing infrastructure, facilities, and/or workforce skills; The degree to which the proposed project will employ procurement of U.S. iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials; 52 More information is available at odin.ornl.gov 101 Page 96 of 142 The degree to which the proposed project, when compared to the existing DOE project portfolio and other projects to be selected from the subject FOA, contributes to the total portfolio meeting the goals reflected in the Community Benefits Plan criteria; The degree to which the proposed project avoids duplication/overlap with other publicly or privately funded work. D. Evaluation and Selection Process i. Overview The evaluation process consists of multiple phases; each includes an initial eligibility review and a thorough technical merit review. Rigorous technical merit reviews of eligible submissions are conducted by reviewers that are experts in the subject matter of the FOA. Ultimately, the Selection Official considers the recommendations of the reviewers, along with other considerations such as program policy factors, in determining which applications to select. ii. Pre-Selection Interviews As part of the evaluation and selection process, DOE may invite one or more applicants to participate in Pre-Selection Interviews. Pre-Selection Interviews are distinct from and more formal than pre-selection clarifications (See Section V.D.ii. of the FOA). The invited applicant(s) will meet with DOE representatives to provide clarification on the contents of the Full Applications and to provide DOE an opportunity to ask questions regarding the proposed project. The information provided by applicants to DOE through Pre-Selection Interviews contributes to DOE’s selection decisions. DOE will arrange to meet with the invited applicants in person at DOE’s offices or a mutually agreed upon location. DOE may also arrange site visits at certain applicants’ facilities. In the alternative, DOE may invite certain applicants to participate in a one-on-one conference with DOE via webinar, videoconference, or conference call. DOE will not reimburse applicants for travel and other expenses relating to the Pre-Selection Interviews, nor will these costs be eligible for reimbursement as pre-award costs. DOE may obtain additional information through Pre-Selection Interviews that will be used to make a final selection determination. DOE may select applications for funding and make awards without Pre-Selection Interviews. Participation in Pre-Selection Interviews with DOE does not signify that applicants have been selected for award negotiations. 102 Page 97 of 142 iii. Pre-Selection Clarification DOE may determine that pre-selection clarifications are necessary from one or more applicants. Pre-selection clarifications are distinct from and less formal than pre-selection interviews. These pre-selection clarifications will solely be for the purposes of clarifying the application. The pre-selection clarifications may occur before, during or after the merit review evaluation process. Information provided by an applicant that is not necessary to address the pre-selection clarification question will not be reviewed or considered. Typically, a pre- selection clarification will be carried out through either written responses to DOE’s written clarification questions or video or conference calls with DOE representatives. The information provided by applicants to DOE through pre-selection clarifications is incorporated in their applications and contributes to the merit review evaluation and DOE’s selection decisions. If DOE contacts an applicant for pre-selection clarification purposes, it does not signify that the applicant has been selected for negotiation of award or that the applicant is among the top ranked applications. DOE will not reimburse applicants for expenses relating to the pre-selection clarifications, nor will these costs be eligible for reimbursement as pre-award costs. iv. Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters DOE, prior to making a federal award with a total amount of federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). The applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM. DOE will consider any written comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2 CFR 200.206. 103 Page 98 of 142 v. Selection The Selection Official may consider the technical merit, the Federal Consensus Board’s recommendations, program policy factors, and the amount of funds available in arriving at selections for this FOA. E. Anticipated Notice of Selection and Award Negotiation Dates DOE anticipates notifying applicants selected for negotiation of award and negotiating awards by the dates provided on the cover page of this FOA. VI.Award Administration Information A. Award Notices i. Ineligible Submissions Ineligible Concept Papers and Full Applications will not be further reviewed or considered for award. The Contracting Officer will send a notification letter by email to the technical and administrative points of contact designated by the applicant The notification letter will state the basis upon which the Concept Paper or the Full Application is ineligible and not considered for further review. ii. Concept Paper Notifications DOE will notify applicants of its determination to encourage or discourage the submission of a Full Application. DOE will send a notification letter by email to the technical and administrative points of contact designated by the applicant in on the Concept Paper cover page. Applicants may submit a Full Application even if they receive a notification discouraging them from doing so. By discouraging the submission of a Full Application, DOE intends to convey its lack of programmatic interest in the proposed project. Such assessments do not necessarily reflect judgments on the merits of the proposed project. The purpose of the Concept Paper phase is to save applicants the considerable time and expense of preparing a Full Application that is unlikely to be selected for award negotiations. A notification encouraging the submission of a Full Application does not authorize the applicant to commence performance of the project. Please refer to Section IV.I.ii. of the FOA for guidance on pre-award costs. 104 Page 99 of 142 iii. Full Application Notifications DOE will notify applicants of its determination via a notification letter by email to the technical and administrative points of contact designated by the applicant in Grants.gov. The notification letter will inform the applicant whether or not its Full Application was selected for award negotiations. Alternatively, DOE may notify one or more applicants that a final selection determination on particular Full Applications will be made at a later date, subject to the availability of funds or other factors. iv. Successful Applicants Receipt of a notification letter selecting a Full Application for award negotiations does not authorize the applicant to commence performance of the project. If an application is selected for award negotiations, it is not a commitment by DOE to issue an award. Applicants do not receive an award until award negotiations are complete and the Contracting Officer executes the funding agreement, accessible by the prime recipient in FedConnect. The award negotiation process will take approximately 60 days. Applicants must designate a primary and a backup point-of-contact in Grants.gov with whom DOE will communicate to conduct award negotiations. The applicant must be responsive during award negotiations (i.e., provide requested documentation) and meet the negotiation deadlines. If the applicant fails to do so or if award negotiations are otherwise unsuccessful, DOE will cancel the award negotiations and rescind the Selection. DOE reserves the right to terminate award negotiations at any time for any reason. Please refer to Section IV.I.ii. of the FOA for guidance on pre-award costs. v. Alternate Selection Determinations In some instances, an applicant may receive a notification that its application was not selected for award and DOE designated the application to be an alternate. As an alternate, DOE may consider the Full Application for federal funding in the future. A notification letter stating the Full Application is designated as an alternate does not authorize the applicant to commence performance of the project. DOE may ultimately determine to select or not select the Full Application for award negotiations. vi. Unsuccessful Applicants DOE shall promptly notify in writing each applicant whose application has not been selected for award or whose application cannot be funded because of the unavailability of appropriated funds. 105 Page 100 of 142 B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements i. Registration Requirements There are several one-time actions before submitting an application in response to this FOA, and it is vital that applicants address these items as soon as possible. Some may take several weeks, and failure to complete them could interfere with an applicant’s ability to apply to this FOA, or to meet the negotiation deadlines and receive an award if the application is selected. These requirements are as follows: 1. System for Award Management Register with the SAM at https://www.sam.gov. Designating an Electronic Business Point of Contact (EBiz POC) and obtaining a special password called a Marketing Partner ID Number (MPIN) are important steps in SAM registration. Please update your SAM registration annually. 2. FedConnect Register in FedConnect at https://www.fedconnect.net. To create an organization account, your organization’s SAM MPIN is required. For more information about the SAM MPIN or other registration requirements, review the FedConnect Ready, Set, Go! Guide at https://www.fedconnect.net/FedConnect/Marketing/Documents/FedConnec t_Ready_Set_Go.pdf. 3. Grants.gov Register in Grants.gov (https://www.grants.gov/)) to receive automatic updates when Amendments to this FOA are posted. However, please note that Concept Papers will not be accepted through Grants.gov. 4. Electronic Authorization of Applications and Award Documents Submission of an application and supplemental information under this FOA through electronic systems used by the DOE, including Grants.gov and FedConnect.net, constitutes the authorized representative’s approval and electronic signature. ii. Award Administrative Requirements The administrative requirements for DOE grants and cooperative agreements are contained in 2 CFR Part 200 as amended by 2 CFR Part 910. iii. Foreign National Participation (September 2021) All applicants selected for an award under this FOA and project participants (including subrecipients and contractors) who anticipate involving foreign nationals in the performance of an award, will be required to provide DOE with 106 Page 101 of 142 specific information about each foreign national to satisfy requirements for foreign national participation. A “foreign national” is defined as any person who is not a United States citizen by birth or naturalization. The volume and type of information collected may depend on various factors associated with the award. DOE concurrence may be required before a foreign national can participate in the performance of any work under an award. Approval for foreign nationals from countries identified on the U.S. Department of State’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism must be obtained from DOE before they can participate in the performance of any work under an award. iv. Subaward and Executive Reporting Additional administrative requirements necessary for DOE grants and cooperative agreements to comply with the Federal Funding and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) are contained in 2 CFR Part 170. Prime recipients must register with the new FFATA Subaward Reporting System database and report the required data on their first tier subrecipients. Prime recipients must report the executive compensation for their own executives as part of their registration profile in SAM. v. National Policy Requirements The National Policy Assurances that are incorporated as a term and condition of award are located at: http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/rtc.jsp. vi. Environmental Review in Accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) DOE’s decision whether and how to distribute federal funds under this FOA is subject to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.). NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision-making processes by considering the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions. For additional background on NEPA, please see DOE’s NEPA website, at https://www.energy.gov/nepa. While NEPA compliance is a federal agency responsibility and the ultimate decisions remain with the federal agency, all recipients selected for an award will be required to assist in the timely and effective completion of the NEPA process in the manner most pertinent to their proposed project. If DOE determines certain records must be prepared to complete the NEPA review process (e.g., biological evaluations or environmental assessments), the recipient may be required to prepare the records and the costs to prepare the necessary records may be included as part of the project costs. 107 Page 102 of 142 vii. Flood Resilience Applications should indicate whether the proposed project location(s) is within a floodplain, how the floodplain was defined, and how future flooding will factor into the project’s design. The base floodplain long used for planning has been the 100-year floodplain, that is, a floodplain with a 1.0 percent chance of flooding in any given year. As directed by Executive Order 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input (2015), Federal agencies, including DOE, continue to avoid development in a floodplain to the extent possible. When doing so is not possible, Federal agencies are directed to “expand management from the current base flood level to a higher vertical elevation and corresponding horizontal floodplain to address current and future flood risk and ensure that projects funded with taxpayer dollars last as long as intended.” The higher flood elevation is based on one of three approaches: climate-informed science (preferred), freeboard value, or 0.2 percent annual flood change (500- year floodplain). EO 13690 and related information is available at https://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/eo-13690-establishing-federal-flood-risk- management-standard-and-process-further. viii. Applicant Representations and Certifications 1. Lobbying Restrictions By accepting funds under this award, the prime recipient agrees that none of the funds obligated on the award shall be expended, directly or indirectly, to influence Congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. § 1913. This restriction is in addition to those prescribed elsewhere in statute and regulation. 2. Corporate Felony Conviction and Federal Tax Liability Representations In submitting an application in response to this FOA, the applicant represents that: a.It is not a corporation that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any federal law within the preceding 24 months; and b.It is not a corporation that has any unpaid federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability. For purposes of these representations the following definitions apply: 108 Page 103 of 142 A Corporation includes any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or the various territories of the United States [but not foreign corporations]. It includes both for- profit and non-profit organizations. 3. Nondisclosure and Confidentiality Agreements Representations In submitting an application in response to this FOA the applicant represents that: a.It does not and will not require its employees or contractors to sign internal nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting its employees or contactors from lawfully reporting waste, fraud, or abuse to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a federal department or agency authorized to receive such information. b.It does not and will not use any federal funds to implement or enforce any nondisclosure and/or confidentiality policy, form, or agreement it uses unless it contains the following provisions: (1)‘‘These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive Order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive Orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.’’ (2)The limitation above shall not contravene requirements applicable to Standard Form 312 Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/sf312.pdf), Form 4414 Sensitive Compartmented Information Disclosure Agreement (https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sf4414.pdf), or any other form issued by a federal department or agency governing the nondisclosure of classified information. (3)Notwithstanding the provision listed in paragraph (a), a nondisclosure or confidentiality policy form or agreement that is to be executed by 109 Page 104 of 142 a person connected with the conduct of an intelligence or intelligence-related activity, other than an employee or officer of the United States government, may contain provisions appropriate to the particular activity for which such document is to be used. Such form or agreement shall, at a minimum, require that the person will not disclose any classified information received in the course of such activity unless specifically authorized to do so by the United States government. Such nondisclosure or confidentiality forms shall also make it clear that they do not bar disclosures to Congress, or to an authorized official of an executive agency or the Department of Justice, that are essential to reporting a substantial violation of law. ix. Statement of Federal Stewardship DOE will exercise normal federal stewardship in overseeing the project activities performed under DOE awards. Stewardship Activities include, but are not limited to, conducting site visits; reviewing performance and financial reports; providing assistance and/or temporary intervention in unusual circumstances to correct deficiencies that develop during the project; assuring compliance with terms and conditions; and reviewing technical performance after project completion to ensure that the project objectives have been accomplished. x. Statement of Substantial Involvement (Applies to Topic Area 3 ONLY) DOE has substantial involvement in work performed under awards made as a result of this FOA. DOE does not limit its involvement to the administrative requirements of the award. Instead, DOE has substantial involvement in the direction and redirection of the technical aspects of the project as a whole. Substantial involvement includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1.DOE shares responsibility with the recipient for the management, control, direction, and performance of the project. 2.DOE may intervene in the conduct or performance of work under this award for programmatic reasons. Intervention includes the interruption or modification of the conduct or performance of project activities. 3.DOE may redirect or discontinue funding the project based on the outcome of DOE’s evaluation of the project at the Go/No-Go decision point(s) as identified in the Project Management Plan. 4.Reviewing and concurring with ongoing technical performance to ensure that adequate progress has been obtained within the current Budget Period authorized by DOE before work can commence on subsequent Budget Periods. 110 Page 105 of 142 5.DOE participates in major project decision-making processes. xi. Intellectual Property Management Plan (IPMP) As a quarter 1 milestone if selected for award, applicants must submit an executed IPMP between the members of the consortia or team. The award will set forth the treatment of and obligations related to intellectual property rights between DOE and the individual members. The IPMP should describe how the members will handle intellectual property rights and issues between themselves while ensuring compliance with federal intellectual property laws, regulations, and policies (see Sections VIII.J.-VIII.N. of this FOA for more details on applicable federal intellectual property laws and regulations). Guidance regarding the contents of IPMP is available from DOE upon request. The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of items that the IPMP may cover: The treatment of confidential information between members (e.g., the use of NDAs); The treatment of background intellectual property (e.g., any requirements for identifying it or making it available); The treatment of inventions made under the award (e.g., any requirements for disclosing to the other members on an application, filing patent applications, paying for patent prosecution, and cross-licensing or other licensing arrangements between the members); The treatment of data produced, including software, under the award (e.g., any publication process or other dissemination strategies, copyrighting strategy or arrangement between members); Any technology transfer and commercialization requirements or arrangements between the members; The treatment of any intellectual property issues that may arise due to a change in membership of the consortia or team; and The handling of disputes related to intellectual property between the members. xii. Intellectual Property Provisions The standard DOE financial assistance intellectual property provisions applicable to the various types of recipients are located at http://energy.gov/gc/standard- intellectual-property-ip-provisions-financial-assistance-awards. xiii. Reporting Reporting requirements are identified on the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist and Instructions, DOE F 4600.2, attached to the award agreement. A 111 Page 106 of 142 sample checklist is available at: BIL-GRIP Application Forms and Templates | netl.doe.gov. Additional reporting requirements apply to projects funded by BIL. As part of tracking progress toward key departmental goals – ensuring justice and equity, investing in the American workforce, boosting domestic manufacturing, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and advancing a pathway to private sector deployment – DOE may require specific data collection. Examples of data that may be collected include: New manufacturing production, and recycling capacity Jobs data including Number and types of training jobs provided, wages and benefits paid Demographics of workforce including local hires Efforts to minimize risks of labor disputes and disruptions Contributions to training; certificates and training credentials received by employees; ratio of apprentice-to-journey level workers employed Justice and Equity data, including o Minority Business Enterprises, Minority Owned Businesses, Woman Owned Businesses and Veteran Owned Businesses acting as vendors and sub-contractors for bids on supplies, services and equipment. o Value, number, and type of partnerships with MSIs o Stakeholder engagement events, consent-based siting activities o Other relevant indicators from the Community Benefits Plan Number and type of energy efficient and clean energy equipment installed Funding leveraged, follow-on-funding, Intellectual Property (IP) Generation and IP Utilization Biennial Report to Congress - (Applies to Topic Area 1 ONLY), See Section I.B. for more information. xiv. Go/No-Go Review Each project selected under this FOA will be subject to a periodic project evaluation referred to as a Go/No-Go Review. A Go/No-Go Review is a risk management tool and a project management best practice to ensure that, for the current phase or period of performance, technical success is definitively achieved and potential for success in future phases or periods of performance is evaluated, prior to actually beginning the execution of future phases. At the Go/No-Go decision points, DOE will evaluate project performance, project schedule adherence, the extent milestone objectives are met, compliance with 112 Page 107 of 142 reporting requirements, and overall contribution to the program goals and objectives. Federal funding beyond the Go/No-Go decision point (continuation funding) is contingent upon (1) availability of federal funds appropriated by Congress for the purpose of this program; (2) the availability of future-year budget authority; (3) recipient’s technical progress as compared to the technical milestones, success criteria, and go/no-go decision point as described in the Project Management Plan; (4) recipient’s submittal of required reports; (5) recipient’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the award; (6) the recipient’s submission of a continuation application53; and (7) written approval of the continuation application by the Contracting Officer. As a result of the Go/No-Go Review, DOE may, at its discretion, authorize the following actions: (1) continue to fund the project, contingent upon the availability of funds appropriated by Congress for the purpose of this program and the availability of future-year budget authority; (2) recommend redirection of work under the project; (3) place a hold on federal funding for the project, pending further supporting data or funding; or (4) discontinue funding the project because of insufficient progress, change in strategic direction, or lack of funding. The Go/No-Go decision is distinct from a non-compliance determination. In the event a recipient fails to comply with the requirements of an award, DOE may take appropriate action, including but not limited to, redirecting, suspending or terminating the award. xv. Conference Spending The recipient shall not expend any funds on a conference not directly and programmatically related to the purpose for which the grant or cooperative agreement was awarded that would defray the cost to the United States government of a conference held by any Executive branch department, agency, board, commission, or office for which the cost to the United States government would otherwise exceed $20,000, thereby circumventing the required 53 A continuation application is a non-competitive application for an additional budget period within a previously approved project period. At least ninety (90) days before the end of each budget period, the recipient must submit its continuation application, which includes the following information: i. A progress report on the project objectives, including significant findings, conclusions, or developments, and an estimate of any unobligated balances remaining at the end of the budget period. If the remaining unobligated balance is estimated to exceed 20 percent of the funds available for the budget period, explain why the excess funds have not been obligated and how they will be used in the next budget period. ii. A detailed budget and supporting justification if there are changes to the negotiated budget, or a budget for the upcoming budget period was not approved at the time of award. iii. A description of any planned changes from the SOPO and/or Milestone Summary Table. 113 Page 108 of 142 notification by the head of any such Executive Branch department, agency, board, commission, or office to the Inspector General (or senior ethics official for any entity without an Inspector General), of the date, location, and number of employees attending such conference. xvi. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Financing Statements Per 2 CFR 910.360 (Real Property and Equipment) when a piece of equipment is purchased by a for-profit recipient or subrecipient with federal funds, and when the federal share of the financial assistance agreement is more than $1,000,000, the recipient or subrecipient must: Properly record, and consent to the Department's ability to properly record if the recipient fails to do so, UCC financing statement(s) for all equipment in excess of $5,000 purchased with project funds. These financing statement(s) must be approved in writing by the Contracting Officer prior to the recording, and they shall provide notice that the recipient's title to all equipment (not real property) purchased with federal funds under the financial assistance agreement is conditional pursuant to the terms of this section, and that the government retains an undivided reversionary interest in the equipment. The UCC financing statement(s) must be filed before the Contracting Officer may reimburse the recipient for the federal share of the equipment unless otherwise provided for in the relevant financial assistance agreement. The recipient shall further make any amendments to the financing statements or additional recordings, including appropriate continuation statements, as necessary or as the Contracting Officer may direct. xvii. Implementation of Executive Order 13798, Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty States, local governments, or other public entities may not condition sub-awards in a manner that would discriminate, or disadvantage sub-recipients based on their religious character. xviii. Participants and Collaborating Organizations If selected for award negotiations, the selected applicant must submit a list of personnel who are proposed to work on the project, both at the recipient and subrecipient level and a list of collaborating organizations within 30 days after the applicant is notified of the selection. Recipients will have an ongoing responsibility to notify DOE of changes to the personnel and collaborating organizations and submit updated information during the life of the award. xix. Requirement to Report Potentially Duplicative Funding If a recipient or project team member receives any other award of federal funds for activities that potentially overlap with the activities funded under the DOE 114 Page 109 of 142 award, the recipient must promptly notify DOE in writing of the potential overlap and state whether project funds from any of those other federal awards have been, are being, or are to be used (in whole or in part) for one or more of the identical cost items under the DOE award. If there are identical cost items, the recipient must promptly notify the DOE Contracting Officer in writing of the potential duplication and eliminate any inappropriate duplication of funding. Also See Section IV.D.xvi. xx. Interim Conflict of Interest Policy for Financial Assistance The DOE interim Conflict of Interest Policy for Financial Assistance (COI Policy)54 is applicable to all non-Federal entities applying for, or that receive, DOE funding by means of a financial assistance award (e.g., a grant, cooperative agreement, or technology investment agreement) and, through the implementation of this policy by the entity, to each senior/key personnel55 who is planning to participate in, or is participating in, the project funded wholly or in part under the DOE financial assistance award. The term “senior/key personnel” means the Program/Project Manager and any other person, regardless of title or position, who is responsible for the purpose, design, conduct, or reporting of a project funded by DOE or proposed for funding by DOE. Recipients must flow down the requirements of the interim COI Policy to any subrecipient non-Federal entities. Further, for DOE funded projects, the recipient must include all financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) (i.e., managed and unmanaged/ unmanageable) in their initial and ongoing FCOI reports. It is understood that non-Federal entities and individuals receiving DOE financial assistance awards will need sufficient time to come into full compliance with DOE’s interim COI Policy. To provide some flexibility, DOE allows for a staggered implementation. Specifically, prior to award, applicants selected for award negotiations must: ensure all senior/key personnel complete their significant financial disclosures; review the disclosures; determine whether a FCOI exists; develop and implement a management plan for FCOIs; and provide DOE with an initial FCOI report that includes all FCOIs (i.e., managed and unmanaged/ unmanageable). Recipients will have 180 days from the date of the award to come into full compliance with the other requirements set forth in DOE’s interim COI Policy. Prior to award, the applicant must certify that it is, or will be within 180 days of the award, compliant with all requirements in the COI Policy. 54 DOE’s interim COI Policy can be found at PF 2022-17 FAL 2022-02 Department of Energy Interim Conflict of Interest Policy Requirements for Financial Assistance. 55 For purposes of this subsection of the FOA, the term “senior/key personnel” has the same meaning as “Investigator” as defined in the DOE interim COI Policy. 115 Page 110 of 142 xxi. Fraud, Waste and Abuse The mission of the DOE Office of Inspector General (OIG) is to strengthen the integrity, economy and efficiency of the Department’s programs and operations including deterring and detecting fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. The OIG accomplishes this mission primarily through investigations, audits, and inspections of DOE activities to include grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and contracts. The OIG maintains a Hotline for reporting allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement. To report such allegations, please visit https://www.energy.gov/ig/ig-hotline. Additionally, recipients of DOE awards must be cognizant of the requirements of 2 CFR 200.113 Mandatory disclosures, which states: The non-Federal entity or applicant for a Federal award must disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. Non-Federal entities that have received a Federal award including the term and condition outlined in appendix XII of 2 CFR Part 200 are required to report certain civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings to SAM (currently FAPIIS). Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 2 CFR 200.339. (See also 2 CFR part 180, 31 U.S.C. 3321, and 41 U.S.C. 2313.) [85 FR 49539, Aug. 13, 2020] xxii. Human Subjects Research Research involving human subjects, biospecimens, or identifiable private information conducted with DOE funding is subject to the requirements of DOE Order 443.1C, Protection of Human Research Subjects, 45 CFR Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects (subpart A which is referred to as the “Common Rule”), and 10 CFR Part 745, Protection of Human Subjects. Federal regulation and the DOE Order require review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) of all proposed human subjects research projects. The IRB is an interdisciplinary ethics board responsible for ensuring that the proposed research is sound and justifies the use of human subjects or their data; the potential risks to human subjects have been minimized; participation is voluntary; and clear and accurate information about the study, the benefits and risks of participating, and how individuals’ data/specimens will be protected/used, is provided to potential participants for their use in determining whether or not to participate. 116 Page 111 of 142 The recipient shall provide the Federal Wide Assurance number identified in item 1) below and the certification identified in item 2) below to DOE prior to initiation of any project that will involve interactions with humans in some way (e.g., through surveys); analysis of their identifiable data (e.g., demographic data and energy use over time); asking individuals to test devices, products, or materials developed through research; and/or testing of commercially available devices in buildings/homes in which humans will be present. Note: This list of examples is illustrative and not all inclusive. No DOE funded research activity involving human subjects, biospecimens, or identifiable private information shall be conducted without: 1) A registration and a Federal Wide Assurance of compliance accepted by the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) in the Department of Health and Human Services; and 2) Certification that the research has been reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) provided for in the assurance. IRB review may be accomplished by the awardee’s institutional IRB; by the Central DOE IRB; or if collaborating with one of the DOE national laboratories, by the DOE national laboratory IRB. The recipient is responsible for ensuring all subrecipients comply and for reporting information on the project annually to the DOE Human Subjects Research Database (HSRD) at https://science.osti.gov/HumanSubjects/Human- Subjects-Database/home. Note: If a DOE IRB is used, no end of year reporting will be needed. Additional information on the DOE Human Subjects Research Program can be found at: HUMAN SUBJECTS Human Subjects Pr... | U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) (osti.gov). xxiii. Cybersecurity Plan (Applies to Topic Areas 2 & 3 ONLY) Be advised that under Section 40126 of the BIL, the Secretary of Energy has determined that this FOA requires an applicant to submit a Cybersecurity Plan to the DOE prior to the issuance of an award. Each applicant whose Full Application is selected for award negotiations must submit a Cybersecurity Plan during the award negotiations phase. A Cybersecurity Plan explains how basic cybersecurity practices throughout the life of the proposed the project will be maintained. See Appendix E. 117 Page 112 of 142 xxiv. Domestic Content Commitments Be advised that the grant agreement or cooperative agreement for funding between DOE and the awardee will require each recipient: (1) to fulfill the commitments made in its application regarding the procurement of U.S.- produced products, subject to a waiver process by DOE and (2) to fulfill the commitments made in its application regarding the procurement of other key component metals and manufactured products domestically that are deemed available in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality at the time of award negotiation, again subject to a DOE waiver process. xxv. Real Property and Equipment Property disposition will be required at the end of a project if the current fair market value of property exceeds $5,000. For-profit entity disposition requirements are set forth at 2 CFR 910.360. Property disposition requirements for other non-federal entities are set forth in 2 CFR 200.310 – 200.316. Real property and equipment purchased with project funds (federal share and recipient cost share) are subject to the requirements at 2 CFR 200.310, 200.311, 200.313, and 200.316 (non-Federal entities, except for-profit entities) and 2 CFR 910.360 (for-profit entities). For projects selected for award under this FOA, the recipient may take disposition action on the real property and equipment or continue to use the real property and equipment after the conclusion of the award period of performance. Recipients may continue to use the real property and equipment so long as the recipient: a.continues to use the property for the authorized project purposes; b.complies with the applicable reporting requirements and regulatory property standards; and c.requests continued use of the property with its final SF-428 Tangible Personal Property Report and/or SF-429 Real Property Status Report submission during award closeout. The recipient’s written Request for Continued Use must identify the real property and equipment and include: a summary of how the property will be used (must align with the authorized project purposes); a proposed use period, (e.g., perpetuity, until fully depreciated, or a calendar date where the recipient expects to submit disposition instructions); acknowledgement that the that the recipient shall not sell or encumber the property or permit any encumbrance without prior written DOE approval; current fair market value of the property; and an Estimated Useful Life or depreciation schedule for equipment. When the property is no longer needed for authorized project purposes, the recipient must request disposition instructions from DOE. For-profit entity 118 Page 113 of 142 disposition requirements are set forth at 2 CFR 910.360. Property disposition requirements for other non-federal entities are set forth in 2 CFR 200.310 – 200.316. VII.Questions/Agency Contacts Upon the issuance of a FOA, DOE personnel are prohibited from communicating (in writing or otherwise) with applicants regarding the FOA except through the established question and answer process as described below. Specifically, questions regarding this FOA must be submitted through the FedConnect portal. You must register with FedConnect to respond as an interested party to submit questions. It is recommended that you register as soon after release of the FOA as possible to have the benefit of all responses. Applicants are encouraged to review previously issued Questions and Answers prior to the submission of questions. Questions and comments concerning this FOA shall be submitted not later than 5 business days prior to the application due date. Please note, feedback on individual concepts will not be provided through Q&A. All questions and answers related to this FOA will be posted on the FedConnect portal at: https://www.FedConnect.net and on the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program web page at: Grid Resilience Innovation Partnership Programs | Department of Energy. DOE will attempt to respond to a question within 3 business days unless a similar question and answer has already been posted on the website. Questions relating to the registration process, system requirements, how an application form works, or the submittal process must be directed to Grants.gov at 1-800-518-4726 or support@grants.gov. DOE/NNSA cannot answer these questions. VIII.Other Information A. FOA Modifications Amendments to this FOA will be posted on the Grants.gov system and the FedConnect portal. However, you will only receive an email when an amendment or a FOA is posted on these sites by registering with FedConnect as an interested party for this FOA. DOE recommends that you register as soon 119 Page 114 of 142 after the release of the FOA as possible to ensure you receive timely notice of any amendments or other FOAs. B. Government Right to Reject or Negotiate DOE reserves the right, without qualification, to reject any or all applications received in response to this FOA and to select any application, in whole or in part, as a basis for negotiation and/or award. C. Commitment of Public Funds The Contracting Officer is the only individual who can make awards or commit the government to the expenditure of public funds. A commitment by anyone other than the Contracting Officer, either express or implied, is invalid. D. Treatment of Application Information Applicants should not include business sensitive (e.g., commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential), trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential in their application unless such information is necessary to convey an understanding of the proposed project or to comply with a requirement in the FOA. Applicants are advised to not include any critically sensitive proprietary detail. If an application includes business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information, it is furnished to the Federal Government (Government) in confidence with the understanding that the information shall be used or disclosed only for evaluation of the application. Such information will be withheld from public disclosure to the extent permitted by law, including the Freedom of Information Act. Without assuming any liability for inadvertent disclosure, DOE will seek to limit disclosure of such information to its employees and to outside reviewers when necessary for merit review of the application or as otherwise authorized by law. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use the information if it is obtained from another source. If an applicant chooses to submit business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information, the applicant must provide two copies of the submission (e.g., Concept Paper, Full Application). The first copy should be marked, “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. The second copy should be marked “confidential” and must clearly and conspicuously identify the business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information and must be marked as described below. Failure to comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise. The Government is not liable for the disclosure or use of unmarked information and may use or disclose such information for any purpose. 120 Page 115 of 142 The cover sheet of the Full Application, and other submission must be marked as follows and identify the specific pages business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information: Notice of Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data: Pages [list applicable pages] of this document may contain business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information that is exempt from public disclosure. Such information shall be used or disclosed only for evaluation purposes or in accordance with a financial assistance agreement between the submitter and the Government. The Government may use or disclose any information that is not appropriately marked or otherwise restricted, regardless of source. [End of Notice] In addition, (1) the header and footer of every page that contains business sensitive, trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information must be marked as follows: “Contains Business Sensitive, Trade Secrets, Proprietary, or Otherwise Confidential Information Exempt from Public Disclosure,” and (2) every line or paragraph containing such information must be clearly marked with double brackets or highlighting. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. E. Evaluation and Administration by Non-Federal Personnel In conducting the technical merit review evaluation, the Go/No-Go Reviews and Peer Reviews, the government may seek the advice of qualified non-federal personnel as reviewers. The government may also use non-federal personnel to conduct routine, nondiscretionary administrative activities, including DOE contractors. The applicant, by submitting its application, consents to the use of non-federal reviewers/administrators. Non-federal reviewers must sign conflict of interest (COI) and non-disclosure acknowledgements (NDA) prior to reviewing an application. Non-federal personnel conducting administrative activities must sign an NDA.-federal personnel conducting administrative activities must sign an NDA. F. Notice Regarding Eligible/Ineligible Activities Eligible activities under this FOA include those which describe and promote the understanding of scientific and technical aspects of specific energy technologies, but not those which encourage or support political activities such as the collection and dissemination of information related to potential, planned or pending legislation. 121 Page 116 of 142 G. Notice of Right to Conduct a Review of Financial Capability DOE reserves the right to conduct an independent third-party review of financial capability for applicants that are selected for negotiation of award (including personal credit information of principal(s) of a small business if there is insufficient information to determine financial capability of the organization).). H. Requirement for Full and Complete Disclosure Applicants are required to make a full and complete disclosure of all information requested. Any failure to make a full and complete disclosure of the requested information may result in: The termination of award negotiations; The modification, suspension, and/or termination of a funding agreement; The initiation of debarment proceedings, debarment, and/or a declaration of ineligibility for receipt of federal contracts, subcontracts, and financial assistance and benefits; and Civil and/or criminal penalties. I.Retention of Submissions DOE expects to retain copies of all Full Applications and other submissions. No submissions will be returned. By applying to DOE for funding, applicants consent to DOE’s retention of their submissions. J.Rights in Technical Data Data rights differ based on whether data is first produced under an award or instead was developed at private expense outside the award. “Limited Rights Data”: The U.S. government will not normally require delivery of confidential or trade secret-type technical data developed solely at private expense prior to issuance of an award, except as necessary to monitor technical progress and evaluate the potential of proposed technologies to reach specific technical and cost metrics. Government Rights in Technical Data Produced Under Awards: The U.S. government normally retains unlimited rights in technical data produced under government financial assistance awards, including the right to distribute to the public. However, pursuant to special statutory authority, certain categories of data generated under DOE awards may be protected from public disclosure for up to five years after the data is generated (“Protected Data”). For awards permitting Protected Data, the protected data must be marked as set forth in the award’s intellectual property terms and conditions and a listing of unlimited rights data (i.e., non-protected data) must be inserted into the data clause in the 122 Page 117 of 142 award. In addition, invention disclosures may be protected from public disclosure for a reasonable time in order to allow for filing a patent application. For this FOA, selectees and recipients may request an extended period of protection (more than five years and not to exceed thirty years) if reasonably required for commercialization for specific categories of data for all Topic Areas first produced under the resulting awards in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 3710a(c)(7)(B)(ii) and the Energy Policy Acts of 1992 and 2005. Further direction will be provided during the negotiation process upon request. K. Copyright The prime recipient and subrecipients may assert copyright in copyrightable works, such as software, first produced under the award without DOE approval. When copyright is asserted, the government retains a paid-up nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and to perform publicly and display publicly the copyrighted work. This license extends to contractors and others doing work on behalf of the government. L. Export Control The U.S. government regulates the transfer of information, commodities, technology, and software considered to be strategically important to the U.S. to protect national security, foreign policy, and economic interests without imposing undue regulatory burdens on legitimate international trade. There is a network of federal agencies and regulations that govern exports that are collectively referred to as “Export Controls”. All recipients and subrecipients are responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable U.S. Export Control laws and regulations relating to any work performed under a resulting award. The recipient must immediately report to DOE any export control violations related to the project funded under the DOE award, at the recipient or subrecipient level, and provide the corrective action(s) to prevent future violations. M. Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment As set forth in 2 CFR 200.216, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending project funds (federal funds and recipient cost share) to: (1) Procure or obtain; (2) Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or 123 Page 118 of 142 (3) Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. As described in Public Law 115-232, section 889, covered telecommunications equipment is telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities). See Public Law 115-232, section 889, and 2 CFR 200.471 for additional information. N. Personally Identifiable Information (PII) All information provided by the applicant must to the greatest extent possible exclude PII. The term “PII” refers to information which can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, such as their name, social security number, biometric records, alone, or when combined with other personal or identifying information which is linked or linkable to a specific individual, such as date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name. (See OMB Memorandum M-07-16 dated May 22, 2007, found at: M-07-16 (whitehouse.gov). By way of example, applicants must screen resumes to ensure that they do not contain PII such as personal addresses, personal landline/cell phone numbers, and personal emails. Under no circumstances should Social Security Numbers (SSNs) be included in the application. Federal agencies are prohibited from the collecting, using, and displaying unnecessary SSNs. (See, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-283, Dec 18, 2014; 44 U.S.C. § 3551). O. Annual Independent Audits If a for-profit entity is a prime recipient and has expended $750,000 or more of DOE awards during the entity's fiscal year, an annual compliance audit performed by an independent auditor is required. For additional information, please refer to 2 CFR 910.501 and Subpart F. If an educational institution, non-profit organization, or state/local government is a prime recipient or subrecipient and has expended $750,000 or more of federal awards during the non-federal entity's fiscal year, then a Single or Program-Specific Audit is required. For additional information, please refer to 2 CFR 200.501 and Subpart F. Applicants and subrecipients (if applicable) should propose sufficient costs in the project budget to cover the costs associated with the audit. DOE will share in the cost of the audit at its applicable cost share ratio. 124 Page 119 of 142 P. Informational Webinars Initial Webinar DOE will conduct one informational webinar at the date and time listed in the table on the FOA cover page prior to concept paper submission due dates. The purpose of this webinar is to give applicants a chance to ask questions about the FOA process generally. As the webinar will be open to all Applicants who wish to participate, Applicants should refrain from asking questions or communicating information that would reveal confidential and/or proprietary information specific to their project. Additional Webinars Additional webinars are scheduled. See below for schedule and agenda information. Webinar registration information will be provided on the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program web page at: Grid Resilience Innovation Partnership Programs | Department of Energy. Questions will not be taken as part of these webinars. February 27 | 1-2 PM EST Agenda This webinar will cover information such as community and labor engagement, advancing Diversity Equity Inclusion and Accessibility, and the Justice40 initiative. As a prospective applicant to the FY 2022/2023 GRIP program, applicants will learn best practices for proposing meaningful Community Benefits Plans with tangible objectives to ensure the best community outcomes as part of these applications. February 28 | 1-3 PM EST Agenda This webinar will provide industry stakeholders with cybersecurity planning to help prospective applicants enhance current efforts to improve the reliability, resiliency, and security of the U.S. power grid. Topics covered will include security risk evaluation, mitigation measures , and other security best practices from early development stages to implementation. The session will be conducted by our expert security team from DOE National Labs and provide training on cybersecurity planning and security best practices. Attendance is not mandatory for the webinars and will not positively or negatively impact the overall review of any applicant submissions. Recordings of the webinars will be made available on the GRIP Program web page at: Grid Resilience Innovation Partnership Programs | Department of Energy. 125 Page 120 of 142 APPENDIX A – COST SHARE INFORMATION Cost Sharing or Cost Matching The terms “cost sharing” and “cost matching” are often used synonymously. Even the DOE Financial Assistance Regulations, 2 CFR 200.306, use both of the terms in the titles specific to regulations applicable to cost sharing. The difference between the two terms is the calculation used to determine the non-federal amount. “Cost sharing” for the non-federal share is calculated as a percentage of the Total Project Cost. “Cost matching” for the non-federal share is calculated as a percentage of the federal funds only, rather than the Total Project Cost. How Cost Sharing Is Calculated As stated above, cost sharing is calculated as a percentage of the Total Project Cost. The following is an example of how to calculate cost sharing amounts for a project with $1,000,000 in federal funds with a minimum 20% non-federal cost sharing requirement: Formula A: Federal share ($) divided by federal share (%) = Total Project Cost ($) Example: $1,000,000 divided by 80% = $1,250,000 Formula B: Total Project Cost ($) minus federal share ($) = Non-federal share ($) Example: $1,250,000 minus $1,000,000 = $250,000 Formula C: Non-federal share ($) divided by Total Project Cost ($) = Non-federal share (%) Example: $250,000 divided by $1,250,000 = 20% How Cost Matching Is Calculated “Cost matching” for the non-federal share is calculated as a percentage of the Federal funds only, rather than the Total Project Cost. The following are examples of how to calculate cost matching amounts for a project with $1,000,000 in federal funds with a minimum 20% non- federal cost matching requirement: Formula D: Federal share ($) multiplied by non-federal share (%) = Non-federal match ($) Example: $1,000,000 multiplied by 20% = $200,000 Formula E: Federal Share ($) plus Non-Federal Match ($) = Total Project Cost ($) Example: $1,000,000 plus $200,000 = $1,200,000 Formula F: Total Project Cost ($) minus federal share ($) = Non-federal match ($) Example: $1,200,000 minus $1,000,000 = $200,000 126 Page 121 of 142 Formula G: Federal share ($) divided by Total Project Cost ($) = Calculated Federal Share of Total Project Cost (%) Example: $1,000,000 divided by $1,200,000 = 83.33% Formula C: Non-Federal share ($) divided by Total Project Cost ($) = Calculated Non- Federal Share of Total Project Cost (%) Example: $200,000 divided by $1,200,000 = 16.67% The tables below provide additional examples of calculation results for the cost match (Topic Area 1) and cost share (Topic Areas 2 and 3) for the three BIL Topic Areas: Maximum Federal Share ($)Entity Type Non-Federal Minimum Match Required (%) Calculated Non- Federal Mininum Match ($)D Total Project Cost ($)E Calculated Federal Share of Total Project Costs (%)G Calculated Non-Federal Share of Total Project Costs (%)c $100,000,000 Eligible Entity (except for Small Utilities)100 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 50 50 $100,000,000 Small Utility 33.33 $33,330,000 $133,330,000 75 25 Topic Area 1: Section 40101 ( c) Grid Resilience Grants ($100M Maximum Grant (Federal Share $). An eligible entity shall be required to match 100% of the amount of the grant (except for Small Utilities must match 1/3 of the grant). Maximum Federal Share ($)Entity Type Non-Federal Cost Share Minimum % of Total Project Costs (%) Calculated Non- Federal Mininum Share ($)B Total Project Cost ($)A Calculated Non- Federal Mininum Share (%)C $50,000,000 Eligible Entity 50 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 50 Topic Area 2: Section 40107 Smart Grid Grants ($50M Maximum Grant (Federal Share $). The non-federal cost share must be at least 50% of the Total Project Costs. 127 Page 122 of 142 What Qualifies For Cost Sharing? While it is not possible to explain what specifically qualifies for cost sharing in one or even a couple of sentences, in general, if a cost is allowable under the cost principles applicable to the organization incurring the cost and is eligible for reimbursement under a DOE grant or cooperative agreement, then it is allowable as cost share. Conversely, if the cost is not allowable under the cost principles and not eligible for reimbursement, then it is not allowable as cost share. In addition, costs may not be counted as cost share if they are paid by the federal government under another award unless authorized by federal statute to be used for cost sharing. The rules associated with what is allowable as cost share are specific to the type of organization that is receiving funds under the grant or cooperative agreement, though are generally the same for all types of entities. The specific rules applicable to: FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities, (48 CFR Part 31); and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. In addition to the regulations referenced above, other factors may also come into play such as timing of donations and length of the project period. For example, the value of ten years of donated maintenance on a project that has a project period of five years would not be fully allowable as cost share. Only the value for the five years of donated maintenance that corresponds to the project period is allowable and may be counted as cost share. Additionally, DOE generally does not allow pre-award costs for either cost share or reimbursement when these costs precede the signing of the appropriation bill that funds the award. In the case of a competitive award, DOE generally does not allow pre-award costs prior to the signing of the Selection Statement by the DOE Selection Official. General Cost Sharing Rules on a DOE Award Federal Share ($) Entity Type Non-Federal Cost Share Minimum % of Total Project Costs (%) Calculated Non- Federal Mininum Share ($)B Total Project Cost ($)A Calculated Non- Federal Mininum Share (%)C $250,000,000 Eligible Entity 50 $250,000,000 $500,000,000 50 $1,000,000,000 Eligible Entity 50 $1,000,000,000 $2,000,000,000 50 Topic Area 3: SECTION 40103 (b) Innovative Grid Resilience Program Example breakdown for $250M and $1B maximum Grant (Federal Share $) The non-federal cost share must be at least 50% of the Total Project Costs. 128 Page 123 of 142 1.Cash Cost Share – encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient or subrecipient(s), for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment 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. 2.In-Kind Cost Share – encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient or subrecipient(s) that do not involve a payment or reimbursement and represent donated items or services. In-Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, donated existing equipment, donated existing supplies. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In-Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share section of the project Budget Justification. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out the In-Kind cost share section of the Budget Justification. 3.Funds from other federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. Non-federal sources include any source not originally derived from federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients must be provided with the original application. 4.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. DOE Financial Assistance Rules 2 CFR Part 200 as amended by 2 CFR Part 910 As stated above, the rules associated with what is allowable cost share are generally the same for all types of organizations. Following are the rules found to be common, but again, the specifics are contained in the regulations and cost principles specific to the type of entity: (A)Acceptable contributions. All contributions, including cash contributions and third-party in-kind contributions, must be accepted as part of the prime recipient's cost sharing if such contributions meet all of the following criteria: (1)They are verifiable from the recipient's records. (2)They are not included as contributions for any other federally-assisted project or program. (3)They are necessary and reasonable for the proper and efficient accomplishment of project or program objectives. 129 Page 124 of 142 (4)They are allowable under the cost principles applicable to the type of entity incurring the cost as follows: a.For-profit organizations. Allowability of costs incurred by for-profit organizations and those nonprofit organizations listed in Attachment C to OMB Circular A–122 is determined in accordance with the for-profit cost principles in 48 CFR Part 31 in the FAR, except that patent prosecution costs are not allowable unless specifically authorized in the award document. (v) Commercial Organizations. FAR Subpart 31.2—Contracts with Commercial Organizations; and b.Other types of organizations. For all other non-federal entities, allowability of costs is determined in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E. (5)They are not paid by the federal government under another award unless authorized by federal statute to be used for cost sharing or matching. (6)They are provided for in the approved budget. (B)Valuing and documenting contributions (1)Valuing recipient's property or services of recipient's employees. Values are established in accordance with the applicable cost principles, which mean that amounts chargeable to the project are determined on the basis of costs incurred. For real property or equipment used on the project, the cost principles authorize depreciation or use charges. The full value of the item may be applied when the item will be consumed in the performance of the award or fully depreciated by the end of the award. In cases where the full value of a donated capital asset is to be applied as cost sharing or matching, that full value must be the lesser or the following: a.The certified value of the remaining life of the property recorded in the recipient's accounting records at the time of donation; or b.The current fair market value. If there is sufficient justification, the Contracting Officer may approve the use of the current fair market value of the donated property, even if it exceeds the certified value at the time of donation to the project. The Contracting Officer may accept the use of any reasonable basis for determining the fair market value of the property. (2)Valuing services of others' employees. If an employer other than the recipient furnishes the services of an employee, those services are valued at the employee's regular rate of pay, provided these services are for the same skill level for which the employee is normally paid. (3)Valuing volunteer services. Volunteer services furnished by professional and technical personnel, consultants, and other skilled and unskilled labor may be 130 Page 125 of 142 counted as cost sharing or matching if the service is an integral and necessary part of an approved project or program. Rates for volunteer services must be consistent with those paid for similar work in the recipient's organization. In those markets in which the required skills are not found in the recipient organization, rates must be consistent with those paid for similar work in the labor market in which the recipient competes for the kind of services involved. In either case, paid fringe benefits that are reasonable, allowable, and allocable may be included in the valuation. (4)Valuing property donated by third parties. a.Donated supplies may include such items as office supplies or laboratory supplies. Value assessed to donated supplies included in the cost sharing or matching share must be reasonable and must not exceed the fair market value of the property at the time of the donation. b.Normally only depreciation or use charges for equipment and buildings may be applied. However, the fair rental charges for land and the full value of equipment or other capital assets may be allowed, when they will be consumed in the performance of the award or fully depreciated by the end of the award, provided that the Contracting Officer has approved the charges. When use charges are applied, values must be determined in accordance with the usual accounting policies of the recipient, with the following qualifications: i.The value of donated space must not exceed the fair rental value of comparable space as established by an independent appraisal of comparable space and facilities in a privately-owned building in the same locality. ii.The value of loaned equipment must not exceed its fair rental value. (5)Documentation. The following requirements pertain to the recipient's supporting records for in-kind contributions from third parties: a.Volunteer services must be documented and, to the extent feasible, supported by the same methods used by the recipient for its own employees. b.The basis for determining the valuation for personal services and property must be documented. 131 Page 126 of 142 APPENDIX B – WAIVER REQUESTS FOR: FOREIGN ENTITY PARTICIPATION; AND FOREIGN WORK Waiver for Foreign Entity Participation For projects selected under this FOA, all recipients and subrecipients must be organized, chartered or incorporated (or otherwise formed) under the laws of a state or territory of the United States and have a physical location for business operations in the United States. To request a waiver of this requirement, an applicant must submit an explicit waiver request in the Full Application. WAIVER CRITERIA Foreign entities seeking to participate in a project funded under this FOA must demonstrate to the satisfaction of DOE that: a.Its participation is in the best interest of the U.S. industry and U.S. economic development; b. The project team has appropriate measures in place to control sensitive information and protect against unauthorized transfer of scientific and technical information; c. Adequate protocols exist between the U.S. subsidiary and its foreign parent organization to comply with export control laws and any obligations to protect proprietary information from the foreign parent organization; d. The work is conducted within the U.S. and the entity acknowledges and demonstrates that it has the intent and ability to comply with the U.S. Competitiveness Provision; and e. The foreign entity will satisfy other conditions that may be deemed necessary by DOE to protect U.S. government interests. Content for Waiver Request A Foreign Entity waiver request must include the following: a. Information about the entity: name, point of contact, and proposed type of involvement with the Institute; b. Country of incorporation, the extent of the ownership/level control by foreign entities, whether the entity is state owned or controlled, a summary of the ownership breakdown of the foreign entity and the percentage of ownership/control by foreign entities, foreign shareholders, foreign state or foreign individuals; c. The rationale for proposing a foreign entity participate (must address criteria above); d. A description of the project’s anticipated contributions to the U.S. economy; 132 Page 127 of 142 How the project will benefit the U.S., including manufacturing, contributions to employment in the U.S. and growth in new markets and jobs in the U.S.; How the project will promote domestic American manufacturing of products and/or services; e. A description of how the foreign entity’s participation is essential to the project; f. A description of the likelihood of Intellectual Property (IP) being created from the work and the treatment of any such IP; and g. Countries where the work will be performed (Note: if any work is proposed to be conducted outside the U.S., the applicant must also complete a separate request foreign work waiver). DOE may also require: A risk assessment with respect to IP and data protection protocols that includes the export control risk based on the data protection protocols, the technology being developed and the foreign entity and country. These submissions could be prepared by the project lead, but the prime recipient must make a representation to DOE as to whether it believes the data protection protocols are adequate and make a representation of the risk assessment – high, medium or low risk of data leakage to a foreign entity. Additional language be added to any agreement or subagreement to protect IP, mitigate risk or other related purposes. DOE may require additional information before considering the waiver request. The applicant does not have the right to appeal DOE’s decision concerning a waiver request. Waiver for Performance of Work in the United States (Foreign Work Waiver) As set forth in Section IV.I.iii., all work under funding under this FOA must be performed in the United States. To seek a waiver of the Performance of Work in the United States requirement, the applicant must submit an explicit waiver request in the Full Application. A separate waiver request must be submitted for each entity proposing performance of work outside of the United States. Overall, a waiver request must demonstrate to the satisfaction of DOE that it would further the purposes of this FOA and is otherwise in the economic interests of the United States to perform work outside of the United States. A request for a foreign work waiver must include the following: The rationale for performing the work outside the U.S. (“foreign work”); A description of the work proposed to be performed outside the U.S.; 133 Page 128 of 142 An explanation as to how the foreign work is essential to the project; A description of the anticipated benefits to be realized by the proposed foreign work and the anticipated contributions to the US economy; The associated benefits to be realized and the contribution to the project from the foreign work; How the foreign work will benefit the U.S., including manufacturing, contributions to employment in the U.S. and growth in new markets and jobs in the U.S.; How the foreign work will promote domestic American manufacturing of products and/or services; A description of the likelihood of Intellectual Property (IP) being created from the foreign work and the treatment of any such IP; The total estimated cost (DOE and recipient cost share) of the proposed foreign work; The countries in which the foreign work is proposed to be performed; and The name of the entity that would perform the foreign work. DOE may require additional information before considering the waiver request. The applicant does not have the right to appeal DOE’s decision concerning a waiver request. 134 Page 129 of 142 APPENDIX C – REQUIRED USE OF IRON, STEEL, MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS, AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS A. Definitions For purposes of the Buy America requirements, the following definitions apply: Construction materials includes an article, material, or supply—other than an item of primarily iron or steel; a manufactured product; cement and cementitious materials; aggregates such as stone, sand, or gravel; or aggregate binding agents or additives56 —that is or consists primarily of: • non-ferrous metals; • plastic and polymer-based products (including polyvinylchloride, composite building materials, and polymers used in fiber optic cables); • glass (including optic glass); • lumber; or • drywall. Applicants may also seek a DOE waiver of domestic procurement requirements based on applicable public interest factors, such as relating to minor components, international trade obligations, or other considerations. Infrastructure includes, at a minimum, the structures, facilities, and equipment for, in the United States, Roads, highways, and bridges; public transportation; Dams, ports, harbors, and other maritime facilities; InterCity passenger and freight railroads; Freight and intermodal facilities; airports; Water systems, including drinking water and wastewater systems; Electrical transmission facilities and systems; utilities; broadband infrastructure; and buildings and real property. Infrastructure includes facilities that generate, transport, and distribute energy. In addition to the above, the infrastructure in question must be publicly-owned or must serve a public function; privately owned infrastructure that is solely utilized for private use is not considered “infrastructure” for purposes of Buy America applicability. The Agency, not the applicant, will have the final say as to whether a given project includes infrastructure, as defined herein. 56 BIL, § 70917(c)(1). 135 Page 130 of 142 For this FOA specifically, all projects subject to this FOA are considered “infrastructure” within the Buy America provision of BIL. Project means the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of infrastructure in the United States. B. Buy America Requirements for Infrastructure Projects (“Buy America” requirements) In accordance with section 70914 of the BIL, none of the project funds (includes federal share and recipient cost share) may be used for a project for infrastructure unless: (1) all iron and steel used in the project are produced in the United States--This means all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States; (2) all manufactured products used in the project are produced in the United States— this means the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States; and the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55 percent of the total cost of all components of the manufactured product, unless another standard for determining the minimum amount of domestic content of the manufactured product has been established under applicable law or regulation; and (3) all construction materials57 are manufactured in the United States—this means that all manufacturing processes for the construction material occurred in the United States. The Buy America requirements only apply to articles, materials, and supplies that are consumed in, incorporated into, or affixed to an infrastructure project. As such, it does not apply to tools, equipment, and supplies, such as temporary scaffolding, brought to the construction site and removed at or before the completion of the infrastructure project. Nor does the Buy America requirements apply to equipment and furnishings, such as movable chairs, desks, and portable computer equipment, that are used at or within the finished infrastructure project, but are not an integral part of the structure or permanently affixed to the infrastructure project. These requirements must flow down to all sub-awards, all contracts, subcontracts and purchase orders for work performed under the proposed project, except where the prime recipient is a for-profit entity. Based on guidance from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-22-11, the Buy America requirements of the BIL do not apply to DOE projects in which the prime recipient is a for-profit entity; the requirements only apply to projects whose prime recipient is a State, local government, Indian tribe, Institution of Higher Education, or nonprofit organization. 57 Excludes cement and cementitious materials, aggregates such as stone, sand, or gravel, or aggregate binding agents or additives. 136 Page 131 of 142 For additional information related to the application and implementation of these Buy America requirements, please see OMB Memorandum M-22-11, issued April 18, 2022: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/M-22-11.pdf Note that for all applicants—both non-Federal entities and for-profit entities—DOE is including a Program Policy Factor that the Selection Official may consider in determining which Full Applications to select for award negotiations that considers whether the applicant has made a commitment to procure U.S. iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials in its project. C. DOE Submission Requirements for Full Application Within the first two pages of the workplan, applicants must provide a short statement on whether the project will involve the construction, alteration, and/or repair of infrastructure in the United States. The ultimate determination about whether a project includes infrastructure remains with DOE, but the applicant’s statement will assist project planning and integration of domestic preference requirements, which may impact the project’s proposed budget. D. Waivers In limited circumstances, DOE may waive the application of the Buy America requirements where DOE determines that: (1) applying the Buy America requirements would be inconsistent with the public interest; (2) the types of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality; or (3) the inclusion of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent. If an applicant is seeking a waiver of the Buy America requirements, it must include a written waiver request with the Full Application. A waiver request must include: A detailed justification for the use of “non-domestic” iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials to include an explanation as to how the non- domestic item(s) is essential to the project A certification that the applicant or recipient made a good faith effort to solicit bids for domestic products supported by terms included in requests for proposals, contracts, and nonproprietary communications with potential suppliers; Applicant /Recipient name and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Total estimated project cost, DOE and cost-share amounts 137 Page 132 of 142 Project description and location (to the extent known) List and description of iron or steel item(s), manufactured goods, and construction material(s) the applicant or recipient seeks to waive from Domestic Content Procurement Preference requirement, including name, cost, country(ies) of origin (if known), and relevant PSC and NAICS code for each. Waiver justification including due diligence performed (e.g., market research, industry outreach) by the applicant or recipient Anticipated impact if no waiver is issued DOE may require additional information before considering the waiver request. Waiver requests are subject to public comment periods of no less than 15 days and must be reviewed by the Made in America Office. There may be instances where an award qualifies, in whole or in part, for an existing waiver described at https://www.madeinamerica.gov/financial- assistance/. The applicant does not have the right to appeal DOE’s decision concerning a waiver request. 138 Page 133 of 142 APPENDIX D – STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES Background/Instructions: Prospective recipients of awards funded from Funding Opportunity Announcement DE-FOA-0002740 (FOA 2740) must prepare/submit a detailed statement of project objectives (SOPO) that addresses how the project objectives will be met. The SOPO must contain a clear, concise description of all activities that will be completed during project performance and follow the structure/format outlined below. Since the SOPO may be released (in whole or in part) to the public by the Department of Energy (DOE) after award, it shall not contain proprietary or confidential business information. The SOPO generally consists of less than five (5) pages to describe the proposed work. Prospective recipients of FOA 2740 funding (FOA 2740 Recipient) shall prepare the SOPO according to the format provided in the SOPO template and in accordance with the application content and form requirements identified in Section IV Of the FOA. This Background/Instructions section as well as italicized text in the SOPO template is intended to be instructional, is provided as guidance, and should be removed by the FOA 2740 recipient when preparing their SOPO. All other text (shown as normal font within the SOPO template) is to be included in the proposed SOPO. In writing the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO), avoid: 1) the use of proper nouns to minimize SOPO modifications in the event of changes to the project team, facilities, etc.; 2) figures and equations; 3) references to other documents and publications; and 4) details about past work and discussion of technical background (which should be covered elsewhere in the application narrative). [*****BEGININNING OF SOPO TEMPLATE*****] STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES (SOPO) Title of Project (Insert the title of the work to be performed. Be concise and descriptive) A. OBJECTIVES Clearly and concisely describe the objective(s) of the project. If the project includes multiple phases of work, describe the objective(s) for each phase. This section should not exceed one-half page. B. SCOPE OF WORK 139 Page 134 of 142 Summarize the planned effort and approach to achieve the proposed overall project objectives. For projects that involve multiple phases of work, specific scope statement(s) should be defined for each phase. This section should not exceed one-half page. C. TASKS TO BE PERFORMED Unless otherwise stated, all SOPOs will include tasks for Project Management Plan, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance, and Cybersecurity Plan (CSP) as instructed below. Further, the applicant should include clear and concise descriptions of their planned tasks (and subtasks if needed). Tasks are to be organized in a logical sequence and grouped into corresponding phases, if applicable. Task 1.0: Project Management and Planning Subtask 1.1 – Project Management Plan (PMP): Within 30 days of award, the Recipient shall submit a Project Management Plan (PMP) to the designated Federal Project Officer (FPO). The Recipient shall not proceed beyond Task 1.0 until the PMP has been accepted by the FPO. 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. The Recipient shall manage and direct the project in accordance with the accepted PMP to meet all technical, schedule and budget objectives and requirements. The Recipient will coordinate activities to effectively accomplish the work. The Recipient will ensure that project plans, results, and decisions are appropriately documented, and that project reporting and briefing requirements are satisfied. Subtask 1.2: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance As required, the Recipient shall provide the documentation necessary for NEPA compliance. Subtask 1.3: Cybersecurity Plan (CSP)* The CSP shall be revised and resubmitted as often as necessary, during the course of the project, to capture any major/significant changes. *Applicable to Topic Area 2 [Smart Grid Investments (40107)] and Topic Area 3 (Innovative Grid Resilience Program (40103(b)) only Subtask 1.4: Continuation Briefing(s): 140 Page 135 of 142 The Recipient will brief DOE on roughly an annual basis to explain the plans, progress and results of the technical effort. The briefing shall also describe performance relative to project success criteria, milestones, and the Go/No-Go Decision point that are documented in the Project Management Plan (PMP). Include additional tasks and subtasks as appropriate using the following format. For projects that involve multiple phases of work, label the start of each phase (such as “Phase 1”, etc.), state the title, and provide a brief narrative describing the objective(s) and scope for the phase. Task 2.0 - (State title of task and provide description) Subtask 2.1 - (State title of subtask and provide description) Task 3.0 - (State title of task and provide description) Subtask 3.1 - (State title of subtask and provide description) Task 4.0 - (State title of task and provide description Subtask 4.1 - (State title of subtask and provide description) D. DELIVERABLES The Recipient shall include a list of deliverables that will be submitted during the project. Subtask 1.1: Project Management Plan Subtask 1.3 – Cybersecurity Plan (*if applicable) Subtask 1.4 – Pre-Continuation Briefing Document(s) List additional deliverables as appropriate including any documents that will be delivered to DOE. In addition to the deliverables listed above, the Recipient shall submit all periodic, topical, final, and other reports in accordance with the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist and accompanying instructions. E. BRIEFINGS/TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS The Recipient shall prepare, and present periodic briefings, technical presentations and demonstrations as requested by the Federal Project Officer, which may be held at a DOE or the Recipient’s facility, other mutually agreeable location, or via webinar. Such meetings may include all or a combination of the following: 141 Page 136 of 142 Kickoff Briefing - Not more than 30 days after submission of the Project Management Plan, the Recipient shall prepare and present a project summary briefing as part of a Project Kickoff Meeting. Pre-Continuation Briefing - Not less than 90 days prior to the planned start of a budget period, the Recipient shall brief the DOE on the results to date, and their plans for the subsequent periods of work. The DOE will consider the information from this briefing, as well as the content of deliverables submitted to date, prior to authorizing continuing the project. Final Project Briefing - Not less than 30 days prior to the end of the project, the Recipient shall prepare and present a Final Project Briefing on the results and accomplishments of the entire project. Other Briefings – The Recipient shall prepare and present technical, financial, and/or administrative briefings as requested by the DOE. Additionally, the DOE may require Recipients to make technical presentations at national and/or industry conferences. [*****END OF SOPO TEMPLATE*****] 142 Page 137 of 142 APPENDIX E – CYBERSECURITY PLAN In accordance with BIL Section 40126, DOE requires Topic Area 2 and Topic Area 3 awardees to submit a cybersecurity plan during award negotiations and prior to receiving funding.58 These plans are intended to foster a cybersecurity-by-design approach59 for BIL efforts. The Department will also use these plans to ensure effective integration and coordination across its research, development, and demonstration programs. The Department recommends using open guidance and standards such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), the DOE Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) cybersecurity performance goals for critical infrastructure and control systems.60 The cybersecurity plan created pursuant to Section 40126 should document any deviation from open standards, as well as the utilization of proprietary standards where the awardee determines that such deviation is necessary. Cybersecurity plans should be commensurate to the threats and vulnerabilities associated with the proposed efforts and demonstrate the cybersecurity maturity of the project. Cybersecurity plans may cover a range of topics relevant to the proposed project, e.g., software development lifecycle, third-party risks, and incident reporting. At a minimum, the Cybersecurity Plan should address questions noted in IIJA section 40126 (b) ‘Contents of Cybersecurity Plan’.61 o (1) plans to maintain cybersecurity between networks, systems, devices, applications, or components- (A) within the proposed solution of the project; and (B) at the necessary external interfaces at the proposed solution boundaries; 58 42 USC §18725 59 Security must be baked into the development process, not bolted on. Security risk evaluation and mitigation measures should be an active component in a project (or product) lifecycle – from early development stages to implementation. 60 NERC critical infrastructure protection (CIP) standards for entities responsible for the availability and reliability of the bulk electric system. NIST IR 7628: 2 Smart grid cyber security strategy and requirements. NIST SP800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations: Catalog of security controls in 18 categories, along with profiles for low-, moderate-, and high-impact systems. NIST SP800-82, Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security. NIST SP800-39, Integrated Enterprise-Wide Risk Management: Organization, mission, and information system view. AMI System Security Requirements: Security requirements for advanced metering infrastructure. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 27001, Information Security Management Systems: Guidance on establishing governance and control over security activities (this document must be purchased). IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 1686-2007, Standard for Substation Intelligent Electronic Devices (IEDs) Cyber Security Capabilities (this document must be purchased). DOE Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2). CISA cybersecurity performance goals for critical infrastructure and control systems directed by the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems, found at https://www.cisa.gov/cpgs 61 42 USC §18725 143 Page 138 of 142 o (2) will perform ongoing evaluation of cybersecurity risks to address issues as the issues arise throughout the life of the proposed solution; o (3) will report known or suspected network or system compromises of the project to DOE; and o (4) will leverage applicable cybersecurity programs of the Department, including cyber vulnerability testing and security engineering evaluations. Projects receiving funding under this program must utilize open protocols and standards (including Internet-based protocols and standards) if available and appropriate.62 62 42 USC §17386(e)(1)(B) 144 Page 139 of 142 APPENDIX F – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ASSURANCES DOCUMENT TEMPLATE (PDAD) Project title: Applicant Name: Applicant Address: Names of all team member organizations (if applicable): Principal Investigator (Name, Address if different than Applicant’s, Phone Number, E-mail): Business Point of Contact (Name, Address if different than Applicant’s, Phone Number, E-mail): Include any statements regarding confidentiality. Federal Share: Cost Share: Total Estimated Project Cost: Item 1: Specify (mark with “X”)” the FOA Topic Area and as applicable the Area of Interest (AOI): ________Topic Area 1: Grid Resilience Grants (BIL section 40101(c)) ________Topic Area 2: Smart Grid Grants (BIL section 40107) ________Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Program (BIL section 40103(b)) – Area of Interest 1 (Transmission System Applications) ________Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Program (BIL section 40103(b)) – Area of Interest 2 (Distribution System Applications) ________Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Program (BIL section 40103(b)) – Area of Interest 3 (Combination System Applications) TOPIC AREA 1 Specific Items: Item 2: Specify (mark with “X”)” the entity type of the applicant organization: ________electric grid operator ________electricity storage operator ________electricity generator 145 Page 140 of 142 ________transmission owner or operator ________distribution provider ________fuel supplier If further description is needed for the specified entity type, please provide below: Item 3: Please provide the total amount (USD) of qualifying resilience investments (as outlined in DE-FOA-00002740) that has been spent for the previous 3 years. Please also provide the time period utilized for calculation of this amount. Total Amount: Time Period for Resilience Investments: Note: Topic Area 1 applicants must submit as part of their application, a report detailing past, current, and future efforts by the eligible entity to reduce the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events. This report should include efforts over at least the previous 3 years and at least the next 3 years and any broader resilience strategy used by the applicant. Item 4: Is the eligible entity a Small Utility as defined in DE-FOA-0002740 (sells no more than 4,000,000 MWh of electricity per year)? If NO is selected, skip to Item 7. ________Yes ________No Note: If YES, applicant must provide their Form 861 for the last reporting year submitted to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Item 5: Per BIL section 40101(e)(2) (C) APPLICATION LIMITATIONS.—An eligible entity may not submit an application for a grant provided by the Secretary under subsection (c) and a grant provided by a State or Indian Tribe pursuant to subsection (d) during the same application cycle. Therefore, is the eligible entity a Subaward/Subcontract recipient for an application submitted under IIJA Section 40101(d), ALRD 2736? If “YES”, please describe the differences between the GRIP FOA 2740 application [40101(c)] and the ALRD 2736 [40101(d)] applications in the box below: ________Yes 146 Page 141 of 142 ________No TOPIC AREA 2 Specific No items TOPIC AREA 3 Specific Item 6: Specify (mark with “X”)” the entity type of the applicant organization: ________a State ________a combination of 2 or more States ________an Indian Tribe ________a unit of local government ________a public utility commission If further description is needed for the specified entity type, please provide below: Item 7: Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR): please provide name, address, phone number and e- mail address for the authorized agent to bind the entity 147 Page 142 of 142 Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR): Name: Address: Phone: E-mail: Item 8: Signature of Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) ____________________________________- 148 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Concept Paper Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (RIR) Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Applicant: The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) representing the State of Alaska Technical Point of Contact: Bryan Carey, Director of Owned Assets, AEA Business Point of Contact: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, AEA The AEA and Railbelt electric 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 team consists of: 1.AEA 2.Chugach Electric Association Inc. (CEA), a Central Region cooperative 3.Golden Valley Electric Association Inc. (GVEA), a Northern Region cooperative 4.Homer Electric Association Inc. (HEA), a Southern Region cooperative 5.Matanuska Electric Association Inc. (MEA), a Central Region cooperative (MEA) 6.The City of Seward, Alaska dba Seward Electric System (SES), a Southern Region municipal utility 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 Project Location: All three regions (Northern, Central, and Southern) of the Alaska Railbelt electrical grid and the Eastern Region1. 1 Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) 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 149 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 1 Project and Technical Description Alaska and the nation are at a crossroads of the need to develop a fuel-diverse, low-carbon economy, and a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in infrastructure. At this intersection, the collective mission of the Railbelt utilities and the State of Alaska 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 the 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. The Railbelt Innovation Resiliency project (RIR or Project), the subject of this GRIP Topic 3 Concept Paper, is one of a series of projects that constitute the Railbelt’s Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP or Plan)2. The RIR effort proposed in this Topic 3 funding cycle will construct an interregional transmission line (including a high voltage direct current (HVDC) submarine cable) parallel to the single line that currently ties the Southern and Central regions together. The project includes two Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), one each in the Central and Northern regions, to augment the existing 46 MW, 2-hour battery in the Southern Region. The HVDC line and batteries will be operated and controlled simultaneously in real time to maximize transfer capability between regions and minimize spinning reserve requirements, improving resiliency and allowing the transfer of renewable energy. Discussion on how this project fulfills the GRIP FOA eligibility requirements begins on page 10 of this document. The team assembled for this project includes stakeholder outreach experts, engineers, project managers, and the executive-level decision makers for the Railbelt utilities and AEA. The team will work diligently to integrate other regional stakeholders into the process, as described in the Community Benefits Plan section. The project team intends to apply in subsequent cycles for funding to complete the transmission line between the Southern and Northern regions by extending the transmission line in this funding request from the Central Region to Healy in the Northern Region. In the final funding cycle, the project team will submit the completion of RIR Phase 2, constructing a transmission line integrating the Copper Valley in the Eastern Region into the Railbelt grid and providing an alternate path to feed the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system and Black Rapids Arctic Warfare Training Center at Fort Greely in the Northern Region. 2 The GMRP consists of interregional transmission interconnection improvements and a coordinated energy storage/HVDC system: More specifically these are: 1) upgrades to the Railbelt Backbone, the Railbelt’s existing transmission system (the Railbelt Backbone Rebuild) 2) a second interregional tie between the Southern, Central, and Northern regions, 3) battery energy storage systems (BESS) in each region operating in real-time coordination with an HVDC system to maximize transfer capability and minimize spinning reserve requirements, and 4) an interregional tie between the Central and Northern regions integrating the Copper River Valley (currently a stand- alone system) into the Railbelt grid and providing a second feed into the U.S. Department of Defense GMD system at Fort Greely. 150 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 2 Fort Greely is currently served by a single radial transmission line from Fairbanks. These subsequent projects would complete the full GMRP. Grip Topic 3 is coordinated with but distinct from the project team’s requests in GRIP Topics 1 and 2. In GRIP Topic 1 the team is seeking federal assistance for the reconstruction of the antiquated and end of useful life transmission assets that comprise the existing transmission system backbone. In GRIP Topic 2, the Railbelt utilities and AEA are seeking federal assistance for design and procurement of the interregional battery-HVDC control and monitoring system, which would provide simultaneous interregional control. In Grip Topic 3, this concept paper, the project team is seeking assistance in constructing the actual HVDC line and BESSs. Although the GMRP in total provides the greatest benefit to Alaska and the strongest opportunity to advance federal policy interests, each of its components provide value in their own right. The team will seek funding to complete the entire GMRP; however, as noted below, without significant federal and state assistance the GMRP will take many decades to complete. Through the GMRP, there exists an opportunity for a transformational series of transmission infrastructure improvements estimated to cost ~$2.87 B. Successful and accelerated implementation of the GMRP will prepare the Railbelt grid in terms of resiliency and reliability necessary for the development of a more fuel diverse low carbon future in Alaska that can serve as a model for the rest of the United States and the world. Given the nature of the Railbelt and the disparate socioeconomic status and vast diversity of its communities as described below, learnings from this undertaking will be broadly applicable to the larger grids of the contiguous lower forty-eight states and North America. As described in this concept paper, the Railbelt grid is an isolated3, long-distance, fully functioning electric grid built on a relatively small scale that serves nearly three quarters of Alaska’s population. Yet, the grid’s aging infrastructure is inadequate by traditional industry standards. For example, although Alaska is not regulated by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), NERC standards would require the construction of the GMRP projects to meet its reliability and resiliency standards. The GRIP provides an opportunity to successfully modernize the Railbelt grid to support the state’s isolated population core and to facilitate decarbonization of the broader Alaska economy. The AEA and the Railbelt utilities are investigating large-scale, known-resource wind projects in the Northern Region near Fairbanks; in the Central Region on the east and west sides of Cook Inlet; and in the Southern Region north of Kachemak Bay and the upper Gulf of Alaska near the mouth of Cook Inlet. Additionally, AEA and the Railbelt utilities are investigating hydroelectric resources in the Southern Region, solar farms in the Central and Southern regions, and potential hydroelectric resources in the Eastern Region. The economics of integrating any of these projects into the Railbelt grid will require the participation of all five Railbelt electric utilities, the State, and in the case of the Eastern Region, CVEA, a stand-alone, islanded electric utility. For these utilities to participate in any of these renewable or low carbon energy projects, firm transmission access to generation resources must be assured. Firm transmission access will 3 The Railbelt is a stand-alone grid not interconnected with any other electric system. 151 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 3 require completion of the GMRP. Thus, GMRP completion is the key to decarbonizing the Railbelt grid. Due to the population diversity within the Railbelt and scale of the infrastructure, the federal government has an opportunity to utilize the Railbelt grid as a model to demonstrate both the objectives and vision of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and other initiatives. The lessons learned from this demonstration will have broad applicability to the larger grids of the contiguous lower forty-eight states. The project team looks forward to collaborating with the national labs to ensure such learnings are transferred to national stakeholders. As discussed more fully in the Community Benefits Plan section, the Railbelt region is home to numerous federally recognized tribes and disadvantaged and underserved communities. There are over 200 federally recognized tribes in Alaska, many in the Railbelt region, and based on the 2010 census Anchorage is home to the three most culturally diverse census tracts in the U.S. (followed closely by Queens, New York)4. One hundred and ten languages are spoken in the Anchorage School District alone.5 With this socially and economically diverse makeup, the Railbelt is the ideal area for the federal government to demonstrate how the benefits of the IIJA can be maximized. The Railbelt serves five military bases, as depicted in Figure 1, each with a vital strategic importance to U.S. national security. These critical bases contribute to the national defense through airborne infantry, military intelligence, mid-course missile defense, global telecommunications downlink infrastructure, Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR), F-16, F-22, and F-35 high-speed intercept capability, and Coast Guard, among other ways. As noted in the White House’s Indo-Pacific Strategy (February 2022), these defense capabilities are vital to our national security and prosperity. The GMRP will support the transition of Alaska-based U.S. Department of Defense assets to a low-carbon future and improve resiliency by building a redundant transmission line to serve the GMD system near Ft. Greely. The Railbelt is essential to the broader state economy. The Port of Alaska, a federally designated Strategic Seaport in Anchorage, serves as the primary point of entry for virtually all cargo, building material, fuel, and food for most of the state’s population. Additionally, the Ted 4 https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/most-diverse-place-in-america/index.html 5 https://www.asdk12.org/aboutasd/ Railbelt Military Bases Figure 1: Military Bases Served by the Railbelt Grid 152 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 4 Stevens Anchorage International Airport is the fourth largest international airport in the world in terms of cargo throughput (approximately 50% of the air cargo between North America and Asia), making its decarbonization of global importance. Alaska is home to significant mining operations including for rare earth metals critical to national security and other strategic imperatives. These assets are vital to the economy and security of both Alaska and the nation. The RIR will deliver broad and substantial benefits to the Railbelt and the state. Those benefits include improved regional and interregional reliability, resiliency and transfer capacity, increased ability to integrate renewable and other low carbon energy projects, reduction in carbon emissions and transmission system losses, increasing geographic and technological diversity of the Railbelt grid generation portfolio, facilitation of decarbonized beneficial electrification, and the eventual decarbonization of the electric grid. More significantly, over time this project and the broader GMRP will help stabilize electric rates throughout the state. Alaskans pay some of the highest electric rates in the country6, which disproportionately impact the disadvantaged and underserved. Stabilizing Railbelt rates will in turn help address the even higher cost of energy in rural Alaska not served by the Railbelt, with close to 30% of the state’s population. The state’s innovative, equity-sharing Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program7 mitigates rural costs using a formula based in part on the price of Railbelt electricity. This program spreads benefits realized by investment in the Railbelt to virtually every village in Alaska, most of which are Disadvantaged Communities. The GRIP program objectives are met and complimented by the State’s and utilities’ goal of a resilient, clean, and low-cost electrical network that supports sustainable economic development in the region, decarbonization, and cost-effective energy delivery. All the Railbelt electric utilities are either electric cooperatives or, in the case of the City of Seward Electric System (SES), municipally owned8. Thus, virtually all benefits from this grid modernization effort flow directly to the member-owners, the residents, businesses, and communities of the Railbelt, and indirectly to the rest of the State through PCE. The Railbelt is effectively a proving ground where the Department of Energy (DOE) and other federal agencies can evaluate and successfully demonstrate transmission resiliency improvements in preparation for electric decarbonization, both technically and on a community basis. Notably, this can be achieved at a relatively low cost in the Railbelt grid. The RIR project will have the full support and cooperation of the State and utility project team. This team consists of representatives of the State of Alaska and each of the five Railbelt electric utilities9, and of the 6 Energy Information Administration (EIA) form EIA-826. 7 The Community Benefits Plan section beginning on Page 13 provides additional discussion on Power Cost Equalization. 8 The City of Seward, a municipal, public power utility at ~1% of total Railbelt electricity demand. 9 The five Railbelt Electric Utilities consist of Golden Valley Electric Association Inc. in the Northern Region, Matanuska Electric Association Inc., and Chugach Electric Association Inc. in the Central Region, and Seward Electric System and Homer Electric System Inc. in the Southern Region. 153 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 5 RCA, the state’s utility regulator10. The team members are committed to the GMRP, subject to governance board approvals and vetting through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The State and the Railbelt utilities are committed to upgrading the regional and interregional transmission system. On December 2, 2022, AEA closed on a bond package for $166M, 65% of which will be dedicated to transmission line reconstruction and 35% to the three regional grid stabilization BESSs. The Railbelt utilities will pay the debt service on this bond package. In later funding cycles, other segments of the RIR will be constructed as study work is completed and regional and interregional approval is obtained. State funding assistance11 to help close the gap between utility funding and federal assistance is being pursued. The team plans to apply for all applicable IIJA and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) federal assistance for GMRP projects. In addition, the team is seeking State appropriations to augment federal funds. The GMRP upgraded grid will create an unrestricted electron freeway and allow the Railbelt to optimize the use of cost-effective, low-carbon technologies by eliminating current technical and geographic constraints of the transmission system. Background The Railbelt Grid The Railbelt electric grid is unique in North America as it is a fully functioning, long-distance electrical grid with a relatively small load. The Railbelt is characterized by three load-generation regions. These load- generation concentrations are known as the Northern Region (Fairbanks-Delta Junction), the Central Region (Anchorage- Matanuska-Susitna Valleys, and Southern Region (the Kenai Peninsula). The Southern and Central regions are joined by a single, 140 mile long 115 kV transmission line through many avalanche areas. The Central and Northern regions are connected by a 169-mile, 138 kV line through mountainous 10 On January 4, 2023, the RCA unanimously passed the following motion “I [Commissioner Pickett] will make a motion that the RCA be considered as a [Alaska Railbelt GRIP] team member subject to any legal restrictions we may have and to consider probably in the format of an I docket, uncommon or innovative regulatory structures [to incentivize transmission investment].” 11The October 26,2022 letter from Railbelt utility managers to Governor Michael Dunleavy is available for review. Railbelt Grid Figure 2: Alaska’s Relative Size 154 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 6 terrain accessible only by helicopter. The grid provides electricity to approximately 70% of the state's population 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 the Northern Region, roughly the distance from Washington, DC, to Atlanta, Georgia, as depicted in Figure 2. The grid traverses inhospitable, mountainous, subarctic terrain. 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 Inlet12 to remote helicopter/riverboat -access-only river crossings and numerous transmission structures at high elevations in this subarctic environment. Unlike numerous areas in the contiguous lower forty-eight states, the Railbelt has received minimal federal investment in grid development over Alaska’s history. The Eklutna Hydroelectric Project, initially constructed in the 1950s, was the last major federal project in the Railbelt that included a transmission line component. A portion of 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 the Railbelt’s Central Region utilities in the early 1990s. The Railbelt’s Northern Region is loosely interconnected, primarily at 69 kV and 138 kV. The Central Region is moderately well interconnected with multiple 230, 138, and 115 kV lines. The Southern Region is interconnected at 115 kV but includes a radial feed to the SES system. 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 and a lack of transmission lines. A generation contingency reserve-sharing pool exists between all three regions. Because the transmission interconnections are vulnerable to single contingencies, each region is responsible for its own operating and off-line reserves. Due to the relatively feeble regional interconnections, 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 transient stability and large-scale, 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 volt-amps-reactive (VAR) compensators at critical locations. The grid operates under a subset of NERC standards modified to account for the scale, nature, and economic limitations of the interconnection (the grid's system bias is variable and ranges from 3-10 MW/.1 hertz). In 2024 these standards will become mandatory and enforceable under a recently certificated electric reliability organization, the Railbelt Reliability Council. The grid has a sophisticated under-frequency load shed scheme which sheds load to match generation in four stages with varying time delays and includes frequency rate of change relays. Traditional day-ahead and real-time security constrained economic dispatch are run in 12 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 30.3 feet and contains an endangered subspecies of the beluga whale. 155 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 7 each Load Balancing Area (LBA) with net interchange, and frequency monitored and managed to Alaska Standard AK BAL-001 which incorporates 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 (the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, and ERCOT), which resolve in tens of minutes. The grid's peak demand is roughly 750 MW compared to ERCOT's 13 peak demand of 85,000 MW. The grid's annual energy consumption is approximately 4,800 GWH compared to ERCOT’s at 339,000 GWH. The Railbelt Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan 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 contributing to a shift in popular sentiment about energy and the environment. Regionally, uncertainty around declining Cook Inlet natural gas 14 and broader fuel supply issues for the utilities is a critical – and shared – challenge looming on the near-term horizon. In response to this shared challenge, the State and Railbelt utilities have 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 (the focus of this funding request) is a component. We intend to submit the GMRP as the Railbelt’s contribution to Alaska’s broader State Energy Security Plan as that document is developed in the coming months. Figure 3 is a graphic representation of the current Railbelt grid with the GMRP components overlaid. The GMRP components that comprise the RIR 2022-23 funding cycle project costs are highlighted in yellow. A more detailed geographic GMRP map with component projects and estimated costs is available upon request. 13 ERCOT is by far the smallest of the North American interconnections. 14 Natural gas is used to generate 80% of the electricity in the Railbelt and is also the primary source of energy for home heating in the Central and Southern regions. Figure 3: RIR Components in Current Funding Cycle 156 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 8 In the 2022-23 GRIP Topic 3 funding cycle, the State and utilities are requesting $298,600,000, representing 50% of the 2022-23 RIR project costs. The same team will seek federal assistance for the remaining project costs in subsequent Topic 3 funding cycles. Figure 4 is a graphic representation of the Railbelt system with an overlay of the GMRP. The entire RIR project (topic of this concept paper) is highlighted in yellow. The Railbelt Backbone Reconstruction is highlighted in red, and the BESS-HVDC control project (at locations highlighted with the blue “C”) comprise the remainder of the GMRP15. The estimated total cost for the GMRP is $2.87B over 15 years. Given the Railbelt’s small population, without significant federal and state investment the GMRP and its RIR component would take many decades to finance and construct. The costs are too high for the limited number of Railbelt customers to absorb. This delay will in turn hinder the Railbelt’s ability to decarbonize both the grid and the broader economy. The project team intends to apply for federal funding for specific GMRP components in each of the five funding periods of the GRIP and IRA, and also USDA Rural Utility Services (RUS) loan programs. In addition to these federal requests, the team is seeking state funding with the remainder of plan costs to be funded by Railbelt utilities. The utilities have requested, and the RCA has agreed, to evaluate innovative ratemaking strategies to promote the completion of the GMRP, e.g., accelerated application of costs to rate base or forward funding of project costs, among others.16 15 Subjects of the project team’s Topics 1 and 2 concept papers. 16 The RCA is the statutorily authorized regulator of the Railbelt electric utilities. The RCA discussion to evaluate innovative ratemaking strategies can be found in the minutes of the RCA’s January 4, 2023, special public meeting at https://rca.alaska.gov/RCAWeb/MeetingDetails/CommissionMeetingDetails.aspx?id=f44c5897-045b-4d7c-a59b- d650bdb52a2e Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency Project Cost 2022-2023 2024-27 Southern Region to Central Region HVDC Cable and Regional Battery Energy Storage $597,100,000 $870,400,000 Figure 4: RIR, RBR and BESS-HVDC Projects Comprising the Railbelt Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP) 157 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 9 The priority improvements required to allow diversification of the Railbelt fuel supply and decarbonization of the Railbelt grid must be providing frequency stability and decongesting the transmission system. These improvements are required irrespective of the nature of fuel supply diversity and decarbonization solutions. In 2010, the Railbelt's frequency was equal to 60 Hz. approximately 44 % of the time. By 2021, the grid operated at 60 Hz about 17% of the time. The primary causes of this deterioration of frequency control are the introduction of lighter, more efficient aero-derivative turbines, efficiency-driven (as opposed to response-driven) plant control systems, and the introduction of non-dispatchable renewables in the form of solar and wind generators. Stabilizing frequency and decongesting the grid will require upgrading existing transmission lines and building a new transmission interconnection from the Southern Region to the Central Region and on to Healy in the Northern Region, and development of a regional BESS-HVDC real-time control and optimization scheme. These steps are the core of the GMRP. A subsequent phase will include a transmission interconnection from Wasilla in the Central Region to Glenallen in the Eastern Region, and north to interconnect with the GVEA system at Fort Greely and the GMD System in the Northern Region. The following table estimates the high-level GMRP timeline and associated estimated costs. The priority and timing of projects may vary given the outcome of funding opportunities17, NEPA processes, the evolving nature of low carbon generation development, and Cook Inlet fuel supply changes. The Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project The subject of this concept paper is the RIR, which is: • Construction of transmission lines and an HVDC submarine cable paralleling the existing single transmission line between the Southern and Central regions • Construction of two large-scale BESSs, one in the Northern Region and one in the Central Region, which will augment the existing 46 MW, 2-hour battery in the Southern Region These three batteries and the HVDC line will be operated in a coordinated, simultaneous fashion, in real-time, to maximize transfer capability and minimize spinning reserve requirements. The need for constructing a resilient transmission grid with multiple interregional interconnections was established in studies beginning with the development of the Bradley Lake Project in the late 1980s and confirmed as recently as 2017 in AEA’s Railbelt Regional 17 Full funding of requests in GRIP Topics 1, 2, and 3 may accelerate the 2023-2027 effort, pushing it above the estimated $934,000,000. Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP) Decarbonization and Fuel Diversity Transmission Build-Out 2023-2027 2028-2032 2035-2037 Southern Region (Kenai Peninsula) to Central Region (Anchorage Mat-Su) + Energy Storage $934,000,000 Central Region to Northern Region (Fairbanks-Delta Junction) Phase 1 $981,000,000 Central Region to Northern Region Phase 2 and Roadbelt (Wasilla-Glenallen-Delta Junction)$958,000,000 Total Fifteen Year Transmission Spend $2,873,000,000 158 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 10 Integrated Resource Transmission Plan. The RIR components addressed in this concept paper have historically received broad support within the Railbelt. This support will aid in moving the projects more quickly to design, permitting and construction. Project Eligibility and Area of Interest The RIR project meets the DOE’s objectives as expressed in the Topic 3, Area of Interest 1: Transmission System Applications18, as detailed below: 1. Investments and strategies that accelerate interconnection of clean energy generation and/or storage: Railbelt grid frequency stabilization and transmission system decongestion will allow development of large-scale interregional wind and solar projects by improving their economic and technical viability. With a reinforced transmission system, the geographical diversity of wind and solar will contribute to reduced storage requirements. The more robust transmission system will also allow interregional planning and dispatching stored resources, which will reduce storage resources required in individual regions. These improvements will also enable beneficial electrification on a large-scale, e.g., electric vehicles and space heating. 2. Interregional or cross-ISO/RTO projects that address key grid reliability, flexibility, and/or resilience challenges: The three Railbelt regions (Southern, Central, and Northern) are joined by single transient stability limited interconnections. The RIR project will remove single contingency constraints and increase interregional transfer capacity. 3. Projects addressing grid access challenges for remote, stranded, or novel low-carbon resources: The improved interregional grid (in terms of resilience and improved transfer capability) will increase the economic viability of and thus increase utility participation in geographically diverse wind and solar projects by enabling greater scale and driving per- unit costs down. From a technical perspective, stabilizing grid frequency and maximizing or eliminating transient stability limits and small-signal instability susceptibility will allow a larger scale integration of non-dispatchable renewables. Railbelt-wide coordination of BESS/HVDC resources will increase the amount of renewables sustainable in the Railbelt without increasing the amount of BESS resources. 4. Planning, modeling, cost allocation, or other approaches that enable a transition to innovative financial and/or regulatory constructs that accelerate transmission expansion: RCA participation in the RIR and broader GMRP efforts will likely create an innovative regulatory framework that allows the utilities to maximize their financial participation in this project and others, e.g., early inclusion of transmission construction costs in rates or forward funding of portions of these costs, thereby minimizing carrying costs. 5. Underground or underwater HVDC systems in challenging environments: The Nikiski to Beluga HVDC submarine cable will cross Cook Inlet, a challenging marine environment. 18 Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number: DE-FOA-0002740 pp 31-32 159 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 11 Cook Inlet is laden with glacial silt corrosive to armored cables19; has some of the highest tides in the world, peaking at 30 feet; is home to an endangered subspecies of beluga whale; and hosts numerous subsea petroleum and natural gas pipelines. 6. Capacity enhancing approaches such as advanced conductors, dynamic line rating systems: The geographically disparate combined BESS-HVDC system will be controlled in a real-time, coordinated fashion that provides real-time, dynamic maximization of transfer capability and minimization of spinning reserves. 7. Congestion management techniques including energy storage and integrated controls: See 6 above. 8. Transmission-scale reactive power devices: The BESSs are four-quadrant devices providing both real and reactive support, controlled and tuned to operate in dynamic synchronism with the six existing static VAR compensators. 9. Power flow controllers for AC or High voltage Direct Current (HVDC) systems: See 6 above. Project Grid Benefits The RIR project will simultaneously increase transfer capability and resiliency between the three Railbelt regions. Currently, transfers are vulnerable to interruption due to the lack of resiliency and reliability that will be resolved via the RIR by second ties between the regions. Increased transfer capability reduces security constrained economic dispatch (SCED) constraints, resulting in more efficient generation dispatch. More efficient SCED will reduce overall fuel burn and reduce carbon emissions, saving money and advancing climate goals. Further, firm transmission capability and increased transfer capability will allow geographically diverse utilities to participate economically in renewables, by increasing economies of scale and reducing per-unit costs of renewables. Energy resiliency will be greatly improved by allowing energy sources in all three regions to participate in electricity restoration as opposed to limiting resiliency measures to three individual areas. Ultimately the RIR project, as a component of the larger GMRP, will improve resiliency, reliability, and efficiency, and facilitate the integration of additional renewables and variable generation whether in the Southern, Central, or Northern regions. Improving transmission security between the three areas will extend to all regions the benefits of geographically diverse renewables. With completion of the RIR effort contemplated under this funding cycle, the benefits noted above will extend in full to the Southern Region and in part to the Central Region. Completion of the broader GMRP (which requires the RIR as an initial component) will accrue the full value of these benefits to the entire Railbelt and Copper Valley. 19 An evaluation by CEA in the mid-1990s showed that of ten 138 kV AC oil-filled undersea cables installed between 1970 and 1990, the average cable life was approximately 15 years versus an industry expectation of 50 years. 160 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 12 Project Risk Reduction DOE investment in the RIR will provide valuable insights for contiguous lower forty-eight states’ grid planners and developers specifically with respect to long-distance, coordinated, real-time control of BESS and HVDC systems from real and reactive power perspectives. Applications of this technology will be particularly useful in isolated pockets of the larger contiguous lower forty-eight states where transient or small-signal instability present a challenge. There are several know project risks which we will address proactively; for example, the beluga whale endangered species challenge will be mitigated by early engagement with stakeholders, appropriate whale watch protocols, and bubble acoustic sound deadening construction techniques. Early bathymetry development and engagement with pipeline owners and state permitting will optimize circuit routing and minimize conflicts, e.g., cathodic protection. The abrasive nature of Cook Inlet silt will be mitigated by double armoring the cable, a solution that has proven effective on the most recently installed 138 kV submarine cable. Project DOE Funding to Leverage Outcomes DOE investment in the RIR will unlock state20 and local electric utility funding for this project and subsequent GMRP components. AEA and the utilities also look forward to collaborating with the national labs to integrate opportunities for additional innovation in the Railbelt effort. By advancing the GMRP’s cumulative broader impact, this RIR investment will transform the Railbelt transmission grid. This transformation will provide adequate transmission capability for broad regional participation in renewable and low-carbon generation projects. Broad participation will drive economies of scale and improve the cost profile of such projects, effectively easing the rate burden of the Green Premium21 that falls disproportionately on low income and underserved communities. Thus, the RIR and GMRP will facilitate the integration of renewable and low-carbon generation technologies from Homer to Fairbanks through an unrestricted electron freeway. Project Readiness, Viability, and Expected Timing As noted above, the RIR project can be accelerated through design, permitting, and construction stages due to the maturity of the existing study work of the proposed RIR segments. 20 See October 26, 2022, letter from the Railbelt electric utility managers to Alaska Governor Michael Dunleavy. 21 https://breakthroughenergy.org/our-approach/the-green-premium 161 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 13 Community Benefits Plan The Railbelt Innovation Resiliency project presents a unique opportunity to increase reliability, provide clean energy options, and reduce electricity rates for a 700-mile-long stretch of Alaska that serves as the state’s economic backbone and is home to approximately two-thirds of the state’s population. The same Railbelt region includes multiple disadvantaged communities (DACs), extensive veteran, Pacific Islander, and Alaska Native populations, and some of the most diverse neighborhoods in the nation. Importantly, the benefits of federal investment in the Railbelt are not limited to those directly connected to the Railbelt grid. The State of Alaska’s Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program extends the financial benefits of lower Railbelt electric rates to positively impact hundreds of remote communities statewide; even populations not connected to the Railbelt’s electric network benefit from reduced Railbelt rates. Most of these remote areas are DACs with extremely high power costs; PCE reduces costs in these communities based on a formula tied to Railbelt rates. This innovative, built-in transfer mechanism demonstrates Alaska’s prioritization of equitable benefits sharing and provides a time-tested means to ensure benefits from federal investment in the Railbelt extend to compounded communities targeted by Justice40. Having missed out on the federal government’s transformational infrastructure investments before Alaska statehood, residents of Alaska have long borne outsized infrastructure costs spread across relatively few homes, businesses, and industries. Alaskans have experienced a lack of redundancy and infrastructure that would be considered unacceptable in other parts of the U.S. Alaska residents and businesses have been underserved in comparison to the federal investment in electrical infrastructure and energy in the contiguous lower forty-eight states. Federal support would be a step closer to providing parity to Alaskans, including numerous DACs, tribal entities, and rural communities. The project team intends to identify project benefits, the anticipated recipients, and metrics to track and measure the benefits in its Community Benefits Plan (CBP) to meet the federal government’s four target goals (outlined below). The project team’s approach to this plan will be stakeholder driven, involving communities and entities anticipated to become partners through the project planning, execution, and operations stages. CBP development will benefit from early engagement with potential partners and stakeholders in order to define measurable project benefits, set workforce goals, and advance formal partnerships for inclusion in the CBP. Individuals in impacted communities and local institutions can provide invaluable insight into potential project benefits and outcomes that will inform the project development and execution. This stakeholder participation is critical up-front to ensure the project delivers expected benefits that reach the intended communities, while reducing possible adverse impacts. Defining the affected stakeholders early, establishing clear, durable communication channels, receiving concerns, and crafting measures to address those concerns are critical to managing project risks and ensuring desired objectives. Clear communication and collaboration during 162 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 14 development of the project application and the CBP will set a foundation for implementing the CBP during project development, construction, and operations. This engagement should be a continuous loop through the project design and execution. Given that the project team is made up of cooperatives, a municipal utility, and the State of Alaska, stakeholder engagement is central to the team’s regular businesses. The project team believes this extensive experience will provide key support in CBP development and execution. Early engagement with stakeholders is also expected to further the ability of communities, individuals, local governments, and tribal entities to unlock additional funding opportunities tied to the project. To that end, the project team will develop a robust CBP around the four FOA elements as detailed below. Across all elements, the project approach is founded on the belief that direct, early communication and meaningful exchange with other entities and communities will inform CBP development. Element 1: Community and labor engagement leading to negotiated agreements The project team members have established, long-term, and mutually valued relationships with the organized labor community in Alaska. The Railbelt utilities have used project labor agreements in the past for projects of this scale, e.g., construction of the Alaska Intertie. Each of the Railbelt utilities has collective bargaining agreements with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, among other unions. The project approach to the CBP will be to engage its labor partners early to initiate discussions toward labor agreements. The CBP would establish a timeline and milestones for negotiations with organized labor, including discussions on local and targeted hiring goals, card-check neutrality, and possible provisions advancing programs to attract, train, and retain new workers. As the project applicant, the Alaska Energy Authority works with the Railbelt utilities as partners in several transmission organizations. The utilities and AEA have a successful record partnering both as owner/partners in shared capital projects and in advancing state energy goals and priorities. With state support affirmed in this way, the CBP would prioritize establishing and formalizing relationships with tribal entities, local governments, and other State of Alaska departments with a focus on workforce and related issues. Early engagement with these core stakeholders will also help ensure the project is cognizant of and in support of local energy plans and goals. The project team members individually are accustomed to engaging with local governments and tribal entities through permitting and regulatory processes for capital projects. The CBP for this project would establish milestones urging earlier dialogue with local governments and tribal entities. These conversations should begin sufficiently early to inform project development in response to local communities’ needs and concerns and to guide iterations of the CBP. Local governments and tribal entities are uniquely situated to help identify the most effective actions the project can take toward partnerships that advance workforce issues; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and the flow of project benefits to disadvantaged communities. 163 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 15 AEA and its partner utilities have extensive experience engaging with local residents and businesses in town halls and similar formats; AEA is a state entity with obligations to the public interest, and the electric utilities are member-owned cooperatives (one is municipal with direct responsibilities to the city’s residents). The CBP will articulate a plan and schedule for these engagements to ensure individuals and businesses are aware of the project, including potential economic and clean energy opportunities the project could enable, and to receive and incorporate concerns and input into project development plans. Element 2: Investing in job quality and workforce continuity Given Alaska’s relative isolation and general need for living wage jobs, the project team members firmly support the development of workforce training institutions. The stakeholder engagement articulated above is expected to further inform the project team of workforce issues and opportunities, including opportunities to partner with existing programs and institutions to ensure a skilled and inclusive local workforce. Such opportunities would be evaluated for incorporation into the CBP. Alaska is not a right-to-work state. The Railbelt utilities’ employees who are covered by bargaining unit agreements are required to join unions consistent with the terms and conditions of the various utility bargaining unit agreements. Further, the utilities maintain strict policies fostering safe, healthy, inclusive workplaces free of discrimination and harassment. The utilities currently support continual development of a skilled, inclusive local workforce, specifically the IBEW-NECA Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust, individual utility training programs, the University of Alaska System and other technical training programs. This track record of investment in the Alaskan and American workforce will be reflected in the CBP. The project team members will also continue support of STEM and energy literacy programs throughout the state as an investment in the future pipeline of critical energy-related jobs. Element 3: Advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility The CBP will identify and evaluate potential actions to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in relation to the project. Alaska offers significant opportunities to engage underserved populations, including Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, and veteran residents. Stakeholder consultation, including with organized labor, is expected to identify potential workforce partnerships to encourage participation of these and similar communities in the project. Element 4: Contributing to the Justice40 Initiative goal that 40% of the overall benefits of certain climate and clean energy investments flow to disadvantaged communities 164 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 16 As discussed in the beginning of this section, the team believes its project presents a unique opportunity to extend benefits to much of Alaska, including DACs. The initial approach to this CBP element would be identifying potential partners and establishing relationships to assist in the plan development. Potential partners may include impacted DACs; state entities such as Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Commerce, and Department of Labor and Workforce Development; academic or public policy/research institutions such as the University of Alaska, Alaska Center for Energy and Power, and the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER); and tribal and non-governmental entities, many of whom have prioritized affordable, clean energy as strategic goals. The project team intends to work with partners, stakeholders, and project technical teams to identify measurable, trackable benefits and determine which benefits are most meaningful to impacted communities. Engagement with institutional partners will help define disadvantaged communities within and proximate to the project area, and within the projected reach of the defined outcomes. Formulation of a stakeholder engagement plan and further consultation with DACs and other partners could help establish mechanisms to measure and track the investments and outcomes. The project team believes significant benefits can be realized in energy resiliency, reduction of energy and pollution poverty, and increased clean energy opportunities throughout the region and state, and would coordinate with partners and stakeholders to quantify these broader benefits within the CBP. Communities in the project region currently face potentially severe health, safety, and economic consequences resulting from grid threats such as earthquakes, severe cold weather events, and large-scale forest fires, often in remote areas. The project is also anticipated to increase clean energy options throughout the region, including for DACs and other rural communities, many of which are currently powered through coal or diesel-fired generation. The project is expected to reduce the potential consequences posed by these risks. The CBP should also capture the potential benefits of increased opportunities for tying new, clean- energy projects to the grid, especially smaller-scale projects. Project benefits are anticipated to include improvements to air quality across the project regions, especially in the Northern Region and other locations where particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution has risen to non- attainment levels high enough to trigger remediation efforts through the EPA and is adversely impacting the economy and health. 165 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 17 Addendum A The Railbelt utilities and AEA have worked together for over 30 years, from constructing the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (BLHP), which was commissioned in 1992 at a cost of approximately $350M in 1990 dollars, to the most recent addition to the BLHP of the Sterling to Quartz 115 kV line. The BLHP added the West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion in 2020, a $45M diversion structure that increased the lake’s energy capacity water by approximately 10 percent. On December 1, 2022, AEA closed on a $166M bond package which will be used to begin the RIR project by upgrading the Sterling to Quartz section of the 115 kV Southern Region to Central Region transmission line (the Anchorage to Kenai 115kV line). Thirty-five percent of the bond issue will be used to fund three regional grid stabilization batteries, one of which has been constructed by HEA and is operational. The AEA and Railbelt utilities’ stakeholder outreach, engineering, and project management teams have many decades of stakeholder outreach, transmission, and generation engineering, construction, and operations experience. Many of the engineers are registered professional engineers (PE) and several are also registered project management professionals (PMP). Combined this group has successfully constructed and commissioned billions of dollars of grid infrastructure, as noted in their qualifications and expertise below. Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) AEA’s mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. As Alaska’s lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development, AEA collaborates with utilities, private companies, legislators, local governments, and Alaskan energy innovators to diversify the state’s energy portfolio. On the Railbelt, AEA owns the 120-megawatt Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, the largest in Alaska. AEA recently oversaw the West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion construction, which diverts glacial water from West Fork Upper Battle Creek into Bradley Lake increasing energy by 10%. In rural Alaska, AEA constructs bulk fuel tank farms, diesel powerhouses, and electrical distribution grids, and provides technical/community assistance to rural Alaskans. AEA’s dedicated team of engineers, economists, project managers, loan officers, and planners help Alaska’s cities, boroughs, utilities, tribal entities, schools, and private businesses move energy projects forward successfully. Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, AEA Since 2019, Curtis W. Thayer has served as executive director of AEA, the state's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Before joining AEA, Thayer served as president and chief executive officer of the Alaska Chamber, the largest state trade association. 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. 166 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 18 Formerly, he was on the management team of ENSTAR Natural Gas Company and the Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team. Thayer has served on boards at Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, Alaska Retirement Management Board, Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board, and United States Chambers’ Committee of 100, and currently chairs Alaska’s Board of Marine Pilots. A graduate of the United States Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory Executive Energy Leadership Institute program, Thayer has gained a comprehensive understanding of advanced energy technologies that has helped him guide his organizations in making energy-related decisions. He is also an alumnus of the United States Chamber of Commerce Foundation's Institute for Organization Management, which recognizes graduates as leaders in their industries and organizations. Thayer earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Alaska Fairbanks with a major in political science and a minor in business. Bryan Carey, Director of Owned Assets, AEA Bryan Carey has worked more than 20 years on energy projects for AEA. During that time, he has been the project manager for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, Bradley Lake transmission assets, project engineer for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, Alaska Industrial Development Export Authority’s (AIDEA) owned Snettisham Hydroelectric Project, and substantially participated in Railbelt Integrated Resource Planning. In addition, he has been the project manager for many rural Alaska energy projects including bulk fuel facilities, power plants, and small hydroelectric/wind projects. Recently, he managed the studies, licensing, and construction of the West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Project ($47m) to increase energy output of Bradley Lake by 37,000 MWh a year. Mr. Carey received a Bachelor of Science in engineering from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and a Master of Business Administration from University of Alaska Anchorage. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Alaska. Railbelt Electric Utilities Seward Electric Systems, Golden Valley Electric Association Inc., Matanuska Electric Association Inc., and Homer Electric Association are all vertically integrated generation, transmission, and distribution utilities with many decades of planning, design, construction, and operation of power systems. The Railbelt is, and has been, an early adopter of technology over may decades; for example, virtually all protective relays in the Railbelt grid were converted to microprocessor-based technologies by the early 1990s, and currently most critical busses in the Railbelt have real-time synchro phaser capability. In the last decade the combined utilities have constructed nearly $1B dollars in generation22, a 46MW two-hour battery, and many miles of transmission. The utility members of the project team are highly qualified in the execution of projects proposed under the Grid Resiliency and Innovation Partnership funding opportunity. Seward Electric System 22 Conversion to the new generation portfolio reduced carbon emissions by nearly 30% over the last decade. 167 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 19 Rob Montgomery, General Manager, Seward Electric System Rob Montgomery is the General Manager of Seward Electric System, a municipal electric organization serving 3,000 meters in the City of Seward and surrounding communities. In this role, he is responsible for overall operations of the city’s electric utility. Mr. Montgomery has over 20 years of professional experience in the electric utility industry, including 15 years with South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and six years with Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). At SCE&G, Mr. Montgomery was responsible for all strategic communications and media relations. In this position, he directed efforts to create a pipeline safety communications plan to meet compliance requirements of the 2002 Pipeline Safety Improvement Act; led public outreach related to the construction of a $275-million, federally mandated back-up dam on Lake Murray in Columbia, S.C.; and managed communications and conducted public workshops when communities were impacted by new federal laws for clearing and maintaining rights of way near high-voltage transmission lines. At TVA, he was responsible for strategic communications and served as a primary liaison with the Tennessee Valley Public Power Association. Mr. Montgomery is a graduate of the University of South Carolina with a degree in journalism and holds a certificate from Duke University’s Executive Leadership Program. Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Dan Bishop, Director of Engineering Services, GVEA Dan Bishop has been responsible for the design and construction of electric transmission lines and substations throughout Alaska. His experience includes drafting, structural design, electrical design, project management, quality control during construction, leading teams of engineers and technicians, planning studies, budgeting, and executive management. He received his Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and has been a registered professional engineer since 1993. Mr. Bishop has been with GVEA since 1997. Daniel Heckman, Regulatory Manager, GVEA Daniel Heckman serves as the primary liaison between GVEA and federal and state regulatory agencies, primarily the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), as well as regulatory stakeholders statewide. In addition to his regulatory and compliance oversight responsibilities, he serves as GVEA’s primary representative on the Railbelt Reliability Council and as GVEA’s representative on the BPMC project team described in this application. He received bachelor’s degrees in political science and history from Southern Methodist University in 2010 and his juris doctor from the Gonzaga University School of Law in 2013. Combined with his prior experience at an investor-owned utility, Mr. Heckman has 10 years of experience in regulatory affairs. Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (CEA) Bruce Aspray, Manager of Transmission & Substation Engineering & Planning, CEA Bruce Aspray is a professional with experience in the industrial power and electrical utility industries. Mr. Aspray has specified, built, commissioned, and operated a combined cycle power plant as well as open air and GIS substations. He is a degreed and licensed Professional 168 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 20 electrical engineer in the State of Alaska. He is experienced in project management and construction of utility grade facilities including generation, transmission, substations, distribution, and renewables. Andrew Laughlin, Chief Operating Officer, CEA Andrew Laughlin is a professional with a diverse background in the power industry, specifically, power delivery project development, design, procurement, project management and construction. He is a licensed Professional electrical engineer with experience that includes construction of transmission and substation infrastructure as well as upgrading Static VAR Compensation, boiler controls and steam turbine generation systems. Mr. Laughlin has developed project teams for large and small complicated projects. Dustin Highers, Vice President Corporate Programs, CEA Dustin Highers is an electric utility professional with a background in power plant operations, maintenance, construction, commissioning, and engineering support. Mr. Highers’ industry experience includes 30 years in various industries including maritime, oil and gas, power plant construction and commissioning, gas turbine field engineering, and electric utility engineering and management. He is the leader of small and large teams in the execution of enterprise level projects to achieve corporate goals and objectives. Mr. Highers has demonstrated skill in complex program and project management for power generator maintenance and large generation construction projects. Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) Ed Jenkin, Chief Operations Officer, MEA Ed Jenkin is a licensed professional electrical engineer in the State of Alaska with more than 30 years of experience in the utility industry. He is presently the Chief Operations Officer for MEA. In this role he has oversight of MEA’s system planning, engineering, operations, technical services, and power system dispatch functions. Within the interconnected Alaska electric utility system Mr. Jenkin has led or worked on multiple collaborative efforts, including Railbelt electric reliability and cybersecurity standards development, joint asset management and operations, power pool formation between MEA and CEA, electric reliability organization legislation, and regulations on net-metering, regional planning, and standards enforcement. Mr. Jenkin graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks in 1984. He also has a Master of Arts in cross-cultural studies. Julie Estey, Senior Director of External Affairs and Strategic Initiatives, MEA Julie Estey is Senior Director at MEA, where she manages the cooperative’s public and member- facing activities along with strategic plans and special projects. She serves as MEA’s representative, past chair, and founding member of the Railbelt Reliability Council, the recently certificated electric reliability organization for the interconnected Railbelt grid. Before joining MEA, Ms. Estey was the Business Director for the Alaska Center for Energy and Power, an energy research group at the University of Alaska Fairbanks focused on improving how Alaskans generate and distribute power. She has experience managing public outreach and engagement 169 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Railbelt Innovation and Resiliency 21 for controversial transmission and generation capital projects as well as expertise bringing diverse groups of stakeholders together to develop common solutions. Brian Hickey, Executive Director, Railbelt Regional Coordination Brian Hickey is the Executive Director of Railbelt Regional Coordination, working for the CEOs of the five Railbelt electric utilities. He has more than 40 years of experience in electric power systems and telecommunications. His experience includes executive leadership and management, strategic business planning, economic alternative analysis, engineering, design, project management, and maintenance process development and implementation. Mr. Hickey has managed numerous generation, transmission, and process development and improvement projects in his career. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Montana State University, a master’s certificate in Project Management from ESI/George Washington University, and a master’s degree in Global Finance from Alaska Pacific University. He is a licensed Professional Electrical Engineer and PMI Certified Project Management Professional. Homer Electric Association, Inc. (HEA) Keriann Baker, Director of Member Relations, HEA Keriann Baker, Director of Member Relations, oversees the utility’s customer service programs, public relations efforts, and legislative affairs. Ms. Baker practiced law with Reeves Amodio in Anchorage and Lewis, Longman & Walker in Palm Beach County, Florida, prior to joining HEA. She serves as vice chair of the South Peninsula Hospital, Inc., board and previously has served on numerous boards including several local/state chambers of commerce as well as state and national bar associations. Ms. Baker received a Bachelor of Science from Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, and her juris doctorate from Loyola Chicago School of Law, in Chicago, IL. Larry Jorgensen, Director of Power, Fuels, & Dispatch, HEA Larry Jorgensen, Director of Power, Fuels & Dispatch, manages the operation and maintenance of HEA’s generation facilities, and generation dispatch. His skills include project design and management, advanced control systems, simulation and modeling, plant commissioning and startup, personnel training and advancement, and standards development. Mr. Jorgensen received an Associate in Applied Science in Power Plant Technology and Bachelor of Science in Energy Management, both from Bismarck State College in Bismarck, North Dakota. He has been with HEA since 2011. 170 March 3, 2023 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Curtis Thayer cthayer@akenergyauthority.org SUBJECT: Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) no. DE-FOA-0002740, titled “BIL – Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP)” – Concept Paper review results. Concept Paper Identification Code: TA3-015-E Dear Curtis Thayer: Thank you for submitting a Concept Paper in response to the subject FOA. The Concept Paper for proposed project titled "Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation“ was carefully reviewed in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the FOA. Based on the results of the Concept Paper review, you (your organization) are (is) hereby encouraged to submit a full application in accordance with the instructions and requirements contained within the FOA by the due date/time specified on the FOA cover page. Please be advised that receiving a letter of encouragement does not guarantee that an application will be selected for negotiations leading to award. The Department of Energy (DOE) has identified potential area(s) for improvement based on the concept paper merit review criteria identified in the FOA (see below). DOE will not provide any additional feedback or guidance beyond what is provided below. X The Concept Paper did not propose or thoroughly describe how the proposed work, if successfully accomplished, would clearly meet the objectives as stated in the FOA for the specific topic area. The Concept Paper does not clearly describe how the proposed work aligns with and supports State, local, Tribal, regional resilience, decarbonization, or other energy strategies and plans. The Concept Paper does not adequately identify risks and challenges, including possible mitigation strategies, and/or has not adequately shown the impact that the DOE funding and the proposed project would have on the relevant field and application. X The Concept Paper does not adequately identify strategies to ensure meaningful community and labor engagement; quality jobs and workforce development; energy and environmental justice and the Justice40 Initiative; and diversity, inclusion, accessibility— including methods to ensure accountability. The proposed project team does not appear to have adequate qualifications, experience, capabilities, and other resources necessary to complete the proposed project. 171 If your organization chooses to submit a full application, please include the concept paper identification code identified above in your full application, preferably in the file name and on the cover page of the technical volume. The code is specific to this concept paper submission. Please also ensure you have carefully read the Registrations Requirements located in the FOA document. There are several one-time actions that must be completed before submitting an application in response to this FOA (e.g., register with the System for Award Management (SAM), obtain a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number, register with Grants.gov, and register with FedConnect.net to submit questions). It is vital that applicants address these items as soon as possible. Some may take several weeks, and failure to complete them could interfere with an applicant’s ability to apply to this FOA. The DOE did not make an applicant eligibility determination as part of the concept paper review. Applicant eligibility determinations will be considered at the full application stage of the FOA process. To be considered for substantive evaluation, an applicant’s submission must meet the criteria set forth in Section III.A of the FOA (Eligible Applicants). If the full application does not meet the eligibility requirements, it will be considered ineligible and removed from further evaluation. The DOE recognizes the significant effort your organization expended to prepare a concept paper in response to this FOA. On behalf of the DOE, the FOA team would like to express our appreciation for your interest in the Grid Deployment Office and this FOA. Sincerely, DE-FOA-0002740 Team Email CC: rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 October 17, 2023 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Curtis Thayer Alaska Energy Authority 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage, AK 99503-2407 cthayer@akenergyauthority.org SUBJECT: Selection of Application for Negotiation Under Funding Opportunity Announcement Number DE-FOA-0002740, BIL – Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP), Topic Area 3 Dear Curtis Thayer: We are pleased to provide this update on your application. The Grid Deployment Office (GDO) within the Department of Energy (DOE) has completed its evaluation of your application submitted in response to the subject Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). The application below has been recommended by the GDO for negotiation of a financial award (Note: This notification does not guarantee Federal Government funding, as funding will only be obligated upon completion of successful negotiations.): Application/Project Title: Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR); Principal Investigator: Bryan Carey; Grants.Gov Application Number: GRANT13888581. Your application was conditionally selected. Selection is conditioned upon your organization’s agreement to propose, for DOE’s consideration, a reduction in scope that eliminates the 2 overhead AC transmission lines and prioritizes (first) underwater HVDC and (second, if feasible) one or both BESS, at a federal funding amount of no greater than $121.6M. DOE may also consider a reduction in scope that eliminates the 2 overhead AC transmission lines and prioritizes (first) underwater HVDC and (second, if feasible) one or both BESS at a federal funding amount of no greater than $206.5M. The non-federal cost share must be at least 50% of the total project costs, consistent with the statutory requirement. The conditions must be resolved to the satisfaction of the DOE. Following your organization’s initial review of the condition set forth above, DOE would like to set up a meeting with your principal project officials. The purpose of the meeting is to address any questions you may have regarding the condition set forth above. The condition must be resolved no later than two weeks from receipt of this letter for award negotiations to commence. 299 PLEASE NOTE: The DOE is planning to issue a formal media release regarding this, and other GRIP financial assistance awards, in the near future. Accordingly, the GDO requests that selectees do not make any public announcements before this DOE announcement. The GDO communications team will provide a promotional toolkit to support you in amplifying your award status, should you choose to do so once the public announcement is made and a link to the DOE press release is available. If you have any questions about this, please reach out to: GDO_Comms@hq.doe.gov. Receipt of this letter does not authorize you to commence with performance of the project. DOE makes no commitment to issue an award and assumes no financial obligation with the issuance of this letter. Applicants do not receive an award until award negotiations are complete and the Contracting Officer executes the funding agreement. Only an award document signed by the Contracting Officer obligates DOE to support a project. The usual award negotiation process can take approximately 120 days. You must be responsive during award negotiations (i.e., provide requested documentation) and meet the stated negotiation deadlines. Failure to submit the requested information and forms by the stated due date, or any failure to conduct award negotiations in a timely and responsive manner, may cause DOE to cancel award negotiations and rescind this selection. DOE reserves the right to terminate award negotiations at any time for any reason. Please complete the following items in accordance with the instructions below and submit to the DOE Project Manager and Specialist identified in this letter, unless otherwise instructed. Requirement Instructions Business Days Due (from Receipt of Letter) Pre-Award Information Sheet (and all information requested within the document). Prepare and submit. Available at https://www.netl.doe.gov/business/business- forms/financial-assistance). 10 Indirect Rate Agreement(s) for the Awardee and all Subrecipients Submit, if applicable. 10 Davis Bacon Assurances (if applicable) For all projects that include construction, submit Assurances (see FOA Section IV.I.viii). 10 Participants and Collaborating Organizations Prepare and submit (see FOA Section VI.B.xviii). 30 Cybersecurity Plan In accordance with Section VI.B.xxiii and Appendix E of the subject FOA, a Cybersecurity Plan must be submitted during award negotiations. 45 300 Cybersecurity Plan Template: You can obtain the Cybersecurity Plan Template at https://www.energy.gov/ceser/bipartisan- infrastructure-law-implementation under the provision titled, CYBERSECURITY PLAN (SEC 40126). Please select the High Risk Cybersecurity Plan Template, which applies to the majority of projects selected under Topic Areas 2 & 3 of the subject FOA. Though unlikely, if the low or medium risk Cybersecurity Plan Template applies to your project, your DOE Project Manager will inform you in follow up correspondence. Webinars: Two webinars will be held to assist you with the preparation of your Cybersecurity Plan. Both webinars will provide the same information, so you will only need to attend one. Once available, webinar registration information will be provided on the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program web page at: https://www.energy.gov/gdo/grid-resilience- innovation-partnership-programs. Webinar Agenda: • Welcome and Introductions • FOA Cybersecurity Plan Requirements • Submission and Review Process • Review of the Cybersecurity Plan Template o walk-thru of each of the ten sections within the templates o discussion of lessons learned from plans submitted to other FOAs • Cybersecurity Resources and Technical Assistance • Questions and Answers Submittal: Applicants will submit the final completed Cybersecurity Plan to the DOE Project Manager and to the following email address: CR- IIJACybersecurityplans@hq.doe.gov. Submission of the Cybersecurity Plan is required prior to award. 301 If your organization, including any subrecipient or contractor, anticipates involving foreign nationals (FNs) in the performance of the award, your organization is required to provide a list of all FNs planned to participate on the award along with basic information about each. You must download and complete the “Foreign National Participation Document” located at https://www.netl.doe.gov/business/business-forms/financial-assistance under Post Selection Forms/Information and submit the completed document to basicinfo@netl.doe.gov with a courtesy copy to the assigned Project Manager (PM) and Specialist. Upon receipt of the completed “Foreign National Participation Document,” we will create a secured file sharing drop box folder(s) for FNs in Principal Investigator (PI)/Co-PI roles, for FNs from countries of risk (i.e., China, Iran, North Korea and Russia), and for FNs from countries identified on the U.S. Department of State’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism located at https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/ for submission of additional information. The additional information will NOT be required for any of the other FNs planned to participate on the award, and therefore, a folder(s) will not be created. As part of the requirement to submit additional information for PIs/Co-PIs, for FNs from countries at risk, and for FNs from countries identified as State Sponsors of Terrorism, your organization must ensure completion of the “Foreign National Participation Data Document” also located at https://www.netl.doe.gov/business/business-forms/financial-assistance. The document and all required attachments must be uploaded to the secured file sharing drop box folder(s) provided by DOE’s FN Request Coordinator. The assigned PM will contact the appropriate FN Data Entry POC in the event there are issues with the submission. Please note that all FNs in PI/Co-PI roles, FNs from countries of risk, and FNs from countries identified on the U.S. Department of State’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism are NOT permitted to participate on the award until written authorization is received from the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will notify your organization of DOE’s decision regarding the participation of FNs in PI/Co-PI roles, from countries of risk (i.e., China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia), and from countries identified on the U.S. Department of State’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The DOE reserves the right to request additional information or deny participation of any FN at any time. Please provide the requested documents to the attention of Jacqulyn Wilson, who is the Specialist from the Finance and Acquisition Center handling the administrative portion of your application. Jacqulyn Wilson can be reached at (304) 285-4135 or jacqulyn.wilson@netl.doe.gov. Shawn Smearcheck is the DOE Project Manager from the Project Management Division handling the technical portion of your application and can be reached at (304) 285-5098 or shawn.smearcheck@netl.doe.gov. 302 Sincerely, Jacqulyn M. Wilson Contracting Officer Finance and Acquisition Center cc: FOA File Basicinfo@netl.doe.gov GDO_Comms@hq.doe.gov bcarey@akenergyauthority.org jacqulyn.wilson@netl.doe.gov shawn.smearcheck@netl.doe.gov jacqulyn.wilson@netl.doe.gov janet.laukaitis@netl.doe.gov carol.painter@netl.doe.gov 303 304 4860-2460-5322\2 ***Specialist response in blue.*** Alaska Energy Authority Questions for Department of Energy Regarding FOA 2740 Topic 3 November 14, 2023 Pre‐Award Costs/Process Questions 1. What is required from Alaska Energy Authority (“AEA”) for commitment such that federal award can be signed? a. AEA must follow the guidance stated within the Successful Application Letter. In addition to the deliverables in the letter, this also includes providing an updated Budget Sheet and SOPO to reflect the change in scope. Letters of commitment for any new cost share should also be provided. 2. FOA states Pre‐Award costs cannot be incurred prior to the Selection Official signing the Selection Statement and Analysis. Has the date of Selection Statement and Analysis occurred? When does it occur? Is it the same as the date of award? a. DOE/CO can authorize pre‐award costs back to date of selection. However, this will need to be justified by the recipient and agreed to by the TAL, TPO and CS. The selection signing will be completed when all parties have agreed on the final version of deliverables, completing the negotiation period. The date of your selection letter/notice was 10/17/23. Does AEA intend on asking to go further back than the date you were notified the project was selected? If so, what is the rationale for doing so? 3. Is there a special format or process for prior written approval of pre‐award costs and approval through Contracting Officer? To request pre‐award costs, please send the Specialist (Angela.Bosley@netl.doe.gov) and cc the PO an email/letter requesting approval of pre‐award costs with an itemized list of activities/costs (that are tied to the SOPO tasks/subtasks) along with the rationale for why the work was started and the date pre‐award costs were first incurred. This list should also include the total dollar value and cost share requirement. Below is an example of what this list would look like. For example: XXX activity under SOPO Task Y $50 (started on FILL IN DATE and FILL IN RATIONALE) YYY activity under SOPO Task Z $100(started on FILL IN DATE and FILL IN RATIONALE) Total $150 (Federal $75/Cost Share $75) 4. Is there any supplemental information needed which would justify a higher award, like a State Energy Security Plan? a. No. The scope was based on an evaluation of DOE interests and ongoing work. 305 4860-2460-5322\2 5. Was the award limited by the definition of “interregional” which caps the amount at $250M? a. The selection process did evaluate but did not prioritize it. 6. Are pre award costs such as preparing the Cyber Security Plan billable? We’d need to better understand why work on this plan was started before AEA was even notified of selection. Please clarify. Scope of Project Question 1. Can project scope approved for federal award be discussed, re‐considered as the scope is conditioned on elimination of the two overhead transmission lines? 2. Can non‐federal cost share funds be used to complete AC overhead lines? 3. Can AC substations used to interconnect the HVDC line be included in the scope? 4. Can AC substations included in the original application’s proposed project be included or is this specific prohibition against all AC equipment? 5. Would replacing the two overhead AC transmission lines with overhead HVDC lines be an acceptable alternative project? 6. If other awardees do not or cannot claim their grants and funding remains, will AEA be eligible to submit additional information or another request to increase the award amount? a. If unused funds are available, the FOA will not reopen. 7. If the project is studied and the schedule will exceed 96 months, will this create a limit on the funding issued at that point in time? a. May be constrained by statute Cost Share Match Sources Questions 1. Can indebtedness proceeds previously issued for the federal award projects be used for cost share match? This is too broad to make an assessment. AEA would need to more clearly detail the scenario in which debt proceeds were generated. If easier to discuss, we could set up a meeting. 2. Can federal tax‐exempt proceeds be used in conjunction with federal award moneys as cost share match (e.g. future debt issuances by the State or Alaska Energy Authority)? This is too broad to make an assessment. AEA would need to more clearly detail the scenario in which federal tax‐exempt proceeds were generated. If easier to discuss, we could set up a meeting. It is noted that Federal award funds cannot be used as a selectee’s cost share. Reference Appendix A of the FOA and 2 CFR 200 Part 306. 306 4860-2460-5322\2 3. Does AEA need to have entire cost share match required at final award? A portion of cost share match raised during construction? AEA has to provide a budget for all project costs (Federal and Cost share). The cost share does not need to all be “in hand” at the start of the project; albeit the selectee must have a plan to acquire, achieve, and satisfy the cost share requirements of the FOA. 4. If construction of a federal award project component (BESS) has started (e.g. design, environmental review completed, contracted certain component parts) can the committed but non‐expended portions of the project be eligible for cost share match? a. Prefer to remain on task with the original SOPO. Pre award spending is not available for cost share. Do we have an overlapping project? If so, this needs to be clarified (including identification of any associated Federal award number(s)) as projects have to be distinct and costs/funds not co‐ mingled. Please clarify. 5. Does submission of Budget Justification spreadsheet (SF‐424A) and acceptance by Contracting Officer fulfill requirement of prior review and approval for cost share match? Yes 6. Can receipt of federal tax credits following construction of the project be considered a cost share match source? In my limited experience with tax credits, the most common tax credit is typically “non‐ refundable” where a “credit” is applied to reduce the amount of taxes due to the IRS. Is AEA expecting a “refundable” tax credit whereby AEA would receive a “refund” back from the IRA? If the latter is what is expected, if earned on federal project, this is likely to be considered program income and the treatment would default to either a term in the award or, if there wasn’t a term, back to the regulations at 2 CFR 200 Part 307. Please clarify. Materials Procurement 1. Manufacturers of HVDC equipment may all be foreign company manufacturers and procurement and construction some time into the future. Can a waiver of the Buy American provisions be requested after the date of final award once specifications and available manufacturers can be determined? a. A BABA waiver is available if necessary. 307 308 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 4 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE IN MOST GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS 7 LEGAL AUTHORITY AND EFFECT (JUNE 2015) ........................................................................................ 7 RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 7 AWARD AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS – BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW / INFLATION REDUCTION ACT (DECMBER 2014) (NETL – MARCH 2023) ................................................. 7 CONFERENCE SPENDING (FEBRUARY 2015) ............................................................................................ 7 PAYMENT PROCEDURES - REIMBURSEMENT THROUGH THE AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE (ACH) VENDOR INQUIRY PAYMENT ELECTRONIC REPORTING SYSTEM (VIPERS) ...................... 8 COST SHARING NOT INVOLVED ................................................................................................................. 8 REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS - REIMBURSABLE INDIRECT COSTS AND FRINGE BENEFITS ................................................................................................................................. 9 REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS - REIMBURSABLE INDIRECT COSTS ...... 9 REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS - INDIRECT COSTS AND FRINGE BENEFITS ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE ...................................................................................................... 10 PRE-AWARD COSTS (DECEMBER 2014) ................................................................................................... 10 USE OF PROGRAM INCOME - DEDUCTION ............................................................................................. 10 STATEMENT OF FEDERAL STEWARDSHIP ............................................................................................. 10 STATEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL INVOLVEMENT................................................................................... 10 SITE VISITS ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (APRIL 2023) ............................................................................................ 11 PUBLICATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 12 FEDERAL, STATE, AND MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION ..................................... 12 NOTICE REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS -- SENSE OF CONGRESS ................................................................................................................................... 12 INSURANCE COVERAGE (DECEMBER 2014) ........................................................................................... 13 REAL PROPERTY (DECEMBER 2014)......................................................................................................... 13 EQUIPMENT (DECEMBER 2014) ................................................................................................................. 13 SUPPLIES (DECEMBER 2014) ...................................................................................................................... 14 INTANGIBLE PROPERTY (DECEMBER 2014) ........................................................................................... 14 PROPERTY TRUST RELATIONSHIP (DECEMBER 2014) ......................................................................... 14 INSOLVENCY, BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVERSHIP ................................................................................ 14 PERFORMANCE OF WORK IN UNITED STATES ..................................................................................... 15 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (CX) ................................................................................................................. 15 309 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 5 DECONTAMINATION AND/OR DECOMMISSIONING (D &D) COSTS ................................................. 15 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT AND UNIVERSAL IDENTIFIER REQUIREMENTS ............ 15 FINAL INCURRED COST AUDIT (DECEMBER 2014)............................................................................... 16 LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS (MARCH 2012) .............................................................................................. 16 CORPORATE FELONY CONVICTION AND FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY ASSURANCES (MARCH 2014).................................................................................................................................................................. 17 NONDISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS ASSURANCES (JUNE 2015) .............. 17 REPORTING OF MATTERS RELATED TO RECIPIENT INTEGRITY AND PERFORMANCE (DECEMBER 2015) ......................................................................................................................................... 18 SUBAWARD/SUBCONTRACT CHANGE NOTIFICATION .......................................................................... 19 GO/NO-GO DECISION 20 IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13798, PROMOTING FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (NOVEMBER 2020) 21 CONTINUED USE OF REAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT (OCTOBER 2022) ....................................... 21 FOREIGN NATIONAL PARTICIPATION – APPROVAL REQUIRED (MARCH 2023) ............................... 21 POST AWARD DUE DILIGENCE REVIEWS (SEPTEMBER 2023) ............................................................... 22 EXPORT CONTROL (MARCH 2023) ................................................................................................................ 22 INTERIM CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (MARCH 2023) ............ 22 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (MARCH 2023) ................................................................. 23 BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (MARCH 2023) ..................... 23 PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT (MARCH 2023) 27 PROHIBITION RELATED TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED TALENT RECRUITMENT PROGRAMS (MARCH 2023) 28 PARTICIPANTS AND OTHER COLLABORATING ORGANIZATIONS (SEPTEMBER 2023) .................. 28 HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH (MARCH 2023) .......................................................................................... 29 FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE (MARCH 2023) .............................................................................................. 30 TRANSPARENCY OF FOREIGN CONNECTIONS (SEPTEMBER 2023) ..................................................... 30 FOREIGN COLLABORATION CONSIDERATIONS (MARCH 2023) ........................................................... 31 REPORTING SUBAWARD AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (SEPTEMBER 2023) ........................... 32 POTENTIALLY DUPLICATIVE FUNDING NOTICE (MARCH 2023) .......................................................... 34 REQUIRED RISK MITIGATION (MARCH 2023) ............................................................................................ 34 REPORTING, TRACKING AND SEGREGATION OF INCURRED COSTS (MARCH 2023) ...................... 35 COMMUNITY BENEFITS OUTCOMES AND OBJECTIVES – NETL .......................................................... 35 CYBERSECURITY PLAN (SEPTEMBER 2023) .............................................................................................. 35 DAVIS-BACON ACT REQUIREMENTS (MARCH 2023) ............................................................................... 35 310 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 6 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND PAY TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS (SEPTEMBER 2023) ............ 37 SIGNAGE (SEPTEMBER 2023) 38 311 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 7 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE IN MOST GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS LEGAL AUTHORITY AND EFFECT (JUNE 2015) (a) A DOE financial assistance award is valid only if it is in writing and is signed, either in writing or electronically, by a DOE Contracting Officer. (b) Recipients are free to accept or reject the award. A request to draw down DOE funds constitutes the Recipient's acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Award. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING CONDITIONS Any apparent inconsistency between Federal statutes and regulations and the terms and conditions contained in this award must be referred to the DOE Award Administrator for guidance. AWARD AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS – BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW / INFLATION REDUCTION ACT (DECMBER 2014) (NETL – MARCH 2023) This award/agreement consists of the Assistance Agreement cover page, plus the following: Attachment 1 Intellectual Property Provisions Attachment 2 Statement of Project Objectives Attachment 3 Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist and Instructions Attachment 4 Budget Information Attachment 5 Community Benefits Outcomes and Objectives The following are incorporated into this Award by reference: DOE Assistance Regulations, 2 CFR part 200 as amended by 2 CFR part 910 at https://www.eCFR.gov. Research Terms & Conditions (November 12, 2020) and the DOE Agency Specific Requirements (November 2020) at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/rtc.jsp. National Policy Requirements (November 12, 2020) at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/rtc.jsp. Public Law 117-58, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). The Recipient’s application/proposal as approved by DOE. CONFERENCE SPENDING (FEBRUARY 2015) The recipient shall not expend any funds on a conference not directly and programmatically related to the purpose for which the grant or cooperative agreement was awarded that would defray the cost to the United States Government of a conference held by any Executive branch department, agency, board, commission, or office for which the cost to the United States Government would otherwise exceed $20,000, thereby circumventing the required notification by the head of any such Executive Branch department, agency, board, commission, or office to the Inspector General (or senior ethics official for any entity without an Inspector General), of the date, location, and number of employees attending such conference. 312 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 8 PAYMENT PROCEDURES - REIMBURSEMENT THROUGH THE AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE (ACH) VENDOR INQUIRY PAYMENT ELECTRONIC REPORTING SYSTEM (VIPERS) a. Method of Payment. Payment will be made by reimbursement through ACH. b. Requesting Reimbursement. Requests for reimbursements must be made electronically through Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Financial Service Center (ORFSC) VIPERS. To access and use VIPERS, you must enroll at https://vipers.doe.gov. Detailed instructions on how to enroll are provided on the web site. For non-construction awards, you must submit a Standard Form (SF) 270, "Request for Advance or Reimbursement" at https://vipers.doe.gov and attach a file containing appropriate supporting documentation. The file attachment must show the total federal share claimed on the SF 270, the non-federal share claimed for the billing period if cost sharing is required, and cumulative expenditures to date (both Federal and non-Federal) for each of the following categories: salaries/wages and fringe benefits; equipment; travel; participant/training support costs, if any; other direct costs, including subawards/contracts; and indirect costs. For construction awards, you must submit a SF 271, "Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs," through VIPERS. c. Timing of submittals. Submittal of the SF 270 or SF 271 should coincide with your normal billing pattern, but not more frequently than every two weeks. Requests for reimbursement must be limited to the amount of disbursements made during the billing period for the federal share of direct project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs incurred during that billing period. At a minimum, Recipient’s should meet the required cost share percentage (specified in the Cost Sharing Term) by each go/no go decision point specified in the Statement of Project Objectives (Attachment 2). d. Adjusting payment requests for available cash. You must disburse any funds that are available from repayments to and interest earned on a revolving fund, program income, rebates, refunds, contract settlements, audit recoveries, credits, discounts, and interest earned on any of those funds before requesting additional cash payments from DOE/NNSA. e. Payments. The DOE approving official will approve the invoice as soon as practicable but not later than 30 days after your request is received, unless the billing is improper. Upon receipt of an invoice payment authorization from the DOE approving official, the ORFSC will disburse payment to you. You may check the status of your payments at the VIPER web site. All payments are made by electronic funds transfer to the bank account identified on the ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form (SF 3881) that you filed. COST SHARING NOT INVOLVED a. Total Estimated Project Cost is the sum of the Government share and Recipient share of the estimated project costs. The Recipient's cost share must come from non-Federal sources unless otherwise allowed by law. By accepting federal funds under this award, you agree that you are liable for your percentage share of total allowable project costs, on a budget period basis, even if the project is terminated early or is not funded to its completion. This cost is shared as follows: 313 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 9 Budget Period No.$%$% 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 Total Project $0 #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! $0 TotalGovernment Share Recipient Share b. If you discover that you may be unable to provide cost sharing of at least the amount identified in paragraph a of this term, you should immediately provide written notification to the DOE Award Administrator indicating whether you will continue or phase out the project. If you plan to continue the project, the notification must describe how replacement cost sharing will be secured. c. You must maintain records of all project costs that you claim as cost sharing, including in-kind costs, as well as records of costs to be paid by DOE/NNSA. Such records are subject to audit. d. Failure to provide the cost sharing required by this term may result in the subsequent recovery by DOE/NNSA of some or all the funds provided under the award. REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS - REIMBURSABLE INDIRECT COSTS AND FRINGE BENEFITS a. If actual allowable indirect costs are less than those budgeted and funded under the award, you may use the difference to pay additional allowable direct costs during the project period. If at the completion of the award the Government's share of total allowable costs (i.e., direct and indirect), is less than the total costs reimbursed, you must refund the difference. b. Recipients are expected to manage their indirect costs. DOE will not amend an award solely to provide additional funds for changes in indirect cost rates. DOE recognizes that the inability to obtain full reimbursement for indirect costs means the recipient must absorb the underrecovery. Such underrecovery may be allocated as part of the organization's required cost sharing. REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS - REIMBURSABLE INDIRECT COSTS a. If actual allowable indirect costs are less than those budgeted and funded under the award, you may use the difference to pay additional allowable direct costs during the project period. If at the completion of the award the Government's share of total allowable costs (i.e., direct and indirect), is less than the total costs reimbursed, you must refund the difference. b. Recipients are expected to manage their indirect costs. DOE will not amend an award solely to provide additional funds for changes in indirect cost rates. DOE recognizes that the inability to obtain full reimbursement for indirect costs means the recipient must absorb the underrecovery. Such underrecovery may be allocated as part of the organization's required cost sharing. c. The budget for this award includes indirect costs, but does not include fringe benefits. Therefore, fringe benefit costs shall not be charged to nor shall reimbursement be requested for this project nor shall the fringe benefit costs for this project be allocated to any other federally sponsored project. In addition, fringe benefit costs shall not be counted as cost share unless approved by the Contracting Officer. 314 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 10 REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS - INDIRECT COSTS AND FRINGE BENEFITS ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE The budget for this award does not include indirect costs or fringe benefits. Therefore, these expenses shall not be charged to nor reimbursement requested for this project nor shall the fringe and indirect costs from this project be allocated to any other federally sponsored project. In addition, indirect costs or fringe benefits shall not be counted as cost share unless approved by the Contracting Officer. REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS – DE MINIMIS RATE AND FRINGE BENEFITS: a. The Recipient has elected to charge a de minimis rate of 10% allocated to a base of modified total direct costs (MTDC) per 2 CFR Part 200.414(f). This methodology must be used consistently until the Recipient choses to negotiate indirect cost billing rates. De minimis costs are not verifiable from the Recipient’s records, therefore, the Recipient cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as cost share per 2 CFR Part 200.306(b)(1). b. If the recipient has elected to include fringe benefits in the MTDC, fringe benefit costs have been allocated to this award under a segregated fringe billing rate. The fringe costs were found to be reasonable, allocable, and allowable as reflected in the budget. PRE-AWARD COSTS (DECEMBER 2014) You are entitled to reimbursement for costs incurred on or after [], as authorized by the pre-award costs letter dated [], if such costs are allowable in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles referenced in 2 CFR part 200 as amended by 2 CFR part 910. USE OF PROGRAM INCOME - DEDUCTION If you earn program income during the project period as a result of this award, you must deduct the program income from the total allowable project costs to determine the net allowable costs on which the Federal share is based. STATEMENT OF FEDERAL STEWARDSHIP DOE/NNSA will exercise normal Federal stewardship in overseeing the project activities performed under this award. Stewardship activities include, but are not limited to, conducting site visits; reviewing performance and financial reports; providing technical assistance and/or temporary intervention in unusual circumstances to correct deficiencies which develop during the project; assuring compliance with terms and conditions; and reviewing technical performance after project completion to ensure that the award objectives have been accomplished. STATEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL INVOLVEMENT DOE has substantial involvement in work performed under awards made as a result of this FOA. DOE does not limit its involvement to the administrative requirements of the award. Instead, DOE has substantial involvement in the direction and redirection of the technical aspects of the project as a whole. Substantial involvement includes, but is not limited to, the following: 315 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 11 1. DOE shares responsibility with the recipient for the management, control, direction, and performance of the project. 2. DOE may intervene in the conduct or performance of work under this award for programmatic reasons. Intervention includes the interruption or modification of the conduct or performance of project activities. 3. DOE may redirect or discontinue funding the project based on the outcome of DOE’s evaluation of the project at the Go/No-Go decision point(s) as identified in the Project Management Plan. 4. Reviewing and concurring with ongoing technical performance to ensure that adequate progress has been obtained within the current Budget Period authorized by DOE before work can commence on subsequent Budget Periods. 5. DOE participates in major project decision-making processes. SITE VISITS DOE/NNSA's authorized representatives have the right to make site visits at reasonable times to review project accomplishments and management control systems and to provide technical assistance, if required. You must provide, and must require your subrecipients to provide, reasonable access to facilities, office space, resources, and assistance for the safety and convenience of the government representatives in the performance of their duties. All site visits and evaluations must be performed in a manner that does not unduly interfere with or delay the work. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (APRIL 2023) a. Requirements. The reporting requirements for this award are identified on the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist, DOE F 4600.2, attached to this award. Failure to comply with these reporting requirements is considered a material noncompliance with the terms of the award. Noncompliance may result in withholding of future payments, suspension, or termination of the current award, and withholding of future awards. A willful failure to perform, a history of failure to perform, or unsatisfactory performance of this and/or other financial assistance awards, may also result in a debarment action to preclude future awards by Federal agencies. b. Dissemination of scientific/technical reporting products. Reporting project results in scientific and technical information (STI) publications/products to the DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) ensures dissemination of research results to the public as well as preservation of the results. The DOE form F 4600.2, B. Scientific/Technical Reporting, has instructions for the DOE Energy Link (E-Link) system managed by OSTI. Scientific/technical reports and other STI products submitted under this award will be disseminated publicly on the Web via OSTI.GOV (https://www.osti.gov), unless the STI contains patentable material, protected data, or SBIR/STTR data, which must be indicated per instructions in DOE 4600.2. c. Restrictions. Restrictions. STI products submitted to the DOE via E-link must not contain any Protected Personally Identifiable Information (PII), limited rights data, classified information, information subject to export control classification, or other information not subject to public release. The Contracting Officer or Technical Project Officer should be contacted with any questions. Limited rights data means data (other than computer software) developed at private expense that embody trade secrets or are commercial or financial and confidential or privileged. SBIR/STTR Protected Data, and other data subject to statutory data protection 316 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 12 authorized by the award may be submitted, provided such data is properly marked and identified during submission. Submissions must not contain any “Proprietary”, “Confidential” or “Business Sensitive” markings or similar restrictive markings not authorized by the applicable government agreement.; it is acknowledged that DOE has the right to cancel or ignore such markings. PUBLICATIONS a. You are encouraged to publish or otherwise make publicly available the results of the work conducted under the award. b. An acknowledgment of Federal support and a disclaimer must appear in the publication of any material, whether copyrighted or not, based on or developed under this project, as follows: Acknowledgment: "This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, under Award Number DE-GD0000XXX." Disclaimer: "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof." FEDERAL, STATE, AND MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS You must obtain any required permits and comply with applicable federal, state, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations for work performed under this award. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION a. The intellectual property provisions applicable to this award are provided as an attachment to this award or are referenced on the Assistance Agreement Face Page. A list of all intellectual property provisions may be found at http://energy.gov/gc/standard-intellectual-property-ip-provisions-financial-assistance-awards b. Questions regarding intellectual property matters should be referred to the DOE Award Administrator and the Patent Counsel designated as the service provider for the DOE office that issued the award. The IP Service Providers List is found at http://energy.gov/gc/downloads/intellectual-property-ip-service-providers-acquisition- and-assistance-transactions NOTICE REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS -- SENSE OF CONGRESS It is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds made available under this award should be American-made. 317 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 13 INSURANCE COVERAGE (DECEMBER 2014) See 2 CFR 200.310 for insurance requirements for real property and equipment acquired or improved with Federal funds. REAL PROPERTY (DECEMBER 2014) Subject to the conditions set forth in 2 CFR Part 200.311, title to real property acquired or improved under a Federal award will vest upon acquisition in the non-Federal entity. The non-Federal entity cannot encumber this property and must follow the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200.311 before disposing of the property. Except as otherwise provided by Federal statutes or by the Federal awarding agency, real property will be used for the originally authorized purpose as long as needed for that purpose. When real property is no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, the non-Federal entity must obtain disposition instructions from the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. The instructions must provide for one of the following alternatives: (a) retain title after compensating the Federal awarding agency as described in 2 CFR Part 200.311(c)(1); (b) Sell the property and compensate the federal awarding agency as specified in CFR Part 200.311(c)(2); or (c) transfer title to the Federal awarding agency or to a third Party designated/approved by the Federal awarding agency as specified in CFR Part 200.311(c)(3). See 2 CFR Part 200.311 for additional requirements pertaining to real property acquired or improved under a Federal award. Also see 2 CFR Part 910.360 for amended requirements for Real Property for For-Profit recipients. EQUIPMENT (DECEMBER 2014) Subject to the conditions provided in 2 CFR Part 200.313, title to equipment (property) acquired under a Federal award will vest conditionally with the non-Federal entity. The non-Federal entity cannot encumber this property and must follow the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200.313 before disposing of the property. States must use equipment acquired under a Federal award by the state in accordance with state laws and procedures. Equipment must be used by the non-Federal entity in the program or project for which it was acquired as long as it is needed, whether or not the project or program continues to be supported by the Federal award. When no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, the equipment may be used by programs supported by the Federal awarding agency in the priority order specified in 2 CFR Part 200.313(c)(1)(i) and (ii). Management requirements, including inventory and control systems, for equipment are provided in 2 CFR Part 200.313(d). When equipment acquired under a Federal award is no longer needed, the non-Federal entity must obtain disposition instructions from the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. 318 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 14 Disposition will be made as follows: (a) items of equipment with a current fair market value of $5,000 or less may be retained, sold, or otherwise disposed of with no further obligation to the Federal awarding agency; (b) Non-Federal entity may retain title or sell the equipment after compensating the Federal awarding agency as described in 2 CFR Part 200.313(e)(2); or (c) transfer title to the Federal awarding agency or to an eligible third Party as specified in CFR Part 200.313(e)(3). See 2 CFR Part 200.313 for additional requirements pertaining to equipment acquired under a Federal award. Also see 2 CFR Part 200.439 Equipment and other capital expenditures. See 2 CFR Part 910.360 for amended requirements for Equipment for For-Profit recipients. SUPPLIES (DECEMBER 2014) See 2 CFR Part 200.314 for requirements pertaining to supplies acquired under a Federal award. See also § 200.453 Materials and supplies costs, including costs of computing devices. INTANGIBLE PROPERTY (DECEMBER 2014) Title to intangible property (as defined in 2 CFR Part 200.59) acquired under a Federal award vests upon acquisition in the non-Federal entity. Intangible property includes trademarks, copyrights, patents and patent applications. See 2 CFR Part 200.315 for additional requirements pertaining to intangible property acquired under a Federal award. Also see 2 CFR Part 910.362 for amended requirements for Intellectual Property for For-Profit recipients. PROPERTY TRUST RELATIONSHIP (DECEMBER 2014) Real property, equipment, and intangible property, that are acquired or improved with a Federal award must be held in trust by the non-Federal entity as trustee for the beneficiaries of the project or program under which the property was acquired or improved. See 2 CFR Part 200.316 for additional requirements pertaining to real property, equipment, and intangible property acquired or improved under a Federal award. INSOLVENCY, BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVERSHIP a. You shall immediately notify the DOE of the occurrence of any of the following events: (i) you or your parent's filing of a voluntary case seeking liquidation or reorganization under the Bankruptcy Act; (ii) your consent to the institution of an involuntary case under the Bankruptcy Act against you or your parent; (iii) the filing of any similar proceeding for or against you or your parent, or its consent to, the dissolution, winding-up or readjustment of your debts, appointment of a receiver, conservator, trustee, or other officer with similar powers over you, under any other applicable state or federal law; or (iv) your insolvency due to your inability to pay your debts generally as they become due. 319 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 15 b. Such notification shall be in writing and shall: (i) specifically set out the details of the occurrence of an event referenced in paragraph a; (ii) provide the facts surrounding that event; and (iii) provide the impact such event will have on the project being funded by this award. c. Upon the occurrence of any of the four events described in the first paragraph, DOE reserves the right to conduct a review of your award to determine your compliance with the required elements of the award (including such items as cost share, progress towards technical project objectives, and submission of required reports). If the DOE review determines that there are significant deficiencies or concerns with your performance under the award, DOE reserves the right to impose additional requirements, as needed, including (i) change your payment method; or (ii) institute payment controls. d. Failure of the Recipient to comply with this term may be considered a material noncompliance of this financial assistance award by the Contracting Officer. PERFORMANCE OF WORK IN UNITED STATES The Recipient agrees that at least 100% of the direct labor cost for the project (including subrecipient labor) shall be incurred in the United States, unless the Recipient can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department of Energy that the United States economic interest will be better served through a greater percentage of the work being performed outside the United States. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (CX) DOE must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to authorizing the use of federal funds. Based on all information provided by the Recipient, DOE has made a NEPA determination by issuing a CX, thereby authorizing use of funds for the defined project activities. If the Recipient later adds to or modifies the activities reviewed and approved under the original DOE NEPA determination, the Recipient must notify the DOE Contracting Officer before proceeding with the new and/or modified activities. Those additions or modifications may be subject to review by the DOE NEPA Compliance Officer and approval by the DOE Contracting Officer, and may require a new NEPA determination. [insert any special conditions, if applicable] DECONTAMINATION AND/OR DECOMMISSIONING (D &D) COSTS Notwithstanding any other terms of this Agreement, the Government shall not be responsible for or have any obligation to the recipient for (i) Decontamination and/or Decommissioning (D&D) of any of the recipient's facilities, or (ii) any costs which may be incurred by the recipient in connection with the D&D of any of its facilities due to the performance of the work under this Agreement, whether said work was performed prior to or subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT AND UNIVERSAL IDENTIFIER REQUIREMENTS A. Requirement for System for Award Management (SAM) Unless exempted from this requirement under 2 CFR 25.110, the prime recipient must remain registered and maintain current information in SAM for the entire period of performance of the award. This includes providing information on the prime recipient’s immediate and highest level owner and subsidiaries, as well as on all of its predecessors that have been awarded a Federal contract or Federal financial assistance agreements within the last three years, if applicable, until the prime 320 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 16 recipient submits the final financial report required under this award or receives the final payment, whichever is later. This requires the prime recipient to review its information in SAM at least annually after the initial registration, and to update its information as soon as there are changes. Reviews and updates may be required more frequently due to changes in recipient information or as required by another award term. B. Requirement for Unique Entity Identifier If authorized to make subawards under this award, the prime recipient: 1. Must notify potential subrecipients that no entity (see definition in paragraph C of this award term) may receive a subaward until the entity has provided its unique entity identifier to the prime recipient. 2. Must not make a subaward to an entity unless the entity has provided its unique entity identifier to the prime recipient. Subrecipients are not required to obtain an active SAM registration, but must obtain a unique entity identifier. C. Definitions For purposes of this term: 1. System for Award Management (SAM) means the Federal repository into which a recipient must provide information required for the conduct of business as a recipient. Additional information about registration procedures may be found at the SAM internet site (currently at https://www.sam.gov). 2. Unique Entity Identifier means the identifier assigned by SAM to uniquely identify business entities. 3. Entity includes non-Federal entities as defined at 2 CFR 200.1 and also includes all of the following for purposes of this part: a. A foreign organization; b. A foreign public entity; c. A domestic for-profit organization; and d. A Federal agency. 4. Subaward has the meaning given in 2 CFR 200.1. 5. Subrecipient has the meaning given in 2 CFR 200.1. FINAL INCURRED COST AUDIT (DECEMBER 2014) In accordance with 2 CFR Part 200 as amended by 2 CFR Part 910, DOE reserves the right to initiate a final incurred cost audit on this award. If the audit has not been performed or completed prior to the closeout of the award, DOE retains the right to recover an appropriate amount after fully considering the recommendations on disallowed costs resulting from the final audit. LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS (MARCH 2012) 321 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 17 By accepting funds under this award, you agree that none of the funds obligated on the award shall be expended, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913. This restriction is in addition to those prescribed elsewhere in statute and regulation. CORPORATE FELONY CONVICTION AND FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY ASSURANCES (MARCH 2014) By entering into this agreement, the undersigned attests that [] has not been convicted of a felony criminal violation under Federal law in the 24 months preceding the date of signature. The undersigned further attests that [] does not have any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability. For purposes of these assurances, the following definitions apply: A Corporation includes any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or the various territories of the United States [but not foreign corporations]. It includes both for- profit and non-profit organizations. NONDISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS ASSURANCES (JUNE 2015) (1) By entering into this agreement, the undersigned attests that [] does not and will not require its employees or contractors to sign internal nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting its employees or contactors from lawfully reporting waste, fraud, or abuse to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency authorized to receive such information. (2) The undersigned further attests that [] does not and will not use any Federal funds to implement or enforce any nondisclosure and/or confidentiality policy, form, or agreement it uses unless it contains the following provisions: a.‘‘These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.’’ b. The limitation above shall not contravene requirements applicable to Standard Form 312, Form 4414, or any other form issued by a Federal department or agency governing the nondisclosure of classified information. c. Notwithstanding provision listed in paragraph (a), a nondisclosure or confidentiality policy form or agreement that is to be executed by a person connected with the conduct of an intelligence or intelligence- related activity, other than an employee or officer of the United States Government, may contain provisions appropriate to the particular activity for which such document is to be used. Such form or agreement shall, at a 322 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 18 minimum, require that the person will not disclose any classified information received in the course of such activity unless specifically authorized to do so by the United States Government. Such nondisclosure or confidentiality forms shall also make it clear that they do not bar disclosures to Congress, or to an authorized official of an executive agency or the Department of Justice, that are essential to reporting a substantial violation of law. REPORTING OF MATTERS RELATED TO RECIPIENT INTEGRITY AND PERFORMANCE (DECEMBER 2015) a. General Reporting Requirement If the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of this Federal award, then you as the recipient during that period of time must maintain the currency of information reported to the System for Award Management (SAM) that is made available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)) about civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings described in paragraph 2 of this award term and condition. This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. b. Proceedings About Which You Must Report Submit the information required about each proceeding that: 1. Is in connection with the award or performance of a grant, cooperative agreement, or procurement contract from the Federal Government; 2. Reached its final disposition during the most recent five year period; and 3. Is one of the following: (A) A criminal proceeding that resulted in a conviction, as defined in paragraph 5 of this award term and condition; (B) A civil proceeding that resulted in a finding of fault and liability and payment of a monetary fine, penalty, reimbursement, restitution, or damages of $5,000 or more; (C) An administrative proceeding, as defined in paragraph 5. of this award term and condition, that resulted in a finding of fault and liability and your payment of either a monetary fine or penalty of $5,000 or more or reimbursement, restitution, or damages in excess of $100,000; or (D) Any other criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding if: (i) It could have led to an outcome described in paragraph 2.c.(1), (2), or (3) of this award term and condition; 323 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 19 (ii) It had a different disposition arrived at by consent or compromise with an acknowledgment of fault on your part; and (iii) The requirement in this award term and condition to disclose information about the proceeding does not conflict with applicable laws and regulations. c. Reporting Procedures Enter in the SAM Entity Management area the information that SAM requires about each proceeding described in paragraph 2 of this award term and condition. You do not need to submit the information a second time under assistance awards that you received if you already provided the information through SAM because you were required to do so under Federal procurement contracts that you were awarded. d. Reporting Frequency During any period of time when you are subject to the requirement in paragraph 1 of this award term and condition, you must report proceedings information through SAM for the most recent five year period, either to report new information about any proceeding(s) that you have not reported previously or affirm that there is no new information to report. Recipients that have Federal contract, grant, and cooperative agreement awards with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 must disclose semiannually any information about the criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings. e. Definitions For purposes of this award term and condition: 1. Administrative proceeding means a non-judicial process that is adjudicatory in nature in order to make a determination of fault or liability (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission Administrative proceedings, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals proceedings, and Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals proceedings). This includes proceedings at the Federal and State level but only in connection with performance of a Federal contract or grant. It does not include audits, site visits, corrective plans, or A. Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity and Performance. 2. Conviction, for purposes of this award term and condition, means a judgment or conviction of a criminal offense by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether entered upon a verdict or a plea, and includes a conviction entered upon a plea of nolo contendere. 3. Total value of currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts includes— (A) Only the Federal share of the funding under any Federal award with a recipient cost share or match; and (B) The value of all expected funding increments under a Federal award and options, even if not yet exercised. SUBAWARD/SUBCONTRACT CHANGE NOTIFICATION Except for subawards and/or subcontracts specifically proposed as part of the Recipient’s Application for award, the Recipient must notify the DOE Contracting Officer and Project Officer in writing 30 days prior to 324 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 20 the execution of new or modified subawards/subcontracts. This notification does not constitute a waiver of the prior approval requirements outlined in 2 CFR 200, nor does it relieve the Recipient from its obligation to comply with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders. In order to satisfy this notification requirement, Recipient documentation must, as a minimum, include the following: 1. A description of the research to be performed, the service to be provided, or the equipment to be purchased; 2. Cost share commitment letter if the subawardee is providing cost share to the award; 3. Updated budget justification, budget pages; 4. An assurance that the process undertaken by the Recipient to solicit the subaward/subcontract complies with their written procurement procedures as outlined in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. 5. An assurance that no planned, actual or apparent conflict of interest exists between the Recipient and the selected subawardee/subcontractor and that the Recipient’s written standards of conduct were followed;1 6. A completed Environmental Questionnaire, if applicable; 7. An assurance that the subawardee/subcontractor is not a debarred or suspended entity; and 8. An assurance that all required award provisions will be flowed down in the resulting subaward/subcontract. The Recipient is responsible for making a final determination to award or modify subawards/subcontracts under this agreement, but the Recipient may not proceed with the subaward/subcontract until the Contracting Officer determines, and provides the Recipient written notification, that the information provided is adequate. Should the Recipient not receive a written notification of adequacy from the Contracting Officer within 30 days of the submission of the subaward/subcontract documentation stipulated above, Recipient may proceed to award or modify the proposed subaward/subcontract. GO/NO-GO DECISION The Government has elected to include a go/no-go decision in the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) of the award. If it is advantageous for the Government to proceed beyond the technical milestone(s) set forth in the SOPO, the Contracting Officer will notify the recipient in writing authorizing the recipient to proceed beyond the technical milestone(s) in the SOPO. If it is determined that it would not be advantageous for the Government to proceed beyond the technical milestone(s), the Contracting Officer will notify the recipient in 1 It is DOE’s position that the existence of a “covered relationship” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(a)&(b) between a member of the Recipient’s owners or senior management and a member of a subawardee’s/subcontractor’s owners or senior management creates at a minimum an apparent conflict of interest that would require the Recipient to notify the Contracting Officer and provide detailed information and justification (including, for example, mitigation measures) as to why the subaward or subcontract does not create an actual conflict of interest. Recipients must also notify the Contracting Officer of any new subcontract or subaward to: (1) an entity that is owned or otherwise controlled by the Recipient; or (2) an entity that is owned or otherwise controlled by another entity that also owns or otherwise controls the Recipient, as it is DOE’s position that these situations also create at a minimum an apparent conflict of interest. 325 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 21 writing of such decision and the award is considered completed. The maximum liability to the Government is limited to the allowable, allocable, and reasonableness of the cost incurred by the recipient within the funds made available. The Government reserves the right to deobligate any remaining funds from the award. The recipient shall submit all final deliverables, including a final scientific/technical report, for the completed work in accordance with the reporting requirements of the award. IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13798, PROMOTING FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (NOVEMBER 2020) States, local governments, or other public entities may not condition sub-awards in a manner that would discriminate, or disadvantage sub-recipients based on their religious character. CONTINUED USE OF REAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT (OCTOBER 2022) Real property and equipment purchased with project funds (federal share and recipient cost share) under this Award are subject to the requirements at 2 CFR 200.311, 200.313, and 200.316 (non-Federal entities, except for-profit entities) and 2 CFR 910.360 (for-profit entities). The Recipient may continue to use the real property and equipment after the conclusion of the award period of performance so long as the Recipient: a. Continues to use the property for the authorized project purposes; b. Complies with the applicable reporting requirements and regulatory property standards; c. As applicable to for-profit entities, UCC filing statements are maintained; and d. Submits a written Request for Continued Use for DOE authorization, which is approved by the DOE Contracting Officer. The Recipient must request authorization from the Contracting Officer to continue to use the property for the authorized project purposes beyond the award period of performance (“Request for Continued Use”). The Recipient’s written Request for Continued Use must identify the property and include: a summary of how the property will be used (must align with the authorized project purposes); a proposed use period (e.g., perpetuity, until fully depreciated, or a calendar date where the Recipient expects to submit disposition instructions); acknowledgement that the recipient shall not sell or encumber the property or permit any encumbrance without prior written DOE approval; current fair market value of the property; and an Estimated Useful Life or depreciation schedule for equipment. When the property is no longer needed for authorized project purposes, the Recipient must request disposition instructions from DOE. For-profit entity disposition requirements are set forth at 2 CFR 910.360. Property disposition requirements for other non-federal entities are set forth in 2 CFR 200.310 through 200.316. FOREIGN NATIONAL PARTICIPATION – APPROVAL REQUIRED (MARCH 2023) If the Recipient (including any of its subrecipients and contractors) anticipates involving foreign nationals in the performance of this award, the Recipient must provide DOE with specific information about each foreign national to ensure compliance with the requirements for foreign national participation and access approvals. The volume and type of information required may depend on various factors associated with the award. 326 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 22 Approval for foreign nationals in Principal Investigator/Co-Principal Investigator roles, from countries of risk (i.e., China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia), and from countries identified on the U.S. Department of State’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism (https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/) must be obtained from DOE before they can participate in the performance of any work under this award. A “foreign national” is defined as any person who is not a United States citizen by birth or naturalization. DOE may elect to deny a foreign national’s participation in the award. Likewise, DOE may elect to deny a foreign national’s access to a DOE sites, information, technologies, equipment, programs, or personnel. DOE’s determination to deny participation or access is not appealable. The Recipient must include this term in any subaward and in any applicable contractual agreement(s) associated with this award. POST AWARD DUE DILIGENCE REVIEWS (SEPTEMBER 2023) During the period of performance of the Award, DOE may conduct ongoing due diligence reviews, through Government resources, to identify potential risks of undue foreign influence. In the event a risk is identified, DOE may require risk mitigation measures, including but not limited to, requiring an individual or entity not participate in the Award. EXPORT CONTROL (MARCH 2023) The United States government regulates the transfer of information, commodities, technology, and software considered to be strategically important to the U.S. to protect national security, foreign policy, and economic interests without imposing undue regulatory burdens on legitimate international trade. There is a network of Federal agencies and regulations that govern exports that are collectively referred to as “Export Controls.” The Recipient is responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable United States Export Control laws and regulations relating to any work performed under the award. The Recipient must immediately report to DOE any export control violations related to the project funded under this award, at the recipient or subrecipient level, and provide the corrective action(s) to prevent future violations. INTERIM CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (MARCH 2023) The DOE interim Conflict of Interest Policy for Financial Assistance (COI Policy) can be found at https://www.energy.gov/management/department-energy-interim-conflict-interest-policy-requirements- financial-assistance. This policy is applicable to all non-Federal entities applying for, or that receive, DOE funding by means of a financial assistance award (e.g., a grant, cooperative agreement, or technology investment agreement) and, through the implementation of this policy by the entity, to each Investigator who is planning to participate in, or is participating in, the project funded wholly or in part under this Award. The term “Investigator” means the PI and any other person, regardless of title or position, who is responsible for the purpose, design, conduct, or reporting of a project funded by DOE or proposed for funding by DOE. The Recipient must flow down the requirements of the interim COI Policy to any subrecipient non-Federal entities, with the exception of DOE National Laboratories. Further, the Recipient must identify all financial conflicts of interests (FCOI), i.e., managed and unmanaged/ unmanageable, in its initial and ongoing FCOI reports. 327 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 23 Prior to award, the Recipient was required to: 1) ensure all Investigators on this Award completed their significant financial disclosures; 2) review the disclosures; 3) determine whether a FCOI exists; 4) develop and implement a management plan for FCOIs; and 5) provide DOE with an initial FCOI report that includes all FCOIs (i.e., managed and unmanaged/unmanageable). Within 180 days of the date of the Award, the Recipient must be in full compliance with the other requirements set forth in DOE’s interim COI Policy. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (MARCH 2023) Organizational conflicts of interest are those where, because of relationships with a parent company, affiliate, or subsidiary organization, the Recipient is unable or appears to be unable to be impartial in conducting procurement action involving a related organization (2 CFR 200.318(c)(2)). The Recipient must disclose in writing any potential or actual organizational conflict of interest to the DOE Contracting Officer. The Recipient must provide the disclosure prior to engaging in a procurement or transaction using project funds with a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary organization that is not a state, local government, or Indian tribe. For a list of the information that must be included the disclosure, see Section VI. of the DOE interim Conflict of Interest Policy for Financial Assistance at https://www.energy.gov/management/department-energy-interim-conflict-interest-policy-requirements- financial-assistance. If the effects of the potential or actual organizational conflict of interest cannot be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated, the Recipient must procure goods and services from other sources when using project funds. Otherwise, DOE may terminate the Award in accordance with 2 CFR 200.340 unless continued performance is determined to be in the best interest of the Federal government. The Recipient must flow down the requirements of the interim COI Policy to any subrecipient non-Federal entities, with the exception of DOE National Laboratories. The Recipient is responsible for ensuring subrecipient compliance with this term. If the Recipient has a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary organization that is not a state, local government, or Indian tribe, the Recipient must maintain written standards of conduct covering organizational conflicts of interest. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (MARCH 2023) A. Definitions Components are defined as the articles, materials, or supplies incorporated directly into the end manufactured product(s). Construction Materials are an article, material, or supply—other than an item primarily of iron or steel; a manufactured product; cement and cementitious materials; aggregates such as stone, sand, or gravel; or aggregate binding agents or additives—that is used in an infrastructure project and is or consists primarily of non-ferrous metals, plastic and polymer-based products (including polyvinylchloride, composite building materials, and polymers used in fiber optic cables), glass (including optic glass), lumber, drywall, coatings (paints and stains), optical fiber, clay brick; composite building materials; or engineered wood products. 328 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 24 Domestic Content Procurement Preference Requirement- means a requirement that no amounts made available through a program for federal financial assistance may be obligated for an infrastructure project unless— (A) all iron and steel used in the project are produced in the United States; (B) the manufactured products used in the project are produced in the United States; or (C) the construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. Also referred to as the Buy America Requirement. Infrastructure includes, at a minimum, the structures, facilities, and equipment located in the United States, for: roads, highways, and bridges; public transportation; dams, ports, harbors, and other maritime facilities; intercity passenger and freight railroads; freight and intermodal facilities; airports; water systems, including drinking water and wastewater systems; electrical transmission facilities and systems; utilities; broadband infrastructure; and buildings and real property; and generation, transportation, and distribution of energy -including electric vehicle (EV) charging. The term “infrastructure” should be interpreted broadly, and the definition provided above should be considered as illustrative and not exhaustive. Manufactured Products are items used for an infrastructure project made up of components that are not primarily of iron or steel; construction materials; cement and cementitious materials’ aggregates such as stone, sand, or gravel; or aggregate binding agents or additives. Primarily of iron or steel means greater than 50% iron or steel, measured by cost. Project- means the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of infrastructure in the United States. Public- The Buy America Requirement does not apply to non-public infrastructure. For purposes of this guidance, infrastructure should be considered “public” if it is: (1) publicly owned or (2) privately owned but utilized primarily for a public purpose. Infrastructure should be considered to be “utilized primarily for a public purpose” if it is privately operated on behalf of the public or is a place of public accommodation. B. Buy America Requirement None of the funds provided under this award (federal share or recipient cost-share) may be used for a project for infrastructure unless: 1. All iron and steel used in the project is produced in the United States—this means all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States; 2. All manufactured products used in the project are produced in the United States—this means the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States; and the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55 percent of the total cost of all components of the 329 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 25 manufactured product, unless another standard for determining the minimum amount of domestic content of the manufactured product has been established under applicable law or regulation; and 3. All construction materials are manufactured in the United States—this means that all manufacturing processes for the construction material occurred in the United States. The Buy America Requirement only applies to articles, materials, and supplies that are consumed in, incorporated into, or permanently affixed to an infrastructure project. As such, it does not apply to tools, equipment, and supplies, such as temporary scaffolding, brought into the construction site and removed at or before the completion of the infrastructure project. Nor does a Buy America Requirement apply to equipment and furnishings, such as movable chairs, desks, and portable computer equipment, that are used at or within the finished infrastructure project but are not an integral part of the structure or permanently affixed to the infrastructure project. Recipients are responsible for administering their award in accordance with the terms and conditions, including the Buy America Requirement. The recipient must ensure that the Buy America Requirement flows down to all subawards and that the subawardees and subrecipients comply with the Buy America Requirement. The Buy America Requirement term and condition must be included all sub-awards, contracts, subcontracts, and purchase orders for work performed under the infrastructure project. C. Certification of Compliance The Recipient must certify or provide equivalent documentation for proof of compliance that a good faith effort was made to solicit bids for domestic products used in the infrastructure project under this Award. The Recipient must also maintain certifications or equivalent documentation for proof of compliance that those articles, materials, and supplies that are consumed in, incorporated into, affixed to, or otherwise used in the infrastructure project, not covered by a waiver or exemption, are produced in the United States. The certification or proof of compliance must be provided by the suppliers or manufacturers of the iron, steel, manufactured products and construction materials and flow up from all subawardees, contractors and vendors to the Recipient. The Recipient must keep these certifications with the award/project files and be able to produce them upon request from DOE, auditors or Office of Inspector General. D. Waivers When necessary, the Recipient may apply for, and DOE may grant, a waiver from the Buy America Requirement. Requests to waive the application of the Buy America Requirement must be in writing to the Contracting Officer. Waiver requests are subject to review by DOE and the Office of Management and Budget, as well as a public comment period of no less than 15 calendar days. Waivers must be based on one of the following justifications: 330 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 26 1. Public Interest- Applying the Buy America Requirement would be inconsistent with the public interest; 2. Non-Availability- The types of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality; or 3. Unreasonable Cost- The inclusion of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent. Requests to waive the Buy America Requirement must include the following: • Waiver type (Public Interest, Non-Availability, or Unreasonable Cost); • Recipient name and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI); • Award information (Federal Award Identification Number, Assistance Listing number); • A brief description of the project, its location, and the specific infrastructure involved; • Total estimated project cost, with estimated federal share and recipient cost share breakdowns; • Total estimated infrastructure costs, with estimated federal share and recipient cost share breakdowns; • List and description of iron or steel item(s), manufactured goods, and/or construction material(s) the recipient seeks to waive from the Buy America Preference, including name, cost, quantity(ies), country(ies) of origin, and relevant Product Service Codes (PSC) and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for each; • A detailed justification as to how the non-domestic item(s) is/are essential the project; • A certification that the recipient made a good faith effort to solicit bids for domestic products supported by terms included in requests for proposals, contracts, and non-proprietary communications with potential suppliers; • A justification statement—based on one of the applicable justifications outlined above—as to why the listed items cannot be procured domestically, including the due diligence performed (e.g., market research, industry outreach, cost analysis, cost-benefit analysis) by the recipient to attempt to avoid the need for a waiver. This justification may cite, if applicable, the absence of any Buy America-compliant bids received for domestic products in response to a solicitation; and • Anticipated impact to the project if no waiver is issued. The Recipient should consider using the following principles as minimum requirements contained in their waiver request: • Time-limited: Consider a waiver constrained principally by a length of time, rather than by the specific project/award to which it applies. Waivers of this type may be appropriate, for example, when an item that is “non-available” is widely used in the project. When requesting such a waiver, the Recipient should identify a reasonable, definite time frame (e.g., no more than one to two years) designed so that the waiver is reviewed to ensure the condition for the 331 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 27 waiver (“non-availability”) has not changed (e.g., domestic supplies have become more available). • Targeted: Waiver requests should apply only to the item(s), product(s), or material(s) or category(ies) of item(s), product(s), or material(s) as necessary and justified. Waivers should not be overly broad as this will undermine domestic preference policies. • Conditional: The Recipient may request a waiver with specific conditions that support the policies of IIJA/BABA and Executive Order 14017. DOE may request, and the Recipient must provide, additional information for consideration of this wavier. DOE may reject or grant waivers in whole or in part depending on its review, analysis, and/or feedback from OMB or the public. DOEs final determination regarding approval or rejection of the waiver request may not be appealed. Waiver requests may take up to 90 calendar days to process. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT (MARCH 2023) As set forth in 2 CFR 200.216, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending project funds (Federal and non-Federal funds) to: (1) Procure or obtain; (2) Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or (3) Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. As described in Public Law 115- 232, section 889, covered telecommunications equipment is telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities). (i) For the purpose of public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes, video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities). (ii) Telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by such entities or using such equipment. (iii) Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a covered foreign country. See Public Law 115-232, section 889 for additional information. 332 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 28 PROHIBITION RELATED TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED TALENT RECRUITMENT PROGRAMS (MARCH 2023) A. Prohibition Persons participating in a Foreign Government-Sponsored Talent Recruitment Program of a Foreign Country of Risk are prohibited from participating in this Award. The Recipient must exercise ongoing due diligence to reasonably ensure that no individuals participating on the DOE-funded project are participating in a Foreign Government-Sponsored Talent Recruitment Program of a Foreign Country of Risk. Consequences for violations of this prohibition will be determined according to applicable law, regulations, and policy. Further, the Recipient must notify DOE within five (5) business days upon learning that an owner of the Recipient or subrecipient or individual on the project team is or is believed to be participating in a Foreign Government-Sponsored Talent Recruitment Program of a Foreign Country of Risk. DOE may modify and add requirements related to this prohibition to the extent required by law. B. Definitions 1. Foreign Government-Sponsored Talent Recruitment Program. An effort directly or indirectly organized, managed, or funded by a foreign government, or a foreign government instrumentality or entity, to recruit science and technology professionals or students (regardless of citizenship or national origin, or whether having a full-time or part-time position). Some foreign government-sponsored talent recruitment programs operate with the intent to import or otherwise acquire from abroad, sometimes through illicit means, proprietary technology or software, unpublished data and methods, and intellectual property to further the military modernization goals and/or economic goals of a foreign government. Many, but not all, programs aim to incentivize the targeted individual to relocate physically to the foreign state for the above purpose. Some programs allow for or encourage continued employment at United States research facilities or receipt of federal research funds while concurrently working at and/or receiving compensation from a foreign institution, and some direct participants not to disclose their participation to U.S. entities. Compensation could take many forms including cash, research funding, complimentary foreign travel, honorific titles, career advancement opportunities, promised future compensation, or other types of remuneration or consideration, including in-kind compensation. 2. Foreign Country of Risk. DOE has designated the following countries as foreign countries of risk: Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. This list is subject to change. PARTICIPANTS AND OTHER COLLABORATING ORGANIZATIONS (SEPTEMBER 2023) Prior to award, the Recipient was required to provide the following information on participants and other collaborating organizations. If there are any changes to Participants and Collaborating Organizations information previously submitted to DOE, the Recipient must submit updated information within thirty (30) calendar days after the end of the quarterly reporting period in which the change occurred: A. What individuals have worked on the project Provide the following information for individuals at the prime recipient and subrecipient level: (1) all senior and key personnel; and (2) each person who has worked or is expected to work at least one 333 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 29 person month per year on the project regardless of the source of compensation (a person month equals approximately 160 hours of effort). i. Name ii. Organization iii. Job Title iv. Role in the project v. Start and end date (month and year) working on the project vi. State, U.S. territory, and/or country of residence vii. Whether this person collaborated with an individual or entity located in a foreign country in connection with the scope of this Award, and viii. If yes to vii, whether the person traveled to the foreign country as part of that collaboration, and, if so, where and what the duration of stay was. B. Organizations Identify all subrecipients, contractors, U.S. National Laboratories, partners, and collaborating organizations. Recipients must also include all foreign collaborators as outline din the Foreign Collaboration Considerations term of the award Terms and Conditions. For each, provide name, UEI, zip code or latitude/longitude, role in the project, contribution to the project and start and end date. HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH (MARCH 2023) Research involving human subjects, biospecimens, or identifiable private information conducted with Department of Energy (DOE) funding is subject to the requirements of DOE Order 443.1C, Protection of Human Research Subjects, 45 CFR Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects (subpart A which is referred to as the “Common Rule”), and 10 CFR Part 745, Protection of Human Subjects. Federal regulation and the DOE Order require review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) of all proposed human subjects research projects. The IRB is an interdisciplinary ethics board responsible for ensuring that the proposed research is sound and justifies the use of human subjects or their data; the potential risks to human subjects have been minimized; participation is voluntary; and clear and accurate information about the study, the benefits and risks of participating, and how individuals’ data/specimens will be protected/used, is provided to potential participants for their use in determining whether or not to participate. The Recipient shall provide the Federal Wide Assurance number identified in item 1 below and the certification identified in item 2 below to DOE prior to initiation of any project that will involve interactions with humans in some way (e.g., through surveys); analysis of their identifiable data (e.g., demographic data and energy use over time); asking individuals to test devices, products, or materials developed through research; and/or testing of commercially available devices in buildings/homes in which humans will be present. Note: This list of examples is illustrative and not all inclusive. No DOE funded research activity involving human subjects, biospecimens, or identifiable private information shall be conducted without: 334 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 30 1) A registration and a Federal Wide Assurance of compliance accepted by the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) in the Department of Health and Human Services; and 2) Certification that the research has been reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) provided for in the assurance. IRB review may be accomplished by the awardee’s institutional IRB; by the Central DOE IRB; or if collaborating with one of the DOE national laboratories, by the DOE national laboratory IRB. The Recipient is responsible for ensuring all subrecipients comply and for reporting information on the project annually to the DOE Human Subjects Research Database (HSRD) at https://science.osti.gov/HumanSubjects/Human-Subjects-Database/home. Note: If a DOE IRB is used, no end of year reporting will be needed. Additional information on the DOE Human Subjects Research Program can be found at: https://science.osti.gov/ber/human-subjects. FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE (MARCH 2023) The mission of the DOE Office of Inspector General (OIG) is to strengthen the integrity, economy and efficiency of DOE’s programs and operations including deterring and detecting fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. The OIG accomplishes this mission primarily through investigations, audits, and inspections of Department of Energy activities to include grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and contracts. The OIG maintains a Hotline for reporting allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement. To report such allegations, please visit https://www.energy.gov/ig/ig‐hotline. Additionally, the Recipient must be cognizant of the requirements of 2 CFR 200.113 Mandatory disclosures, which states: The non‐Federal entity or applicant for a Federal award must disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the Federal awarding agency or pass‐through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. Non‐Federal entities that have received a Federal award including the term and condition outlined in appendix XII of 2 CFR Part 200 are required to report certain civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings to SAM (currently FAPIIS). Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in § 200.339. (See also 2 CFR part 180, 31 U.S.C. 3321, and 41 U.S.C. 2313.) TRANSPARENCY OF FOREIGN CONNECTIONS (SEPTEMBER 2023) The Recipient must notify the DOE Contracting Officer within fifteen (15) business days of learning of the following circumstances in relation to the Recipient and subrecipients: 1. Any current or pending subsidiary, foreign business entity, or offshore entity that is based in or funded by any foreign country of risk or foreign entity based in a country of risk; 335 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 31 2. Any current or pending contractual or financial obligation or other agreement specific to a business arrangement, or joint venture-like arrangement with an entity owned by a country of risk or foreign entity based in a country of risk; 3. Any current or pending change in ownership structure of the Recipient or subrecipients that increases foreign ownership related to a country of risk. Each notification shall be accompanied by a complete and up-to-date capitalization table showing all equity interests held including limited liability company (LLC) and partnership interests, as well as derivative securities. Include both the number of shares issued to each equity holder, as well as the percentage of that series and of all equity on fully diluted basis. For each equity holder, provide the place of incorporation and the principal place of business, as applicable. If the equity holder is a natural person, identify the citizenship(s); 4. Any current or pending venture capital or institutional investment by an entity that has a general partner or individual holding a leadership role in such entity who has a foreign affiliation with any foreign country of risk; 5. Any current or pending technology licensing or intellectual property sales to a foreign country of risk; and 6. Any changes to the Recipient or the subrecipients’ board of directors, including additions to the number of directors, the identity of new directors, as well as each new director’s citizenship, shareholder affiliation (if applicable); each notification shall include a complete up-to-date list of all directors (and board observers), including their full name, citizenship and shareholder affiliation, date of appointment, duration of term, as well as a description of observer rights as applicable. Should DOE determine the connection poses a risk to economic or national security, DOE will require measures to mitigate or eliminate the risk. DOE has designated the following countries as foreign countries of risk: Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. This list is subject to change. Recognizing the disclosures may contain business confidential information, subrecipients may submit their disclosures directly to DOE. FOREIGN COLLABORATION CONSIDERATIONS (MARCH 2023) A. Consideration of new collaborations with foreign entities, organizations, and governments. The Recipient must provide DOE with advanced written notification of any potential collaboration with foreign entities, organizations or governments in connection with its DOE-funded award scope. The Recipient must await further guidance from DOE prior to contacting the proposed foreign entity, organization or government regarding the potential collaboration or negotiating the terms of any potential agreement. B. Existing collaborations with foreign entities, organizations and governments. The Recipient must provide DOE with a written list of all existing foreign collaborations, organizations, and governments in which has entered in connection with its DOE-funded award scope. C. In general, a collaboration will involve some provision of a thing of value to, or from, the Recipient. A thing of value includes but may not be limited to all resources made available to, or from, the recipient 336 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 32 in support of and/or related to the Award, regardless of whether or not they have monetary value. Things of value also may include in-kind contributions (such as office/laboratory space, data, equipment, supplies, employees, students). In-kind contributions not intended for direct use on the Award but resulting in provision of a thing of value from or to the Award must also be reported. Collaborations do not include routine workshops, conferences, use of the Recipient’s services and facilities by foreign investigators resulting from its standard published process for evaluating requests for access, or the routine use of foreign facilities by awardee staff in accordance with the Recipient’s standard policies and procedures. REPORTING SUBAWARD AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (SEPTEMBER 2023) a. Reporting of first-tier subawards. 1. Applicability. Unless the Recipient is exempt as provided in paragraph d. of this award term, the Recipient must report each action that equals or exceeds $30,000 in Federal funds for a subaward to a non-Federal entity or Federal agency (see definitions in paragraph e. of this award term). 2. Where and when to report. i. The non-Federal entity or Federal agency must report each obligating action described in paragraph a.1. of this award term to http://www.fsrs.gov. ii. For subaward information, report no later than the end of the month following the month in which the obligation was made. (For example, if the obligation was made on November 7, 2010, the obligation must be reported by no later than December 31, 2010.) 3. What to report. The Recipient must report the information about each obligating action that the submission instructions posted at http://www.fsrs.gov specify. b. Reporting total compensation of recipient executives for non-Federal entities. 1. Applicability and what to report. The Recipient must report total compensation for each of its five most highly compensated executives for the preceding completed fiscal year, if i. The total Federal funding authorized to date under this Federal award is $30,000 or more as defined in 2 CFR 170.320; ii. In the preceding fiscal year, the Recipient received: a) 80 percent or more of the Recipient’s annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and b) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and iii. The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 337 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 33 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access to the compensation information, see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission total compensation filings at https://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm.) 2. Where and when to report. The Recipient must report executive total compensation described in paragraph b.1. of this award term: i. As part of the Recipients registration profile at https://www.sam.gov. ii. By the end of the month following the month in which this award is made, and annually thereafter. c. Reporting of total compensation of subrecipient executives. 1. Applicability and what to report. Unless the Recipient is exempt as provided in paragraph d. of this award term, for each first-tier non-Federal entity subrecipient under this award, the Recipient shall report the names and total compensation of each of the subrecipient's five most highly compensated executives for the subrecipient's preceding completed fiscal year, if: i. In the subrecipient’s preceding fiscal year, the subrecipient received; a) 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and b) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts), and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act (and subawards); and ii. The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access to the compensation information, see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission total compensation filings at https://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm.) 2. Where and when to report. The Recipient must report subrecipient executive total compensation described in paragraph c.1. of this award term: i. To the recipient ii. By the end of the month following the month during which the Recipient makes the subaward. For example, if a subaward is obligated on any date during the month of October of a given year ( i.e., between October 1 and 31), the Recipient must report any required compensation information of the subrecipient by November 30 of that year. d. Exemptions If, in the previous tax year, the Recipient had gross income, from all sources, under $300,000, it is exempt from the requirements to report: 338 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 34 i. Subawards, and ii. The total compensation of the five most highly compensated executives of any subrecipient. e. Definitions. For purposes of this award term: 1. Federal Agency means a Federal agency as defined at 5 U.S.C. 551(1) and further clarified by 5 U.S.C. 552(f). 2. Non-Federal entity means all of the following, as defined in 2 CFR part 25: i. A Governmental organization, which is a State, local government, or Indian tribe; ii. A foreign public entity; iii. A domestic or foreign nonprofit organization; and iv. A domestic or foreign for-profit organization. 3. Executive means officers, managing partners, or any other employees in management positions. 4. Subaward: i. This term means a legal instrument to provide support for the performance of any portion of the substantive project or program for which the Recipient received this award and that the recipient awards to an eligible subrecipient. ii. The term does not include the Recipient’s procurement of property and services needed to carry out the project or program (for further explanation, see 2 CFR 200.331). iii. A subaward may be provided through any legal agreement, including an agreement that the Recipient or a subrecipient considers a contract. 5. Subrecipient means a non-Federal entity or Federal agency that: i. Receives a subaward from the Recipient under this award; and ii. Is accountable to the Recipient for the use of the Federal funds provided by the subaward. 6. Total compensation means the cash and noncash dollar value earned by the executive during the recipient's or subrecipient's preceding fiscal year. For more information on disclosure and reporting requirements, see 17 CFR 229.402(c)(2). POTENTIALLY DUPLICATIVE FUNDING NOTICE (MARCH 2023) If the Recipient or subrecipients have or receive any other award of federal funds for activities that potentially overlap with the activities funded under this Award, the Recipient must promptly notify DOE in writing of the potential overlap and state whether project funds (i.e., recipient cost share and federal funds) from any of those other federal awards have been, are being, or are to be used (in whole or in part) for one or more of the identical cost items under this Award. If there are identical cost items, the Recipient must promptly notify the DOE Contracting Officer in writing of the potential duplication and eliminate any inappropriate duplication of funding. REQUIRED RISK MITIGATION (MARCH 2023) 339 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 35 [Placeholder – In the event DOE determines the award requires mitigation measures to address undue foreign influence risks, the mitigations measures would be captured in a T&C, depending on the nature of the required measure.] REPORTING, TRACKING AND SEGREGATION OF INCURRED COSTS (MARCH 2023) BIL funds can be used in conjunction with other funding, as necessary to complete projects, but tracking and reporting must be separate to meet the reporting requirements of the BIL and related Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance. The Recipient must keep separate records for BIL funds and must ensure those records comply with the requirements of the BIL. COMMUNITY BENEFITS OUTCOMES AND OBJECTIVES – NETL The Recipient must meet the stated objectives and milestones set forth in its Community Benefits Outcomes and Objectives (CBOO) Plan, which is incorporated into the Award. A report on the Recipient’s progress towards meeting the objectives and milestones set forth in the CBOO must be provided on an annual basis. CYBERSECURITY PLAN (SEPTEMBER 2023) The Secretary of Energy, per BIL Section 40126, designated the DOE’s Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) as responsible for coordinating cybersecurity project plans for IIJA provisions the Secretary deemed to have a cyber risk. CESER coordinates with DOE National Laboratory Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to provide project lifecycle support activities that maintain or improve the project cybersecurity over its lifecycle. The Recipient is responsible for maintaining and improving project cybersecurity throughout the period of performance, including responding to DOE feedback on the plans and the associated milestones, deliverables, including attending associated cybersecurity plan lifecycle support meeting dates with CESER and DOE SMEs. Any revisions to the cybersecurity plans and all related deliverables shall be emailed securely to CR-IIJACybersecurityplans@hq.doe.gov. Any DOE and/or National Laboratory review comments or feedback provided to Recipients does not constitute an endorsement or approval of any specific elements within the cybersecurity plan or the proposed security approach. Therefore, such feedback should not be referenced or used in marketing or promotional materials. All cybersecurity plans and deliverables are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) pursuant to Section 40126(e). This exemption is limited to information provided to or collected by the federal government described in Pub. L. 117-58 § 41026, 42 U.S.C. § 18725. DAVIS-BACON ACT REQUIREMENTS (MARCH 2023) This award is funded under Division D of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). All laborers and mechanics employed by the recipient, subrecipients, contractors or subcontractors in the performance of construction, alteration, or repair work in excess of $2,000 on an award funded directly by or assisted in whole or in part by funds made available under this award shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar projects in the locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code commonly referred to as the “Davis-Bacon Act” (DBA). 340 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 36 Recipients shall provide written assurance acknowledging the DBA requirements for the award or project and confirming that all of the laborers and mechanics performing construction, alteration, or repair work in excess of $2,000 on projects funded directly by or assisted in whole or in part by and through funding under the award are paid or will be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a character similar in the locality as determined by Subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of Title 40, United States Code (Davis-Bacon Act). The Recipient must comply with all Davis-Bacon Act requirements, including but not limited to: (1) ensuring that the wage determination(s) and appropriate Davis-Bacon clauses and requirements are flowed down to and incorporated into any applicable subcontracts or subrecipient awards. (2) being responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or subrecipient with the Davis-Bacon labor standards. (3) receiving and reviewing certified weekly payrolls submitted by all subcontractors and subrecipients for accuracy and to identify potential compliance issues. (4) maintaining original certified weekly payrolls for 3 years after the completion of the project and must make those payrolls available to the DOE or the Department of Labor upon request, as required by 29 CFR 5.6(a)(2). (5) conducting payroll and job-site reviews for construction work, including interviews with employees, with such frequency as may be necessary to assure compliance by its subcontractors and subrecipients and as requested or directed by the DOE. (6) cooperating with any authorized representative of the Department of Labor in their inspection of records, interviews with employees, and other actions undertaken as part of a Department of Labor investigation. (7) posting in a prominent and accessible place the wage determination(s) and Department of Labor Publication: WH-1321, Notice to Employees Working on Federal or Federally Assisted Construction Projects. (8) notifying the Contracting Officer of all labor standards issues, including all complaints regarding incorrect payment of prevailing wages and/or fringe benefits, received from the recipient, subrecipient, contractor, or subcontractor employees; significant labor standards violations, as defined in 29 CFR 5.7; disputes concerning labor standards pursuant to 29 CFR parts 4, 6, and 8 and as defined in FAR 52.222- 14; disputed labor standards determinations; Department of Labor investigations; or legal or judicial proceedings related to the labor standards under this Contract, a subcontract, or subrecipient award. (9) preparing and submitting to the Contracting Officer, the Office of Management and Budget Control Number 1910-5165, Davis Bacon Semi-Annual Labor Compliance Report, by April 21 and October 21 of each year. Form submittal will be administered through the iBenefits system (https://doeibenefits2.energy.gov) or its successor system. 341 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 37 The Recipient must undergo Davis-Bacon Act compliance training and must maintain competency in Davis- Bacon Act compliance. The Contracting Officer will notify the Recipient of any DOE sponsored Davis-Bacon Act compliance trainings. The Department of Labor offers free Prevailing Wage Seminars several times a year that meet this requirement, at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government- contracts/construction/seminars/events. The Department of Energy has contracted with, a third-party DBA electronic payroll compliance software application. The Recipient must ensure the timely electronic submission of weekly certified payrolls as part of its compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act unless a waiver is granted to a particular contractor or subcontractor because they are unable or limited in their ability to use or access the software. Davis Bacon Act Electronic Certified Payroll Submission Waiver A waiver must be granted before the award starts. The applicant does not have the right to appeal DOE’s decision concerning a waiver request. For additional guidance on how to comply with the Davis-Bacon provisions and clauses, see https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts/construction and https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts/protections-for-workers-in-construction. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND PAY TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS (SEPTEMBER 2023) All federally assisted construction contracts exceeding $10,000 annually will be subject to the requirements of Executive Order 11246: (1) Recipients, subrecipients, and contractors are prohibited from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin. (2) Recipients and Contractors are required to take affirmative action to ensure that equal opportunity is provided in all aspects of their employment. This includes flowing down the appropriate language to all subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors. (3) Recipients, subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from taking adverse employment actions against applicants and employees for asking about, discussing, or sharing information about their pay or, under certain circumstances, the pay of their co‐workers. The Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP) uses a neutral process to schedule contractors for compliance evaluations. OFCCP’s Technical Assistance Guide should be consulted to gain an understanding of the requirements and possible actions the recipients, subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors must take. See OFCCP’s Technical Assistance Guide at: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ofccp/Construction/files/ConstructionTAG.pdf?msclkid=9e397d68c4b11 1ec9d8e6fecb6c710ec. Additionally, for construction projects valued at $35 million or more and lasting more than one year, Recipients, subrecipients, contractors, or subcontractors may be selected by OFCCP to participate in the Mega Construction Project Program. DOE, under relevant legal authorities including Sections 205 and 303(a) of Executive Order 11246, will require participation as a condition of the award. This program offers extensive 342 SAMPLE ONLY – SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DE-GD0000XXX Page 38 compliance assistance with EO 11246. For more information regarding this program, see https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/construction/mega-program. SIGNAGE (SEPTEMBER 2023) The Recipient is encouraged to display DOE standard infrastructure investment signage, available for download from DOE (https://www.energy.gov/branding), during construction of the project. Expenditures for such signage shall be a permitted eligible cost of the project. 343 344 Award Number: 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 $7,413,433 $7,413,433 $14,826,866 50.00%07/01/2023 - 06/30/2025 Budget Period 2 $0 $0 $0 0.00%07/01/2025 - 06/30/2031 Budget Period 3 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $7,413,433 $7,413,433 $14,826,866 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 $2,618,317 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,618,317 17.66% b. Fringe Benefits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% c. Travel $75,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,400 0.51% d. Equipment $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 0.54% e. Supplies $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 0.54% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Contractor $2,798,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,798,000 18.87% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $2,798,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,798,000 18.87% g. Construction $7,400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,400,000 49.91% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $13,051,717 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,051,717 88.03% i. Indirect Charges $1,775,149 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,775,149 11.97% Total Costs $14,826,866 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,826,866 100.00% 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 20503.345 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 780 89.88 $70,103 $70,103 1 thru 8 Executive Director 390 183.59 $71,601 $71,601 1 thru 8 Communicaitons Director 780 112.94 $88,096 $88,096 1 thru 8 GIS 585 83.79 $49,014 $49,014 1 thru 8 Owned Assets Director 780 165.94 $129,432 $129,432 1 thru 8 Senior Infrastructure Engineer 3,900 111.09 $433,269 $433,269 1 thru 8 Infrastructure Engineer 780 104.63 $81,610 $81,610 1 thru 8 Federal Project Manager 3,900 152.99 $596,661 $596,661 1 thru 8 Environmental Engineer 3,120 152.99 $477,329 $477,329 1 thru 8 Program Controls 3,900 106.19 $414,134 $414,134 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 1,950 106.19 $207,067 $207,067 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $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 20865 $2,618,317 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 20865 $2,618,317 Additional Explanation (as needed): A loaded labor rate is utilized for billing purposes. This is comprised of base salary, leave/holiday, and employer paid health, retirement, and taxes. 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 346 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. The Alaska Energy Authority is billed a loaded payroll rate. See detail in Personnel tab for detail components of the loaded 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.* __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 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 5 347 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 Total Cost (per trip x # trips) 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. Assumes 2 day trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 2 $200 $800 $60 $2,640 $26,400 Previous experience 1 and 2 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Assumes 2 day trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 2 $200 $800 $60 $2,640 $26,400 Previous experience 1 and 2 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC; 2 people per trip. Assume Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $245 $1,200 $60 $5,450 $10,900 Previous experience 1 and 2 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training; two trips per year; 2 people per trip. Assumes 5 day trip. Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $245 $1,200 $200 $60 $5,850 $11,700 Previous experience International Travel Budget Period 1 Total $75,400 $75,400 Domestic Travel International Travel Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 Domestic Travel International Travel Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $75,400 $75,400 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 5 348 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 8 $10,000 $80,000 Previous experience 10 new staff office set-up $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $80,000 $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 $80,000 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 5 349 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 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL SUPPLIES $80,000 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 5 350 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 $425,000 $425,000 1 thru 8 Competitive bid $48,000 $48,000 2,3,4 Competitive bid $100,000 $100,000 2 thru 8 Competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 2,3,4 Lands Consultant Competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 2 thru 7 Labor/Governmental Consulting Competitive bid $225,000 $225,000 1 thru 8 Project Coordination Committee Competitive bid $600,000 $600,000 1 thru 8 Contractor Federal Project Reporting Competitive bid $150,000 $150,000 2 thru 7 Contractor Projects (see construction tab)Competitive bid $0 $0 2 thru 8 Accounting & Auditing Services Competitive bid $150,000 $150,000 4,5 Insurance Consultant Competitive bid $100,000 $100,000 4,5 Competitive bid $200,000 $200,000 Sub-total $2,798,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,798,000 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 $2,798,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,798,000 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 Total Contractual 351 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. HVDC Transmission tie between the Kenai Peninsula and Beluga - Phase 1 Design, Permitting, and Siting Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard $1,550,000 Engineering estimate Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard $1,550,000 Engineering estimate HVDC Submarine Cable $2,800,000 Engineering estimate Central BESS - Design & Engineering $750,000 Cost Estimate Northern BESS - Design & Engineering $750,000 Cost Estimate Budget Period 1 Total $7,400,000 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $7,400,000 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 4 352 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 5 353 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 31.86%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $0 $0 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $1,775,149 $1,775,149 Total indirect costs requested:$1,775,149 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,775,149 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 has submitted a NICRA to the cognizant agency for review and approval for a provisional FY2024 indirect cost rate . AEA fully expects to have an approved NICRA and indirect cost rate effective for its fiscal year FY24. For estimating purposes, AEA computed the indirect rate based on the 31.86% provisional rate submitted for review. 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. _____ 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). i. Indirect Costs 354 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 206,500,000 Subject to legislative approval, the state of Alaska will invest in this project a 100% match. $7,413,433 $0 $0 $0 $7,413,433 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SHARE $7,413,433 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,413,433 $14,826,866 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: 355 Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 $7,413,433 $7,413,433 $14,826,866 2.Budget Period 2 $0 $0 $0 3.Budget Period 3 $0 $0 $0 4.Budget Period 4 $0 $0 $0 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $7,413,433 $7,413,433 $14,826,866 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $2,618,317 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,618,317 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,400 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 $2,798,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,798,000 $7,400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,051,717 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,051,717 $1,775,149 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,775,149 $14,826,866 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,826,866 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:Alaska Energy Authority 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 356 GRIP Preliminary Budget BreakdownDRAFT4/4/2024TaskBudget Period 1FY 2024 FY 2025 Budget Period 2FY 2026 FY 2027 Budget Period 3FY 2028 FY 2029 Budget Period 4FY 2030 FY 2031Total FY2026‐FY2031Budget Period 1 + FY2006‐FY2031- 0.00%78.16%0.00%30.88%0.00%66.27%1.0000 Project Management and Planning1.1000 Project Management Plan (PMP): 1.2000 Community Benefits Plan 1.3000 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance 1.4000 Cybersecurity Plan (CSP)2.0000 HVDC Transmission tie between the Kenai Peninsula and BelugaPhase 1 ‐ Design Permitting and Siting 2.1110 Preliminary Design - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard400,000$ 75,000$ 325,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ ‐$ 400,000$ 2.1130 Preliminary Design - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard400,000$ 75,000$ 325,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 400,000$ ‐$ 400,000$ 2.1150 Preliminary Design - HVDC Submarine Cable750,000$ 100,000$ 650,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ ‐$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 2.1210 Permitting - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard250,000$ 25,000$ 225,000$ 250,000$ 195,409$ 54,591$ 150,000$ 46,313$ 103,687$ 150,000$ 99,411$ 50,589$ 800,000$ 550,000$ 800,000$ 2.1230 Permitting - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard250,000$ 25,000$ 225,000$ 250,000$ 195,409$ 54,591$ 150,000$ 46,313$ 103,687$ 150,000$ 99,411$ 50,589$ 800,000$ 550,000$ 800,000$ 2.1250 Permitting - HVDC Submarine Cable650,000$ 25,000$ 625,000$ 1,000,000$ 781,638$ 218,362$ 500,000$ 154,378$ 345,622$ 250,000$ 165,685$ 84,315$ 2,400,000$ 1,750,000$ 2,400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 2.1310 Design & Engineering - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard500,000$ 25,000$ 475,000$ 500,000$ 390,819$ 109,181$ 150,000$ 46,313$ 103,687$ -$ -$ -$ 1,150,000$ 650,000$ 1,150,000$ 2.1330 Design & Engineering - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard500,000$ 25,000$ 475,000$ 500,000$ 390,819$ 109,181$ 150,000$ 46,313$ 103,687$ -$ -$ -$ 1,150,000$ 650,000$ 1,150,000$ 2.1350 Design & Engineering - HVDC Submarine Cable1,000,000$ 25,000$ 975,000$ 1,000,000$ 781,638$ 218,362$ 500,000$ 154,378$ 345,622$ -$ -$ -$ 2,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 2,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 2.1410 Site Agreements - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard400,000$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ 77,189$ 172,811$ -$ -$ -$ 650,000$ 250,000$ 650,000$ 2.1430 Site Agreements - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard400,000$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ 77,189$ 172,811$ -$ -$ -$ 650,000$ 250,000$ 650,000$ 2.1450 Site Agreements - HVDC Submarine Cable400,000$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ 77,189$ 172,811$ -$ -$ -$ 650,000$ 250,000$ 650,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ Phase 2 ‐ Procurement & Acquisiton (Material and Services)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 2.2110 Long Lead Purchases - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard-$ -$ 22,000,000$ 17,196,030$ 4,803,970$ 30,000,000$ 9,262,673$ 20,737,327$ -$ -$ -$ 52,000,000$ 52,000,000$ 52,000,000$ 2.2130 Long Lead Purchases - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard-$ -$ 22,000,000$ 17,196,030$ 4,803,970$ 30,000,000$ 9,262,673$ 20,737,327$ -$ -$ -$ 52,000,000$ 52,000,000$ 52,000,000$ 2.2150 Long Lead Purchases - HVDC Submarine Cable-$ -$ 25,723,463$ 20,106,429$ 5,617,034$ 35,000,000$ 10,806,452$ 24,193,548$ -$ -$ -$ 60,723,463$ 60,723,463$ 60,723,463$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ Phase 3 ‐ Construction & Deployment-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 2.3110 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,000,000$ 2,778,802$ 6,221,198$ -$ -$ -$ 9,000,000$ 9,000,000$ 9,000,000$ 2.3130 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - Beluga HVDC -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,000,000$ 2,778,802$ 6,221,198$ -$ -$ -$ 9,000,000$ 9,000,000$ 9,000,000$ 2.3150 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - HVDC Submarine Cable-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000,000$ 3,087,558$ 6,912,442$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 2.3210 Construction - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12,500,000$ 3,859,447$ 8,640,553$ 19,000,000$ 12,592,077$ 6,407,923$ 31,500,000$ 31,500,000$ 31,500,000$ 2.3230 Construction - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12,500,000$ 3,859,447$ 8,640,553$ 19,000,000$ 12,592,077$ 6,407,923$ 31,500,000$ 31,500,000$ 31,500,000$ 2.3240 Construction - HVDC Submarine Cable-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 16,575,286$ 5,117,715$ 11,457,571$ 45,422,135$ 30,103,107$ 15,319,028$ 61,997,421$ 61,997,421$ 61,997,421$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ Phase 4 ‐ Testing & Commissioning-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 2.4110 Commissioning & Testing - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ 331,370$ 168,630$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 2.4130 Commissioning & Testing - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ 331,370$ 168,630$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 2.4150 Commissioning & Testing - HVDC Submarine Cable-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ 662,741$ 337,259$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 5,900,000$ 400,000$ 5,500,000$ 73,223,463$ 57,234,220$ 15,989,243$ 166,925,286$ 51,539,144$ 115,386,142$ 85,972,135$ 56,977,250$ 28,994,885$ 332,020,884$ 326,120,884$ 332,020,884$ DNI OH, Indirects & Consultants9-2024-03-18 AlaskaEnergyAuthority_Budget_Justification REVISED only budget Period 1WBS Task - Budget357 GRIP Preliminary Budget BreakdownDRAFT4/4/2024TaskBudget Period 1FY 2024 FY 2025 Budget Period 2FY 2026 FY 2027 Budget Period 3FY 2028 FY 2029 Budget Period 4FY 2030 FY 2031Total FY2026‐FY2031Budget Period 1 + FY2006‐FY2031- 0.00%78.16%0.00%30.88%0.00%66.27%3.0000 Central BESS0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%Phase 1 ‐ Design Permitting and Siting3.1110 Preliminary Design- Central BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 3.1200 Prermitting - Central BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 3.1300 Design & Engineering - Central BESS750,000$ 75,000$ 675,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ ‐$ 750,000$ 3.1400 Site Agreements - Central BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ Phase 2 ‐ Procurement & Acquisiton (Material and Services)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 3.2100 Long Lead Purchases - Central BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 9,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ Phase 3 - Construction & Deployment-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 3.3100 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - Central BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 3.3130 Construction - Central BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ -$ 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ Phase 4 ‐ Testing & Commissioning-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 3.4100 Commissioning & Testing - Central BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 750,000$ 75,000$ 675,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18,500,000$ 9,500,000$ 9,000,000$ 19,250,000$ 18,500,000$ 19,250,000$ 4.0000 Northern BESS0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Phase 1 ‐ Design Permitting and Siting4.1110 Preliminary Design - Northern Bess-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 4.1200 Permitting - Northern BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 4.1300 Design & Engineering - Northern BESS750,000$ 75,000$ 675,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ ‐$ 750,000$ 4.1500 Site Agreements - Northern Bess-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ Phase 2 ‐ Procurement & Acquisiton (Material and Services)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 4.2100 Long Lead Purchases - Northern Bess-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 17,500,000$ 17,500,000$ -$ 17,500,000$ 17,500,000$ 17,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ Phase 3 ‐ Construction & Deployment-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 4.3100 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - Northern BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 4.3300 Construction - Northern BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,000,000$ 14,000,000$ -$ 14,000,000$ 14,000,000$ 14,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ Phase 4 ‐ Testing & Commissioning-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ‐$ ‐$ 4.4100 Commissioning & Testing - Northern BESS-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 573,135.00$ 573,135$ -$ 573,135$ 573,135$ 573,135$ 750,000$ 75,000$ 675,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 32,073,135$ 32,073,135$ ‐$ 32,823,135$ 32,073,135$ 32,823,135$ -$ 7,400,000$ 550,000$ 6,850,000$ 73,223,463$ 57,234,220$ 15,989,243$ 166,925,286$ 51,539,144$ 115,386,142$ 136,545,270$ 98,550,385$ 37,994,885$ 384,094,019$ 376,694,019$ 384,094,019$ 550,000$ 64,850,000$ 63,000,000$ 17,600,000$ 53,600,000$ 120,000,000$ 61,900,000$ 31,500,000$ 413,000,000$ 413,000,000$ 65,400,000$ 80,600,000$ 173,600,000$ 93,400,000$ 9-2024-03-18 AlaskaEnergyAuthority_Budget_Justification REVISED only budget Period 1WBS Task - Budget358 GRIP Preliminary Budget BreakdownDRAFT4/4/2024TaskBudget Period 1FY 2024 FY 2025 Budget Period 2FY 2026 FY 2027 Budget Period 3FY 2028 FY 2029 Budget Period 4FY 2030 FY 2031Total FY2026‐FY2031Budget Period 1 + FY2006‐FY2031General Administration CostsPersonnel1,536,298$ 1,597,750$ 1,661,660$ 1,728,127$ 6,523,836$ 4,987,537$ 6,523,836$ Fringe1,082,019$ 1,125,300$ 1,170,312$ 1,217,124$ 4,594,754$ 3,512,735$ 4,594,754$ Travel75,400$ 79,170$ 83,129$ 87,285$ 324,983$ 249,583$ 324,983$ Equipment80,000$ ‐$ 80,000$ ‐$ 160,000$ 80,000$ 160,000$ Supplies80,000$ 84,000$ 88,200$ 92,610$ 344,810$ 264,810$ 344,810$ Indirect Costs1,775,149$ 1,782,317$ 1,593,413$ 1,794,719$ 6,945,599$ 5,170,449$ 6,945,599$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 4,628,866$ 4,668,537$ 4,676,714$ 4,919,865$ 18,893,982$ 14,265,116$ 18,893,982$ Project Coordination Committee600,000$ 600,000$ 60,000$ 600,000$ 1,860,000$ 1,260,000$ 1,860,000$ Contractor ‐ Federal Reporting150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 600,000$ 450,000$ 600,000$ Accounting & Audit Services150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 600,000$ 450,000$ 600,000$ Legal425,000$ 425,000$ 425,000$ 425,000$ 1,700,000$ 1,275,000$ 1,700,000$ Public Relations48,000$ 48,000$ 48,000$ 48,000$ 192,000$ 144,000$ 192,000$ Labor/Government Consulting225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 900,000$ 675,000$ 900,000$ Insurance Consultant100,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 130,000$ 30,000$ 130,000$ Cultural Consultant100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 400,000$ 300,000$ 400,000$ Land Consultant400,000$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 1,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 1,600,000$ NEPA Consultant200,000$ 200,000$ 30,000$ ‐$ 430,000$ 230,000$ 430,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Design & Engineering Consultants400,000$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 1,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 1,600,000$ 2,798,000$ 2,708,000$ 1,998,000$ 2,508,000$ 10,012,000$ 7,214,000$ 10,012,000$ Indirect Costs7,426,866$ 7,376,537$ 6,674,714$ 7,427,865$ 28,905,982$ 21,479,116$ 28,905,982$ 14,826,866$ 80,600,000$ 173,600,000$ 143,973,135$ 413,000,001$ 398,173,135$ 413,000,001$ 9-2024-03-18 AlaskaEnergyAuthority_Budget_Justification REVISED only budget Period 1WBS Task - Budget359 360 GRIP Preliminary Schedule DRAFT 4/4/2024 Task FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 2.0000 HVDC Transmission tie between the Kenai Peninsula and Beluga Phase 1 - Design Permitting and Siting 2.1110 Preliminary Design - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.1130 Preliminary Design - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.1150 Preliminary Design - HVDC Submarine Cable 2.1210 Permitting - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.1230 Permitting - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.1250 Permitting - HVDC Submarine Cable 2.1310 Design & Engineering - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.1330 Design & Engineering - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.1350 Design & Engineering - HVDC Submarine Cable 2.1410 Site Agreements - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.1430 Site Agreements - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.1450 Site Agreements - HVDC Submarine Cable Phase 2 - Procurement & Acquisiton (Material and Services) 2.2110 Long Lead Purchases - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.2130 Long Lead Purchases - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.2150 Long Lead Purchases - HVDC Submarine Cable Phase 3 - Construction & Deployment 2.3110 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - Kenai HVDC 2.3130 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - Beluga HVDC 2.3150 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - HVDC Submarine Cable 2.3210 Construction - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.3230 Construction - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.3240 Construction - HVDC Submarine Cable Phase 4 - Testing & Commissioning 2.4110 Commissioning & Testing - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.4130 Commissioning & Testing - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 2.4150 Commissioning & Testing - HVDC Submarine Cable 3.0000 Central BESS Phase 1 - Design Permitting and Siting 3.1110 Preliminary Design- Central BESS 3.1200 Prermitting - Central BESS 3.1300 Design & Engineering - Central BESS 3.1400 Site Agreements - Central BESS Phase 2 - Procurement & Acquisiton (Material and Services) 3.2100 Long Lead Purchases - Central BESS Phase 3 - Construction & Deployment 3.3100 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - Central BESS 3.3130 Construction - Central BESS Phase 4 - Testing & Commissioning 3.4100 Commissioning & Testing - Central BESS 4.0000 Northern BESS Phase 1 - Design Permitting and Siting 4.1110 Preliminary Design - Northern Bess 4.1200 Permitting - Northern BESS 4.1300 Design & Engineering - Northern BESS 4.1500 Site Agreements - Northern Bess Phase 2 - Procurement & Acquisiton (Material and Services) 4.2100 Long Lead Purchases - Northern Bess Phase 3 - Construction & Deployment 4.3100 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - Northern BESS 4.3300 Construction - Northern BESS Phase 4 - Testing & Commissioning 4.4100 Commissioning & Testing - Northern BESS 11-2024-03-18 AlaskaEnergyAuthority_Budget_Justification REVISED only budget Period 1 (002).xlsx WBS Task - Schedule361 362 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN {Title of Project} WORK PERFORMED UNDER AGREEMENT {Agreement Number} {Recipient Organization Name} {Address} {City, State, Zip Code} Period of Performance: {start date} to {end date} Submitted: {date} Revision: {#} PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR {Name} {Phone Number} {E-Mail} BUSINESS CONTACT {Name} {Phone Number} {E-Mail} SUBMITTED TO U. S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory DOE Project Officer: {Name} 363 This report should not contain any proprietary, business sensitive, or other information not subject to public release. ACRONYM LIST .......................................................................................... 1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND TECHNICAL APPROACH ................... 2 II. KEY PERSONNEL ............................................................................... 3 III. TEAM MEMBERS ................................................................................ 4 IV. PROJECT BUDGET AND SPEND PLAN ............................................ 7 V. MILESTONE LOG .............................................................................. 10 VI. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES .................................. 11 VII. METRICS ........................................................................................... 13 VIII. RISK MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS 364 3 ACRONYM LIST CSP: Cybersecurity Plan CBP: Community Benefits Plan DOE: Department of Energy FOA: Funding Opportunity Announcement FY: Fiscal Year (federal) PMP: Project Management Plan Q#: Quarter # SOPO: Statement of Project Objectives 365 4 Add project specific acronyms as needed. RECIPIENT SHOULD REMOVE ALL ITALICIZED INSTRUCTIONS AND EXAMPLES FROM EACH. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND TECHNICAL APPROACH Provide a synopsis of the overall project that briefly describes the technical approach, objective(s), goals, and expected outcomes and relevant performance targets of the project. The applicant should provide a summary of the end of project goal(s). At a minimum, there must be one SMART end of project goal. The summary provided should be consistent with the SOPO. 366 5 II. KEY PERSONNEL List the project team’s key personnel, their role, and contact information. Key personnel are identified in the Financial Assistance Agreement and, at a minimum, include the Principal Investigator and Business Point of Contact. Note that changes to key personnel require prior DOE approval. KEY PERSONNEL Role Name Phone Email Principal Investigator Business Point of Contact 367 III. TEAM MEMBERS Complete the following table to provide a summary of Prime Recipient and Team Member planned activities by SOPO task and/or subtask number(s). SUMMARY OF TEAM MEMBER PLANNED ACTIVITIES Team Member Planned Activities by SOPO Task/Subtask Number(s) Prime Recipient 1.0 - Manage and execute the project. Develop required plans. X.Y - Design evaluations. Utility ABC X.Y - Providing data. X.Y - Software demonstration host; will install at backup/secondary control center. Professor Tom Smith, (University Name) X.Y - Engineering code development. 368 Complete the following table to provide information about the roles, location, and funding for members of the project team. If a team member has multiple roles and/or multiple locations, include a separate entry for each role and location. Include any team member: receiving or providing project funds (government or cost share) equal to or greater than $25,000; providing intellectual property (include value if applicable); and/or serving as demonstration host/location regardless of value. For each team member listed in the table, select the role description from the following: Subrecipient, Demonstration Host/Location, Vendor (e.g., services, equipment, supplies, etc.) Intellectual Property Provider (e.g., source code, data, algorithms, etc.), Cost Share Provider, and Other Use the address that is closest to where the team member’s work will be performed. SUMMARY OF TEAM MEMBER ROLES AND FUNDING Team Member Role Location Value Utility XYZ Demo Host/Location 123 Main Street Morgantown, WV 26505 $0 Utility XYZ Demo Host/Location 14 Main Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 $0 Vendor ABC Vendor 456 Main Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 $100,000 Another Utility Cost Share Provider 1 Another Utility Drive Morgantown, PA 19543 $250,000 369 370 9 IV. PROJECT PHASE AND SPEND PLAN Complete the following tables, and ensure that each budget category is consistent with the SF- 424A form included with the Financial Assistance Agreement. Use the following template guidance to capture the overall project budget summary. Following, provide the budget is detailed by each Phase as detailed in the SOPO. PLANNED BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Category Federal Share Non-Federal Share Total Personnel Fringe Benefits Travel Equipment Supplies Contractual (List each contract valued at $25,000 or more. Add rows as necessary) Remaining Contractual (Sum of all contracts that are individually valued at under $25,000) Construction Other Sub-Total Direct Charges Indirect Charges Total 371 1 PLANNED BUDGET PHASE 1 Design, Permitting and Siting Budget Category Federal Share Non-Federal Share Total Personnel Fringe Benefits Travel Equipment Supplies Contractual (List each contract valued at $25,000 or more. Add rows as necessary) Remaining Contractual (Sum of all contracts that are individually valued at under $25,000) Construction Other Sub-Total Direct Charges Indirect Charges Total PLANNED BUDGET PHASE 2, Procurement and Acquisition (Materials and Services) Budget Category Federal Share Non-Federal Share Total Personnel Fringe Benefits Travel Equipment Supplies 372 1 Contractual (List each contract valued at $25,000 or more. Add rows as necessary) Remaining Contractual (Sum of all contracts that are individually valued at under $25,000) Construction Other Sub-Total Direct Charges Indirect Charges Total PLANNED BUDGET PHASE 3, Construction and Deployment Budget Category Federal Share Non-Federal Share Total Personnel Fringe Benefits Travel Equipment Supplies Contractual (List each contract valued at $25,000 or more. Add rows as necessary) Remaining Contractual (Sum of all contracts that are individually valued at under $25,000) Construction Other Sub-Total Direct Charges Indirect Charges Total 373 1 PLANNED BUDGET PHASE 4, Testing and Commissioning Budget Category Federal Share Non-Federal Share Total Personnel Fringe Benefits Travel Equipment Supplies Contractual (List each contract valued at $25,000 or more. Add rows as necessary) Remaining Contractual (Sum of all contracts that are individually valued at under $25,000) Construction Other Sub-Total Direct Charges Indirect Charges Total Complete the following table to outline the planned spending for each quarter during the project. The list should correspond to the Federal Fiscal Year (FY). For example, “FY18, Q1” would refer to the quarter that began October 1, 2017. QUARTERLY SPEND PLAN Quarter Federal Share Non-Federal Share Total FY##, Q1 FY##, Q2 FY##, Q3 FY##, Q4 374 1 FY##, Q1 375 14 Add/Remove rows as needed. TOTAL 376 15 V. MILESTONE LOG Complete the following table to identify milestones that demonstrate significant progress toward meeting the overall project goals. Include go/no-go decision points and their associated decision criteria in the table. A milestone is a time-based marker that indicates that a significant activity, process, or phase of work has been initiated or completed. A milestone may be either a progress measure (which can be activity based) or a SMART technical milestone. SMART milestones should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timely, and must demonstrate a technical achievement rather than simply completing a task. For each milestone, list the associated SOPO task/subtask and how the achievement of the milestone will be verified. (For Topic Area 3 Projects, the Project Officer should ensure that the following items are included: : The readiness, viability, and expected timing of the deployment strategy, including key milestones relating to critical financial, development, and implementation stages of the project) Additional milestone guidance is provided immediately following in this PMP template. MILESTONE LOG Milestone (or Decision Point) SOPO Task/ Subtask Number Planned Completion Date Verification Method (or Decision Criteria) NDAs with industry partners are signed X.Y MM/DD/YY Confirmation email to Federal Project Officer. Design specification complete. X.Y MM/DD/YY Confirmed in quarterly report. 377 16 Guidance for Creating Project Management Plan Milestones Include Go/No-Go decision points as listed in the SOPO. At a minimum, each project must have at least one Go/No-Go decision point for each phase (approximately every 12 to 18-month period) of the project. The applicant should also provide the specific objective criteria to be used to evaluate the project at the Go/No-Go decision point. Go/No-Go decision points are considered “SMART” and can fulfill the requirement for an annual SMART milestone. A milestone is used to gauge overall progress toward achieving the project goals. In order to exhibit project progress/achievement as accurately as possible, a milestone must be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely. The project must have at least one milestone per quarter for the duration of the project with at least one SMART technical milestone per year (depending on the project, more milestones may be necessary to comprehensively demonstrate progress). A sufficient number of milestones should be included that demonstrate work completed or progress made towards achieving project goals. Fundamentally, a milestone: Marks the end or the beginning of an event; Occurs by a specific date; Has no duration of time, expends no resources, and has no associated costs; and Can be verified. A milestone is not a process, task, activity, or deliverable. However, as shown in the following examples, the completion of a process, task, activity; or submission of a deliverable can be a milestone. A process: “Oversight of the NEPA program” may be a significant element of the project, however it does not help measure actual progress. On the other hand, “Obtain a NEPA Categorical Exclusion” (as part of the NEPA process) can be a milestone. A SOPO task/subtask or activity: While the task “Development of the Preliminary Design” may be substantial, it is not a milestone. However, “Complete the Preliminary Design” could be a milestone since it would be a measure of progress made towards achieving the project goals. A deliverable: “Submit the Communications Plan” may be considered a milestone since it marks completion of a significant task, activity, phase, etc. As such, the deliverable can provide a measure of project progress. However, unless the deliverable marks the completion of an important work package or phase, it may not possess sufficient significance to warrant being a milestone. It is understood that Recipients will use a variety of internal indicators, benchmarks, etc. to track/gauge the progress made by the team toward completing the planned project. However, many of these may not have the significance to be included as a PMP milestone. 378 VI. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES Complete the following table to provide the schedule and estimated cost for executing each of the tasks and subtasks described in the SOPO. Additionally, provide a WBS Gantt chart as an appendix to this PMP. SCHEDULE & COST SUMMARY BY PHASE SOPO Task/ Subtask Number SOPO Task/ Subtask Title Planned Start Date Planned Completion Date Planned Total Cost (DOE and Cost Share) 1.0 Project Management and Planning MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY $XXX,XXX Complete the following table to include only the deliverables defined in the SOPO. DELIVERABLES LOG SOPO Task/ Subtask Number Deliverable Planned Completion Date 1.1 Project Management Plan MM/DD/YY 1.2 Community Benefits Plan MM/DD/YY 1.3 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance MM/DD/YY 1.4 Cybersecurity Plan (* if applicable) MM/DD/YY VII. METRICS Complete the following table to include all the metrics stipulated in the FOA, and any metrics defined by the Recipient. PROJECT METRICS 379 SOPO Task/ Subtask Number Tracking Metric Units (%, $, #, etc.) Goal for Phase X.X Estimated capital cost $/unit $1,000 X.X Number of utilities participating in energy emergency exercises # 15 X.X System energy efficiencies % Improvement by >20% X.X Outage time of critical loads Hours/ Interruption Reduced by >98% XX Increase the capacity of transmission facilities % Improvement by >20% SELECT APPROPRIATE COLUMN HEADERS BASED ON PHASE. 380 19 VIII. RISK MANAGEMENT Complete the following table to identify both internal and external risks (i.e., technical, resource, management, etc.), that may impact the likelihood of project success. For each identified risk, indicate any relevant task/subtask, likelihood of occurrence and the extent and potential impact on successful project completion. Provide a narrative below the table that describes the project’s risk management process, including at a minimum: monitoring frequency, new risk identification, risk retirement, and team member involvement. RISK MANAGEMENT LOG Risk Likelihood (High, Medium, Low) Impact (High, Medium, Low) Potential Impact (Identify SOPO Task/Subtask, if applicable) Mitigation Strategy Inability to secure required cost share. Low High Scope of project will be reduced or project may be terminated. {Insert appropriate mitigation strategy here} Loss of utility partner. Low Medium Significant delay in starting demonstration phase in Task 5.0. {Insert appropriate mitigation strategy here} 381 382 pg. 1 FOA-0002740 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP), Topic Area 3 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES (SOPO) Alaska Energy Authority Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project – Phase 1 A.OBJECTIVES The Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (RIR) aims to enhance resiliency and transfer capability along the Railbelt. The Railbelt has experienced decreasing frequency regulation, slowed disturbance response and increased 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. Along with the High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable, these additions will alleviate transmission congestion and optimize interregional transfer capability. The project's innovative solutions 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 several primary components to meet the project's objectives. The projects involve the interconnection of AC Transmission with a 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. The first component is a HVDC transmission tie connection between the Kenai Peninsula and the Beluga substation. This transmission tie consists of an HVDC cable and the associated converter stations. The overall objective of this segment is to construct a parallel path between the Central region and Southern region which will 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 new bay on the Kenai along with a converter station. A similar process is repeated on the west side of Cook Inlet where the HVDC transitions back to AC at the Beluga substation. 383 pg. 2 The second component 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. Incorporating BESS units in all three regions (Southern, Central & Northern) will provide significant reliability and economic benefit to the entire Railbelt. The Northern BESS will be installed within a building to provide maximum protection from Fairbanks’ extreme temperatures. Both BESS units will include battery modules, power transformers, switchgear and associated bus, steel, control, fire suppression and communications equipment. C.TASKS TO BE PERFORMED Task 1.0: Project Management and Planning Subtask 1.1 Project Management Plan (PMP): Within 30 days of award, the Recipient shall provide the Project Management Plan (PMP) to the designated Federal Project Officer (FPO). The Recipient shall not proceed beyond Task 1.0 until the PMP has been accepted by the FPO. 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. The Recipient shall manage and direct the project in accordance with the accepted PMP to meet all technical, schedule and budget objectives and requirements. The Recipient will coordinate activities to effectively accomplish the work. The Recipient will ensure that project plans, results, and decisions are appropriately documented, and that project reporting and briefing requirements are satisfied. Subtask 1.2: Community Benefits Plan Within 30 days of award, the Recipient shall revise the Community Benefits Plan (CBP) and submit to the designated Federal Project Officer (FPO). The Recipient shall not proceed beyond Task 1.0 until the CBP has been accepted by the FPO. The CBP shall be revised and resubmitted as often as necessary, during the project execution, to capture any major/significant changes to the CBP with regard to the four priority goals; Community and Labor Engagement; Investing in the American Workforce; Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility; and Justice 40 Initiative. The Recipient will coordinate activities to effectively implement the CBP goals. The Recipient will ensure that metrics, SMART community benefits plan commitments, and 384 pg. 3 outcomes are appropriately documented, and that reporting and briefing requirements to stakeholders are satisfied. Subtask 1.3: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance As required, the Recipient shall provide the documentation necessary for NEPA compliance. Subtask 1.4: Cybersecurity Plan (CSP) The CSP shall be revised and resubmitted as often as necessary, during the course of the project, to capture any major/significant changes. Subtask 1.5: Regulatory, State, Local, Regional, and/or Federal Approval As applicable, the Recipient will secure and maintain relevant regulatory agency, state, local, regional, and/or federal agencies approvals. 385 pg. 4 Phase 1 - Design Permitting and Siting Task 2.0 - HVDC Transmission tie between the Kenai Peninsula and Beluga Subtask 2.1 - Preliminary Design Subtask 2.1.1 - Preliminary Design - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Perform initial system review and studies and then develop initial design in order to start NEPA process. Subtask 2.1.2 - Preliminary Design - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Perform initial system review and studies and then develop initial design in order to start NEPA process. Subtask 2.1.3 - Preliminary Design - HVDC Submarine Cable Perform initial system review and studies and then develop initial design in order to start NEPA process. Subtask 2.2 - Permitting Subtask 2.2.1 - Permitting - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Commence NEPA Process & acquire regulatory permits. Subtask 2.2.2 - Permitting - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Commence NEPA Process & acquire regulatory permits. Subtask 2.2.3 - Permitting - HVDC Submarine Cable Commence NEPA Process & acquire regulatory permits. Subtask 2.3 - Design & Engineering Subtask 2.3.1 - Design & Engineering - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Develop detailed engineering design documents. Subtask 2.3.2 - Design & Engineering - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Develop detailed engineering design documents. Subtask 2.3.3 - Design & Engineering - HVDC Submarine Cable Develop detailed engineering design documents. 386 pg. 5 Subtask 2.4 - Site Agreements Subtask 2.4.1 - Site Agreements - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Obtain title to or use agreements for surface rights. Subtask 2.4.2 - Site Agreements - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Obtain title to or use agreements for surface rights. Subtask 2.4.3 - Site Agreements - HVDC Submarine Cable Obtain title to or use agreements for corridor rights. Task 3.0 - Central BESS Subtask 3.1 - Preliminary Design - Central BESS Preform initial system review and studies and then develop initial design in order to start NEPA process. Subtask 3.2 – Permitting - Central BESS Procure necessary permits by following the NEPA process. Subtask 3.3 - Design & Engineering - Central BESS Develop detailed engineering design documents. Subtask 3.4 - Site Agreements - Central BESS Obtain title to or use agreements for surface rights. Task 4.0 - Northern BESS Subtask 4.1 - Preliminary Design - Northern BESS Preform initial system review and studies and then develop initial design in order to start NEPA process. Subtask 4.2 - Permitting - Northern BESS Procure necessary permits by following the NEPA process. Subtask 4.3 - Design & Engineering - Northern BESS Develop detailed engineering design documents. Subtask 4.4 - Site Agreements - Northern BESS Obtain title to or use agreements for surface rights. 387 pg. 6 Phase 2 - Procurement & Acquisition (Material and Services) Task 5.0 - HVDC Transmission tie between the Kenai Peninsula and Beluga Subtask 5.1 - Long Lead Purchases Subtask 5.1.1 - Long Lead Purchases - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Once engineering has determined specs for long lead items, issue RFP, select vendors and place orders for or obtain production slots for long lead items. Subtask 5.1.2 - Long Lead Purchases - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Once engineering has determined specs for long lead items, issue RFP, select vendors and place orders for or obtain production slots for long lead items. Subtask 5.1.3 - Long Lead Purchases - HVDC Submarine Cable Once engineering has determined specs for long lead items, issue RFP, select vendors and place orders for or obtain production slots for long lead items. Task 6.0 - Central BESS Subtask 6.1 – Long Lead Purchases - Central BESS Once engineering has determined specs for long lead items, issue RFP, select vendors and place orders for or obtain production slots for long lead items. Task 7.0 - Northern BESS Subtask 7.1 - Long Lead Purchases - Northern Bess Once engineering has determined specs for long lead items, issue RFP, select vendors and place orders for or obtain production slots for long lead items. Phase 3 - Construction & Deployment Task 8.0 - HVDC Transmission tie between the Kenai Peninsula and Beluga Subtask 8.1 - Right of Way Clearing Subtask 8.1.1 - Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Define scope, issue RFP and enter contracts for site surveys, clearing and civil work. 388 pg. 7 Subtask 8.1.2 - Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Define scope, issue RFP, and enter contracts for site surveys, clearing and civil work. Subtask 8.1.3 - Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep - HVDC Submarine Cable Define scope, issue RFP and enter contracts for site surveys, clearing and civil work. Subtask 8.2 - Construction Subtask 8.2.1 - Construction - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Define scope, issue RFP and enter contracts for construction of facilities. Subtask 8.2.2 - Construction - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Define scope, issue RFP and enter contracts for construction of facilities. Subtask 8.2.3 - Construction - HVDC Submarine Cable Define scope, issue RFP and enter contracts for installation of subsea cable. Task 9.0 - Central BESS Subtask 9.1 - Right of Way Clearing - Central BESS Define scope, issue RFP and enter contracts for site surveys, clearing and civil work. Subtask 9.2 - Construction - Central BESS Define scope, issue RFP and enter contracts for construction of facilities. Task 10.0 - Northern BESS Subtask 10.1 - Right of Way Clearing - Northern BESS Define scope, issue RFP and enter contracts for site surveys, clearing and civil work. Subtask 10.2 - Construction - Northern BESS Define scope, issue RFP and enter contracts for construction of facilities. Phase 4 - Testing & Commissioning Task 11.0 - HVDC Transmission tie between the Kenai Peninsula and Beluga Subtask 11.1 - Testing & Commissioning 389 pg. 8 Subtask 11.1.1 - Testing & Commissioning - Kenai HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Testing, Commissioning, and certification of facilities Subtask 11.1.2 - Testing & Commissioning - Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard Testing, Commissioning, and certification of facilities Subtask 11.1.3 - Testing & Commissioning - HVDC Submarine Cable Testing, Commissioning, and certification of facilities Task 12.0 - Central BESS Subtask 12.1 - Testing & Commissioning – Central BESS Testing, commissioning, and certification of facilities Task 13.0 - Northern BESS Subtask 13.1 Testing & Commissioning – Northern BESS Testing, commissioning, and certification of facilities 390 pg. 9 D.DELIVERABLES Listed below are a summary of the initial document to be submitted. Subtask 1.1: Project Management Plan as outlined above. Subtask 1.2: Community Benefits Plan as outlined above. Subtask 1.3: NEPA Compliance (as applicable) Subtask 1.4: Cybersecurity Plan Technical Go/No Go Decision Briefings Document(s) Final Project Accomplishments (format to be provided by the FPM) •Due 30 days prior to the end of the performance period Additional deliverables as well as any documents that the DOE and AEA determine are applicable will be delivered to DOE. In addition to the deliverables listed above, the Recipient shall submit all periodic, topical, final, and other reports in accordance with the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist and accompanying instructions. 390A pg. 10 E.BRIEFINGS/TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS The Recipient shall prepare, and present periodic briefings, technical presentations and demonstrations as requested by the Federal Project Officer, which may be held at a DOE or the Recipient’s facility, other mutually agreeable location, or via webinar. Such meetings may include all or a combination of the following: Kickoff Briefing - Not more than 60 days after submission of the Project Management Plan, the Recipient shall prepare and present a project summary briefing as part of a Project Kickoff Meeting. Technical Go/No Go Decision Briefings – Not less than 90 days prior to each 12-18 month increment, the Recipient shall brief the DOE on the performance relative to project success criteria, milestones, Go/No-Go Decision point metrics that are documented in the Project Management Plan (PMP), and their plans for the subsequent periods of work. The Go/No-Go Decision will be based on the successful completion of both the work relative to the milestones and metrics as defined in the PMP (including approval of associated deliverables) as well as meeting the established milestones defined in the Community Benefits Outcomes and Objectives (CBOO) for the given performance period. A determination will then be provided as written authorization from the DOE Contracting Officer (CO) to proceed in accordance with the award terms and conditions. The DOE will consider the information from this briefing, as well as the content of deliverables submitted to date, prior to authorizing continuing the project. Final Project Briefing - Not less than 30 days prior to the end of the project, the Recipient shall prepare and present a Final Project Briefing on the results and accomplishments of the entire project. Other Briefings – The Recipient shall prepare and present technical, financial, and/or administrative briefings as requested by the DOE. A project technical review briefing will be conducted no less than annually. Additionally, the DOE may require Recipients to make technical presentations at national and/or industry conferences. 390B DRAFT – March 15, 2024 1 Railbelt InnovaƟon Resiliency Project: Community Benefits Outcomes and ObjecƟves Community Benefits Outcomes and Objectives Recipient Name: Alaska Energy Authority Project Title: Railbelt InnovaƟon Resiliency Project Grant Number: 13888581 I. ExecuƟve Summary The Railbelt InnovaƟve Resiliency (RIR) Project will directly benefit both Tribal and disadvantaged communiƟes (DACs) in Alaska’s Railbelt region. The project seeks to build a resilient, clean, smart, and affordable electrical grid in Alaska. RIR Community Benefits outcomes and objecƟves include: Robust public parƟcipaƟon plan with public AEA memo issued in response to stakeholder feedback. Increased transfer capacity between regions to enable higher renewable energy integraƟon and a reducƟon in fossil fuel generaƟon and associated emissions. Improved long term air quality in communiƟes that house fuel‐based power generaƟon. Resilience and reliability improvements for Tribal communiƟes and DACs on the Railbelt. CreaƟon of construcƟon jobs and long term operaƟon posiƟons. CreaƟon of apprenƟceship and internship programs to reinvigorate Alaska’s energy workforce, including local and Alaska NaƟve hiring preference. Decreased on‐Railbelt community energy burdens with potenƟal member savings of $44,080,000 annually. Decreased off‐Railbelt community energy burdens via increased Power Cost EqualizaƟon (PCE) with potenƟal consumer PCE credit increases of $1,089,145 annually. The project team will work to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with each of the 17 Alaska NaƟve Village StaƟsƟcal areas on the Railbelt to promote local hiring and creaƟng meaningful engagement. All procurement will comply with Alaska public contracƟng law which incorporates the Davis‐Bacon Act (DBA). DBA is a set of federal laws applicable to federal public construcƟon projects. The LiƩle Davis‐Bacon Act (LDBA) is a set of state laws applicable to state projects. Some projects, such as certain highway projects, may be funded with both federal and state funds and may be covered by both federal and state laws. In these cases, construcƟon contractors must comply with the most stringent provisions of both sets of laws. 391 DRAFT – March 15, 2024 2 Railbelt InnovaƟon Resiliency Project: Community Benefits Outcomes and ObjecƟves Milestone Table Category and Commitment ExisƟng or Planned Budget period 1 Budget period 2 Budget period 3 Budget period 4 Community and Labor Engagement Issue RFP and select contractor to assist with public parƟcipaƟon plan. Planned X DraŌ stakeholder engagement strategies and outreach media. Planned A focus group will be used to test the effecƟveness of these materials on diverse populaƟons. Launch RIR website with public meeƟng schedule, project descripƟon, ArcGIS Online mapping tool, and public comment secƟon. Planned X Each (4) uƟlity provider and AEA hosts introductory public work session. Planned X Conduct surveys to address data gaps idenƟfied during introductory public work sessions. Planned X One‐on‐one work sessions with relevant organizaƟons, including Tribes and DACs. Planned & ExisƟng Contact already made with: Alaska FederaƟon of NaƟves, Alaska Village Electric CooperaƟve, Alaska Black Caucus, Alaska Municipal League, IBEW Local 1547, IUOE Local 302, Alaska OperaƟng Engineers Training Trust, Alaska Joint Electrical ApprenƟceship & Training Trust. 392 DRAFT – March 15, 2024 3 Railbelt InnovaƟon Resiliency Project: Community Benefits Outcomes and ObjecƟves Joint meeƟng re: submarine HVDC cable through Cook Inlet to discuss best pracƟces to minimize environmental impacts. Planned In addiƟon to federal requirements, Project team and Environmental Contractor will meet with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, NaƟonal Marine Fisheries Service, and Kenaitze and Knik Tribal Councils. “Going to the people” outreach conducted in more informal seƫngs to recruit diverse group of stakeholders. Planned Outreach conducted at minimum of 3 public events designed to reach diverse/releva nt audiences: (Alaska FederaƟon of NaƟves convenƟon, Alaska Black Caucus Sunday night Zoom meeƟngs, Alaska State Fair, etc.) Each (4) uƟlity provider as well as Alaska Energy Authority hosts second public work session. Survey results shared as well as public comment themes to‐date. Planned X RIR public parƟcipaƟon plan report published by AEA, along with memo in response, summarizing and responding to comments. Planned X 393 DRAFT – March 15, 2024 4 Railbelt InnovaƟon Resiliency Project: Community Benefits Outcomes and ObjecƟves AEA will conduct work sessions with Labor organizaƟons as part of public parƟcipaƟon plan. Planned AEA will work to establish MOAs with Railbelt Tribes or Tribal enƟƟes and local governments to discuss local hiring opportunies. Planned X Support for Worker Organizing/CollecƟve Bargaining ☐ Pledge to remain neutral during any union organizing campaigns ☐Pledge to permit union recogniƟon through card check ☐ IntenƟon to enter into binding arbitraƟon to seƩle first contracts ☐ Pledge to allow union organizers access to appropriate onsite non‐work spaces (e.g. lunch rooms) ☐ Pledge to refrain from holding capƟve audience meeƟngs X X Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility ☐ Local and/or targeted recruitment efforts ☐ MWBE contracƟng ☐ Partner with quality pre‐ apprenƟceship or apprenƟceship readiness program X X X X Discuss intern opportuniƟes with Alaska NaƟve Science and Engineering Program. Planned AEA commitment that work performed with GRIP funding will be done in compliance with Alaska public contracƟng law. ExisƟng X X X Project is subject to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ requirements for hiring ExisƟng X X X X 394 DRAFT – March 15, 2024 5 Railbelt InnovaƟon Resiliency Project: Community Benefits Outcomes and ObjecƟves and adhering to an AffirmaƟve AcƟon Plan. AffirmaƟve acƟon and anƟ‐bias trainings for project hirers. Planned X X X X Work with the University of Alaska, contractors and our uƟlity partners to develop apprenƟce and training. ExisƟng X X X Work sessions with Alaska OperaƟng Engineers/Employers Training Trust (AOEETT), and the Alaska Joint Electrical ApprenƟceship & Training Trust (AJEATT) will assess how these apprenƟceship programs serve workers facing systemic barriers to employment, and how to reduce those barriers through RIR implementaƟon. Findings to be included in public parƟcipaƟon report. Planned X X X X Collect data on workforce veteran status, ethnicity, gender, and disability status through RIR implementaƟon. Planned X Conduct work sessions with organizaƟons represenƟng DACs affected by project, including tribal councils, Alaska Black Caucus, and Alaska FederaƟon of NaƟves, to understand desired benefits and reduced impacts. Minutes included in public parƟcipaƟon plan report. Planned X X X JusƟce40 IniƟaƟve X X AEA will host a joint meeƟng with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, NaƟonal Marine Fisheries Service, and Kenaitze and Knik Tribal Councils to discuss how to minimize adverse environmental impacts re: placement of HVDC cable across Cook Inlet. Minutes included in public parƟcipaƟon plan report. Planned RIR will increase transfer capacity between the three Railbelt regions, paving the way for development of clean energy soluƟons that will miƟgate environmental impacts Projected X 395 DRAFT – March 15, 2024 6 Railbelt InnovaƟon Resiliency Project: Community Benefits Outcomes and ObjecƟves from 3,218 natural‐gas‐produced GWh on Railbelt each year, resulƟng in 1.61 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent. RIR is projected to result in a 10‐ 15% reducƟon in thermal spending due to decreased line losses and reduced reserves, represenƟng a non‐cumulaƟve decrease of over 200 million kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Preliminary EsƟmate Improved long‐term air quality in communiƟes that house fuel‐based power generaƟon. Projected Railbelt’s 260,000 residenƟal uƟlity accounts serve 623,916 individuals, 242,407 (39%) of whom live in a DAC or on Tribal Land. BPMC engineers project GMRP (of which RIR is a part) overall fuel savings could result in a reducƟon of 0.5 cents/kWh to 1.5 cents/kWh. The combined Railbelt uƟliƟes sold 4,408 GWh (GigawaƩ‐Hours) in 2020, suggesƟng total savings of $44,080,000 for a 1 cent per kWh cost reducƟon. Much of these $44 million in annual savings should pass through to member‐owners. Projected In FY22 PCE served 188 communiƟes, 154 (82%) of whom qualify as DACs or Tribal lands. Approximately 108,914,530 of PCE‐ eligible kWh were produced between residenƟal and community faciliƟes in those 154 DACs. At a one cent decrease in the average class rate, the increased credit amount that would be issued by AEA to PCE‐enrolled DACs is $1,089,145. Actual average class rate reducƟon presumed to be lower due to exclusion of Juneau from GMRP project. Projected 26% of Railbelt customers live in an Alaska NaƟve Village StaƟsƟcal Area (ANVSA), many of which are located in remote areas with Planned 396 DRAFT – March 15, 2024 7 Railbelt InnovaƟon Resiliency Project: Community Benefits Outcomes and ObjecƟves energy infrastructure that is parƟcularly 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 Ɵes together the Railbelt’s Southern and Central regions, and which will allow for conƟnued energy transmission between regions in the event of a major natural disaster. IdenƟfies benefits/impacts to disadvantaged communiƟes ☒ Yes (Cantwell ANVSA, Chickaloon ANVSA, ChiƟna ANVSA, Copper Center ANVSA, Eklutna ANVSA, Gakona ANVSA, Gulkana ANVSA, Kenaitze ANVSA, Knik ANVSA, Nanwalek ANVSA, Nenana ANVSA, Ninilchik ANVSA, Northway ANVSA, Port Graham ANVSA, Seldovia ANVSA, Tanacross ANVSA, Tazlina ANVSA) ☐ No ReducƟon in energy costs ☒ Yes ☐ No A decrease in environmental exposure and burdens ☒ Yes ☐ No An increase in quality job creaƟon, the clean energy job pipeline, and job training for individuals ☒ Yes ☐ No Increases in clean energy enterprise creaƟon and contracƟng (e.g., minority‐owned or diverse business enterprises) ☒ Yes ☐ No An increase in energy resilience ☒ Yes ☐ No Project makes clean energy project development by 397 DRAFT – March 15, 2024 8 Railbelt InnovaƟon Resiliency Project: Community Benefits Outcomes and ObjecƟves independent power producers more cost‐ feasible by increasing customer base and economy of scale due to increased transfer capacity Resilience benefits include right of way clearing, aerial inspecƟons, and refurbishment of exisƟng lines and structures. X X 398 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance As required, AEA will undertake the NEPA process to consider the potential environmental consequences of the project, to consult with other interested agencies, to document the analysis, and to make this information available to the public for comment before the implementation of the project. AEA believes that this project could require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If an EIS is required, AEA will undertake a study with a Lead Agency to identify and analyze adverse environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives as appropriate. 399 400 Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project December 2023 V0.2 Cybersecurity Plan 401 Tabl e of Contents A.Project Title: Railbelt Innovative Resiliency (RIR) Project ........................................................ 4 B.Overview of the Cybersecurity Plan .................................................................................................. 4 C.Asset, Change, and Configuration Management ........................................................................ 5 D.Threat and Vulnerability Management .......................................................................................... 17 E.Risk Management.................................................................................................................................. 21 F.Identity and Access Management .................................................................................................. 23 G.Situational Awareness ......................................................................................................................... 28 H.Event and Incident Response, Continuity of Operations ........................................................ 33 I.Supply Chain and Third-Party Risk Assessment ....................................................................... 42 J.Training ................................................................................................................................................. 43 K.Cybersecurity Architecture ................................................................................................................ 48 L.Cybersecurity Program Management ............................................................................................ 63 M.Physical Security of Critical Transmission Facilities ............................................................... 67 402 THIS CYBER SECURITY PLAN IS A CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT.PAGE 3 thru PAGE 68 HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY DELETED FROM THIS PUBLICATION 403 404 Alaska Energy Authority Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Federal Funding and Match Requirement Project Funding Plan as of March 7, 2024 Appropriations Other Funding Expenditure Funding FY Fed Match Fund Source To Be Determined No Approp Needed Fed State Funds or Source To Be Determined Existing AEA Revenue Bonds ** 2025 206.50 12.70 - 20.00 Grant negotiations, bondholder outreach, legal review, and other preparatory costs. Initiate design, engineering, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/ permitting process for High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) and Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS).32.70 12.70 20.00 2026 - - 6.50 25.00 NEPA process, begin procurement of BESS, site design and engineering.31.50 6.50 25.00 2027 - - 8.80 - NEPA process.8.80 8.80 - 2028 - - 21.80 5.00 Complete NEPA process, construct BESS building, begin right-of-way clearing and site preparation.26.80 21.80 5.00 2029 - - 60.00 - HVDC component construction begins (Soldotna switchyard, Soldotna-Bernice HVDC line, Beluga landing, HVDC submarine cable); BESS testing and commissioning.60.00 60.00 - 2030 - - 30.95 - HVDC component construction continues (Soldotna switchyard, Soldotna-Bernice HVDC line, Beluga landing, HVDC submarine cable).30.95 30.95 - 2031 - - 15.75 - HVDC component construction complete (Soldotna switchyard, Soldotna-Bernice HVDC line, Beluga landing, HVDC submarine cable).15.75 15.75 - 2032 - - - - - - - 2033 - - - - - - - 2034 - - - - - - - Total 206.50 12.70 143.80 50.00 206.50 156.50 50.00 Activity 413.00413.00 $ in Millions 405 406 Solar for AllALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 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 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF): Solar for All Competition Overview: The Inflation Reduction Act amended the Clean Air Act to include Section 134 (42 U.S.C. § 7434), which authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make competitive grants under the Solar for All competition with appropriations funded by Section 134(a)(1). The law appropriates $7 billion to EPA to make competitive grants to States, Tribal governments, municipalities, and other eligible recipients to provide subgrants, loans, or other forms of financial assistance as well as technical assistance to deploy residential rooftop and residential-serving community solar projects in and benefiting low-income and disadvantaged communities. Grantees will use funds to expand existing low-income solar programs or design and deploy new Solar for All programs. EPA will not fund individual projects under this competition. Per Section 134(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 100% of Solar for All funds must be deployed to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit from zero-emissions technologies. Additional information can be found on the EPA’s website here. Eligible Entities: Eligible applicants for this program are States, Territories, Tribal governments, Municipalities (including councils of governments), and eligible nonprofit recipients1. Both individual applicants as well as coalition applicants are eligible to apply to Solar for All. A coalition application is composed of one lead applicant, which partners with one or more non- lead coalition member(s) that are named in the application and would receive subawards to carry out a portion of the grant’s activities. The lead applicant must be an eligible applicant and submit the application on behalf of the coalition. The non-lead coalition member(s) may be eligible applicants as defined in Section 134(c)(1) as well as other types of nonprofits, governmental entities, and Institutions of Higher Education that are entities eligible for subawards under the EPA Subaward Policy. There is no limit on the number of applications an applicant can submit to this program; each application must be for a different program (serving a different geography and different scope of work) and separately submitted. Funding: EPA intends to make up to 60 awards under this competition with three award options for applicants: (1) Up to 56 awards, one to serve each of the 56 states and territories; (2) Up to 5 awards to serve American Indian and Alaska Native Communities; and, (3) Up to 10 awards to serve similar communities across multiple states. 1 Section 134(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act provides that an eligible recipient (a) is a non-profit organization not including Institutes of Higher Education; (b) 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; (c) does not take deposits other than deposits from repayments and other revenue received from financial assistance provided using grant funds under this program; (d) is funded by public or charitable contributions; and (e) invests in or finances projects alone or in conjunction with other investors. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 5 EPA expects 60 awards with amounts to vary based on geography and proposed program deployment goals ranging from $25 million to $400 million, broken down by small, medium, and large-sized programs as described below. Applicants should request an award amount that supports the number of households the program is designed to serve, and applicants should design programs that are calibrated to the geography and population the applicant is proposing to serve. Applicants for award option #1 and award option #3 should aim to use at least 75% of the award for financial assistance to solar projects. Applicants for award option #2 should aim to use at least 65% of funds for financial assistance to solar projects. The targets for financial assistance to solar projects include financial assistance for associated storage and enabling upgrades in conjunction with a solar project supported under this program. The remaining funds may be used for project-development technical assistance and program administration. Cost Share: Cost sharing is not a requirement to be eligible to apply to this solicitation. Key Dates: Applicants are required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI). An NOI is required for every application you anticipate submitting. The deadline for the NOI is July 31, 2023 for States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico; August 14, 2023 for The Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, municipalities, and eligible nonprofit recipients; and August 28, 2023 for Tribal governments and Intertribal Consortia. Complete application packages must be submitted on or before October 12, 2023. Period of Performance: EPA anticipates the start date for programs funded under this funding opportunity will be July 2024. All activities funded with the initial grant award must be completed within the negotiated program performance period of up to five years, meaning all program grant funds must be deployed as described in the application. Applicants may elect to include a program planning period in their application that should not exceed one year. Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 5 Eligible Activities: The Solar for All competition will fund the expansion of existing programs or the development of new programs. Section 134(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act provides that grants be used to provide financial assistance and technical assistance to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit from zero-emissions technologies. Terms and technology categories are defined below. Residential Rooftop Solar: Behind-the-meter solar photovoltaic (PV) power-producing facilities, including rooftop, pole-mounted, and ground-mounted PV systems, that support individual households in existing and new single-family homes, manufactured homes, and multifamily buildings. The definition includes behind-the-meter solar facilities serving multifamily buildings classified as commercial buildings so long as the solar facility benefits individual households either directly or indirectly such as through tenant benefit agreements. Residential rooftop solar includes properties that are both rented and owned. Residential-Serving Community Solar: A solar PV power-producing facility or solar energy purchasing program from a power-producing facility, with up to 5 MW nameplate capacity, that delivers at least 50% of the power generated from the system to multiple residential customers within the same utility territory as the facility. There are a variety of community solar ownership models that can be considered, including community-owned solar, third-party- owned community solar, and utility-owned community solar. Associated Storage: Infrastructure to store solar-generated power for the purposes of maximizing residential rooftop and residential-serving community solar deployment, delivering demand response needs, aggregating assets into virtual power plants, and delivering residential power during grid outages. Financial assistance for associated storage must be deployed in conjunction with financial assistance for a solar PV system and the storage asset must be connected to the solar PV system. Enabling Upgrades: Investments in energy and building infrastructure that are necessary to deploy and/or maximize the benefits of a residential rooftop and residential-serving community solar project. Enabling upgrades can include, but are not limited to, electrical system upgrades, structural building repairs and energy efficiency. Applicants may decide the exact types of enabling upgrades that are eligible for Solar for All financial assistance, yet all enabling upgrades should be energy and building infrastructure related and deployed in conjunction with financial assistance for an eligible solar PV system. Financial assistance for enabling upgrades may comprise up to 20% of the total financial assistance deployed during the lifetime of the program. Financial Assistance: Financial assistance is defined as subgrants, rebates, subsidies, other incentive payments, debt (including loans, partially forgivable loans, forgivable loans, soft loans, subordinate debt), and other financial products consistent with the definition of Federal financial assistance in 2 CFR § 200.1 and Participant support costs in 2 CFR § 1500.1.11 Solar for All financial assistance is intended to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from solar, storage, and enabling upgrades, while ensuring all projects. Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 5 Technical Assistance: Technical assistance is defined as “project-deployment technical assistance” and is services and tools provided by grantees to communities and energy stakeholders to overcome non-financial barriers to solar deployment. Examples of these services and tools include workforce training, customer outreach and education, project deployment assistance such as siting, permitting, and interconnection support, and coordination with utilities for the purposes of project deployment. Program Administration Activities: Consistent with 2 CFR § 200.403, expenditures such as program administration costs are allowable under federal awards provided they are necessary and reasonable for the performance of the award—in this program, for the provision of financial assistance and project-deployment technical assistance. Expenditures for program administration activities could include those for program performance, financial and administrative reporting, and compliance, including but not limited to activities to support, monitor, oversee, and audit subrecipients, contractors, and program beneficiaries. Program administration costs include procuring services and tools that support program design. Program Scope and Vision: Both new and existing programs funded by this competition should align with the scope and vision of the GGRF Solar for All program. This vision includes delivering meaningful benefits, as described in Section I.D of the NOFO: Competition Terminology and achieving the program objectives defined in Section I.C of the NOFO: GGRF Solar for All Program Objectives. Meaningful Benefits of Residential Rooftop and Residential-Serving Community Solar: Consistent with Section 134(a)(1), this program must “enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit” from solar. This program defines “benefit” as the five meaningful benefits of residential rooftop and residential-serving community solar. EPA will evaluate applications on their vision and ability to maximize the following benefits received by low-income and disadvantaged communities. 1. Household Savings: Delivering a minimum of 20% household savings to all households served under the program, including households in multi-family, master-metered buildings; 20% household savings is defined as 20% of the average household electricity bill in the utility territory. Household savings can be delivered as a direct financial benefit or, for households without an individual utility bill, a direct non-financial benefit equivalent in value to the program’s household savings target in the utility territory. Additional detail on how to calculate household savings is included in the NOFO Appendix C: Household Savings Guidance. 2. Equitable Access to Solar: Ensuring the program increases access to residential distributed solar generation in low-income and disadvantaged communities through financing products and project-deployment technical assistance, maximizing the breadth and diversity of the households that can benefit from solar. 3. Resilience Benefits: Increasing the resilience of the power grid by creating capacity that can deliver power to low-income and disadvantaged households and/or to critical facilities serving low-income and disadvantaged households during a grid outage. Alaska Energy Authority Page 5 of 5 4. Community Ownership: Facilitating ownership models that allow for low-income households and disadvantaged communities to access the additional economic benefits of asset ownership. 5. Workforce Development and Entrepreneurship: Investing in high-quality jobs and businesses in low-income and disadvantaged communities by supporting prevailing wages, investing in effective workforce training programs for underserved populations (e.g., pre- apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship programs), and prioritizing economic opportunities for women and minority-owned businesses and contractors. GGRF Solar for All Program Objectives: Program Objective 1: Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. Program Objective 2: Deliver benefits of greenhouse gas- and air pollution-reducing projects to communities, particularly low-income and disadvantaged communities. Program Objective 3: Mobilize financing and private capital to stimulate additional deployment of greenhouse gas- and air pollution-reducing projects. AEA Application and Award Selection: In October 2023, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) submitted a coalition application for funding to be shared between the organizations, to fund a two-pronged Solar for All program for Alaska. On April 22, 2024 the EPA announced award selections for the Solar for All competition. AEA was selected to receive an award of $62,450,000. Selection for an award does not guarantee a final award. A final award is contingent on compliance with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies and agreement with the terms and conditions of the award agreement. EPA anticipates making the awards no later than September 30th, 2024. The EPA’s program does not require a cost share from the grantees. With funding, AEA will administer a grant program to develop community solar arrays, including storage, that benefit customers in disadvantaged communities where modeling shows high potential for both the solar resource and ability for microgrid integration; and, AHFC will administer a statewide residential program that provides subsidized rooftop solar installations for utility grid connected low-income households in disadvantaged communities where net metering applies. AEA will model its financial assistance off its Renewable Energy Fund (REF) program, which has successfully awarded 15 rounds of grants to communities statewide. OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 11/30/2025 * 1. Type of Submission:* 2. Type of Application: * 3. Date Received:4. Applicant Identifier: 5a. Federal Entity Identifier:5b. Federal Award Identifier: 6. Date Received by State:7. State Application Identifier: * a. Legal Name: * b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN):*c. UEI: * Street1: Street2: * City: County/Parish: * State: Province: * Country: * Zip / Postal Code: Department Name:Division Name: Prefix:* First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: Title: Organizational Affiliation: * Telephone Number:Fax Number: * Email: * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): * Other (Specify): State Use Only: 8. APPLICANT INFORMATION: d. Address: e. Organizational Unit: f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 Preapplication Application Changed/Corrected Application New Continuation Revision Alaska Energy Authority 92-6001185 F3N8ZSHJXUH8 813 W. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. ANCHORAGE AK: Alaska USA: UNITED STATES 99503-2407 Mr.Ryan McLaughlin Infrastructure Engineer 907-771-3012 907-771-3044 rmclaughlin@akenergyauthority.org * 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: * Other (specify): * 10. Name of Federal Agency: 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: CFDA Title: * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: * Title: 13. Competition Identification Number: Title: 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): * 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions. Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 A: State Government Environmental Protection Agency 66.959 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Section 134(a)(1) - Zero Emission Technologies Grant Program EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01 Solar for All State of Alaska Solar for All Program View AttachmentsDelete AttachmentsAdd Attachments View AttachmentDelete AttachmentAdd Attachment * a. Federal * b. Applicant * c. State * d. Local * e. Other * f. Program Income * g. TOTAL . Prefix: * First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: * Title: * Telephone Number: * Email: Fax Number: * Signature of Authorized Representative:* Date Signed: 18. Estimated Funding ($): 21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001) ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. Authorized Representative: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * a. Applicant Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed. * b. Program/Project * a. Start Date:* b. End Date: 16. Congressional Districts Of: 17. Proposed Project: AK-all AK-all Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment 07/01/2024 06/30/2029 100,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000,000.00 a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372. Yes No Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment ** I AGREE Mr.Curtis Thayer Executive Director 907-771-3009 907-771-3044 cthayer@akenergyauthority.org * 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) * 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? If "Yes", provide explanation and attach Preaward Compliance Review Report for All Applicants and Recipients Requesting EPA Financial Assistance Note: Read Instructions before completing form. OMB Number: 2030-0020 Expiration Date: 06/30/2024 I. A. Applicant/Recipient (Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code) Name:Alaska Energy Authority Address:813 W. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. City:Anchorage State:AK: Alaska Zip Code:99503-2407 B. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI):F3N8ZSHJXUH8 II. Is the applicant currently receiving EPA Assistance?Yes No Curtis ThayerName: 907-771-3000Phone: cthayer@akenergyauthority.orgEmail: Executive DirectorTitle: C. Applicant/Recipient Point of Contact III. List all pending civil rights lawsuits and administrative complaints filed under federal law against the applicant/recipient that allege discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. (Do not include employment complaints not covered by 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7.) None IV. List all civil rights lawsuits and administrative complaints decided against the applicant/recipient within the last year that alleged discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability and enclose a copy of all decisions. Please describe all corrective actions taken. (Do not include employment complaints not covered by 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7.) None V. List all civil rights compliance reviews of the applicant/recipient conducted under federal nondiscrimination laws by any federal agency within the last two years and enclose a copy of the review and any decisions, orders, or agreements based on the review. Please describe any corrective action taken. (40 C.F.R. § 7.80(c)(3)) None VI. Is the applicant requesting EPA assistance for new construction? If no, proceed to VII; if yes, answer (a) and/or (b) below. Yes No a. If the grant is for new construction, will all new facilities or alterations to existing facilities be designed and constructed to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities? If yes, proceed to VII; if no, proceed to VI(b). Yes No b. If the grant is for new construction and the new facilities or alterations to existing facilities will not be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, explain how a regulatory exception (40 C.F.R. 7.70) applies. Grant will fund a Solar for All program in Alaska which will install residential rooftop solar and community- based solar projects. Programs projects intended use do not require accessibility to the public or beneficiaries and therefore fall under the regulatory exception laid out in 40 C.F.R. 7.70(b)(2) VII. Does the applicant/recipient provide initial and continuing notice that it does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in its program or activities? (40 C.F.R 5.140 and 7.95) Yes No a. Do the methods of notice accommodate those with impaired vision or hearing?Yes No b. Is the notice posted in a prominent place in the applicant's/recipient’s website, in the offices or facilities or, for education programs and activities, in appropriate periodicals and other written communications? Yes No c. Does the notice identify a designated civil rights coordinator?Yes No VIII. Does the applicant/recipient maintain demographic data on the race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability status of the population it serves? (40 C.F.R. 7.85(a)) Yes No IX. Does the applicant/recipient have a policy/procedure for providing meaningful access to services for persons with limited English proficiency? (Title VI, 40 C.F.R. Part 7, Lau v Nichols 414 U.S. (1974)) Yes No X. If the applicant is an education program or activity, or has 15 or more employees, has it designated an employee to coordinate its compliance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7? Provide the name, title, position, mailing address, e-mail address, fax number, and telephone number of the designated coordinator. Karen Turner, Human Resources Director, 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503. KTurner@aidea.org, 907-771-3000 phone, 907-771-3946 fax. XI. If the applicant is an education program or activity, or has 15 or more employees, has it adopted grievance procedures that assure the prompt and fair resolution of complaints that allege a violation of 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7? Provide a legal citation or applicant’s/ recipient’s website address for, or a copy of, the procedures. https://humanrights.alaska.gov For the Applicant/Recipient I certify that the statements I have made on this form and all attachments thereto are true, accurate and complete. I acknowledge that any knowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment or both under applicable law. I assure that I will fully comply with all applicable civil rights statutes and EPA regulations. A. Signature of Authorized Official B. Title of Authorized Official Executive Director C. Date For the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency I have reviewed the information provided by the applicant/recipient and hereby certify that the applicant/recipient has submitted all preaward compliance information required by 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7; that based on the information submitted, this application satisfies the preaward provisions of 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7; and that the applicant has given assurance that it will fully comply with all applicable civil rights statures and EPA regulations. A. Signature of Authorized EPA Official B. Title of Authorized Official C. Date Instructions for EPA FORM 4700-4 (Rev. 04/2021) General. Recipients of Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must comply with the following statutes and regulations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. The Act goes on to explain that the statute shall not be construed to authorize action with respect to any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, or labor organization (except where the primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment). Section 13 of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides that no person in the United States shall on the ground of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. Employment discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited in all such programs or activities. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall solely by reason of disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Employment discrimination on the basis of disability is prohibited in all such programs or activities. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 provides that no person on the basis of age shall be excluded from participation under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Employment discrimination is not covered. Age discrimination in employment is prohibited by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act administered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides that no person in the United States on the basis of sex shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Employment discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited in all such education programs or activities. Note: an education program or activity is not limited to only those conducted by a formal institution. 40 C.F.R. Part 5 implements Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. 40 C.F.R. Part 7 implements Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 13 of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Items "Applicant" means any entity that files an application or unsolicited proposal or otherwise requests EPA assistance. 40 C.F.R. §§ 5.105, 7.25. "Recipient" means any State or its political subdivision, any instrumentality of a State or its political subdivision, any public or private agency, institution, organizations, or other entity, or any person to which Federal financial assistance is extended directly or through another recipient, including any successor, assignee, or transferee of a recipient, but excluding the ultimate beneficiary of the assistance. 40 C.F.R. §§ 5.105, 7.25. "Civil rights lawsuits and administrative complaints" means any lawsuit or administrative complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability pending or decided against the applicant and/or entity which actually benefits from the grant, but excluding employment complaints not covered by 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7. For example, if a city is the named applicant but the grant will actually benefit the Department of Sewage, civil rights lawsuits involving both the city and the Department of Sewage should be listed. "Civil rights compliance review" means: any federal agency-initiated investigation of a particular aspect of the applicant's and/or recipient's programs or activities to determine compliance with the federal non-discrimination laws. Submit this form with the original and required copies of applications, requests for extensions, requests for increase of funds, etc. Updates of information are all that are required after the initial application submission. If any item is not relevant to the project for which assistance is requested, write "NA" for "Not Applicable." In the event applicant is uncertain about how to answer any questions, EPA program officials should be contacted for clarification. Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, ''Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,'' in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. If any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, ''Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,'' in accordance with its instructions. Submission of this statement is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required statement shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. * APPLICANT'S ORGANIZATION * SIGNATURE: * DATE: * PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Suffix: Middle Name: * Title: * First Name: * Last Name: Prefix: CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: Statement for Loan Guarantees and Loan Insurance The undersigned states, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: Alaska Energy Authority Mr. Curtis Executive Director Thayer WORKSPACE FORM This Workspace form is one of the forms you need to complete prior to submitting your Application Package. This form can be completed in its entirety offline using Adobe Reader. You can save your form by clicking the "Save" button and see any errors by clicking the “Check For Errors” button. In-progress and completed forms can be uploaded at any time to Grants.gov using the Workspace feature. When you open a form, required fields are highlighted in yellow with a red border. Optional fields and completed fields are displayed in white. If you enter invalid or incomplete information in a field, you will receive an error message. Additional instructions and FAQs about the Application Package can be found in the Grants.gov Applicants tab. 1-800-518-4726 SUPPORT@GRANTS.GOV OPPORTUNITY & PACKAGE DETAILS: Opportunity Number:EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01 Opportunity Title:SOLAR FOR ALL Opportunity Package ID:PKG00282341 CFDA Number:66.959 CFDA Description:Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Section 134(a)(1) - Zero Emission Technologies Grant Program Competition ID: Competition Title: Opening Date:06/28/2023 Closing Date:10/12/2023 Agency:Environmental Protection Agency Contact Information:Further information, if needed, may be obtained by emailing ggrf@epa.gov. Information regarding this funding opportunity obtained from sources other than the EPA may not be accurate. APPLICANT & WORKSPACE DETAILS: Workspace ID:WS01198906 Application Filing Name:Solar For All State of Alaska UEI:F3N8ZSHJXUH8 Organization:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Form Name:EPA KEY CONTACTS FORM Form Version:2.0 Requirement:Mandatory Download Date/Time:Oct 11, 2023 07:31:37 PM EDT Form State:No Errors FORM ACTIONS: OMB Number: 2030-0020 Expiration Date: 06/30/2024EPA KEY CONTACTS FORM Authorized Representative: Original awards and amendments will be sent to this individual for review and acceptance, unless otherwise indicated. Name:Prefix:Mr.First Name:Curtis Middle Name: Last Name:Thayer Suffix: Title:Executive Director Complete Address: Street1:813 W. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. Street2: City:Anchorage State:AK: Alaska Zip / Postal Code:99503-2407 Country:USA: UNITED STATES Phone Number:907-771-3000 Fax Number:907-771-3044 E-mail Address:cthayer@akenergyauthority.org Payee: Individual authorized to accept payments. Name:Prefix:Ms.First Name:Pamela Middle Name: Last Name:Ellis Suffix: Title:Controller Complete Address: Street1:813 W. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. Street2: City:Anchorage State:AK: Alaska Zip / Postal Code:99503-2407 Country:USA: UNITED STATES Phone Number:907-771-3981 Fax Number:907-771-3044 E-mail Address:pellis@akenergyauthority.org Administrative Contact: Individual from Sponsored Programs Office to contact concerning administrative matters (i.e., indirect cost rate computation, rebudgeting requests etc). Name:Prefix:Ms.First Name:Pamela Middle Name: Last Name:Ellis Suffix: Title:Controller Complete Address: Street1:813 W. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. Street2: City:Anchorage State:AK: Alaska Zip / Postal Code:99503-2407 Country:USA: UNITED STATES Phone Number:907-771-3981 Fax Number:907-771-3044 E-mail Address:pellis@akenergyauthority.org EPA Form 5700-54 (Rev 4-02) EPA KEY CONTACTS FORM Project Manager: Individual responsible for the technical completion of the proposed work. Name:Prefix:Mr.First Name:Ryan Middle Name: Last Name:McLaughlin Suffix: Title:Infrastructure Engineer Complete Address: Street1:813 W. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. Street2: City:Anchorage State:AK: Alaska Zip / Postal Code:99503-2407 Country:USA: UNITED STATES Phone Number:907-771-3012 Fax Number: E-mail Address:rmclaughlin@akenergyauthority.org EPA Form 5700-54 (Rev 4-02) WORKSPACE FORM This Workspace form is one of the forms you need to complete prior to submitting your Application Package. This form can be completed in its entirety offline using Adobe Reader. You can save your form by clicking the "Save" button and see any errors by clicking the “Check For Errors” button. In-progress and completed forms can be uploaded at any time to Grants.gov using the Workspace feature. When you open a form, required fields are highlighted in yellow with a red border. Optional fields and completed fields are displayed in white. If you enter invalid or incomplete information in a field, you will receive an error message. Additional instructions and FAQs about the Application Package can be found in the Grants.gov Applicants tab. 1-800-518-4726 SUPPORT@GRANTS.GOV OPPORTUNITY & PACKAGE DETAILS: Opportunity Number:EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01 Opportunity Title:SOLAR FOR ALL Opportunity Package ID:PKG00282341 CFDA Number:66.959 CFDA Description:Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Section 134(a)(1) - Zero Emission Technologies Grant Program Competition ID: Competition Title: Opening Date:06/28/2023 Closing Date:10/12/2023 Agency:Environmental Protection Agency Contact Information:Further information, if needed, may be obtained by emailing ggrf@epa.gov. Information regarding this funding opportunity obtained from sources other than the EPA may not be accurate. APPLICANT & WORKSPACE DETAILS: Workspace ID:WS01198906 Application Filing Name:Solar For All State of Alaska UEI:F3N8ZSHJXUH8 Organization:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Form Name:EPA Form 4700-4 Form Version:5.0 Requirement:Mandatory Download Date/Time:Oct 11, 2023 07:52:19 PM EDT Form State:No Errors FORM ACTIONS: Preaward Compliance Review Report for All Applicants and Recipients Requesting EPA Financial Assistance Note: Read Instructions before completing form. OMB Number: 2030-0020 Expiration Date: 06/30/2024 I. A. Applicant/Recipient (Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code) Name:Alaska Energy Authority Address:813 W. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. City:Anchorage State:AK: Alaska Zip Code:99503-2407 B. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI): C. Applicant/Recipient Point of Contact F3N8ZSHJXUH8 II. Is the applicant currently receiving EPA Assistance?Yes No Curtis ThayerName: 907-771-3000Phone: cthayer@akenergyauthority.orgEmail: Executive DirectorTitle: III. List all pending civil rights lawsuits and administrative complaints filed under federal law against the applicant/recipient that allege discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. (Do not include employment complaints not covered by 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7.) None IV. List all civil rights lawsuits and administrative complaints decided against the applicant/recipient within the last year that alleged discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability and enclose a copy of all decisions. Please describe all corrective actions taken. (Do not include employment complaints not covered by 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7.) None V. List all civil rights compliance reviews of the applicant/recipient conducted under federal nondiscrimination laws by any federal agency within the last two years and enclose a copy of the review and any decisions, orders, or agreements based on the review. Please describe any corrective action taken. (40 C.F.R. § 7.80(c)(3)) None VI. Is the applicant requesting EPA assistance for new construction? If no, proceed to VII; if yes, answer (a) and/or (b) below. Yes No a. If the grant is for new construction, will all new facilities or alterations to existing facilities be designed and constructed to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities? If yes, proceed to VII; if no, proceed to VI(b). Yes No b. If the grant is for new construction and the new facilities or alterations to existing facilities will not be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, explain how a regulatory exception (40 C.F.R. 7.70) applies. Grant will fund a Solar for All program in Alaska which will install residential rooftop solar and community- based solar projects. Programs projects intended use do not require accessibility to the public or beneficiaries and therefore fall under the regulatory exception laid out in 40 C.F.R. 7.70(b)(2) VII. Does the applicant/recipient provide initial and continuing notice that it does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in its program or activities? (40 C.F.R 5.140 and 7.95) Yes No a. Do the methods of notice accommodate those with impaired vision or hearing?Yes No b. Is the notice posted in a prominent place in the applicant's/recipient’s website, in the offices or facilities or, for education programs and activities, in appropriate periodicals and other written communications? Yes No c. Does the notice identify a designated civil rights coordinator?Yes No VIII. Does the applicant/recipient maintain demographic data on the race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability status of the population it serves? (40 C.F.R. 7.85(a)) Yes No IX. Does the applicant/recipient have a policy/procedure for providing meaningful access to services for persons with limited English proficiency? (Title VI, 40 C.F.R. Part 7, Lau v Nichols 414 U.S. (1974)) Yes No X. If the applicant is an education program or activity, or has 15 or more employees, has it designated an employee to coordinate its compliance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7? Provide the name, title, position, mailing address, e-mail address, fax number, and telephone number of the designated coordinator. Karen Turner, Human Resources Director, 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503. KTurner@aidea.org, 907-771-3000 phone, 907-771-3946 fax. XI. If the applicant is an education program or activity, or has 15 or more employees, has it adopted grievance procedures that assure the prompt and fair resolution of complaints that allege a violation of 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7? Provide a legal citation or applicant’s/ recipient’s website address for, or a copy of, the procedures. https://humanrights.alaska.gov For the Applicant/Recipient I certify that the statements I have made on this form and all attachments thereto are true, accurate and complete. I acknowledge that any knowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment or both under applicable law. I assure that I will fully comply with all applicable civil rights statutes and EPA regulations. A. Signature of Authorized Official Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. B. Title of Authorized Official C. Date Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. For the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency I have reviewed the information provided by the applicant/recipient and hereby certify that the applicant/recipient has submitted all preaward compliance information required by 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7; that based on the information submitted, this application satisfies the preaward provisions of 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7; and that the applicant has given assurance that it will fully comply with all applicable civil rights statures and EPA regulations. A. *Signature of Authorized EPA Official B. Title of Authorized Official C. Date Instructions for EPA FORM 4700-4 (Rev. 04/2021) General. Recipients of Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must comply with the following statutes and regulations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. The Act goes on to explain that the statute shall not be construed to authorize action with respect to any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, or labor organization (except where the primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment). Section 13 of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides that no person in the United States shall on the ground of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. Employment discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited in all such programs or activities. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall solely by reason of disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Employment discrimination on the basis of disability is prohibited in all such programs or activities. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 provides that no person on the basis of age shall be excluded from participation under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Employment discrimination is not covered. Age discrimination in employment is prohibited by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act administered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides that no person in the United States on the basis of sex shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Employment discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited in all such education programs or activities. Note: an education program or activity is not limited to only those conducted by a formal institution. 40 C.F.R. Part 5 implements Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. 40 C.F.R. Part 7 implements Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 13 of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Items "Applicant" means any entity that files an application or unsolicited proposal or otherwise requests EPA assistance. 40 C.F.R. §§ 5.105, 7.25. "Recipient" means any State or its political subdivision, any instrumentality of a State or its political subdivision, any public or private agency, institution, organizations, or other entity, or any person to which Federal financial assistance is extended directly or through another recipient, including any successor, assignee, or transferee of a recipient, but excluding the ultimate beneficiary of the assistance. 40 C.F.R. §§ 5.105, 7.25. "Civil rights lawsuits and administrative complaints" means any lawsuit or administrative complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability pending or decided against the applicant and/or entity which actually benefits from the grant, but excluding employment complaints not covered by 40 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 7. For example, if a city is the named applicant but the grant will actually benefit the Department of Sewage, civil rights lawsuits involving both the city and the Department of Sewage should be listed. "Civil rights compliance review" means: any federal agency-initiated investigation of a particular aspect of the applicant's and/or recipient's programs or activities to determine compliance with the federal non-discrimination laws. Submit this form with the original and required copies of applications, requests for extensions, requests for increase of funds, etc. Updates of information are all that are required after the initial application submission. If any item is not relevant to the project for which assistance is requested, write "NA" for "Not Applicable." In the event applicant is uncertain about how to answer any questions, EPA program officials should be contacted for clarification. WORKSPACE FORM This Workspace form is one of the forms you need to complete prior to submitting your Application Package. This form can be completed in its entirety offline using Adobe Reader. You can save your form by clicking the "Save" button and see any errors by clicking the “Check For Errors” button. In-progress and completed forms can be uploaded at any time to Grants.gov using the Workspace feature. When you open a form, required fields are highlighted in yellow with a red border. Optional fields and completed fields are displayed in white. If you enter invalid or incomplete information in a field, you will receive an error message. Additional instructions and FAQs about the Application Package can be found in the Grants.gov Applicants tab. 1-800-518-4726 SUPPORT@GRANTS.GOV OPPORTUNITY & PACKAGE DETAILS: Opportunity Number:EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01 Opportunity Title:SOLAR FOR ALL Opportunity Package ID:PKG00282341 CFDA Number:66.959 CFDA Description:Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Section 134(a)(1) - Zero Emission Technologies Grant Program Competition ID: Competition Title: Opening Date:06/28/2023 Closing Date:10/12/2023 Agency:Environmental Protection Agency Contact Information:Further information, if needed, may be obtained by emailing ggrf@epa.gov. Information regarding this funding opportunity obtained from sources other than the EPA may not be accurate. APPLICANT & WORKSPACE DETAILS: Workspace ID:WS01198906 Application Filing Name:Solar For All State of Alaska UEI:F3N8ZSHJXUH8 Organization:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Form Name:Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) Form Version:4.0 Requirement:Mandatory Download Date/Time:Oct 11, 2023 07:11:32 PM EDT Form State:No Errors FORM ACTIONS: OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 11/30/2025 * 1. Type of Submission:* 2. Type of Application: * 3. Date Received:4. Applicant Identifier: 5a. Federal Entity Identifier:5b. Federal Award Identifier: 6. Date Received by State:7. State Application Identifier: * a. Legal Name: * b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN):* c. UEI: * Street1: Street2: * City: County/Parish: * State: Province: * Country: * Zip / Postal Code: Department Name:Division Name: Prefix:* First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: Title: Organizational Affiliation: * Telephone Number:Fax Number: * Email: * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): * Other (Specify): State Use Only: 8. APPLICANT INFORMATION: d. Address: e. Organizational Unit: f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 Preapplication Application Changed/Corrected Application New Continuation Revision Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. Alaska Energy Authority 92-6001185 F3N8ZSHJXUH8 813. W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage AK: Alaska USA: UNITED STATES 99503-2407 Mr.Ryan McLaughlin Infrastructure Engineer 907-771-3012 907-771-3044 rmclaughlin@akenergyauthority.org * 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: * Other (specify): * 10. Name of Federal Agency: 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: CFDA Title: * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: * Title: 13. Competition Identification Number: Title: 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): * 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions. Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 A: State Government Environmental Protection Agency 66.959 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Section 134(a)(1) - Zero Emission Technologies Grant Program EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01 SOLAR FOR ALL State of Alaska Solar for All Program View AttachmentsDelete AttachmentsAdd Attachments View AttachmentDelete AttachmentAdd Attachment * a. Federal * b. Applicant * c. State * d. Local * e. Other * f. Program Income * g. TOTAL . Prefix:* First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: * Title: * Telephone Number: * Email: Fax Number: * Signature of Authorized Representative:* Date Signed: 18. Estimated Funding ($): 21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001) ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. Authorized Representative: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * a. Applicant Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed. * b. Program/Project * a. Start Date:* b. End Date: 16. Congressional Districts Of: 17. Proposed Project: AK-ALL AK-ALL Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment 07/01/2024 06/30/2029 100,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000,000.00 a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372. Yes No Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment ** I AGREE Mr.Curtis Thayer Executive Director 907-711-3000 907-771-3044 cthayer@akenergyauthority.org Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. * 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) * 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. If "Yes", provide explanation and attach WORKSPACE FORM This Workspace form is one of the forms you need to complete prior to submitting your Application Package. This form can be completed in its entirety offline using Adobe Reader. You can save your form by clicking the "Save" button and see any errors by clicking the “Check For Errors” button. In-progress and completed forms can be uploaded at any time to Grants.gov using the Workspace feature. When you open a form, required fields are highlighted in yellow with a red border. Optional fields and completed fields are displayed in white. If you enter invalid or incomplete information in a field, you will receive an error message. Additional instructions and FAQs about the Application Package can be found in the Grants.gov Applicants tab. 1-800-518-4726 SUPPORT@GRANTS.GOV OPPORTUNITY & PACKAGE DETAILS: Opportunity Number:EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01 Opportunity Title:SOLAR FOR ALL Opportunity Package ID:PKG00282341 CFDA Number:66.959 CFDA Description:Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Section 134(a)(1) - Zero Emission Technologies Grant Program Competition ID: Competition Title: Opening Date:06/28/2023 Closing Date:10/12/2023 Agency:Environmental Protection Agency Contact Information:Further information, if needed, may be obtained by emailing ggrf@epa.gov. Information regarding this funding opportunity obtained from sources other than the EPA may not be accurate. APPLICANT & WORKSPACE DETAILS: Workspace ID:WS01198906 Application Filing Name:Solar For All State of Alaska UEI:F3N8ZSHJXUH8 Organization:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Form Name:Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (SF-424A) Form Version:1.0 Requirement:Mandatory Download Date/Time:Oct 11, 2023 07:23:14 PM EDT Form State:No Errors FORM ACTIONS: SECTION A - BUDGET SUMMARY$BUDGET INFORMATION - Non-Construction ProgramsOMB Number: 4040-0006Expiration Date: 02/28/2025Grant Program Function or Activity(a)Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(b)Estimated Unobligated FundsNew or Revised BudgetFederal(c)Non-Federal(d)Federal(e)Non-Federal(f)Total(g)5. Totals4.3.2.1.$$$$$$$$Solar for All Program66.959100,000,000.00100,000,000.00100,000,000.00100,000,000.00$Standard Form 424A (Rev. 7- 97)Prescribed by OMB (Circular A -102) Page 1 SECTION B - BUDGET CATEGORIES7. Program Incomed. Equipmente. Suppliesf. Contractualg. Constructionh. Otherj. Indirect Chargesk. TOTALS (sum of 6i and 6j)i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h)(1)Authorized for Local ReproductionPrescribed by OMB (Circular A -102) Page 1AStandard Form 424A (Rev. 7- 97)GRANT PROGRAM, FUNCTION OR ACTIVITY(2)(3)(4)(5)Total6. Object Class Categoriesa. Personnelb. Fringe Benefitsc. TravelSolar for All Program2,357,850.001,200,135.0036,770.000.0030,000.0041,425,000.000.0053,861,819.0098,911,574.001,088,426.00100,000,000.002,357,850.001,200,135.0036,770.000.0030,000.0041,425,000.000.0053,861,819.0098,911,574.001,088,426.00100,000,000.00$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ SECTION D - FORECASTED CASH NEEDS14. Non-FederalSECTION C - NON-FEDERAL RESOURCES(a) Grant Program(b) Applicant(d) Other Sources(c) State(e)TOTALS$$$$ $$$$$$8.9.10.11.12. TOTAL (sum of lines 8-11)15. TOTAL (sum of lines 13 and 14)13. FederalTotal for 1st Year1st Quarter2nd Quarter3rd Quarter4th QuarterSolar for All Program20,383,875.0020,383,875.003,000,000.003,000,000.003,000,000.003,000,000.007,191,938.007,191,938.007,191,937.007,191,937.00$$$$$$$$$FUTURE FUNDING PERIODS (YEARS)SECTION F - OTHER BUDGET INFORMATIONSECTION E - BUDGET ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL FUNDS NEEDED FOR BALANCE OF THE PROJECTAuthorized for Local Reproduction$$$$$$16.17.18.19.20. TOTAL (sum of lines 16 - 19)21. Direct Charges:22. Indirect Charges:23. Remarks:(a) Grant Program(b)First(c) Second(d) Third(e) FourthSolar for All Program20,359,606.0019,885,197.0019,722,845.0019,648,478.0020,359,606.0019,885,197.0019,722,845.0019,648,478.00Provisional (30%), AEA negotiating NICRA for FY24Program funds will be granted out $$Standard Form 424A (Rev. 7- 97)Prescribed by OMB (Circular A -102) Page 2 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE Program Strategy Narrative 1. Impact Assessment Market Environment There are two distinct grid categories in the State of Alaska: Railbelt and remote. The majority of the state’s population (70%) resides in urban areas of what’s known as the Railbelt. The remaining 30% of the population reside in isolated rural communities served by independent utilities. This relatively small interconnected electrical system is home to significant Department of Defense assets, tribal governments, highly diverse populations, and a remarkable variety of carbon and non-carbon energy resources. Alaska’s Railbelt is serviced by five electric utilities (four cooperatives and one municipal utility) and is an interconnected grid that loosely follows the route of the Alaska Railroad. The State of Alaska, through the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), owns significant transmission and generation infrastructure on the Railbelt system. The residents and businesses along the Railbelt consume approximately 80% of the state’s electricity across a service area similar to the distance from West Virginia to Maine. On an annual basis, the Railbelt generates approximately 4800 GWh. Interconnection between regions is by single transmission lines, which limits economic transfers and negatively affects system resiliency. The opportunity for residential solar is high in this market. The remaining 30% of the state’s population resides in over 200 rural and tribal communities and rely on local and regional power generation, and over 100 isolated and independent utilities provide those services. Most rural Alaska communities are only accessible by plane or marine vessel, with over half classified by the Denali Commission as distressed communities. Alaska’s solar program offers an opportunity to reduce entry barriers for underserved Alaskans, enabling them to enjoy the advantages of residential rooftop solar along the Railbelt, and community-based solar in rural Alaska. The collaborative approach between AEA and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) will result not only in lower energy costs for disad- vantaged Alaskans, but it will also provide access to critical resilience assets in rural Alaska. Further market analysis will be conducted in the first year’s planning effort, including focusing on residential-serving distrib- uted solar and storage deployment, and the participation of low-income and disadvantaged households. While Alaska is data-poor, there are program models that have been used effectively and that experience is described below.FIGURE 1: Solar resource comparison of Alaska and Germany (NREL). 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE Despite having a solar insolation value similar to Germany (Figure 1), Alaska has not fully embraced solar energy as a widespread source of power. With 19 MW of solar installed at the end of 2022, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the state ranked 49th in total deployment capacity. The high-level results of a 2016 NREL analysis indicate there are plausible scenarios in which photovoltaic (PV) can be economically competitive with diesel fuel prices at low PV penetration levels. In this analysis, the cases where PV appears economically competitive generally requires a combination of (1) high diesel fuel prices (at least 40 cents/kWh), (2) relatively low, for Alaska, PV prices (approximately $6 to $9 per W installed), (3) relatively high, for Alaska, solar production levels (capacity factor of nearly 10% or higher), and (4) the ability to make use of economically valuable tax benefits provided by the federal government. Solar development is likely favorable for other Alaskan villages, not considered in this analysis, but have a similar combination of characteristics. 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 PV systems can exceed their rated output during these times of year. A good example is the Native Village of Hughes, a community of 85 people located on the Koyukuk river accessible only by boat or plane, which recently installed a 120 kW solar PV system to help advance the community’s renewable energy goal of 50% by 2025. In 2022, the Native Village of Hughes generated 500 MWh with diesel and 8.7 MWh through solar. The 8.7 MWh of solar power saved the community $21,353 in diesel costs. Alaska’s solar market is relatively immature compared to many other states. Alaska ranks 52nd out of the 56 States and Territories in both total Solar Jobs and Solar Jobs per Capita and 49th in installed solar capacity.1 In 2022, only 0.2% of the state’s electricity was from solar with an installed capacity of 19 MW. That’s enough to power 2,281 of Alaska’s approximately 329,285 housing units. Alaska’s solar installation rate has steadily increased over the years. Before 2018, the yearly installation was less than 1 MW. In both 2019 and 2020, it rose to over 4 MW, before the effects of COVID-19 shutdowns slowed the pace of installation. Per IREC’s Solar Job Census,2 Alaska FIGURE 2: Alaska Annual Solar Installations (https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/alaska-solar). 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE has 74 total solar jobs and 14 solar companies, with a growth projection over the next five years of 2.8%. Overall costs to install solar infrastructure decreased by 43% in the past decade. The chal- lenge of Alaska’s high latitude, resulting in extended periods of limited solar exposure during long, dark winters, presents challenges as well as opportunities for program implementation. 1. Market-wide historical deployment rates The Alaska Energy Authority has a strong understanding of the market for community solar, having funded through 15 rounds of its Renewable Energy Fund Program (REF). In its most recent round (16), six of 31 applications were for solar projects and totaled over $8 million. Through REF funding, multiple projects have proven the effectiveness of solar energy in rural Alaska. A good example is the hybrid solar + storage microgrid3 supporting 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 addressed the numerous challenges of operating in extreme conditions and break the community’s dependence on its expensive diesel generator power plant. The microgrid’s 225-kW solar array can 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 genera- tion 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. The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) produced a map of installed solar in communi- ties across the state, tracked by its Solar Technologies Program4, which helps this project identify current locations to scale and a visualization of market need. 2. Participation of low-income and disadvantaged households and communities AHFC is an independent statewide agency working to provide access to safe, quality, affordable housing, which has achieved success in engaging and partnering with underserved and disad- vantaged communities across the state. Specifically, AHFC’s experience with its weatherization programs led to positive outcomes for these communities. AHFC, working with and through its Weatherization Assistance Program partners, increased the energy efficiency of 20,917 low income or disadvantaged homes between 2008 and 2018. This is when the program received a high amount of State funding due to high oil prices. • The average affected household experienced a 29% reduction in energy consumption. • 42% of participating households were outside of urban centers. • 38% of households were comprised of at least one Alaska Native member. FIGURE 3: Solar installation across Alaska (ACEP). 4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE • 34% included an elderly member and 24% included a child younger than age six. • Median household income for participants was $28,263. Since 2018, with state and federal funding, AHFC’s weatherization program continued its work annually 200-300 benefiting low-income and disadvantaged households. Output and Outcome Targets Based on their experience in delivering projects in Alaska and past program deployment rates, AEA and AHFC have worked together to determine the following output and outcome targets for Community Solar and Residential Solar. The justification for achieving these targets is outlined under Underlying Methodologies, Data, Inputs and Assumptions. 1. The megawatts of solar capacity deployed over time (both as an absolute number of megawatts of solar deployed and dollars of award funding requested per megawatts of solar): • Residential: 10.38 MW | Community: 3.91 MW • Total: 14.29 MW deployed, $6,995,828 award funding requested per MW deployed. 2. Megawatt hours of storage capacity deployed over time (both as an absolute number of megawatt hours of storage deployed and dollars of award funding requested per megawatt hours of storage): • Residential: N/A | Community: 5.712 MWh • $17,507,003 per MWh storage deployed. 3. The number of households projected to benefit from the solar program (both as an absolute number of households and award funding requested per household); • Residential: 2,596 households | Community: 3,504 households • Total: 6,100 households, $16,393 funding per household. 4. Short tons of annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions avoided over time (both as an abso- lute number of tons of CO2 reduced and dollars of award funding requested per tons of CO2 reduced): • Residential CO2 avoided: 8,137 tons/yr, 244,102 tons over 30-year life. • Community CO2 avoided: 3,065 tons/yr, 91,956 tons over 30-year project life. • Total CO2 avoided: 11,202 tons/yr, $8,927 award funding per ton per year. – 336,060 tons avoided over 30-year life, $297 award funding per ton CO2 avoided. 5. Absolute amount of household savings realized over time (both as an absolute number of dollars saved and dollars of award funding requested per dollars of household savings). • Residential: 42%, $49,849,977 over 30 years. • Community: 39.8% $40,004,160 over 30 years. • Total: $1.11 of award funding per dollars household savings (over 30 years) 2. Meaningful Benefits Plan Delivering Meaningful Benefits The project team has utilized a variety of tools to thresholds of burden faced by project communities and households. CEJST and EPA’s EJScreen identify areas in Alaska that are overburdened or under- served, consistent with Solar for All guidance, which will direct Alaska’s program investments. This is generally consistent with where Power Cost Equalization (PCE) communities fall in AEA’s 10 rural energy regions (which are geographically dispersed), where high cost is relative to an average of three urban communities. Community solar will focus on eligible projects in rural communities that are considered disadvantaged or Tribal. Disadvantaged communities within the Railbelt will be eligible, 5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE where residential solar might be a more viable option. AEA’s review of the CEJST produces a map of Alaska that indicates the majority of the State’s eligibility to qualify as disadvantaged. This is further enhanced by the White House Executive Order identifying all Tribal lands as disadvantaged, which applies to almost all of Alaska. The table below demonstrates for relevant census areas and boroughs (county equiva- lent), their FIPS identification for reference, population, Rural status according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), their Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whether they are Areas of Persistent Poverty (APP) according MAP 1: CEJST Mapping Tool - Alaska Disadvantage 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 6 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE to United State Department of Transportation (USDOT), whether they are Difficult to Develop Areas (DDA) according to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and whether the Denali Commission considers communities within Distressed. AEA will conduct an equity assessment as part of project identification and as part of the award process. This will include reviewing available datasets to ensure distribution of project benefits to 40% disadvantaged communities and to structure the project for sponsors and contractors to imple- ment strategies that maximize equitable benefits. Rural Alaska faces some of the highest energy costs in the nation. Most of Alaska’s rural commu- nities are islanded microgrids and rely on diesel power generation. Program benefits will vary substantially across the state, contingent on several factors such as solar resource availability (determined by project’s geographic location), ease of site accessibility (whether the community is road-accessible or if materials need to be transported by air or barge), and the level of complexity associated with incorporating the system into the existing diesel microgrid. Given the geographically dispersed locations of Alaska’s rural communities, electric rates are frequently three to five times greater than those incurred by customers residing in urban areas of the state. AEA, along with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), administers the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program to provide economic assistance and reduce the effective electric rates for rural consumers to be comparable to in urban areas of the state. The PCE program serves 82,000 Alaskans in 193 communities that are largely reliant on diesel fuel for power generation, providing payments to households in high-cost energy communities to effectively lower residential energy costs, up to 750 kWh per month. Savings from residential solar in a PCE community would be applied to their PCE benefit and would have no impact on a homeowner’s effective utility bill, making residential solar more challenging in these communities. The project team recognizes constraints to solar implementation based on previous work in these communities, including that many houses in rural Alaska may not be suitable for rooftop solar. The necessary upgrades are prohibitively expensive and would quickly run up to the utility’s limit of 6% of nameplate capacity of the grid coming from solar generation. However, these constraints have been successfully managed for community solar and battery projects in rural Alaska. The model that has been successfully deployed in Alaska and is the planned model for the Community portion of this program is the community owned Independent Power Producer (IPP) model. This model aims to build a community owned Solar PV array with battery storage, operated by a commu- nity owned IPP. The community owned IPP will sell power to the local utility through a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). Revenue from the sale of power from the utility will fund operations and maintenance (O&M) of the asset, and excess funds will be distributed back to the community as a diesel avoidance payment, equivalent to more than 20% of the average house- hold’s electric bill.FIGURE 4: 193 PCE Communities that AEA works with monthly 7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE This community owned solar PV plus battery integrated into the existing microgrid model has been successfully implemented in Shungnak-Kobuk, which was a grand prize winner of the Sunny Award for equitable community solar. The community owned IPP model is the best method to increase access to the benefits of solar in rural Alaska and delivers on all five of the meaningful benefits targeted in Solar for All. • Benefit 1: Delivering a minimum 20% of household savings to program beneficiaries. – Residential Program: On the Railbelt, residential electric rates average $0.22/kWh. Under the assumed base case 4kW rooftop solar array, in this program, an average household can expect to save $640 annually, or 42% of annual electric bill. – Community Program: With the above described IPP model, preliminary estimates based on past projects indicate that households will receive diesel avoidance cost benefits equivalent to 40% of their effective electric bill. • Benefit 2: Increasing low-income and disadvantaged households’ access to solar through financing products and deployment options. – Residential Program: Solar deployment in Alaska has remained largely out of reach for low- income and disadvantaged communities. This program will have no match requirements for qualifying households, significantly lowering the barrier to entry. The program will aim to reduce the administrative burden as much as possible for these households through simple applications and net-metering permits handled by the installers similar to the approach AHFC took with its COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance and Homeowner Assistance Fund programs. – Community Program: The IPP deployment option allows disadvantaged communities in rural Alaska to realize the benefits of solar and battery storage. • Benefit 3: Increasing resiliency and grid benefits by creating capacity that can deliver power to low-income and disadvantaged households and/or critical facilities serving low-income and disadvantaged households during a grid outage. – Community Program: Many Rural Alaska communities rely on outdated infrastructure past its useful life and are subject to frequent power outages, especially during fall and winter storms. The importance of reliable energy in Rural Alaska cannot be overstated. Short outages can have drastic detrimental impacts to the well-being of a community. Water and sewer distribution systems can quickly freeze up in the winter months. If power generation isn’t quickly restored, residents can go the entire winter without access to clean water and working sewer system in their homes. Community-owned battery backup generation can greatly reduce the frequency and severity of these events. • Benefit 4: Facilitating ownership models that support low-income households and communities building equity in projects. – Community Program: The community IPP model has proven to work well in Alaska, and one of the critical aspects is that the solar array is community-owned. The power produced will be sold to the utility, and the revenue generated will be dispersed to the community and back into the project for O&M. Having the community own the asset allows residents to receive Power Cost Equalization (PCE) while still seeing a direct positive impact of havingsolar in the community. Alaska’s Solar for All program will score and evaluate proposals for commu- nity-based solar, and one of the criteria will be the use of local hire labor. Hiring local labor to build a community solar array encourages pride and ownership of the asset and develops a local workforce to have the skills to perform routine O&M tasks. This is particularly important in Rural Alaska. Flying a technician can be a prohibitively expensive and lengthy process. • Benefit 5: Investing in quality jobs and businesses fits under the Administration’s Good Jobs Principles and Executive Order 14082 (Implementation of the Energy and Infrastructure Provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022). The following Job 8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE Creation describes the project’s approach to this benefit for both the Residential and Community Program. Job Creation The project team is committed to fostering safe, healthy, and inclusive workplaces with equal opportunity, free from harassment and discrimination. AEA will provide multiple pathways for creating high-quality, middle-class jobs in the residential-serving distributed solar energy industry based on principles outlined below. In addition, the partners have considered ways to invest in training, education, and skill development and support the corresponding mobility of workers to advance in their careers. The project will assess collective bargaining agreements as identified throughout the life of the project. i. Wages, benefits, and other worker support provided - The project sponsors 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 schedules 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 indepen- dent contractors and temporary 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 education programs for employees to earn credentials and degrees relevant to their career pathways. AEA’s plan for job creation includes active partnership with public and private sector partners that will help implement the deployment of Alaska’s Solar for All program and is complemented by a robust workforce development program. AEA has identified multiple components, elaborated in later sections. High Quality Jobs and Shared Economic Opportunity AEA’s job creation plan is centered on delivering meaningful benefits to low-income and disadvan- taged communities, which these examples exemplify. AEA has decades of experience developing projects that increase shared economic opportunity and will apply that to its implementation of community and residential solar energy. An NREL study on distributed renewables for Arctic energy,5 found that community buy-in and ownership is essential. 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 sanction from key stake- holders like utility managers, operators, project champions, and local government officials. Beyond project development, 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. For example, a strong community focus enabled Galena, a city of 472 people in the Yukon-Koyukuk area, to hire and train an all-local workforce provided enhanced job satisfaction, increased local capacity, and strengthened the community overall. 9 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE Multi-sectoral Partnerships 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 departments, 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 has assembled a strong list of partners that start with AHFC, which will deliver the program’s residential solar activities. AEA and AHFC will collaborate with academic, public and private sectors, labor, training centers, utility, and community-based organization partners to deliver job creation and workforce development. 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 governments and Tribal entities. These conversations should begin sufficiently early 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 partner- ships 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 planning to ensure that proposed systems should commensurate with the training, educa- tion, and availability of the local workforce. AEA knows using 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. Technical assistance must be provided to complete and maintain the systems. Communities have found that small, easy-to-maintain pilot systems with solar 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, community-based educators. In Kotzebue, a hub community of 3,102 residents, on the Northwest Coast of Alaska, installing small wind turbines (50-kW capacity through 3 turbines) provided the technical capacity for subsequent installations of much larger wind turbines (17 turbines totaling 915 kW capacity), 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, enabling to set its sights on future solar projects. AEA knows that having a regional or statewide pool of support resources increases the likelihood 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 or technical education, increases the likelihood of project success. This network allows 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 streamline 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. 10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE 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 components of a renewable energy project must be overseen by experienced personnel to help ensure effec- tive delivery of projects. Managers must be able to validate project proposals from engineers and external entities, compare those proposals to community needs, and decline when necessary. Some communities also face rapid turnover of bookkeeping and managerial staff, reducing their financial and managerial capacity for projects. Such seemingly minor problems can have long-term impacts. 3. Distributed Solar Market Strategy Adoption of solar PV in Alaska on a substantial scale faces multiple market barriers both common to the rest of the nation, and specific to the state. Barriers such as net metering, third party owner- ship (TPO), obscure interconnection processes, and renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) all exist here as they do across the country. Additionally, the substantial variance in seasonal generation and the astronomic cost of installation for remote communities pose geography specific problems. The prevailing net metering legislation established by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) dictates that all utilities under their economic jurisdiction must provide net metering options to their customers, provided that the total nameplate capacity of all net metering participants does not exceed 1.5% of the previous year’s average retail demand. Utilities with annual retail power sales below 5,000 MWh or those generating electricity entirely from approved renewable sources are exempt from this requirement. Several leading utilities in the Railbelt region, notably Chugach Electric Association (CEA) and Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), offer net metering limits exceeding the RCA’s cap, extending up to 5% of average retail demand. Homer Electric Association (HEA) goes even further, allowing up to 7%. Meanwhile, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) has not set a specific limit on net metered capacity but currently operates at approximately 3% of retail demand, with no recent refusal of new net metered capacity applications according to the latest RCA filing. Payment for net metering occurs monthly through bill credits, determined by each utility’s non-firm avoided cost rate registered quarterly with the RCA. These credits have no expiration date and can be applied to subsequent monthly bills. Individual net metered systems must have a nominal capacity between 400 W and 25 kW. Utilities are prohibited from imposing additional fees, such as standby, interconnection, or capacity charges, unless approved by the RCA. Utilities can limit net metering amount if it causes stability or operational issue. In case of a decrease in retail sales, resulting in the net metering amount exceeding the limit of 1.5%, utilities are not allowed to disconnect the metering of a member. The utilities can require net metering customers to have insurance with the condition that it is attainable and priced reasonably. The RCA has not instituted statewide mandates regarding the implementation of virtual net metering or other aggregative/alternative net metering policies. In 2019, the RCA rejected a utility-sponsored proposal for a community solar project, citing specific plan details regarding subscription policies. However, they expressed support for innovative renewable energy programs and emphasized that this decision did not set a precedent for community solar. CEA and GVEA have shown interest in revisiting community solar projects, addressing the issues raised in 2019. Various public interest groups are actively engaging with the legislature and drafting legislation to encourage and facilitate community solar initiatives. In Senate Bill 152, the state legislature codified the ability of the RCA to make rulings on community energy producers, strengthening the language that existed regarding small power producers. 11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE No explicit rulings regarding third party ownership (TPO) have been made by the RCA. Insofar as small power production facilities are concerned (as would be the case for a community solar installation) the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) utilizes the definitions for a qualifying facility laid out in 18 C.F.R. 292.101(b) and has protections and guarantees that they must be offered interconnection by the RCA regulated utilities. Specifically, for any electric utility subject to RCA regulation interconnection must be offered to a qualifying facility so long as it doesn’t cause the utility to become subject to federal regulation under the Federal Power Act (interstate operation) and so long as the qualifying facility complies with safety and reliability standards prescribed in 3 AAC 52.485. This regulation also provides for financing options with regard to interconnec- tion fees laid out in 3 AAC 50.760 d/e. The utility can charge interconnection fees, including: the reasonable cost of connection, switching, metering, transmission, distribution, safety provisions, administration, and other costs related to the installation and maintenance of the physical facilities necessary to permit interconnected operations, to the extent that these costs are in excess of the costs that the utility would have incurred if it had not engaged in interconnection. Additionally, the utility must offer the option to pay these fees over a reasonable period of time, with an interest rate described in their tariff or in a special contract between the qualifying facility and the utility with RCA approval. In sum, there are protections for third party ownership, at least of community scale renewable genera- tors. TPO, as it pertains to rooftop residential solar, would likely be considered individual net metered capacity, with the ownership of the panels and power a separate issue to be defined by those respec- tive parties and thus outside RCA’s purview. While the regulatory framework doesn’t provide explicit support for installations of either type, it at the least protects their right to connect and sell power to the grid. As demonstrated by the recent opening of the 8.5 MW solar farm in the Mat Su Borough by a third party, there is interest from the Railbelt utilities and general support from the RCA and legisla- tive framework to add renewable generators. Multiple successful implementations of rural solar IPP systems indicate their viability from regulatory and utility perspectives. Interconnection processes are not regulated on a statewide basis. Streamlining this is a signif- icant opportunity to reduce the barriers for residential rooftop applications. All four Railbelt Co-ops offer applications and supplementary information via their websites with varying degrees of complexity. CEA has a clause in their application allowing for combination of some required system drawings and streamlining of approval procedures for “type-tested” or previously approved and installed system designs, and implementation of similar language by the other Railbelt utilities will be sought by project partners. For the residential portion of the program, AHFC would provide a standardized system design for households and leverage said language to expedite the approval process and substantially enhance approval and installation rates. As it relates to the rural portion of the program, interconnection will be protected by the RCA rulings related to small power producing facilities. Grid stability is of significant concern in those scenarios, and early communi- cation and involvement with the local utilities will facilitate successful solar integration. While there is currently no binding statewide renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in Alaska, there is pending legislation looking at Renewable Portfolios Standards or Clean Energy Standards for Alaska. These bills propose renewable generation targets of 25% by 2027, 55% by 2035, and 80% by 2040 for Railbelt utilities, which currently operate at approximately 15% renewable generation. The state’s overall renewable portfolio is bolstered to around 25% by various small-scale hydro- power projects in southeast Alaska. Notably, any net metered capacity is presently included in the utilities’ generation statistics, potentially incentivizing utility collaboration and investment in distributed solar projects. 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE Furthermore, the results of an NREL study, initially commissioned by Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy, examined five scenarios to achieve 80% renewable generation by 2040. The study found that nearly all of these approaches would yield substantial savings compared to continuing the use of natural gas as a primary fuel source. The depleting gas reserves in the Cook Inlet have prompted major utilities to explore alternative fuel sources, leading to several ongoing utility-scale wind and solar feasibility studies. Addressing the substantial geographic and jurisdic- tional diversity across our impacted regions could pose some barriers for program efficacy. The respective experience of the coalition applicants, working collab- oratively with multiple entities across the state, ranging from tribal coun- cils, village governments, municipalities, non-profit organizations, and more will prove invaluable in this endeavor. The splitting of rural community and residential Railbelt funds is indicative that the partners are aware of the need to provide aid in different ways to address the individual circumstances in different parts of the state. AEA’s outreach partners will be made up of a variety of groups chosen to maximize their interaction with disadvantaged communities across the state. As is predictable in sub-arctic to arctic environments, the seasonal variation in solar genera- tion poses a substantial barrier to its economic viability. The conditions during the springtime with cold temperatures, long daylight hours, and light snow cover lend themselves even to the point of surpassing nameplate production for the panels. Conversely the shorter days of winter and substantial snow cover during late fall drastically limit solar energy production. The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP), in conjunction with some of the national laboratories, has performed pilot studies attempting to limit some of this variance on a daily interval and season- ally by combining multiple panel orientations to optimize average production. Leveraging their research to inform system design for the rural portions of the program could dramatically improve system performance. Based on research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and industry consultation, the cost of a rooftop residential solar installation can fall anywhere between $10,000 and $30,000.6 Installations in urban Alaska typically range from $1.25 to $3.50 per watt, while remote installations range from $2.20 to $4.60 per watt, according to a 2019 report from ACEP. The cost of installing solar is typi- cally more expensive in rural Alaska due to the high transportation and labor costs. FIGURE 5: Household electricity consumption and the production from the 4 kW rooftop solar PV system. The solar system produced more energy than the home consumed from April through September. Note that the solar system was installed at the end of March. 13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE 4. Financial Assistance Strategy Providing Eligible Financial Assistance Alaska’s program is designed to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from solar, storage, and enabling upgrades, while ensuring all projects deliver house- hold savings, among other benefits. 84.8% of program funds will be used for financial assistance. AEA’s community solar program will be deployed as subgrants to eligible and successful project applicants. AEA anticipates 16 awards benefiting 3,504 households over the performance period, based on available funds. AHFC’s residential solar program may utilize a wider variety of tools, though envisioned currently as subgrants to partner organizations that can deliver programmatic benefits. AHFC anticipates serving 2,596 households through individual residential rooftop solar arrays and multi-family projects, as well as $3.5 million set aside for enabling roof upgrades for qualifying homes. Additional financial assistance mechanisms will be identified during the planning period, including the opportunity to leverage private equity, loan programs, incentive payments, and rebates. 84.8% of program funds will be used for financial assistance. Financial Assistance Model Residential Solar: AHFC will make available $40 million for a statewide residential solar program that targets disadvantaged, low-income households where net metering applies. AHFC may model its financial assistance off its Weatherization Assistance Program, which has successfully deployed funds to low-income households. AHFC’s financial assistance will provide subgrants to eligible recipients, including local solar programs, and incentive payments or subsidies as determined by the project team. Community Solar: AEA will make available $41.3 million for a rural solar project program focusing on disadvantaged communities where modeling shows high potential for both the resource and ability for microgrid integration. AEA will model its financial assistance off its Renewable Energy Fund program, that has successfully awarded 17 rounds of grants to commu- nities statewide. This financial assistance will be structured as grants to eligible community-level project sponsors, including local and Tribal governments, and utilities. Grants applications will not require a local match requirement; however, AEA will score projects that include a match more favorably and will communicate these criteria to all stakeholders. This approach aims to optimize the utilization of the Solar for All funding without creating barriers to entry for program applicants. Solar Project Financial Assistance This project will provide financial assistance through two platforms, with the goal of evenly distributing funds between the two. • Rooftop Residential Solar – AHFC will deliver the rooftop residential program, based on its experience working directly with low-income and disadvantaged households. • Residential-Serving Community Solar – AEA will deliver community solar projects, based on its experience managing the Renewable Energy Fund and delivering projects across rural, disadvantaged communities. AHFC has initiated discussions with non-profit investment funds that are interested in bringing energy financing solutions to Alaska. These discussions will be finalized during the planning period, to the extent that additional partners can be included in program implementation. 14 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE There is currently legislation (SB125 and HB154) proposed to create a state Green Bank, which may be housed at AHFC. Depending on if this legislation passes, AHFC will determine how to proceed with its Solar Financing Program. If a State Green Bank is created, AHFC would partner with that entity to operate the financing program either in-house or in partnership with national or regional non-profit green financing companies. If the Green Bank is not created during the 2024 legislative session, prior to EPA award of this program, AHFC will use the planning period to design a program and either partner with or sub-grant a regional or national non-profit to bring low-cost loans and financing tools to low to moderate income households in Alaska. These households are outside the income parameters of the fully subsidized low-income and disadvantaged Rooftop Solar program but would struggle to access the benefits of Solar through traditional financing means. Storage Project Financial Assistance AEA will determine utility-level investments in storage that facilitate community solar or increase the potential for success of rooftop residential. AEA expects that all community solar project appli- cations will include storage components and project funds will be used to ensure adequate storage occurs relative to demand. AEA and ACEP technical experts will evaluate storage considerations for appropriate financial assistance on a project-by-project basis. Complementing Existing Financial Assistance AEA and AHFC manage many programs that provide existing but limited financial assistance, which this program will complement. AEA is not aware of any duplication of financial assistance, though its REF has financed community solar projects in the past. The REF will complement Alaska’s Solar for All program by further advancing clean energy and storage options for disadvan- taged communities in Alaska. If awarded, AEA would seek to strategically leverage funds provided under its Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program application for innovative rural microgrids devel- opment funded via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in conjunction with funds sub-awarded under its Solar for All (SFA) Residential-Serving Community Solar competitive project solicitation. A community selected under AEA’s GRIP project solicitation would also apply for and be awarded funding under AEA’s Solar for All project solicitation, further capitalizing on federal funding programs. For example, if a project selected and funded under SFA would assist in funding the solar energy element of a particular innovative microgrid development under GRIP, those GRIP funds (which would have been otherwise allocated for solar portion of the project) would be re-allocated and expended on other aspects of the microgrid development, enhancing the overall impact of the GRIP funds. With its federal partners, AEA would seek to leverage the impact of SFA award funds with programs, such as, the High Energy Cost Grant program as administered by the Denali Commission. These grants provide funding assistance for energy generation, transmission, and distribution initiatives. AEA notes that further cost-matching opportunities for the leveraging of those monies awarded under its SFA program, if awarded, and which may be acceptable, or finan- cially feasible for such low-income and disadvantaged communities, include but are not limited to the Powering Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) Loan Program and the Rural Energy Savings Program both administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, in collaboration with its SFA coalition members partners, and subject to those eligi- bility requirements as set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), AEA would encourage SFA applicants to take full advantage of those “elective pay” investment, or production tax credits as 15 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE established via the Inflation Reduction Act (see §45(Y) and §48(E) of the IRC). It is anticipated that applicants applying for AEA’s SFA Residential-Serving Community Solar competitive appli- cation would be eligible for, in part owing to the low-income and disadvantaged requirements of the SFA program and also owing to the demographic and economic composition of the state of Alaska, those additional “bonus” tax credit provisions (see §48(e) and §48(h) of the IRC), including the Prevailing Wage and Apprenticeship Requirements, Domestic Content, Energy Communities, and Low-Income Communities as set forth in the IRC, established within the IRA. C-PACER programs finance clean energy retrofits through property tax increases. If done by a third-party financier in conjunction with a municipality, they offer no-upfront cost, low-interest solar project financing. Adopted as Alaska state law in 2017, C-PACER will likely become avail- able sometime in the next year after municipalities set up the administrative structures needed to implement and operate the program. The Municipality of Anchorage is currently the only munici- pality with a C-PACER program. AHFC can build from and leverage many of its programs, including hallmark successes, such as implementing its $242.6 million Home Energy Rebate program from 2008-2018 reporting 26,587 homes improved with an average energy reduction of 34%. Most recently AHFC has been recog- nized for the Alaska Housing Homeowner Assistance program, helping over 12,000 Alaskans with utility, mortgage, and rent relief. AHFC is in the final year of a project funded by the DOE Advanced Building Construction Initiative workforce development funding focused on education and technical assistance for building monitoring. AHFC administers a bundled grant program it calls Greater Opportunities for Affordable Living (GOAL) to encourage housing development for lower-income persons and families, including seniors, by combining Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs); federal Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds, National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF); and state funds through the Senior Citizens Development Fund (SCHDF) into a single application and funding process. AHFC would utilize the established and successful GOAL program to administer the $10 million Solar for All Funds to install solar to low-income multifamily developments and rehabili- tation projects that ensure benefits of 20% energy savings are achieved and passed to low-income and disadvantaged residents. AHFC will work with its network of Weatherization Assistance Program providers to identify candidates for a subsidized residential rooftop solar install with electrification upgrades through Department of Energy’s rebate program and a rooftop solar installation under this program. This would maximize benefits to our low-income residents while reducing administration and over- head costs. AHFC will be administering the Department of Energy’s two Home Energy Rebate programs, including the Electrification and Appliance rebate program that includes point of sale rebates for electrification improvements to help households prepare for a successful solar installation. The program includes up to $4,000 for a load center/service panel upgrade and up to $2,500 for house- hold wiring upgrades. AHFC works with an established network of professional energy raters and building inspectors to administer its Home Energy Rating System and its Building Energy Efficiency Standards on any home financed by AHFC (such as those through its tax-exempt first time homebuyer and veterans loans for income-qualified households). AHFC anticipates being able to leverage its weatherization program such that solar installation could occur alongside broader residential improvements. 16 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has developed a Carbon Reduction Strategy (CRS) to establish efforts to reduce transportation carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and identify projects and strategies to reduce emissions within Alaska. DOT&PF has identified its airport rights-of-way as potential sites for community solar projects and will work to further develop the concept of deployment on these ideal locations. DOT&PF planning efforts to date include developing a carbon reduction strategy, updating that strategy every four years, supporting projects that decrease emissions, quantifying emissions, and ensuring equitable implementation. The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is the project manager delivering Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) implementation of EPA’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Program, a $3 million planning effort that will result in a greenhouse gas inventory and a climate action plan for community carbon reduction projects, including solar installation. AML will provide pathways for Solar for All activities to be part of the state’s Climate Action Plan. 5. Project-Deployment Technical Assistance Strategy Technical Assistance and Development of Project Pipeline Between 2008 and 2023 the state legislature appropriated $317 million for Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grants, which AEA has managed. Those state monies leveraged over $250 million in private and federal funds to complete project funding. The REF is managed by AEA in coordina- tion with a nine-member REF Advisory Committee. The program provides grant funding for the development of qualifying and competitively selected renewable energy projects. Since its incep- tion 289 REF grants have been awarded and funded via legislative appropriations totaling $317 million. These funds have been matched by local and private contributions that have leveraged AEA’s investment. 103 operating projects have been built with REF contributions, collectively saving more than 85 million gallons of diesel and 2.2 million cubic feet of natural gas since the REF’s inception. These investments have resulted in the reduction of 1,110,424 gross metric tons of carbon dioxide since 2008. 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 partic- ipant in many of the projects, including as project manager. The completed studies have shown that many of the projects are viable and ready for implementation. 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. One of the hallmarks of Alaska’s community solar program will be the high level of technical assistance provided to project sponsors. • 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. • Technical assistance – Potential applicants, or applicants whose applications aren’t accepted in an award cycle, will be provided with additional levels of support by project partners. AML 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. 17 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE • Leveraging financial opportunities – Funded projects will be evaluated by a team at AEA and in collaboration with project partners, such as ACEP, 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. AHFC will convene a solar market stakeholder group that will include developers, contrac- tors, and housing authorities to develop a technical assistance strategy for Alaska’s residential solar project pipeline. This emerging market opportunity corresponds to the need for technical assistance, which can best be developed and delivered by active participants and owners. This stakeholder group discussion will feature technical assistance to solar developers to address interconnection challenges. Technical Assistance that Leads to Workforce Development and Project Deployment Alaska’s utilities are experienced operators of power systems that experience challenging condi- tions. The local and regional workforce is skilled, and regularly provides training opportunities. In partnership with the Alaska Vocational and Technical school (AVTEC), AEA offers the Power Plant Operator training program that includes engine maintenance, 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 solar system designs, and work with partners to deliver the course for participants. At the same time, AEA’s Circuit Rider Program7 provides eligible utilities with technical assis- tance to improve the efficiency, safety, and reliability of their energy infrastructure. Circuit Riders provide skilled labor to address, diagnose, and repair rural powerhouses, including to provide training for local communities to create skilled power plant labor. 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 operator ecosystem in Alaska is interdependent, with strong collaboration between the state and utilities in ensuring system operability and commu- nity health and safety. As part of its Solar for All program, AEA will ensure that the Circuit Riders have the tools and training to increase support for community and residential solar and continues to support and train local communities in the use of improved power systems. 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 stakeholder engagement role to work with community leaders to identify ways in which the project benefits can best accrue to the community, including through siting and permitting best practices. AML’s experience working to strengthen local governments will be useful in engaging communities and solar developers in technical assistance that addresses land use, building codes, and inspec- tion and quality control. 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 Toolkit,8 recognizing that it doesn’t apply the same to federal projects as private, its intended purpose. The outcome of the CBA will be 40% of benefits should be allocated to communities of color, Indigenous peoples, low-income communities, and other marginalized groups. Each project will also evaluate the opportunity for workforce agreements, 18 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE which will help ensure equity for women, people of color, and other historically disadvantaged or underrepresented groups during the project’s implementation. 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. Avoiding Duplication of Technical Assistance ACEP has one of the most robust solar technical assistance programs in the state, through its Solar Technologies Program. This program works to support responsible and equitable devel- opment of solar PV technology in Alaska and other cold regions and high latitude areas where it is technically and economically warranted. ACEP is leading the state in understanding of the Alaska solar resource, identifying new technologies and novel configurations that can improve energy outputs and ease integration concerns, and improving Alaska’s understanding of the cost, performance, and durability of existing systems along with common failure modes. This project will avoid duplication by working closely with ACEP and including them as a subrecipient as part of the coalition, to provide technical assistance. AML is supporting DEC’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Program, funded by the EPA, which will result in a statewide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and climate action plan. Solar projects will feature in the State’s climate action plan and AEA will coordinate with AML the inclusion of potential and funded projects. National level programs like the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator and National Clean Investment Fund, or Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Centers, are often lacking Alaska-related expertise or relationships. The project partners will maintain a line of communication to these providers, ensuring they are able to provide some level of benefit to Alaska’s disadvantaged communities; however, Alaska’s circumstances warrant local knowledge and experience be applied. ACEP is the leading provider in-state, which will enhance the program’s deployment. Workforce Development Plan AML will maintain a local workforce availability and hire tracking system throughout the life of the project, enabling meet local hire goals and cross-promoting hire between projects that might occur within a region. This system will also track municipal and tribal workforce in-kind contribu- tions, staff time that is applied to the project planning and implementation. The project team will conduct outreach during the planning period to the University of Alaska (UA), AVTEC, and Alaska Works Partnership (AWP) to identify ways in which training, appren- ticeships, and local hiring can benefit from solar integration into microgrids. In addition, the project will reference the Alaska Workforce Investment Board’s strategies for workforce develop- ment, found in its Combined Plan for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity.9 The UA is an important mechanism for workforce development, including apprenticeships. Twenty 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. AEA will identify opportunities for collab- oration with UA on solar-specific or solar-adjacent courses and certifications that will advance workforce development goals. 19 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE AWP is a non-profit organization that provides Alaskans access to jobs and careers in the construc- tion industry. AWP 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. AWP 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. Training Plans Lead to High-Quality Careers Based on projections by the Alaska DOL&WD, from 2020 to 2030 there will be about 1,600 vacancies per year for positions that require postsecondary training or education. The 2022 excess unfilled job vacancies included approximately 3,000 positions for which employers typically require or prefer postsecondary education. Alaska lags U.S. averages, however, ranking 46th in October’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate10 and 47th in job growth in 2022 through October.11 In 2021 and 2022 the Alaska job opening rate increased, ranging between about 8 and 14% (seasonally adjusted) (Figure 7). The highest rates correspond to a ratio of only 0.4% unem- ployed person per job opening. The job opening rates are the highest since the survey began in 2012 and higher and more variable than those for the national 6.5% annual average.12 Both national and state numbers show job openings are much higher than before the pandemic. Three factors have been cited to explain this worker shortage: retirements and early retirements of the large “Baby Boom” cohort; diffi- culty in obtaining childcare; and in Alaska, outmigration of working-age adults. In September-October 2022, Alaska labor force participation rate was 65.6% and the labor force was 62.7% of the popu- lation, the highest values since 2017 and 2015, respectively (Figure 5). Both slightly exceeded the 2019 percentages. In the last 50 years the peak labor force participation was 75.3% and the peak labor force percentage of the population was 69.8%, both in 1989, and there has been a slow, steady decline since then. This is attributable to an aging population.13 Alaska’s participation rate is unlikely to improve further without additional resources and support. The following describes potential careers for clean energy, including many careers that do not currently exist or marginally so in Alaska: environmental technician, wind turbine technician, planner, solar installer, air quality engineer, energy manager, utility operator, energy engineer, health and safety officer, siting assessment and permitting, feedstock development, wholesale market administration, contract management, lifecycle analyst, asset management, distribution grid developer, economist, appliance distributor, financing, contracting, and procurement. Alaska’s Solar for All program will focus on the applicability of these careers to solar, specifically, but also look to leverage the interconnections across the clean energy industry. This recognizes the FIGURE 6: The job opening rate is the number of unfilled positions, for which em- ployees are being sought, divided by the total number of filled and unfilled positions. 20 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE interoperability necessary, especially for community solar, and the reskilling that may occur over the course of the program and upon conclusion. This project envisions a workforce ladder, utilizing intermediary training providers like AWP, apprenticeships facilitated by Alaska’s labor organizations, and the university to deliver medium and high wage occupation opportunities to disadvantaged communities. Unemployed and under- employed residents will work through an intake and navigation process to ensure appropriate engagement in tracks and guidance, including support services. There is widespread support for expanding apprenticeship in Alaska, particularly due to federal support through previous USDOL apprenticeship expansion grants and progress made since the 2015 American Apprenticeship Initiative and continues today with two active State Apprentice Expansion grants. All partners will be involved in the ladder through a collaborative process. Trades Track – As a coalition partner, AWP will offer pre-employment and pre-apprenticeship training through the existing Alaska Construction Academies, Women in the Trades, and Helmets to Hardhats programs. ASA will offer pre-employment and occupational certificate training required for work on solar energy projects. Residential training centers, school districts, and apprentice sponsors will be activated to join in project activities and engage in cross-industry employment and training activities. In the past 5 years, AWP has served >3,500 individuals, and 75% of those served were placed in industry jobs. Of these, > 700 entered registered apprentice- ship. AWP specializes in helping underserved and underrepresented populations enter and retain employment in industry jobs that pay above prevailing wages. AWP has established relationships with industry associations, employers, unions, apprentice sponsors, Alaska Native Organizations, educational institutions, and workforce agencies, and manages $3 million in federal, state, and local workforce grants. University Track - AEA will work during the first year’s planning process to work with the University of Alaska system, which has the potential to help meet workforce needs for solar energy by expanding key certificate programs and increasing industry access to trained workers. UA is not considered a named subrecipient within the program coalition. UA could expand the number of relevant certificates offered as well as promotes the engineering degree programs that serve the solar sector. AEA will engage with UA during the program planning year to assess and identify current occupational needs, organize career fairs, and assess the impacts of existing workforce training. AEA can communicate to UA industry needs and opportunities in the engineering and technology sectors and help connect industry partners with students, faculty, and staff. UA may consider supporting job placement, internships, job shadow opportunities for students, career fairs, mentorship opportuni- ties, interviewing/resume/skills workshops, and industry interaction with student clubs. AEA will encourage UA to assess current UA efforts and partnerships to evaluate the extent that current training programs are effectively meeting the needs of industry and make recommendations to strategically invest program funding to increase capacity, graduates, and the number of graduates becoming employed in these targeted sectors. UA will contribute to the project’s information campaigns - data presented in the University of Alaska Workforce Reports shows that new graduates earn good salaries in most fields and their earnings increase substantially over five years following graduation.14 The university will consider continued expansion of online programs, informed by discussions with partners during the planning period, with a focus on adding more of the most needed workforce programs. If hands-on instruction is needed, it will be provided with intensive face-to-face components or, in some cases, internships or other on-the-job training, including through AWP. Dual enrollment opportunities are especially important for first-generation and economically disadvantaged students to increase their college graduation rates substantially.15,16,17 21 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE Workforce Training that Targets Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities The project partners understand the complexities of the labor market and will focus efforts on communities with higher unemployment or underemployment rates, key indicators of low-income and disadvantaged populations, and which are underrepresented in key occupations. Low-income populations often face higher rates of unemployment due to limited access to education, skills, and job opportunities. Economic downturns and recessions can disproportionately affect these groups as they may work in industries that are more vulnerable to economic fluctuations, such as low-wage service sectors. Low-income individuals are often concentrated in areas with limited job opportunities, which can contribute to higher unemployment rates within these communities. Limited transportation options can further restrict access to employment centers. Alaska’s unemployment rate is at a historic18 low, averaging 4.8% in 2022 (January to October, data not seasonally adjusted), with the rate even lower in urban areas (3.6% in the Municipality of Anchorage and 3.8% in the Fairbanks North Star Borough). However, unemployment remains high in most rural areas, for example, 10.7% in the Bethel Census Area and 8.6% in the Nome Census Area (average of January to October 2022, not seasonally adjusted) (Figure 6). Alaskans’ educational attainment is less than the national average, with a smaller proportion of the popula- tion holding baccalaureate and graduate degrees and a higher proportion with some college but no degree (Table 1).19,20 Only 35% of Alaska’s 2020 high school graduates enrolled in postsecondary education within 12 months of graduating. From 2000 to 2014, the percentage was significantly greater, 44 to 46%, but after 2014 declined steadily. The percentage of postsecondary enrollment of Alaska high school graduates is very low; the national average is 76% enrolling immediately after high school. In-state college enrollment is also low in Alaska, 52% vs. a national average of 80% in fall 2020. The Alaska percentage peaked at 71% in FY 2015 but has declined since.22 Alaska’s high school graduates peaked in 2019 at 8,590 then decreased by about 13% in 2020 and 2021. 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 FIGURE 7: Although the unemployment rate is at historic lows in urban areas, it remains high in much of rural Alaska. 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE 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 work- force that is agile, resilient, and flexible. AHFC has experience in delivering training through its Jumpstart program, which helps with job readiness, among others. The project partners have decades of experience working with low-income and disadvantaged communities, including through their education and training partners. Employer partners, including utilities, reflect the needs and equity goals of Alaska communities. AEA and AHFC will work closely with the Railbelt utilities and with rural microgrid utilities to create efficiencies for program deployment. A utility working group will be convened during the planning period to ensure close cooperation throughout the program, including annual dialogue to review implementation chal- lenges or opportunities. Partners engage with Alaska’s communities and help them to identify and secure resources for their highest priority needs. In addition to addressing community needs for training and education, the partners have the potential to link to statewide community outreach and engagement through Cooperative Extension and the Alaska Small Business Development Center, among others. 6. Equitable Access and Meaningful Involvement Plan Customer Acquisition Strategy AEA and AHFC have long-standing access to and communication with disadvantaged commu- nities across the state, spanning both rural and urban areas. AEA regularly manages recurring annual solicitations for project applications to its Renewable Energy Fund, which has funded nearly 300 awards in support of multi-phased development of clean energy projects, from microgrids to utility scale development, with nearly 70% of projects to date having been awarded to tribal or tribe-serving entities. AEA would seek to leverage its relationships with a statewide network who provide support and advocacy for their respective members including AML, representing 165 cities and municipalities and local governments, the Alaska Power Association (APA) representing rural and urban utilities alike, and regional development organizations such as the Southeast Conference (SEC), which seeks to champion the needs of the majority of southeast Alaskan communities. AEA has the opportunity to work closely with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) and regional Tribal health nonprofits such as the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) to reach Tribal governments and stakeholders. Marketing of this program would also be conducted internally by AEA staff for dissemination to the public via AEA’s website, AEA social media accounts, public notice boards, and other media. As part of its marketing strategy, AEA would focus its efforts on outreach focused on those disadvantaged communities, in recognition that support for these communities is both a requirement and central tenet to the SFA program. TABLE 1. Educational attainment of Alaskans compared with U.S. average.21 Less than 9th grade Grades 9 to 12, no degree High school diploma Some college no degree Associate degree BA degree Graduate degree Age 25 years and over, AK 2.4%4.5%28.4%26.0%8.7%18.7%11.3% Age 25 years and over, US 4.8%5.9%26.3%19.3%8.8%21.2%13.8% 23 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE At the same time, AHFC has a variety of program experience that has established its meth- odology for customer acquisition. AHFC developed and administered the U.S. Treasury’s COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance and Homeowner Assistance Fund Programs whereby AHFC provided the critical infrastructure for all Alaskans to check their eligibility apply through a single portal. The process pooled resources from Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, and tribal entities resulting in an efficient application process for Alaskans and allowed AHFC and its partners to quickly evaluate applications and issue payments. This effort led to a national award in 2022 for management innovation by National Council of State Housing Agencies, and first place communications awards in the categories of community relations and special elec- tronic and printed promotional materials by Alaska’s Public Relations Society of America. AHFC received a 2022 Sterling Achievement Award for Homelessness by the Council of State Community Development Agencies for its Alaska Housing Rent Relief program. This program distributed more than $262 million in rent relief funds across the state and was one of only a handful of states to provide rent relief to all eligible applicants, meeting distribution thresholds set by U.S. Treasury. AHFC reallocated remaining funds to its innovative Housing Stabilization and Recovery effort, working with 22 nonprofit partners in 20 key communities across the state to enroll over 2,600 households into the program, utilizing extensive street outreach, shelter visits and referrals from nonprofit organizations has helped to move clients through the stabili- zation effort. Both AEA and AHFC have long-standing connections to disadvantaged communities, and the state’s Solar for All program will benefit from this experience, even as it brings in new partners to augment and further its goals of reaching low-income and disadvantaged households. The program partners will utilize existing and extensive working relationships with Alaska’s 14 Regional Housing Authorities to build awareness in their communities and gather participants in regions where eligibility and competitiveness align. FIGURE 8: https://www.ahfc.us/newsroom/alaska-housing-rent-relief-weekly-program-update 24 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE While demand in Alaska is much greater than available resources, including through Solar for All, the partners understand that it isn’t possible to reach all households across the state alone, and that delivering outreach and program information to intended beneficiaries will require partners who can help with customer outreach and acquisition. Due to Alaska’s challenges, limited install capacity and the smaller scope of its proposed Solar for All than other states, the outreach and customer acquisition will need to be targeted to ensure participation is equitable with the Justice 40 and CEJST principles. For residential solar, AHFC will engage and provide funding to non-profit “Solarize” campaigns in specific CEJST identified disadvantaged communities to provide homeowner education and participant aggregation. Alaska has had several successful Solarize campaigns performed by local non-profits at the neighborhood level that leveraged communal action and coordination to bring down install prices. AHFC will utilize that knowledge and passion to ensure participation from urban CEJST communities. AHFC will work with its Weatherization Assistance Program partners that provide services to low-income households throughout the state to identify quality candidates. Weatherization partners are already admitting participants, income qualifying them, and improving houses across the state. AHFC wants to leverage that on the ground and work to identify households that are good candi- dates and enter them in the programs. Educating and Engaging Communities on Solar Energy Benefits AEA and partners have delivered clean energy education to Alaskans for decades, and regularly provide resources to stakeholders that includes the benefits of state programs. Most recently, the Governor has initiated and hosted Alaska’s Sustainable Energy Conference, a rapidly growing opportunity to provide education, outreach, and community engagement. AEA conducts outreach to PCE communities throughout the year, and its Circuit Rider program delivers direct support and engagement. At the same time, AHFC has demonstrated an effective strategy for community education and engagement through its recent rent relief program, where it reached 26,000 house- holds and distributed $262 million, as depicted in Figure 9. AHFC’s video series on its rent relief program was highly successful, and tools such as this can be employed to advance community education and engagement. Culturally Appropriate and Responsive Outreach and Marketing Strategies This project has many strengths, starting with Alaska’s existing well-developed cross-industry and interdepartmental cooperation between partners that can act quickly and deliver quality training and services to overcome barriers and conduct responsive outreach to disadvantaged communi- ties. This project joins experienced leadership, trainers, strategic partners, and employers who understand the geographic, climate, technological, and cultural nuance of Alaska and are currently delivering programs, projects, and training to Alaska communities and households across the state. One effective strategy is to engage community leaders and organizations as trusted intermediaries. These individuals and groups can bridge the gap between the solar program and the community, providing insights into culturally sensitive messaging and helping build trust. Hosting commu- nity workshops and information sessions in familiar and accessible locations, such as community centers or places of worship, can also facilitate engagement. Additionally, using culturally relevant imagery and stories in marketing materials can resonate more deeply with the target audience. Highlighting how solar energy aligns with cultural values, such as sustainability or self-sufficiency, can make the program more appealing. 25 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE Furthermore, creating partnerships with local organizations and businesses that are already embedded in the community can enhance outreach efforts. These partners can help promote the program and facilitate community engagement. Overall, culturally appropriate and responsive outreach and marketing for solar programs involve a holistic approach that respects cultural diver- sity, fosters trust, and addresses the unique needs and preferences of each community, ultimately promoting greater participation and adoption of solar energy solutions. Accounting for Diversity in Community Engagement The project team recognizes the value of a meaningful and targeted approach to advancing diver- sity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. Alaska’s program partners include solarize campaigns, regional housing authorities, and weatherization providers that have extensive experience working with low-income and disadvantaged communities. The program team will consult with these and others to ensure engagement with different types of communities, including those with limited English proficiency, and where different types of residential buildings occur. The following is a description of the methodology the team will implement in project design and implementation. i. 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 inclu- sivity; 2) promote economic opportunity for Alaskans through 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. ii. 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. iii. Inclusion: Project partners have shared commitments to 1) include the diverse perspectives within this project’s scope and deployment; 2) leverage investments and increase pathways to opportunity for minority-owned and disadvantaged business enterprises, and for individuals who face systemic barriers; 3) participate in meaningful engagement with communities that are diverse and underrepresented in the creation and implementation of the programs and projects that impact the daily lives of their communities by creating more transparent, inclusive, and on-going consul- tation 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. iv. Accessibility: Project partners have share commitments to 1) strengthen accountability policies 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. 26 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE Inclusion of Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities in Program Design and Operations AEA and AHFC serve low-income and disadvantaged communities as the state’s energy and housing authorities. This program is responsive to the experience that respective staff have in identifying and working to meet the needs of disadvantaged residents and communities. To best involve low-income and disadvantaged communities in the design and delivery of AEA’s solar energy program, a comprehensive and community-centric approach is crucial. AEA will initiate a collaborative process by conducting outreach efforts to understand the unique needs, preferences, and challenges of these communities through surveys, focus groups, and community meetings. AEA will establish strong partnerships with local community organizations that have existing trust and influence within these communities. These partnerships can help bridge the gap between the program and the community and facilitate culturally sensitive engagement. Project partners will engage community members in decision-making processes, empowering them to shape the program’s design, goals, and priorities. AEA will offer educational resources and training programs to ensure that residents are well-informed about solar technology and its benefits. Finally, AEA will maintain an open and ongoing dialogue with the communities, creating feed- back mechanisms to continuously refine the program based on their input. This approach ensures that the program is not only accessible but also truly responsive to the unique needs and aspira- tions of low-income and disadvantaged communities, fostering equitable access and community ownership of solar energy solutions. Community Participation in Program and Project Design AEA and AHFC held a preliminary stakeholder engagement session on August 16, 2023 as part of the project development process, with more than 30 organizations represented. This stakeholder engagement event was the first of many planned events. AEA and AHFC will deliver timely and continuous public involvement opportunities consistent with the program goals. The project team will facilitate a series of informational and engagement events across the state, encompassing both in-person and virtual formats. Outreach efforts will utilize various platforms and outreach tools. The public involvement objective is to increase Alaskans’ awareness of the program and gather public input on the administration of the funds. Public involvement will provide transparency in implementation and increase understanding of and enthusiasm for solar energy. At the preliminary stakeholder engagement session, project surveys were distributed to stake- holders to solicit feedback on the proposed program. Three areas emerged as important to participants: workforce development, maintenance and operations, and diversity and inclu- sion. AEA has built these focus areas into the program design. AEA will convene an advisory committee that will include community stakeholder organizations, such as housing authorities, utilities, Alaska Native regional and village corporations, local governments, and consumer groups. This committee will meet quarterly. Serving and Meaningfully Involving Alaska Native Communities The majority of communities in Alaska contain Alaska Native village statistical areas (ANVSAs), which are defined by the U.S. Census statistical geographic entities representing the permanent and/or seasonal residences for Alaska Natives who are members of, or receiving governmental services from, the defining Alaska Native village (ANV) located within the region and vicinity of the ANV’s historic and/or traditional location. The White House considers all Tribal lands to be disadvantaged, and the project team recognizes that the majority of its program funding will fall within these communities. 27 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE AEA and AHFC have decades of experience serving and meaningfully involving Alaska Native communities. Through the Renewable Energy Fund (REF), AEA has administered nearly $190 million in grant funding to Tribal entities for development of clean energy proj- ects throughout the State. AEA will build on this extensive network to engage with Alaska Native communities and collaboratively implement projects that address the unique needs and challenges faced in Rural Alaska. In addition to its Weatherization Assistance Program, AHFC administers approximately $3 million every year to Alaska’s Regional Housing Authorities through its state funded Supplemental Housing Development Grant program that supple- ments Native American Housing & Self-Determination Act funding whose uses are statutorily limited. As such, housing development work in many Alaska Native communities advances by allowing regional housing authorities to leverage their HUD funding for infrastructure devel- opment and energy efficient improvements that would not be possible in isolation. AEA and AHFC are working with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) and Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) to coordinate their application under the Tribal Organization funding opportunity. This will ensure that Alaska’s programs are complementary and do not overlap in either communities served or workforce development areas, and ensuring AEA helps serve Alaska’s Tribes through all aspects of the Solar for All Program. 7. Program Planning Timeline and Workplan Narrative Planning and Implementation of Solar for All AEA’s planning and implementation of Solar for All includes a year for planning and four years for implementation. The Program Planning Workplan is included in Attachment D and describes the first year’s planning activities. The Implementation Workplan is included below as a GANTT chart with steps and milestones to implement the strategies and plans of the program. AEA will use the planning period to develop a Request for Applications, refine scoring criteria for applications, and perform extensive outreach and communication statewide. AEA will aim to solicit and evaluate one round of applications in the first year of planning. Due to the seasonality of construction in Alaska, AEA aims to award funds to construct the first community solar projects in summer 2025. AEA and AHFC will also explore the potential of bulk ordering panels to save project funds and expedite deployment. AEA will solicit applications for community solar projects on an annual basis, allowing time to evaluate and set up subgrant agreements on a timeline that allows projects to be planned for and constructed in the summer months. AEA will spend the first year planning and refining the program, and anticipates four rounds of applications for community solar projects with approximately four projects awarded each year (16 community projects in total). The main program that AHFC will create under the Solar for All will be a Subsidized Residential Rooftop Solar program for low-income and disadvantaged households. AHFC will further develop the program, upon award, during the year of planning, including working with installers and other stakeholders to overcome the relatively immature solar market and scale of potential need. Alaska has the 2nd highest electrical rates in the nation and is facing an uncertain energy future, with the Cook Inlet region’s natural gas production over the next 10 years in a highly uncertain state. This uncertainty has been especially felt in Alaska’s lower income households who have mostly been unable to access the benefits of solar energy. Traditionally a solar installation would have a payback period stretching 10 years or longer, which is a difficult debt for a low-income household in Alaska to take on. AHFC’s Residential Rooftop Program aims to bring the benefits of solar power directly to households most in need. Task/Milestone/No-Go Decisions Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1 Meaningful Benefits 1.1 Project partners determine household savings through program delivery 1.2 Program identifies ownership models and resilience benefits 1.3 Community education and equity assessment 1.4 Partners actively involved in project M1 20% household savings to program beneficiaries M2 Low-income and disadvantaged households’ access to solar increased M3 Job creation and business development is documented NG Program unable to achieve 20% household savings. 2 Market Strategy 2.1 Community solar program evaluates potential and need 2.2 Residential solar program evaluates potential and need M1 Annual analysis and progress report for community solar M2 Annual analysis and progress report for residential solar NG Need met or potential unproven or limited 3 Financial Assistance 3.1 Call for community solar projects and project review 3.2 Call for residential solar program delivery partners 3.3 Project evaluation of grant compliance occurs 3.4 Additional methods for financial assistance identified M1 16 rural community solar projects selected and completed (4 per year) M2 400-500 households served with residential solar M3 All project funds expended NG Financial assistance determined not to be meet outcomes 4 Technical Assistance 4.1 Implement cohort approach for community solar. 4.2 Provide techno-economic evaluation of community solar. 4.3 Provide application assistance for community solar. 4.4 Implement workforce development plan. 4.5 Conduct residential solar assessments as needed 4.6 Ensure adequate installer support and training. M1 16 communities participate in cohort trainings and planning. M2 Workforce training for disadvantaged communities. M3 Installers available in each region. NG Workforce development isn’t able to attract adequate participation. 5 Equitable Access 5.1 Implement customer acquisition strategy. 5.2 Public outreach campaign on solar benefits. 5.3 Community engagement that accounts for diversity. M1 Stakeholder advisory committee mobilized. M2 Projects are positively benefiting disadvantaged communities. NG Inadequate participation of low-income or disadvantaged communities. 28 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE 29 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE AHFC’s Rooftop Solar program will be primarily providing Alaska’s grid-connected low-income and disadvantaged households with fully subsidized rooftop solar installations. A household will apply for the program and their income will be verified to ensure they are eligible to participate under the parameters of the program. They will be entered into the program and will receive a household Solar Assessment that will indicate if they are a good candidate to proceed based on their roof profile, status of their electrical system and if their utility bundle and payments ensures they will receive minimum 20% savings as required by the program guidelines. AHFC will create an “Enabling Upgrades” fund as part of the program so that low-income and disadvantaged house- holds that qualify for the program but whose household would need specific upgrades to ensure a successful solar installation can receive those upgrades. As the administrator of Department of Energy’s upcoming Home Rebate program, AHFC will further leverage the Beneficial Electrification point-of-sale rebates for households that need specific electrical upgrades and qualify under that program. Once the household has been determined to be income qualified and a good candidate for rooftop solar, they will be assigned to a Solar Installer. Once the installation is complete it will have to be inspected; in municipalities and cities that require and have electrical inspectors, this will be done by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). In other locations a third- party professional inspector will perform inspections on the first 5 installations of a Solar Installer in the program and some percentage on an ongoing basis. AHFC will use the programming period to explore using its existing Building Monitoring Software (BMON) to monitor the performance of all the installations under the program to ensure their rooftop solar system is functioning properly and providing the household with maximum benefits. AHFC’s plan involves standardizing the solar installation packages to a 4 kW system for most households with allowances to be built in for +/- a certain number of panels for households where the standard installation size would not be a success. This standardization of the installs will simplify the permitting process, simplify and standardize the procurement process for both approved installers and procurement of panels and components, streamline the assessment for households entering the program, and allow for efficient approval and monitoring of installations. AHFC will use the planning period to design a grant program for Multi-Family Rooftop Solar. This program will address access to capital, regulatory barriers, capacity of housing owners, energy efficiency integration and tenant benefit and engagement. Specifications will be created to include master-metered and multi-metered buildings and ensure households in both buildings will receive 20% savings or an equivalent benefit. The program will include multi-family units that are HUD-supported, or where rental assistance is provided to privately owned multi-family buildings with rents not exceeding 30% of 80% of AMI for at least half the residential units and with an active affordability covenant from one of the approved federal or state housing assistance programs. AHFC will open an application period until the program is over or funding is expended. Applications will be scored on a variety of metrics, including economic or otherwise disad- vantaged Alaskans served by the building, benefits to tenants and how they will be guaranteed, amount of external or private funding included in their plan, cost per kW, etc. AHFC will identify partners such as ACEP, NREL and local installers to confirm the standard solar installation parameters during the planning period. This will be done to standardize the installations but not so detailed that it prefers one manufacturer or installer over others. After the specifications are finalized, AHFC will begin an open RFP process for Solar Installers across the state, with the goal of having one or two installers covering each urban area. An installer will need to agree to the program guidelines, be licensed, and insured. 30 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE AHFC will use its existing Weatherization Assistance Program network to identify households that have been through its weatherization process in the last five years that would be good candidates for rooftop Solar. As this is a new program being set up in the State, these initial homes will function as the initial pilot households while the program is being finalized and later opens up to more Alaskans. AHFC will create an Enabling Upgrades fund that will be used for households that are income qualified for the subsidized Rooftop solar program and would be good candidates for a solar installation but need a structural, electrical or envelope upgrade to ensure the installation is successful and provides the benefits as required. This could include structural reinforcing, tree removal, roofing (limited), electrical upgrades. To access the enabling upgrade fund, one of AHFC’s weatherization partners or Solar for All Solar Installers would have to identify the need through an initial solar assessment. Households needing upgrades to their existing electrical system will be encouraged to utilize the forthcoming DOE Beneficial Electrification Rebates that include point of sale rebates of $2,500 for electrical wiring and $4,000 for electrical panel and load center upgrades. AHFC will be administering these rebates for Alaska and will thread these benefits together to benefit low-income and disadvantaged households. Refining Program Plan during Planning Period AEA and AHFC have designated the first year (not more than 12 months) of its program plan to be a planning period. This will ensure that the partners establish the necessary relationships and processes identified in various components of this application. Critical to this will be the input from the program’s advisory committee, which will review the activities identified to deliver meaningful benefits, technical assistance, a market strategy, and an equitable involvement plan. AEA will conduct a feasibility study of solar potential relative to communities potentially eligible based on disadvantaged status. This will include updating the most recent assessments. AHFC will conduct a similar assessment in urban areas of Alaska, further refining its targeted approach to delivering residential solar. The most crucial element of the planning period will be stakeholder engagement, with a focus on further developing the program’s approach to inclusivity, diversity, equity, and access. Any named entity in this application should not be considered a subrecipient unless an MOA committing to coali- tion participation is included. AEA has included multiple organizations for reference as resources, anticipating that during the Planning Period any additional partners can be identified and formalized. Consideration of Other Resources for Planning Purposes AEA and AHFC will utilize this planning period to strengthen their capacity to deliver community and residential solar, utilizing best practices and leveraged resources from across the nation while also applying lessons learned to Alaska’s unique geographic and cultural conditions. AEA recognizes the value of DOE’s States Collaborative and National Community Solar Partnership’s direct expertise and capacity building services. AEA is an active member of NCSP and the project team will reach out to these and other programs upon award and participate in trainings and information sharing as available. AEA anticipates collaboration with other Solar for All awardees, including in Alaska where a Tribal award would be beneficial, but also in similarly situated states in Region 10. The State will also have completed its initial greenhouse gas emissions inventory funded by EPA’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Program and administered by Alaska’s DEC, and Alaska’s Priority Climate Action Plan should be complete. AEA’s Solar for All program will fit well within further development of Alaska’s Comprehensive Climate Action Plan development and the State will work in this first year to develop a structure for collaboration. 31 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE AEA and AHFC will further evaluate the potential for Alaska projects to benefit from EPA programs such as the National Clean Investment Fund and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator. This effort may include further developing the ability for other organizations in Alaska to benefit from or develop corresponding programs, including through Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). Period of Performance This project’s period of performance is five years, with the first year an extensive planning and stakeholder engagement process designed to advance the development of AEA’s delivery of mean- ingful benefits, technical assistance, and effective financial assistance programs. All funds will be expended by the conclusion of the five-year award period. Program Administration Narrative 1. Budget Narrative Efficient and Cost-Effective Deployment of Funds AEA has applied for a reasonable level of Solar for All program funding, which based on its analysis makes targeted, meaningful progress toward meeting the need for community and residential solar. AEA and AHFC have partnered to deliver this program and evenly distributed the total $100 million request between AEA’s management of community solar and AHFC’s management for residential solar. AEA has budgeted $41,325,000 to directly fund community-owned solar proj- ects, and $5,061,663 to cover administrative costs, travel, supplies, and indirect costs. AHFC has budgeted $40 million to directly fund residential and multi-family projects, $3.5 million for an enabling upgrades fund, and $3 million for program administration. The remaining $7.1 million will be allocated for workforce development, technical assistance, and outreach activi- ties. This is an efficient allocation of funds between community and residential solar, allowing Alaska to meet different needs for different communities. Low-income households in rural Alaska will benefit most from community solar projects, while in more urban areas residential solar may be more feasible. Thus, Alaska’s approach is prudent and necessary to achieve the outcomes of the program. AEA and AHFC have budgeted $7.1 million for Technical Assistance, Workforce Development, and Community Outreach. These activities will be jointly funded and aim to benefit both the Residential and Community-based aspects of the program. Technical Assistance is budgeted at $2,365,102 over the five year period of performance and based off analog data and outreach to potential technical assistance partners. Workforce Development will be critical to ensuring a successful program and is healthily funded at $3,498,235. The potential avenues to direct these funds have been discussed in previous sections of the narrative. The overall goal is to leverage existing programs statewide to quickly and effectively create a solar workforce in Alaska. Outreach is budgeted at $1,250,000 and is a highly important aspect of this program. AEA and AHFC aim to partner with organizations throughout the state to get the word out about this program and recog- nize that the targeted communities and households will require a more dedicated and intensive outreach effort than previous grant opportunities administered. 32 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE The project budget total of $100 million includes and the following provides detail for relevant cost categories: • Personnel – AEA’s estimated personnel costs of $2,357,850. include a list of all staff positions by title, percentage of time assigned to the program, and total cost. While a portion of time will be spread across the agency, three program project managers will be the bulk of this expense category. Costs are estimated to increase by 4% annually. • Fringe – AEA’s fringe includes leave, employee insurance, retirement and unemployment bene- fits. Fringe rates range from 43.6-56.93%, and are based on actuals. • Travel – AEA has budgeted $36,770 for limited direct travel to communities for site visits. The majority of travel will occur by subawardees and has separately been accounted for within their budgets. • Equipment – No equipment is anticipated for this program. • Supplies – AEA has estimated a limited budget for office supplies and equipment under appro- priate thresholds, which includes office equipment for program staff. • Contractual – AEA has included community solar project awards under Contractual, as well as contractor support of $100,000, on an as-needed basis. – Community Solar Projects - $41.3 million will be available for project proponents to access for community solar, and to pay for implementation through contracted awards. • Construction – Construction costs are addressed under Other as part of subaward costs. • Other – This cost category includes printing for outreach, participant support costs, and subaward costs. Subrecipient budgets are estimated below: – Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) – As AEA’s primary partner, the budget includes $46.5 million for delivery of residential solar. – Alaska Works Partnership (AWP) - $3.5 million is budgeted for AWP and others to coordinate and implement solar workforce development training. – Alaska Municipal League (AML) - $1.25 million will be available to AML and others to conduct equity and stakeholder engagement activities, including to work with communities for meaningful inclusion and benefits. – Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) - $2.4 million will be available to ACEP and others to used for technical assistance, which will include techno-economic analysis. • Indirect – AEA’s provisional indirect rate is calculated at 30% and is applied to all direct costs, including up to the first $25,000 of each subrecipient award. • Total – The total budget applies 84.8% of its budget to community and residential financial assistance. Where travel or supply needs overlap, AEA and AHFC will identify ways in which to avoid dupli- cation and make the most of available funds. AEA and AHFC will collaborate on their approach to technical assistance and workforce development, while recognizing that skill sets, subject matter expertise, and types provided might vary according to activity. The program is designed to meet the needs of both and to utilize funds efficiently without duplicating efforts. Achieving Target Minimum Funding Amounts for Financial Assistance AEA has designed its budget to maximize the amount of financial assistance that will be available for project deployment. AEA has exceeded the minimum expectation of at least 75% of funds and developed a budget that allocates 84.8% to community and residential solar financial assistance. 33 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE 2. Fiscal Stewardship Plan Ensuring Compliance with Grant Terms and Conditions AEA has mature staff and management systems in place to administer this award. AEA has a full suite of qualified individuals and a system of checks and balances in place. AEA’s Finance and Accounting departments manage the fiscal compliance and reporting requirements for grants and sub awards. Additionally, AEA staffs a grants department that includes a grants manager and a grant coordinator. Internal control procedures are in place for compliance reviews, budgetary controls, invoice approvals, periodic reporting both project status and financial. AEA hires an independent audit firm to report on compliance for each major federal program; report on internal control over compliance; and report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards required by the Uniform Guidance. In AEA’s FY2022 Single Audit Report it was found that the Alaska Energy Authority complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2022. AHFC has a robust internal audit department that ensure all departments and programs comply with relevant laws, regulations, and policies and procedures. The primary purpose of the Internal Audit Department (IAD) is to assist AHFC with achieving the highest level of quality performance and excellence. Among other responsibilities, IAD provides compliance guidance to residential building owners/ property managers and developers. The agency also has a system for grantee financial and adminis- trative review that includes performance management. Description of Policies and Procedures AEA will administer program funds through reimbursable grants to selected community solar projects in Rural Alaska. Payments are made after a multi-step verification and review of submitted invoices and progress reports. AEA performs due diligence for all issued grants. All invoices and progress reports are subject to a multi-level internal review and approval process prior to reimbursement of funds. A Project Management Plan (PMP) will be written by the AEA project manager for each community solar project. The PMP will outline project objectives, known risks, reporting requirements, and specific scope and budget requirements. All PMPs will be reviewed by AEA’s Grants and Finance departments as well as the Program Manager and Executive Director. AEA policies and procedures are included online, including for Procurement, Governance, and Annual Reports and Audits. AHFC policies and procedure manuals are available for each program it operates; these are available here - https://www.ahfc.us/tenants/resources/manuals. AHFC engages an external auditor that performs compliance reviews (including site inspec- tions) of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, Senior Citizens Development Fund (SCHDF), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and Neighborhood Stabilization (NSP) funded developments. Reviews are mandated by the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Consumer Protection Plan The consumer protection plan will be finalized during the first year’s planning period and informed by the program’s advisory committee and subject matter experts. The following provides a summary of standard practices that have been used by project partners in the past. 34 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE The program team anticipates contracting with third party inspectors to perform initial inspection on the first five solar installation performed by solar installers working under the residential rooftop program, and similarly for at least two of the first community solar projects. Annual inspections will occur on a representative sample of project installations thereafter. AHFC is exploring ways to use its in-house open source BMON Building Monitoring Software to remotely monitor rooftop solar installations performance, with permission of the homeowner, and identify and correct any issues in a timely fashion without burdening the resident. Practices for Consumer Protection and Process for Screening Entities Any contracted support will be secured through a procurement process prior to implementation. The companies performing solar installation will need to be licensed and insured. All partners in the program will be required to agree to the guidelines and rules of the program including compliance with applicable consumer protection laws in the State of Alaska, fair lending laws, and federal consumer protection and consumer financial laws, including laws that prohibit unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. AHFC has previously set up large phone banks to handle customer interaction, recently for the State Rebate Programs administered from 2008-2018, and the COVID-19 Emergency Rent Relief and Homeowner Assistance Fund programs, and likely will do the same for the forthcoming DOE Energy Rebate programs. AHFC has capacity and dedication to ensuring clients are heard and their concerns addressed. Client complaints will be monitored, tracked, and logged to ensure they are resolved in a timely fashion. There will be a procedure in which a program partner that receives too many valid and verified client complaints will be removed. AHFC’s Weatherization Assistance Program also has a well-established process in place for delivering success. The Weatherization program process starts when income eligible applicants apply with one of the weatherization service providers. If the applicant meets qualifying criteria, they are assigned a priority based on need. Weatherization service providers move through this list in order and schedule weatherization assessments. The weatherization service provider does an assessment of the home and creates a list of recommended energy efficiency, health, safety, and repair measures. These measures are prioritized and performed based on program guidelines, assessment, performance testing, professional expertise, and experience. AHFC performs quality control inspections on all its weatherization partners at regular intervals to ensure compliance with program requirements and successful outcomes for the households served. 3. Reporting Plan Executing Grant Reporting Requirements During the period of performance, AEA will prepare reports in compliance with program require- ments including SF-425 and SF-271, unless otherwise specified in the program award. The project team will utilize a data collection, tracking, and reporting system to manage and report perfor- mance measure data. Performance measures reflect system, program, activity, and individual-level data, and will feature sharing data across systems and organizations and gathering information on individuals served. A data management agreement will govern how organizational partners share data. The partners will utilize standard tools such as a spreadsheet to track data, and data will be aggregated across the reporting period and reported across individuals served, and not per individual, to protect identities. The project team will utilize a logic model to provide a graphic illustration of how the project’s planned activities will lead to the desired results. The program’s logic model will clearly identify the program goals, objectives, activities, and desired results; 35 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE clarify assumptions and relationships between the program or initiative’s efforts and expected outcomes; communicate key elements of the program; identify what to focus on in a program evaluation and guide assessment of underlying project assumptions and promotes self-correction. AEA will adapt our reporting requirements from grantees to comply with any additional require- ments set forth by the EPA when funds are awarded. Complying with EPA Program Performance Reporting Requirements AEA will comply with EPA’s established program performance reporting requirements consistent with and established in the terms and conditions of the grant award. AEA will establish procedures for doing so during the first year’s planning period, including to work closely with EPA to ensure appropriate methodologies and processes. Underlying Methodologies, Data, Inputs and Assumptions AEA implemented a robust analysis to determine potential program outputs and outcomes, utilizing historical and programmatic data along with various models that can be shared with EPA. AEA will report on these metrics on an ongoing basis. A brief summary is included here, for community solar: • AEA utilized the actuals of analogous projects in rural Alaska to determine average all-in construction cost of $10.57 per W for solar and separately $7,235 per kWh for storage. • To determine avoided tons of CO2, EPA’s Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) is used. • A capacity factor of 14% was applied to all project impact calculations, based on data supplied in Appendix F of the NOFO. 14% is likely on the high end of what AHFC and AEA would expect to get from a typical project, but used the EPA supplied value for consistency. • To calculate households impacted and household savings, AEA referenced the “PCE FY22 statistical report by community” published by AEA. Power Cost Equalization (PCE) represents disadvantaged communities that pay higher costs than an urban equivalent. • To determine representative energy numbers for communities, AEA filtered out regions with low solar productivity (Aleutians and Southeast Alaska), then filtered out smaller utilities (<1.5MM kWh/yr), and communities that already had renewables. • Based on analog data we can expect an average community project to have a capacity of 234kW plus 360kWh battery for $2.475 million. • Beyond this modeling, AEA anticipates that all rural, disadvantaged communities will be eligible for the program. Based on PCE data, a representative project community has the following characteristics: – Population: 634 | Avg number of residential customers: 219 – Annual Generated kWh: 4,671,110 – Avg residential rate: $0.48/kWh | Avg effective rate: $0.25/kWh – Avg fuel price: $3.30 | Avg kWh/month: 319 – Avg fuel cost per kWh: $0.29 • To determine household savings for community projects, AEA used the effective residential rate (including PCE subsidy) of its representative community and compared that to an expected residential rate with 100% of the proceeds from solar sold being evenly distributed back to the community. Some projects will allocate a portion of those funds towards an Operations and Maintenance budget for the asset. This allocation will vary from project to project, and commu- nities within the same region will be encouraged to coordinate and jointly fund an O&M position that serves multiple communities. Contracts will be written to ensure that a minimum amount of revenue be dispersed back to the community to meet the required 20% savings threshold. 36 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE For residential solar, the following assumptions were used: • Data provided by local installers and university partners at ACEP show an average all-in residen- tial rooftop solar project cost of $3.80/W, though this cost varies widely based on geography. • To determine avoided tons of CO2, EPA’s Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT) is used. • To determine the number of residential households served, AEA uses the assumption that the standard array size will be 4kW. • To determine household savings, AEA used the averages of retail and wholesale electric rates from four local utilities - CEA, GVEA, HEA, and MEA. • According to ACEP’s net metering update, 68% of net metered electricity is fed back into the grid. AEA made the conservative assumption that all electricity is bought back at the wholesale rate. In reality, this varies from house to house. In Alaska, net metering is trued up monthly with any excess that month bought back at wholesale rate. AEA will work with EPA to ensure compliance with standardized reporting requirements, including to identify tools to support reporting. Integrating Program Evaluation Activities 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 communities. Communities with little capacity will receive support 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 interviewed 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. The final year of the project will ensure that solar integration is completed in a timely and effec- tive 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 when the project is completed, developed in collabora- tion 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. AEA will comply with EPA Order 1000.33 and make use of available guidance and tools to ensure accurate evaluate and reporting. As public agencies, both AEA and AHFC are subject to public records requests and will be transparent in their program development and implementation. Programmatic Capability and Environmental Results Past Performance: AEA is an independent and public corporation of the State of Alaska, est. 1976 and 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. AEA’s core programs work to diversify Alaska’s energy portfolio, lead energy planning and policy, invest in Alaska’s energy infrastructure, and provide rural Alaska with technical and community assistance. The impact of AEA’s programs extend to the construction of rural power generation and bulk fuel facilities, distribution systems and transmission lines, renewable energy asset construction and integration, and ad-hoc maintenance and improvement of aging infrastructure. Rural Electric Utility Workers continuously travel to rural communities to administer itinerant training to rural 37 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE utility operators, and diligently maintain an inventory and assessment record for nearly every rural powerhouse in the state by conducting comprehensive on-site assessments. This record informs the powerhouse construction schedule and ensures alignment with community needs. AEA is committed to advancing and sustaining rural power systems across rural Alaska, and commenced the construction of powerhouses for rural and tribal communities upon its inception in 1976. Since then, AEA has touched the power generation systems, and worked with stake- holders from nearly every community in the state to provide supply and demand energy services. In the past two years, AEA has overseen ten rural powerhouse upgrade projects at different stages of development in the communities of Akhiok, Napaskiak, Nikolai, Venetie, Rampart, Nelson Lagoon, Manokotak, Circle, Akiachak (DERA) and Arctic Village (DERA). AEA maintains a strong commitment to follow through on delivering energy improvements for communities and often seeks additional project funding beyond what is provided by the Denali Commission and the State. Recently, AEA sought funding on behalf of the communities of Napaskiak and Nelson Lagoon through the USDA High Cost of Energy program and the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association’s Infrastructure fund to support rural powerhouse construction projects. AEA was awarded over $3 million through these efforts. Relationships and partnerships are in place with all Alaska energy stakeholders, including small rural non-profits and utilities, large regional and village Alaska Native Corporations and tribal governments, conserva- tion organizations, municipal governments, and technology- or solution-oriented working groups. Many organizations contribute to the development and support of infrastructure in rural Alaska, such as DOT&PF, responsible for airport infrastructure, ANTHC, focused on water and sanitation, local school districts, who support K-12 public school facilities, among others. However, when it comes to rural energy infrastructure, AEA indisputably takes the leading role. As the market progresses toward a clean energy future, AEA’s efforts have adapted accordingly. Rural utilities and powerhouses that were once exclusively powered by diesel are now seeking to transition to solar energy solutions. This shift demands careful consideration. Diesel generators in rural communities are sensitive to load fluctuations, as they can impact the efficiency of the gensets, and excessive fluctuations can result in damage to the diesel generators, which serve as the backbone of the rural microgrid. Integrating renewables into diesel microgrids is a complex undertaking that requires the expertise of qualified and responsible entities with a track record like AEA’s of reliable energy infrastructure deployment across the state. 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 its 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 will partner with AHFC, as the primary partner and subrecipient to manage the residential solar program. It is worth highlighting AHFC’s capabilities, with this in mind. AHFC is a quasi-state entity that makes mortgages accessible to Alaskans and provides affordable housing and energy efficiency programs. AHFC’s mission is to provide Alaskans access to safe, quality, affordable housing. AHFC delivers a variety of programs to meet this mission, including building code development. AHFC has administered several code process and programs since 1992 making the organization uniquely qualified to perform this project’s tasks. AHFC established the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (BEES) to promote the construction of energy efficient buildings. AHFC facilitates training and education for Energy Raters and Home Inspectors to become certified to sign off on BEES compli- ance. As an enforcement tool, AHFC has created a process for state inspectors to perform inspections 38 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE during construction of a new home with AHFC financing. Internal auditing and quality control poli- cies and procedures have been developed and followed to ensure compliance. Successful Completion and Management of Agreements AEA manages the Renewable Energy Fund, the Rural Power System Upgrade Program, the Power Cost Equalization Program, the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) Program, and various other 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 its Renewable Energy 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 Environmental Mitigation Trust and Wells Fargo. AEA administers the DERA program to provide support for projects that protect human health and improve air quality by reducing harmful emissions from diesel engines. This program includes grants and rebates funded under the EPA’s DERA program. AEA was a successful applicant to the BUILD (USDOT) 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 with an additional $3 million expected in 2024 to accommodate the installation of underground power lines.. 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 assis- tance and on-site training. History of Meeting Reporting Requirements The wide array of current and past programs, and grant management experience, ensures that AEA is appropriately prepared to manage this project, including through a subaward and project delivery and assessment process. This is further outlined in Attachment F, but the following is a small sample of the many awards AEA manages from federal agencies: • Department of Energy – 2023 Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid (Formula Grant to States) • Department of Defense – 2022 Black Rapids Line Extension • USDA High Energy Cost Grant – 2021 Napaskiak Rural Power System Upgrade • EPA – 2016-2022 State Clean Diesel Emission Reduction Act • Denali Commission – 2019 Nikolai RPSU 39 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE Experience and Plan for Achieving Outcomes 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 Solar for All program, and the overall program management. AEA has a full suite of highly qualified indi- viduals, and a strong system of internal controls in place that facilitates meeting all compliance requirements. AEA’s financial and project management 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 infra- structure projects and owns energy infrastructure for the benefit of Alaskans. AEA has the legal authority to enter into a financial assistance relationship with the EPA, 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. AEA will dutifully 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 stakeholders through all stages of the project, establish project support infrastructure to ensure success, enforce appropriate standard project management practices and processes, and control for performance, scope, and budget. AEA will be responsible for initiation, reporting, monitoring 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. AEA and AHFC work closely together to achieve and manage project outcomes, and AHFC has the necessary experience and capacity to comple- ment AEA’s program. 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 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 partners 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 AHFC and ACEP 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 dedicated effort in year four of the project. • Reporting and compliance – AEA will expect quarterly reporting from all sub-awardees and provide technical assistance through ACEP and AML to ensure compliance. 40 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL PROGRAM NARRATIVE There are multiple stages at which critical handoffs and interdependencies occur. • Project selection – Project team members will be involved in soliciting and identifying projects, 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. Relevant or Available Past Performance AEA and AHFC have demonstrated relevant past performance, provided above. Endnotes 1 https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/Alaska.pdf 2 https://irecusa.org/census-solar-jobs-by-state/ 3 https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Blue_Planet_Project_Shungnak.pdf 4 https://www.uaf.edu/acep/research/solar-technologies.php 5 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84391.pdf 6 https://www.uaf.edu/acep/files/projects/EEM-01255_SolarDesignManual_5thEd201805.pdf 7 Circuit Rider Program (3 AAC 108.200 – 240) 8 https://www.energy.gov/diversity/community-benefit-agreement-cba-toolkit 9 https://awib.alaska.gov/pdf/WIOA_plan_2022-2023.pdf 10 The unemployment ranking ranks the lowest rate #1. 11 Anonymous. “Gauging the Economy.” Alaska Economic Trends, October 2022. 12 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, data.bls.gov; Dan Robinson, “Job Openings Near All-time High,” Alaska Economic Trends, August 2022. 13 Howard N Fullerton, Jr. “Labor force participation: 75 years of change, 1950–98 and 1998–2025.” Monthly Labor Review, December, 1999. 14 Workforce Reports. https://www.alaska.edu/research/wd/reports.php 15 Sarah Schwartz, “Early-College High School Students More Likely to Earn Postsecondary Degrees.” Education Week, September 17, 2019. 16 J. Edmunds, F. Unlu, E. Glennie, and N. Arshavsky. 2020. “What Happens When You Combine High School and College? The Impact of the Early College Model on Postsecondary Performance and Completion.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 42 (2): 257–278. 17 Improvements to college enrollment and graduation rates have been demonstrated for structured dual enrollment programs that emphasize courses leading to an associate degree and completion of the general education requirements for a baccalaureate degree. 18 Since 1976, when online data begin. Alaska DOL&WD, https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/labforce/index.html 19 U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. census.gov 20 American Community Survey questions offer “associate degree” as the first option for a college credential. Hence certificate holders without a higher degree are counted in the “some college no degree” category. 21 U.S. Census data, 5-year average of American Community Survey, 2015-2020. census.gov 22 The percentages are the number of Alaskans who attended college for the first time in-state relative to the total number of Alaskans who attended college for the first time. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 309.10. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/current_tables.asp Solar for AllALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Attachment A - Summary Program Page Alaska Energy Authority – Solar for All 1 Attachment A: Summary Program Cover Page Program Title: Alaska Solar Homes Initiative for Northern Energy Solutions (AK SHINES) Brief Program Summary: The program’s mission is to deploy solar photovoltaic infrastructure across the state of Alaska. The program will span from urban, residential projects to community-scale, rural projects across Alaska. Implementation of solar infrastructure will reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the state while providing low-income and disadvantaged communities access to renewable energy. This program will not only offer Alaskans further access to renewable energy, but also provide funding to develop the local Alaskan workforce. The program provides the necessary stimulus to the solar industry in the state which will mobilize financing and private capital to stimulate additional deployment of greenhouse gas and air pollution-reducing projects. Applicant Name: Alaska Energy Authority Award Option Type: AEA is applying to Award Option #1, as a state agency. AEA is the primary State public corporation responsible for state energy policy and programs. It is ineligible for the other two award options. AEA, in cooperation with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, are Alaska’s responsible State agencies for energy program implementation. Applicant Eligibility: AEA is a public corporation of the State of Alaska with the mission to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA is the state's energy office and primary agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Program Location: This program will be delivered across the state of Alaska. Program Scope of Work: The program will utilize funding to develop 3 lines of effort: Line of Effort 1: Community Outreach, Workforce Development, and Technical Assistance Our coalition, in collaboration with sub-awardees, will conduct outreach activities aimed at identifying eligible households and communities, educating residents on the advantages and opportunities related to solar PV adoption, and fostering engagement among key stakeholders within the solar market. Additionally, we will support workforce development initiatives by financing local training programs in solar installation and maintenance, while simultaneously offering technical support to guarantee the effective deployment and long-term performance of solar PV systems within underserved communities. Over the five-year project duration and beyond, our overarching objective will be to empower communities, stimulate economic growth, and advance renewable energy access. Line of Effort 2: Alaska Energy Authority Community-scale Projects This initiative is dedicated to the deployment of community-scale solar energy systems, including attached storage solutions, in disadvantaged rural Alaskan communities. The project Alaska Energy Authority – Solar for All 2 scope involves the establishment of a funding program, analysis and awarding of project proposals, in-house or subcontracted technical evaluation and support for project planning and execution, and contracted training for operations & maintenance. Our overarching objective is to furnish enduring, clean energy resources that enhance the quality of life for residents in these marginalized regions, while concurrently strengthening local capacity and resilience. Line of Effort 3: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Residential Projects This initiative will implement rooftop solar systems within low-income and marginalized communities located along the primary Railbelt grid in Alaska. Its core mission is to facilitate access to clean and affordable energy resources while promoting sustainability and community empowerment. The project scope encompasses the integration of solar development alongside the existing weatherization program, the development of a standardized system design to streamline utility approvals for new installations, the negotiation of subcontracts for procurement and installation, comprehensive community outreach efforts, and the establishment of long-term maintenance protocols. Opportunities for residential-serving community solar installations will be explored. EPA Funding Requested: AEA is requesting $100,000,000 as a small award, intending to serve up to 10,000 households. This request corresponds to the NOI that was submitted. Population of census tracts identified by CEJST as disadvantaged: 143,247 Impact Targets: 1. The number of households projected to benefit from the solar program (both as an absolute number of households and award funding requested per household); a. Residential: 2596 households, b. Community: 3504 households c. Total: 6100 Households; $16,393 funding per household 2. the megawatts of solar capacity deployed over time (both as an absolute number of megawatts of solar deployed and dollars of award funding requested per megawatts of solar); a. Residential: 10.38 MW, b. Community: 3.91 MW c. Total: 14.29MW deployed; $6,995,828 award funding requested per MW deployed 3. Megawatt hours of storage capacity deployed over time (both as an absolute number of megawatt hours of storage deployed and dollars of award funding requested per megawatt hours of storage); a. Residential: N/A b. Community: 5.712 MWh c. $17,507,003 per MWh storage deployed Alaska Energy Authority – Solar for All 3 4. Short tons of annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions avoided over time (both as an absolute number of tons of CO2 reduced and dollars of award funding requested per tons of CO2 reduced); and the a. Residential CO2 avoided: 8137 tons/year; 244.102 tons avoided over 30-year life b. Community CO2 avoided: 3065 tons/year; 91,956 tons over 30-year life c. Total CO2 avoided: 11,202tons/year; $8927 award funding per ton CO2 avoided per year, 336,060 tons CO2 avoided over 30 years, $297 award funding per ton CO2 avoided 5. Absolute amount of household savings realized over time (both as an absolute number of dollars saved and dollars of award funding requested per dollars of household savings). a. Residential: 42% savings on annual electric bill; $49,849,977 over 30 years b. Community: 39.8% savings to household electricity bill; $40,004,160 over 30 years c. Total: $1.11 dollars of award funding per dollars household savings (over 30 years) Program Period: July 2024 through June 2029. Contact Information: Primary Administrative Name: Curtis Thayer Pamela Ellis Title: Executive Director, AEA Controller, AEA Address: 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Email: cthayer@akenergyauthority.org pellis@akenergyauthority.org Phone: 907.771.3074 907.771.3981 Coalition Partners: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Primary Administrative Name: Jimmy Ord Ethan Stoops Title: Director, Research & Rural Development Department, AHFC Program Information Manager, Research & Rural Development Department, AHFC Address: 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99504 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99504 Email: jord@ahfc.us estoops@ahfc.us Phone: 907.330.8446 907.330.8232 A memorandum of agreement for the coalition is included in Attachment G. Named Contractors. Not Applicable. Additional Named Subrecipients: Alaska Energy Authority – Solar for All 4 The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a voluntary, nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide organization of 165 cities, boroughs, and unified municipalities, representing over 97 percent of Alaska’s residents. Therefore, AML is classified as an Eligible Recipient per section 3, paragraph A, sub-paragraph 4 of the “Solar for All” Notice of Funding Opportunity. Alaska Works Partnership (AWP) is a non-profit organization that gives Alaskans access to jobs and careers in the construction industry. Therefore, AWP is classified as an Eligible Recipient per section 3, paragraph A, sub-paragraph 4 of the “Solar for All” Notice of Funding Opportunity. Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) is an applied energy research program at the University of Alaska Fairbanks with a Solar Technology program that complements the work of AEA. Therefore, ACEP is classified as an Eligible Recipient per section 3, paragraph A, sub- paragraph 4 of the “Solar for All” Notice of Funding Opportunity. Solar for AllALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Attachment B - Notice of Intent 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 TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund FROM: Alaska Energy Authority DATE: July 25, 2023 RE: Notice of Intent – Solar for All (EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01) ALN 66.959 1.Applicant Name: Alaska Energy Authority 2.Applicant Eligibility: State 3.Number and Type of Applications a.Award Option: Award Option 1 b.Program Location: State of Alaska c.Estimated EPA Funding Requested: $100 million LegendActivity performed in monthTextExample input: note ‐ these are example inputs and are not meant to be included in implementation workplans nor exauhstive of steps applicants must takeIntroduction: This Excel Workbook is an optional template for applicants to fill in and submit in the Application Materials, Attachment D: Program Planning Timeline and Workplan described in Section 1.7 of the Program Narrative. Please see details in Section IV and V of the Notice of Funding Opportunity for additional information about the application components and evaluation criteria. There are 5 tabs in this template ‐one tab for each plan and strategy in the Program Strategy Narrative. Within each tab, there are optional sections that coorespond to each of the themes of the criteria points in the Evaluative Criteria of the Notice of Funding Oppportunity. EPA has drafted example activities and timelines to illustrate how to use the template.To help demonstrate to EPA how applicants plan on engaging with relevant stakeholders during the program planning stage and which program planning services applicants anticipate using, this template includes space for applicants to explain for each activity relevant stakeholders which will be enagaged during the activity and relevant program planning services. Please refer back to the Notice of Funding Opportunity for additional guidance on how the worksheet can Instructions: For each tab, below is a description of the steps an applicant should complete to finish the template. Applicants should add and subtract rows as needed.‐In column B, consider grouping activities described in column C (explained below) according to the ‐In colum C, fill in activities the program will complete in the first year of the program; add a row for each activity; an activity could be a descrete piece of analysis needed to refine plans/strategies detailed in the Program Narrative; a specific engagement with an important stakeholder; a process like a Request for Proposals or hiring a program manager; and any other type of activity which would be helpful to complete before launching the program.‐In column D, describe the type of tools and program planning services the program will use to complete the activity (if applicable)‐In column E, write or describe the stakeholders that will be engaged to complete the activivity (if applicable)‐In columns F through 12, indicate with a colored cell when the activity will occure; consider whether the activity is repeated on some frequency (e.g., a quarterly briefing); consider indicated clearly in the Financial Assistance Strategy workplan when the program will begin offering financial assistance to customers Page intentionally left blank Page intentionally left blank Program Planning Timeline and Workplan ‐ Section 1.2 Meaningful Benefits PlanAn OPTIONAL template for applicants to fill in and submit in theApplication Materials, Attachment D: Program Planning Timeline and Workplan described in Section 1.7 of the Program NarrativeYear 1 (program planning)Program Strategy Narrative section Activities to complete program planningAnticipated services and tools that support program design Stakeholders to be engaged during planning phaseJul‐24 Aug‐24 Sep‐24 Oct‐24 Nov‐24 Dec‐24 Jan‐25 Feb‐25 Mar‐25 Apr‐25 May‐25 Jun‐25Household savings (10 points) Define size of standard Residential Rooftop Solar Installation. Current plan is for 4kW panel system to be standard for all installation with a waiver or exception to be allowed in select cases for larger or smaller installations. This should allow for an average energy savings of 40%, but more calculations needed. Alaska Center for Energy and Power(ACEP) ‐ UAF, Local Solar Installers Draft RFPs for rural community solar and battery projects, with scoring criteria including community load minimums, estimated household savings, and current community energy ratesDefine details of Household Assessment to be performed after income verification to determine if househole is a quality candidate for a solar Instalation. Installers would need to perform and file and assessment prior to installation. Engage Alaska Solar Working Group, Solar installers, etc… to create a template for a household assessment to ensure applicants receive minimum required benefits. Equitable access to solar (5 points) Fund local Solarize campaigns, engage with regional housing authorities and tribal entities along with Alaska Native TribalHealth Consortium (ANTHC), Tanana Cheifs Conference (TCC) and others to spread awareness of the program.14 Regional Housing Authorities, Weatherization providers, Interior Weatherization, Inc., Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Alaska Community Development Corporation, Non‐profits that engage in Solarize campaignsUtilize the CJEST map to ensure projects are located appropriatly. Resilience benefits (5 points) Engage with all stakeholders on Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and what additional benefits Alaska's Solar For All will have for the Railbelt Grid Resilience. Explore opportunitys to maximize benefits. Work with National Renewable Energy Laboratory ‐ Fairbanks Campus (NREL), Governer's office, Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP), ACEPIdentify metrics to measure resilience ‐ defined as energy and job securityDCRA Map, Denali Commission resilience positionDevelop scoring criteria to favor rural/ community projects that include battery storageEngage with CCHRC/ACEP/NREL regarding technical assistance ‐ system design and impact of battery inclusion.Denali Commission, Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC), ACEP, NRELCommunity ownership (5 points) Engage with Alaska's 5 major Utility Companies (Collectively refered to as Railbelt Utilites) regarding possibility of Community Solar installations serving low income customers in their jurisdictions.Railbelt Utilities ‐ Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA, Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), Homer Electric Association (HEA), City of Seward Electric System (SES)Award projects to rural communities that have signed agreements from Tribal Organization and City or Village government.Evaluate community's capacity for community ownership, plan for distribution of IPP funds to households, and plan for O&M activities, job quality, etcWorkforce development and entrepreneurship (5 points) Work with Department of Labor (DOL) to identify existing programs, work with Unions to boost workforce and training, worh with exsiting training programs to maximize their reach and outcomes Establish Workforce development navigator positionAlaska Works Partnership ‐ DOL (AWP), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ‐ Alaska Chapter(IBEW), Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) Fund Workforce Programs. Alaska Works Partnership ‐ DOL (AWP), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ‐ Alaska Chapter(IBEW), Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) Program Planning Timeline and Workplan ‐ Section 1.3 Distributed Solar Market StrategyAn OPTIONAL template for applicants to fill in and submit in the Application Materials, Attachment D: Program Planning Timeline and Workplan described in Section 1.7 of the Program NarrativeYear 1 (program planning)Program Strategy Narrative section Activities to complete program planningAnticipated services and tools that support program design Stakeholders to be engaged during planning phaseJul‐24 Aug‐24 Sep‐24 Oct‐24 Nov‐24 Dec‐24 Jan‐25 Feb‐25 Mar‐25 Apr‐25 May‐25 Jun‐25Net metering (5 points) Survey Existing Net metering policies of the five major Railbelt Utilites and current legislature that may be brought up in the 2024 Alaska Legislature Session. Work through what effects might come of new legislation of policies. Look ahead to 2025 legislature for future developments. Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA, Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), Homer Electric Association (HEA), City of Seward Electric System (SES), REAP and RCAEvaluate pros and cons of different net metering policies, determine policies for specific utilities. Currently some Railbelt utilites offer net metering, but none offer annual net metering and with Alaska's drastic seasonal sunshine variations an annual net metering program would significantly effect the Utilities systems as well as the financial outlook of residential solar programs. Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA, Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), Homer Electric Association (HEA), City of Seward Electric System (SES), REAP and RCAThird‐party ownership (5 points) Explore Financing and third‐party ownership possibilities in different geographic covered areas. Local Banks and Credit Unions, Utilities. Interconnection processes (5 points) Work with utilites to ensure existing infrastructure can support proposed and estimated new solar installation in their coverage areas. Hold regular meetings to share information back and forth. Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA, Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), Homer Electric Association (HEA), City of Seward Electric System (SES), RCAEvaluate local utility controls and cost of integration of community solar plus battery into existing microgrid. ‐ criteria component for com. projectsRenewable portfolio standard (5 points) A Renewable Portfolio Standard for the Railbelt Region of Alaska was introduced in the Alaska Senate and House in 2023 but did not pass during session. Review current status and what effects an RPS would have on the program if it passed. Monitor future legislative sessions for developments. REAP, Alaska Legislature, Utilities, Governer's Office personnel. Enabling regulatory frameworks for community solar (5 points) Engage with regulators (Regulatory Commission of Alaska) and utilites regarding local regulatory and legal status of Community Solar projects in the Railbelt. RCA, Utilities, REAPDescribe current regulatory framework and how it enables/inhibits development.Evaluate Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program and effects of community solar on this benefit for rural alaska. Understanding of jurisdictional nuances (5 points) Engage with lawmakers, Department of Law, office of the attorney General on an ongoing basis and as necessary as program is developed and rolled outState of Alaska Explain role of tri‐lateral agreements to community colar, expand on the nuance of tribal organization in Alaska. Descibe how AEA and AHFC currently work through that (REF, etc.) Describe how urban and rural interact. Program Planning Timeline and Workplan ‐ Section 1.4 Financial Assistance StrategyAn OPTIONAL template for applicants to fill in and submit in the Application Materials, Attachment D: Program Planning Timeline and Workplan described in Section 1.7 of the Program NarrativeYear 1 (program planning)Program Strategy Narrative sectionActivities to complete program planningAnticipated services and tools that support program design Stakeholders to be engaged during planning phaseJul‐24 Aug‐24 Sep‐24 Oct‐24 Nov‐24 Dec‐24 Jan‐25 Feb‐25 Mar‐25 Apr‐25 May‐25 Jun‐25Financial assistance model (10 points)Develop a plan for fully subsidized Rooftop solar for LMI households. AHFC will explore a tiered subsidy or grant system for households higher on the income ladder and determine what income level would recieve what level of subsidy. Hold monthly briefing meetings with stakeholders to solicit input on program designExplore feasibility of leveraging grant funds and existing tax credits.Integratibility with village ownership/purchasing given capital constraintsExpore bulk orders & streamlined permitting (to reduce initial project expenses)Alaska has been working towards a State Green Bank since 2021 when legislation to create one was firt introduced. As the legislation has evolved along with what State entity would house a future Green Bank, AHFC has been montoring the situation and the most likely current incarnation of a State Green Bank would be a subsidiary of AHFC. If legislation passes and a Green Bank is created, leverage that instituion to provide additional financing models. If not, monitor future legislative sessionsFinancial assistance leveraging strategy (10 points)Engage with Green Finance institutions to explore finanical leveraging opportunities. Explain why this is difficult in Alaska, why we are different, and why investing in Alaska is lucrative. Use REF data to show the ROI on renewable energy projects.Explore Denali Commission, REF, and other funding opportunities to use as leverageAssociated storage and enabling upgrades financial assistance strategy (5 points) Work with stakeholds to determine equitable managment plan for the $3.5M Enabling Upgrade Fund. Determine what upgrades are allowable and what are not allowable, how households would be determined eligable. Coordinate with forthcoming DOE Beneficial Electrification Point‐of‐Sale rebates to maximize benefit to LMI households and. Contract with National Labs to perform analysis to inform program designEngage with Solar installers and Weatherization providers for what percentage of homes would need some upgrade prior to receiving installation. AHFC is managing the DOE rebate program so coordination will be inhouse. Associated storage will be scored higher for rural community owned projects, as the storage greatly increases the resilience of the microgrid. AHFC will assess feasiblity of storage systems in residential applications.Take advantage of DOE Benficial Electrification Rebates whenever possible for necessary electrical upgrades prior to system install.Long‐term impacts of projects supported by financial assistance strategy (i.e., O&M strategy and affordability strategy) (5 points) Determine entity to perform and frequency of follow up inspections on houses provided with rooftop solar installations. Intitial program plan is for first 5 installations and randomly selected 10% ongoing. In Areas where Munciple governments require and perform their own inspections, determine if that will meet the criteria of a third party inspection. A percentage of installations to receive bi‐annual inspections to make sure customers are satisfied, there are no issues and installations are functioning properly. Work with Solar Installers, building inspectors etc… Use a portion of revenues earned from rural community solar projects (less 20% household benefit) to invest in an energy fund to support O&M activities throughout the life of the project. Evaluate projects on O&M plan. Develop renewable energy circuit rider program organic to AEA or cross train existing circuit rider staffSenior AEA staff and legislature Program Planning Timeline and Workplan ‐ Section 1.5 Project‐Deployment Technical Assistance StrategyAn OPTIONAL template for applicants to fill in and submit in the Application Materials, Attachment D: Program Planning Timeline and Workplan described in Section 1.7 of the Program NarrativeYear 1 (program planning)Program Strategy Narrative sectionActivities to complete program planningAnticipated services and tools that support program design Stakeholders to be engaged during planning phaseJul‐24 Aug‐24 Sep‐24 Oct‐24 Nov‐24 Dec‐24 Jan‐25 Feb‐25 Mar‐25 Apr‐25 May‐25 Jun‐25Workforce development (10 points)Identify ways in which training, apprenticeships, and local hiring can benefit from solar integration in to microgrids.IBEW, Solar Installation Companies, AVTEC, Alaska Works PartnershipHold bi‐monthly briefing meetings with stakeholders to solicit input on program design IBEW, Solar Installation Companies, AVTEC, Alaska Works PartnershipInterconnection technical assistance (5 points) Work with Utilities and local Solar installers to determine standard interconnection needs, standardize installations covered under the program. Utility Companies, ACEP, CCHRC, NRELWork with Authorities having Jurisdiction to simplfy the rooftop permiting process. If the program has certified, licences, insured and positive BBB rating installers, performing similar flat roof installations, with a defined and standard Solar package we will see if they can obtain a "trade permit" and simply and shorten the permit process. Contract with National Labs to perform analysis to inform program designAuthorities having Jurisdiction throughout the railbelt, Municipalities, Solar Installers, trade groups, etc.. ACEP, CCHRC/NRELMap differences in local governments best practices, regulations, codes. Fit into scoring criteria, land use, modeling, etcAMLResilient project siting, land‐use, permitting, building codes, inspection, and quality control technical assistance (5 points) Program Planning Timeline and Workplan ‐ Section 1.6 Equitable Access and Meaningful Involvement PlanAn OPTIONAL template for applicants to fill in and submit in the Application Materials, Attachment D: Program Planning Timeline and Workplan described in Section 1.7 of the Program NarrativeYear 1 (program planning)Program Strategy Narrative section Activities to complete program planningAnticipated services and tools that support program design Stakeholders to be engaged during planning phaseJul‐24 Aug‐24 Sep‐24 Oct‐24 Nov‐24 Dec‐24 Jan‐25 Feb‐25 Mar‐25 Apr‐25 May‐25 Jun‐25Strategy to maximize equitable program reach (10 points) Utilize local partners to engage LMI homeowners, organize and apply. AHFC will be focusing on the Railbelt but outside a few metropolitan areas, the program will be more succesful if mulitple households in the same area can be served at the same time. Contract with National Labs to perform analysis to inform program designRHAs, Non‐profits, Internal and external communication partners, utilize earned media to the greatest extent possible. Solicit applications from CEJST areasParticipatory governance strategy (10 points) Engage with Legislators and Senators, Municipalities and regulatory bodies to brief them on program developments, guidelines and Hold monthly briefing meetings with stakeholder‐A to solicit input on program designStand up Solar for All working group Governers office Infrastructure CoordinatorEducation, outreach, and community involvement strategy (5 points) Stakeholder sessions, listening sessions, utilizing existing relationships and networks. Create educational content in‐house and with partners. Regional Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, Non‐Profits, etc.. Increase low‐income and disadvantaged households’ access to solar through financing products and deployment options.Solarize Alaska, the Alaska CenterCustomer acquisition and management strategy (5 points) AHFC will work with our existing Weatherization partners to identify LMI candidates that have been through the Wx program and are quality candidates, work with Housing Authorities, Non‐profits, tribal entities to spread word, Interior Weatherization, Inc., Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Alaska Community Development Corporation, Regional Housing Authorities, Non‐Profts. From past experience running a State Energy Efficiency Rebate program, the program being oversubscribed, rather than under is the more likely outcome. AHFC will target underserved areas that have a greater chance of maximizing their outcomes. Award Number:Award Recipient:(May be award recipient or sub-recipient)Section A - Budget SummaryFederal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share % Proposed Budget Period DatesBudget Period 1$20,383,875 $0 $20,383,875 0.00% 7/1/2024-6/30/2025Budget Period 2$20,359,606 $0 $20,359,606 0.00% 7/1/2025-6/30/2026Budget Period 3$19,885,197 $0 $19,885,197 0.00% 7/1/2026-6/30/2027Budget Period 4$19,722,845 $0 $19,722,845 0.00% 7/1/2027-6/30/2028Budget Period 5$19,648,478 $0 $19,648,478 0.00% 7/1/2028-6/30/2029Total$100,000,000 $0 $100,000,000 0.00%Section B - Budget CategoriesCATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed)a. Personnel$435,323 $452,736 $470,845 $489,679 $509,266 $2,357,850 2.36%b. Fringe Benefits$221,577 $230,441 $239,658 $249,245 $259,214 $1,200,135 1.20%c. Travel$6,080 $7,290 $7,340 $7,880 $8,180 $36,770 0.04%d. Equipment$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%e. Supplies$30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 0.03%f. ContractualSub-recipient$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%Contractor$8,315,000 $8,285,000 $8,275,000 $8,275,000 $8,275,000 $41,425,000 41.42%FFRDC$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%Total Contractual $8,315,000 $8,285,000 $8,275,000 $8,275,000 $8,275,000 $41,425,000 41.42%g. Construction$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%h. Other Direct Costs$11,175,000 $11,175,000 $10,675,000 $10,475,000 $10,361,819 $53,861,819 53.86%Total Direct Costs$20,182,980 $20,150,467 $19,667,844 $19,496,804 $19,413,480 $98,911,574 98.91%i. Indirect Charges$200,894 $209,140 $217,353 $226,041 $234,998 $1,088,426 1.09%Total Costs$20,383,875 $20,359,606 $19,885,197 $19,722,845 $19,648,478 $100,000,000 100.00%Instructions and SummaryDate of Submission:SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSEDThe values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entryAdditional 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 STATEMENTPublic 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 1Time (Hrs)Hourly Rate($/Hr)Total Budget Period 2Time (Hrs)Hourly Rate($/Hr)Total Budget Period 3Time (Hrs)Hourly Rate($/Hr)Total Budget Period 4Time (Hrs)Hourly Rate($/Hr)Total Budget Period 51Sr. 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 $190,0002 Technicians (2) 4000 $20.00 $80,000 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 4000 $80,000Contracting Officer 104 $54.09 $5,625 104 $56.25 $5,850104$58.50 $6,084104$60.84 $6,328104.0 $63.28 $6,581 520 $30,469Contracting Officer 104 $54.09 $5,625 104 $56.25 $5,850104$58.50 $6,084104$60.84 $6,328104.0 $63.28 $6,581 520 $30,469Executive Director 104 $127.84 $13,295 104 $132.95 $13,827104$138.27 $14,380104$143.80 $14,955104.0 $149.55 $15,554 520 $72,012Communication Director 104 $75.13 $7,814 104 $78.14 $8,126104$81.26 $8,451104$84.51 $8,789104.0 $87.89 $9,141 520 $42,321Owned Assets Director 416 $114.33 $47,561 416 $118.90 $49,464416$123.66 $51,442416$128.61 $53,500416.0 $133.75 $55,640 2080 $257,607Infrastructure Engineer 975 $67.37 $65,686 975 $70.06 $68,313975$72.87 $71,046975$75.78 $73,888975.0 $78.81 $76,843 4875 $355,775Program Project Manager 1462.5 $67.37 $98,529 1462.5 $70.06 $102,4701462.5$72.87 $106,5691462.5$75.78 $110,8311,462.5 $78.81 $115,265 7313 $533,663Program Project Manager 1462.5 $67.37 $98,529 1462.5 $70.06 $102,4701462.5$72.87 $106,5691462.5$75.78 $110,8311,462.5 $78.81 $115,265 7313 $533,663Program Project Manager 487.5 $67.37 $32,843 487.5 $70.06 $34,157487.5$72.87 $35,523487.5$75.78 $36,944487.5 $78.81 $38,422 2438 $177,888Program Project Manager 208 $67.37 $14,013 208 $70.06 $14,573208$72.87 $15,156208$75.78 $15,763208.0 $78.81 $16,393 1040 $75,899Director REEE 104 $94.76 $9,855 104 $98.55 $10,249104$102.49 $10,659104$106.59 $11,086104.0 $110.86 $11,529 520 $53,378Director of Planning 487.5 $73.74 $35,948 487.5 $76.69 $37,386487.5$79.76 $38,882487.5$82.95 $40,437487.5 $86.27 $42,054 2438 $194,707Total Personnel Costs6019 $435,323 6019 $452,736 6019 $470,845 6019 $489,679 6019 $509,266 30095 $2,357,850a. PersonnelProject Total HoursBudget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Detailed Budget JustificationAdditional Explanation (as needed):Position TitleINSTRUCTIONS - 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 DollarsBudget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Labor TypeTotal Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate TotalPersonnel CostsRate TotalEXAMPLE!!! 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 $38,000Contracting Officer5,625 56.93% $3,203 5,850 56.93% $3,331 6,084 56.93% $3,464 6,328 56.93% $3,602 6,581 56.93% $3,746 $17,346Contracting Officer5,625 56.93% $3,203 5,850 56.93% $3,331 6,084 56.93% $3,464 6,328 56.93% $3,602 6,581 56.93% $3,746 $17,346Executive Director13,295 43.61% $5,798 13,827 43.61% $6,030 14,380 43.61% $6,271 14,955 43.61% $6,522 15,554 43.61% $6,783 $31,404Communication Director7,814 50.33% $3,933 8,126 50.33% $4,090 8,451 50.33% $4,253 8,789 50.33% $4,424 9,141 50.33% $4,601 $21,300Owned Assets Director47,561 45.14% $21,469 49,464 45.14% $22,328 51,442 45.14% $23,221 53,500 45.14% $24,150 55,640 45.14% $25,116 $116,284Infrastructure Engineer65,686 52.04% $34,183 68,313 52.04% $35,550 71,046 52.04% $36,972 73,888 52.04% $38,451 76,843 52.04% $39,989 $185,145Program Project Manager98,529 52.04% $51,274 102,470 52.04% $53,325 106,569 52.04% $55,458 110,831 52.04% $57,677 115,265 52.04% $59,984 $277,718Program Project Manager98,529 52.04% $51,274 102,470 52.04% $53,325 106,569 52.04% $55,458 110,831 52.04% $57,677 115,265 52.04% $59,984 $277,718Program Project Manager32,843 52.04% $17,091 34,157 52.04% $17,775 35,523 52.04% $18,486 36,944 52.04% $19,226 38,422 52.04% $19,995 $92,573Program Project Manager14,013 52.04% $7,292 14,573 52.04% $7,584 15,156 52.04% $7,887 15,763 52.04% $8,203 16,393 52.04% $8,531 $39,498Director REEE9,855 47.18% $4,650 10,249 47.18% $4,836 10,659 47.18% $5,029 11,086 47.18% $5,230 11,529 47.18% $5,439 $25,184Director of Planning35,948 50.65% $18,208 37,386 50.65% $18,936 38,882 50.65% $19,694 40,437 50.65% $20,481 42,054 50.65% $21,301 $98,619Total:$435,323 $221,577 $452,736 $230,441 $470,845 $239,658 $489,679 $249,245 $509,266 $259,214$1,200,135EMPLOYEE RATE ROSTER (Updated Sept 17th, 2023) Health Ins. Plan RetirementRetirment (in lieu of SS) MedicalWorkers CompFed. TaxBiWeekly D865 D840 SBS D800 MEDC U$M WC D818 FUTA UIPAnnual HrsLess Holiday hrs Less Leave HrsNet Billable Hrs1,793.00 25.10% 6.13% 1.45%0.68%0.00%Fringe Rate Diirector, Renewable Energy Programs 79.82 1,950.00 -82.5 -224.9 1,642.6094.7613.1 23.78 5.81 1.37 0.64 0139.4747.18%Owned Assets Director 93.67 1,950.00 -82.5 -269.88 1,597.62114.3313.47 28.7 7.01 1.66 0.78 0165.9445.14%Communications Director 65.02 1,950.00 -82.5 -179.92 1,687.5875.1312.75 18.86 4.61 1.09 0.51 0112.9450.33%Director of Planning 63.82 1,950.00 -82.5 -179.92 1,687.5873.7412.75 18.51 4.52 1.07 0.5 0111.0950.65%Infrastructure Engineer 59.07 1,950.00 -82.5 -157.82 1,709.6867.3712.58 16.91 4.13 0.98 0.46 0102.4352.04%Project Manager 59.07 1,950.00 -82.5 -157.82 1,709.6867.3712.58 16.91 4.13 0.98 0.46 0102.4352.04%Contracting Officer 46.81 1,950.00 -82.5 -179.92 1,687.5854.0912.75 13.58 3.32 0.78 0.37 084.8856.93%Executive Director 107.69 1,950.00 -82.5 -224.9 1,642.60127.8413.1 32.09 7.84 1.85 0.87 0183.5943.61%Hrly Rate Based on 1,950 hrsBillable hrly rate w/o benefitsBillable ST Hrly rate w/ benefitsDetailed Budget Justification b. Fringe BenefitsINSTRUCTIONS - 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.** (See rate table below)*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 1Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From DestinationNo. of DaysNo. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per TripBasis for Estimating CostsDomestic Travel1EXAMPLE!!! Visit to PV manufacturer2 2 $250 $500 $100 $160 $2,020 Current GSA ratesPublic Outreach ANC Fairbanks 2 1 $350 $600 $300 $120 $1,370Public Outreach ANC Juneau 2 1 $350 $600 $300 $120 $1,370Public Outreach ANC Kotzebue 2 1 $350 $1,200 $0 $120 $1,670Public Outreach ANC Bethel 2 1 $350 $1,200 $0 $120 $1,670International TravelBudget Period 1 Total$6,080Domestic TravelRural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $400 $1,250 $0 $120 $1,770Rural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $400 $1,250 $0 $120 $1,770Rural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $400 $1,250 $0 $120 $1,770National Travel ANC TBD 3 1 $500 $1,000 $300 $180 $1,980International Travel$0Budget Period 2 Total$7,290Domestic TravelRural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $400 $1,300 $0 $120 $1,820Rural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $400 $1,300 $0 $120 $1,820Rural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $400 $1,300 $0 $120 $1,820National Travel ANC TBD 2 1 $300 $1,100 $300 $180 $1,880International Travel$0Budget Period 3 Total$7,340Domestic TravelRural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $450 $1,400 $0 $120 $1,970Rural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $450 $1,400 $0 $120 $1,970Rural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $450 $1,400 $0 $120 $1,970Rural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $450 $1,400 $0 $120 $1,970International Travel$0Budget Period 4 Total$7,880Domestic TravelRural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $475 $1,450 $0 $120 $2,045Rural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $475 $1,450 $0 $120 $2,045Rural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $475 $1,450 $0 $120 $2,045Rural Project Site Visit ANC Rural Alaska 2 1 $475 $1,450 $0 $120 $2,045International Travel$0Budget Period 5 Total$8,180PROJECT TOTAL$36,770INSTRUCTIONS - 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. TravelDetailed 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 need3,4,5EXAMPLE!!! Thermal shock chamber 2 $70,000 $140,000 Vendor Quote - Attached Reliability testing of PV modules- Task 4.3$0$0$0$0$0Budget Period 1 Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Budget Period 2 Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Budget Period 3 Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Budget Period 4 Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Budget Period 5 Total$0 TOTAL EQUIPMENT $0d. EquipmentDetailed Budget JustificationINSTRUCTIONS - 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 3Budget Period 2Budget Period 1Budget Period 4Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need4,6EXAMPLE!!! Wireless DAS components10 $360.00 $3,600 Catalog price For Alpha prototype - Task 2.4Office Supplies 3 $10,000.00 $30,000 Office set-up Office set-up costs for 3 FTE Employees$0$0$0$0$0$0Budget Period 1 Total $30,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Budget Period 2 Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Budget Period 3 Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Budget Period 4 Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Budget Period 5 Total$0TOTAL SUPPLIES $30,000Detailed 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 dollarAdditional Explanation (as needed):Budget Period 1e. SuppliesBudget Period 2Budget Period 3Budget Period 4Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Sub-RecipientName/OrganizationSub-Recipient Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Purpose and Basis of CostBudget Period 1Budget Period 2Budget Period 3Budget Period 4Budget Period 5Project Total2,4EXAMPLE!!! 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$0Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of CostBudget Period 1Budget Period 2Budget Period 3Budget Period 4Budget Period 5Project Total6Contractor for developing robotics to perform lens inspection. Estimate provided by contractor.$32,900 $86,500$119,400AEA will competitively solicit applications for ~16 community solar and battery projects throughout the State of Alaska$8,265,000 $8,265,000 $8,265,000 $8,265,000 $8,265,000$41,325,000Contractor TBD, costs based on historical AEA data $50,000 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000$100,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Sub-total $8,315,000 $8,285,000 $8,275,000 $8,275,000 $8,275,000 $41,425,000SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of CostBudget Period 1Budget Period 2Budget Period 3Budget Period 4Budget Period 5Project Total$0$0Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$8,315,000 $8,285,000 $8,275,000 $8,275,000 $8,275,000 $41,425,000Additional Explanation (as needed):ContractorName/OrganizationEXAMPLE!!! ABC Corp.Community Solar and Battery Projects (AEA Managed)Contract to develop Request For Application documents and scoring critieria for community projectsFFRDCName/OrganizationTotal ContractualDetailed Budget Justification f. ContractualINSTRUCTIONS - 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. SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need3 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$0Budget Period 2 Total$0Budget Period 3 Total$0Budget Period 4 Total$0Budget Period 5 Total$0TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $0Detailed Budget Justificationg. ConstructionPLEASE 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 platformAdditional Explanation (as needed):Budget Period 1Budget Period 2Budget Period 5Budget Period 3Budget 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 Subaward to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to carry out residential portion for Alaska's Solar for All program $9,300,000 $46.5MM over 5 years will be managed by AHFC, which includes residential solar upgrades to 2596 homes, AHFC program administration costs, and an enabling upgrades fund AHFC is a coalition applicant and will carry out the residential rooftop portion of the proposed program. Technical Assistance - Subaward to Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) to provide Technical Assistance for the program. $475,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will assist in evaluating the technical feasibilty of select projects as well as provide additional post-project monitoring Workforce Development - Subaward to Alaska Works Partnership (AWP) to help develop and stand up a local solar workforce. $1,000,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will leverage existing workforce development opportunities in alaska to quickly stand up a solar technician workforce with an emphasis on hiring and developing talent locally. Community Outreach - Subaward to the Alaska Municipal League (AML) to provide assistance for community outreach and engagement $400,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will assist in performing outreach activites to communities around the state with an emphasis on targeting low-income and disadvantaged households and rural communities who could benefit from community solar. Budget Period 1 Total $11,175,000 Subaward to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to carry out residential portion fo Alaska's Solar for All program $9,300,000 $46.5MM over 5 years will be managed by AHFC, which includes residential solar upgrades to 2596 homes, AHFC program administration costs, and an enabling upgrades fund AHFC is a coalition applicant and will carry out the residential rooftop portion of the proposed program. Technical Assistance - Subaward to Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) to provide Technical Assistance for the program. $475,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will assist in evaluating the technical feasibilty of select projects as well as provide additional post-project monitoring Workforce Development - Subaward to Alaska Works Partnership (AWP) to help develop and stand up a local solar workforce. $1,000,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will leverage existing workforce development opportunities in alaska to quickly stand up a solar technician workforce with an emphasis on hiring and developing talent locally. Community Outreach - Subaward to the Alaska Municipal League (AML) to provide assistance for community outreach and engagement $400,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will assist in performing outreach activites to communities around the state with an emphasis on targeting low-income and disadvantaged households and rural communities who could benefit from community solar. Budget Period 2 Total $11,175,000 Subaward to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to carry out residential portion fo Alaska's Solar for All program $9,300,000 $46.5MM over 5 years will be managed by AHFC, which includes residential solar upgrades to 2596 homes, AHFC program administration costs, and an enabling upgrades fund AHFC is a coalition applicant and will carry out the residential rooftop portion of the proposed program. Technical Assistance - Subaward to Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) to provide Technical Assistance for the program. $475,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will assist in evaluating the technical feasibilty of select projects as well as provide additional post-project monitoring Workforce Development - Subaward to Alaska Works Partnership (AWP) to help develop and stand up a local solar workforce. $700,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will leverage existing workforce development opportunities in alaska to quickly stand up a solar technician workforce with an emphasis on hiring and developing talent locally. Community Outreach - Subaward to the Alaska Municipal League (AML) to provide assistance for community outreach and engagement $200,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will assist in performing outreach activites to communities around the state with an emphasis on targeting low-income and disadvantaged households and rural communities who could benefit from community solar. Budget Period 3 Total $10,675,000 Subaward to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to carry out residential portion fo Alaska's Solar for All program $9,300,000 $46.5MM over 5 years will be managed by AHFC, which includes residential solar upgrades to 2596 homes, AHFC program administration costs, and an enabling upgrades fund AHFC is a coalition applicant and will carry out the residential rooftop portion of the proposed program. Technical Assistance - Subaward to Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) to provide Technical Assistance for the program. $475,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will assist in evaluating the technical feasibilty of select projects as well as provide additional post-project monitoring Workforce Development - Subaward to Alaska Works Partnership (AWP) to help develop and stand up a local solar workforce. $500,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will leverage existing workforce development opportunities in alaska to quickly stand up a solar technician workforce with an emphasis on hiring and developing talent locally. Community Outreach - Subaward to the Alaska Municipal League (AML) to provide assistance for community outreach and engagement $200,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will assist in performing outreach activites to communities around the state with an emphasis on targeting low-income and disadvantaged households and rural communities who could benefit from community solar. Budget Period 4 Total $10,475,000 Subaward to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to carry out residential portion fo Alaska's Solar for All program $9,300,000 $46.5MM over 5 years will be managed by AHFC, which includes residential solar upgrades to 2596 homes, AHFC program administration costs, and an enabling upgrades fund AHFC is a coalition applicant and will carry out the residential rooftop portion of the proposed program. Technical Assistance - Subaward to Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) to provide Technical Assistance for the program. $500,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will assist in evaluating the technical feasibilty of select projects as well as provide additional post-project monitoring Workforce Development - Subaward to Alaska Works Partnership (AWP) to help develop and stand up a local solar workforce. $400,000 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will leverage existing workforce development opportunities in alaska to quickly stand up a solar technician workforce with an emphasis on hiring and developing talent locally. Community Outreach - Subaward to the Alaska Municipal League (AML) to provide assistance for community outreach and engagement $161,819 Estimated costs are based on AEA's past experience with various state agencies and adminstering other large grants. Project partners will assist in performing outreach activites to communities around the state with an emphasis on targeting low-income and disadvantaged households and rural communities who could benefit from community solar. Budget Period 5 Total $10,361,819 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $53,861,819 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 Detailed Budget TableAn OPTIONAL template for applicants to fill in and submit in the Application Materials, Attachment E: Budget Table described in in Section 2.1 of the Program NarrativeBUDGET BY YEARTOTAL BUDGET BY ACTIVITY BUCKETCOST‐TYPE CATEGORY YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5TOTALFINANCIAL ASSISTANCEDirect Costs Personnel FTE Solar for All Manager $ 81,394.48 $ 84,377.09 $ 87,042.50 $ 90,183.71 $ 93,123.08 $ 436,120.86 FTE Energy Specialist $ 73,858.78 $ 76,653.92 $ 79,506.80 $ 82,518.41 $ 85,601.75 $ 398,139.66 FTE Grant Manager $ 73,858.78 $ 76,653.92 $ 79,506.80 $ 82,518.41 $ 85,601.75 $ 398,139.66 FTE Grant Manager $ 73,858.78 $ 76,653.92 $ 79,506.80 $ 82,518.41 $ 85,601.75 $ 398,139.66 TOTAL PERSONNEL $ 302,970.82 $ 314,338.85 $ 325,562.90 $ 337,738.94 $ 349,928.33 $ 1,630,539.84 Fringe Benefits FTE Program Manager @ 75% of salary $ 61,729.57 $ 63,991.59 $ 66,013.03 $ 68,395.33 $ 70,624.54 $ 330,754.06 FTE Energy Specialist @ 75% of salary $ 56,014.50 $ 58,134.33 $ 60,297.96 $ 62,581.96 $ 64,920.37 $ 301,949.12 FTE Grant Manager @ 75% of Salary $ 56,014.50 $ 58,134.33 $ 60,297.96 $ 62,581.96 $ 64,920.37 $ 301,949.12 FTE Grant Manager @ 75% of Salary $ 56,014.50 $ 58,134.33 $ 60,297.96 $ 62,581.96 $ 64,920.37 $ 301,949.12 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS $ 229,773.07 $ 238,394.58 $ 246,906.90 $ 256,141.21 $ 265,385.65 $ 1,236,601.41 Travel Travel for 2 staff to attend DOE technical assistance and other workshops Airfare: 2 @ $1200 round trip $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 12,000.00 Per Diem: 2 staff X 4 days @ $60/day $ 480.00 $ 480.00 $ 480.00 $ 480.00 $ 480.00 $ 2,400.00 Hotel: 2 staff X 3 nights @ $250/night $ 900.00 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 $ 4,500.00 In‐state Travel for Program Monitoring $ ‐ Airfare: 2 @ $1000 round trip $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Per Diem: 2 staff X 2 days @ $60/day $ 240.00 $ 240.00 $ 240.00 $ 240.00 $ 240.00 $ 1,200.00 Hotel: 2 staff X 2 nights @ $250/night $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 3,000.00 Local Mileage $ ‐ Inspections, etc..., 200 mi/mo @ $.65/mi x 12 mo $ 1,560.00 $ 1,560.00 $ 1,560.00 $ 1,560.00 $ 1,560.00 $ 7,800.00 TOTAL TRAVEL $ 8,180.00 $ 8,180.00 $ 8,180.00 $ 8,180.00 $ 8,180.00 $ 40,900.00 Equipment Data Server ‐ Storage Space & other costs $ 5,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 19,000.00 TOTAL EQUIPMENT $ 5,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 19,000.00 Supplies Office and related supplies to support outreach meetings, trainings, etc $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 22,500.00 TOTAL SUPPLIES $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 22,500.00 Contractual RFP Residential Rooftop Solar for All Contractors for Installation $ 1,250,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00 $ 24,250,000.00 Third Party Quality Control Inspections ($1,500 ea x 30 per year) $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 225,000.00 Financial Assistance Program ‐ Contract with Green Financer $ 500,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 Contract with Non‐Profits, Housing Authorities, Community Organizations for Solarize Campaigns/Education/Outreach $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ TOTAL CONTRACTUAL $ 1,795,000.00 $ 7,045,000.00 $ 7,045,000.00 $ 7,045,000.00 $ 6,545,000.00 $ 29,475,000.00 OTHER Multifamily Low Income Rooftop Solar Funding through AHFC's Greater Opportunities for Affordable Living (GOAL) Program $ ‐ $ 2,500,000.00 $ 2,500,000.00 $ 2,500,000.00 $ 2,500,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $1,500,000 Enabling Upgrade Fund for Residential Rooftop Applicants to access upgrades $ 500,000.00 $ 750,000.00 $ 750,000.00 $ 750,000.00 $ 750,000.00 $ 3,500,000.00 $1,500,000 Web Design & IT Services to create platform for S4A Applications, including Income Verification, Address Verification $ 150,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 450,000.00 $22,000,000 Printing and publication servicesTOTAL OTHER $ 650,000.00 $ 3,350,000.00 $ 3,350,000.00 $ 3,300,000.00 $ 3,300,000.00 $ 13,950,000.00 TOTAL DIRECT $ 2,345,423.89 $ 7,613,913.43 $ 7,633,649.80 $ 7,655,060.15 $ 7,176,493.98 $ 32,424,541.25 Indirect CostsIndirect CostsIndirect costs on financial assistance direct costs $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ ‐$ Indirect costs on other direct costs $ 5,327.44 $ 27,636.67 $ 28,623.49 $ 29,694.01 $ 30,765.70 122,047.31$ TOTAL INDIRECT $ 5,327.44 $ 27,636.67 $ 28,623.49 $ 29,694.01 $ 30,765.70 $ 122,047.31 TOTAL FUNDING $28,860,428 $ 46,496,588.56 $23,000,000 Share of funding by activity80% Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 TotalProvide 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 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00%Indirect Costs (As Applicable):Overhead Costs $198,894 $207,140 $215,353 $224,041 $232,998$1,078,426G&A Costs$0FCCM Costs, if applicable$0 Indirect Costs on 4 contracts $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000$10,000Total indirect costs requested: $200,894 $209,140 $217,353 $226,041 $234,998 $1,088,426i. Indirect CostsINSTRUCTIONS - 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 has engaged an independent contractor to assist with the preparation of a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) as prescribed by 2 CFR 200, Appendix IV, Indirect (F&A) Costs Identification and Assignment, and Rate Determination for Nonprofit Organizations. Preliminary NICRA assessment results, using the Simplified Allocation Method, Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC) - 2 CFR 200.68 have resulted in a preliminary rate of 44.15%. AEA is currenlty working with AEA's cognizant agency for approval. We anticipate this to be completed by January 2024, depending on availability and time frame of the cognizant agency. This rate would establish the NICRA for FY2024. Although AEA currently utilizes the 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f), for purposes of this award, AEA calculated the indirect costs using a 30% indirect rate as an estimated rate, in ancticipation of an approved and negoiated rate in that falls within that range. 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.______ 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 1Budget Period 2Budget Period 3Budget Period 4Budget Period 5Total Project Cost ShareABC CompanyEXAMPLE!!!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$0TOTAL COST SHARE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$100,000,0000.0%Additional Explanation (as needed):Cost ShareDetailed Budget JustificationPLEASE 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$20,383,875 $0$20,383,8752. Budget Period 2$20,359,606 $0$20,359,6063. Budget Period 3$19,885,197 $0$19,885,1974. Budget Period 4$19,722,845 $0$19,722,8455. Budget Period 5$19,648,478 $0$19,648,4786. Totals$100,000,000 $0 $100,000,001Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5$435,323 $452,736 $470,845 $489,679 $509,266$2,357,850$221,577 $230,441 $239,658 $249,245 $259,214$1,200,135$6,080 $7,290 $7,340 $7,880 $8,180$36,770$0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0$30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0$30,000$8,315,000 $8,285,000 $8,275,000 $8,275,000 $8,275,000$41,425,000$0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0$11,175,000 $11,175,000 $10,675,000 $10,475,000 $10,361,819$53,861,819$20,182,980 $20,150,467 $19,667,844 $19,496,804 $19,413,480 $98,911,574$200,894 $209,140 $217,353 $226,041 $234,998$1,088,426$20,383,875 $20,359,606 $19,885,197 $19,722,845 $19,648,478 $100,000,0007.$0SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Authorized for Local Reproductioni. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h)j. Indirect Chargesk. Totals (sum of 6i-6j)Program IncomePrevious Edition UsablePrescribed by OMB Circular A-102h. Other6. Object Class CategoriesGrant Program, Function or ActivityTotal (5)a. Personnelb. Fringe Benefitsc. Traveld. Equipmente. Suppliesf. Contractualg. ConstructionSection B - Budget CategoriesApplicant Name:00Budget Information - Non Construction ProgramsOMB Approval No. 0348-0044Section A - Budget SummaryGrant Program Function or ActivityCatalog of Federal Domestic Assistance NumberEstimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget Solar for AllALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Attachment F - Programmatic Capability Attachment F – Programmatic Capability and Environmental Results Past Performance Agency Award Year Amount Project Department of Energy DE- GD0000002 2023 $ 22,174,492 Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid Formula Grant to States Department of Defense DOD-HQ- 00052210045 2022 $ 12,752,540 Black Rapids Line Extension USDA High Energy Cost Grant AK0031-E84 2021 $ 2,974,420 Napaskiak Rural Power System Upgrade Environmental Protection Agency DS01J8401, 36001, 63901, 94201 2016- 2022 $ 3,022,642 State Clean Diesel Emission Reduction Act Denali Commission DC 1574 2019 $ 1,733,740 Nikolai RPSU Project 1: BIL – Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid Status: Active Description: This project is in direct support of Section 40101(d) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (i.e., Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)). The objective of this project is to improve the resilience of the electric grid against disruptive events. Per BIL Section 40101(a)(1), a disruptive event is 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. Whether, and how, AEA was able to successfully complete and manage grant agreement: AEA was awarded this grant in August 2023. AEA has successfully managed grant requirements to-date through close communication with the DOE project officer. History of meeting the reporting requirements under the agreement, including whether AEA adequately and timely reported on progress towards achieving the expected outputs and outcomes of the agreements, and whether AEA submitted acceptable final technical reports: DOE requires submission of a project management plan within 90 days of award date and quarterly progress reports during the period of performance. DOE also requires that all projects under this grant adhere to BABA and Davis-Bacon requirements. AEA has met all of the required outcomes to-date. Project 2: Black Rapids Line Extension Status: Active Description: Operated by Fort Wainwright, Black Rapids is a primary site for state-of-the-art cold weather and mountain warfare tactics and techniques training for the United States military. Currently, the site is solely dependent on power supplied by diesel fuel generators. The Department of Defense working with the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) developed a plan to extend electric distribution lines 34 miles along the Richardson Highway to the Black Rapids Training Site (BRTS). The Army estimates that the savings due to reduced operational costs and deferred capital improvements will pay for the line extension within a few years. Whether, and how, AEA was able to successfully complete and manage grant agreement: Design and permitting for the new distribution line will begin immediately, however the original plan was along the Richardson past the Donnelly Dome drop zone. Ft. Wainwright decided that that they did not want aerial lines near the drop zone and recommended a new alignment the Old Richardson (Old Valdez Trail). AEA and GVEA were pursuing this route as this was the recommendation from Fort Wainwright. Later it was determined that new alignment, which crossed Federal managed by various agencies, would not be approved WW. AEA and GVEA proposed an alternate plan, burying the cables that were in the drop zone. History of meeting the reporting requirements under the agreement, including whether AEA adequately and timely reported on progress towards achieving the expected outputs and outcomes of the agreements, and whether AEA submitted acceptable final technical reports: AEA has worked cooperatively with the owner agency, Office of Liaison Defense Community Cooperation (OLDCC), and GVEA to review the conflicts and keep the agency appraised of the revised schedule. AEA submits progress and financial reports through the OLDCC project portal. Project 3: Napaskiak Rural Power System Upgrade Status: Active Description: New powerhouse module and small distribution upgrades. This project is currently estimated at $4.8 million. Whether, and how, AEA was able to successfully complete and manage grant agreement: AEA was awarded this grant in July 2022. AEA has successfully managed grant requirements to date by completing a required grant implementation plan and grant tracking document. These documents along with ongoing communication with the USDA project officer, have proven very successful. History of meeting the reporting requirements under the agreement, including whether AEA adequately and timely reported on progress towards achieving the expected outputs and outcomes of the agreements, and whether AEA submitted acceptable final technical reports: All quarterly and financial reports have been delivered on time. This project is in progress. AEA has received funds from the USDA and the High Energy Cost Grant program in the past and have successfully completed all the requirements of the award. Project 4: State Clean Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) Status: Active Description: Replace Diesel Engines used for prime power in rural Alaskan communities. A match of $3M required under this program from AEA capital and VW Trust. This is a yearly formula-based program. AEA reporting has always been on time. While there are currently open awards, there are closed awards with all deliverables met. Whether, and how, AEA was able to successfully complete and manage grant agreement: AEA is awarded funds yearly based on a formula allocation. The typical recipient of these funds is the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), however, through an agreement with DEC, AEA receives the funds. AEA, in partnership with our project officer, develops a workplan that clearly lines out the deliverables, timeline and budget of the award. If there are any major changes, the work plan is amended. Internally, a project management plan is used. The program has been extremely successful since the agreement was put in place in 2015. History of meeting the reporting requirements under the agreement, including whether AEA adequately and timely reported on progress towards achieving the expected outputs and outcomes of the agreements, and whether AEA submitted acceptable final technical reports: In 2015 AEA received the DERA funds via Reimbursable Services Agreement from DEC and reported through DEC. Starting in 2016, our relationship was directly with the EPA. Our quarterly reporting, both financial and progress, have always been on time. We have had several site monitors, which have resulted in no findings. For this program, we report DBE and a final technical report at the end of each award. Project 5: Nikolai Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Status: Active Description: Build a new powerhouse for the community of Nikolai, Alaska. Total project budget for this project is $4.9 M. Match is provided by state of Alaska capital funds. Whether, and how, AEA was able to successfully complete and manage grant agreement: This project was originally awarded for the design of an upgraded power system, construction funds were added via amendment at a later date. As the design was developed, AEA was able to show the funding agency that there was an urgent need for a replacement power system in Nikolai. Construction funds were added, and the project management plan was updated. Deliverables such as NEPA documentation and contracting/bid documentation were delivered to the Denali Commission as required per the award. This project is currently in its warranty phase. This project is operational, the powerhouse is being monitored and the local operators are being trained on the operations and maintenance of the new engines and switchgear functions. Final close out is expected in June 2024. History of meeting the reporting requirements under the agreement, including whether AEA adequately and timely reported on progress towards achieving the expected outputs and outcomes of the agreements, and whether AEA submitted acceptable final technical reports: All progress and financial reporting requirements for this project have been met. The final close out report will be submitted in June 2024. AEA Organizational Experience AEA’s organizational experience and plan for timely and successfully achieving the objectives of the proposed project, and staff expertise/qualifications, staff knowledge, and resources or the ability to obtain them, to successfully achieve the goals of the proposed project: AEA has decades of experience managing programs and projects throughout the State of Alaska in order to further AEA’s mission of reducing the cost of electricity in Alaska. AEA regularly manages recurring annual solicitations for project applications through its Renewable Energy Fund (REF), which has funded nearly 300 awards towards clean energy projects (conceptual design through construction). AEA administers the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program that provides financial assistance to rural utilities. AEA currently has about 30 active awards with the Denali Commission. Since the Commission came into existence in 1998, we have partnered on hundreds of rural infrastructure projects similar to the project referenced here. How AEA implements the projects has changed over the years, but the requirement of meeting the highest standard of delivery has not. Every project at AEA has a Project Management Plan (PMP) that is prepared by the project manager and signed off by finance, procurement, and grants. There is a meeting about the PMP where everyone can ask questions about the project and what to expect. At this time reporting requirements of the funding source are discussed as well as any special provisions that may impact procurement such as Build America Buy America (BABA) and Davis Bacon requirements. AEA is in the process of requesting additional positions to support the incoming work in FY25 from the IIJA and IRA, including anticipated workforce needs for Solar for All. Reporting is ultimately the responsibility of the project manager. Finance prepares the financial reports and at times may submit the reports to the different agencies, but the project managers are ultimately responsible. With this hierarchy AEA has enjoyed an extremely successful grant award and clean audit history. Solar for AllALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Attachment G - Memorandum of Agreements Solar for AllALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Attachment H - Organization Table Entity Type Activities Alaska Energy Authority State Agency AEA is the lead applicant for the State of Alaska's Solar for All program. AEA will use roughly half of the program funds to fund community-based solar and battery projects targetting Rural Alaska. AEA will also serve as the main point of contact for the EPA and is responsible for all reporting and grant compliance. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation State Agency AHFC is a coalition partner to AEA for this program and will administer the Residential Rooftop program as well enabling upgrades to qualified low-income and disadvantaged homes. Alaska Works Partnership non-profit organization AWP will leverage existing workforce development opportunities in Alaska to quickly stand up a solar technician workforce with an emphasis on hiring and developing talent locally. Alaska Municipal League Non-profit organization AML will assist in performing outreach activites to communities around the state with an emphasis on targeting low-income and disadvantaged households and rural communities who could benefit from community solar. Alaska Center for Energy and Power University of Alaska - applied energy research program ACEP will assist in evaluating the technical feasibilty of select projects as well as provide additional post-project monitoring Attachment H - Organizational Table Solar for AllALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Attachment I - Letters of Support The mission of AGC of Alaska is to advocate for our members and the Alaskan construction industry; to provide educational opportunities for our members; and to make the public aware of our members’ skills, responsibility, and integrity. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS of ALASKA 8005 Schoon Street • Anchorage, Alaska 99518 3750 Bonita Street • Fairbanks, Alaska 99706 Telephone (907) 561-5354 • Fax (907) 562-6118 Telephone (907) 452-1809 • Fax (907) 456-8599 October 1, 2023 Michael Regan, Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund RE: Letter of Support – AEA application to Solar for All (EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01) ALN 66.959 Administrator Regan, Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Alaska fully supports the Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) coalition application to the Solar for All program. We appreciate the partnership between AEA and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), which aims to enhance solar accessibility for low-income and disadvantaged communities in our great state. Given AEA and AHFC's extensive experience in overseeing energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives across Alaska, we believe this partnership holds great promise and are pleased to contribute our expertise, time, and energy to contributing in any way that the program envisions. As a potential partner in this program, if awarded and determined through the first year’s planning process, AGC of Alaska is a construction trade association that will contribute to the program’s Meaningful Benefits Plan by contributing to workforce development activities through our We Build Alaska program. AGC represents a membership of over 600 general & specialty contractors, as well as industry suppliers throughout the state of state. Collectivly, we are the businesses and individuals who build Alaska. In response to the ongoing workforce concerns within Alaska’s construction industry, we have developed an information and recruitment campaign, WeBuildAlaska, designed to attract, activate, and engage Alaska’s next generation of construction workers. Through this campaign, we share industry opportunities, target rural and urban communities with construction messaging, and effectively spread information throughout the site. If awarded, we would be happy to use our WeBuildAlaska platform to support this program. Alaskans face some of the highest energy costs in our nation, so programs like Solar for All have an outsized impact in many of our communities. The fact that nearly all of Alaska’s villages are eligible for assistance underscores the importance of this endeavor. Residential and community solar have a proven track record of success in Alaska, and AEA and AHFC will build on the key learnings from the numerous impactful projects around the State. AEA and AHFC have outlined an approach that ensures a strategic and equitable distribution of Solar for All funds throughout the state, including a focus on disadvantaged communities. AGC of Alaska is proud to support this effort. Sincerely, Alicia Amberg AGC Executive Director October 6, 2023 Michael Regan, Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund RE: Letter of Support – AEA application to Solar for All (EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01) ALN 66.959 Administrator Regan, The Alaska Safety Alliance (ASA) fully supports the Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) coalition application to the Solar for All program. We appreciate the partnership between AEA and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), which aims to enhance solar accessibility for low- income and disadvantaged communities in our great state. Given AEA and AHFC's extensive experience in overseeing energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives across Alaska, we believe this partnership holds great promise and are pleased to contribute our expertise, time, and energy in any way that the program envisions. The mission of the Alaska Safety Alliance is to ensure the availability of a highly trained workforce, sufficient to staff Alaska's industries safely and competitively, now and in the future. ASA conducts workforce development activities that help employers to create, sustain, and retain a viable and safe workforce. ASA connects industry/employers with Alaska’s training and education providers and acts as a central agency to support workforce initiatives that provide accessible, affordable training opportunities leading to high-quality careers for Alaskans and economic prosperity for our state. Specific activities of the organization may include, but are not limited to, developing education, training, and apprenticeship programs, establishing industry accepted education standards, designing curricula and instruction materials, providing skills training, collaborating on statewide workforce initiatives, and other endeavors that lead to job opportunities within industries that may have vacancies or labor shortages. As a potential partner in this program, if awarded and determined through the first year’s planning process, ASA will contribute to the program’s Meaningful Benefits Plan by: • Supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. • Conducting outreach or engagement with low-income and disadvantaged communities. • Working with AEA to develop and enhance community benefits. • Contributing to workforce development activities. Alaskans face some of the highest energy costs in our nation, so programs like Solar for All have an outsized impact in many of our communities. The fact that nearly all of Alaska’s villages are eligible for assistance underscores the importance of this endeavor. Residential and community solar have a proven track record of success in Alaska, and AEA and AHFC will build on the key learnings from the numerous impactful projects around the State. AEA and AHFC have outlined an approach that ensures a strategic and equitable distribution of Solar for All funds throughout the state, including a focus on disadvantaged communities. The Alaska Safety Alliance is pleased to be considered as part of the team where we can contribute to the development and delivery of initiatives that promote clean energy access and greenhouse gas reduction. Sincerely, Cari-Ann Carty Executive Director cari-ann@alaskasafetyalliance.org (907) 743-6803 Direct (907) 355-5313 Mobile Solar for AllALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Attachment J - Letters of Support October 11, 2023 The Honorable Michael Regan Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Administrator Regan, We are writing in support of the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) coalition application for the Solar for All program. Through a partnership between AEA and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), this grant will reduce emissions, distribute the benefits of solar energy to disadvantaged communities, and widen the doorway to continued financing of solar projects. Residential and community solar have a proven track record of success in Alaska, and AEA and AHFC have developed critical expertise in tailoring renewable energy to Alaska’s distinct needs. In the plan outlined in this application, AEA will utilize half of the funds awarded to deploy much-needed solar in rural Alaska, prioritizing community owned independent power producer (IPP) systems with generation as well as battery storage. AHFC would layer the remaining funds into its weatherization program to support rooftop solar for low-income and disadvantaged households. These efforts will enhance the reliability and resilience of Alaska’s energy infrastructure while uplifting communities across the State. Consistent with applicable law, policy, and guidance, we respectfully ask that you give due consideration to AEA’s coalition application for the Solar for All program. We also ask that you keep our officers appraised on the outcome. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lisa Murkowski Dan Sullivan Mary Sattler Peltola United States Senator United States Senator Representative for All Alaska Solar for AllALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Attachment K - Letters of Support 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 UAF is an AA/EO employer and educational institution and prohibits illegal discrimination against any individual: www.alaska.edu/nondiscrimination. September 18, 2023 Michael Regan, Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund RE: Letter of Support – AEA application to Solar for All (EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01) ALN 66.959 Dear Administrator Regan, The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks fully supports the Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) coalition application to the Solar for All program. We appreciate the partnership between AEA and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), which aims to enhance solar accessibility for low-income and disadvantaged communities in our great state. Given AEA and AHFC's extensive experience in overseeing energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives across Alaska, we believe this partnership holds great promise and we look forward to contributing our expertise, time, and energy to help the program succeed. ACEP is an applied energy research program at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the Solar Technology Program at ACEP works to support the responsible and equitable development of solar PV technology in Alaska. We have developed unique expertise related to the data collection and modeling of solar PV technology in northern and cold regions. In addition, our program helped to start the Solarize program in Alaska which led to a large increase in net metered solar. We are also active in workforce development to support the solar industry in Alaska. As a potential partner in this program, we look forward to working with AEA and AHFC to contribute to the program’s Project-Deployment Technical Assistance Plan by: • Contributing techno-economic expertise to project development. • Facilitating community solar cohort information-sharing. • Modeling expected output of community solar proposals. • Monitoring irradiance and solar output data from projects to ensure a high level of project performance. • Assisting in the development of training plans that lead to job quality and creation. Alaskans face some of the highest energy costs in the nation, so programs like Solar for All have an outsized impact in many of our communities. The fact that nearly all of Alaska’s villages are eligible for assistance underscores the importance of this endeavor. Residential and community solar have a proven track record of success in Alaska, and AEA and AHFC will build on past lessons learned from the numerous impactful projects around the State. 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 UAF is an AA/EO employer and educational institution and prohibits illegal discrimination against any individual: www.alaska.edu/nondiscrimination. ACEP is pleased to work with AEA and AHFC as they outline an approach that ensures a strategic and equitable distribution of Solar for All funds throughout the state with a strong focus on disadvantaged communities. Sincerely, Christopher Pike Director, ACEP Solar Technology Program University of Alaska Fairbanks PO Box 755910 Fairbanks, AK 99775 Cpike6@alaska.edu Pat Pitney, President Butrovich Building, 2025 Yukon Drive, Suite 202 PO Box 755000, Fairbanks, AK 99775-5000 (907) 450-8009 ua.president@alaska.edu www.alaska.edu September 22, 2023 Michael Regan, Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund RE: Letter of Support – AEA application to Solar for All (EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01) ALN 66.959 Administrator Regan, The University of Alaska (UA) is pleased to support the Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) coalition application to the Solar for All program. As an education and training provider, and the largest workforce provider in Alaska, UA is committed to contributing our expertise, time, and energy in a way the program envisions, and partnering with AEA by leveraging and linking educational resources to assist with workforce development initiatives and project implementation proposed by the program. As UA is a public serving institution, we appreciate the partnership between AEA and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), which aims to enhance solar accessibility for low-income and disadvantaged communities in our great state. This partnership speaks to increasing employment accessibility, but further, it demonstrates collaboration to meet Alaska’s workforce demands. Given AEA and AHFC's extensive experience in overseeing energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives across Alaska, we believe this partnership holds great promise. As a potential partner in this program, if awarded and determined through the first year’s planning process, UA will contribute to the program’s Project-Deployment Technical Assistance Plan by: • Contributing techno-economic expertise to project development. • Increasing awareness and advocacy in low-income and disadvantaged communities. • Engaging in conversations regarding workforce development and project deployment • Helping to develop training plans that lead to job quality and creation. Alaskans face some of the highest energy costs in our nation, and Solar for All can impact our communities. As nearly all of Alaska’s villages are eligible for assistance this initiative is a relevant and important action. Residential and community solar have a proven track record of success in Alaska, and AEA and AHFC will build on the key learnings from the numerous impactful projects around the State. AEA and AHFC have outlined an approach that ensures a strategic and equitable distribution of Solar for All funds throughout the state, including a focus on disadvantaged communities. UA is pleased to be considered as part of the team delivering initiatives that promote clean energy access and greenhouse gas reduction. Sincerely, Pat Pitney, President Solar for AllALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Attachment L - Letters of Support Northwest Arctic Borough 163 Lagoon Street P.O. Box 1110 Kotzebue, Alaska 99752 (907) 442-2500 Fax (907) 442-2930 www.nwabor.org Ambler Ivisaappaat, Buckland Nunatchiaq, Deering Ipnatchiaq, Kiana Katyaak, Kivalina Kival iñiq, Kobuk Laugviik, Kotzebue Qikiqtaġruk, Noatak Nautaaq, Noorvik Nuurvik, Selawik Akuliġaq, Shungnak Isiŋnaq August 28, 2023 US Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Solar for All RE: Letter of Support – Solar for All (EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01) ALN 66.959 I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) coalition application to the Solar for All program. This collaborative effort, in partnership with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), aims to enhance solar accessibility for low-income and disadvantaged communities in our great state. Given AEA and AHFC's extensive track record in overseeing energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives across Alaska, I believe this partnership holds great promise. Alaskan’s face some of the highest energy costs in our nation, so programs like Solar for All have an outsized impact in many of our communities. The fact that nearly all of Alaska’s villages are eligible for assistance underscores the importance of this endeavor. Residential and community solar have a proven track record of success in Alaska, and AEA and AHFC will build on the key learnings from the numerous impactful projects around the State. AEA and AHFC have outlined an approach that ensures a strategic and equitable distribution of Solar for All funds throughout the state. By supporting initiatives that promote renewable energy access, we can contribute to the sustainable development of our state and its communities. I fully endorse this application and have full confidence in AEA and AHFC to implement a successful and impactful program. Sincerely, Fritz Westlake Senior Director of Operations Northwest Arctic Borough University of Alaska Fairbanks Bristol Bay Campus October 4, 2023 Michael Regan, Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund RE: Letter of Support – AEA application to Solar for All (EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01) ALN 66.959 Administrator Regan, The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Bristol Bay Campus (BBC) supports the Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) coalition application to the Solar for All program. We appreciate the partnership between AEA and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), which aims to enhance solar accessibility for low-income and disadvantaged communities in Alaska. Given AEA and AHFC's extensive experience in overseeing energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives across Alaska, their partnership creates a strong foundation for this project and we look forward to contributing our expertise, time, and energy to the program. The BBC will contribute to the program’s Equitable Access and Meaningful Involvement Plan by: • Educating and engaging communities in solar energy benefits. • Develop a local workforce of solar technicians and instructors through UAF’s Solar Installer and Train the Trainer programs • Help to meaningfully involve Alaska Native communities. BBC is an Alaska Native serving institution located on Curyung Tribal land in Souhtwest Alaska. The campus service area includes more than 30 communities, all with populations less than 5000 people. BBC hosts a workforce development effort known as the Sustainable Energy Program (SEP). The SEP offers a 12 credit occupational endorsement for students that complete courses like Introduction to Sustainable Energy, Home Energy Basics and—most relevant to this proposal—Photovoltaics 101. The BBC will be hosting the second in a series of three solar installer “train the trainer” courses October 6- 11, 2023. Students that complete the sequence will be qualified to deliver the internationally known PV 101 curriculum developed by Solar Energy International and licensed by UAF for the next five years. We are eager to create opportunities for these soon-to-be qualified instructors to further the solar workforce development effort in rural Alaska. The fact that nearly all of Alaska’s villages are eligible for assistance underscores the importance of this endeavor. BBC is pleased to be considered as part of the team delivering initiatives that promote clean energy access and greenhouse gas reduction. Sincerely, Chandler E Kemp Assistant Professor of Sustainable Energy University of Alaska Fairbanks Bristol Bay Campus Ckemp6@alaska.edu/907-842-8303 1 Subject:FW: AEA Selected to receive "Solar for All" funding From: SFA <SFA@epa.gov> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 11:34 AM To: Curtis W. Thayer <cthayer@akenergyauthority.org> Cc: Hitchings, Nate <Hitchings.Nate@epa.gov>; Pamela J. Ellis <PEllis@akenergyauthority.org> Subject: Application Selected for EPA‐R‐HQ‐SFA‐23‐01: Solar for All 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. Hello, EPA is pleased to notify you Alaska Energy Authority’s application to EPA’s Notice of Funding Opportunity EPA‐R‐HQ‐ SFA‐23‐01: Solar for All has been selected for funding. The selection and funding decision was made after evaluating and scoring your application in accordance with Section V.B: Review and Selection Process of the Notice of Funding Opportunity. We will announce the selecƟons publicly on Monday 4/22, and news of the selecƟons will be embargoed for press unƟl 5:00 AM ET on 4/22. We ask that you please keep your selecƟon private = and do not share this informaƟon outside of your organizaƟon unƟl aŌer the embargo liŌs. We will follow up shortly before the announcement with informaƟon on your funding amount as well as draŌ language from EPA’s press release and social media toolkit. The press release will include an approved quote from the EPA Administrator, which organizaƟons are welcome to include in your respecƟve public‐facing materials. EPA does not need to review any communicaƟons your organizaƟon chooses to make about this exciƟng news, and EPA does not have any specific requirements nor guidelines for your communicaƟons work besides the embargo on this informaƟon previously stated. Please note that selection does not guarantee a final award. A final award is contingent on your compliance with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies; your agreement with the terms and conditions of the award agreement; and the completion of administrative disputes. EPA anticipates making the awards no later than September 30th, 2024—the statutory deadline for EPA to obligate the funds, and meeting that goal is contingent on your engagement in the award process. Again, EPA is very excited to notify you of your selection and appreciates the immense time and effort that went into preparing your application package. If you have immediate questions, please respond to this email. Sincerely, David Widawsky, Ph.D. Director, Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund US Environmental Protection Agency REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG RGYAUTHORITY.ORG 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 Email: info@akenergyauthority.org PRESS RELEASE Brandy M. Dixon Communications Director (907) 771-3078 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 22, 2024 AEA and AHFC selected for $62.5 Million EPA Solar for All Grant Program will enable low-income and disadvantaged households to benefit from solar energy (Anchorage) — The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and its partner, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), announced today that they have been selected for a $62.5 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Solar for All program. The Solar for All program is a $7 billion competitive grant program through EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Fund authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act. It is designed to deploy residential rooftop and residential-serving community solar projects benefiting low-income and disadvantaged households. The EPA’s program does not require a cost match from the grantees. “Alaskans face some of the highest energy costs in the nation,” said AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer. “The Solar for All program helps to level the playing field by making solar energy solutions more accessible.” ”AHFC and AEA have a long history of working together to assist Alaskans with their energy efficiency needs and this is the next chapter in our relationship,” said AHFC CEO/Executive Director Bryan Butcher. “Today’s announcement reflects a spirit of collaboration that will lead to access and advancement of emerging alternative energy technologies.” In October 2023, AEA and AHFC submitted a coalition application to be shared evenly between the organizations. This will fund a two-pronged Solar for All program for Alaska, supporting community solar installations and residential rooftop solar for low-income and disadvantaged households. With funding, AEA will administer a grant program to develop community solar arrays, including battery energy storage systems (BESS) that benefit customers in disadvantaged communities. BESS will fortify electrical distribution in rural Alaska communities, delivering resilience and reliability for the foreseeable future. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 AHFC will administer a statewide residential program that provides subsidized rooftop solar installations for utility grid connected low-income in disadvantaged households where net metering applies. With the final award, Alaska’s Solar for All program is anticipated to last five years, with the first year set aside for planning. ### About the Alaska Energy Authority The Alaska Energy Authority is a public corporation of the state. Its 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. To learn more visit akenergyauthority.org. About the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Alaska Housing Finance Corporation is a public corporation with a long history of providing Alaskans access to safe, quality, and affordable housing through home financing programs, energy efficiency, public housing and more. Since 1986, AHFC has contributed more than $2.1 billion to the State of Alaska’s General Fund. To learn more, visit ahfc.us. REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG RGYAUTHORITY.ORG 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 Email: info@akenergyauthority.org Solar for All Program Fact Sheet The Solar for All program is a $7 billion competitive grant program through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Fund authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act designed to award grants to states, territories, tribal governments, municipalities, and nonprofits to deploy residential rooftop and residential-serving community solar projects benefiting low- income and disadvantaged communities. In October 2023, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) submitted a coalition application for funding to be shared between the organizations, to fund a two-pronged Solar for All program for Alaska. On April 22, 2024, the EPA announced award selections for the Solar for All competition. AEA was selected to receive an award of $62,450,000. Selection for an award does not guarantee a final award. A final award is contingent on compliance with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies and agreement with the terms and conditions of the award agreement. EPA anticipates making the awards no later than September 30, 2024. The EPA’s program does not require a cost match from the grantees. With funding, AEA will administer a grant program to develop community solar arrays, including storage, that benefit customers in disadvantaged communities where modeling shows high potential for both the solar resource and ability for microgrid integration; and, AHFC will administer a statewide residential program that provides subsidized rooftop solar installations for utility grid-connected low-income households in disadvantaged communities where net metering applies. AEA will model its financial assistance on its Renewable Energy Fund program, which has successfully awarded 15 rounds of grants to communities statewide. Alaska’s Solar for All program is anticipated to last five years, with the first year set aside for planning. The Solar for All program offers an opportunity to reduce entry barriers for underserved Alaskans, enabling them to enjoy the advantages of residential rooftop, and community-based solar in disadvantaged communities in rural Alaska. The collaborative approach between AEA and AHFC will result in lower energy costs for disadvantaged Alaskans and provide access to critical resilience assets in rural Alaska. 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 Fiscal Year 2024 Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) Overview: The PIDP statute, codified at 46 U.S.C. 54301, establishes the port and intermodal improvement program to improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods through ports and intermodal connections to ports. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, November 15, 2021) (“Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” or “BIL”) appropriated $450 million to the PIDP for FY 2024 to make discretionary grants for eligible PIDP projects. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) encourages applicants to propose projects that, in addition to improving the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods through ports and intermodal connection to ports, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, will create proportional impacts to all populations in a project area and increase equitable access to project benefits, and will support the creation of good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union and include the incorporation of strong labor standards and training and placement programs, especially registered apprenticeships. More information can be found on the USDOT’s MARAD website here. Eligibility: • A State; • A political subdivision of a State, or a local government; • A public agency or publicly chartered authority established by 1or more States; • A special purpose district with a transportation function; • An Indian Tribe, or a consortium of Indian Tribes; • A multistate or multijurisdictional group of entities described above; • A lead entity described above jointly with a private entity or group of private entities, including the owners or operators of facility, or collection of facilities at a port. Funding: $450 million has been made available to fund FY24’s PIDP. MARAD seeks to obligate FY 2024 PIDP funds by September 30, 2027. Cost Share: Federal share of total costs of an eligible PIDP project must not exceed 80 percent. However, the Secretary may increase the federal share of costs above 80 percent for: 1) a grant for a project that is located in a *rural area; 2) a grant awarded to a small project at a **small port. *Rural area – An area located outside of a 2020 U.S. Census-designated urban area with a population of 50,000 or more persons. **Small port – Coastal seaport, Great Lakes, or inland river port to and from which the average annual tonnage of cargo for the immediately preceding three calendar years from the time an application is submitted is less than 8,000,000 short tons, as determined by using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 3 Limitations on Use of Funds: • Not more than 25 percent of the available funds ($112,500,000) can be awarded for projects in any one State. • Twenty-five percent of the available funds ($112,500,000) is reserved for small projects at small ports awarded under 46 U.S.C. 54301(b), which are defined as a project at a small port seeking less than or equal to $11.25 million in funding. • Not more than 10 percent ($33,750,000) of the funds not reserved for small projects at small ports may be awarded for development phase activities for large projects. • Additionally, to maximize flexibility for applicants and optimize the number of grants that can be awarded, MARAD will limit any single award to a small project at a small port to not more than $11.25 million under both the BIL and any additional PIDP funding that may become available under the annual appropriations act for FY 2024. Period of Performance: MARAD will determine period of performance for each award based on the specific project that was evaluated and selected. Key Dates: Applications due 05/10/2024 11:59 pm EDT Eligible Activities: Grants may be made for capital projects that will be used to improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of: (I) the loading and unloading of goods at the port, such as for marine terminal equipment; (II) the movement of goods into, out of, around, or within a port, such as for highway or rail infrastructure, intermodal facilities, freight intelligent transportation systems, and digital infrastructure systems; (III) operational improvements, including projects to improve port resilience; (IV) environmental and emissions mitigation measures, including projects for— (a) port electrification or electrification master planning; (b) harbor craft or equipment replacements or retrofits; (c) development of port or terminal microgrids; (d) provision of idling reduction infrastructure; (e) purchase of cargo handling equipment and related infrastructure; (f) worker training to support electrification technology; (g) installation of port bunkering facilities from ocean-going vessels for fuels; (h) electric vehicle charging or hydrogen refueling infrastructure for drayage and medium or heavy-duty trucks and locomotives that service the port and related grid upgrades; or (i) other related port activities, including charging infrastructure, electric rubber-tired gantry cranes, and anti-idling technologies; or Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 3 (V) port and port-related infrastructure that supports seafood and seafood-related businesses, including the loading and unloading of commercially harvested fish and fish products, seafood processing, cold storage, and other related infrastructure. Key Application / Award Provisions: MARAD expects that the lead applicant submitting the application will administer and deliver the project. If the lead applicant intends to act as a pass-through entity for disbursing funds to a subrecipient (including a private-entity joint applicant, if applicable) who will deliver all or a portion of the project, that intention should be made clear in the application and a letter of support from the intended subrecipient should be included as an attachment to the application. Lead applicants intending to make subawards under their proposed FY 2024 PIDP project should refer to 2 C.F.R. 200.331-333 on how to make subrecipient determinations and what requirements apply to pass-through entities. Applicants should be aware that all contracts executed under the PIDP award that create procurement relationships must follow the procurement standards at 2 C.F.R. 200.317-327, including requirements regarding competition. In order to be eligible for award, eligible applicants must provide a written statement that they have the authority to plan, construct, own, operate, and maintain the grant-funded project. In the case of joint applications, at least one of the eligible applicants must demonstrate this authority. Recommendation: AEA has been in discussion with DOT regarding applying for a grant for planning of improvements at Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, and Chevak. DOT has requested AEA be the lead on the application. PROJECT NARRATIVE Western Alaska Barge Landing Resilience Bundle Name of lead applicant Alaska Energy Authority Is the applicant applying as a lead applicant with any joint applicants?Yes – Alaska DOT&PF Does the applicant or joint applicant own the property where the grant-funded improve- ments will occur?No Is the applicant seeking funding under the small project at small port set-aside?Yes Project name Western Alaska Barge Landings Resilience Bundle Project Description This project will fund design and environmental of three barge landings in remote, disadvantaged communities dependent on marine freight delivery of goods and fuel. These communities face erosion, extreme weather events, and permafrost thaw, which have made current operations unsafe and unreliable. This project will position these communities for construction. Is this a planning project?Yes. Is this a project at a coastal, Great Lakes of inland river port?Yes - coastal Is this project located in a contiguous State or U.S. Territory?No Geographic Coordinates Chevak 61.531, -165.5859 Hooper Bay 61.5218, -166.0961 Scammon Bay 61.8412, -165.5819 Is this project in an urban or rural area? Rural Project Zip Code Chevak 99563 Hooper Bay 99604 Scammon Bay 99662 Is the project located in a Historically Disadvantaged Community? Yes – 2270000100 (Kusilvak) Has the same project been previously submitted for PIDP funding? No Is the applicant applying for other Federal discretionary grant programs (managed by DOT or a separate agency) in 2024 for the same work or related scopes of work? Yes, to MPDG for preliminary design and community engage- ment, as part of regional bundle. Has the applicant previously received DOT funding for the same work or related scope of work?No. Has the applicant previously received TIGER, BUILD, RAISE, FASTLANE, INFRA, USMHP, or PIDP funding? The applicant received a BUILD grant in 2020 PIDP Grant Amount Requested $8,958,431 Total Project Cost $8,958,431 Total Federal Funding $8,958,431 Total Non-Federal Funding $0 Will the applicant be seeking approval to expend funds prior to grant agreement execution?No. Will RRIF or TIFIA funds be used as part of the project financing?No. Does the applicant use LOGINK or a similar logistics platform provided or sponsored by the People’s Republic of China or Chinese state-affiliated entities?No. Introductory Information WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE Table of Contents Section I: Project Description ......................................................................2 Section II: Project Location .........................................................................5 Section III: Grant Funds, Sources, and Uses of Project Funds ...................9 Section IV: Merit Criteria.............................................................................9 Criterion #1 ............................................................................................................9 Criterion #2 ..........................................................................................................13 Criterion #3 ..........................................................................................................18 Criterion #4 ..........................................................................................................18 Section V: Selection Considerations ..........................................................19 Section VI: Project Readiness ....................................................................23 Section VII: Determinations ......................................................................30 WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Project Narrative Narrative Section I: Project Description Describe the proposed PIDP project that is to be planned or constructed, focusing on the tech- nical and engineering aspects of the project as well as the current design status of the project. This project is at 20% design status, with a project schedule for pre-development and construc- tion that can be accomplished in time for full obligation of funds prior to the statutory deadline of PIDP. DOT&PF has developed a preliminary Scope, Schedule, and Estimate (SSE) and Justification Statements for each project. DOT&PF will advance each project through its engineering designs, detailed cost estimates, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approvals. Bundling these projects within a discrete geographic area allows for efficiency of operations that contributes to a feasible project schedule. The most comprehensive resource for project design is the 2009 USACE report, Alaska Barge Landing System Design. This report, developed at the direction of the Denali Commission, represents a statewide barge landing assessment that remains a valuable resource. The Assessment contains: • Catalog of existing facilities • List of barge landing infrastructure improvement needs by community • An assessment of potential design solutions to address the general categories of infrastructure need • Concept-level design drawings for selected designs that address a wide range of site condi- tions expected in the regions covered by the study • Project ranking system used to develop priority needs • List of projects that ranked highest in the priority ranking system for a first generation of design and construction (Priority Sites) • Site plans showing possible landing site improvements at each of the Priority Sites • Estimates of probable construction costs associated with the proposed improvements at each of the Priority Sites While this work is 15 years old, it hasn’t been incorporated into State planning activities. DOT&PF will be able to reference the resource in the development of its approach, even as its coastal region engineers have their own experience and knowledge to contribute to a system-wide need. At the same time, each barge landing should include a design for a marine header or fuel truck loading, for bulk fuel delivered into these rural communities. For example, barge delivery of fuel in Scammon Bay occurs at the marine header located along the south bank of the Kun River, approximately 550 feet north of the bulk fuel tank farm. The marine header is located approximately 50 feet from the Kun River shoreline, on property owned by the Askinuk Village Corporation (Tribal government). Fuel is delivered through a 3-inch barge header and 550-foot-long, 3-inch welded steel, below-grade, barge-offloading PHOTO 1: Scammon Bay Marine Header WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM header pipeline that extends to the tank farm. The pipeline is reportedly intact and does not leak. However, some sections of pipe are above grade and unsupported, and located directly on the ground with no pipe supports or cathodic protection. Some sections of the pipeline have been covered with mud and vegetation. The exposed sections of pipe are severely corroded and bent from ice and storm events. The pipe is particularly bent and damaged at the unsupported pipe crossing over an unnamed anadromous tidal slough. Describe the transportation challenges that the project is intended to address and how the project will address those challenges. A Western Alaska response team comprised of FEMA, USACE, and DOT&PF, among others, has identified numerous challenges facing the region’s barge landings. This evaluation was conducted as a result of Typhoon Merbok, which negatively impacted these vulnerable commu- nities. Their report, “Programmatic Western Alaska Barge Landing Initiative for DR4672AK Compiled from 2023 Interagency Recovery Coordination (IRC) Site Visits for Typhoon Merbok Disaster Recovery and survey of Y-K Delta Communities” is included as an attachment. This report provides details of the following, with notes based on FEMA’s Recovery Needs Assessment and the community specific barge landing data collection form. DOT&PF has included some examples representative of the transportation challenge the project is intended to address. Chevak - Barge landing is consistently damaged by flooding/erosion and was destroyed in Typhoon Merbok. The community would like to move to a better location. It will be in their 14C-3 process inclusion. The barge landing is creating sand displacement from the barge engines, relocating sand in a different part of the river, and has become a sandbar. Barges now must travel closer to the bluffs which is contributing to erosion on the bluffs. The access road is partially subject to flooding and needs review. The pad is an old lake that used for sewage which was filled in in the 1980’s that is used for storage. Its “big” at about 3-4 acres. Current construc- tion: Iron (on the front part they drove down piles) they also used dirt and sandbags “at the base” and filled in with sand for the pad. Old tires are also placed all around and in the front. 6-7ft high from the riverbank. Hooper Bay - There is no designated or improved barge landing. The barges land on the beach south of the DOT runway. This is out on the spit, no road to the location where the barges have been landing. Typhoon Merbok was the worst storm Hooper Bay has experienced in recent history and there is a strong sense of urgency to fortify their community against future storms. Erosion is a major concern due to high winds and tides. Hooper Bay has seen significant ground failure/permafrost degradation throughout their community. They mentioned a DOT project to raise the roads by four feet (they are currently below sea level). Purportedly, there used to be 12-14 rows of dunes along the beach just a few generations ago, but they have since eroded away, leaving just one dune. The end of the airport runway was submerged – attempts were made to prevent it from flooding using cinder blocks, but it didn’t seem to help. Scammon Bay - The barge landing needs to be expanded because it has eroded away and subsided more than 12 inches due to permafrost failure. Both the barge landing area and the access road, lost about a foot of surface material during Typhoon Merbok. The community must get creative on where to store all their boats when a storm is predicted. Each boat must be loaded onto a trailer and hauled away from the shore, sometimes all the way into the housing area. The connex vans from the barges are typically stored at the barge landing area and some of these WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM are also pushed and floated by the storm surge waves. After the effects of erosion, there is not adequate space to store the connex vans and the boats. The barge landing is also located in very close proximity to the airport. The airport’s western flight path approach crosses directly over the barge landing. When a barge is tethered at the landing, sometimes for days to offload fuel, it causes issues operating the airport, especially if there are strong crosswinds. This situation with the barge landing and the airport co-located increases the likelihood that if storm driven erosion occurs, the community will be cut off from their only two methods of transportation. The increasing likelihood of erosion could impact movement of supplies across both the airport and the barge landing. In the event of a major storm, community members move their boats out of the water, off the beach and onto the access roads for protection and this causes even more conges- tion. The access road is functional now, but after flooding there is work to do. In 2013 FEMA gave money to put up a rock wall along the road and that has helped. Project History Describe any previously completed components, to place the project into a broader context of other relevant infrastructure investments being pursued by the project sponsor (the applicant should make clear which related investments are outside the scope of the proposed PIDP project) Beyond the 2009 USACE study and assessment, and the more recent FEMA analysis corre- sponding to an extreme weather disaster impacting the region, this planning project will take into account local and state activity. DOT&PF completed the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Transportation Plan in 2018, updated from 2002. Barge landings were identified in this planning document as critical components of the region’s transportation system, but no projects were elevated for planning or construction. The Plan did identify the need for a region-wide erosion assessment. Most importantly, DOT&PF has familiarity with the needs of the region, and where resources weren’t available five years ago, believes that opportunities such as through IIJA, and the MPDG program, now is the time to address these infrastructure challenges plaguing rural Alaska communities. Local and tribal governments in the region have actively been pursuing improvements, and the FEMA assessment identifies multiple lines of effort across communities. In Scammon Bay, for example, FEMA provided funds in 2013 to put up a rock wall along the road, which has helped address erosion. DOT&PF was recently awarded a $40 million PROTECT grant that will address some needs in the region, mainly focused on improving road conditions and addressing revetments to miti- gate erosion, but this project would be complementary to that effort and together significantly improve the conditions of these disadvantaged communities. Provide a written statement that the eligible applicant has the authority to plan, construct, own, operate, and maintain the grant-funded project. As the state energy office and state transportation agency, both entities have the authority to plan, construct, operate, and maintain deliverables of this project. Both have the authority to transfer ownership and maintenance to the city or tribe, and experience in managing these transfers to occur with the appropriate local authority with necessary capacity. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Identify the lead applicant. The lead applicant is the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), a corporation of the state of Alaska and the state energy office. It received a USDOT BUILD grant in 2020. AEA will partner with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to deliver this plan- ning project that will include barge landings and marine headers for fuel bunkering for the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay. Identify if the application is a joint application. AEA will deliver the project in cooperation with Alaska DOT&PF. If a joint application describe the roles and responsibilities of each applicant. AEA will be responsible for managing the grant, including planning and design for access to bulk fuel bunkering adjacent to these barge landings, and necessary freight delivery via the barge landing. DOT&PF will be responsible for design and environmental planning, including NEPA, of the barge landings. If a joint application and if the lead applicant intends to act as a pass-through entity for disbursing funds to a subrecipient (including a private-entity joint applicant, if applicable) describe who will deliver all/portion of the project. This is a collaborative application with distinct roles and responsibilities – including partnership with local and tribal governments. AEA will deliver the fuel bunkering and transmission plan- ning, while DOT&PF will deliver the barge landing design and environmental approvals. If a joint application, provide the reasoning why and describe the work the subrecipient will carry out. DOT&PF will design and manage NEPA analysis of the barge landing and uplands access, while AEA has authority for the bulk fuel storage facilities where fuel is bunkered from ocean-going vessels. These two state agencies will collaborate with municipal and tribal authorities in each community to deliver the project. If the proposed project includes dredging, confirm that the dredging is not for channel improvements or harbor deepening that are part of a Federally maintained navigation channel. Any dredging that may occur as part of the project will not be located in a Federally maintained navigation channel. Narrative Section II: Project Location Project location description The USACE report characterized this project region the Kuskokwim River Delta and Nunivak Island, with 15 communities. The Kuskokwim River Delta and Nunivak Island Region, for the purposes of the USACE study, extends from Scammon Bay on the Bering Sea coast, south to the communities along Stolin Strait and the Kuskokwim Delta, to the community of Platinum, on the south side of Goodnews Bay, south of the mouth of the Kuskokwim River. It includes the commu- nity of Mekoryuk, which is located on Nunivak Island, on the west side of Stolin Strait. The delta includes the most extensive area of unvegetated intertidal flats among the three segments of the Yukon-Kuskokwim River delta. Most of the communities included in this region are situated in coastal areas with beach landings that are tidally influenced. Nunivak Island lies 20 miles off the coast and is of volcanic origin with several peaks over 1,000 feet. Coastal bluffs range from 100 to WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 450 feet high with sandy beaches below. Local construction contractors have said the local gravel sources that may be present in many of the communities in the Lower Kuskokwim River and delta region can have a high content of fine- grained materials and may be highly compressible. The source at Platinum is known to be good, however, and is considered one of the primary material sources in this region. • Chevak 61.531, -165.5859 • Hooper Bay 61.5218, -166.0961 • Scammon Bay 61.8412, -165.5819 Map that indicates project’s location in the local area Map 1 depicts the communities included in this study which are located in the Kuskokwim River Delta and Nunivak Island region. Map that indicates the project’s location within the State MAP 1: Kuskokwim River Delta and Nunivak Island MAP 2: 2018 Yukon Kuskokwim Delta Transportation Plan MAP 3: 2018 YKTP Region - Ports, Harbors, and Barge Landings WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 6 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Photos of project location PHOTO 1: Chevak Barge Landing and Access Route Erosion (FEMA) PHOTO 3: Erosion Exposure Assessment—Hooper Bay 2021 PHOTO 2-3: Scammon Bay Tug, Barge, and Fishing Boats WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Renderings of proposed project USACE Concept Design Plans are included on the project website, including Figure 1. Description of project’s connections to existing transportation infrastructure FIGURE 1: USACE 2009 Design, side view with barge The Y-K Delta is not served by the Alaska Marine Highway System. Unlike the contiguous U.S. where most port facilities were originally developed by private industry, port facilities in the Y-K Delta have been developed almost entirely by the state and federal governments. Carriers use dock facilities at Bethel on the Kuskokwim River, and Emmonak and Alakanuk on the Yukon River, as redistribution hubs for ocean barge cargo shipments originating primarily in Cook Inlet and Puget Sound. River barges also travel from Nenana and Fairbanks to deliver cargo and equip- ment for infrastructure projects across western Alaska. The port facility at Saint Mary’s acts as a trans-shipment point for barged cargo destined for other remote communities on the Yukon by virtue of its road connection with the St. Mary’s regional airport. Cargo includes basic goods and materials, fuel, construction equipment and material, and significant volumes of rock product for regional infrastructure projects. Ocean barges offload and stage cargo in Emmonak, where it can be stored or redistributed to other lower Yukon communities by smaller in-river vessels. This hub system of maritime infrastructure facilitates efficient fuel and cargo distribution in the lower Yukon region where geographical challenges often limit direct deliveries by large vessels. The chief physical impediment to marine-riverine transport involves seasonality. Winter storms and marine ice restrict the accessibility of coastal port locations. River ice and reduced water flow during the colder months likewise restrict accessibility to communities located in the interior. Barge service will remain a dominant transport mode in the Y-K Delta for fuel, large equipment, and industrial supplies. Bypass Mail will remain as the major competitor to marine transport for consumer-related cargo other than fuel. The cost of fuel is approximately 50 percent of the cost of doing business for barge operators, so they try to minimize the number of calls to remote facilities. This encourages remote communities to develop local storage facilities. It also promotes a continued reliance on aviation to accommodate unforeseen shortages of essential commodities such as heating fuel. Is this project located in a rural or urban area? This project is located in a rural area, with each community falling well below a threshold of 50,000 residents. Is this project a coastal, Great Lakes or inland river port? This project is located in coastal Alaska on inland river ports. While coastal, barge landings are constructed where riverine access occurs. Is this project a small port seeking funding under 46 U.S.C. 54301(b)? AEA is seeking funding for a small port. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Is this project located in a Historically Disadvantaged Community? This project is located in a Historically Disadvantaged Community. All three communities within the Kusilvak Census Area are marked as “YES” by various Federal trackers as CEJST Disadvantaged Communities, Areas of Persistent Poverty and Historically Disadvantaged, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Demographic information Chevak has a population of 951, with a median age of 35.9. 93% of the population is an ethnic minority, Alaska Native. Chevak is located at 61°31′40″N 165°34′43″W (61.527673, -165.578702) in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region of southwest Alaska, approximately 6 miles from the Bering Sea coastline, 18 miles east of Hooper Bay and 26 miles south of Scammon Bay. Transportation into, and out of, Chevak is by air or water, or regional ice roads in the winter. As with many communities in Alaska, Chevak is not connected to the national road network. 37.5% of the population in Chevak speak a language other than English. 28.4% of the population live under the Alaska poverty rate. Hooper Bay is a small community located on the western coast of Alaska, which experiences severe erosion due to storm events, wave action, and riverbank degradation. Hooper Bay has a median age of 24.8 and median household income of $30,938. The population declined by 23.3% and median household income declined by 14.7% between 2019 and 2020. The largest ethnic group is American Indian/Alaska Native (87.1%). 54.9% of the population speak a language other than English. Hooper Bay, population 1,367 with a median age of 30.8. 9, (2020 Census) is located 20 miles south of Cape Romanzof, 25 miles south of Scammon Bay in the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta. 37.2% of the population lives below the poverty level. The city is separated into two sections; a heavily built up townsite located on gently rolling hills, and a newer section in the lowlands. Hooper Bay is located 500 miles west of Anchorage. The community lies at approximately 61.531110° North Latitude and -166.09667° (West) Longitude. (Sec. 26, T017N, R093W, Seward Meridian.) Hooper Bay is located in the Bethel Recording District. The area encompasses 8.7 sq. miles of land and 0.1 sq. miles of water. Scammon Bay is a rural community at the base of Askinuk Mountains, on the left bank and about 1 mile upstream from the mouth of the Kun River in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, about 147 miles northwest of Bethel. Scammon Bay has a population of 600 with a median age of 21.2, 98% of the population is an ethnic minority, Alaska Native. 41% of the population speaks a language other than English. Scammon Bay is a traditional subsistence community, with residents relying on hunting, fishing, and gathering for food. However, there is also a small commercial fishing industry in Scammon Bay. The village has a school, a clinic, and a store. The village is low-lying and rests on tundra, which is fortified by the existence of permafrost throughout the year. 48.4% of the population in Scammon Bay live below the poverty level. The three communities are dependent on diesel fuel for their power needs, even as investments in clean energy and energy efficiency are considered and implemented. Community Diesel kWh Clean Energy kWh Residential kWH/rate Chevak 2,341,627 359,810 $0.59 Hooper Bay 3,378,245 363,049 $0.55 Scammon Bay 1,936,588 $0.63 TABLE 1: Energy Conditions, FY23 WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 9 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Narrative Section III: Grant Funds, Sources, and Uses of Funds Include: total project costs for the FY 2024 PIDP project, FY2024 PIDP grant funding request AEA is requesting $$8,958,431 for this project, which is the total project costs and PIDP grant funding request. As a small, rural project that is a small port, it qualifies for 100% federal cost-share. Specify source, amount, type (grant, loan, etc.), and match requirements of other Federal funds to be used for eligible project costs No other Federal funds are currently secured or identified to be used for eligible project costs, and there are no match requirements. Specify sources and amounts of non-Federal funds to be used for eligible project costs This project is eligible for 100% federal cost-share as a small project in a small port, and located in a rural, disadvantaged community. Describe a summary of supporting documentation of funding commitments for non- Federal funds to be used for eligible project costs (include documentation in appendix) AEA and DOT&PF have included project commitment letters from their relevant executives. Describe how the project will leverage Federal funds (both PIDP and other Federal funds) to achieve project outcomes DOT&PF has received approximately $40 million in PROTECT funds to make resilience improvements in this region, the majority of which will advance Hooper Bay road and revetment projects. Budget table Component 1 – Barge Landings Total PIDP Funds $8,958,431 $$8,958,431 Other Federal Funds $0 $0 Non-Federal Funds $0 $0 Total $8,958,431 $8,958,431 Narrative Section IV: Merit Criteria Merit Criteria #1: Achieving Safety, Efficiency, or Reliability Improvements Describe current safety, efficiency or reliability issues experienced at the project site/location Chevak: Access to Chevak via a narrow winding river presents challenges for incoming barges, compounded by the need for locals to deploy buoys each season to mark the channel, ensuring safe navigation. While the beach landing itself is stable and relatively flat, the lack of a functional dock necessitates barges to push into the mud bank at the base of the access road, posing risks of instability during landing and offloading operations. One significant safety concern is the deteriorating sheetpile bulkhead upriver of the landing site, which is in poor shape and not functional for its intended purpose. This condition increases the risk of accidents and compromises the efficiency of cargo operations, as barges often opt for beach landings adjacent to the deteriorated bulkhead. Additionally, the eroding bluff road leading from the landing area to town further exacerbates safety risks, with poor traction and erosion WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM making it unsuitable for truck traffic, potentially hindering the timely transportation of essential goods and resources to the community. Efficiency and reliability issues also arise from the current fuel offloading process, which requires long hose runs of 400 to 600 feet to reach various tank farms in the community, including Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), school, and Native Corporation facilities. This extended offloading process not only increases the time it takes to offload fuel, taking up to 24 hours, but also poses logistical challenges and potential safety hazards associated with fuel transfer operations. To address these issues, recommendations for future improvements include establishing a centralized fuel tank farm and/or marine fuel header located at the bottom of the hill from the tank farm, reducing the need for long hose runs and enhancing operational effi- ciency and reliability at the barge landing site in Chevak. Hooper Bay: The community’s location on the northern shore of Hooper Bay and its reliance on air and water transportation pose significant challenges, exacerbated by shallow water conditions and prevalent wind and currents. Barge operators indicate that accessing Hooper Bay is difficult due to shallow waters on the river side and rough conditions on the coastal side, making it chal- lenging for freight barges to navigate and access the community. The shallow and narrow channel leading to the river-side landing site presents safety risks for barges, compounded by the sporadic deployment of channel markers and the inability to turn the barge around upon departure. Barges are forced to nose into the muddy bank to hold position during offloading, and low tides can leave the area dry for an entire day, further impeding oper- ations and reliability. Additionally, while there are adequate mooring points and a fuel header available at the fuel barge landings, the school’s tanks lack a fuel header, requiring fuel to be trucked to the school, introducing inefficiencies and reliability concerns. Efficiency issues arise from the distance between the staging area, located several miles from town, and the river-side landing site, as well as the need to truck cargo back and forth along the beach. Furthermore, the reliance on weather conditions to dictate barge landings, with freight barges often forced to land at a protected site down the beach from the airport landing, adds unpredictability and delays to cargo transportation. To address these challenges, long-term growth plans should include the construction of a breakwater near the airport landing site to ensure protected deeper water access for freight and fuel, along with the co-location of a marine fuel header for all fuel bulk storage tanks within the community, enhancing safety, efficiency, and reliability in Hooper Bay’s transportation infrastructure. Scammon Bay: In Scammon Bay, freight barge operators highlight the need for a dedicated dry staging area due to the current practice of staging cargo and equipment along the swampy road leading from the landing site. This makeshift arrangement poses safety risks, as storage containers have been reported to float away in the past, indicating the vulnerability of cargo to environmental conditions. The poor condition of the road leading to the school exacerbates efficiency issues, with slimy banks and inadequate infrastructure hindering the smooth transportation of fuel and supplies. Additionally, the absence of a dedicated gravel storage pad in an upland area adjacent to the landing site further compounds reliability concerns, as the lack of proper storage facili- ties increases the risk of damage or loss of cargo. To improve efficiency and reliability, barge WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM operators emphasize the need for maintenance and upgrades to the road leading to the school, along with the provision of a marine header for the AVEC and school tanks at the same location as the existing header, facilitating more efficient fuel offloading operations. Describe how specific elements of the project will improve applicable port performance measures (reduced vessel dwell times, improved truck turn times, increased capacity or throughput, reduced vehicle crashes, lives saved, reduced workplace injuries, fuel effi- ciency, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions reductions or other) Investing in dock enhancements, such as constructing sturdy mooring points and expanding landing areas, can improve port performance by facilitating smoother barge operations. Enhanced infrastructure reduces the risk of delays and accidents during offloading, leading to faster turnaround times for cargo vessels and improved overall port efficiency. Building dedicated storage facilities near the landing sites allows for better organization and management of cargo, leading to improved inventory control and quicker turnaround times for vessels. With adequate storage capacity, ports can accommodate larger shipments and handle increased cargo volumes, enhancing their capacity and throughput. Upgrading fuel distribution infrastructure, such as installing marine fuel headers and centralizing fuel storage facilities, streamlines the offloading process and reduces turnaround times for fuel barges. Efficient fuel distribution ensures consistent access to essential resources for vessels and support services, enhancing port reliability and resilience. Investing in road maintenance and upgrades improves accessibility to and from the port, enabling smoother transportation of goods between the landing site and town centers or storage facilities. Well-maintained roads reduce transit times for cargo vehicles and minimize the risk of delays or accidents, enhancing overall port connectivity and efficiency. Describe the potential safety improvements of this project Improvements in barge landing facilities are needed to mitigate environmental risks associated with fuel transfers, such as spills and contamination. By enabling safer and more controlled offloading procedures, the likelihood of environmental incidents is reduced, safeguarding local ecosystems and natural resources. This fosters sustainable development practices and enhances the long-term viability of rural communities. Implementing a marine header at a barge landing offers several safety benefits compared to trucking fuel to the bulk fuel site. Using a marine header allows for the direct transfer of fuel from the barge to onshore storage tanks, minimizing the need for intermediate transportation steps. This reduces the overall handling of fuel and the associated risks of spills, leaks, and acci- dents that can occur during road transportation. Moreover, marine headers are typically equipped with safety features such as spill containment systems, emergency shutdown mechanisms, and fire suppression equipment, which can help mitigate the impact of potential incidents and ensure prompt response in case of emergencies. By centralizing fuel transfer operations at the barge landing, safety protocols can be standard- ized and closely monitored, reducing the likelihood of human error and enhancing overall safety performance. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Utilizing a marine header eliminates the need for large numbers of tanker trucks traveling on local roads, reducing traffic congestion and the risk of transportation-related accidents in surrounding communities. This not only enhances safety but also minimizes environmental impacts and improves overall traffic flow in the area. The use of marine headers can improve operational efficiency by streamlining the fuel delivery process and reducing turnaround times for barge offloading. This can help meet the fuel demand of remote communities more reliably while minimizing disruptions to supply chains. Overall, the safety benefits of a marine header at a barge landing, such as reduced handling risks, enhanced emergency response capabilities, and decreased road traffic, make it a preferred option for fuel delivery to bulk fuel sites in remote coastal areas. Describe the potential efficiency improvements of this project In Chevak, where access via a narrow winding river poses logistical challenges. Locals deploy buoys each season to mark the channel, ensuring safe navigation for incoming barges. The landing area, situated midway along the shoreline, lacks functional infrastructure, with barges currently docking by pushing into the mud bank at the base of an access road from town. While a relatively large staging area exists near the landing site, operational efficiency is hindered by the poor condition of essential facilities. In Hooper Bay the current fuel barge landing is located on the river side of the community which can only be accessed at high tide, creating wait times and logistical complications for fuel delivery. This project would increase efficiency for fuel deliveries by widening the window of access for fuel barges and other deliveries. Efficiency improvements are urgently needed at the barge landing site in Scammon Bay to streamline cargo operations and enhance safety. Currently, freight barge operators face logistical challenges due to the lack of a dedicated staging area for cargo and equipment. The existing practice of staging along the swampy road leading from the landing site poses risks, as evidenced by instances of storage containers floating away in the past. To address this issue, establishing a dry, dedicated gravel storage pad in an upland area adjacent to the landing site would greatly enhance operational efficiency and mitigate the risk of cargo loss. The layout of the barge landing area at Scammon Bay requires optimization to facilitate smoother fuel offloading processes. The presence of two separate landings for the fuel barge complicates operations and increases turnaround times. Consolidating fuel offloading to a single location, equipped with a marine header servicing both AVEC and school tanks, would signifi- cantly improve efficiency. Additionally, addressing the poor condition of the road leading to the school, which is described as “slimy,” is essential to ensure uninterrupted fuel deliveries and minimize disruptions to community services. Implementing dedicated storage facilities and optimizing the layout of the barge landing area are crucial steps toward enhancing operational efficiency and safety for Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay. By providing a dry, secure staging area and consolidating fuel offloading opera- tions, these improvements will not only streamline cargo handling processes but also reduce the risk of accidents and cargo loss, ultimately benefiting these communities. Describe the potential reliability improvements of this project This project would provide significant reliability improvements to the barge landing operations WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM of Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay, reduce reliance on makeshift arrangements that these communities currently depend on for the delivery of fuel, goods, and critical community infra- structure and equipment. Streamlining the fuel delivery mechanisms for these barge landings would enhance the environ- mental safety of these sites and increase the reliability and consistency of fuel deliveries for these communities. The project aims to enhance infrastructure resilience by focusing on designing and constructing barge landings that can better withstand natural disasters like floods, erosion, and storms. This involves incorporating modern engineering practices and materials such as reinforced concrete and appropriate drainage systems to improve resilience against adverse weather conditions compared to current infrastructure. This project places an emphasis on site selection and design optimization, prioritizing locations less susceptible to erosion and flooding. By optimizing the layout and elevation of landing sites, the project aims to minimize the impact of storms and changing environmental conditions. Road infrastructure improvement is also vital for reliable transportation connectivity respective to each community, with measures including elevation adjustments, reinforcement against flooding, and regular maintenance to enhance road reliability, particularly during extreme weather events. Design and site selection will also incorporate the storage and protection of assets, aiming to mitigate the risk of damage during storms by developing proper storage facilities for boats and equipment. Implementing measures such as elevated storage areas, sturdy shelters, and securing equipment can ensure operational continuity after severe weather events. Merit Criteria #2: Supporting Economic Vitality at the Regional or National Level; Describe if the project will create economies of scale (land expansion, new or larger ware- houses, longer/wider berths, etc.); will the average cost of operation decrease (or remain the same) following an increase in scale? Upgrading barge landing sites enables smoother fuel deliveries to rural communities. By providing adequate docking facilities, such as docks, stabilized staging pads, and barge mooring points, fuel barges can offload their cargo more efficiently. This translates to reduced downtime and operational delays, ultimately ensuring a steady and timely supply of fuel to meet community needs. The project will result in better access to bulk fuel farms in these isolated communities, which AEA has determined will need improving or replacing as soon as possible. A condition assess- ment of each site is included in this project’s planning, to determine barge landing design that accommodates bulk fuel delivery. Currently, each community has a diverse array of bulk fuel tanks, some of which are compro- mised by age and condition. Community Number of tanks Total capacity Condition Chevak 18 792,840 gallons Moderate Hooper Bay 43 1,262,550 gallons Moderate Scammon Bay 40 412,776 gallons Poor WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 14 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AEA is currently constructing a new bulk fuel farm in Scammon Bay, adding 216,000 gallons of storage, but which does not include a marine header. Describe if the project will reduce barriers to entry for private businesses, barriers to entry include both economic and geographic barriers such as: an incumbent or adjacent(s) port having an absolute cost advantage due to port location, a large minimum scale of operation, or low switching costs; or the applicant’s port having natural constraints to its capacity. Western Alaska barge landing improvements planning will reduce barriers to entry for local entrepreneurs as well as reducing barriers for community entities (such as Tribes or Tribal corpo- rations) to tackle infrastructure and economic development projects. Barriers reduced by this project include lowering of transportation costs, increased access to markets, enhanced resilience to supply chain disruptions and overall improved quality of life in the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay. Describe how the project will create more efficient physical access for labor, resources and customers to/around the port Construction materials transported by chartered barges play a crucial role in community devel- opment projects, such as schools, health clinics, and infrastructure upgrades. By upgrading barge landing sites, communities can better support these initiatives by ensuring efficient delivery of construction materials. This leads to timely project completion, cost savings, and overall economic growth within the region. Addressing key operational challenges, such as multiple barge landings within the same commu- nity, dragging hoses over long distances, and navigating hazardous shore conditions, enhances overall operational efficiency. Minimizing delays and safety risks associated with current prac- tices ensures uninterrupted barge operations, promoting a more reliable supply chain for essential goods and resources. Describe how the project reduces or eliminates potential points of failure related to the transportation of goods. The project as proposed will reduce points of failure in the transportation of goods by enhancing the resilience of barge landing infrastructure, identifying the need for, and planning, improved navigation and safety measures, and allowing streamlined cargo handling processes. Upgrading barge landing infrastructure involves reinforcing docks, constructing mooring points, and improving access roads to withstand harsh environmental conditions such as storms, high winds, and erosion. By strengthening infrastructure resilience, the project reduces the risk of structural failures or damage during cargo offloading operations, ensuring continuity of goods transportation even in adverse weather conditions. Identifying sites for and implementing navigational aids, such as channel markers and lighting systems, enhances safety for vessels navigating narrow waterways or shallow channels to reach the barge landing sites. By reducing the likelihood of accidents, groundings, or collisions, these measures help prevent disruptions to the transportation of goods and commodities, minimizing potential points of failure along the supply chain. Planning for barge landing improvements includes assessing potential dedicated staging areas, storage facilities, and fuel distribution infrastructure near the barge landing sites. By optimizing cargo handling processes and minimizing manual labor, the project reduces the risk of delays, WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 15 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM errors, or accidents during loading and unloading operations, ensuring efficient and reliable trans- portation of goods from barges to storage facilities or distribution centers. Describe how the project will improve the physical process of transporting goods and commodities. The project will improve the physical process of transporting goods and commodities by plan- ning via infrastructure upgrades identifying dock and landing site enhancements, identifying storage facilities, planning and coordinating the much-needed fuel distribution improvements, and identifying the needed road maintenance and upgrades for access to and from the barge landing sites in Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay. The use of a marine header facilitates bulk fuel deliveries, allowing for larger quantities of fuel to be transported and stored at the bulk fuel site. This can result in economies of scale and lower per-unit costs for fuel procurement, benefiting both fuel suppliers and end-users. Additionally, the centralized distribution of fuel at the barge landing enables more efficient inventory manage- ment and reduces the need for emergency fuel shipments, which can be costly and disruptive. The presence of a marine header can stimulate local economic activity by creating job opportuni- ties associated with fuel handling, storage, and distribution operations. This includes employment opportunities for dock workers, fuel technicians, and support staff, as well as indirect economic benefits for local businesses that provide goods and services to the fuel industry. The improved reliability and resilience of fuel supply chains facilitated by a marine header can enhance business continuity and support economic development in remote communities. Reliable access to fuel is essential for powering essential services such as transportation, heating, and electricity generation, which are vital for sustaining economic activity and quality of life in remote areas. Describe if the site currently experiences a severe climate Western Alaska faces severe climate challenges, primarily due to the impacts of coastal storms exacerbated by several factors including, but not limited to declining sea ice, rising ocean temperatures, and coastal vulnerability. Historically, sea ice provided a protective barrier along the coastline, mitigating the effects of storms. However, rising temperatures have led to decreased sea ice coverage and delayed forma- tion, leaving coastal communities vulnerable to increased storm surge, flooding, and erosion. Increasing ocean temperatures fuel storm development by promoting evaporation and moisture in the atmosphere. While storminess in the Bering and Chukchi Seas hasn’t shown a clear increase yet, warmer waters may lead to more frequent and intense storms, as seen with ex-typhoon Merbok in September 2022. Coastal erosion rates have accelerated due to decreasing sea ice, thawing permafrost, and more frequent intense storms. This erosion threatens infrastructure, livelihoods, and cultural sites, forcing some communities to consider relocation. Coastal storms and a changing climate have devastating effects on Alaska Native communities within the project region. damaging homes, infrastructure, and vital resources like food storage and electrical power. Flooding and erosion jeopardize food security, disrupt traditional harvesting practices, and necessitate costly repairs and relocation efforts. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 16 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Floods and high winds often result in power outages, disrupting communication and threat- ening food security. Renewable energy infrastructure, like wind turbines, is also vulnerable to storm damage, complicating recovery efforts and exacerbating the challenges faced by remote communities. Western Alaska’s severe climate conditions, characterized by declining sea ice, rising ocean temperatures, and intensified coastal storms, pose significant threats to the region’s communities, infrastructure, and traditional way of life. Identify if the port currently has an unfavorable port location The current barge landing locations in Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay are unfavorable. Winter storms and marine ice pose significant obstacles, restricting accessibility to coastal port locations. Similarly, river ice and reduced water flow during colder months further hinder access to communities located in the interior regions. These seasonal limitations severely impact the port’s ability to maintain consistent and reliable transportation routes, especially for marine-riv- erine transport services. As a result, the port’s location is unfavorable, particularly during the winter season when these natural impediments restrict accessibility and limit the efficiency of transportation operations. Furthermore, the reliance on barge service as the dominant transport mode of goods, coupled with the high cost of fuel, exacerbates the challenges posed by the port’s unfavorable loca- tion. Barge operators, facing significant fuel costs which constitute approximately 50 percent of their business expenses, seek to minimize calls to remote facilities. This encourages remote communities to develop local storage facilities, but it also perpetuates a reliance on aviation to accommodate unforeseen shortages of essential commodities such as heating fuel. Thus, the port’s current location presents ongoing challenges that impact both the efficiency of transpor- tation operations and the accessibility of essential goods and services for remote communities, particularly during the winter months. Describe any technological limitations of the site The technological limitations of barge landings for fuel deliveries present significant challenges to operational efficiency and safety: Multiple Tanks and Headers: Communities often have multiple fuel tanks or headers, each requiring a separate barge landing. This fragmentation extends delivery times and can even halt operations for up to 24 hours at tidally influenced sites, leading to delays and inefficiencies in the supply chain. In cases where tank farms lack marine headers, fuel delivery operations require dragging hoses up to 1,500 feet to reach the tank farm locations. This not only increases the time it takes to offload fuel but also poses safety risks to workers and raises environmental concerns associated with longer hose runs. Barges often encounter obstacles preventing direct access to fuel headers or tanks, such as shallow waters or large boulders near the shore. In such instances, fuel barges must anchor offshore and float hoses to shore, introducing operational risks, including the potential for spills. Despite efforts to ensure safe fuel transfers, floating hoses increase the likelihood of environ- mental incidents and pose challenges to overall operational safety. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 17 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Describe any limits on current operational capability The current barge landing sites in Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay face several limita- tions that hinder their efficiency and effectiveness in transporting goods and commodities: The barge landing sites in the project communities lack adequate infrastructure, such as docks or mooring points, which makes offloading cargo challenging. Without proper infrastructure, barges must rely on makeshift methods for offloading, increasing the risk of damage to goods and posing safety concerns for workers. The harsh environmental conditions experienced in the region, including heavy winds, rough seas, and shallow water channels, present significant challenges for barge landings. These condi- tions can restrict access to landing sites, disrupt offloading operations, and pose safety risks for both personnel and cargo. Limited storage and staging areas near the landing sites exacerbate logistical challenges. Without dedicated storage facilities, cargo may need to be staged along roadsides or on unstable terrain, increasing the risk of damage or loss and impeding the flow of goods to their final destinations. Access roads leading from landing sites to town centers or storage facilities may be poorly maintained or subject to erosion, limiting the ability of transportation vehicles to move cargo efficiently. In some cases, shallow channels or narrow river mouths restrict barge access, further complicating the transportation process. Inadequate fuel distribution infrastructure, such as the absence of marine fuel headers or central- ized fuel storage facilities, can hinder the efficient offloading and distribution of fuel. Long hose runs and reliance on outdated equipment increase the time and effort required for fuel delivery, impacting overall logistics operations. The unpredictability of weather conditions, particularly during harsh winter months, can disrupt barge schedules and delay cargo deliveries. Unforeseen delays due to weather-related factors further compound the challenges faced by barge landing sites in remote Alaskan communities. Describe how use of PIDP funds will reduce, remove, or correct any of the disadvantages listed above. The use of PIDP funds will be instrumental in reducing the vulnerabilities of the disadvantaged communities to climate change and extreme weather events. By improving infrastructure resil- ience, promoting clean energy solutions, and enhancing access for freight operations, PIDP funds will strengthen this critical infrastructure and the condition of communities. By improving disaster preparedness and resilience to extreme weather events, flooding, and erosion caused by climate change, the project will ensure that essential transportation and delivery systems remain operational even under challenging conditions. This will address the vulnerability of these communities to disruptions in barge deliveries and ensure stable access to critical services, such as healthcare and emergency response. PIDP-funded activities will prioritize maintaining and improving access to critical community services, such as healthcare facilities and airports. This will ensure that residents have reli- able access to essential services, particularly during emergencies like storms and floods. By addressing climate-induced barriers to access and mobility, the project will enhance the overall resilience and well-being of disadvantaged communities in western Alaska. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 18 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PIDP funds will support efforts to address the impacts of climate change on coastal communities in western Alaska, including the increasing frequency and intensity of storms. By investing in infrastructure resilience and multimodal mobility solutions, the project will help communities adapt to changing environmental conditions and create new opportunities for economic develop- ment and growth. Merit Criteria #3: Leveraging Federal Funding Describe secured/potential matching funds. DOT&PF is in the process of negotiating the award of approximately $40 million in PROTECT funds, $30 million of which will be used to make road and revetment improvements in Hooper Bay. At the same time, DOT&PF has been awarded funds to advance equity planning through a RAISE grant, as well as FTA Area of Persistent Poverty that will look at transit. DOT&PF will also be in a position to provide technical assistance to communities through their Thriving Communities program. These programs will be delivered in collaboration with the Alaska Municipal League, a program partner, and which all three communities are members of. Merit Criteria #4: Port Resilience Describe the known natural or climate-related hazards that jeopardize the port/project site The proposed project region faces a myriad of climate hazards. One prominent threat is the declining sea ice cover, which historically acted as a protective barrier against coastal storms. As temperatures rise, sea ice extent decreases, leaving coastal communities increasingly vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and storm surges. This heightened exposure to intense weather events, such as hurricanes and typhoons, can result in devastating impacts on infrastructure, livelihoods, and cultural sites, exacerbating the challenges faced by Alaska Native communities. Another pressing climate hazard in the project communities is the thawing permafrost, which destabilizes the region’s landscapes and infrastructure. As permafrost thaws, it compromises the stability of roads, buildings, and other critical infrastructure, leading to increased risks of struc- tural damage and collapse. Furthermore, thawing permafrost releases stored greenhouse gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change and contributing to a feedback loop of warming temperatures and further permafrost thaw. Additionally, Western Alaska is experiencing rising ocean temperatures. Increasing ocean temperatures fuel the intensification of storms, such as ex-tropical cyclones, which can unleash powerful winds, heavy precipitation, and destructive storm surges along the region’s coastline. Describe how the project will improve a port’s resilience to natural or climate-related hazards. For the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay this project will improve their barge landings’ resilience to natural and climate-related hazards. Planning for and implementing barge landing improvements will also have a multiplier effect on the overall regions’ climate resilience, specifically in emergency response situations to climate change related extreme weather events. Improving barge landing infrastructure paves the way for increased fuel storage capacity, staging of infrastructure equipment and emergency response teams. The project involves strengthening existing infrastructure, such as docks, mooring points, and access roads, to withstand the impacts of natural hazards like storms, high winds, and erosion. By using durable materials and engineering designs that can withstand extreme weather events, WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 19 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM the upgraded infrastructure reduces the vulnerability of the port to physical damage, ensuring continued operation even in adverse conditions. Recognizing the long-term impacts of climate change, the project integrates climate adap- tation strategies into barge landing planning. This may involve incorporating sea-level rise projections, storm surge modeling, and other climate data into infrastructure planning to future-proof the port against changing environmental conditions. By anticipating and adapting to climate-related risks, the project enhances the port’s resilience and ensures its continued functionality in a changing climate. This planning project will include efforts to engage local communities and build their capacity to respond to natural hazards and climate change impacts. This may involve training programs, public awareness campaigns, and community-based initiatives to improve disaster preparedness, strengthen social cohesion, and foster a sense of resilience within the community. By empow- ering local stakeholders to take an active role in disaster risk reduction, the project enhances the overall resilience of the port and its surrounding areas. Describe how the project incorporates evidence-based climate resilience and adaptation measures or features. The project focuses on improving the resilience of at-risk infrastructure to various hazards, including extreme weather events, flooding, and other natural disasters. This indicates a proactive approach to climate resilience by considering the potential impacts of climate change on infra- structure and taking steps to mitigate these risks. By targeting the disproportionate negative environmental impacts of transportation on disadvan- taged communities, the project demonstrates an understanding of the intersectionality between climate change and social equity. Improving access to outlying subdivisions and accommodating alternative transportation not only reduces carbon emissions but also enhances the resilience of these communities to climate-related challenges. With an emphasis on ensuring appropriate traffic time and accommodating alternative trans- portation modes aligns with evidence-based strategies for reducing carbon emissions in the transportation sector. By promoting sustainable transportation options, the project contributes to climate mitigation efforts while also enhancing community resilience. With a focus on improving infrastructure resilience, addressing environmental justice concerns, and reducing carbon emissions reflects a commitment to evidence-based climate resilience and adaptation measures. By integrating these features into its design and implementation, the project aims to enhance community preparedness and sustainability in the face of climate change. Section V: Selection Considerations Climate Change and Sustainability Describe how the project will consider climate change and environmental justice in the planning stage and in project delivery. In the planning stage, the project will consider climate change by integrating climate resil- ience strategies into site selection, design, and infrastructure development processes. Given the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in the Kusilvak Census Area, the WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 20 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM project will prioritize selecting locations for barge landings that are less vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and storm surges. This will entail conducting thorough assessments of potential sites to identify those with higher elevation, natural buffers against coastal erosion, and minimal expo- sure to future climate risks. Additionally, the project will incorporate climate projections and risk assessments to inform infrastructure design, ensuring that barge landings are built to withstand projected changes in sea levels, precipitation patterns, and storm frequencies. By integrating climate resilience measures into the planning stage, the project aims to enhance the long-term viability and reliability of transportation infrastructure in the face of climate change impacts. The project will prioritize environmental justice considerations throughout the planning and delivery phases to ensure equitable access to transportation benefits and minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable communities. This will involve engaging with local stakeholders, including Tribes, Tribal consortia and ANCS, to incorporate their perspectives, needs, and concerns into decision-making processes. The project will strive to address historical disparities in infrastructure investment by prioritizing improvements in communities that have been dispro- portionately affected by transportation challenges and climate-related hazards. Moreover, efforts will be made to minimize environmental impacts, such as habitat disruption and water pollution, through sustainable design practices and mitigation measures. By integrating environmental justice principles into project planning and delivery, the project aims to promote equitable access to transportation services while safeguarding the well-being of vulnerable communities and ecosystems in the region. Describe how the project reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, incorporates evidence-based climate resilience measures and features, and reduces the life- cycle greenhouse gas emissions from the project materials. This project will result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector through a handful of strategies. Via the optimization of the design and layout of barge landings to minimize the need for dredging and other environmentally impactful activities, the project will further reduce carbon emissions associated with construction and maintenance activities. Furthermore, the project will incorporate evidence-based climate resilience measures and features to address the impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure. By leveraging data from the 2009 USACE report and incorporating modern engineering practices, including reinforced concrete and appropriate drainage systems, the project enhances the resilience of barge landings to extreme weather events such as floods, erosion, and storms. Additionally, the project prioritizes site selection based on past experiences and climate projections to identify locations less vulnerable to future climate risks. By integrating these climate resilience measures into the project design and implementation process, the transportation infrastructure becomes better equipped to withstand the impacts of climate change, reducing the potential for disruptions and associated greenhouse gas emissions. This project aims to reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from project materials by employing sustainable design practices and materials. This includes utilizing locally sourced materials wherever possible to reduce transportation-related emissions associated with material procurement. Additionally, the project will prioritize the use of low-carbon construction materials and techniques, such as recycled concrete aggregates and energy-efficient building practices, to minimize the carbon footprint of infrastructure development. By considering the lifecycle emis- sions of project materials and implementing sustainable design strategies, the project contributes WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 21 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM to overall emissions reduction efforts in the transportation sector while enhancing the long-term resilience of infrastructure to climate change impacts. Describe the extent to which the project avoids adverse environmental impacts to air or water quality, wetlands, and endangered species, as well as address disproportionate negative impacts of climate change and pollution on disadvantaged or other affected communities, including natural disasters, with a focus on prevention, response, and recovery. The project prioritizes minimizing adverse environmental impacts by implementing measures to protect air and water quality, wetlands, and endangered species throughout its planning and implementation stages. Through careful site selection and design optimization, the project aims to avoid disruption to sensitive ecosystems, including wetlands, which play crucial roles in supporting biodiversity and mitigating flood risks. By incorporating evidence-based climate resilience measures, the project addresses the disproportionate negative impacts of climate change on disadvantaged communities by focusing on prevention, response, and recovery strate- gies. This includes prioritizing infrastructure improvements that will reduce the vulnerability of Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay to natural disasters like floods and storms, with a focus on enhancing resilience and reducing future risks through sustainable design practices. The success of this project will rely on community engagement and stakeholder collaboration to ensure that the needs and concerns of affected communities, including indigenous and margin- alized groups, are adequately addressed. By integrating environmental justice principles into decision-making processes, the project aims to minimize disproportionate negative impacts of pollution and climate change on disadvantaged communities. This involves prioritizing infra- structure investments in areas with high social vulnerability and implementing measures to enhance community resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards. Additionally, by incorporating sustainable design practices and materials, the project reduces the overall envi- ronmental footprint of infrastructure development, further mitigating adverse impacts on air and water quality, wetlands, and endangered species. Through these integrated approaches, the project seeks to promote environmental sustainability while addressing the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged communities in the region. Equity Describe how the project will include an equity assessment which evaluates whether a project will create proportional impacts and remove transportation related disparities to all populations in a project area. The project’s equity assessment will inform decision-making processes and project prioritiza- tion to ensure that infrastructure improvements benefit all populations within the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay equitably. The equity assessment will involve iden- tifying, documenting, and analyzing the needs and priorities of marginalized and underserved communities, low-income households, and people with disabilities, in project planning and implementation. By incorporating community input and stakeholder engagement into the assess- ment process, the project will seek to address transportation-related disparities and promote equity in access to transportation resources and opportunities. Additionally, the equity assessment will guide the development of targeted interventions and mitigation measures to remove barriers and enhance mobility for vulnerable populations, thereby promoting a more inclusive and equi- table transportation system within the project area. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Describe how meaningful public engagement will occur throughout a project’s life cycle. Meaningful public engagement throughout a project’s life cycle is a fundamental commitment of both the Alaska Energy Authority and DOT&PF, ensuring inclusivity and recognizing the enduring benefits that extend beyond project completion. Within this ethos, the project is delib- erately situated within disadvantaged communities, guaranteeing that the advantages of the initiative directly benefit these residents. Furthermore, acknowledging the diverse challenges faced by communities across Alaska, various government organizations and communities have collaboratively developed vulnerability assessments, adaptation plans, and hazard mitigation strategies pertaining to climate change. This project’s public engagement will be complemented by other DOT & PF efforts that include workshops and trainings aimed at empowering commu- nities to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change. AEA has budgeted for sub-award allocations to each community for reimbursement for tribal and city engagement in the project. Describe how project benefits will increase affordable transportation options, improve safety, connect Americans to good-paying jobs, fight climate change, and/or improve access to resources and quality of life. This bundled project includes a multifaceted approach to addressing various challenges while concurrently enhancing several key aspects of community well-being and sustainability: By improving access to outlying subdivisions and accommodating alternative transportation, the project ensures that disadvantaged communities have more affordable and accessible means of transportation. This can help lower transportation costs for residents, particularly those in remote areas where transportation options may be limited. Enhancing disaster preparedness and resilience to extreme weather events and natural disasters will inherently improve safety for communities, ensuring they are better equipped to handle emergencies and reducing the risk of harm to residents and infrastructure. Through initiatives like local hiring, family-supporting jobs, and workforce development programs, the project creates opportunities for residents to access well-paying jobs within their communities. This not only improves employment prospects but also strengthens local economies. The project’s focus on reducing carbon emissions through the adoption of fuel-efficient technol- ogies and low-emission transportation methods aligns with efforts to combat climate change. By encouraging the use of cleaner fuels and alternative transportation options, the project contrib- utes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, thereby mitigating the impacts of climate change. By addressing infrastructure inadequacies, improving access to essential goods and services, and enhancing disaster preparedness, the project ultimately improves the quality of life for residents in disadvantaged communities. Additionally, initiatives to support local hiring preferences and workforce development programs empower communities and contribute to their long-term resil- ience and prosperity. Workforce Development, Job Quality, and Wealth Creation How the project promotes local inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship such as the use of DBEs, Minority-owned Businesses, Women-owned Businesses, or 8(a) firms. The project promotes local inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship by actively engaging with Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs), Minority-owned Businesses, WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 23 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Women-owned Businesses, and 8(a) firms in the planning and execution phases. Through targeted outreach and procurement strategies, the project seeks to create opportunities for these underrepresented businesses to participate in various aspects of the project, including construction, materials supply, and professional services. By providing access to contracts and subcontracting opportunities, the project not only fosters economic growth within these commu- nities but also contributes to the development of a more diverse and inclusive business ecosystem in the region. This project emphasizes capacity-building and technical assistance initiatives to support the growth and sustainability of DBEs and other marginalized businesses, equipping them with the resources and skills needed to compete in the marketplace and contribute to the local economy. This project leverages partnerships with local organizations, and regional economic devel- opment agencies to facilitate collaboration and networking opportunities for DBEs and other underrepresented businesses. By fostering connections between large contractors and small, minority-owned enterprises, the project creates pathways for knowledge sharing, mentorship, and skills transfer, which can ultimately lead to long-term economic empowerment and job creation in the community. Moreover, by prioritizing the inclusion of DBEs and other disadvantaged businesses in project contracts and procurement processes, the project helps to address historical inequities and disparities in access to economic opportunities, promoting social and economic equity while driving sustainable development and prosperity in the project area. Section VI: Project Readiness Technical Capacity Describe history of delivering similar projects. The project partners are all well-experienced organizations that have delivered similar projects in the past. AEA is a highly experienced organization when it comes to administering federal and USDOT grants. The two agencies are currently working together on multiple projects to deliver projects that benefit Alaskans. Alaska DOT&PF is the State Transportation Agency that plans, designs, constructs, main tains, and operates transportation infrastructure in the State of Alaska. DOT&PF has a proven track record of managing federally funded projects. Staff positions will include: Engineers, to include design consultants as needed to support the project; Environmental Staff, to include design consultants as needed to support; and Support Staff, to include design consultants as needed to support. DOT&PF has a dedicated marine design group and environmental staff who have delivered dozens of marine improvement projects, including up to six per year. DOT&PF has maintained a marine engineering team since Statehood in 1959 – primarily dedi cated to supporting the AMHS ferry system. They have directly designed or managed consultant designs and conducted numerous refurbishments, replacements, repairs, and maintenance on nearly every ferry terminal facility in the State and many other ports, harbors, and seaplane facil ities. Most of these projects utilized federal aid through FHWA. They have successfully delivered many federal aid marine projects supporting AMHS over the years, including 86 projects totaling over $308,000,000 since 2002 alone. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 24 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DOT&PF has standard mooring dolphin and other marine facility designs on file. The marine engineering team also inspects every ferry terminal and associated transfer bridge structure in the State. They are highly experi enced and intimately familiar with the project’s partic- ular local conditions and needs. DOT&PF’s project development staff comprises 75 persons, including materials and geotechnical engineers, environmental and right of way professionals who can navigate and achieve the required support products according to all Federal regula- tions and requirements. DOT&PF and its marine design group are knowledgeable about federal requirements, including Build America stipulations. The terminal design is based on a standard DOT&PF design modified to meet site geology and terminal configurations. Demonstrate project’s feasibility/constructability and schedule. AEA has evaluated the risk elements of the project (see below) and is confident that the project can be completed according to the project schedule. The schedule has been developed so that funds will be spent expeditiously once construction starts, with all funds expended by the dead- line. If funded, the schedule may be further evaluated in order to streamline the timing of project phases, with the goal of increasing cost effectiveness and time efficiency. Demonstrate how the project will comply with applicable Federal requirements. AEA and DOT&PF will ensure that contractors and staff engaged with the project comply with all applicable federal requirements, and will consult with municipal, tribal, and other partners at regular intervals to ensure compliance. Describe how and when the budget was compiled, including how the cost data was sourced. The budget was compiled by DOT&PF project planners with experience in marine development, including harbor and bridge design, and is consistent with best practices. AEA utilized historical and anticipated budgeting to account for agency costs. Cost data for this project was developed in CY Q1 2024 by experts who regularly estimate costs for shore power projects (dock upgrades scope of work) or power projects (upland improvements scope of work). Identify the recency and degree of design completion. Conceptual Design has begun, is at 20%, and is expected to be completed as part of this project’s scope. Identify whether the project is an ongoing planning effort, if so, identify if the planning effort is at the local, regional or State level. AEA and DOT&PF are undertaking this planning effort in response to the needs of this disas- ter-impacted region. The planning effort is local, focused on the needs of three disadvantaged communities within a micro-region. Identify if the project is included in a local or State freight plan, included in any strategic plans, or any other planning efforts (link to any plans mentioned) This project is included in the 2009 USACE Barge Landing Assessment, but is not referenced in the State freight plan beyond the recognition of the value of barge landings to these otherwise isolated communities. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 25 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Project Schedule Identify major project milestones: start dates, schedule for public engagement, and completion dates. Task Name 2024 2025 2026 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Public Engagement Project Scoping Environmental Process Permitting Prelim Engineering Final Design Demonstrate that all funds will be expended five years after obligation The project schedule demonstrates that funds will be expended within five years of obligation. All necessary pre-award activities will be complete at least six months in advance of the obligation deadline. AEA understands that selection may take approximately four months from the submission date, and that a 60-day statutory period will occur when funds may not be obligated. Sufficient time for unexpected delays has been factored into the project schedule. The project has budgeted for contingency, understanding that unexpected delays may affect the project budget. The project schedule, similarly, accounts for enough time to account for the potential for unexpected delay. There is sufficient time in the schedule to ensure project activities are consistent with obligation deadlines, at the very least. Project will meet the expected obligation deadline. AEA will ensure that obligation occurs prior to the statutory deadline of September 30, 2027. All real property and right-of-way acquisition will be completed in a timely manner in accordance with 49 C.F.R, or demonstrate that no right-of-way acquisition is necessary. AEA and DOT&PF will maintain site control of the facilities in need of construction. There are no State rights of way involved. Meaningful community input has been/will be sought through public involvement, disad- vantaged communities and other environmental justice concerns were/will be considered in the public involvement process Meaningful community input has been/will be sought through public involvement, and disad- vantaged communities and other environmental justice concerns were/will be considered in the public involvement process. AEA and DOT&PF have a comprehensive public involvement process and this project has budgeted for additional stakeholder engagement to ensure that equity and environmental justice priorities are incorporated throughout. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 26 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Risk Mitigation Identify project risks including approval or permit delays, procurement delays, technical challenges in design or construction, environmental uncertainties, potential increases in project costs, or lack of required approvals that affect the likelihood of successful project start and completion. Potential Risk Mitigation Project delays Early in the project development process, assign a permit coordinator, schedule inspections, and establish applicable reporting deadlines. Maintain regular progress reporting with all consultants, suppliers, contractors, and inspectors. Supply chain disruption For schedule impacts of supply chain disruption, procure materials as early as practical. For cost impacts of supply chain disruption, consider increasing contingency factor in cost estimate. Escalating materials cost Procure materials as early as practical. Lack of local buy-in Improved communication, local meetings. Maintain regular communication and consider local subsistence season. Land ownership Early in the project development process, work with the community to select the landing location and ensure that the right of ways are secured. Land ownership issues can potentially increase the budget. Discuss how project parties will mitigate or otherwise be able to handle identified risks. Initial risk management will focus on scheduling and environmental/permitting activities. Construction phase risk management will depend on timing of material delivery, especially steel for piling and other moorage and loading structures. AEA and DOT&PF has a wealth of experi- ence managing timing of materials with seasonal restrictions on field work. Environmental Risk Indicate the NEPA level of review for the project Alaska DOT&PF will prepare a NEPA document if awarded a PIDP grant. AEA and DOT&PF will coordinate with MARAD and complete the required NEPA documentation. Based on previous work with maritime shoreside facility infrastructure, DOT&PF believes a Categorical Exclusion will be provided for the project. Community support for the project is high. Describe any environmental analysis that is in progress or that has been completed. AEA and DOT&PF have not initiated any environmental analysis at this early stage in the project development. There are no recent environmental studies to reference as part of this application. Alaska DOT&PF Environmental Staff has already begun review of Maritime Administrative Manual of Orders and will incorporate MARAD’s Environmental Analysis criteria upon award. Discuss any environmental reviews that have been initiated or previously completed, where the project is in that process, and indicate the anticipated date NEPA would be initiated and an anticipated completion date. Alaska DOT&PF was granted primacy over its NEPA Assignment Program through an MOU with FHWA signed November 3, 2017, to assume responsibilities under NEPA and all or part of FHWA’s responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, or other actions required under WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 27 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM any Federal environmental law with respect to one or more Federal Highway projects within Alaska. The assigned responsibilities are subject to the same procedural and substantive require- ments as applied to FHWA. Alaska DOT&PF has reached out to MARAD to begin discussion as to how NEPA Compliance and process might work in this situation. Indicate if there any previously completed or ongoing consultations involving the project and any adjacent areas under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act A cultural resources survey for Section 106 may be required for this project and would likely be done in coordination with USACE. AEA will initiate communication with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), and other inter- ested parties as necessary, and as part of the planning process. Environmental Permits and Reviews Identify all environmental permits and approvals that will be required for the project to proceed to construction consistent with the timeline specified in the project schedule and necessary to meet the obligation deadline. AEA and DOT&PF have not yet begun the process for requesting environmental approvals, but anticipated permits and approvals are described throughout this section. Anticipated authoriza- tions were identified in the Feasibility Study. Provide a schedule showing receipt/the anticipated receipt of these anticipated approvals AEA anticipates receipt of approvals as part of its planning project, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits, consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, and other Federal, State, and local requirements. AEA and DOT&PF understand that, in collaboration with MARAD, they will be responsible for the completion of consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act prior to completing NEPA. Describe any public engagement about the project that has occurred or is anticipated to be conducted as part of the project and/or NEPA project. AEA will work with DOT&PF to support additional public engagement, including with respect to USDOT Title VI Program Order 1000.12C, DOT LEP Guidance, and DOT Promising Practices for Meaningful Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making. This planning project aligns with local and regional policies, including hazard mitigation, which have featured extensive public engagement. All three communities participated in describing conditions and needs to the Western Alaska Disaster Response team led by FEMA, which has highlighted this project as a critical need for each community. Describe any known or anticipated stakeholder and/or general public contentious issues related to the project. There are no known or anticipated stakeholder and general public contentious issues related to this project, which has broad and active local support. Impacted communities rely extensively on these barge landings and improvements will result in benefits to quality of life, freight delivery, and economic development. State and Local Approvals Demonstrate the receipt of or anticipated receipt of State and local approvals for the project. AEA and DOT&PF have not yet begun the process for requesting state or local approvals. Local land use/construction permits may be required by the municipal governments. This application WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 28 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM is being completed in close collaboration with the city and tribal governments, and no significant challenges are anticipated. The following are potential State approvals from Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC): • Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC). ADEC reviews and issues Section 401 WQCs. Many activities that qualify for coverage under a USACE NWP have associated general certifications and do not require individual WQCs. • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Construction Permit. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater construction permit (managed by ADEC) may be required if the project will result in land disturbance of greater than 1 acre. • ADEC’s Drinking Water Program may require approval of any new water systems or changes to existing systems. This approval would likely be applied for closer to construction if deemed necessary. • The proposed construction may encounter contaminated media (groundwater, sediment, or soil) associated with adjacent/nearby cleanup sites. Coordination with ADEC’s remediation site manager(s) may be required based on the project site’s location adjacent to cleanup sites and the project may be required to adhere to site-specific material monitoring, handling, management, and/or disposal requirements. Demonstrate that the project has broad public support AEA has included letters of support from municipal and tribal governments in the three benefiting communities. Other Agency Involvement Indicate whether the proposed project requires reviews or approval actions by other agencies, provide detailed information about the status of those reviews or approvals. The following includes potential permits and approvals from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). • Section 7 Consultation. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agen- cies must consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (also the NMFS) and USFWS when any action the agency carries out, funds, or authoriza- tions, may affect either a species listed as threatened or endangered under the Act, or any critical habitat designated for it. The USACE will consult with NMFS and USFWS as part of the Section 7 consultation process to analyze potential impacts to ESA-listed species. Informal consultation and a letter of concurrence (LOC) from NMFS and USFWS are anticipated. Formal consultation may be required, and a Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued, if adverse impacts to ESA-listed species could occur. Supplemental assessments such as a Biological Evaluation (BE) or Biological Assessment (BA) may need to be completed to support USACE and federal resource agency (NMFS and USFWS) review. Additional coordination with agencies and further development of the design alternative is needed to determine if informal consultation is feasible and what supplemental documents should be developed. • Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The MSA includes a mandate that NMFS must identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed marine fish, and federal agencies must consult on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. A brief EFH Assessment may be requested as part of the USACE permit process. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 29 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM • Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) or Letter of Authorization (LOA). An IHA or LOA under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) could be required from NMFS if marine mammals will be exposed to noise levels that exceed established behavioral or poten- tial injury noise thresholds for marine mammals and where standard shutdown areas do not appropriately mitigate the impact or where these shutdown zones cannot be implemented during construc tion. Describe whether the project is dependent on, or affected by, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers investment and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers planned activities as it relates to the project, if applicable, should be included. Project planners have identified the potential involvement of Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable structure may qualify for a USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) if there is no proposed change in use and only minor changes to the structure’s size/configuration (the USACE also completes a CATEX or streamlined EA as part of their internal NEPA process). If the project does not qualify for an NWP, a Letter or Permission (LOP) or Individual Permit (IP) may be required, likely the case if there are substan tial changes to the design of the proposed structure from its existing configura- tion. A Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency review may be completed as part of the USACE permitting process. Demonstrate the project is in compliance with any other applicable Federal, State, or local requirements, and when such approvals are expected This project takes into account Build America Buy America (BABA) provisions, and to the extent necessary and available, all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction mate- rials to be used in the project will be produced in the United States. This project will comply with PIDP’s domestic content requirements. The State will include BABA requirements in its RFP process and as part of contract negotiations. The State does not anticipate the need for a BABA waiver, though it is early in the process to identify the potential. The State’s procurement policy prioritizes the use of domestic goods, products, and materials, and incentivizes contractor response by weighing these factors higher in responses. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 30 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Section VII: Determiniations Statutory Determination Guidance 1. The project improves the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods through a port or intermodal connection to the port. This project will: • Decrease barge landing times • Reduce the need for lightering • Increase efficiency of fuel delivery • Reduce potential for on-shore or marine accidents. • Improve the reliability of goods delivered. • Improve conditions of disadvantaged communities. 2. The project is cost effective.This determination is not applicable to small projects at small ports or large projects located in noncontiguous States or U.S. territories. 3. The eligible applicant has the authority to carry out the project. AEA and DOT&PF are the State of Alaska’s energy office and transportation agency, respectively, and have the authority to carry out these projects. Both state agencies have primacy over planning in this unorganized area of the state. 4. The eligible applicant has sufficient funding available to meet the matching requirements. No cost-share is required for this small port, small project application in these three rural, disadvantaged communities 5. The project will be completed without unreasonable delay. This project will obligate funds and be complete consistent with PIDP requirements. 6. The project cannot be easily and efficiently completed without Federal funding or financial assistance available to the project sponsor. This project is not currently programmed in DOT&PF’s STIP, nor budgeted for by either agency. But for PIDP funding, these barge landing projects would not advance. LETTERS OF COMMITMENT & SUPPORT Western Alaska Barge Landing Resilience Bundle Table of Contents Letters of Commitment Alaska Energy Authority………………………………………...1 Alaska Department of Transportation …………..………………2 Letters of Support Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc………..………..……3 Chevak Traditional Council…………………….………..……..4 City of Scammon Bay………….……………………….…....…5 Kashunamiut School District ………………...……….………..6 City of Hooper Bay………………………….……………..…...7 Lower Yukon School District ……………….…….……..……..8 Native Village of Scammon Bay………………………...……...9 May 10, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Commitment for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) extends our full commitment to the Alaska ,Barge Landing Planning Bundle as a candidate for the PIDP Program. AEA is a public corporation of the State of Alaska with the mission to promote; develop, and advance the prosperity of Alaskans while reducing the cost of energy in Alaska. Through its policy guidance, management of energy infrastructure, and administration of grants and loan programs, AEA provides benefits to Alaskans across a broad spectrum of energy technologies. As such, AEA is committed to fortifying the transportation infrastructure of Alaska's coastal communities to ensure the enduring resilience and sustainability of these communities amidst evolving climatic challenges. This planning project includes preliminary design for barge landings and fuel headers for three rural Alaska Native coastal communities affected by_ Typhoon Merbok: Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, and Chevak. AEA will build off the 2009 USACE report, Alaska Barge Landing System Design, a comprehensive resource for project design. This report, developed at the direction of the Denali Commission, represents a statewide barge landing assessment that remains a valuable resource. AEA will advance preliminary designs in Scammon Bay to 85% and in Hooper Bay and Chevak to at least 35%. The proposed strategy leverages best practices, focusing on bundling projects to ensure streamlined design. This approach is not only cost-effective but also maximizes operational efficiency. By adopting a bundled model, we can significantly reduce redundant costs and ensure that resources are used optimally to benefit and improve resiliency for Alaska's coastal communities. Due to the project's designation as rural and a small port project, AEA requests an increased Federal cost share of 100%. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (907) 771-3009 or cthayer@akenergyauthority.org. Regards, Curtis Thayer, Executive Director REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 • Phone: (907) 771-3000 • Fax: (907) 771-3044 • Email: info@akenergyauthority.org 1 “Keep Alaska Moving through service and infrastructure.” Department of Transportation and Public Facilities OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Ryan Anderson, P.E., Commissioner PO Box 112500 Juneau, Alaska 99811-2500 Main: 907.465.3900 dot.alaska.gov May 2, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Support for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) I am writing on behalf of the State of Alaska to extend our full endorsement for the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) Western Alaska Barge Landing Planning Bundle as a candidate for the PIDP Program. DOT&PF is committed to fortifying the transportation infrastructure of Alaska’s coastal communities to ensure the enduring resilience and sustainability of these communities amidst evolving climatic challenges. This planning project includes preliminary design for barge landings and fuel headers for three coastal communities affected by Typhoon Merbok: Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, and Chevak. AEA will build off the 2009 USACE report, Alaska Barge Landing System Design, a comprehensive resource for project design. This report, developed at the direction of the Denali Commission, represents a statewide barge landing assessment that remains a valuable resource. AEA will advance preliminary designs in Scammon Bay to 85% and in Hooper Bay and Chevak to at least 35%. The proposed strategy leverages best practices, focusing on bundling projects to ensure streamlined design. This approach is not only cost-effective but also maximizes operational efficiency. By adopting a bundled model, we can significantly reduce redundant costs and ensure that resources are used optimally to benefit and improve resiliency for Alaska’s coastal communities. DOT&PF will provide technical expertise, as needed, to assist AEA in delivering the project. Due to the project’s designation as rural and a small port project, AEA requests an increased Federal cost share of 100%. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ryan Anderson, P.E. Commissioner 2 May 7, 2024 AVE ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Support for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is the sole electric power provider in the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay. These communities are still recovering from Typhoon Merbok in 2022, and evolving climatic challenges continue to threaten them. Unpredictable weather can cut them off from basic resources if proper infrastructure is not in place, which is why we need your support. A partnership between the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and the Department of Transportation Public Facilities will maximize cost efficiencies and provide necessary infrastructure improvements to their barge landings and fuel headers to receive fuel deliveries, supporting the local power grid. AVEC fully endorses the AEA application for the Western Alaska Barge Landing PIPD project. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at: bstamm@avec.org or 907-565-5531. Sincerely, Bill Stamm Chief Executive Officer Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 4831 Eagle Street • Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 • Phone (907) 561-1818 • In State (800) 478-1818 . Fax (907) 563-9304 3 May 7, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Chevak Traditional Council P.O. Box 140 Chevak, Alaska 99563 (907) 858-7428 fax (907) 858�7812 chevaktc@gmallcom RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle letter of Commitment for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: Chevak is located on the north bank of the Niglikfak River, 17 miles east of Hooper Bay in the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta. Its location near the Bering Sea renders the area subject to heavy winds and rain. Access to Chevak is by way of a narrow winding river. Barges land by pushing into the mud bank at the base of an eroding access road. Chevak has a growing population, currently at about 951 residents, with eroding access points our future growth and prosperity may be threatened. Operational efficiency would also improve if there was a marine fuel header. Currently, it takes 24-hours to offload fuel as a long hose (400 to 600-feet) is used to fill the various tank farms in the community (i.e., AVEC, school, and Native Corporation). The Chevak Native Village emph atically supports the Alaska Energy Authority's application for the Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle for the Port Infrastructure Development Program to provide much needed safety and reliability for fuel deliveries and provide continued access and efficiency for our entire community. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at .(_907) 858-7428, chevaktc@gmail.com. Sincerely, �-5:3z7) < §3, Esther Friday, 2nd Chief for Chevak Native Village -s)7 ft:2a i/ Date 4 CITY OF SCAMMON BAY 111 FRONT STREET P.O BOX 90 SCAMMON BAY, AK 99662 Phone: (907) 558-5529 Fax: (907) 558-5626 Email: cityofscammon@marayarmiut.com May 7, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Support for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is the sole provider of electric power in the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay. AVEC supports the Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) application for the Western Alaska Barge Landing Planning Bundle Port Infrastructure Development project to assist these communities in improving their infrastructure that supports the power infrastructure, especially fuel deliveries. These communities have been impacted by evolving climatic challenges. This planning project will support barge landings and fuel headers in communities that were greatly impacted my Typhoon Merbok. This partnership between AEA and DOTPF is cost effective and will maximize cost efficiencies. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at (907) 558-5529 or cityofscammon@marayarmiut.com. Sincerely, lAw � Louisia Walker Vice-Mayor 5 Kashunamiut School District 985 KSD Way Chevak, AK 99563 May 10, 2024 May 10, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Support for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: The Kashunamiut School District (KSD) serves a unique Cup'ik community in the city of Chevak. Chevak provides for 322 of our students from Pre-K to 12th grade and is home to the only high school in the district. The KSD understands the project Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is seeking funding that will help facilitate infrastructure improvements to the community's barge landing and fuel header. Given our schools' rural nature, we depend on the reliability of these services. The KSD owns and operates its own tanks to receive bulk fuel, which is delivered by barge along the Niglikfak River. Due to the lack of a fuel header, a hose is used in substitute, increasing the risk of releasing fuel into the environment and causing expensive inefficiencies as it takes them longer to deliver. The KSD strongly supports AEA's application to the Department of Transportation Port Infrastructure Development Program for the City of Chevak. If I can provide additional information, please contact me at 907-858-7713 or jcampbell@chevakschool.org. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Campbell Superintendent Kashunamiut School District 6 May 7, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey A venue, SE Washington, DC 20590 NAPARYARMIUT City of Hooper Bay 29 Tomag_anuk Road Hooper Bay� AK 99604 907-758-43102ill'b.P.b.@gm�U:2Rm RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Commitment for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: Hooper Bay is 20 miles south of Cape Romanzof, 25 miles south of Scammon Bay in the YukonKuskokwim Delta. Hooper Bay is considered a distressed community based on the Denali Commission 2023 Distressed Community Report and listed as a threatened community in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Statewide Threat Assessment. Hooper Bay is a difficult community to access due to the very shallow water on the river side of the community and the prevalent wind/currents on the coastal side. We have a growing population of 1,355 residents. Investing in a barge landing and fuel header system in our community will preserve our community and rich subsistence lifestyle. The City of Hooper Bay positively supports the Alaska Energy Authorities (AEA) application for the Port Infrastructure Development Program with the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration to provide much-needed assistance to our community. Thank you for your consideration. Your support will make a meaningful difference in the lives of our community members. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at (907) 758-4311, or cityhpb@gmail.com. Sincerel:, '��usuk Mayor City of Hooper Bay 7 LOWER YUKON SCHOOL DISTRICT P.O. Box 32089 ∙ Mountain Village, Alaska 99632 Phone: (907) 591-2411 www.lysd.org Edgar Hoelscher Gene Stone Chairman Chief School Administrator May 8, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Support for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: The Lower Yukon School District (LYSD) consists of ten villages spread across 22,000 square miles. The Yukon River, one of the largest rivers in North America, winds through our yards on its way to the Bering Sea. The purpose of our District's learning community is to ensure tradition, culture, and quality of education for all of our children. We are a people of the salmon, of the whitefish, and pike. Of the moose, bear, fox, beaver, and lynx. Of the berries, plants, and the land. Of family. The Lower Yukon School District (LYSD) supports the Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) application to the Department of Transportation's Port Infrastructure Development Program for infrastructure improvements to the barge landings and fuel headers in Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay. These two communities serve 670 of our K-12 students, and reliable fuel delivery is critical to their ongoing operation. Given the rural nature of our district, we rely heavily on the safe and timely delivery of fuel and other resources. However, the banks in both communities are compromised by the unpredictable marine climate in the Bering Sea, posing a threat to the stability and safety of our fuel infrastructure. Additionally, LYSD owns and operates its fuel tanks, and unreliable fuel headers complicate efficient fuel delivery from the barge landings. This funding ensures a more reliable infrastructure for our students' education and well-being. If I can provide additional information, please call 907-591-2411. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gene Stone Chief School Administrator Lower Yukon School District 8 @ Nativ� Village of Scammon BayvBAScammo11BmrTraditio11alC01111cil 103 Askmuk Street/P.O. Box 110 Scammon Bay, AK 99662-0110 Phone (907) 558-5425 Fax (907) 558-5134 E-mail admin@marayarmiut.com May 7, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: W estem Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Commitment for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter in support of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) application to the Port Infrastxucture Development Program in partnership with the Department of Transportation Public Facilities (DOT&PF). Scammon Bay is on the south bank of the Kun River, one mile from the Bering Sea. Our lifestyle is sustained by subsistence practices, and in the summer, a majority of our residents are employed through commercial fisheries. The need for the AEA DOT &PF proposed improvements is imperative to continue the safe delivery of fuel and supplies to our community. Currently, we are forced to stage cargo and equipment from the barge along an unstable and swampy road that leads from the landing site. This has led to storage containers floating away in the past. Fuel deliveries are done with a truck along those same roads since there is no fuel header to supply A VEC and the school tanks. I am proud to support the AEA and DOT &PF application and their efforts to make our community a better place. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at (907) 558-5425 or angelo.nvsb@gmail.com. Thank you for your consideration. Angelo Uttereyuk Tribal Administrator Native Village of Scammon Bay 9 OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 11/30/2025 * 1. Type of Submission: * 2. Type of Application: * 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier: 5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier: 6. Date Received by State: 7. State Application Identifier: * a. Legal Name: * b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): * c. UEI: * Street1: Street2: * City: County/Parish: * State: Province: * Country: * Zip / Postal Code: Department Name: Division Name: Prefix: * First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: Title: Organizational Affiliation: * Telephone Number: Fax Number: * Email: * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): * Other (Specify): State Use Only: 8. APPLICANT INFORMATION: d. Address: e. Organizational Unit: f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 Preapplication Application Changed/Corrected Application New Continuation Revision Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. Alaska Energy Authority 92-6001185 F3N8ZSHJXUH8 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage AK: Alaska USA: UNITED STATES 99503-2407 Ms.Rebecca Garrett Rural Programs Manager 907-771-3042 rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org DocuSign Envelope ID: E89116EF-52F1-4420-B316-A19878A138D1 * 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: * Other (specify): * 10. Name of Federal Agency: 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: CFDA Title: * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: * Title: 13. Competition Identification Number: Title: 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): * 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions. Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 A: State Government Maritime Administration 20.823 Port Infrastructure Development Program MA-PID-24-001 Port Infrastructure Development Program Western Alaska Barge Landing Resilience Bundle View AttachmentsDelete AttachmentsAdd Attachments View AttachmentDelete AttachmentAdd Attachment DocuSign Envelope ID: E89116EF-52F1-4420-B316-A19878A138D1 * a. Federal * b. Applicant * c. State * d. Local * e. Other * f. Program Income * g. TOTAL . Prefix: * First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: * Title: * Telephone Number: * Email: Fax Number: * Signature of Authorized Representative: * Date Signed: 18. Estimated Funding ($): 21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001) ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. Authorized Representative: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * a. Applicant Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed. * b. Program/Project * a. Start Date: * b. End Date: 16. Congressional Districts Of: 17. Proposed Project: Alaska Alaska Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment 10/01/2024 09/30/2026 8,958,431.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,958,431.00 a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372. Yes No Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment ** I AGREE Mr.Curtis Thayer Executive Director 907-771-3000 cthayer@akenergyauthority.org Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. * 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) * 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. If "Yes", provide explanation and attach DocuSign Envelope ID: E89116EF-52F1-4420-B316-A19878A138D1 5/10/2024 | 11:31:40 AM AKDT 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:GRANT14144040 F3N8ZSHJXUH8UEI: Wendy SturdivantSubmitter's Name: CFDA Number:20.823 CFDA Description:Port Infrastructure Development Program Funding Opportunity Number:MA-PID-24-001 Funding Opportunity Description:Port Infrastructure Development Program Agency Name:Maritime Administration Application Name of this Submission:Western Alaska Barge Landing Resilience Bundle Date/Time of Receipt: https://www.grants.gov/applicants/grant-applications/track-my-application?tracking_num=GRANT14144040 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 10, 2024 05:40:47 PM EDT 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 Fiscal Year 2024 Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) Overview: The PIDP statute, codified at 46 U.S.C. 54301, establishes the port and intermodal improvement program to improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods through ports and intermodal connections to ports. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, November 15, 2021) (“Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” or “BIL”) appropriated $450 million to the PIDP for FY 2024 to make discretionary grants for eligible PIDP projects. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) encourages applicants to propose projects that, in addition to improving the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods through ports and intermodal connection to ports, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, will create proportional impacts to all populations in a project area and increase equitable access to project benefits, and will support the creation of good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union and include the incorporation of strong labor standards and training and placement programs, especially registered apprenticeships. More information can be found on the USDOT’s MARAD website here. Eligibility: • A State; • A political subdivision of a State, or a local government; • A public agency or publicly chartered authority established by 1or more States; • A special purpose district with a transportation function; • An Indian Tribe, or a consortium of Indian Tribes; • A multistate or multijurisdictional group of entities described above; • A lead entity described above jointly with a private entity or group of private entities, including the owners or operators of facility, or collection of facilities at a port. Funding: $450 million has been made available to fund FY24’s PIDP. MARAD seeks to obligate FY 2024 PIDP funds by September 30, 2027. Cost Share: Federal share of total costs of an eligible PIDP project must not exceed 80 percent. However, the Secretary may increase the federal share of costs above 80 percent for: 1) a grant for a project that is located in a *rural area; 2) a grant awarded to a small project at a **small port. *Rural area – An area located outside of a 2020 U.S. Census-designated urban area with a population of 50,000 or more persons. **Small port – Coastal seaport, Great Lakes, or inland river port to and from which the average annual tonnage of cargo for the immediately preceding three calendar years from the time an application is submitted is less than 8,000,000 short tons, as determined by using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 3 Limitations on Use of Funds: • Not more than 25 percent of the available funds ($112,500,000) can be awarded for projects in any one State. • Twenty-five percent of the available funds ($112,500,000) is reserved for small projects at small ports awarded under 46 U.S.C. 54301(b), which are defined as a project at a small port seeking less than or equal to $11.25 million in funding. • Not more than 10 percent ($33,750,000) of the funds not reserved for small projects at small ports may be awarded for development phase activities for large projects. • Additionally, to maximize flexibility for applicants and optimize the number of grants that can be awarded, MARAD will limit any single award to a small project at a small port to not more than $11.25 million under both the BIL and any additional PIDP funding that may become available under the annual appropriations act for FY 2024. Period of Performance: MARAD will determine period of performance for each award based on the specific project that was evaluated and selected. Key Dates: Applications due 05/10/2024 11:59 pm EDT Eligible Activities: Grants may be made for capital projects that will be used to improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of: (I) the loading and unloading of goods at the port, such as for marine terminal equipment; (II) the movement of goods into, out of, around, or within a port, such as for highway or rail infrastructure, intermodal facilities, freight intelligent transportation systems, and digital infrastructure systems; (III) operational improvements, including projects to improve port resilience; (IV) environmental and emissions mitigation measures, including projects for— (a) port electrification or electrification master planning; (b) harbor craft or equipment replacements or retrofits; (c) development of port or terminal microgrids; (d) provision of idling reduction infrastructure; (e) purchase of cargo handling equipment and related infrastructure; (f) worker training to support electrification technology; (g) installation of port bunkering facilities from ocean-going vessels for fuels; (h) electric vehicle charging or hydrogen refueling infrastructure for drayage and medium or heavy-duty trucks and locomotives that service the port and related grid upgrades; or (i) other related port activities, including charging infrastructure, electric rubber-tired gantry cranes, and anti-idling technologies; or Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 3 (V) port and port-related infrastructure that supports seafood and seafood-related businesses, including the loading and unloading of commercially harvested fish and fish products, seafood processing, cold storage, and other related infrastructure. Key Application / Award Provisions: MARAD expects that the lead applicant submitting the application will administer and deliver the project. If the lead applicant intends to act as a pass-through entity for disbursing funds to a subrecipient (including a private-entity joint applicant, if applicable) who will deliver all or a portion of the project, that intention should be made clear in the application and a letter of support from the intended subrecipient should be included as an attachment to the application. Lead applicants intending to make subawards under their proposed FY 2024 PIDP project should refer to 2 C.F.R. 200.331-333 on how to make subrecipient determinations and what requirements apply to pass-through entities. Applicants should be aware that all contracts executed under the PIDP award that create procurement relationships must follow the procurement standards at 2 C.F.R. 200.317-327, including requirements regarding competition. In order to be eligible for award, eligible applicants must provide a written statement that they have the authority to plan, construct, own, operate, and maintain the grant-funded project. In the case of joint applications, at least one of the eligible applicants must demonstrate this authority. Recommendation: AEA has been in discussion with DOT regarding applying for a grant for planning of improvements at Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, and Chevak. DOT has requested AEA be the lead on the application. PROJECT NARRATIVE Western Alaska Barge Landing Resilience Bundle Name of lead applicant Alaska Energy Authority Is the applicant applying as a lead applicant with any joint applicants?Yes – Alaska DOT&PF Does the applicant or joint applicant own the property where the grant-funded improve- ments will occur?No Is the applicant seeking funding under the small project at small port set-aside?Yes Project name Western Alaska Barge Landings Resilience Bundle Project Description This project will fund design and environmental of three barge landings in remote, disadvantaged communities dependent on marine freight delivery of goods and fuel. These communities face erosion, extreme weather events, and permafrost thaw, which have made current operations unsafe and unreliable. This project will position these communities for construction. Is this a planning project?Yes. Is this a project at a coastal, Great Lakes of inland river port?Yes - coastal Is this project located in a contiguous State or U.S. Territory?No Geographic Coordinates Chevak 61.531, -165.5859 Hooper Bay 61.5218, -166.0961 Scammon Bay 61.8412, -165.5819 Is this project in an urban or rural area? Rural Project Zip Code Chevak 99563 Hooper Bay 99604 Scammon Bay 99662 Is the project located in a Historically Disadvantaged Community? Yes – 2270000100 (Kusilvak) Has the same project been previously submitted for PIDP funding? No Is the applicant applying for other Federal discretionary grant programs (managed by DOT or a separate agency) in 2024 for the same work or related scopes of work? Yes, to MPDG for preliminary design and community engage- ment, as part of regional bundle. Has the applicant previously received DOT funding for the same work or related scope of work?No. Has the applicant previously received TIGER, BUILD, RAISE, FASTLANE, INFRA, USMHP, or PIDP funding? The applicant received a BUILD grant in 2020 PIDP Grant Amount Requested $8,958,431 Total Project Cost $8,958,431 Total Federal Funding $8,958,431 Total Non-Federal Funding $0 Will the applicant be seeking approval to expend funds prior to grant agreement execution?No. Will RRIF or TIFIA funds be used as part of the project financing?No. Does the applicant use LOGINK or a similar logistics platform provided or sponsored by the People’s Republic of China or Chinese state-affiliated entities?No. Introductory Information WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE Table of Contents Section I: Project Description ......................................................................2 Section II: Project Location .........................................................................5 Section III: Grant Funds, Sources, and Uses of Project Funds ...................9 Section IV: Merit Criteria.............................................................................9 Criterion #1 ............................................................................................................9 Criterion #2 ..........................................................................................................13 Criterion #3 ..........................................................................................................18 Criterion #4 ..........................................................................................................18 Section V: Selection Considerations ..........................................................19 Section VI: Project Readiness ....................................................................23 Section VII: Determinations ......................................................................30 WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Project Narrative Narrative Section I: Project Description Describe the proposed PIDP project that is to be planned or constructed, focusing on the tech- nical and engineering aspects of the project as well as the current design status of the project. This project is at 20% design status, with a project schedule for pre-development and construc- tion that can be accomplished in time for full obligation of funds prior to the statutory deadline of PIDP. DOT&PF has developed a preliminary Scope, Schedule, and Estimate (SSE) and Justification Statements for each project. DOT&PF will advance each project through its engineering designs, detailed cost estimates, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approvals. Bundling these projects within a discrete geographic area allows for efficiency of operations that contributes to a feasible project schedule. The most comprehensive resource for project design is the 2009 USACE report, Alaska Barge Landing System Design. This report, developed at the direction of the Denali Commission, represents a statewide barge landing assessment that remains a valuable resource. The Assessment contains: • Catalog of existing facilities • List of barge landing infrastructure improvement needs by community • An assessment of potential design solutions to address the general categories of infrastructure need • Concept-level design drawings for selected designs that address a wide range of site condi- tions expected in the regions covered by the study • Project ranking system used to develop priority needs • List of projects that ranked highest in the priority ranking system for a first generation of design and construction (Priority Sites) • Site plans showing possible landing site improvements at each of the Priority Sites • Estimates of probable construction costs associated with the proposed improvements at each of the Priority Sites While this work is 15 years old, it hasn’t been incorporated into State planning activities. DOT&PF will be able to reference the resource in the development of its approach, even as its coastal region engineers have their own experience and knowledge to contribute to a system-wide need. At the same time, each barge landing should include a design for a marine header or fuel truck loading, for bulk fuel delivered into these rural communities. For example, barge delivery of fuel in Scammon Bay occurs at the marine header located along the south bank of the Kun River, approximately 550 feet north of the bulk fuel tank farm. The marine header is located approximately 50 feet from the Kun River shoreline, on property owned by the Askinuk Village Corporation (Tribal government). Fuel is delivered through a 3-inch barge header and 550-foot-long, 3-inch welded steel, below-grade, barge-offloading PHOTO 1: Scammon Bay Marine Header WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM header pipeline that extends to the tank farm. The pipeline is reportedly intact and does not leak. However, some sections of pipe are above grade and unsupported, and located directly on the ground with no pipe supports or cathodic protection. Some sections of the pipeline have been covered with mud and vegetation. The exposed sections of pipe are severely corroded and bent from ice and storm events. The pipe is particularly bent and damaged at the unsupported pipe crossing over an unnamed anadromous tidal slough. Describe the transportation challenges that the project is intended to address and how the project will address those challenges. A Western Alaska response team comprised of FEMA, USACE, and DOT&PF, among others, has identified numerous challenges facing the region’s barge landings. This evaluation was conducted as a result of Typhoon Merbok, which negatively impacted these vulnerable commu- nities. Their report, “Programmatic Western Alaska Barge Landing Initiative for DR4672AK Compiled from 2023 Interagency Recovery Coordination (IRC) Site Visits for Typhoon Merbok Disaster Recovery and survey of Y-K Delta Communities” is included as an attachment. This report provides details of the following, with notes based on FEMA’s Recovery Needs Assessment and the community specific barge landing data collection form. DOT&PF has included some examples representative of the transportation challenge the project is intended to address. Chevak - Barge landing is consistently damaged by flooding/erosion and was destroyed in Typhoon Merbok. The community would like to move to a better location. It will be in their 14C-3 process inclusion. The barge landing is creating sand displacement from the barge engines, relocating sand in a different part of the river, and has become a sandbar. Barges now must travel closer to the bluffs which is contributing to erosion on the bluffs. The access road is partially subject to flooding and needs review. The pad is an old lake that used for sewage which was filled in in the 1980’s that is used for storage. Its “big” at about 3-4 acres. Current construc- tion: Iron (on the front part they drove down piles) they also used dirt and sandbags “at the base” and filled in with sand for the pad. Old tires are also placed all around and in the front. 6-7ft high from the riverbank. Hooper Bay - There is no designated or improved barge landing. The barges land on the beach south of the DOT runway. This is out on the spit, no road to the location where the barges have been landing. Typhoon Merbok was the worst storm Hooper Bay has experienced in recent history and there is a strong sense of urgency to fortify their community against future storms. Erosion is a major concern due to high winds and tides. Hooper Bay has seen significant ground failure/permafrost degradation throughout their community. They mentioned a DOT project to raise the roads by four feet (they are currently below sea level). Purportedly, there used to be 12-14 rows of dunes along the beach just a few generations ago, but they have since eroded away, leaving just one dune. The end of the airport runway was submerged – attempts were made to prevent it from flooding using cinder blocks, but it didn’t seem to help. Scammon Bay - The barge landing needs to be expanded because it has eroded away and subsided more than 12 inches due to permafrost failure. Both the barge landing area and the access road, lost about a foot of surface material during Typhoon Merbok. The community must get creative on where to store all their boats when a storm is predicted. Each boat must be loaded onto a trailer and hauled away from the shore, sometimes all the way into the housing area. The connex vans from the barges are typically stored at the barge landing area and some of these WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM are also pushed and floated by the storm surge waves. After the effects of erosion, there is not adequate space to store the connex vans and the boats. The barge landing is also located in very close proximity to the airport. The airport’s western flight path approach crosses directly over the barge landing. When a barge is tethered at the landing, sometimes for days to offload fuel, it causes issues operating the airport, especially if there are strong crosswinds. This situation with the barge landing and the airport co-located increases the likelihood that if storm driven erosion occurs, the community will be cut off from their only two methods of transportation. The increasing likelihood of erosion could impact movement of supplies across both the airport and the barge landing. In the event of a major storm, community members move their boats out of the water, off the beach and onto the access roads for protection and this causes even more conges- tion. The access road is functional now, but after flooding there is work to do. In 2013 FEMA gave money to put up a rock wall along the road and that has helped. Project History Describe any previously completed components, to place the project into a broader context of other relevant infrastructure investments being pursued by the project sponsor (the applicant should make clear which related investments are outside the scope of the proposed PIDP project) Beyond the 2009 USACE study and assessment, and the more recent FEMA analysis corre- sponding to an extreme weather disaster impacting the region, this planning project will take into account local and state activity. DOT&PF completed the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Transportation Plan in 2018, updated from 2002. Barge landings were identified in this planning document as critical components of the region’s transportation system, but no projects were elevated for planning or construction. The Plan did identify the need for a region-wide erosion assessment. Most importantly, DOT&PF has familiarity with the needs of the region, and where resources weren’t available five years ago, believes that opportunities such as through IIJA, and the MPDG program, now is the time to address these infrastructure challenges plaguing rural Alaska communities. Local and tribal governments in the region have actively been pursuing improvements, and the FEMA assessment identifies multiple lines of effort across communities. In Scammon Bay, for example, FEMA provided funds in 2013 to put up a rock wall along the road, which has helped address erosion. DOT&PF was recently awarded a $40 million PROTECT grant that will address some needs in the region, mainly focused on improving road conditions and addressing revetments to miti- gate erosion, but this project would be complementary to that effort and together significantly improve the conditions of these disadvantaged communities. Provide a written statement that the eligible applicant has the authority to plan, construct, own, operate, and maintain the grant-funded project. As the state energy office and state transportation agency, both entities have the authority to plan, construct, operate, and maintain deliverables of this project. Both have the authority to transfer ownership and maintenance to the city or tribe, and experience in managing these transfers to occur with the appropriate local authority with necessary capacity. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Identify the lead applicant. The lead applicant is the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), a corporation of the state of Alaska and the state energy office. It received a USDOT BUILD grant in 2020. AEA will partner with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to deliver this plan- ning project that will include barge landings and marine headers for fuel bunkering for the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay. Identify if the application is a joint application. AEA will deliver the project in cooperation with Alaska DOT&PF. If a joint application describe the roles and responsibilities of each applicant. AEA will be responsible for managing the grant, including planning and design for access to bulk fuel bunkering adjacent to these barge landings, and necessary freight delivery via the barge landing. DOT&PF will be responsible for design and environmental planning, including NEPA, of the barge landings. If a joint application and if the lead applicant intends to act as a pass-through entity for disbursing funds to a subrecipient (including a private-entity joint applicant, if applicable) describe who will deliver all/portion of the project. This is a collaborative application with distinct roles and responsibilities – including partnership with local and tribal governments. AEA will deliver the fuel bunkering and transmission plan- ning, while DOT&PF will deliver the barge landing design and environmental approvals. If a joint application, provide the reasoning why and describe the work the subrecipient will carry out. DOT&PF will design and manage NEPA analysis of the barge landing and uplands access, while AEA has authority for the bulk fuel storage facilities where fuel is bunkered from ocean-going vessels. These two state agencies will collaborate with municipal and tribal authorities in each community to deliver the project. If the proposed project includes dredging, confirm that the dredging is not for channel improvements or harbor deepening that are part of a Federally maintained navigation channel. Any dredging that may occur as part of the project will not be located in a Federally maintained navigation channel. Narrative Section II: Project Location Project location description The USACE report characterized this project region the Kuskokwim River Delta and Nunivak Island, with 15 communities. The Kuskokwim River Delta and Nunivak Island Region, for the purposes of the USACE study, extends from Scammon Bay on the Bering Sea coast, south to the communities along Stolin Strait and the Kuskokwim Delta, to the community of Platinum, on the south side of Goodnews Bay, south of the mouth of the Kuskokwim River. It includes the commu- nity of Mekoryuk, which is located on Nunivak Island, on the west side of Stolin Strait. The delta includes the most extensive area of unvegetated intertidal flats among the three segments of the Yukon-Kuskokwim River delta. Most of the communities included in this region are situated in coastal areas with beach landings that are tidally influenced. Nunivak Island lies 20 miles off the coast and is of volcanic origin with several peaks over 1,000 feet. Coastal bluffs range from 100 to WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 450 feet high with sandy beaches below. Local construction contractors have said the local gravel sources that may be present in many of the communities in the Lower Kuskokwim River and delta region can have a high content of fine- grained materials and may be highly compressible. The source at Platinum is known to be good, however, and is considered one of the primary material sources in this region. • Chevak 61.531, -165.5859 • Hooper Bay 61.5218, -166.0961 • Scammon Bay 61.8412, -165.5819 Map that indicates project’s location in the local area Map 1 depicts the communities included in this study which are located in the Kuskokwim River Delta and Nunivak Island region. Map that indicates the project’s location within the State MAP 1: Kuskokwim River Delta and Nunivak Island MAP 2: 2018 Yukon Kuskokwim Delta Transportation Plan MAP 3: 2018 YKTP Region - Ports, Harbors, and Barge Landings WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 6 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Photos of project location PHOTO 1: Chevak Barge Landing and Access Route Erosion (FEMA) PHOTO 3: Erosion Exposure Assessment—Hooper Bay 2021 PHOTO 2-3: Scammon Bay Tug, Barge, and Fishing Boats WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Renderings of proposed project USACE Concept Design Plans are included on the project website, including Figure 1. Description of project’s connections to existing transportation infrastructure FIGURE 1: USACE 2009 Design, side view with barge The Y-K Delta is not served by the Alaska Marine Highway System. Unlike the contiguous U.S. where most port facilities were originally developed by private industry, port facilities in the Y-K Delta have been developed almost entirely by the state and federal governments. Carriers use dock facilities at Bethel on the Kuskokwim River, and Emmonak and Alakanuk on the Yukon River, as redistribution hubs for ocean barge cargo shipments originating primarily in Cook Inlet and Puget Sound. River barges also travel from Nenana and Fairbanks to deliver cargo and equip- ment for infrastructure projects across western Alaska. The port facility at Saint Mary’s acts as a trans-shipment point for barged cargo destined for other remote communities on the Yukon by virtue of its road connection with the St. Mary’s regional airport. Cargo includes basic goods and materials, fuel, construction equipment and material, and significant volumes of rock product for regional infrastructure projects. Ocean barges offload and stage cargo in Emmonak, where it can be stored or redistributed to other lower Yukon communities by smaller in-river vessels. This hub system of maritime infrastructure facilitates efficient fuel and cargo distribution in the lower Yukon region where geographical challenges often limit direct deliveries by large vessels. The chief physical impediment to marine-riverine transport involves seasonality. Winter storms and marine ice restrict the accessibility of coastal port locations. River ice and reduced water flow during the colder months likewise restrict accessibility to communities located in the interior. Barge service will remain a dominant transport mode in the Y-K Delta for fuel, large equipment, and industrial supplies. Bypass Mail will remain as the major competitor to marine transport for consumer-related cargo other than fuel. The cost of fuel is approximately 50 percent of the cost of doing business for barge operators, so they try to minimize the number of calls to remote facilities. This encourages remote communities to develop local storage facilities. It also promotes a continued reliance on aviation to accommodate unforeseen shortages of essential commodities such as heating fuel. Is this project located in a rural or urban area? This project is located in a rural area, with each community falling well below a threshold of 50,000 residents. Is this project a coastal, Great Lakes or inland river port? This project is located in coastal Alaska on inland river ports. While coastal, barge landings are constructed where riverine access occurs. Is this project a small port seeking funding under 46 U.S.C. 54301(b)? AEA is seeking funding for a small port. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Is this project located in a Historically Disadvantaged Community? This project is located in a Historically Disadvantaged Community. All three communities within the Kusilvak Census Area are marked as “YES” by various Federal trackers as CEJST Disadvantaged Communities, Areas of Persistent Poverty and Historically Disadvantaged, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Demographic information Chevak has a population of 951, with a median age of 35.9. 93% of the population is an ethnic minority, Alaska Native. Chevak is located at 61°31′40″N 165°34′43″W (61.527673, -165.578702) in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region of southwest Alaska, approximately 6 miles from the Bering Sea coastline, 18 miles east of Hooper Bay and 26 miles south of Scammon Bay. Transportation into, and out of, Chevak is by air or water, or regional ice roads in the winter. As with many communities in Alaska, Chevak is not connected to the national road network. 37.5% of the population in Chevak speak a language other than English. 28.4% of the population live under the Alaska poverty rate. Hooper Bay is a small community located on the western coast of Alaska, which experiences severe erosion due to storm events, wave action, and riverbank degradation. Hooper Bay has a median age of 24.8 and median household income of $30,938. The population declined by 23.3% and median household income declined by 14.7% between 2019 and 2020. The largest ethnic group is American Indian/Alaska Native (87.1%). 54.9% of the population speak a language other than English. Hooper Bay, population 1,367 with a median age of 30.8. 9, (2020 Census) is located 20 miles south of Cape Romanzof, 25 miles south of Scammon Bay in the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta. 37.2% of the population lives below the poverty level. The city is separated into two sections; a heavily built up townsite located on gently rolling hills, and a newer section in the lowlands. Hooper Bay is located 500 miles west of Anchorage. The community lies at approximately 61.531110° North Latitude and -166.09667° (West) Longitude. (Sec. 26, T017N, R093W, Seward Meridian.) Hooper Bay is located in the Bethel Recording District. The area encompasses 8.7 sq. miles of land and 0.1 sq. miles of water. Scammon Bay is a rural community at the base of Askinuk Mountains, on the left bank and about 1 mile upstream from the mouth of the Kun River in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, about 147 miles northwest of Bethel. Scammon Bay has a population of 600 with a median age of 21.2, 98% of the population is an ethnic minority, Alaska Native. 41% of the population speaks a language other than English. Scammon Bay is a traditional subsistence community, with residents relying on hunting, fishing, and gathering for food. However, there is also a small commercial fishing industry in Scammon Bay. The village has a school, a clinic, and a store. The village is low-lying and rests on tundra, which is fortified by the existence of permafrost throughout the year. 48.4% of the population in Scammon Bay live below the poverty level. The three communities are dependent on diesel fuel for their power needs, even as investments in clean energy and energy efficiency are considered and implemented. Community Diesel kWh Clean Energy kWh Residential kWH/rate Chevak 2,341,627 359,810 $0.59 Hooper Bay 3,378,245 363,049 $0.55 Scammon Bay 1,936,588 $0.63 TABLE 1: Energy Conditions, FY23 WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 9 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Narrative Section III: Grant Funds, Sources, and Uses of Funds Include: total project costs for the FY 2024 PIDP project, FY2024 PIDP grant funding request AEA is requesting $$8,958,431 for this project, which is the total project costs and PIDP grant funding request. As a small, rural project that is a small port, it qualifies for 100% federal cost-share. Specify source, amount, type (grant, loan, etc.), and match requirements of other Federal funds to be used for eligible project costs No other Federal funds are currently secured or identified to be used for eligible project costs, and there are no match requirements. Specify sources and amounts of non-Federal funds to be used for eligible project costs This project is eligible for 100% federal cost-share as a small project in a small port, and located in a rural, disadvantaged community. Describe a summary of supporting documentation of funding commitments for non- Federal funds to be used for eligible project costs (include documentation in appendix) AEA and DOT&PF have included project commitment letters from their relevant executives. Describe how the project will leverage Federal funds (both PIDP and other Federal funds) to achieve project outcomes DOT&PF has received approximately $40 million in PROTECT funds to make resilience improvements in this region, the majority of which will advance Hooper Bay road and revetment projects. Budget table Component 1 – Barge Landings Total PIDP Funds $8,958,431 $$8,958,431 Other Federal Funds $0 $0 Non-Federal Funds $0 $0 Total $8,958,431 $8,958,431 Narrative Section IV: Merit Criteria Merit Criteria #1: Achieving Safety, Efficiency, or Reliability Improvements Describe current safety, efficiency or reliability issues experienced at the project site/location Chevak: Access to Chevak via a narrow winding river presents challenges for incoming barges, compounded by the need for locals to deploy buoys each season to mark the channel, ensuring safe navigation. While the beach landing itself is stable and relatively flat, the lack of a functional dock necessitates barges to push into the mud bank at the base of the access road, posing risks of instability during landing and offloading operations. One significant safety concern is the deteriorating sheetpile bulkhead upriver of the landing site, which is in poor shape and not functional for its intended purpose. This condition increases the risk of accidents and compromises the efficiency of cargo operations, as barges often opt for beach landings adjacent to the deteriorated bulkhead. Additionally, the eroding bluff road leading from the landing area to town further exacerbates safety risks, with poor traction and erosion WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM making it unsuitable for truck traffic, potentially hindering the timely transportation of essential goods and resources to the community. Efficiency and reliability issues also arise from the current fuel offloading process, which requires long hose runs of 400 to 600 feet to reach various tank farms in the community, including Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), school, and Native Corporation facilities. This extended offloading process not only increases the time it takes to offload fuel, taking up to 24 hours, but also poses logistical challenges and potential safety hazards associated with fuel transfer operations. To address these issues, recommendations for future improvements include establishing a centralized fuel tank farm and/or marine fuel header located at the bottom of the hill from the tank farm, reducing the need for long hose runs and enhancing operational effi- ciency and reliability at the barge landing site in Chevak. Hooper Bay: The community’s location on the northern shore of Hooper Bay and its reliance on air and water transportation pose significant challenges, exacerbated by shallow water conditions and prevalent wind and currents. Barge operators indicate that accessing Hooper Bay is difficult due to shallow waters on the river side and rough conditions on the coastal side, making it chal- lenging for freight barges to navigate and access the community. The shallow and narrow channel leading to the river-side landing site presents safety risks for barges, compounded by the sporadic deployment of channel markers and the inability to turn the barge around upon departure. Barges are forced to nose into the muddy bank to hold position during offloading, and low tides can leave the area dry for an entire day, further impeding oper- ations and reliability. Additionally, while there are adequate mooring points and a fuel header available at the fuel barge landings, the school’s tanks lack a fuel header, requiring fuel to be trucked to the school, introducing inefficiencies and reliability concerns. Efficiency issues arise from the distance between the staging area, located several miles from town, and the river-side landing site, as well as the need to truck cargo back and forth along the beach. Furthermore, the reliance on weather conditions to dictate barge landings, with freight barges often forced to land at a protected site down the beach from the airport landing, adds unpredictability and delays to cargo transportation. To address these challenges, long-term growth plans should include the construction of a breakwater near the airport landing site to ensure protected deeper water access for freight and fuel, along with the co-location of a marine fuel header for all fuel bulk storage tanks within the community, enhancing safety, efficiency, and reliability in Hooper Bay’s transportation infrastructure. Scammon Bay: In Scammon Bay, freight barge operators highlight the need for a dedicated dry staging area due to the current practice of staging cargo and equipment along the swampy road leading from the landing site. This makeshift arrangement poses safety risks, as storage containers have been reported to float away in the past, indicating the vulnerability of cargo to environmental conditions. The poor condition of the road leading to the school exacerbates efficiency issues, with slimy banks and inadequate infrastructure hindering the smooth transportation of fuel and supplies. Additionally, the absence of a dedicated gravel storage pad in an upland area adjacent to the landing site further compounds reliability concerns, as the lack of proper storage facili- ties increases the risk of damage or loss of cargo. To improve efficiency and reliability, barge WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM operators emphasize the need for maintenance and upgrades to the road leading to the school, along with the provision of a marine header for the AVEC and school tanks at the same location as the existing header, facilitating more efficient fuel offloading operations. Describe how specific elements of the project will improve applicable port performance measures (reduced vessel dwell times, improved truck turn times, increased capacity or throughput, reduced vehicle crashes, lives saved, reduced workplace injuries, fuel effi- ciency, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions reductions or other) Investing in dock enhancements, such as constructing sturdy mooring points and expanding landing areas, can improve port performance by facilitating smoother barge operations. Enhanced infrastructure reduces the risk of delays and accidents during offloading, leading to faster turnaround times for cargo vessels and improved overall port efficiency. Building dedicated storage facilities near the landing sites allows for better organization and management of cargo, leading to improved inventory control and quicker turnaround times for vessels. With adequate storage capacity, ports can accommodate larger shipments and handle increased cargo volumes, enhancing their capacity and throughput. Upgrading fuel distribution infrastructure, such as installing marine fuel headers and centralizing fuel storage facilities, streamlines the offloading process and reduces turnaround times for fuel barges. Efficient fuel distribution ensures consistent access to essential resources for vessels and support services, enhancing port reliability and resilience. Investing in road maintenance and upgrades improves accessibility to and from the port, enabling smoother transportation of goods between the landing site and town centers or storage facilities. Well-maintained roads reduce transit times for cargo vehicles and minimize the risk of delays or accidents, enhancing overall port connectivity and efficiency. Describe the potential safety improvements of this project Improvements in barge landing facilities are needed to mitigate environmental risks associated with fuel transfers, such as spills and contamination. By enabling safer and more controlled offloading procedures, the likelihood of environmental incidents is reduced, safeguarding local ecosystems and natural resources. This fosters sustainable development practices and enhances the long-term viability of rural communities. Implementing a marine header at a barge landing offers several safety benefits compared to trucking fuel to the bulk fuel site. Using a marine header allows for the direct transfer of fuel from the barge to onshore storage tanks, minimizing the need for intermediate transportation steps. This reduces the overall handling of fuel and the associated risks of spills, leaks, and acci- dents that can occur during road transportation. Moreover, marine headers are typically equipped with safety features such as spill containment systems, emergency shutdown mechanisms, and fire suppression equipment, which can help mitigate the impact of potential incidents and ensure prompt response in case of emergencies. By centralizing fuel transfer operations at the barge landing, safety protocols can be standard- ized and closely monitored, reducing the likelihood of human error and enhancing overall safety performance. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Utilizing a marine header eliminates the need for large numbers of tanker trucks traveling on local roads, reducing traffic congestion and the risk of transportation-related accidents in surrounding communities. This not only enhances safety but also minimizes environmental impacts and improves overall traffic flow in the area. The use of marine headers can improve operational efficiency by streamlining the fuel delivery process and reducing turnaround times for barge offloading. This can help meet the fuel demand of remote communities more reliably while minimizing disruptions to supply chains. Overall, the safety benefits of a marine header at a barge landing, such as reduced handling risks, enhanced emergency response capabilities, and decreased road traffic, make it a preferred option for fuel delivery to bulk fuel sites in remote coastal areas. Describe the potential efficiency improvements of this project In Chevak, where access via a narrow winding river poses logistical challenges. Locals deploy buoys each season to mark the channel, ensuring safe navigation for incoming barges. The landing area, situated midway along the shoreline, lacks functional infrastructure, with barges currently docking by pushing into the mud bank at the base of an access road from town. While a relatively large staging area exists near the landing site, operational efficiency is hindered by the poor condition of essential facilities. In Hooper Bay the current fuel barge landing is located on the river side of the community which can only be accessed at high tide, creating wait times and logistical complications for fuel delivery. This project would increase efficiency for fuel deliveries by widening the window of access for fuel barges and other deliveries. Efficiency improvements are urgently needed at the barge landing site in Scammon Bay to streamline cargo operations and enhance safety. Currently, freight barge operators face logistical challenges due to the lack of a dedicated staging area for cargo and equipment. The existing practice of staging along the swampy road leading from the landing site poses risks, as evidenced by instances of storage containers floating away in the past. To address this issue, establishing a dry, dedicated gravel storage pad in an upland area adjacent to the landing site would greatly enhance operational efficiency and mitigate the risk of cargo loss. The layout of the barge landing area at Scammon Bay requires optimization to facilitate smoother fuel offloading processes. The presence of two separate landings for the fuel barge complicates operations and increases turnaround times. Consolidating fuel offloading to a single location, equipped with a marine header servicing both AVEC and school tanks, would signifi- cantly improve efficiency. Additionally, addressing the poor condition of the road leading to the school, which is described as “slimy,” is essential to ensure uninterrupted fuel deliveries and minimize disruptions to community services. Implementing dedicated storage facilities and optimizing the layout of the barge landing area are crucial steps toward enhancing operational efficiency and safety for Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay. By providing a dry, secure staging area and consolidating fuel offloading opera- tions, these improvements will not only streamline cargo handling processes but also reduce the risk of accidents and cargo loss, ultimately benefiting these communities. Describe the potential reliability improvements of this project This project would provide significant reliability improvements to the barge landing operations WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM of Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay, reduce reliance on makeshift arrangements that these communities currently depend on for the delivery of fuel, goods, and critical community infra- structure and equipment. Streamlining the fuel delivery mechanisms for these barge landings would enhance the environ- mental safety of these sites and increase the reliability and consistency of fuel deliveries for these communities. The project aims to enhance infrastructure resilience by focusing on designing and constructing barge landings that can better withstand natural disasters like floods, erosion, and storms. This involves incorporating modern engineering practices and materials such as reinforced concrete and appropriate drainage systems to improve resilience against adverse weather conditions compared to current infrastructure. This project places an emphasis on site selection and design optimization, prioritizing locations less susceptible to erosion and flooding. By optimizing the layout and elevation of landing sites, the project aims to minimize the impact of storms and changing environmental conditions. Road infrastructure improvement is also vital for reliable transportation connectivity respective to each community, with measures including elevation adjustments, reinforcement against flooding, and regular maintenance to enhance road reliability, particularly during extreme weather events. Design and site selection will also incorporate the storage and protection of assets, aiming to mitigate the risk of damage during storms by developing proper storage facilities for boats and equipment. Implementing measures such as elevated storage areas, sturdy shelters, and securing equipment can ensure operational continuity after severe weather events. Merit Criteria #2: Supporting Economic Vitality at the Regional or National Level; Describe if the project will create economies of scale (land expansion, new or larger ware- houses, longer/wider berths, etc.); will the average cost of operation decrease (or remain the same) following an increase in scale? Upgrading barge landing sites enables smoother fuel deliveries to rural communities. By providing adequate docking facilities, such as docks, stabilized staging pads, and barge mooring points, fuel barges can offload their cargo more efficiently. This translates to reduced downtime and operational delays, ultimately ensuring a steady and timely supply of fuel to meet community needs. The project will result in better access to bulk fuel farms in these isolated communities, which AEA has determined will need improving or replacing as soon as possible. A condition assess- ment of each site is included in this project’s planning, to determine barge landing design that accommodates bulk fuel delivery. Currently, each community has a diverse array of bulk fuel tanks, some of which are compro- mised by age and condition. Community Number of tanks Total capacity Condition Chevak 18 792,840 gallons Moderate Hooper Bay 43 1,262,550 gallons Moderate Scammon Bay 40 412,776 gallons Poor WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 14 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AEA is currently constructing a new bulk fuel farm in Scammon Bay, adding 216,000 gallons of storage, but which does not include a marine header. Describe if the project will reduce barriers to entry for private businesses, barriers to entry include both economic and geographic barriers such as: an incumbent or adjacent(s) port having an absolute cost advantage due to port location, a large minimum scale of operation, or low switching costs; or the applicant’s port having natural constraints to its capacity. Western Alaska barge landing improvements planning will reduce barriers to entry for local entrepreneurs as well as reducing barriers for community entities (such as Tribes or Tribal corpo- rations) to tackle infrastructure and economic development projects. Barriers reduced by this project include lowering of transportation costs, increased access to markets, enhanced resilience to supply chain disruptions and overall improved quality of life in the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay. Describe how the project will create more efficient physical access for labor, resources and customers to/around the port Construction materials transported by chartered barges play a crucial role in community devel- opment projects, such as schools, health clinics, and infrastructure upgrades. By upgrading barge landing sites, communities can better support these initiatives by ensuring efficient delivery of construction materials. This leads to timely project completion, cost savings, and overall economic growth within the region. Addressing key operational challenges, such as multiple barge landings within the same commu- nity, dragging hoses over long distances, and navigating hazardous shore conditions, enhances overall operational efficiency. Minimizing delays and safety risks associated with current prac- tices ensures uninterrupted barge operations, promoting a more reliable supply chain for essential goods and resources. Describe how the project reduces or eliminates potential points of failure related to the transportation of goods. The project as proposed will reduce points of failure in the transportation of goods by enhancing the resilience of barge landing infrastructure, identifying the need for, and planning, improved navigation and safety measures, and allowing streamlined cargo handling processes. Upgrading barge landing infrastructure involves reinforcing docks, constructing mooring points, and improving access roads to withstand harsh environmental conditions such as storms, high winds, and erosion. By strengthening infrastructure resilience, the project reduces the risk of structural failures or damage during cargo offloading operations, ensuring continuity of goods transportation even in adverse weather conditions. Identifying sites for and implementing navigational aids, such as channel markers and lighting systems, enhances safety for vessels navigating narrow waterways or shallow channels to reach the barge landing sites. By reducing the likelihood of accidents, groundings, or collisions, these measures help prevent disruptions to the transportation of goods and commodities, minimizing potential points of failure along the supply chain. Planning for barge landing improvements includes assessing potential dedicated staging areas, storage facilities, and fuel distribution infrastructure near the barge landing sites. By optimizing cargo handling processes and minimizing manual labor, the project reduces the risk of delays, WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 15 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM errors, or accidents during loading and unloading operations, ensuring efficient and reliable trans- portation of goods from barges to storage facilities or distribution centers. Describe how the project will improve the physical process of transporting goods and commodities. The project will improve the physical process of transporting goods and commodities by plan- ning via infrastructure upgrades identifying dock and landing site enhancements, identifying storage facilities, planning and coordinating the much-needed fuel distribution improvements, and identifying the needed road maintenance and upgrades for access to and from the barge landing sites in Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay. The use of a marine header facilitates bulk fuel deliveries, allowing for larger quantities of fuel to be transported and stored at the bulk fuel site. This can result in economies of scale and lower per-unit costs for fuel procurement, benefiting both fuel suppliers and end-users. Additionally, the centralized distribution of fuel at the barge landing enables more efficient inventory manage- ment and reduces the need for emergency fuel shipments, which can be costly and disruptive. The presence of a marine header can stimulate local economic activity by creating job opportuni- ties associated with fuel handling, storage, and distribution operations. This includes employment opportunities for dock workers, fuel technicians, and support staff, as well as indirect economic benefits for local businesses that provide goods and services to the fuel industry. The improved reliability and resilience of fuel supply chains facilitated by a marine header can enhance business continuity and support economic development in remote communities. Reliable access to fuel is essential for powering essential services such as transportation, heating, and electricity generation, which are vital for sustaining economic activity and quality of life in remote areas. Describe if the site currently experiences a severe climate Western Alaska faces severe climate challenges, primarily due to the impacts of coastal storms exacerbated by several factors including, but not limited to declining sea ice, rising ocean temperatures, and coastal vulnerability. Historically, sea ice provided a protective barrier along the coastline, mitigating the effects of storms. However, rising temperatures have led to decreased sea ice coverage and delayed forma- tion, leaving coastal communities vulnerable to increased storm surge, flooding, and erosion. Increasing ocean temperatures fuel storm development by promoting evaporation and moisture in the atmosphere. While storminess in the Bering and Chukchi Seas hasn’t shown a clear increase yet, warmer waters may lead to more frequent and intense storms, as seen with ex-typhoon Merbok in September 2022. Coastal erosion rates have accelerated due to decreasing sea ice, thawing permafrost, and more frequent intense storms. This erosion threatens infrastructure, livelihoods, and cultural sites, forcing some communities to consider relocation. Coastal storms and a changing climate have devastating effects on Alaska Native communities within the project region. damaging homes, infrastructure, and vital resources like food storage and electrical power. Flooding and erosion jeopardize food security, disrupt traditional harvesting practices, and necessitate costly repairs and relocation efforts. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 16 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Floods and high winds often result in power outages, disrupting communication and threat- ening food security. Renewable energy infrastructure, like wind turbines, is also vulnerable to storm damage, complicating recovery efforts and exacerbating the challenges faced by remote communities. Western Alaska’s severe climate conditions, characterized by declining sea ice, rising ocean temperatures, and intensified coastal storms, pose significant threats to the region’s communities, infrastructure, and traditional way of life. Identify if the port currently has an unfavorable port location The current barge landing locations in Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay are unfavorable. Winter storms and marine ice pose significant obstacles, restricting accessibility to coastal port locations. Similarly, river ice and reduced water flow during colder months further hinder access to communities located in the interior regions. These seasonal limitations severely impact the port’s ability to maintain consistent and reliable transportation routes, especially for marine-riv- erine transport services. As a result, the port’s location is unfavorable, particularly during the winter season when these natural impediments restrict accessibility and limit the efficiency of transportation operations. Furthermore, the reliance on barge service as the dominant transport mode of goods, coupled with the high cost of fuel, exacerbates the challenges posed by the port’s unfavorable loca- tion. Barge operators, facing significant fuel costs which constitute approximately 50 percent of their business expenses, seek to minimize calls to remote facilities. This encourages remote communities to develop local storage facilities, but it also perpetuates a reliance on aviation to accommodate unforeseen shortages of essential commodities such as heating fuel. Thus, the port’s current location presents ongoing challenges that impact both the efficiency of transpor- tation operations and the accessibility of essential goods and services for remote communities, particularly during the winter months. Describe any technological limitations of the site The technological limitations of barge landings for fuel deliveries present significant challenges to operational efficiency and safety: Multiple Tanks and Headers: Communities often have multiple fuel tanks or headers, each requiring a separate barge landing. This fragmentation extends delivery times and can even halt operations for up to 24 hours at tidally influenced sites, leading to delays and inefficiencies in the supply chain. In cases where tank farms lack marine headers, fuel delivery operations require dragging hoses up to 1,500 feet to reach the tank farm locations. This not only increases the time it takes to offload fuel but also poses safety risks to workers and raises environmental concerns associated with longer hose runs. Barges often encounter obstacles preventing direct access to fuel headers or tanks, such as shallow waters or large boulders near the shore. In such instances, fuel barges must anchor offshore and float hoses to shore, introducing operational risks, including the potential for spills. Despite efforts to ensure safe fuel transfers, floating hoses increase the likelihood of environ- mental incidents and pose challenges to overall operational safety. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 17 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Describe any limits on current operational capability The current barge landing sites in Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay face several limita- tions that hinder their efficiency and effectiveness in transporting goods and commodities: The barge landing sites in the project communities lack adequate infrastructure, such as docks or mooring points, which makes offloading cargo challenging. Without proper infrastructure, barges must rely on makeshift methods for offloading, increasing the risk of damage to goods and posing safety concerns for workers. The harsh environmental conditions experienced in the region, including heavy winds, rough seas, and shallow water channels, present significant challenges for barge landings. These condi- tions can restrict access to landing sites, disrupt offloading operations, and pose safety risks for both personnel and cargo. Limited storage and staging areas near the landing sites exacerbate logistical challenges. Without dedicated storage facilities, cargo may need to be staged along roadsides or on unstable terrain, increasing the risk of damage or loss and impeding the flow of goods to their final destinations. Access roads leading from landing sites to town centers or storage facilities may be poorly maintained or subject to erosion, limiting the ability of transportation vehicles to move cargo efficiently. In some cases, shallow channels or narrow river mouths restrict barge access, further complicating the transportation process. Inadequate fuel distribution infrastructure, such as the absence of marine fuel headers or central- ized fuel storage facilities, can hinder the efficient offloading and distribution of fuel. Long hose runs and reliance on outdated equipment increase the time and effort required for fuel delivery, impacting overall logistics operations. The unpredictability of weather conditions, particularly during harsh winter months, can disrupt barge schedules and delay cargo deliveries. Unforeseen delays due to weather-related factors further compound the challenges faced by barge landing sites in remote Alaskan communities. Describe how use of PIDP funds will reduce, remove, or correct any of the disadvantages listed above. The use of PIDP funds will be instrumental in reducing the vulnerabilities of the disadvantaged communities to climate change and extreme weather events. By improving infrastructure resil- ience, promoting clean energy solutions, and enhancing access for freight operations, PIDP funds will strengthen this critical infrastructure and the condition of communities. By improving disaster preparedness and resilience to extreme weather events, flooding, and erosion caused by climate change, the project will ensure that essential transportation and delivery systems remain operational even under challenging conditions. This will address the vulnerability of these communities to disruptions in barge deliveries and ensure stable access to critical services, such as healthcare and emergency response. PIDP-funded activities will prioritize maintaining and improving access to critical community services, such as healthcare facilities and airports. This will ensure that residents have reli- able access to essential services, particularly during emergencies like storms and floods. By addressing climate-induced barriers to access and mobility, the project will enhance the overall resilience and well-being of disadvantaged communities in western Alaska. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 18 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PIDP funds will support efforts to address the impacts of climate change on coastal communities in western Alaska, including the increasing frequency and intensity of storms. By investing in infrastructure resilience and multimodal mobility solutions, the project will help communities adapt to changing environmental conditions and create new opportunities for economic develop- ment and growth. Merit Criteria #3: Leveraging Federal Funding Describe secured/potential matching funds. DOT&PF is in the process of negotiating the award of approximately $40 million in PROTECT funds, $30 million of which will be used to make road and revetment improvements in Hooper Bay. At the same time, DOT&PF has been awarded funds to advance equity planning through a RAISE grant, as well as FTA Area of Persistent Poverty that will look at transit. DOT&PF will also be in a position to provide technical assistance to communities through their Thriving Communities program. These programs will be delivered in collaboration with the Alaska Municipal League, a program partner, and which all three communities are members of. Merit Criteria #4: Port Resilience Describe the known natural or climate-related hazards that jeopardize the port/project site The proposed project region faces a myriad of climate hazards. One prominent threat is the declining sea ice cover, which historically acted as a protective barrier against coastal storms. As temperatures rise, sea ice extent decreases, leaving coastal communities increasingly vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and storm surges. This heightened exposure to intense weather events, such as hurricanes and typhoons, can result in devastating impacts on infrastructure, livelihoods, and cultural sites, exacerbating the challenges faced by Alaska Native communities. Another pressing climate hazard in the project communities is the thawing permafrost, which destabilizes the region’s landscapes and infrastructure. As permafrost thaws, it compromises the stability of roads, buildings, and other critical infrastructure, leading to increased risks of struc- tural damage and collapse. Furthermore, thawing permafrost releases stored greenhouse gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change and contributing to a feedback loop of warming temperatures and further permafrost thaw. Additionally, Western Alaska is experiencing rising ocean temperatures. Increasing ocean temperatures fuel the intensification of storms, such as ex-tropical cyclones, which can unleash powerful winds, heavy precipitation, and destructive storm surges along the region’s coastline. Describe how the project will improve a port’s resilience to natural or climate-related hazards. For the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay this project will improve their barge landings’ resilience to natural and climate-related hazards. Planning for and implementing barge landing improvements will also have a multiplier effect on the overall regions’ climate resilience, specifically in emergency response situations to climate change related extreme weather events. Improving barge landing infrastructure paves the way for increased fuel storage capacity, staging of infrastructure equipment and emergency response teams. The project involves strengthening existing infrastructure, such as docks, mooring points, and access roads, to withstand the impacts of natural hazards like storms, high winds, and erosion. By using durable materials and engineering designs that can withstand extreme weather events, WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 19 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM the upgraded infrastructure reduces the vulnerability of the port to physical damage, ensuring continued operation even in adverse conditions. Recognizing the long-term impacts of climate change, the project integrates climate adap- tation strategies into barge landing planning. This may involve incorporating sea-level rise projections, storm surge modeling, and other climate data into infrastructure planning to future-proof the port against changing environmental conditions. By anticipating and adapting to climate-related risks, the project enhances the port’s resilience and ensures its continued functionality in a changing climate. This planning project will include efforts to engage local communities and build their capacity to respond to natural hazards and climate change impacts. This may involve training programs, public awareness campaigns, and community-based initiatives to improve disaster preparedness, strengthen social cohesion, and foster a sense of resilience within the community. By empow- ering local stakeholders to take an active role in disaster risk reduction, the project enhances the overall resilience of the port and its surrounding areas. Describe how the project incorporates evidence-based climate resilience and adaptation measures or features. The project focuses on improving the resilience of at-risk infrastructure to various hazards, including extreme weather events, flooding, and other natural disasters. This indicates a proactive approach to climate resilience by considering the potential impacts of climate change on infra- structure and taking steps to mitigate these risks. By targeting the disproportionate negative environmental impacts of transportation on disadvan- taged communities, the project demonstrates an understanding of the intersectionality between climate change and social equity. Improving access to outlying subdivisions and accommodating alternative transportation not only reduces carbon emissions but also enhances the resilience of these communities to climate-related challenges. With an emphasis on ensuring appropriate traffic time and accommodating alternative trans- portation modes aligns with evidence-based strategies for reducing carbon emissions in the transportation sector. By promoting sustainable transportation options, the project contributes to climate mitigation efforts while also enhancing community resilience. With a focus on improving infrastructure resilience, addressing environmental justice concerns, and reducing carbon emissions reflects a commitment to evidence-based climate resilience and adaptation measures. By integrating these features into its design and implementation, the project aims to enhance community preparedness and sustainability in the face of climate change. Section V: Selection Considerations Climate Change and Sustainability Describe how the project will consider climate change and environmental justice in the planning stage and in project delivery. In the planning stage, the project will consider climate change by integrating climate resil- ience strategies into site selection, design, and infrastructure development processes. Given the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in the Kusilvak Census Area, the WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 20 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM project will prioritize selecting locations for barge landings that are less vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and storm surges. This will entail conducting thorough assessments of potential sites to identify those with higher elevation, natural buffers against coastal erosion, and minimal expo- sure to future climate risks. Additionally, the project will incorporate climate projections and risk assessments to inform infrastructure design, ensuring that barge landings are built to withstand projected changes in sea levels, precipitation patterns, and storm frequencies. By integrating climate resilience measures into the planning stage, the project aims to enhance the long-term viability and reliability of transportation infrastructure in the face of climate change impacts. The project will prioritize environmental justice considerations throughout the planning and delivery phases to ensure equitable access to transportation benefits and minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable communities. This will involve engaging with local stakeholders, including Tribes, Tribal consortia and ANCS, to incorporate their perspectives, needs, and concerns into decision-making processes. The project will strive to address historical disparities in infrastructure investment by prioritizing improvements in communities that have been dispro- portionately affected by transportation challenges and climate-related hazards. Moreover, efforts will be made to minimize environmental impacts, such as habitat disruption and water pollution, through sustainable design practices and mitigation measures. By integrating environmental justice principles into project planning and delivery, the project aims to promote equitable access to transportation services while safeguarding the well-being of vulnerable communities and ecosystems in the region. Describe how the project reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, incorporates evidence-based climate resilience measures and features, and reduces the life- cycle greenhouse gas emissions from the project materials. This project will result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector through a handful of strategies. Via the optimization of the design and layout of barge landings to minimize the need for dredging and other environmentally impactful activities, the project will further reduce carbon emissions associated with construction and maintenance activities. Furthermore, the project will incorporate evidence-based climate resilience measures and features to address the impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure. By leveraging data from the 2009 USACE report and incorporating modern engineering practices, including reinforced concrete and appropriate drainage systems, the project enhances the resilience of barge landings to extreme weather events such as floods, erosion, and storms. Additionally, the project prioritizes site selection based on past experiences and climate projections to identify locations less vulnerable to future climate risks. By integrating these climate resilience measures into the project design and implementation process, the transportation infrastructure becomes better equipped to withstand the impacts of climate change, reducing the potential for disruptions and associated greenhouse gas emissions. This project aims to reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from project materials by employing sustainable design practices and materials. This includes utilizing locally sourced materials wherever possible to reduce transportation-related emissions associated with material procurement. Additionally, the project will prioritize the use of low-carbon construction materials and techniques, such as recycled concrete aggregates and energy-efficient building practices, to minimize the carbon footprint of infrastructure development. By considering the lifecycle emis- sions of project materials and implementing sustainable design strategies, the project contributes WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 21 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM to overall emissions reduction efforts in the transportation sector while enhancing the long-term resilience of infrastructure to climate change impacts. Describe the extent to which the project avoids adverse environmental impacts to air or water quality, wetlands, and endangered species, as well as address disproportionate negative impacts of climate change and pollution on disadvantaged or other affected communities, including natural disasters, with a focus on prevention, response, and recovery. The project prioritizes minimizing adverse environmental impacts by implementing measures to protect air and water quality, wetlands, and endangered species throughout its planning and implementation stages. Through careful site selection and design optimization, the project aims to avoid disruption to sensitive ecosystems, including wetlands, which play crucial roles in supporting biodiversity and mitigating flood risks. By incorporating evidence-based climate resilience measures, the project addresses the disproportionate negative impacts of climate change on disadvantaged communities by focusing on prevention, response, and recovery strate- gies. This includes prioritizing infrastructure improvements that will reduce the vulnerability of Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay to natural disasters like floods and storms, with a focus on enhancing resilience and reducing future risks through sustainable design practices. The success of this project will rely on community engagement and stakeholder collaboration to ensure that the needs and concerns of affected communities, including indigenous and margin- alized groups, are adequately addressed. By integrating environmental justice principles into decision-making processes, the project aims to minimize disproportionate negative impacts of pollution and climate change on disadvantaged communities. This involves prioritizing infra- structure investments in areas with high social vulnerability and implementing measures to enhance community resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards. Additionally, by incorporating sustainable design practices and materials, the project reduces the overall envi- ronmental footprint of infrastructure development, further mitigating adverse impacts on air and water quality, wetlands, and endangered species. Through these integrated approaches, the project seeks to promote environmental sustainability while addressing the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged communities in the region. Equity Describe how the project will include an equity assessment which evaluates whether a project will create proportional impacts and remove transportation related disparities to all populations in a project area. The project’s equity assessment will inform decision-making processes and project prioritiza- tion to ensure that infrastructure improvements benefit all populations within the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay equitably. The equity assessment will involve iden- tifying, documenting, and analyzing the needs and priorities of marginalized and underserved communities, low-income households, and people with disabilities, in project planning and implementation. By incorporating community input and stakeholder engagement into the assess- ment process, the project will seek to address transportation-related disparities and promote equity in access to transportation resources and opportunities. Additionally, the equity assessment will guide the development of targeted interventions and mitigation measures to remove barriers and enhance mobility for vulnerable populations, thereby promoting a more inclusive and equi- table transportation system within the project area. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 22 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Describe how meaningful public engagement will occur throughout a project’s life cycle. Meaningful public engagement throughout a project’s life cycle is a fundamental commitment of both the Alaska Energy Authority and DOT&PF, ensuring inclusivity and recognizing the enduring benefits that extend beyond project completion. Within this ethos, the project is delib- erately situated within disadvantaged communities, guaranteeing that the advantages of the initiative directly benefit these residents. Furthermore, acknowledging the diverse challenges faced by communities across Alaska, various government organizations and communities have collaboratively developed vulnerability assessments, adaptation plans, and hazard mitigation strategies pertaining to climate change. This project’s public engagement will be complemented by other DOT & PF efforts that include workshops and trainings aimed at empowering commu- nities to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change. AEA has budgeted for sub-award allocations to each community for reimbursement for tribal and city engagement in the project. Describe how project benefits will increase affordable transportation options, improve safety, connect Americans to good-paying jobs, fight climate change, and/or improve access to resources and quality of life. This bundled project includes a multifaceted approach to addressing various challenges while concurrently enhancing several key aspects of community well-being and sustainability: By improving access to outlying subdivisions and accommodating alternative transportation, the project ensures that disadvantaged communities have more affordable and accessible means of transportation. This can help lower transportation costs for residents, particularly those in remote areas where transportation options may be limited. Enhancing disaster preparedness and resilience to extreme weather events and natural disasters will inherently improve safety for communities, ensuring they are better equipped to handle emergencies and reducing the risk of harm to residents and infrastructure. Through initiatives like local hiring, family-supporting jobs, and workforce development programs, the project creates opportunities for residents to access well-paying jobs within their communities. This not only improves employment prospects but also strengthens local economies. The project’s focus on reducing carbon emissions through the adoption of fuel-efficient technol- ogies and low-emission transportation methods aligns with efforts to combat climate change. By encouraging the use of cleaner fuels and alternative transportation options, the project contrib- utes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, thereby mitigating the impacts of climate change. By addressing infrastructure inadequacies, improving access to essential goods and services, and enhancing disaster preparedness, the project ultimately improves the quality of life for residents in disadvantaged communities. Additionally, initiatives to support local hiring preferences and workforce development programs empower communities and contribute to their long-term resil- ience and prosperity. Workforce Development, Job Quality, and Wealth Creation How the project promotes local inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship such as the use of DBEs, Minority-owned Businesses, Women-owned Businesses, or 8(a) firms. The project promotes local inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship by actively engaging with Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs), Minority-owned Businesses, WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 23 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Women-owned Businesses, and 8(a) firms in the planning and execution phases. Through targeted outreach and procurement strategies, the project seeks to create opportunities for these underrepresented businesses to participate in various aspects of the project, including construction, materials supply, and professional services. By providing access to contracts and subcontracting opportunities, the project not only fosters economic growth within these commu- nities but also contributes to the development of a more diverse and inclusive business ecosystem in the region. This project emphasizes capacity-building and technical assistance initiatives to support the growth and sustainability of DBEs and other marginalized businesses, equipping them with the resources and skills needed to compete in the marketplace and contribute to the local economy. This project leverages partnerships with local organizations, and regional economic devel- opment agencies to facilitate collaboration and networking opportunities for DBEs and other underrepresented businesses. By fostering connections between large contractors and small, minority-owned enterprises, the project creates pathways for knowledge sharing, mentorship, and skills transfer, which can ultimately lead to long-term economic empowerment and job creation in the community. Moreover, by prioritizing the inclusion of DBEs and other disadvantaged businesses in project contracts and procurement processes, the project helps to address historical inequities and disparities in access to economic opportunities, promoting social and economic equity while driving sustainable development and prosperity in the project area. Section VI: Project Readiness Technical Capacity Describe history of delivering similar projects. The project partners are all well-experienced organizations that have delivered similar projects in the past. AEA is a highly experienced organization when it comes to administering federal and USDOT grants. The two agencies are currently working together on multiple projects to deliver projects that benefit Alaskans. Alaska DOT&PF is the State Transportation Agency that plans, designs, constructs, main tains, and operates transportation infrastructure in the State of Alaska. DOT&PF has a proven track record of managing federally funded projects. Staff positions will include: Engineers, to include design consultants as needed to support the project; Environmental Staff, to include design consultants as needed to support; and Support Staff, to include design consultants as needed to support. DOT&PF has a dedicated marine design group and environmental staff who have delivered dozens of marine improvement projects, including up to six per year. DOT&PF has maintained a marine engineering team since Statehood in 1959 – primarily dedi cated to supporting the AMHS ferry system. They have directly designed or managed consultant designs and conducted numerous refurbishments, replacements, repairs, and maintenance on nearly every ferry terminal facility in the State and many other ports, harbors, and seaplane facil ities. Most of these projects utilized federal aid through FHWA. They have successfully delivered many federal aid marine projects supporting AMHS over the years, including 86 projects totaling over $308,000,000 since 2002 alone. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 24 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DOT&PF has standard mooring dolphin and other marine facility designs on file. The marine engineering team also inspects every ferry terminal and associated transfer bridge structure in the State. They are highly experi enced and intimately familiar with the project’s partic- ular local conditions and needs. DOT&PF’s project development staff comprises 75 persons, including materials and geotechnical engineers, environmental and right of way professionals who can navigate and achieve the required support products according to all Federal regula- tions and requirements. DOT&PF and its marine design group are knowledgeable about federal requirements, including Build America stipulations. The terminal design is based on a standard DOT&PF design modified to meet site geology and terminal configurations. Demonstrate project’s feasibility/constructability and schedule. AEA has evaluated the risk elements of the project (see below) and is confident that the project can be completed according to the project schedule. The schedule has been developed so that funds will be spent expeditiously once construction starts, with all funds expended by the dead- line. If funded, the schedule may be further evaluated in order to streamline the timing of project phases, with the goal of increasing cost effectiveness and time efficiency. Demonstrate how the project will comply with applicable Federal requirements. AEA and DOT&PF will ensure that contractors and staff engaged with the project comply with all applicable federal requirements, and will consult with municipal, tribal, and other partners at regular intervals to ensure compliance. Describe how and when the budget was compiled, including how the cost data was sourced. The budget was compiled by DOT&PF project planners with experience in marine development, including harbor and bridge design, and is consistent with best practices. AEA utilized historical and anticipated budgeting to account for agency costs. Cost data for this project was developed in CY Q1 2024 by experts who regularly estimate costs for shore power projects (dock upgrades scope of work) or power projects (upland improvements scope of work). Identify the recency and degree of design completion. Conceptual Design has begun, is at 20%, and is expected to be completed as part of this project’s scope. Identify whether the project is an ongoing planning effort, if so, identify if the planning effort is at the local, regional or State level. AEA and DOT&PF are undertaking this planning effort in response to the needs of this disas- ter-impacted region. The planning effort is local, focused on the needs of three disadvantaged communities within a micro-region. Identify if the project is included in a local or State freight plan, included in any strategic plans, or any other planning efforts (link to any plans mentioned) This project is included in the 2009 USACE Barge Landing Assessment, but is not referenced in the State freight plan beyond the recognition of the value of barge landings to these otherwise isolated communities. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 25 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Project Schedule Identify major project milestones: start dates, schedule for public engagement, and completion dates. Task Name 2024 2025 2026 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Public Engagement Project Scoping Environmental Process Permitting Prelim Engineering Final Design Demonstrate that all funds will be expended five years after obligation The project schedule demonstrates that funds will be expended within five years of obligation. All necessary pre-award activities will be complete at least six months in advance of the obligation deadline. AEA understands that selection may take approximately four months from the submission date, and that a 60-day statutory period will occur when funds may not be obligated. Sufficient time for unexpected delays has been factored into the project schedule. The project has budgeted for contingency, understanding that unexpected delays may affect the project budget. The project schedule, similarly, accounts for enough time to account for the potential for unexpected delay. There is sufficient time in the schedule to ensure project activities are consistent with obligation deadlines, at the very least. Project will meet the expected obligation deadline. AEA will ensure that obligation occurs prior to the statutory deadline of September 30, 2027. All real property and right-of-way acquisition will be completed in a timely manner in accordance with 49 C.F.R, or demonstrate that no right-of-way acquisition is necessary. AEA and DOT&PF will maintain site control of the facilities in need of construction. There are no State rights of way involved. Meaningful community input has been/will be sought through public involvement, disad- vantaged communities and other environmental justice concerns were/will be considered in the public involvement process Meaningful community input has been/will be sought through public involvement, and disad- vantaged communities and other environmental justice concerns were/will be considered in the public involvement process. AEA and DOT&PF have a comprehensive public involvement process and this project has budgeted for additional stakeholder engagement to ensure that equity and environmental justice priorities are incorporated throughout. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 26 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Risk Mitigation Identify project risks including approval or permit delays, procurement delays, technical challenges in design or construction, environmental uncertainties, potential increases in project costs, or lack of required approvals that affect the likelihood of successful project start and completion. Potential Risk Mitigation Project delays Early in the project development process, assign a permit coordinator, schedule inspections, and establish applicable reporting deadlines. Maintain regular progress reporting with all consultants, suppliers, contractors, and inspectors. Supply chain disruption For schedule impacts of supply chain disruption, procure materials as early as practical. For cost impacts of supply chain disruption, consider increasing contingency factor in cost estimate. Escalating materials cost Procure materials as early as practical. Lack of local buy-in Improved communication, local meetings. Maintain regular communication and consider local subsistence season. Land ownership Early in the project development process, work with the community to select the landing location and ensure that the right of ways are secured. Land ownership issues can potentially increase the budget. Discuss how project parties will mitigate or otherwise be able to handle identified risks. Initial risk management will focus on scheduling and environmental/permitting activities. Construction phase risk management will depend on timing of material delivery, especially steel for piling and other moorage and loading structures. AEA and DOT&PF has a wealth of experi- ence managing timing of materials with seasonal restrictions on field work. Environmental Risk Indicate the NEPA level of review for the project Alaska DOT&PF will prepare a NEPA document if awarded a PIDP grant. AEA and DOT&PF will coordinate with MARAD and complete the required NEPA documentation. Based on previous work with maritime shoreside facility infrastructure, DOT&PF believes a Categorical Exclusion will be provided for the project. Community support for the project is high. Describe any environmental analysis that is in progress or that has been completed. AEA and DOT&PF have not initiated any environmental analysis at this early stage in the project development. There are no recent environmental studies to reference as part of this application. Alaska DOT&PF Environmental Staff has already begun review of Maritime Administrative Manual of Orders and will incorporate MARAD’s Environmental Analysis criteria upon award. Discuss any environmental reviews that have been initiated or previously completed, where the project is in that process, and indicate the anticipated date NEPA would be initiated and an anticipated completion date. Alaska DOT&PF was granted primacy over its NEPA Assignment Program through an MOU with FHWA signed November 3, 2017, to assume responsibilities under NEPA and all or part of FHWA’s responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, or other actions required under WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 27 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM any Federal environmental law with respect to one or more Federal Highway projects within Alaska. The assigned responsibilities are subject to the same procedural and substantive require- ments as applied to FHWA. Alaska DOT&PF has reached out to MARAD to begin discussion as to how NEPA Compliance and process might work in this situation. Indicate if there any previously completed or ongoing consultations involving the project and any adjacent areas under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act A cultural resources survey for Section 106 may be required for this project and would likely be done in coordination with USACE. AEA will initiate communication with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), and other inter- ested parties as necessary, and as part of the planning process. Environmental Permits and Reviews Identify all environmental permits and approvals that will be required for the project to proceed to construction consistent with the timeline specified in the project schedule and necessary to meet the obligation deadline. AEA and DOT&PF have not yet begun the process for requesting environmental approvals, but anticipated permits and approvals are described throughout this section. Anticipated authoriza- tions were identified in the Feasibility Study. Provide a schedule showing receipt/the anticipated receipt of these anticipated approvals AEA anticipates receipt of approvals as part of its planning project, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits, consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, and other Federal, State, and local requirements. AEA and DOT&PF understand that, in collaboration with MARAD, they will be responsible for the completion of consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act prior to completing NEPA. Describe any public engagement about the project that has occurred or is anticipated to be conducted as part of the project and/or NEPA project. AEA will work with DOT&PF to support additional public engagement, including with respect to USDOT Title VI Program Order 1000.12C, DOT LEP Guidance, and DOT Promising Practices for Meaningful Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making. This planning project aligns with local and regional policies, including hazard mitigation, which have featured extensive public engagement. All three communities participated in describing conditions and needs to the Western Alaska Disaster Response team led by FEMA, which has highlighted this project as a critical need for each community. Describe any known or anticipated stakeholder and/or general public contentious issues related to the project. There are no known or anticipated stakeholder and general public contentious issues related to this project, which has broad and active local support. Impacted communities rely extensively on these barge landings and improvements will result in benefits to quality of life, freight delivery, and economic development. State and Local Approvals Demonstrate the receipt of or anticipated receipt of State and local approvals for the project. AEA and DOT&PF have not yet begun the process for requesting state or local approvals. Local land use/construction permits may be required by the municipal governments. This application WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 28 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM is being completed in close collaboration with the city and tribal governments, and no significant challenges are anticipated. The following are potential State approvals from Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC): • Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC). ADEC reviews and issues Section 401 WQCs. Many activities that qualify for coverage under a USACE NWP have associated general certifications and do not require individual WQCs. • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Construction Permit. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater construction permit (managed by ADEC) may be required if the project will result in land disturbance of greater than 1 acre. • ADEC’s Drinking Water Program may require approval of any new water systems or changes to existing systems. This approval would likely be applied for closer to construction if deemed necessary. • The proposed construction may encounter contaminated media (groundwater, sediment, or soil) associated with adjacent/nearby cleanup sites. Coordination with ADEC’s remediation site manager(s) may be required based on the project site’s location adjacent to cleanup sites and the project may be required to adhere to site-specific material monitoring, handling, management, and/or disposal requirements. Demonstrate that the project has broad public support AEA has included letters of support from municipal and tribal governments in the three benefiting communities. Other Agency Involvement Indicate whether the proposed project requires reviews or approval actions by other agencies, provide detailed information about the status of those reviews or approvals. The following includes potential permits and approvals from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). • Section 7 Consultation. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agen- cies must consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (also the NMFS) and USFWS when any action the agency carries out, funds, or authoriza- tions, may affect either a species listed as threatened or endangered under the Act, or any critical habitat designated for it. The USACE will consult with NMFS and USFWS as part of the Section 7 consultation process to analyze potential impacts to ESA-listed species. Informal consultation and a letter of concurrence (LOC) from NMFS and USFWS are anticipated. Formal consultation may be required, and a Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued, if adverse impacts to ESA-listed species could occur. Supplemental assessments such as a Biological Evaluation (BE) or Biological Assessment (BA) may need to be completed to support USACE and federal resource agency (NMFS and USFWS) review. Additional coordination with agencies and further development of the design alternative is needed to determine if informal consultation is feasible and what supplemental documents should be developed. • Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The MSA includes a mandate that NMFS must identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed marine fish, and federal agencies must consult on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. A brief EFH Assessment may be requested as part of the USACE permit process. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 29 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM • Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) or Letter of Authorization (LOA). An IHA or LOA under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) could be required from NMFS if marine mammals will be exposed to noise levels that exceed established behavioral or poten- tial injury noise thresholds for marine mammals and where standard shutdown areas do not appropriately mitigate the impact or where these shutdown zones cannot be implemented during construc tion. Describe whether the project is dependent on, or affected by, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers investment and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers planned activities as it relates to the project, if applicable, should be included. Project planners have identified the potential involvement of Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable structure may qualify for a USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) if there is no proposed change in use and only minor changes to the structure’s size/configuration (the USACE also completes a CATEX or streamlined EA as part of their internal NEPA process). If the project does not qualify for an NWP, a Letter or Permission (LOP) or Individual Permit (IP) may be required, likely the case if there are substan tial changes to the design of the proposed structure from its existing configura- tion. A Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency review may be completed as part of the USACE permitting process. Demonstrate the project is in compliance with any other applicable Federal, State, or local requirements, and when such approvals are expected This project takes into account Build America Buy America (BABA) provisions, and to the extent necessary and available, all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction mate- rials to be used in the project will be produced in the United States. This project will comply with PIDP’s domestic content requirements. The State will include BABA requirements in its RFP process and as part of contract negotiations. The State does not anticipate the need for a BABA waiver, though it is early in the process to identify the potential. The State’s procurement policy prioritizes the use of domestic goods, products, and materials, and incentivizes contractor response by weighing these factors higher in responses. WESTERN ALASKA BARGE LANDING RESILIENCE BUNDLE 30 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY - FY 2024 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Section VII: Determiniations Statutory Determination Guidance 1. The project improves the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods through a port or intermodal connection to the port. This project will: • Decrease barge landing times • Reduce the need for lightering • Increase efficiency of fuel delivery • Reduce potential for on-shore or marine accidents. • Improve the reliability of goods delivered. • Improve conditions of disadvantaged communities. 2. The project is cost effective.This determination is not applicable to small projects at small ports or large projects located in noncontiguous States or U.S. territories. 3. The eligible applicant has the authority to carry out the project. AEA and DOT&PF are the State of Alaska’s energy office and transportation agency, respectively, and have the authority to carry out these projects. Both state agencies have primacy over planning in this unorganized area of the state. 4. The eligible applicant has sufficient funding available to meet the matching requirements. No cost-share is required for this small port, small project application in these three rural, disadvantaged communities 5. The project will be completed without unreasonable delay. This project will obligate funds and be complete consistent with PIDP requirements. 6. The project cannot be easily and efficiently completed without Federal funding or financial assistance available to the project sponsor. This project is not currently programmed in DOT&PF’s STIP, nor budgeted for by either agency. But for PIDP funding, these barge landing projects would not advance. LETTERS OF COMMITMENT & SUPPORT Western Alaska Barge Landing Resilience Bundle Table of Contents Letters of Commitment Alaska Energy Authority………………………………………...1 Alaska Department of Transportation …………..………………2 Letters of Support Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc………..………..……3 Chevak Traditional Council…………………….………..……..4 City of Scammon Bay………….……………………….…....…5 Kashunamiut School District ………………...……….………..6 City of Hooper Bay………………………….……………..…...7 Lower Yukon School District ……………….…….……..……..8 Native Village of Scammon Bay………………………...……...9 May 10, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Commitment for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) extends our full commitment to the Alaska ,Barge Landing Planning Bundle as a candidate for the PIDP Program. AEA is a public corporation of the State of Alaska with the mission to promote; develop, and advance the prosperity of Alaskans while reducing the cost of energy in Alaska. Through its policy guidance, management of energy infrastructure, and administration of grants and loan programs, AEA provides benefits to Alaskans across a broad spectrum of energy technologies. As such, AEA is committed to fortifying the transportation infrastructure of Alaska's coastal communities to ensure the enduring resilience and sustainability of these communities amidst evolving climatic challenges. This planning project includes preliminary design for barge landings and fuel headers for three rural Alaska Native coastal communities affected by_ Typhoon Merbok: Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, and Chevak. AEA will build off the 2009 USACE report, Alaska Barge Landing System Design, a comprehensive resource for project design. This report, developed at the direction of the Denali Commission, represents a statewide barge landing assessment that remains a valuable resource. AEA will advance preliminary designs in Scammon Bay to 85% and in Hooper Bay and Chevak to at least 35%. The proposed strategy leverages best practices, focusing on bundling projects to ensure streamlined design. This approach is not only cost-effective but also maximizes operational efficiency. By adopting a bundled model, we can significantly reduce redundant costs and ensure that resources are used optimally to benefit and improve resiliency for Alaska's coastal communities. Due to the project's designation as rural and a small port project, AEA requests an increased Federal cost share of 100%. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (907) 771-3009 or cthayer@akenergyauthority.org. Regards, Curtis Thayer, Executive Director REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 • Phone: (907) 771-3000 • Fax: (907) 771-3044 • Email: info@akenergyauthority.org 1 “Keep Alaska Moving through service and infrastructure.” Department of Transportation and Public Facilities OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Ryan Anderson, P.E., Commissioner PO Box 112500 Juneau, Alaska 99811-2500 Main: 907.465.3900 dot.alaska.gov May 2, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Support for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) I am writing on behalf of the State of Alaska to extend our full endorsement for the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) Western Alaska Barge Landing Planning Bundle as a candidate for the PIDP Program. DOT&PF is committed to fortifying the transportation infrastructure of Alaska’s coastal communities to ensure the enduring resilience and sustainability of these communities amidst evolving climatic challenges. This planning project includes preliminary design for barge landings and fuel headers for three coastal communities affected by Typhoon Merbok: Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, and Chevak. AEA will build off the 2009 USACE report, Alaska Barge Landing System Design, a comprehensive resource for project design. This report, developed at the direction of the Denali Commission, represents a statewide barge landing assessment that remains a valuable resource. AEA will advance preliminary designs in Scammon Bay to 85% and in Hooper Bay and Chevak to at least 35%. The proposed strategy leverages best practices, focusing on bundling projects to ensure streamlined design. This approach is not only cost-effective but also maximizes operational efficiency. By adopting a bundled model, we can significantly reduce redundant costs and ensure that resources are used optimally to benefit and improve resiliency for Alaska’s coastal communities. DOT&PF will provide technical expertise, as needed, to assist AEA in delivering the project. Due to the project’s designation as rural and a small port project, AEA requests an increased Federal cost share of 100%. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ryan Anderson, P.E. Commissioner 2 May 7, 2024 AVE ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Support for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is the sole electric power provider in the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay, and Scammon Bay. These communities are still recovering from Typhoon Merbok in 2022, and evolving climatic challenges continue to threaten them. Unpredictable weather can cut them off from basic resources if proper infrastructure is not in place, which is why we need your support. A partnership between the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and the Department of Transportation Public Facilities will maximize cost efficiencies and provide necessary infrastructure improvements to their barge landings and fuel headers to receive fuel deliveries, supporting the local power grid. AVEC fully endorses the AEA application for the Western Alaska Barge Landing PIPD project. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at: bstamm@avec.org or 907-565-5531. Sincerely, Bill Stamm Chief Executive Officer Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 4831 Eagle Street • Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 • Phone (907) 561-1818 • In State (800) 478-1818 . Fax (907) 563-9304 3 May 7, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Chevak Traditional Council P.O. Box 140 Chevak, Alaska 99563 (907) 858-7428 fax (907) 858�7812 chevaktc@gmallcom RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle letter of Commitment for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: Chevak is located on the north bank of the Niglikfak River, 17 miles east of Hooper Bay in the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta. Its location near the Bering Sea renders the area subject to heavy winds and rain. Access to Chevak is by way of a narrow winding river. Barges land by pushing into the mud bank at the base of an eroding access road. Chevak has a growing population, currently at about 951 residents, with eroding access points our future growth and prosperity may be threatened. Operational efficiency would also improve if there was a marine fuel header. Currently, it takes 24-hours to offload fuel as a long hose (400 to 600-feet) is used to fill the various tank farms in the community (i.e., AVEC, school, and Native Corporation). The Chevak Native Village emph atically supports the Alaska Energy Authority's application for the Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle for the Port Infrastructure Development Program to provide much needed safety and reliability for fuel deliveries and provide continued access and efficiency for our entire community. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at .(_907) 858-7428, chevaktc@gmail.com. Sincerely, �-5:3z7) < §3, Esther Friday, 2nd Chief for Chevak Native Village -s)7 ft:2a i/ Date 4 CITY OF SCAMMON BAY 111 FRONT STREET P.O BOX 90 SCAMMON BAY, AK 99662 Phone: (907) 558-5529 Fax: (907) 558-5626 Email: cityofscammon@marayarmiut.com May 7, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Support for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is the sole provider of electric power in the communities of Chevak, Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay. AVEC supports the Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) application for the Western Alaska Barge Landing Planning Bundle Port Infrastructure Development project to assist these communities in improving their infrastructure that supports the power infrastructure, especially fuel deliveries. These communities have been impacted by evolving climatic challenges. This planning project will support barge landings and fuel headers in communities that were greatly impacted my Typhoon Merbok. This partnership between AEA and DOTPF is cost effective and will maximize cost efficiencies. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at (907) 558-5529 or cityofscammon@marayarmiut.com. Sincerely, lAw � Louisia Walker Vice-Mayor 5 Kashunamiut School District 985 KSD Way Chevak, AK 99563 May 10, 2024 May 10, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Support for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: The Kashunamiut School District (KSD) serves a unique Cup'ik community in the city of Chevak. Chevak provides for 322 of our students from Pre-K to 12th grade and is home to the only high school in the district. The KSD understands the project Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is seeking funding that will help facilitate infrastructure improvements to the community's barge landing and fuel header. Given our schools' rural nature, we depend on the reliability of these services. The KSD owns and operates its own tanks to receive bulk fuel, which is delivered by barge along the Niglikfak River. Due to the lack of a fuel header, a hose is used in substitute, increasing the risk of releasing fuel into the environment and causing expensive inefficiencies as it takes them longer to deliver. The KSD strongly supports AEA's application to the Department of Transportation Port Infrastructure Development Program for the City of Chevak. If I can provide additional information, please contact me at 907-858-7713 or jcampbell@chevakschool.org. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Campbell Superintendent Kashunamiut School District 6 May 7, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey A venue, SE Washington, DC 20590 NAPARYARMIUT City of Hooper Bay 29 Tomag_anuk Road Hooper Bay� AK 99604 907-758-43102ill'b.P.b.@gm�U:2Rm RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Commitment for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: Hooper Bay is 20 miles south of Cape Romanzof, 25 miles south of Scammon Bay in the YukonKuskokwim Delta. Hooper Bay is considered a distressed community based on the Denali Commission 2023 Distressed Community Report and listed as a threatened community in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Statewide Threat Assessment. Hooper Bay is a difficult community to access due to the very shallow water on the river side of the community and the prevalent wind/currents on the coastal side. We have a growing population of 1,355 residents. Investing in a barge landing and fuel header system in our community will preserve our community and rich subsistence lifestyle. The City of Hooper Bay positively supports the Alaska Energy Authorities (AEA) application for the Port Infrastructure Development Program with the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration to provide much-needed assistance to our community. Thank you for your consideration. Your support will make a meaningful difference in the lives of our community members. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at (907) 758-4311, or cityhpb@gmail.com. Sincerel:, '��usuk Mayor City of Hooper Bay 7 LOWER YUKON SCHOOL DISTRICT P.O. Box 32089 ∙ Mountain Village, Alaska 99632 Phone: (907) 591-2411 www.lysd.org Edgar Hoelscher Gene Stone Chairman Chief School Administrator May 8, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Western Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Support for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: The Lower Yukon School District (LYSD) consists of ten villages spread across 22,000 square miles. The Yukon River, one of the largest rivers in North America, winds through our yards on its way to the Bering Sea. The purpose of our District's learning community is to ensure tradition, culture, and quality of education for all of our children. We are a people of the salmon, of the whitefish, and pike. Of the moose, bear, fox, beaver, and lynx. Of the berries, plants, and the land. Of family. The Lower Yukon School District (LYSD) supports the Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) application to the Department of Transportation's Port Infrastructure Development Program for infrastructure improvements to the barge landings and fuel headers in Hooper Bay and Scammon Bay. These two communities serve 670 of our K-12 students, and reliable fuel delivery is critical to their ongoing operation. Given the rural nature of our district, we rely heavily on the safe and timely delivery of fuel and other resources. However, the banks in both communities are compromised by the unpredictable marine climate in the Bering Sea, posing a threat to the stability and safety of our fuel infrastructure. Additionally, LYSD owns and operates its fuel tanks, and unreliable fuel headers complicate efficient fuel delivery from the barge landings. This funding ensures a more reliable infrastructure for our students' education and well-being. If I can provide additional information, please call 907-591-2411. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gene Stone Chief School Administrator Lower Yukon School District 8 @ Nativ� Village of Scammon BayvBAScammo11BmrTraditio11alC01111cil 103 Askmuk Street/P.O. Box 110 Scammon Bay, AK 99662-0110 Phone (907) 558-5425 Fax (907) 558-5134 E-mail admin@marayarmiut.com May 7, 2024 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: W estem Alaska Barge Landings Planning Bundle Letter of Commitment for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter in support of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) application to the Port Infrastxucture Development Program in partnership with the Department of Transportation Public Facilities (DOT&PF). Scammon Bay is on the south bank of the Kun River, one mile from the Bering Sea. Our lifestyle is sustained by subsistence practices, and in the summer, a majority of our residents are employed through commercial fisheries. The need for the AEA DOT &PF proposed improvements is imperative to continue the safe delivery of fuel and supplies to our community. Currently, we are forced to stage cargo and equipment from the barge along an unstable and swampy road that leads from the landing site. This has led to storage containers floating away in the past. Fuel deliveries are done with a truck along those same roads since there is no fuel header to supply A VEC and the school tanks. I am proud to support the AEA and DOT &PF application and their efforts to make our community a better place. If I can provide additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at (907) 558-5425 or angelo.nvsb@gmail.com. Thank you for your consideration. Angelo Uttereyuk Tribal Administrator Native Village of Scammon Bay 9 OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 11/30/2025 * 1. Type of Submission: * 2. Type of Application: * 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier: 5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier: 6. Date Received by State: 7. State Application Identifier: * a. Legal Name: * b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): * c. UEI: * Street1: Street2: * City: County/Parish: * State: Province: * Country: * Zip / Postal Code: Department Name: Division Name: Prefix: * First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: Title: Organizational Affiliation: * Telephone Number: Fax Number: * Email: * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): * Other (Specify): State Use Only: 8. APPLICANT INFORMATION: d. Address: e. Organizational Unit: f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 Preapplication Application Changed/Corrected Application New Continuation Revision Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. Alaska Energy Authority 92-6001185 F3N8ZSHJXUH8 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage AK: Alaska USA: UNITED STATES 99503-2407 Ms.Rebecca Garrett Rural Programs Manager 907-771-3042 rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org DocuSign Envelope ID: E89116EF-52F1-4420-B316-A19878A138D1 * 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: * Other (specify): * 10. Name of Federal Agency: 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: CFDA Title: * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: * Title: 13. Competition Identification Number: Title: 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): * 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions. Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 A: State Government Maritime Administration 20.823 Port Infrastructure Development Program MA-PID-24-001 Port Infrastructure Development Program Western Alaska Barge Landing Resilience Bundle View AttachmentsDelete AttachmentsAdd Attachments View AttachmentDelete AttachmentAdd Attachment DocuSign Envelope ID: E89116EF-52F1-4420-B316-A19878A138D1 * a. Federal * b. Applicant * c. State * d. Local * e. Other * f. Program Income * g. TOTAL . Prefix: * First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: * Title: * Telephone Number: * Email: Fax Number: * Signature of Authorized Representative: * Date Signed: 18. Estimated Funding ($): 21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001) ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. Authorized Representative: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * a. Applicant Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed. * b. Program/Project * a. Start Date: * b. End Date: 16. Congressional Districts Of: 17. Proposed Project: Alaska Alaska Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment 10/01/2024 09/30/2026 8,958,431.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,958,431.00 a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372. Yes No Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment ** I AGREE Mr.Curtis Thayer Executive Director 907-771-3000 cthayer@akenergyauthority.org Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. * 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) * 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? Completed by Grants.gov upon submission. If "Yes", provide explanation and attach DocuSign Envelope ID: E89116EF-52F1-4420-B316-A19878A138D1 5/10/2024 | 11:31:40 AM AKDT 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:GRANT14144040 F3N8ZSHJXUH8UEI: Wendy SturdivantSubmitter's Name: CFDA Number:20.823 CFDA Description:Port Infrastructure Development Program Funding Opportunity Number:MA-PID-24-001 Funding Opportunity Description:Port Infrastructure Development Program Agency Name:Maritime Administration Application Name of this Submission:Western Alaska Barge Landing Resilience Bundle Date/Time of Receipt: https://www.grants.gov/applicants/grant-applications/track-my-application?tracking_num=GRANT14144040 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 10, 2024 05:40:47 PM EDT AEA Watch List 5/3/2024 Community Utility House District Senate District Description 1 Akiak Akiak City Council McCormick Hoffman Down to two engines but requires two to carry the community load, has a failed oil cooler that is actively contaminating the cooling system. The community has contact with a contractor, but has not made arrangements to have the contractor make the repairs. 2 Beaver Beaver Joint Utilities Cronk Bishop Catastrophic failure of #1 engine in March. They do have a plan to repair generator #3 this summer. 3 Chignik Lake Chignik Lake Electric Utility Edgmon Hoffman Down to one engine. An installer was going to come in to install a new engine in #2 position. The installer has not completed the job yet. 4 Diomede Diomede Joint Utilities Foster Olsen #1 went down 4/4/24 for unknown reasons, community is still troubleshooting (4/8/24). #2 is currently carrying the community. #3 has catastrophically failed. 5 Hughes City of Hughes Cronk Bishop One operable engine, one engine doesn't operate at capacity for unknown reasons. #3 has a failed turbo. 6 Igiugig Igiugig Electric Utility Edgmon Hoffman Down to two engines, but two are needed to carry the community load. 7 Karluk Karluk IRA Tribal Council Stutes Stevens Needs an engine harness on #2. The community only has two engines. 8 Kwethluk Kwethluk, Inc McCormick Hoffman Community experienced a catastrophic failure of gen end #2 last fall. They received emergency replacement funding from Denali Commission. Those funds are being passed through AEA for project support. The new generator end is set for delivery in July. Additional powerhouse repairs are being designed. 9 Manokotak Manokotak Power Company Edgmon Hoffman Emergency declared in December 2023. As of March 2024, the community will have 3 operable engines, however, the cooling system is still being repaired by the community. The repairs will be completed in April. 10 Mertarvik Ungusraq Power Company McCormick Hoffman Down to two engines, but two are needed to carry the community load. AEA gen end from emergency stock will be installed within the next few weeks. However, the step-up transformer is not properly sized and needs to be replaced. Communities Down to Minimal Generation AEA Watch List 5/3/2024 11 Nelson Lagoon Nelson Lagoon Electric Coop Edgmon Hoffman Nelson Lagoon is scheduled for a full Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) in 2025. The existing power system is in extremely poor condition. In November 2022, an emergency was declared in response to an outage that lasted several days. AEA has been working with the community to stabilize the plant. AEA sent a technician out to diagnose the issues. The community is required to schedule a return trip and pay for the needed maintenance. 12 Newtok Ungusraq Power Company McCormick Hoffman The 150kW JD6068 needs to be overhauled and installed but is onsite. 13 Stevens Village Stevens Village Cronk Bishop #2 is currently the only generator running. Circuit Riders have tried technical assistance/troubleshooting via phone and are working on scheduling a site visit in the future. 14 Takotna Takotna Community Association Cronk Bishop The community has new engines on-site that have yet to be installed. They refused an AEA CR visit until the new engines are installed. Imagery and plant drawings have been provided to Tanana Chiefs Conference for additional technical assistance. 15 Tuluksak Tuluksak Traditional Power Utility McCormik Hoffman AEA has a grant in place for Tuluksak Rural Power System Upgrade, design is complete. Purchasing a new larger diesel genset is the first task. The goal is to have the genset in place before the new water treatment plant (August 2024). AEA is seeking grants for the complete upgrade est $3M. 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 DATE: May 1, 2023 TO: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Audrey Alstrom, Director – Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency SUBJECT: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (REEE) Program Update REEE General Update The REEE team oversees most renewable energy projects for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). The REEE team manages 3 biomass, 3 energy storage, 2 geothermal, 7 hydroelectric, 6 solar, and 25 wind projects that receive funding under the Renewable Energy Fund (REF). Additionally, the REEE team manages 19 projects funded by state, federal, or other funds. The REEE team is also responsible for the program management of each of the technology programs including Biomass, Electric Vehicles, Energy Efficiency and State Energy Program (SEP), Energy Storage, Geothermal, Hydroelectric and Hydrokinetic, Hydrogen, Nuclear, Solar, and Wind. Programmatic activity summaries and project updates are following. Biomass The Biomass Program continues to help develop biomass energy projects in Alaska that focus on utilizing organic material for generating heat and/or power. AEA, with the Alaska Biomass Energy Working Group, formerly the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group, conducts prefeasibility studies, system design, technical assistance, operator training, and outreach. The Biomass Program manages projects that include landfill gas to energy projects, community scale district heating loops, and other wood heat projects. The program receives funding through State appropriation and the United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service Wood Innovations Grant. The program is currently exploring Waste-to-Energy projects that include electricity generation and sustainable fuels production like sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel. The program applied for free technical assistance from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for exploring feasibility and cost-benefit analysis for developing waste-to-energy plants at landfills outside of the Municipality of Anchorage. Biomass Funding: 2019 United States Forest Service (USFS)- Wood Innovations Grant Scope: pre-feasibility studies, design grants, construction, and coordination with the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 10 Budget: Federal – $310,000; State – $155,000 2022 USFS – Wood Innovations Grant Scope: provide operator training, technical assistance, and O&M training. Budget: Federal – $112,500; State – $112,500 Biomass Potential Funding: 2024 USFS – Wood Innovations Grant Scope: pre-feasibility studies, outreach, and in partnership with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources: Division of Forestry and Fire Prevention, updating the forest inventory vicinity of the Railbelt, to lay the foundation for exploring utility-scale biomass energy production. Budget: Federal - $500,000; State - $500,000 Electric Vehicles AEA continues to progress the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program in collaboration with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF). This initiative allocates $52 million for Alaska over the next five years to construct EV charging stations along highway corridors, bolstering the nationwide EV charging network. AEA and DOT&PF are in the final stages of solidifying project agreements with nine selected site hosts along the Alternative Fuel Corridor (AFC) linking Anchorage and Fairbanks. Concurrently, AEA is updating the NEVI plan, a prerequisite set by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for formula funds. The FY25 NEVI plan is slated for submission to the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation and FHWA by August 1, 2024, with a scheduled review and public comment period in early June 2024. AEA is actively engaged in introducing EV infrastructure across rural Alaska, leveraging funding from the Department of Energy (DOE), Vehicle Technologies Office. This $1.67 million competitive award aims to deploy charging stations, conduct outreach activities, and provide operations and maintenance training to site hosts. AEA is actively seeking community partners to partake in this initiative. AEA leads the Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group (AKEVWG), convening quarterly for working group meetings and monthly for technical sessions. This group serves as a conduit for disseminating information on ongoing funding opportunities and project updates to the public and program stakeholders. In addition to regular working group activities, AEA will conduct in- person outreach sessions in Ketchikan, Glennallen, Seward, and Homer in May to gather feedback for the deployment of NEVI program funds beyond the AFC. Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 10 Utilizing$1.2 million of Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust (Trust) funds, the DOE State Energy Program funds, and private matching funds from site hosts, AEA installed 15 fast chargers and eight level two electric vehicle (EV) chargers at nine stations connecting Seward and Homer to Healy. All these Volkswagen sites are commissioned and operational. Additionally, AEA partnered with the Southeast Conference to provide funding for Level 2 chargers throughout southeast Alaska using Trust funds. The funding opportunity closed April 3, 2024. Electric Vehicle Funding: Alaska Rural EVSE Deployment (Department of Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office) Scope: Conduct outreach for potential EV charging sites across rural Alaska, train site hosts on EVSE maintenance, implement EVSE sites across rural Alaska. Budget: $2,087,479 National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure – Phase 1 (US DOT Federal Highway Administration) Scope: Construct EV fast-charging stations along highway corridors, to bolster the nationwide EV charging network per 23 CFR 680 equipment requirements. Budget: $877,508.49 Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust Scope: Install Level 3 fast chargers along Railbelt and Level 2 chargers in rural Alaska. Budget: $1,200,000 Energy Efficiency and State Energy Program (SEP) AEA’s Energy Efficiency Program improves energy efficiency across the state through various means. It is funded annually through the federal SEP, sharing revenue 50/50 with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). AEA works with partners to provide technical assistance, outreach and education, and funding throughout the state. The REEE team continues to be involved and host meetings for the Alaska Energy Efficiency Partnership. Through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), AEA received one-time additional SEP funds of $3.6 million. AEA is sharing a portion of the funds with AHFC to support their work. AEA’s share of funds supports program development, outreach and education, and projects. The funds supported the recently completed SEP: State Energy Security Plan and the Governor’s Alaska Energy Security Task Force Report. Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 10 AEA also received Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds through IIJA to help support RE-VEEP. RE-VEEP is an expansion of the Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP), established to reduce per capita consumption through energy efficiency. RE-VEEP will provide eligible local governments with funding to support building-scale renewable energy, energy efficiency, and conservation projects in public buildings and facilities in rural Alaska. AEA solicited for applications and intends to award three grants using EECBG funds and has opened another funding opportunity with an application deadline of May 28, 2024. Lastly, the Energy Efficiency Program has applied for, or is in the middle of applying to, other efficiency and conservation funds through IIJA or the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). These funds will support the program by providing grants, rebates, technical assistance, training and education to Alaskans. Some funds will be in partnership with AHFC. EE Funding: FY23 SEP Annual Formula Scope: Program management and development, outreach and education, building monitoring, data management & analysis, rater and inspector training Budget: Federal - $480,580 (shared 50/50 with AHFC) SEP-BIL Alaska Scope: Energy construction projects, energy program development, energy security plan development, training and workforce development, outreach and education, grid planning, state energy plan, AKWarm Budget: Federal - $3,661,930 (shared with AHFC) EECBG Scope: Sub-grants to eligible local governments within Alaska to finance building-scale renewable energy, energy efficiency, and conservation projects in public buildings and facilities located in rural Alaska. Budget: Federal - $1,627,450 EE Potential Funding: FY25 SEP Annual Formula Scope: Program management and development, outreach and education, building monitoring, data management & analysis, rater and inspector training Budget: Federal - $480,580 (shared 50/50 with AHFC) Alaska Energy Authority Page 5 of 10 Homes Efficiency Rebates Program Formula Scope: Strategic planning, workforce development, consumer outreach and education, administration, rebate program implementation. Budget: Federal - $934,169.10 (early admin funds); $37,368,480 (total), pass thru to AHFC Home Electrification and Appliance Rebate Formula Scope: Strategic planning, workforce development, coordinating program delivery, consumer outreach & education, administration, and rebate program implementation. Budget: Federal - $934,169.10 (early admin funds); $37,150,940 (total), pass thru to AHFC Training Residential Energy Contractors Scope: Supplement existing workforce development programs and create new workforce programs to (1) reduce the cost of training contractor employees; (2) provide testing and certification to contractors who are training and educated under a state program; and (3) partner with nonprofit organizations to develop and implement a state program that will achieve these goals. Budget: Federal - $1,296,870, pass thru to AHFC Energy Auditor Training Grant Program (Commercial) Scope: New commercial energy auditor training program that will recruit, test, and certify individuals across the state. Budget: $1,150,964 Energy Auditor Training Grant Program (Residential) Scope: Residential energy auditor training and certify raters. Budget: $849,036, pass thru to AHFC Hydroelectric The Hydroelectric Program manages small hydro projects on behalf of AEA and provides statewide resource for hydroelectric technical assistance by maintaining an existing potential hydroelectric site database for communities to use, collecting active hydroelectric project data, providing grant funding for feasibility and construction of projects as funding allows, technically review and providing feedback on engineering reports, assist in identifying project financing opportunities, and answer community questions on hydroelectric project development. The REEE group recently applied for and was selected to be a 2024 DOE-sponsored Clean Energy Innovator Fellowship (CEIF) Host Institution. Next steps will include Fellow selection and the Alaska Energy Authority Page 6 of 10 appointment process. It's anticipated the Fellow will help the REEE Hydro Program update the hydroelectric database. Currently, seven hydroelectric and two energy recovery or hydrokinetic-type projects are active. AEA is involved with planning the upcoming National Hydropower Association (NHA) Alaska Regional Meeting, scheduled for August 2024. Solar AEA continued participating in the National Community Solar Partnership (NCSP) and has been attending collaborative meetings and work sessions hosted by NCSP partners. AEA leveraged resources provided by NCSP to help develop an application in fall 2023 for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Solar for All program in partnership with AHFC. Recently, AEA received notice that the joint AEA/AHFC Solar for All application was selected for a $62.5 million grant. AEA and AHFC will work with the EPA to secure a final award, which is anticipated no later than September 30, 2024. The program aims to support the development of residential rooftop solar and community solar and battery projects across the State of Alaska, targeting low-income and disadvantaged households. This program will also fund technical assistance, workforce development, and community outreach efforts in partnership with the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP), Alaska Works Partnership (AWP), and Alaska Municipal League (AML). Solar Pending Funding: EPA Solar for All Scope: Residential rooftop solar and community solar for disadvantaged communities Budget: Federal - $62,450,000 Wind Currently, AEA's Wind Program is driving 25 active wind projects forward, most of which have received funding from REF. This diverse portfolio encompasses communities across the state, featuring initiatives such as Railbelt and rural wind feasibility studies, rural turbine blade retrofits, and LiDAR deployments. In addition to project work, AEA continues to facilitate public outreach and engagement through the Alaska Wind Working Group (AKWWG). The AKWWG continued to hold quarterly meetings throughout the calendar year. Meetings were well attended with upwards of 70 participants per meeting. In September of 2023, AEA hosted the two-day Alaska Wind Workshop. More than 120 people from across Alaska, Canada, Hawaii and the Lower 48 Alaska Energy Authority Page 7 of 10 convened in Anchorage to discuss a range of issues, challenges and opportunities with developing and integrating wind power. Specific focus topics included project financing, technical hurdles such as communications, and the logistics of developing, installing and maintaining wind systems in remote communities. Panelists delved into energy storage, from considerations for going diesels off to end-of-life issues for batteries including recycling and repurposing. On the Railbelt, panelists looked at the current power generation mis including the looming natural gas shortage, wind integration to date, an ongoing Railbelt wind study, two proposed large-scale wind projects and a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) economic analysis. Looking forward, panelists discussed improvements for wind forecasting using machine learning including an Alaska specific model, potential for offshore wind-produced hydrogen in Cook Inlet, and continued expansion of beneficial electrification for heating and transportation. Other REEE staff continue to participate in the Alaska Hydrogen Working Group meetings, which discuss the potential adoption of hydrogen power technologies, barriers to hydrogen adoption, and use cases around the state for both the production and consumption of hydrogen and hydrogen-based fuels. This quarter’s meeting featured presentations by the DOE on the possibility for Alaska to leverage hydrogen generation in combination with our renewables capacity to maintain our role as a large energy exporter as the nation transitions away from hydrocarbons, and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) on geological hydrogen exploration. AEA is an active participant in the nationwide NASEO/NARUC Advanced Nuclear State Collaborative and state Alaska Nuclear Energy Working Group. REEE staff have attended and contributed to these monthly meetings focused on developing a nuclear roadmap for the state and identifying opportunities for community engagement surrounding nuclear technology. Recently, REEE staff attended the NARUC/NASEO/NGA Advanced Nuclear State Collaborative Site Visit in Knoxville, Tennessee where they toured nuclear research facilities, participated in a roadmapping draft review workshop, explored economic development and workforce issues related to advanced nuclear, and learned more about nuclear technology. Lastly, the REEE team manages other special projects on behalf of AEA. These projects, and all others, can be found in the following table. Alaska Energy Authority Page 8 of 10 Technology Project Title Grantee Budget BESS Kotzebue Energy Storage - Design Kotzebue Electric Association $ 325,000 BESS Nome Battery Energy Storage System Nome Joint Utility System $ 2,000,000 BESS Pilot Point BESS City of Pilot Point $ 423,599 Biomass DC Craig High School Biomass Project Craig City School District $ 522,457 Biomass AEEC/KPB CPL Landfill Gas CHP Project Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. $ 884,986 Biomass Woodchip Heating Project Native Village of Kluti-Kaah $ 500,000 Biomass Northway School Wood Chip Biomass - Construction Alaska Gateway School District $ 650,000 Biomass Southeast Island School District Biomass Project Updates Southeast Island School District $ 122,000 EV Southeast Conference EVSE Southeast Conference $ 125,188 Geothermal Augustine Geothermal Feasibility Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. $ 68,000 Geothermal Mt. Spurr Geothermal Feasibility Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. $ 45,500 Heat Recovery Shungnak Heat Recovery - Design/Construction City of Shungnak $ 1,303,607 Hydro Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric Inc. $ 6,861,824 Hydro Thayer lake Hydroelectric Project Kootznoowoo Incorporated $ 8,055,717 Hydro Water Supply Creek Hydro - Final Design Inside Passage Electric Cooperative $ 4,000,000 Hydro Cordova Hydro Storage Assessment - Feasibility Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc. $ 294,642 Hydro Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project Nushagak Electric & Telephone Cooperative $ 1,000,000 Hydro UNGA Man Creek Hydroelectric Project City of False Pass $ 321,000 Hydro Homer Energy Recovery Project City of Homer $ 79,500 Hydro ADAK Hydro - Feasibility & Conceptual Design TDC Adak Generating LLC $ 497,650 Hydro Littoral Power Systems Hydrokinetic Project Littoral Power Systems, Inc. $ 79,133 SEP State Energy Security Plan-IIJA SEP Multiple $ 359,655 Solar Design and Permitting for Solar PV and Battery Sto Northwest Arctic Borough $ 590,000 Solar Galena Community Scale Solar PV and Battery Projec City of Galena $ 2,000,000 Solar Holy Cross Solar Energy & Battery Storage Feasibil Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $ 135,000 Solar Point MacKenzie Solar Point Mackenzie Solar, LLC. $ 75,000 Solar Selawik Solar PV Array Northwest Arctic Borough $ 1,134,500 Alaska Energy Authority Page 9 of 10 Solar Hulsia Community Scale PV & Battery Tanana Chiefs Conference $ 2,082,000 Special AK Air Cargo - DOT Build Grant - Energy Efficiency #N/A $ 189,834 Special Port Electrification - Whittier - State funds Multiple $ 5,000,000 Special GVEA Black Rapids Line Extension Golden Valley Electric Association $ 12,787,565 Special GVEA Three-Phase Ext.-Grant to Named Recip Golden Valley Electric Association $ 3,025,000 Special EETF-Grid Bridging Sys. Research, Devel, & Demo Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $ 250,000 Special START Communities Technical Assistance Village of Kake $ 355,530 VEEP Angoon City of Angoon $ 36,000 VEEP Beaver Beaver Village Council $ 18,000 VEEP Buckland City of Buckland $ 21,214 VEEP Chalkyitsik Chalkyitsik Village $ 30,000 VEEP Gakona Native Village of Gakona $ 152,412 VEEP Galena City of Galena $ 270,000 VEEP Nenana Nenana City School District $ 255,467 VEEP Shishmaref City of Shishmaref $ 44,320 VEEP St George City of St. George $ 130,000 VEEP St Michael City of St. Michael $ 31,310 Wind Renewable Resource Assessment North Cook Inlet Region, Inc. $ 298,000 Wind Renewable Resource Assessment South Cook Inlet Region, Inc. $ 298,000 Wind Shishmaref Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $ 107,500 Wind Goodnews Bay Wind - Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $ 128,250 Wind Kotlik Wind - Feasibility Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $ 237,500 Wind Naknek Wind and Solar - Feasibility Naknek Electric Association, Inc. $ 103,500 Wind Unalaska Wind - Feasibility City of Unalaska $ 139,000 Wind Airfoil for Wind Turbines - Construction Puvurnaq Power Company $ 108,000 Wind Akiachak Wind Feasibility Akiachak Native Community Electric Company $ 371,446 Wind Interior Alaska Wind Energy Resource Assessment Golden Valley Electric Association $ 1,105,248 Wind Kongiganak Wind Upg w Airfoil Blades for Turbines Puvurnaq Power Company $ 279,063 Alaska Energy Authority Page 10 of 10 Wind Kotzebue Wind to PV Transition Utilizing Exist Str Kotzebue Electric Association $ 1,900,000 Wind Kotzebue Wind to Heat System City of Kotzebue $ 702,782 Wind Kwigillingok Wind Turbine Upgrade Kwig Power Company $ 279,112 Wind AEEC East Foreland/Nikiski Wind Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative Inc. $ 200,000 Wind AEEC Ninilchik Wind Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. $ 192,000 Wind AEEC Caribou Hills Wind Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. $ 209,600 Wind Ouzinkie Wind Energy Feasibility and Concept Des City of Ouzinkie $ 172,897 Wind Pilot Station Wind Energy Feasibility & Conc Des Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $ 229,624 Wind AEEC Summit Lake Wind Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. $ 232,000 Wind Kwinhagak Reconnaissance Study Native Village of Kwinhagak $ 81,000 Wind Railbelt Wind Feasibility Study & Concept Design Matanuska Electric Association $ 1,833,333 Wind Kalskag Wind Feasibility & Concept Design Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. $ 267,300 Wind Utility-Scale Railbelt Wind Alaska Renewables, LLC $ 1,980,807 Wind Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. $ 214,400 Award No Project Name DC Funding Perf. Period Beg Perf. Period Thru Actions Since Last Report Estimated Jobs Created Permanent Jobs Created 01432-13 Tatitlek BFU 1,472,000.00 6/1/2013 6/30/2024 None 15 2 01474-10 Chalkytsik BFU (2)517,500.00 6/16/2015 6/30/2024 None 15 2 01485-06 START Communities Technical Assistance 375,000.00 11/1/2015 6/30/2024 None 2 0 01492-11 Beaver BFU 608,000.00 7/6/2016 6/30/2024 None 5 2 01500-09 Bulk Fuel Operator Training 1,985,000.00 9/1/2016 9/30/2025 None 3 0 01515-10 Circuit Rider Program 1,425,000.00 1/1/2017 12/31/2024 None 20 0 01516-08 RPSU - Maintenance & Improvement 748,776.00 10/1/2016 12/31/2024 None 20 0 01523-09 Miscellaneious Small M&I Projects 2,945,000.22 6/1/2017 12/31/2025 None 3 0 01544-06 Training - Itinerant Electric Utility 500,000.00 3/1/2018 12/31/2025 Extended Period of Performance 3 0 01548-08 RPS Maintenance & Improvement Program-Statewide 3,540,000.00 5/1/2018 12/31/2025 None 20 0 01551-07 Venetie RPSU 2,250,000.00 5/1/2018 12/31/2025 None 5 2 01557-03 Barge Headers and Fill Lines 4,201,820.00 10/1/2018 12/31/2025 Extended Period of Performance & additional funding added 60 0 01571-03 Nunapitchuk BF 3,522,546.00 8/15/2019 12/31/2024 None 30 2 01574-03 Nikolai RPSU 1,733,740.00 8/1/2019 12/31/2023 None 5 2 01575-06 Nelson Lagoon - RPSU 1,585,455.00 8/1/2019 12/31/2025 None 5 2 01576-04 Rampart - RPSU 1,733,740.00 8/1/2019 12/31/2024 None 5 2 01577-05 Napaskiak - RPSU 335,455.00 8/1/2019 12/31/2024 None 26 2 01592-03 Scammon Bay BFU 3,720,905.00 2/17/2020 12/31/2026 Extended Period of Performance & additional funding added 35 5 01600-03 AEEE - Village Energy Efficiency Program - State 875,000.00 6/15/2020 12/31/2025 None 3 0 01611-03 AEA Data Library 100,000.00 9/1/2020 6/30/2024 None 1 0 01618-01 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project R2,R4 2,880,000.00 9/1/2020 6/30/2024 None 65 2 01628-03 DC Craig High School Biomass Project 440,417.00 11/1/2020 12/31/2025 None 0 2 01645-02 O&M Manual Conversion & Training 75,000.00 4/1/2021 12/31/2024 None 4 0 01646-01 Bulk Fuel Inventory and Assessment 1,230,000.00 4/1/2021 12/31/2025 None 20 0 01647-01 Port Heiden Phase 1 Distribution Upgrades 1,905,600.00 4/1/2021 12/31/2024 None 8 0 01666-01 Littoral Power Systems Hydrokinetic Project 80,642.00 11/15/2021 3/31/2023 None 1 0 01704-01 Chalkyitsik RPSU 200,000.00 10/1/2022 12/31/2025 None 5 2 01705-01 Middle Kuskokwim Failure Mitigation Plan 200,000.00 10/1/2022 12/31/2024 Extended Period of Performance 5 2 01731-00 Shungnak BFU 3,296,032.04 1/1/2023 3/31/2024 None 60 3 01735-00 Ruby Powerhouse Leveling 200,000.00 1/15/2023 12/31/2024 None 5 0 01761-00 Tuluksak Bulk Fuel M&I 200,000.00 1/15/2023 12/31/2024 None 5 0 01767-00 AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade 250,000.00 1/1/2023 9/30/2024 None 5 0 01771-00 Distribution System Inventory and Assessment - Statewide 267,051.64 4/1/2023 12/31/2025 None 7 0 01784-00 Power Plant Operator Training 225,000.00 7/1/2023 9/30/2025 None 3 0 01793-00 Circle Emergency Powerhouse Repairs 320,000.00 6/1/2023 6/30/2024 None 5 0 01825-00 Kwethluk Emergency Generator Repairs & Replacement 350,000.00 12/15/2023 12/31/2024 None 5 1 01830-00 Kipnuk Distribution Upgrades 800,000.00 12/1/2023 12/31/2026 New Project 8 1 01832-00 Rampart Distribution and Heat Recovery Upgrades 784,982.00 12/1/2023 12/31/2026 New Project 3 0 Total Funding for Active DC Awards:47,879,662 Less Total Spending on Active DC Awards:(30,212,014) Total Funding Remaining on Active DC Awards:17,667,648 Active Denali Commission Awards As of 04/30/2024 C:\Users\rgarrett\Desktop\Budgets Board Meeting\2024.4.30 Active DC Awards 1 OF 1 813 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 Director DATE: April 29th, 2024 RE: AEA Digital Library Update Library Launch On December 11, 2023, AEA officially launched its digital library. The library was created with financial support from the Denali Commission through a $100,000 grant to which AEA provided an additional $40,000. The library is fully accessible to the public via AEA’s website via the library tab, or directly via accessing https://aealibrary.org/WebLink/. Access to the library only requires a browser-enabled device with internet connectivity. At launch, the library housed approximately 7,500 documents, including program publications, technical reports, research and feasibility studies, and other formats. Several of the items stored in the digital library date back prior to the establishment of AEA in 1976, with such files previously only available in hardcopy form. The intent and nasence of the online library effort was to provide the public’s ease of access to AEA energy records, both current and historical, as well as to reduce staff time expended on locating records as related to general public inquiries and Freedom-of- Information-Act (FOIA) requests. The digital library is actively managed by Nathan Howes, AEA’s archives and records project manager. At the launch, once traffic began flowing to the library server, it was discovered there was an issue related to the number of concurrent users. AEA’s IT department investigated the issue and noted that there the default session timeout was of an excessive duration, the session timeout was subsequently corrected to a much shorter duration and no further issues were noted. The 7,500 initial documents made available upon the library’s launch was primarily comprised of a majority portion of those physical documents which were housed within AEA’s file room. In June 2023 , the initial scanning contract with AEA’s competitively-procured vendor was extended to June 30, 2024, and some additional funds added, to allow for additional time and funds needed beyond the initial scope estimate, for the necessary continued scanning and digitization of AEA’s physical documents. Current Library Usage Site visits to the library, per access data as provided by AEA’s information technology department, indicate 335 unique site visits per month. Site visits appear to be trending upwards Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 with over 500 unique users reported for March and April 2024. To provide convenient access by which members of the public may submit requests and/or inquiries related to the digital library, AEA maintains a dedciated inbox at aealibrary@akenergyauthority.org. To date, with the exception of the aforementioned user-timeout issue noted at the launch, there have been no noted complaints or issues related to the library. Library Functionality & Current Repository Volume The library is able to support 25 concurrent users and is cache enabled. Caching allows for the quicker return of search results for users who submit queries, of similar scope, to the library server in a single session. The library has robust query search functionality owing to its optical-character-recognition (OCR) of all documents uploaded. OCR performs a full text scan of a document in its entirety which allows keyword search terms to be applied across an entire document and not solely limited to designated fields within a document. The library is further enabled with simple and advanced keyword search functionality, and sort and filter functionality the cominbation of which provide for a customizable user experience. As a living repsitory of AEA records, the library is an ever-evolving tool which will continue to grow iteratively as more AEA publicly-facing documents are generated over time. Since the launch, AEA has continued to add a substantial number of documents to the digital library, including deliverables as required per terms of grants issued under the Renewable Energy Fund, Susitna-Watana documents as sourced from the State of Alaska’s Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS), and other AEA programs. In mid-April 2024, AEA received approximately 4,000 additional files from its current scanning vendor and is now in the process of making these files available via the digital library. As of April 29, 2024, the library is host to over 10,000 searchable documents, a one-third increase in queryable documents in comparison to those initially made available at launch. Updated 5/3/2024 Alaska Energy Authority Bill Tracker – 33rd Legislature Bill Short Title Sponsor(s) Status Date HB 154 AK HOUSING FINANCE CORP: SUSTAIN ENERGY RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOV (H) RLS 4/29/2024 HB 177 CRITICAL NATURAL MINERALS PLAN AND REPORT SADDLER (H) FIN 2/26/2024 HB 227 ELECTRIC UTILITY LIABILITY RAUSCHER (H) RLS 3/28/2024 HB 307 INTEGRATED TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOV (H) FIN 2/2/2024 HB 349 RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT LEASES GROH (H) ENE 4/18/2024 HB 365 POWER COST EQUALIZATION MCCABE (H) ENE 2/20/2024 HB 368 ELECTRICAL ENERGY & ENERGY PORTFOLIO STDS ENERGY (H) FIN 3/22/2024 HB 390 AIDEA & AEA GAS OFFTAKE/POWER AGREEMENTS RESOURCES (H) ENE 3/6/2024 SB 101 UTILITIES: RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD TOBIN (S) L&C 3/15/2023 SB 118 CRITICAL NATURAL RESOURCES; REPORTS MERRICK (H) FIN 4/29/2024 SB 125 AK HOUSING FINANCE CORP: SUSTAIN ENERGY RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOV (S) FIN 4/5/2023 SB 217 INTEGRATED TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOV (S) FIN 4/30/2024 SB 243 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY GOVERNANCE RESOURCES (S) FIN 3/6/2024 SB 257 ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATION RESOURCES (S) FIN 4/30/2024 SSCR5 DISAPPROVE EO 128 RLS TRANSM TO GOV 3/26/2024 Page 1 of 1 Legislative Requests/AEA Responses Date Request Who Assigned to Date answered 5/1/24 SB 217 Amendments Senator Dunbar Curtis 5/1/24 4/30/24 Mountain Village Bulk Fuel follow-up Representative Foster’s Office Curtis 5/1/24 4/30/24 Alaska Heating Energy Supply comparison Senate Finance Committee Curtis 5/1/24 4/30/24 SB 217 – RTO makeup Representative Stapp’s Office Curtis 5/1/24 4/25/24 Mountain Village – Bulk Fuel upgrades Representative Foster’s Office Curtis/Tim/Rebecca 4/26/24 4/24/24 Circle Telephone & Electric Senator Bishop’s Office Curtis/Tim/Rebecca 4/26/24 4/18/24 AEA Board Resolution 2024-04 GRIP 3 Round 2 Application Senator Bjorkman Curtis 4/18/24 4/18/24 GRIP Match – follow up questions Senator Bishop’s Office Curtis 4/18/24 4/12/24 Heating Energy Supply Graph Senator Stedman’s Office Curtis 4/12/24 4/10/24 REF Round 16 Recommended project list Senator Bishop’s Office Curtis 4/10/24 4/5/24 PPF Loan to Haida Energy (Hiilangaay) Representative Mears Office Curtis/Conner 4/9/24 4/4/24 GRIP Match Senator Bishop’s office Curtis 4/4/24 4/3/24 State Appropriations 2003-2023 OMB through DCCED Curtis 4/3/24 4/3/24 RPSU – BFU Senator Hoffman’s Office Tim/Curtis 4/4/24 3/28/24 Dock Electrification Senator Stedman’s / Senator Bishop’s Office Curtis 4/1/24 3/22/24 HVDC – GRIP Senator Giessel Curtis 3/29/24 3/20/24 PPF Re-capitalization Representative Donna Mears Curtis 3/20/24 3/19/24 IIJA/IRA match and RPSU-BFU Senator Stedman’s Office Curtis 3/20/24 3/18/24 HB 365 and PCE Representative McCabe through DCCED Curtis 3/18/24 3/04/24 Wheeling Charges Senate Resources Committee Curtis 3/15/24 2/26/24 How much power will Dixon Diversion provide Anne Rittgers, Senator Bishop’s office Curtis 2/2624 2/8/24 Gas generation in Anchorage bowl. Anne Rittgers from Senator Bishop’s Office Curtis 2/8/24 Page 2 of 1 2/5/24 SuWa Hydro Project Status Letter- resend Anneliese from Senator Hughes office Jennifer 2/2/24 1/16/24 Su-Wa Hydro questions Senator Hughes Curtis 1/23/24 12/16/23 Hydroelectric project funding. OMB through Micaela Fowler. Tim / Conner / Curtis 12/15/23 15 year lookback on all energy projects the state has funded in Fairbanks Region. GO and GLO Tim / Curtis 12/18/23 12/1/23 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Report Representative Rauscher’s office (Craig Valdez) Curtis 12/2/2023 11/15/23 How does GRIP Award fit into the “comprehensive statewide energy plan.” How do the two battery banks integrate with Westinghouse Announcement. Representative Mike Prax Conner / Curtis 12/2/2023 MODERNIZING THE RAILBELT GRID Curtis W. Thayer Executive Director Senate Finance Committee April 30, 2024 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 AEA Active Projects and Services 2 3 MODERNIZING THE RAILBELT GRID AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 4 Railbelt Opportunities AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 Bradley 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 5 Bradley Lake generators are rated to produce up to 120 MW of power. Bradley Lake generates about 10 percent of the total annual electrical energy used by Railbelt electrical utilities. From 1995 through 2023 the project averaged 390,000 MWh of energy production annually at $0.04 per kWh. CAPACITY ENERGY GENERATION COST PER KWH 120MW 10%$0.04 AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 AEA is studying the Dixon Diversion Project to optimize the energy potential of the AEA-owned Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Like the West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Project, the Dixon Diversion Project would divert water from Dixon Glacier in order to increase Bradley Lake's annual energy production by 50 percent. Located five miles from Bradley Lake and would utilize existing powerhouse at Bradley Lake Estimated annual energy 100,000-200,000 MWh (~24,000-30,000 homes) Estimated to offset 1.5-1.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year in Railbelt power generation (equal to 7.5% of Alaska's unmet natural gas demand projected for 2030) Estimated completion is 2030 *Funding will be used for engineering studies (feasibility, hydrological, geological) and environmental studies (fisheries, water quality, geomorphology). 6 Dixon Diversion Project $342 Million AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 Why are Transmission Upgrades Needed? Many of the transmission lines and associated equipment serving Alaska were constructed more than 40 years ago. Transmission upgrades are needed to improve Alaska’s resilience and energy security, diversify its energy portfolio, and accelerate the effective future integration of renewable and clean power. Energy Security Energy Diversity Reliable Energy Reliable transmission infrastructure ensures that those projects will be able to connect to the grid and provide energy anywhere it is needed along the Railbelt. As Cook Inlet natural gas supplies decline, new energy projects, including renewable energy, will become increasingly important to our energy security. A second transmission line from the Southern region (Kenai Peninsula) of the Railbelt to the Central region (Anchorage) will ensure power in the event of an emergency shutdown along existing lines. 7 AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP): HDVC Line Increases transfer capacity between regions that enables higher renewable energy integration into the electricity system. Improves resilience and reliability for tribal and disadvantaged communities in the Railbelt region, and a reduction in reliance on fossil fuel generation and associated emissions. Supports the retention of high- quality jobs in the region, including 650 highly paid jobs with competitive employer-sponsored benefits. Creates apprenticeship and internship programs to train a new generation of lineworkers and wireworkers to reinvigorate Alaska’s energy workforce. AEA secured $206.5 million for GRIP Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation through the United States Department of Energy’s Grid Deployment Office. A cost share of 100 percent, or $206.5 million, is required for a total project amount of $413 million. The Railbelt Innovation Resiliency project will construct a high-voltage direct current (HDVC) submarine cable to serve as a parallel transmission route from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage, creating a much-needed redundant system in case of disruptive events. 8 $413 Million (206.5 Million Federal and $206.5 Million Alaska Match) Anticipated outcomes and benefits include: HVDC Subsea Cable from Kenai to Beluga AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 The RIR project encompasses several projects —one of them being the installation of a new subsea high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line from the Kenai Peninsula across Cook Inlet to the existing Beluga Power Plant —and, if feasible, one or two battery energy storage systems (BESS) in the Central (Anchorage) and Northern (Fairbanks) regions. Location: The project involves connecting the Railbelt’s Southern region (Kenai Peninsula) to the Central region (Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Valley) via Beluga with an HVDC submarine circuit. Cable length: Approximately 65 miles total length, 37.5 mile subsea cable/2.5 miles from the landing to Beluga, and 25 miles from the Southern landing to Soldotna. Cable size: The cable is approximately 8” in diameter with roughly 250 megawatt transfer capability. Cable depth to be buried in the seabed: About 4-6 feet deep. Landings may be installed using horizontal directional drilling. Project highlights: 9 Schedule The statutory period for the project is eight (8) years and the construction schedule below is based on a design-bid-build process —a traditional project delivery method that consists of three distinct phases in sequence: -Second Quarter 2024 –Award -Summer 2024 –Preliminary Engineering -December 2024 –Complete Preliminary Design -July 2027 –Complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process -December 2027 –Contractor Selection -January 2028 to December 2029 –Long Lead Items -January 2030 to December 2031 –Construction 10 10AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 GRIP 3, Round 2: Beluga to Healy Overhead HVDC 11 Scope –The Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project, Round 2 is a crucial initiative to build a clean, smart, and affordable grid in Alaska. This project involves building a 250-mile high-voltage direct current (HVDC) overhead transmission line from Beluga (west of Cook Inlet) to Healy. Benefits –Increased resilience and redundancy of the Alaska Intertie, an additional conduit for power to transmit between regions, reduced line losses, and allows for more energy to be delivered to consumers. Status and Schedule –In January 2024, AEA and Railbelt Utilities submitted a concept paper to the Department of Energy. In March, we were encouraged to apply fully. Application deadline is April 17, 2024, and we expect notification in early third quarter. -2025-2026 –Initial design, permitting -2026-2027 –Engineering, NEPA process -2027-2031 –Construction Budget –Estimated total cost is up to $730 million $730 Million Total Cost ($365 Million Federal and $365 Million Match) AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 12AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 Sterling to Quartz (SSQ ) and Soldotna to Sterling Transmission Lines In 2020, AEA acquired the SSQ Transmission Line, a critical component of the interconnected Railbelt transmission system on the Kenai Peninsula, as part of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Location –39.4 miles of 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission and out of use 69 kV transmission from Sterling to Quartz substation (Kenai Lake) Benefits –AEA ownership ensures better cost alignment, increase reliability, and more timely repairs and upgrades Status –69 kV line decommissioned and removed. Engineers are designing and are procuring equipment for the upgrade of the existing 115 kV line to 230 kV. Upgrade will reduce line losses, increase line reliability and system resiliency Cost –Estimated cost to upgrade line to 230 kV standards is $90 million for the transmission line between Sterling Substation and the Quartz Creek Substation on Kenai Lake $90 Million (Under Construction; AEA Bonds Existing) Battery Energy Storage Systems for Grid Stabilization Scope –The BESS projects consist of an upgrade to the existing BESS system in the North, and also new BESS systems in the Southern, and Central regions of the grid. The Northern BESS is located at Fairbanks, the Southern BESS is located in Kenai, the Central Region BESS will be located at Anchorage. BESS will be needed to fully realize the benefits of a 230 kV bulk power supply system, regulate energy from various generation, and increase resilience. Benefits –Increase system resilience, transfer capability, more efficient use of system, and lowers impediments to additional renewable generation development Schedule –Estimated completion date is 2026: -Southern (Kenai) –In service -Central (Anchorage) –October 2024 -Northern (Fairbanks) –To be determined Budget –Estimated total cost is up to $168 million (depending on technology choices and capacity) $168 Million Total Cost ($58 Million Current Available Funds) 13AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 HB 307: What does it do? House Bill 307 aims to: Reduce barriers for new power projects Transform system into a public highway rather than a toll road Allow for lowest cost power to move regardless of generation source It aims to do this by: Requiring the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) to establish a new mechanism of transmission cost recovery in the Railbelt Eliminating transmission “wheeling” rates for inter- utility movement of electricity Extending tax relief provisions enjoyed by Electric Co- ops to Independent Power Producers (IPPs) 14AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 Independent Power Producers AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 15 House Bill 307 will amend Alaska Statute 10.25.540(b) —the statute related to taxation of cooperatives —to extend its tax relief provisions to independent power producers who sell their power to non-profit electric utilities. Alaska Energy Authority 813 W Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 akenergyauthority.org Thank You 16AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 17 OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 AEA and AHFC collaborating to develop a Statewide Solar Program: -AEA focus on development of community solar projects in disadvantaged communities using a Renewable Energy Fund- style grant program. -AHFC focus on residential rooftop solar for low income households. Program benefits include: -energy cost savings, -increased resiliency, -equitable access to solar, -asset ownership benefits low income and disadvantaged, communities, -workforce development, and -reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This is a competitive grant program —no match required. AEA and AHFC submitted an application for a $100 million grant. Solar For All Competition $100 Million (Application Pending) 18AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 19 AEA submitted 2 applications for EPA’s CPRG Implementation Program: 1.AEA is an individual applicant for the Dixon Diversion Project 2.AEA is the lead applicant in a coalition for Rural Energy Programs Dixon Diversion Project -Requested funding $348 million -Includes studies, licensing, and construction of the Dixon Diversion Rural Energy Programs -Requested funding $50 million -Coalition members: AEA, Tanana Chiefs Conference, and Northwest Arctic Borough -Proposal includes funding for: diesel engine replacements, rural distribution system upgrades, and energy efficiency upgrades to public infrastructure This is a competitive grant program —no match required. Award selections are expected July 2024. Climate Pollution Reduction Grants AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 State of Alaska Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Implementation Plan AEA and the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), continue their partnership in deploying the State of Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan (The Plan). The first round of Alaska NEVI awards was announced on September 25, 2023. AEA and DOT&PF selected projects in nine communities for a total investment of $8 million. The $6.4 million in NEVI funding will be matched with $1.6 million from private entities selected to install, own, and operate the new EV charging stations. On September 29, 2023, the Federal Highway Administration approved the fiscal year 2024 plan. This unlocked $11 million in addition to $19 million available in the fiscal years 2022 and 2023. Phases 2 and 3 of The Plan will develop charging infrastructure in more than 30 communities along the Marine Highway System and in hub communities as funding allows. 20AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 $52 Million (Over Five Years) Home Efficiency Rebates Rebates for energy efficiency retrofits range from $2,000-$4,000 for individual households and up to $400,000 for multifamily buildings. Grants to states to provide rebates for home retrofits. Up to $2,000 for retrofits reducing energy use by 20% or more, and up to $4,000 for retrofits saving 35% or more. Maximum rebates amounts are doubled for retrofits of low-and moderate-income homes. Alaska’s Allocation is $37.4 million. No State match is required. Funding is estimated to be available between fall 2024 and spring 2025. Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates Develop a high efficiency electric home rebate program. Inclusive of means testing and will provide 50% of the project cost for incomes ranging from 80% to 150% of area median income. Rebates to cover 100% of the proposed cost for incomes 80% of area medium income and below, with similar tiers applied for multifamily buildings. Includes a $14,000 cap per household, with an $8,000 cap for heat pump costs, $1,750 for a heat pump water heater, and $4,000 for electrical panel/service upgrade. Other eligible rebates include electric stoves, clothes dryers, and insulation/air sealing measures. Alaska’s Allocation is $37.1 million. No State match is required. Funding is estimated to be available between fall 2024 and spring 2025.21 AEA is collaborating with the Alaska Housing Financing Corporation to distribute Alaska’s allocation of $74 Million Home Energy and High Efficiency Rebate Allocations AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 Black Rapids Training Site (BRTS) Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program AEA partnered with Golden Valley Electric Cooperative (GVEA) was awarded this grant from the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation under the Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program. Federal Receipt Authority of $12.7 Million received in fiscal year 2024. A $3 million supplemental budget request was submitted by AEA to complete additional work requested by the Department of Defense. No State match is required. $15.7 Million GVEA will use the funds to extend a transmission line 34 miles along the Richardson Highway to BTRS. Currently, BTRS is powered by three diesel generators that are nearing the end of their useful lives. This extension will improve long-term sustainability and reliability for BRTS by tying them into GVEA’s power grid. AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 22 Other Federal Funding Opportunities Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund –$4.5 million $4,569,780 to establish and capitalize a revolving loan fund, under which the State shall provide loans and grants for residential energy audits, upgrades, and retrofits to increase energy efficiency, physical conform and air quality of existing building infrastructure. AEA will administer the program in collaboration with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). State Energy Program –$3.6 million $3,661,930 to develop Statewide Energy Plan and Statewide Energy Security Profile, as well as (1) update AkWarm Energy Modeling Software to the requirements imposed by the Inflation Reduction Act and (2) modernize Alaska Retrofit Information Systems database to accept the AkWarm modifications in collaboration with AHFC. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Equipment Competitive –$1.6 million $1,670,000 to (1) increase access to vehicle electrification in multiple rural and underserved communities across Alaska; (2) demonstrate the benefits of EVs to key decision-makers and the broader public to accelerate clean transportation transition; and (3) support the development of community charging equipment. A 20% match is required, shared by AEA and project partners. Funds will become available in Fall 2023. State-Based Home Energy Efficiency Contractor Training Grant Program –$1.3 million $1.3 million to fund a State-Based Home Energy Efficiency Contractor Training Grant Program to develop and implement a state workforce energy program that prepares workers to deliver energy efficiency, electrification, and clean energy improvements, including those covered by the Inflation Reduction Act Home Energy Rebate Programs. 23AEA Modernizing the Railbelt Grid | Senate Finance Committee | April 30, 2024 GRIP FEDERAL FUNDING AND MATCH REQUIREMENT Curtis W. ThayerExecutive Director House Finance CommitteeApril 17, 2024 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships 2AEA Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Federal Funding and Match Requirement | House Finance Committee | April 17, 2024 On October 18, 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced up to $3.5 billion in Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program investments for 58 projects across 44 states to strengthen electric grid resilience and reliability across America. In the fall of 2023, AEA was awarded $206.5 million by DOE to advance the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency (RIR) project, which aims to enhance the resiliency and transfer capability along Alaska’s Railbelt. -To utilize the funds, there must be a commitment to match 100 percent —or $206.5 million —bringing the project’s total cost to $413 million. -These federal funds were the result of a successful collaboration between AEA and Railbelt utilities:-Chugach Electric Association-Golden Valley Electric Association-Homer Electric Association-Matanuska Electric Association, and-Seward Electric. -With this DOE funding, Alaska can leverage dollar-for-dollar matching federal investment to expand on transmission upgrades already underway and modernize the transmission system for the benefit of all of the Railbelt communities, while at the same time improve resilience and energy security, diversify its energy portfolio, and accelerate the effective future integration of renewable and clean power. AEA Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Federal Funding and Match Requirement | House Finance Committee | April 17, 2024 Increases transfer capacity between regions that enables higher renewable energy integration into the electricity system. Improves resilience and reliability for tribal and disadvantaged communities in the Railbelt region, and a reduction in reliance on fossil fuel generation and associated emissions. Supports the retention of high-quality jobs in the region, including 650 highly paid jobs with competitive employer-sponsored benefits. Creates apprenticeship and internship programs to train a new generation of lineworkers and wireworkers to reinvigorate Alaska’s energy workforce. The Railbelt Innovation Resiliency (RIR) project will construct a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) submarine cable to serve as a parallel transmission route from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage, creating a much-needed redundant system in case of disruptive events. Anticipated outcomes and benefits include: 3 $413 Million (206.5 Million Federal and $206.5 Million Alaska Match) Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project: HVDC Submarine Cable HVDC Submarine Cable from Kenai to Beluga 4AEA Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Federal Funding and Match Requirement | House Finance Committee | April 17, 2024 The RIR project encompasses several projects —one of them being the installation of a new submarine high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line from the Kenai Peninsula across Cook Inlet to the existing Beluga Power Plant —and, if feasible, one or two battery energy storage systems (BESS) in the Central (Anchorage) and Northern (Fairbanks) regions. Location: The project involves connecting the Railbelt’s Southern region (Kenai Peninsula) to the Central region (Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Valley) via Beluga with an HVDC submarine circuit. Cable length: Approximately 65 miles total length, 37.5 mile subsea cable/2.5 miles from the landing to Beluga, and 25 miles from the Southern landing to Soldotna. Cable size: The cable is approximately 8” in diameter with roughly 250 megawatt transfer capability. Cable depth to be buried in the seabed: About 4-6 feet deep. Landings may be installed using horizontal directional drilling. Project highlights: 5 At its most basic level a BESS consists of one or more batteries that store electrical energy for use at a later time. This stored energy can then be drawn upon when needed to meet various demands for power across different applications. BESS can also provide advantages over other energy storage systems including greater efficiency and flexibility, faster response times when powering equipment or devices, and lower costs overall. Coordinated interregional control and operations of the BESSs and HVDC line will tie all the individual systems together to maximize stability and limit congestion. BESS in Central (Anchorage) and Northern (Fairbanks) Regions 6 Schedule The statutory period for the project is eight (8) years and the construction schedule below is based on adesign-bid-build process —a traditional project delivery method that consists of three distinct phases in sequence:-Second Quarter 2024 –Award-Summer 2024 –Preliminary Engineering-December 2024 –Complete Preliminary Design-July 2027 –Complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process-December 2027 –Contractor Selection-January 2028 to December 2029 –Long Lead Items-January 2030 to December 2031 –Construction 7AEA Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Federal Funding and Match Requirement | House Finance Committee | April 17, 2024 Why are Transmission Upgrades Needed? Many of the transmission lines and associated equipment serving Alaska were constructed more than40 years ago. Transmission upgrades are needed to improve Alaska’s resilience and energy security, diversifyits energy portfolio, and accelerate the effective future integration of renewable and clean power. Energy Security Energy Diversity Redundant Energy Reliable transmission infrastructure ensures that those projects will be able to connect to the grid and provide energy anywhere it is needed along the Railbelt. As Cook Inlet natural gas supplies decline, new energy projects, including renewable energy, will become increasingly important to our energy security. A second transmission line from the Southern region (Kenai Peninsula) of the Railbelt to the Central region (Anchorage) will ensure power in the event of an emergency shutdown along existing lines. Benefits and Opportunities 8AEA Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Federal Funding and Match Requirement | House Finance Committee | April 17, 2024 Alaska has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand on upgrades underway by leveraging federal funding to modernize the transmission system for all Railbelt communities. Transmission line upgrades and BESS acquisition will provide consumers with multiple benefits, including: Decreased line loss: Upgraded line will substantially reduce energy losses from resistance, contributing to lower energy prices. Grid redundancy and stability: Adds redundancy and stability on the Railbelt by creating an alternate path for generation to flow north and south. Better cost alignment: Align the allocation of resources with traditional utility methodology, i.e. cost causer/cost payer. Rural benefits: Upgrades will benefit rural communities; when energy costs decrease on the Railbelt, residential rates are reduced for communities that receive Power Cost Equalization. Increased resilience and reliability: BESSincreases grid resilience and reduces outage risk by supporting load for several hours. New renewable energy: Allows for development of new renewable energy projects on the Kenai Peninsula for consumers. Increased stability: Regardless of fuel supply diversity and decarbonizationsolutions, these improvements are needed for increased stability. Fiscal Year 2025 GRIP Match 9AEA Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Federal Funding and Match Requirement | House Finance Committee | April 17, 2024 Appropriations Other Funding Activity Expenditure Funding FY Fed Match Fund Source To Be Determined No Approp Needed Fed State Funds or Source To Be Determined Existing AEA Revenue Bonds ** 2025 206.50 12.70 -20.00 Grant negotiations, bondholder outreach, legal review, and other preparatory costs. Initiate design, engineering, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/ permitting process for High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) and Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS).32.70 12.70 20.00 2026 --6.50 25.00 NEPA process, begin procurement of BESS, site design and engineering.31.50 6.50 25.00 2027 --8.80 -NEPA process.8.80 8.80 - 2028 --21.80 5.00 Complete NEPA process, construct BESS building, begin right-of-way clearing and site preparation.26.80 21.80 5.00 2029 --60.00 - HVDC component construction begins (Soldotna switchyard, Soldotna-Bernice HVDC line, Beluga landing, HVDC submarine cable); BESS testing and commissioning.60.00 60.00 - 2030 --30.95 - HVDC component construction continues (Soldotna switchyard, Soldotna-Bernice HVDC line, Beluga landing, HVDC submarine cable).30.95 30.95 - 2031 --15.75 - HVDC component construction complete (Soldotna switchyard, Soldotna-Bernice HVDC line, Beluga landing, HVDC submarine cable).15.75 15.75 - 2032 ------- 2033 ------- 2034 ------- Total 206.50 12.70 143.80 50.00 206.50 156.50 50.00 413.00 413.00 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Federal Funding and Match Requirement (Thousands)Project Funding Plan as of March 7, 2024 FY2024 AIDEA Dividend $ 6,952.0 Reappropriation from 2012 AEA Project $ 2,294.1 FY2025 AIDEA Dividend $ 3,453.9 FY2025 GRIP Match $12,700.0 Alaska Energy Authority 813 W Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 akenergyauthority.org Thank You 10 HB 307: INTEGRATED TRANSMISSIONSYSTEMS Curtis W. ThayerExecutive Director House Finance CommitteeApril 9, 2024 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY House Bill 307: Integrated Transmission Systems | House Finance Committee | April 9, 2024 The Railbelt Electrical Grid 2 The “Railbelt” refers to the interconnected electric grid that goes from Homer to Fairbanks to Delta. Approximately 700 miles long connected by single transmission lines. The Railbelt electric system serves about 75% to 80% of Alaska's population Area served by the Railbelt Grid Area served by Copper ValleyElectric Association 3House Bill 307: Integrated Transmission Systems | House Finance Committee | April 9, 2024 Transmission is owned by AEA and Railbelt utilities. Much of Railbelt has few alternative pathways. Copper Valley connected by road but not transmission. Roadbelt Transmission is the Railbelt system plus transmission connecting Matanuska Valley, Glennallen, and then north to Delta Junction. RailbeltTransmission System Independent Power Producers House Bill 307: Integrated Transmission Systems | House Finance Committee | April 9, 2024 4 House Bill 307 will amend Alaska Statute 10.25.540(b) —the statute related to taxation of cooperatives—to extend its tax relief provisions to independent power producers who sell their power to non-profit electric utilities. HB 307: What does it do? House Bill 307 aims to: Reduce barriers for new power projects Transform system into a public highway rather than a toll road Allow for lowest cost power to move regardless of generation source It aims to do this by: Requiring the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) to establish a new mechanism of transmission cost recovery in the Railbelt Eliminating transmission “wheeling” rates for inter-utility movement of electricity Extending tax relief provisions enjoyed by Electric Co-ops to Independent Power Producers (IPPs) 5 Alaska Energy Authority 813 W Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 akenergyauthority.org Thank You 6 DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCELOCATION TEAM MEMBERApril 30, 2024 Vendor Booth Matanuska Electric Association Annual MeetingGlenn Massay Theatre, Palmer, AKQuinlan HarrisApril 25, 2024 Media Response AEA Response to Tim Bradner with Alaska Legislative Digest on April 17 AEA Board Meeting Topics Email Brandy M. DixonApril 24, 2024 Media Interview Solar for All, Jenny Willoughby, KTNA (Talkeetna) Phone Curtis W. ThayerApril 23, 2024 Media Interview Solar for All, Sean Maguire, Anchorage Daily News Phone Curtis W. ThayerApril 23, 2024 PanelistNational Association of State Energy Officials and National Governors Association Webinar Series: Comprehensive Energy Planning 101 – Tips and Best Practices from the States: Webinar 1: Initiating Statewide Planning ProcessesVirtual Curtis W. ThayerApril 22, 2024 Press Release AEA and AHFC selected for $62.5 Million EPA Solar for All Grant Email/Social Media Brandy M. DixonApril 12, 2024 Media Inquiry Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Funding, Tim Bradner, Alaska Legislative Digest Email Brandy M. DixonApril 11, 2024 Newsletter AKEVWG April Newsletter Sent to 270 Recipients Email Brandy M. DixonApril 11, 2024 Attendee Utility Working Group Comms Monthly Check-In Virtual Brandy M. DixonApril 10, 2024 Meeting AEA Meeting with Mayor Micciche, Mayor Whitney, and Vice Mayor Knackstedt Soldotna, AKCurtis W. Thayer, Jim MendenhallApril 10, 2024 Presenter Joint Kenai and Soldotna Chamber of Commerce LuncheonSoldotna Regional Sports Complex, Soldotna, AKCurtis W. Thayer, Jim MendenhallApril 3, 2024 Panelist2024 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference (ASEC) Pre-Conference Workshop 2: Transmission and Distribution: The Clean Energy Transitions Secret WeaponVirtual Jim MendenhallApril 2, 2024 Panelist Alaska Infrastructure Development Symposium: State Energy UpdatesDena’ina Civic and ConventionCenter, Anchorage, AKCurtis W. ThayerApril 2, 2024 Attendees Alaska Infrastructure Development Symposium: Rural Alaska Bulk Fuel SummitDena’ina Civic and ConventionCenter, Anchorage, AKShannon Apgar-Kurtz, Rebecca Garrett, Dean Maschner, Dawn Molina, Bill Price, Ashley Streveler April 2, 2024 Panelist2024 ASEC Pre-Conference Workshop 2: Transmission and Distribution: The Clean Energy Transitions Secret WeaponVirtual Bill PriceApril 1, 2024 Attendee Railbelt Reliability Council Board Meeting CIRI Office, Anchorage, AKBill PriceApril 1, 2024 Host Dixon Diversion Terrestrial Meeting Virtual Bryan CareyMarch 29, 2024 Interview Electric Vehicle Tech (EV) Educational Documentary Production by Launch Alaska AEA OfficeCurtis W. Thayer, Audrey AlstromMarch 28, 2024 Vendor Booth AEA EV Program, Anchorage Transportation FairAlaska Airlines Center, Anchorage, AKQuinlan Harris, Yosty StormsMarch 25, 2024 Media Follow Up Railbelt Upgrades, Tim Lydon, Alaska Magazine Email Brandy M. DixonMarch 22, 2024 Host/PresenterAlaska Electric Vehicle Working Group (AKEVWG) Technical Session: Microtrends and Winter vs. Summer PerformanceVirtual Audrey AlstromMarch 22, 2024 Attendee Utility Working Group Comms Monthly Check-In Virtual Brandy M. DixonMarch 19, 2024 Host Dixon Diversion Terrestrial Meeting Virtual Bryan CareyMarch 18, 2024 Media Interview AEA Update, Tim Bradner with Alaska Economic Report and Legislative Digest for KTOO Capital Views Virtual Curtis W. ThayerMarch 14, 2024 Attendee 2024 ASEC Planning CommitteeVirtual Brandy M. DixonMarch 11, 2024 Media Interview Railbelt Upgrades, Tim Lydon, Alaska Magazine Phone Curtis W. ThayerAEA COMMUNITY OUTREACHLast Updated on May 1, 2024 (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 MEMBERMarch 7, 2024 Newsletter AKEVWG March Newsletter Sent to 274 Recipients Email Brandy M. DixonMarch 6, 2024 Media Response AEA Response to ACEP Railbelt Decarbonization Study Article by Mikel Insalaco, Alaska Business EmailBrandy M. Dixon, Bryan Carey, Conner Erickson, Bill Price, Curtis W. ThayerMarch 6, 2024 Panelist2024 ASEC Pre-Conference Workshop 1: Utility Decision-Making: Navigating Constraints, Innovating for the FutureVirtual Curtis W. ThayerMarch 5, 2024 Host Dixon Diversion Joint Agency and Public Meeting Virtual Bryan CareyMarch 4, 2025 Attendee Railbelt Reliability Council Board Meeting BP Energy Center Anchorage, AKBill PriceFebruary 29, 2024 Attendee 2024 ASEC Planning CommitteeVirtual Brandy M. DixonFebruary 28, 2024 SpeakerAEA Update Presentation on Grid Modernization (Specifically the Anchorage to Healy Phase) to the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce: Energy, Environment & Natural Resources CommitteeVirtual Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 22, 2024 Media Interview Chignik Power Restored, Christina McDermott, KDLG in Dillingham Phone Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 20, 2024 PresenterAEA Overview and Programs Update Presentation to Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation: Energy for All Alaska Task ForceVirtual Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 19, 2024 Attendee Utility Working Group Comms Monthly Check-In Virtual Brandy M. DixonFebruary 15, 2024 Attendee 2024 ASEC Planning CommitteeVirtual Brandy M. DixonFebruary 14, 2024 Presenter AEA Overview and Programs Update to Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce In Person Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 8, 2024 Newsletter AKEVWG February Newsletter Sent to 266 Recipients Email Brandy M. DixonFebruary 7, 2024 Presenter AEA Overview and Programs Update to Southeast Conference Virtual Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 7, 2024 Presenter AEA Presentation to Alaska Forum on the Environment In PersonAudrey Alstrom, Conner EricksonFebruary 6-9, 2024 Attendee/Opening Remarks 2024 National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) Energy Policy Outlook ConferenceThe Fairmont, Washington, DCCurtis W. ThayerFebruary 6, 2024 Media Interview Bond Package, James Brooks, Alaska Beacon Phone Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 6, 2024 Host Public Notice: Joint Agency and Public Meeting Virtual Bryan CareyFebruary 5, 2024 Attendee Railbelt Reliability Council Board Meeting CIRI Office Anchorage, AKBryan Carey, Bill PriceFebruary 1, 2024 Presenter AEA Executive Order 128 Overview Presentation to House Energy Committee In Person Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 1, 2024 Presenter AEA Overview and Programs Update to House Energy Committee In Person Curtis W. ThayerJanuary 31, 2024 Host/Presenter AEA RE-VEEP Informational Presentation to Applicants In Person Yosty StormsJanuary 31, 2024 Presenter AEA Overview and Programs Update to Alaska Power Association In Person Curtis W. ThayerJanuary 29, 2024 Press Release AEA releases 2023 REF Impact and Evaluation Report Email/Social Media Brandy M. DixonJanuary 25, 2024 Vendor Booth AEA Vendor Booth at the Mat-Su Transportation FairFairgrounds, Ravel Hall, Palmer, AKQuinlan Harris, Yosty StormsJanuary 24, 2024 Presenter AEA SESP Presentation to NASEO Island Cohort In Person Audrey AlstromJanuary 22, 2024 Media Interview Executive Order 128, James Brooks, Alaska Beacon Phone Curtis W. ThayerJanuary 18, 2024 Host AKEVWG Technical Session: DriveOhio – Construction and Opening of the first NEVI-Funded Sites In-Person/Virtual AEA EV TeamJanuary 18, 2024 Attendee 2024 ASEC Planning CommitteeVirtual Brandy M. DixonJanuary 17, 2024 Presenter AEA ARPPOW Meeting to Rural Operator Virtual Kyle KillmerJanuary 12, 2024 Newsletter AKEVWG January Newsletter Sent to 266 Recipients Email Brandy M. DixonJanuary 9, 2024 Host/Presenter Renewable Energy Grant Fund Advisory Committee Meeting In Person/VirtualKaren Bell, Conner EricksonJanuary 9, 2024 Media Inquiry Manokotak, Christina McDermott, KDLG Radio in Dillingham Phone Call Tim SandstromFebruary 5, 2024 Attendee Railbelt Reliability Council Board Meeting CIRI Office Anchorage, AKBryan Carey, Bill PriceAEA Community OutreachPage 2 of 3 DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCELOCATION TEAM MEMBERJanuary 4, 2024 Attendee 2024 ASEC Planning CommitteeVirtual Brandy M. DixonJanuary 2, 2024 Press Release AEA opens application for $22.1 million in grid resilience sub-awards Email/Social Media Brandy M. DixonDecember 21, 2023 Podcast Alaska Powerline Podcast, Michael Rovito, Alaska Power Association Virtual Curtis W. ThayerDecember 20, 2023 Press Release AEA awarded $1.67 million from DOE for EV charging infrastructure in rural Alaska Email/Social Media Brandy M. DixonDecember 19, 2023 Press Release AEA announces $2.6 million in grants available for rural energy projects Email/Social Media Brandy M. DixonDecember 14, 2023 Newsletter AKEVWG December Newsletter Sent to 265 Recipients Email Brandy M. DixonDecember 14, 2023 Host/Presenter AKEVWG Technical Session: Car Dealership Panel Discussion Virtual Josi HartleyDecember 14, 2023 Attendee Utility Working Group Comms Monthly Check-In Virtual Brandy M. DixonDecember 11, 2023 Press Release AEA launches a new digital library of over 7,500 items Email/Social Media Brandy M. DixonDecember 8, 2023 Media Interview Alaska National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Plan, Madeleine Ngo, The New York Time Phone CallCurtis W. Thayer, Josi HartleyDecember 6, 2023 PresenterAEA Federal Funding Presentation to 73rd Annual Alaska Municipal League Local GovernmentConferenceIn Person Conner EricksonDecember 6-8, 2023Attendee/Presenter/VendorBooth73rd Annual Alaska Municipal League Local Government ConferenceDena’ina Civic and ConventionCenter, Anchorage, AKAudrey Alstrom, Katherine Aubrey, Karen Bell, Brandy M. Dixon, Conner Erickson, Josi Hartley, Anna M. Larsen, Taase Toli-Moana, Bill Price, Curtis W. ThayerNovember 29, 2023 Attendee/Presenter Legislative Forum: Energy Generation and TransmissionLegislative Information Office,Anchorage , AKBrandy M. Dixon, CurtisThayer, Tim SandstromNovember 28, 2023 PresenterAEA Overview and Funding Opportunities Presentation to 33rd Annual Bureau of Indian Affairs' TribalProviders ConferenceIn Person Audrey AlstromNovember 28-30, 2023Attendee/Presenter/Vendor Booth33rd Annual Bureau of Indian Affairs' Tribal Providers ConferenceDena’ina Civic and Convention Center, Anchorage, AKAudrey Alstrom, Katherine Aubrey, Karen Bell, Brandy M. Dixon, Conner Erickson, Josi Hartley, Quinlan Harris, Dawn Molina, Khae Pasao, Bill Price, Yosty Storms, Karen TurnerNovember 23, 2023 Presenter AEA and Task Force Overview Presentation to Golden Valley Electric Association In Person Curtis W. ThayerNovember 15, 2023 Host Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting In-Person/Virtual Curtis W. ThayerNovember 15, 2023 Presenter Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Alaska's Electric Vehicles Program In Person Josi HartleyNovember 9, 2023 Newsletter AKEVWG November Newsletter Sent to 270 Recipients Email Brandy M. DixonNovember 9, 2023 Media Inquiry Inflation Reduction Act Home Rebate Programs, Madeleine Ngo, The New York Times Email Brandy M. DixonNovember 9, 2023 Attendee Utility Working Group Comms Monthly Check-In Virtual Brandy M. DixonNovember 7, 2023 Press Release AEA and DOT&PF Receive FHWA Approval for FY24 Alaska NEVI Plan Email/Social Media Brandy M. DixonNovember 7, 2023 Host Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting In-Person/Virtual Curtis W. ThayerNovember 7, 2023 Media Interview Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Program Award, James Brooks, Alaska Beacon Phone Curtis W. ThayerAEA Community OutreachPage 3 of 3 Six Alaska projects receive grants from DOE rural & remote clean energy program https://alaska-native-news.com/six-alaska-projects-receive-grants-from-doe-rural-remote-clean-energy-program/73774/ 1/2 Six Alaska projects receive grants from DOE rural & remote clean energy program By Department of Energy on May 1, 2024 ● Comments Off on Six Alaska projects receive grants from DOE rural & remote clean energy program The Biden-Harris Administration’s Department of Energy Tuesday announced it has awarded more than $20 million to Alaskan communities for rural and remote clean energy projects. The six projects selected as part of the Energy Improvement in Rural and Remote Areas (ERA) grant program aim to cut energy costs, enhance climate resiliency, and support local economic development: Tanacross Solar PV and Tok Battery Energy Storace System (Native Villages of Tanacross and Tok, Alaska): $5 million grant to install 1.5MW of solar PV on the grid at the Alaska Power & Telephone power plant paired with a 1.5MHw battery energy storage system that is expected to displace more than 12,500 gallons of expensive diesel fuel each year. Big Battery as our Backbone (Kokhanok Village, Alaska): $5 million grant to upgrade the Kokhanok microgrid with a 943kWh battery energy storage system and solar, PV, wind turbine and electric thermal storage heating units, significantly increasing the microgrid’s reliability and resilience. New Stuyahok Solar-Battery (New Stuyahok, Alaska): $4.3 million grant to construct a 500kW solar PV array, a 540kWh battery energy storage system, and a microgrid controller – leveraging abundant summer daylight hours to displace nearly a quarter of fuel consumption for rural Yup’ik villages in the remote Dillingham region. Decarbonizing the Tongass with Tribally Owned Heat Pumps (Prince of Wales Island, Alaska): $2.5 million grant for a tribally owned project to install air- source heat pumps in up to 240 tribal buildings – powered by existing clean hydroelectric resources – to help reduce residents’ energy reliance on and emissions from fossil fuel use. Six Alaska projects receive grants from DOE rural & remote clean energy program https://alaska-native-news.com/six-alaska-projects-receive-grants-from-doe-rural-remote-clean-energy-program/73774/ 2/2 High Penetration Solar-Battery Project (Ambler, Alaska): $2.1 million grant to upgrade an existing power plant to allow for a 400kW solar PV system and a 500kWh battery energy storage system to produce nearly a quarter of the community’s electricity and allowing the village’s diesel generators to be turned off for the first time in more than 40 years. Ouzinkie Independent Power Energy Improvement Project (Spruce Island, Alaska): $1.7 million grant to construct a 160kW solar PV and 210kWh battery energy storage system for a new microgrid offering back-up power during severe weather outages and reducing electricity costs by 10% for this community of 128 indigenous residents. Nineteen projects across 12 states and 13 Tribal nations and communities were selected for this round of ERA grant funding. Further details on the $78 million awarded is in the press release below, and you can find specific project details on the OCED website. KEA hoping to increase margins by selling Renewable Energy Certificates Davis Hovey May 1, 2024 Business, Economy, News, Newsflash As Kodiak Electric Association’s revenue from the local commercial fish processors dwindles, the utility is exploring alternative funding streams. One involves green power markets and selling what are called Renewable Energy Certificates, or RECs. The Kodiak Electric Association’s Board of Directors on March 28, approved a five year contract with Greenlight Energy Group, a New York-based company, to sell local Renewable Energy Certificates. One Renewable Energy Certificate or REC represents one megawatt-hour of electricity generated by a renewable energy resource. In Kodiak, the vast majority of local power is generated by wind and hydro sources which qualifies the utility provider to sell the certificates. “It is actually described as a non-tangible vehicle. It ’s nothing that we budget for,” Dan Menth, the manager of finance for Kodiak Electric Association, said of RECs. He said the association provides basic data on its energy output and in return could receive thousands of dollars on a quarterly basis. “It ’s a very simple process, we just relay our actual generation, kilowatt hours from both the Terror Lake hydro facility and the Pillar Mountain wind project. And then they [Greenlight Energy] do their thing behind the scenes, and turn them into a marketable REC,” Menth explained. The association enacted its first electricity rate hike for Kodiak residents in thirty years at the beginning of April. That was partially due to declining sales from the local fish processors, which account for a third of the association’s power consumption. Menth said selling RECs will help offset the utility provider ’s revenue from local businesses and residents. “It’ll go into our normal bottom line margins, that help pay our bills and anything left over at the end of the day is margins, and those will get paid back in the form of capital credits,” Menth said. 5/1/24, 1:57 PM KEA hoping to increase margins by selling Renewable Energy Certificates - KMXT 100.1 FM https://kmxt.org/2024/05/kea-hoping-to-increase-margins-by-selling-renewable-energy-certificates/1/3 One of Kodiak Electric Association’s six substations, which generatesthousands of megawatt-hours of energy using renewable energysources. (Davis Hovey/KMXT) Kelly Beck, the chief executive officer of Greenlight Energy Group, said once Kodiak Electric Association transfers the hard numbers, then her company turns its power generation data into a market-based instrument for sale. “And the beauty of renewable energy, and RECs, is that it ’s metered. So this is not a guess, there is a meter tied to the production so we know actual megawatt hours that are generated from that facility. In most cases those RECs would be entered into a registry,’ Beck said. “And from there, those RECs can be traded, can be moved around. They can be moved from one registry to another registry. They can be moved from one buyer to another buyer, or they can be retired.” Beck describes her company as the middle man or marketer selling to a variety of buyers. Some buyers are big name companies like Whole Foods or Starbucks, that want to certify that they are purchasing 5/1/24, 1:57 PM KEA hoping to increase margins by selling Renewable Energy Certificates - KMXT 100.1 FM https://kmxt.org/2024/05/kea-hoping-to-increase-margins-by-selling-renewable-energy-certificates/2/3 renewable energy by buying RECs in the North American market. There are other types of buyers in the global market, but Beck says each geographic area/country relies on RECs in their market area, ie GreenLight selling RECs from Kodiak Electric Association to companies in the Lower 48. It sounds almost too good to be true. But Beck said with a growing number of U.S. companies committing to reducing their carbon footprint and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, eventually there may not be a market for selling RECs at all. Beck cited double-digit growth in the voluntary market since she’s been involved in selling RECs over the last 20 years. “And I think that ultimately the day that there was a grid that operates on 100% renewable energy all of the time, then you wouldn’t need to purchase RECs anymore. And that will be a good day for us all in this industry, I think,” Beck stated. Beck and KEA’s Menth point out that neither Greenlight Energy Group nor the local utility make any money if the RECs aren’t sold. This is why Beck describes her company as a marketer rather than a broker in this business relationship. So Greenlight has a strong incentive to get the best sale price for RECs as it can. Menth expects KEA will see a steady stream of revenue coming in later this year as their certificates are sold, which could help offset utility rate increases for Kodiak residents in the future. 75% of the profits from each REC sold goes to KEA and 25% to Greenlight, according to Menth. 5/1/24, 1:57 PM KEA hoping to increase margins by selling Renewable Energy Certificates - KMXT 100.1 FM https://kmxt.org/2024/05/kea-hoping-to-increase-margins-by-selling-renewable-energy-certificates/3/3 — Isaac Vanderburg, Launch Alaska CEO We look forward to supporting GreenFire Energy’s work in Alaska, and we’re excited to see how GreenLoop technology can benefit Alaskans around the state.” GreenFire Energy Inc. is Selected for Launch Alaska Portfolio Climate tech accelerator is focused on deployments to enable the energy transition in Alaska SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, USA, May 1, 2024 /EINPresswire.com/ -- GreenFire Energy Inc1. and Launch Alaska2 announced that GreenFire Energy has been selected for the Launch Alaska Portfolio3 along with 10 other innovative technology companies from a large pool of candidates. GreenFire Energy completed the eight-month Tech Deployment Track program and built relationships with Alaska partners on potential projects in the state. The Launch Alaska Portfolio includes companies that are deploying climate-friendly energy, industry, and transportation technologies in Alaska and beyond. There are now 41 portfolio companies based in Alaska, across the U.S., and around the world. Sitting on the Pacific “Ring of Fire,” Alaska is rich with geothermal resources, particularly in the southern volcanic regions as well as other regional hot spring areas. Alaska’s first geothermal power plant at Chena Hot Spring generates 730 kW, but much of Alaska’s accessible geothermal resources have not yet been developed. Given Alaska’s unique energy market, there is great interest in further development for both localized direct-use and electrical power generation. Founded in 2016, Launch Alaska is focused on accelerating climate tech deployment to decarbonize systems of energy, transportation, and industry. The non-profit offers a Tech Deployment Track, a Deployment Team, and policy and advocacy effort. The Tech Deployment Track is an eight-month accelerator program to help companies forge partnerships to identify projects. Successful companies are then invited to join the Launch Alaska Portfolio where they receive continued support and connections to project opportunities in Alaska. GreenFire Energy has developed a versatile, closed-loop Advanced Geothermal System (AGS) called GreenLoop. The company’s expert geothermal team delivers GreenLoop solutions that assure the availability of resilient, sustainable, and scalable geothermal energy for a wide range of applications. The versatility of GreenLoop technology enables the creation of tailored solutions for geothermal operators and energy- intensive companies. GreenLoop solutions offer a stable and predictable cost of energy while providing a variable mix of power and direct use heating and cooling. “Affordable, reliable energy solutions are key to creating thriving communities and a prosperous Alaska economy,” said Isaac Vanderburg, Launch Alaska CEO. “We look forward to supporting GreenFire Energy’s work in Alaska, and we’re excited to see how GreenLoop technology can benefit Alaskans around the state.” “GreenFire Energy greatly appreciates the opportunity to progress through the Launch Alaska cleantech accelerator program. Through this program, we have made valuable connections and uncovered many new opportunities, and we look forward to pursuing a variety of geothermal energy projects and deployments that will benefit the state of Alaska at all levels,” said Randy Balik, Co-Founder, GreenFire Energy Inc. About GreenFire Energy® Inc. GreenFire Energy is committed to accelerating the generation of clean, continuous, reliable geothermal energy. The firm’s approach includes GreenFire’s GreenLoop® closed-loop technology, a versatile Advanced Geothermal System (AGS); rich global geothermal expertise, both in-house and with industry-recognized partners; and, collaboration with the world’s largest geothermal operating companies to deliver geothermal energy rapidly and economically. GreenFire Energy is based in the San Francisco, California area in the U.S. Visit us at www.greenfireenergy.com. About Launch Alaska Launch Alaska is an Anchorage-based nonprofit on a mission to accelerate the energy transition and decarbonize the globe, starting in Alaska. Through programs like Tech Deployment Track and partnerships with Alaska businesses and asset owners, we connect climate tech companies and customers, catalyze Alaska’s clean energy economy, and build a regenerative future for all. Kirsten Swann Deputy Director, Marketing Launch Alaska kirsten.swann@launchalaska.com 1.907.538.4979 Hollis Chin GreenFire Energy Inc. +1 888-899-7363 media@greenfireenergy.com Visit us on social media: Twitter LinkedIn 1 https://www.greenfireenergy.com/ 2 https://www.launchalaska.com/ 3 https://www.launchalaska.com/blog/11-companies-join-portfolio-2024 © 1995-2024 Newsmatics Inc. All Right Reserved. This press release can be viewed online at: https://www.einpresswire.com/article/707783418/ Disclaimer: If you have any questions regarding information in this press release please contact the company listed in the press release. Please do not contact EIN Presswire. We will be unable to assist you with your inquiry. EIN Presswire disclaims any content contained in these releases. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS Entering their nal two regular weeks, Alaska legislators are narrowing their focus Education, energy, crime, elections and the state budget are marked for special attention, members of the House and Senate say BY: JAMES BROOKS - MAY 1, 2024 4:00 AM ✉ ⎙ Reps. Jesse Sumner, R-Wasilla, and Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River, talk to Speaker of the House Cathy Tilton, R-Wasilla, during a break in the Alaska House of Representatives oor session on Monday, April 29, 2024. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) Dozens of re ghters protested outside the Alaska Capitol last week, waving signs and chanting as they urged the Alaska House of Representatives to advance a long-simmering pension bill. They’re likely to be disappointed. PART OF STATES NEWSROOM 5/1/24, 1:42 PM Entering their final two regular weeks, Alaska legislators are narrowing their focus • Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/05/01/entering-their-final-two-regular-weeks-alaska-legislators-are-narrowing-their-focus/1/5 On Friday, the House failed, on a 19-19 vote, to advance the pension bill for further consideration. As the Alaska Legislature enters the nal two weeks of its regular session, lawmakers are consolidating their attention on a handful of subjects, rolling together bills that deal with particular subjects into bigger “omnibus” legislation that includes several smaller bills all rolled together into one because it’s speedier and easier to pass them together. “In the best world, you wouldn’t be doing that, but it is not unusual at all,” said Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage and chair of the Senate Rules Committee, which schedules bills for oor votes. Already, lawmakers have debuted omnibus bills on energy topics, education and crime. An election-related omnibus bill is expected soon, and debate on the state’s annual budget bills is expected to continue until the end of the session. Many uncontroversial bills, such as those that rename bridges or extend state boards, are expected to pass before lawmakers adjourn, but when it comes to big policy changes, legislators say, there’s not much certainty. “My concern is primarily the amount of time we have left and the issues that we have in front of us,” said Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak. “We will do the best job we can in the time we have left.” On the budget The Alaska Senate will take up its version of Alaska’s state operating budget starting Wednesday. In part because the Senate is governed by a bipartisan supermajority, few — if any — amendments are expected to pass. The majority’s priorities are already incorporated into the current version of the bill. The Senate’s draft budget contains a smaller Permanent Fund dividend — about $1,580 per recipient — than the $2,270 PFD proposed in the House’s draft budget. The gures are the biggest di erence between the two proposals, and the Senate’s smaller PFD is designed to address an estimated $270 million gap in the House’s draft comprehensive spending plan, said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka. 5/1/24, 1:42 PM Entering their final two regular weeks, Alaska legislators are narrowing their focus • Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/05/01/entering-their-final-two-regular-weeks-alaska-legislators-are-narrowing-their-focus/2/5 Stedman said the House failed to account for the size of the state’s capital budget — which pays for construction and renovation projects statewide — and the cost of other legislation that has passed or will pass the Legislature this year. When the Senate’s draft budget passes this week, lawmakers will set up a conference committee to draft a compromise between the House and Senate spending plans. That compromise will have many policy implications. For example, the Senate version of the budget defunds the state-owned corporation in charge of licensing and building a trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline. The House’s version contains funding for the corporation. The latest gures from the Legislative Finance Division estimate a $113 million surplus at the end of the current scal year, June 30, and that money could be diverted for use in the nal compromise version of the budget, which covers services between July 1, 2024, and June 30, 2025. Energy legislation Since the start of this year’s legislative session, the Alaska House’s predominantly Republican coalition majority has said that legislation needed to address a pending Southcentral Alaska energy crunch was its top priority. With two weeks left to go, no energy bill has passed the Legislature, and lawmakers in both the House and Senate are considering tax incentives for natural gas producers in Cook Inlet, bills to streamline the storage of natural gas in Southcentral Alaska, and bills that would rewrite the rules governing electricity that’s transmitted from one utility to another in Alaska’s Railbelt grid. Also on the docket are bills dealing with community solar projects, geothermal energy, and rules for the injection of carbon dioxide underground. Many of those subjects may be combined in the last two weeks, House Rules Chair Craig Johnson, R-Anchorage, told reporters last week. “I think that’s generally the way it’ll happen,” he said. Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, said she believes the carbon-dioxide bill, which has already passed the 5/1/24, 1:42 PM Entering their final two regular weeks, Alaska legislators are narrowing their focus • Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/05/01/entering-their-final-two-regular-weeks-alaska-legislators-are-narrowing-their-focus/3/5 House, is a priority for Gov. Mike Dunleavy. If that bill, viewed as a boon for the oil and gas industry, failed to pass the Legislature during the regular session, she said she believes he would call lawmakers into a special session on the topic. Education bills At the start of this year’s legislative session, the leaders of the Alaska Senate’s coalition majority — comprised of nine Democrats and eight Republicans — said education reform, including greater funding for public schools, was its top priority. After Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed a Senate-endorsed bill that passed with bipartisan support — and after House Republicans killed a veto override — the predominantly Republican House majority caucus has been advancing an alternative, known as House Bill 392. That bill includes priorities advanced by the governor and House Republicans, including changes to the way charter schools are approved. If that bill advances — it’s currently in the House Finance Committee — it may also pick up one of two bills intended to x problems with the state’s correspondence education program. A state judge last month struck down two state laws governing the program, leaving the parents of more than 22,000 students uncertain about whether they will receive state reimbursements for some of their spending. Members of the state House and state Senate have introduced separate xes, and both bills are expected to advance in the last two weeks of the session. Even if no education bill passes, both the House and Senate budget drafts include a one-time boost to the state’s per-student funding formula for public schools, though the exact amount of the boost is subject to Dunleavy’s veto authority. Criminal justice legislation On Monday, Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anchorage and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that he would be amending anti-fentanyl legislation backed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy to include several other crime-related legislative priorities. 5/1/24, 1:42 PM Entering their final two regular weeks, Alaska legislators are narrowing their focus • Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/05/01/entering-their-final-two-regular-weeks-alaska-legislators-are-narrowing-their-focus/4/5 Johnson called the fentanyl bill “essential” last week and said it’s also essential to x a legal loophole that allows people to avoid registering on the state’s sex o ender list. Both items have been included in the Senate’s bill. House Bill 259, establishing the Council on Human and Sex Tra cking, is a priority of House Judiciary Chair Sarah Vance, R- Homer, she said last week, as is legislation changing the name of child pornography to “child sexual abuse material.” The name change is included in the Senate omnibus, but not HB 259.Vance said she’s seeking to add human tra cking issues to the bill. Another change with House and Senate support is a bill that allows crime victims to o er testimony to a grand jury without having to appear in person. The hearsay exemption avoids retraumatizing those victims, legislators say. Elections legislation In February, the state House approved a bill that would allow the Alaska Division of Elections to trim the state’s voter rolls more quickly. The Senate’s state a airs committee, led by Sen. Scott Kawasaki, D- Fairbanks, is preparing to turn that House bill into an elections omnibus, Wielechowski said, and is “putting together some components that have been heavily studied over the years in this body that I think are fairly noncontroversial.” A Kawasaki aide said the bill will be scheduled for a hearing Thursday. He declined to say what components might be included, but the committee has previously examined several topics, including the idea of ballot “curing,” which would allow Alaskans to x an incorrect signature on an absentee ballot in order to have it counted. ✉GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUBSCRIBE 5/1/24, 1:42 PM Entering their final two regular weeks, Alaska legislators are narrowing their focus • Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/05/01/entering-their-final-two-regular-weeks-alaska-legislators-are-narrowing-their-focus/5/5 Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 1/8 By Mikel Insalaco Alaska’s Railbelt region refers to the area serviced by Alaska’s interconnected electric grid stretching from the Kenai Peninsula through Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, north to Fairbanks. According to the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the Railbelt functions more like an “energy island.” This isolation is compounded by the Railbelt’s structure; AEA likens the three regions to a “single extension cord.” This is unlike the Lower 48, where grids can tap into a vast network of power sources via multiple pathways. The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) at UAF recently completed an exhaustive exploration into the Railbelt grid’s future. This report focused on navigating the complex factors of energy infrastructure such as reliability, affordability, and clean energy development for the region. The project’s purpose, outlined in extensive consultation with Alaska’s energy community, was to inform future decisions and studies by utilities, the State of Alaska, and other stakeholders through a detailed evaluation of resource mixes, Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 2/8 electrification impacts, operational and reliability implications, and the potential costs of a decarbonized power system. Renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, offer a promising avenue for reducing the Railbelt’s carbon footprint. The ACEP study, supported by the Hawai’i Natural Energy Institute and US Office of Naval Research, concludes that Railbelt communities could generate 96 percent of electricity from non-fossil-fuel sources by 2050. But there’s a catch: the conversion would cost up to $12 billion dollars. Integration of renewable energy sources introduces a set of unique challenges. Unlike coal, gas, or diesel-fired turbines that can be easily turned on or off to match demand, wind and solar power are intermittent, requiring advanced management strategies to ensure grid stability. Furthermore, these sources generate direct current, which must be switched by inverters into the alternating current that energizes the grid. These inverters represent both a challenge and an opportunity for innovation in how renewable energy is integrated into the Railbelt’s energy mix. Project Overview To carry out the study, ACEP collected input from stakeholders to quantify and evaluate potential scenarios for diversifying the Railbelt electric grid, while comparing each scenario’s contribution to decarbonization. “When we started this project two years ago, we decided to name it a ‘decarbonization study’ because of the interest in establishing an RPS [renewable portfolio standard] or clean energy standard. However, the model we’ve developed is really a technology-neutral tool,” says Gwen Holdmann, associate vice chancellor for research, innovation, and industry partnerships at UAF. “It’s intended to help identify a sustainable mix of energy resources capable of satisfying the Railbelt’s future energy requirements without compromising system stability.” Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 3/8 Holdmann was the director of ACEP when the study began in 2022. The final product released for public comment earlier this year ended up somewhat different from what researchers anticipated. “So we’re considering rebranding this effort in the future to make it clear this can encompass a diverse array of energy resources and generation sources,” Holdmann says. Acknowledging the limitations of any single method to cover all aspects of power system planning, the study adopted a multi-modal approach. This strategy allowed for a detailed examination of different grid configurations, integrating renewable energy sources like wind, solar, tidal, and hydro, alongside traditional energy sources and emerging technologies such as nuclear power and battery energy storage systems. A core concept of the study was a power system simulation and modeling process, utilizing advanced software tools that are widely recognized and employed by utility entities nationwide, including those within the Railbelt network. Four Different Scenarios The study delved into four detailed scenarios to explore the future of the Railbelt electric grid diversification. These scenarios explore the interplay between different energy sources, the technological and economic implications of their integration, and the broader impacts on grid reliability and sustainability. Scenario 1: Business as Usual. This scenario envisages minimal shifts toward renewable energy. It projects the construction of new fossil fuel units to meet increasing energy demands, with renewables making up 11 percent of the energy mix. This scenario, requiring a capital investment of $2.3 billion (in 2023 dollars), anticipates a generation and transmission cost of $119 per megawatt-hour (MWh), setting a benchmark for Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 4/8 comparing other options and the economic and environmental impacts of more ambitious decarbonization efforts. Scenario 2: High Renewables. This scenario represents a significant pivot toward wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy, incorporating the Susitna- Watana Hydro project (475 MW), 1,022 MW of wind, and 472 MW of utility solar. It aims for renewables to contribute 88 percent of the required energy, supported by 1,243 MW of new battery storage to enhance grid stability. The scenario requires substantial capital investment of $11.8 billion and yields a generation and transmission cost of $134/MWh. This mixture of investment highlights the indispensable role of battery storage for a renewable energy grid in addressing the challenges of intermittent power production. “Each utility serves its customers first and the larger system second… While appropriate, that dynamic does not always work to the benefit of the Railbelt as a whole. However, there is a consistent effort by all of the utilities to collaborate on Railbelt -wide efforts.” Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority Scenario 3: Tidal Integration. Introducing a novel element of technology yet to be deployed at commercial scale anywhere in the US, this scenario explores the addition of a 400 MW tidal power plant in Cook Inlet, alongside 924 MW of wind and 190 MW of utility solar. It aims for 70 percent renewable energy generation, complemented by 750 MW of new battery storage and upgrades to the Alaska Intertie. With a required capital investment of $7.7 billion, this scenario presents a generation and transmission cost of $128/MWh, offering insights into the potential and economic viability of integrating tidal energy into Alaska’s renewable portfolio. Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 5/8 Scenario 4: Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. Envisioning a near-complete decarbonization, this scenario considers the deployment of small modular nuclear reactors in addition to 1,056 MW of new wind and 328 MW of utility solar, aiming for 96 percent zero-carbon generation. It also plans for 1,518 MW of new battery storage and Alaska Intertie upgrades. The scenario outlines a capital investment of $10.1 billion and a generation and transmission cost of $128/MWh, illustrating the role nuclear energy could play in achieving deep decarbonization. Capital Investment The scenarios explored in the study reveal substantial capital investment requirements, ranging from approximately $7.7 billion to $11.8 billion (in 2023 dollars). These figures reflect not only the high costs associated with Alaska-specific capital and operations but also the inclusion of certain high-cost projects without prior economic screening. The magnitude of these investments highlights the financial challenges of transitioning to a low-carbon grid, necessitating innovative funding solutions and strategic investment planning. Some of these efforts stand to benefit from federal funding, but there are challenges. According to the AEA, a pivotal concern in funding the transition is the current uncertainty surrounding Clean Energy Tax Incentives. “The Internal Revenue Service has not yet issued its final determination on the Clean Energy Tax Incentives, as part of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),” the authority states (while cautioning that it does not offer tax advice). “In the meantime, AEA recommends that prospective energy project developers consult professional tax advisors for accurate information about whether IRA tax credits may be applicable to their respective projects. In addition, IRA tax credits are very specific and apply to only certain aspects of a clean energy project, with bonus credits available for projects that meet certain additional criteria. Clean Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 6/8 energy tax credits are likely to benefit clean energy development and may reduce overall project costs.” The success of Railbelt decarbonization depends on overcoming the intertwined challenges of funding, regulation, technology integration, and stakeholder alignment. Another hurdle is that the Railbelt is split into five customer-owned cooperatives: Golden Valley Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, and the municipal Seward Electric System. “Each utility serves its customers first and the larger system second,” says AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer. “While appropriate, that dynamic does not always work to the benefit of the Railbelt as a whole. However, there is a consistent effort by all of the utilities to collaborate on Railbelt-wide efforts.” Thayer points to regional collaborations such as the committee that manages the Bradley Lake Hydro Project near Homer for the benefit of the entire grid. Utilities also work together to manage the Alaska Intertie that allows electricity to flow between Southcentral and the Interior. More recently, they formed the Railbelt Reliability Council. “These entities may represent the best example of collaboration between the different member utilities on the Railbelt today,” Thayer says. The utilities have a lot to learn in the time it would take to implement any of the decarbonization scenarios. “Currently there is limited operational experience of running the Railbelt with large inverter-based resources such as wind and solar,” says Holdmann. “There will be a significant learning curve with the first large wind project for dispatchers and operations engineers. Therefore, changes and additions are best done in incremental steps.” Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 7/8 System Planning One of the most compelling arguments for pursuing a decarbonized energy pathway is the promise of long-term economic benefits. These include stabilized energy prices, enhanced energy security, and the retention of capital within the state’s economy. Additionally, clean energy resources and related industries could spur job creation, attract investment, and facilitate economic diversification. Indirectly, the stabilization of energy costs on the Railbelt has far- reaching implications for the cost of living and doing business across most of the state. According to AEA, lower energy costs on the Railbelt, where about 70 percent of Alaska’s population lives, could lead to reduced rates for rural communities through mechanisms such as the Power Cost Equalization program, thereby addressing one of Alaska’s longstanding challenges: the high cost of energy in remote areas. Additionally, the focus on energy efficiency and electrification, particularly in the areas of transportation and heating, may offer avenues for innovation that help communities be more economically resilient. Findings from the study emphasize the importance of strategic planning and policy support to navigate the economic complexities of decarbonization. It highlights the need for a holistic approach that considers not only the immediate costs but also the long-term economic benefits. “One of the most important things learned from this project was how to address these types of questions and what tools to use to solve them,” Holdmann says. “Methods for performing system planning for electric grids have evolved substantially in the last few years and will likely continue to, as there is more variability in energy resources and the inverter-based resource technology changes and improves. This Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 8/8 necessitates new types of modeling not previously needed to capture the potential new types of stability and resource adequacy challenges.” The ACEP study presents a vital roadmap for navigating the energy transition, balancing technical feasibility with economic and social considerations. 4/18/24, 10:59 AM Opinion: An open letter to the HEA board of directors | Homer News https://www.homernews.com/opinion/opinion-an-open-letter-to-the-hea-board-of-directors/1/8 44°F OPINION Opinion: An open letter to the HEA board of directors Renewable energy is a viable option for Alaska By Submitted by the Kenai Change Sisterhood for Sustainable Futures • April 17, 2024 2:30 am Tags: oil & gas, Point of View Mount Redoubt can be seen acoss Cook Inlet from North Kenai Beach on Thursday, July 2, 2022. (Photo by Erin Thompson/Peninsula Clarion) Dear Board Members, We are writing to express our concern regarding HEA’s inaction on nding both short- and long-term solutions to the energy crisis our communities face. Reserves of natural gas in Cook Inlet are declining, and the only company still willing to extract them (Hilcorp) is poised for an exit from the region. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) estimates that demand will exceed supply for Cook Inlet’s natural gas by 2027. Why not use this opportunity to invest in renewables and create energy independence in Alaska for the long term? As you know, Hilcorp is refusing to guarantee a natural gas supply beyond the life of its existing contracts. HEA currently generates around 85% of its electricity from Cook Inlet natural gas, and its contract for the cheap natural gas that powers homes and businesses on the peninsula is up in March of 2024. As concerned members of the cooperative and electricity consumers, it appears to us that HEA’s plan is to rely on natural gas from ENSTAR, whose lease with Hilcorp expires in 2033. This is a short-term option that will likely result in rising prices for consumers across the peninsula. And what next? Imported LNG from out of state or out of country? Not only would this increase costs by up to 30%. it would also tie HEA to continued reliance on fossil fuels and increase the potential for dangerous leaks into Cook Inlet. Furthermore, the aging LNG plant in Nikiski would require massive — and expensive — renovations to function as an import facility. ●●●●✉●⎙ 4/18/24, 10:59 AM Opinion: An open letter to the HEA board of directors | Homer News https://www.homernews.com/opinion/opinion-an-open-letter-to-the-hea-board-of-directors/2/8 Resurrecting the proposed LNG pipeline from the North Slope is not economically viable without billions of dollars in subsidies from the state government, which is already struggling nancially. Talk of an LNG pipeline has continued for decades with no result. The LNG pipeline is also not a long-term solution. Even the North Slope oil and gas elds will run out eventually because fossil fuels, as DNR Commissioner John Boyle reminded Alaska Legislators earlier this year, are a nite resource. There is a deadline for Alaskans in general, and residents of the Kenai Peninsula in particular, to nd better solutions. Renewable energy is a viable option for Alaska and is rapidly becoming a less expensive alternative to continued investment in aging oil and gas infrastructure and declining reserves. Kodiak currently generates 99% of its power from wind and hydro. Kotzebue is displacing 250,000 to 300,000 gallons of diesel every year using wind energy. And Unalaska is currently planning a geothermal project. Here on the Kenai, the use of renewables could provide relief from rising energy costs for consumers as well as a sustainable path into the future of energy production. Cook lnletkeeper has developed a map of renewable energy potential in Cook Inlet based on several national and regional studies. If HEA were to invest directly in infrastructure for renewables rather than waiting for independent producers to appear on the energy market, we could make signi cant progress toward energy independence on the peninsula. At its current pace, HEA will fail to meet its stated goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025. By 2027, when Cook Inlet natural gas supply will no longer meet consumer demand, the cooperative’s own estimates place it at only 25% renewable energy. We cannot a ord to wait any longer. We must begin actively diversifying our energy portfolio and building renewable energy infrastructure for future generations in Alaska. The future begins now. The Sisterhood for Sustainable Futures is a group of varying individuals from all walks of life who read about solutions to the climate crisis and discuss how to enact positive change within our community here on the Kenai Peninsula. Our goal is to raise awareness of e ective and practical ways for the central Kenai Peninsula to meet the changing climate and to engage the community to put those solutions into action. Tags: oil & gas, Point of View $151.00 $151.00 $175.00 $162.00 $185.00$131.00 < Previous Letters to the Editor Tracking resource, business, industry & construction issues since 1974 Publishers: Mike & Tim Bradner (907) 440-60683037 South Circle, Anchorage, Ak. 99507 April 30, 2024No. 5/2024 Alaska Economic Report (c) ISSN: 1072-8139 Bradners’ ALASKA ECONOMIC REPORT: Published by Alaska Information and Research Services 3037 South Circle, Anchorage, Alaska 99507 TEL: (907) 440-6068 FAX: (907) 345-5683 Email: timbradner@pobox.alaska.net Bradners’ Inside: • NPR-A, Ambler road p. 3 • Employment data p. 4 • Anchorage development p. 5 Jobs gained sharply in March and inflation cooled, according to state and federal data. So, what could be better? Seafood markets, for one thing. The sharp slump in fisheries is likely to extend though 2024 and the effects are being felt, mainly in coastal communities. (See more on jobs and inflation on page 4 and on seafood on page 7). About $1.7 billion in new energy projects, gener- ation and transmission, are on the drawing boards as the state’s Alaska Energy Authority and utilities scramble to meet the challenge of a pending short- fall in natural gas from Cook Inlet. Gas is used for power generation and space heating in Southcentral Alaska, where half of the state’s population resides. $1.2 billion of this is a long-planned upgrade of the “railbelt” (Southcentral-Interior) transmission system. Not all of this is money in hand now, but it likely will be. The first part of this a 65-mile subma- rine cable from the Kenai Peninsula to west Cook Inlet funded 50-50 by the U.S. Dept. of Energy and the state. The second half is a 250-mile new trans- mission line from west Cook Inlet to the Interior, connecting Chugach’s Beluga plant with Golden Valley Electric Association’s system at Healy, south of Fairbanks. AEA will know by the third quarter Employment up, inflation down: What could be better? of this year whether DOE will award this, but prospects are good given the state’s track record in landing the first half of the funding and the state stepping up with the required 50% match. Added to this is $90 million in transmission upgrades by Chugach Electric and AEA now or soon underway to upgrade Kenai Peninsula transmission lines; $57 million is available for new battery storage in Southcentral and Interior, and $342 million for an expansion of the Bradley Lake hydro project near Homer, if the project moves ahead. – Continued on page 2 Energy projects on a roll $1.7 billion planned for new, upgraded “railbelt” transmission, new hydro Also, the federal government imposed new restric- tions in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and effectively nixed the planned Ambler Access Project, a road into mineralized areas in Northwest Alaska. (Our analysis, page 3). The effects of both of those actions could be long-term. For the short term, however, North Slope oil work is pushing up private sector jobs. Alaska Economic Report No. 5/2024 Page 2 Page 2 Energy: “Solar for All” energy projects Here’s more on energy projects The expected “Solar for All” federal funding for Alaska has been announced, totaling $125 million. $62.5 million of this is split between the Alaska Energy Authority for community solar projects and Alaska Housing Finance Corp. for residential solar installations in low income areas. An additional $60 million will go to the Tanana Chiefs Conference and Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium for solar projects in rural communities. This money is from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Green- house Reduction Act. Separately, the U.S. Department of Energy will fund $75 million, shared 50-50 between the Alaska Energy Authority, with AEA coordinating rebates for electric appliances and AHFC administering a residential rebate program. Federal guidance is being awaited on all of this, so money on the street is about a year away, we’re told. *** Augustine Volcano geothermal GeoAlaska, an Alaska-based company conduct- ing geothermal exploration at Augustine Volcano in Cook Inlet, plans its first exploration well at the site in 2025. The company has been conducting geologic data. In early April the state Department of Natural Resources granted GeoAlaska a geothermal prospecting permit on 7,299 acres which are added to 3,031 acres already held under permit at Augus- tine. The company’s acreage essentially now covers the southern half of the island. Augustine is in Low- er Cook Inlet west of Homer. It is an active volcano. *** Here’s more on the energy projects planned for Southcentral and the Interior (see page 1): Transmission lines: The new transmission lines from the Kenai to Beluga (submarine line) and from Beluga to Healy will be owned by the Alaska Ener- gy Authority, or AEA. Existing transmission lines remaining in place will be owned by the existing utility owners. The Beluga-to-Healy line will be new and will follow the right-of-way owned by the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. Older Kenai Pensinula transmission lines are being upgraded. Construction will start on the first section of this, 39 miles from Quartz Creek (Kenai Lake) to Sterling next spring with funding from Bradley Lake hydro bond proceeds. This is being divided into four sections and will be complete by 2028. The AEA will own this. Chugach Electric Association is currently upgrading the Quartz Creek to Anchorage line, which it owns. $342 million Dixon Diversion: This would expand Bradley Lake hydro output by 50% and reduce the need for 1.5 billion cubic feet a year of natural gas for power production. If it proceeds, the timing for construction depends on the 2024-2025 field season to gather geotechnical data. No surprises are expect- ed in that because AEA now has data in the region, though not at the project. Reduction of “line loss”: The upgrades and new transmission would reduce the “line loss” of pow- er (loss due to inefficiencies of current system) by about $40 million per year, AEA’s board was told at its April meeting. *** Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 1/3 Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power APR 30, 2024 | ENERGY, GOVERNMENT, NEWS LEUNGCHOPAN | ENVATO Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) are each getting huge chunks of federal cash to develop residential solar power systems for low- Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 2/3 income and disadvantaged communities. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded $63,450,000 to each body through the Solar for All grant competition. Supercharge Solar Deployment The grant to AEA is among forty-nine state-level awards EPA announced last week totaling approximately $5.5 billion, along with six awards totaling more than $500 million to serve tribes and five multistate awards totaling approximately $1 billion. These awards are part of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, created under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. EPA estimates that the sixty Solar for All recipients will enable more than 900,000 households nationwide to deploy and benefit from an estimated four gigawatts of solar energy capacity installed over five years. EPA anticipates that the $7 billion investment will generate more than $350 million in annual savings on electric bills and reduce 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions cumulatively. AEA’s program will deploy solar photovoltaic infrastructure across Alaska, encompassing urban, residential projects and community-scale, rural projects. AEA is partnering with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). While AEA administers community solar installations, AHFC will administer residential rooftop solar for low-income and disadvantaged households. This program is meant to offer Alaskans further access to renewable energy while also developing the local workforce to install and maintain the technology. The program is expected to mobilize further financing and private capital to advance additional deployment of greenhouse gas and air pollution- reducing projects. TCC, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, and AHFC each have developed programs to provide tribal residents throughout Alaska the opportunity to benefit from solar energy. Whether a tribal member owns a house with sufficient capacity to manage distributed generation, or if the person lives in a community that operates an isolated microgrid where rooftop Alaska Energy Authority, Tanana Chiefs Conference Split $124M for Solar Power https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/energy/alaska-energy-authority-tanana-chiefs-conference-split-124m-for-solar-power/ 3/3 solar isn’t feasible, all tribal residents of Alaska will have the opportunity to benefit from the TCC project. EPA Region 10 Administrator Casey Sixkiller says, “This funding will be used to supercharge the deployment of solar power in communities, create jobs, make our power grid more resilient, and lower the cost of energy for every household.” The sixty applicants selected for funding were chosen through a competition that included review from hundreds of experts in climate, power markets, environmental justice, labor, and consumer protection. The selected applicants have committed to delivering on the three objectives of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: reducing climate and air pollution; delivering benefits to low-income and disadvantaged communities; and mobilizing financing to spur additional deployment of affordable solar energy. Governor Dunleavy Announces Power Panel at the Third Annual Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference https://gov.alaska.gov/governor-dunleavy-announces-power-panel-at-the-third-annual-alaska-sustainable-energy-conference/ 1/3 Governor Dunleavy Announces Power Panel at the Third Annual Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference Apr 26, 2024 Governor Mike Dunleavy welcomes a high -level presentation and panel The Wyoming Case Study: Attracting Investment in Advanced Nuclear Power on Thursday, May 23 at the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference. Wyoming has been at the forefront of spearheading p ublic-private partnership ventures, particularly in emerging energy sources like advanced nuclear power. The panel aims to focus on Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon’s initiatives and how Wyoming’s pioneering efforts can benefit Alaska. Governor Gordon will join the conference remotely followed by an in -person discussion featuring Rob Creager, Executive Director of the Wyoming Energy Authority, Josh Parker, Director of Business Development for BWXT Advanced Technologies, and Wyoming State Rep. Jon Conrad, who is also the director of Governmental Affairs for Tata Chemicals. “The Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference isn’t just a chance to showcase everything we have to offer. It’s also a chance to learn from others about what’s working arou nd the United States, and around the world,” said Governor Mike Dunleavy. “I’m looking forward to hearing from my friend Governor Mark Gordon and leaders from the public and private sectors in Wyoming about how they’re attracting investments that will crea te jobs and economic activity for years to come.” Governor Dunleavy Announces Power Panel at the Third Annual Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference https://gov.alaska.gov/governor-dunleavy-announces-power-panel-at-the-third-annual-alaska-sustainable-energy-conference/ 2/3 In addition to the panel, Governor Dunleavy is pleased to welcome a powerhouse lineup of speakers, including Martina Strong, U.S. Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates; Dr. Jeff Waksman of the Department of Defense; Rachel Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of the US Army; Martin Keller, Director of the National Renewable Energy Lab; Walt Hufford, REPSOL Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs; Jeff Mikulina, Executive Director of the Hawaii Climate Coali tion, among others. The week will kick off on Monday, May 20, with a pre -conference event in partnership with the Department of Energy Arctic Energy Office from noon -4 p.m. followed by the Climate Innovation Showcase hosted by Launch Alaska at Williwaw Social from 5:30 -7:30 p.m. To register, view the latest agenda, learn more about the speakers, sponsor, exhibit, and sign up for email updates, please visit AlaskaSustainableEnergy.com Governor Mark Gordon As a conservative, Governor Gordon has worked tire lessly to set Wyoming on a sustainable fiscal path and live within its means. He is dedicated to making government more transparent, accessible, productive, and efficient. He believes government is best when it is closest to the people and is committed to giving local communities the tools they need to thrive. Jon Conrad Jon Conrad is the Director of Governmental Affairs for Tata Chemicals Soda Ash Partners LLC, in Green River Wyoming. He has 29 years in various leadership positions within the Soda Ash ind ustry. Rep. Conrad (HD19) also serves in the State of Wyoming Legislature with multiple assignments including House Minerals, Business & Economic Development Committee and Select Water Committee. Rob Creager Rob Creager is the Executive Director of the WE A. He previously served as Senior Policy Advisor to Governor Mark Gordon, where he strongly emphasized Wyoming’s economic portfolio and public policy. In that role, he led multiple efforts, including implementing multiple pieces of federal legislation and the successful execution of five pandemic-related business relief programs. Governor Dunleavy Announces Power Panel at the Third Annual Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference https://gov.alaska.gov/governor-dunleavy-announces-power-panel-at-the-third-annual-alaska-sustainable-energy-conference/ 3/3 Joshua Parker Joshua L. Parker, P.E. is director, business development for BWXT Advanced Technologies LLC, a subsidiary of BWX Technologies, Inc. (BWXT). He is responsible for strategy development, sales growth, business expansion, and identifying and building strategic partnerships and alliances. Page 3Alaska Legislative Digest No. 16/2024 Senate Finance sends out operating budget; ready for floor passage and return to House The Senate Finance Committee sent its version of the House-passed HB 268 (operating budget) and HB 270 (mental health programs) on to the Rules Committee last Friday. It will soon be on the Senate floor and back to the House. The House is meanwhile working on its version of the Senate-passed capital budget, SB 187. The budget process is right on schedule, says Senate Finance cochair Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka. The Legislative Finance Division projects a $113.9 million surplus for FY 2024, ending June 30, and so far a $196.8 million surplus for FY 2025. But the House is not yet finished with the capital bud- get and there is about $77.4 million in the cost of new legislation still pending as well as a possible $26 million in pending public employee labor contracts, for a total of $103.4 million that could be added. The Permanent Fund Dividend is the biggest issue to be resolved. The House budget has a high PFD. The Senate version is more modest. On fiscal stability: We’re a bit thin on having an adequate reserve fund The Constitutional Budget Reserve, the main state savings account, had $2.5 billion at the start of FY 2024, the current fiscal year, Legislative budget analysts told the Senate Finance Committee last week. If there are no drawdowns the balance is expected to be $2.7 billion at the start of FY 2025 on July 1, mainly from earnings on invested assets. The state needs about $500 million for cash flow during the year to meet payroll and current expenses with this offset by incoming recurring revenues, the committee was told. About $3 billion is recommended to be retained as a “shock absorber” in the event of a sudden downturn in oil prices and oil revenues. Bottom line: We’re a bit low on savings for emergencies. HB 154: “Green Bank” moves out of House Finance The House Finance Committee moved HB 154 out of committee last Thursday, to the Rules Commit- tee, with amendments that parallel what is now in the Senate version, SB 125. The bill allows the Alaska Housing Finance Corp. to set up a subsidiary to coordinate, along with the Alaska Energy Authority, large amounts of incoming federal funding for energy projects. The new AHFC subsidiary will also likely participate with private banks and other entities in financing for projects aimed at energy conservation in- cluding building renovations and smaller-scale renewable energy projects. Many state have formed these so-called Green Banks to facilitate energy project lending. The Senate Finance Committee is waiting for the House bill to come over. Defined Benefit Pension, SB 88 This bill appears stuck in a House State Affairs subcommittee. It gives public employees the option of a traditional pension, or defined benefits. Firefighters and police groups were in Juneau last week lob- bying for it. The Anchorage Police Department has 50 openings for officers and the State Troopers have another 50 vacancies, says Sen. Cathy Giessel, sponsor of SB 88. Firefighters around the state are being recruited to other states with better pay and pensions after becoming fully trained and experienced. . . . Fiscal/Business . . . More EV chargers around the corner for Fairbanks: Where will they go? https://www.webcenterfairbanks.com/2024/04/24/tcc-aea-among-those-selected-federal-solar-funds/ 1/2 TCC, AEA among those selected for federal solar funds FAIRBANKS, Alaska (KTVF) - Two groups in Alaska are splitting an estimated $125 million in federal funds for the integration of residential and small-scale community solar power. The state-backed Alaska Energy Authority is putting its $62.5 million share toward solar photovoltaic infrastructure across the state, funneling the money toward low-income or disadvantaged communities in particular. ”President Biden committed to making the largest investment in our nation’s history to combat global climate change. Our announcement today ensures every community has a green energy future,” said EPA Region 10 Administrator, Casey Sixkiller. “This funding will be used to supercharge the deployment of solar power in communities, create jobs, make our power grid more resilient, and lower the cost of energy for every household.” As projects ramp up, the federal government intends for the funds to help develop a complementary workforce. More EV chargers around the corner for Fairbanks: Where will they go? https://www.webcenterfairbanks.com/2024/04/24/tcc-aea-among-those-selected-federal-solar-funds/ 2/2 The second chunk of the $125 million is headed to the coffers of the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC). That $62.5 million will go toward the ‘Alaska Tribal Solar for All’ program, a partnership between TCC, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, and Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. “TCC’s portion of the original application was to put together a program that other tribes, along the Alaska Railbelt, could apply to do large kind of community solar type projects along the Alaska Railbelt, aimed at larger projects between one and five megawatts.” said Dave Messier, TCC Director of Infrastructure and Community Planning. “To my knowledge, from the three entities that applied, I think it is one of the largest pieces of funding that [TCC] has received to date, aimed specifically at trying to increase the percentage of solar power on the Alaska Railbelt grid and the microgrids around the state.” Messier added. This project aims to provide tribal residents in Alaska with an opportunity to benefit from solar, because currently rooftop solar is not feasible. Copyright 2024 KTVF. All rights reserved. News Releases: Region 10 <https://epa.gov/newsreleases/search/press_o ice/region- 10-226179> CONTACT US <https://epa.gov/newsreleases/forms/contact-us> EPA Announces $124M to Deliver Residential Solar, Lowering Energy Costs and Advancing Environmental Justice Across Alaska EPA announces selectees under Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant competition to deliver solar to low-income and disadvantaged households through the President’s Investing in America agenda April 23, 2024 Contact Information EPA Region 10 Press Team (r10_press_team@epa.gov) SEATTLE (April 23, 2024) - Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Alaska Energy Authority and the Tanana Chiefs Conference have each been selected to receive $62,450,000 through the Solar for All grant competition to develop long-lasting solar programs that enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from distributed residential solar. These awards are part of the historic $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was created under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act to lower energy costs for families, create good-quality jobs in communities that have been le behind, advance environmental justice, and tackle the climate crisis. Alaska Energy Authority’s program will deploy solar photovoltaic infrastructure across the state. The program will span from urban, residential projects to community-scale, rural projects across Alaska. Implementation of solar infrastructure will reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the state while providing low-income and disadvantaged communities access to renewable energy. This program An o icial website of the United States government MENU 5/1/24, 9:54 AM EPA Announces $124M to Deliver Residential Solar, Lowering Energy Costs and Advancing Environmental Justice Across Alaska | … https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-124m-deliver-residential-solar-lowering-energy-costs-and-advancing 1/4 will not only o er Alaskans further access to renewable energy, but also provide funding to develop the local Alaskan workforce. The program will stimulate the solar industry in the state, mobilize financing and private capital to advance additional deployment of greenhouse gas and air pollution- reducing projects. “President Biden committed to making the largest investment in our nation’s history to combat global climate change. Our announcement today ensures every community has a green energy future,” said EPA Region 10 Administrator Casey Sixkiller. “This funding will be used to supercharge the deployment of solar power in communities, create jobs, make our power grid more resilient, and lower the cost of energy for every household.” The grant to Alaska Energy Authority is among 49 state-level awards EPA announced today totaling approximately $5.5 billion, along with six awards to serve Tribes totaling over $500 million, and five multistate awards totaling approximately $1 billion. Tanana Chiefs Conference was also selected to receive $62,450,000. The Alaska Tribal SFA is a partnership between three organizations to provide comprehensive access to the benefits of SFA Tribal residents of Alaska. Tanana Chiefs Conference, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, and Alaska Housing Finance Corporation each have developed programs that will provide Tribal residents throughout Alaska the opportunity to benefit from solar. Alaska maintains over 40% of the nation’s Federally Recognized Tribes and is the state with the highest proportion of Alaska Native and American Indian residents (19.6%) in the nation. Whether a Tribal member owns a house with su icient capacity to manage distributed generation, or a Tribal member lives in a community that operates a tiny isolated microgrid where roo op solar isn’t feasible—all Tribal residents of Alaska will have the opportunity to benefit from this project. A complete list of the selected applicants can be found on EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Solar for All website <https://epa.gov/greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund/solar-all>. EPA estimates that the 60 Solar for All recipients will enable over 900,000 households in low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from distributed solar energy. This $7 billion investment will generate over $350 million in annual savings on electric bills for overburdened households. The program will reduce 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions cumulatively, from over four gigawatts of solar energy capacity unlocked for low-income communities over five years. Solar and distributed energy resources help improve electric grid reliability and climate resilience, which is especially important in disadvantaged communities that have long been underserved. Solar for All will deliver on the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to creating high-quality jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union for workers across the United States. This $7 billion investment in clean energy will generate an estimated 200,000 jobs across the country. All selected applicants intend to invest in local, clean energy workforce development programs to expand 5/1/24, 9:54 AM EPA Announces $124M to Deliver Residential Solar, Lowering Energy Costs and Advancing Environmental Justice Across Alaska | … https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-124m-deliver-residential-solar-lowering-energy-costs-and-advancing 2/4 equitable pathways into family-sustaining jobs for the communities they are designed to serve. At least 35% of selected applicants have already engaged local or national unions, demonstrating how these programs will contribute to the foundation of a clean energy economy built on strong labor standards and inclusive economic opportunity for all American communities. The Solar for All program also advances President Biden’s Justice40 Initiative <https://www.whitehouse.gov/environmentaljustice/justice40/>, which set the goal that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal climate, clean energy, a ordable and sustainable housing, and other investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution. All of the funds awarded through the Solar for All program will be invested in low-income and disadvantaged communities. The program will also help meet the President’s goal of achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and net-zero emissions economy by no later than 2050. The 60 selected applicants have committed to delivering on the three objectives of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: reducing climate and air pollution; delivering benefits to low-income and disadvantaged communities; and mobilizing financing to spur additional deployment of a ordable solar energy. Solar for All selected applicants are expanding existing low-income solar programs and launching new programs. In at least 25 states and territories nationwide, Solar for All is launching new programs where there has never been a substantial low-income solar program before. In these geographies, Solar for All selected applicants will open new markets for distributed solar by funding new programs that provide grants and low-cost financing for low-income, residential solar. Review and Selection Process Information The 60 applicants selected for funding were chosen through a competition review process. This multi- stage process included review from hundreds of experts in climate, power markets, environmental justice, labor, and consumer protection from EPA, Department of Energy, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Treasury, Department of Agriculture, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Labor, Department of Defense, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Department of Energy’s National Labs – all screened through ethics and conflict of interest checks and trained on the program requirements and evaluation criteria. Applications were scored and selected through dozens of review panels and an interagency senior review team. EPA anticipates that awards to the selected applicants will be finalized in the summer of 2024, and selected applicants will begin funding projects through existing programs and begin expansive community outreach programs to launch new programs in the fall and winter of this year. Selections are contingent on the resolution of all administrative disputes related to the competitions. Informational Webinars EPA will host informational webinars as part of the program’s commitment to public transparency. EPA has scheduled a public webinar for the Solar for All program, and registration details are included below. Information on other GGRF webinars can be found on EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund 5/1/24, 9:54 AM EPA Announces $124M to Deliver Residential Solar, Lowering Energy Costs and Advancing Environmental Justice Across Alaska | … https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-124m-deliver-residential-solar-lowering-energy-costs-and-advancing 3/4 Engagement Opportunities webpage <https://epa.gov/greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund/engagement-opportunities>. Solar for All webinar: Monday, April 29, 2024, 4:00pm – 4:30pm ET. Register for the April 29 meeting <https://usepa.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/wn_riokuyakr1qeycvrwojcda#/registration> Contact Us <https://epa.gov/newsreleases/forms/contact-us> to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem. LAST UPDATED ON APRIL 23, 2024 Discover. Accessibility Statement <https://epa.gov/accessibility/ epa-accessibility-statement> Budget & Performance <https://epa.gov/planandbudg et> Contracting <https://epa.gov/contracts> EPA www Web Snapshot <https://epa.gov/utilities/www epagov-snapshots> Grants <https://epa.gov/grants> No FEAR Act Data <https://epa.gov/ocr/whistlebl ower-protections-epa-and- how-they-relate-non- disclosure-agreements- signed-epa> Plain Writing <https://epa.gov/web-policies- and-procedures/plain-writing> Privacy <https://epa.gov/privacy> Connect. Data <https://epa.gov/data> Inspector General <https://www.epaoig.gov/> Jobs <https://epa.gov/careers> Newsroom <https://epa.gov/newsroom> Regulations.gov <https://www.regulations.gov/ > Subscribe <https://epa.gov/newsroom/e mail-subscriptions-epa-news- releases> USA.gov <https://www.usa.gov/> White House <https://www.whitehouse.gov /> Ask. Contact EPA <https://epa.gov/home/forms/ contact-epa> EPA Disclaimers <https://epa.gov/web-policies- and-procedures/epa- disclaimers> Hotlines <https://epa.gov/aboutepa/ep a-hotlines> FOIA Requests <https://epa.gov/foia> Frequent Questions <https://epa.gov/home/freque nt-questions-specific-epa- programstopics> Follow. 5/1/24, 9:54 AM EPA Announces $124M to Deliver Residential Solar, Lowering Energy Costs and Advancing Environmental Justice Across Alaska | … https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-124m-deliver-residential-solar-lowering-energy-costs-and-advancing 4/4 4/24/24, 9:53 AM Alaska projects win nearly $125 million in EPA’s national Solar for All grant competition • Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/alaska-projects-win-nearly-125-million-in-epas-national-solar-for-all-grant-competition/1/3 ECONOMY & ENVIRONMENT ALASKA IN BRIEF Alaska projects win nearly $125 million in EPA’s national Solar for All grant competition BY: YERETH ROSEN - APRIL 23, 2024 7:22 PM ✉ ⎙ Sunlight re ects off solar panels lining the student recreation building at the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus on June 2, 2018. More solar arrays are set to be built with grant money totaling about $125 million that was awarded to two Alaska projects by the Environmental Protection Agency. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon) Alaska is getting an infusion of nearly $125 million to build and expand solar energy projects, part of a national Solar for All program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Paci c Northwest regional o ce announced on Tuesday. PART OF STATES NEWSROOM 4/24/24, 9:53 AM Alaska projects win nearly $125 million in EPA’s national Solar for All grant competition • Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/alaska-projects-win-nearly-125-million-in-epas-national-solar-for-all-grant-competition/2/3 The funding is split between two projects, one of them a partnership between the Alaska Energy Authority and the Alaska Housing Finance Corp., both state agencies, and the other a tribal project led by the Tanana Chiefs Conference, a consortium of Interior Alaska tribal governments. The two Alaska projects were among 60 selected for a total of $7 billion in funding distributed through a Solar for All competition. The money for the solar projects comes from EPA’s $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was created by the In ation Reduction Act of 2022, the federal agency said. “This funding will be used to supercharge the deployment of solar power in communities, create jobs, make our power grid more resilient, and lower the cost of energy for every household,” EPA Region 10 Administrator Casey Sixkiller said in a statement. The AEA-AHFC project is designed to deploy solar- energy infrastructure around the state, from rural to urban areas. The AEA will use a grant program for communities seeking to develop solar arrays, including battery storage, while the AHFC will administer a program to subsidize residential rooftop solar installations, according to a statement released by the energy authority. The authority already has a template for distributing the solar grants – its Renewable Energy Fund, which was established by the Alaska Legislature in 2008. The Tanana Chiefs Conference project is a partnership with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the AHFC, according to the EPA announcement. The tribal consortium has been involved in solar energy for years through its energy program. Through its partnerships, communities such as Hughes and Manley Hot Springs have been able to use solar energy as an alternative to diesel. In February, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded $26 million to the Tanana Chiefs Conference to expand solar projects in eight tribal communities. 4/24/24, 9:53 AM Alaska projects win nearly $125 million in EPA’s national Solar for All grant competition • Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/alaska-projects-win-nearly-125-million-in-epas-national-solar-for-all-grant-competition/3/3 The Alaska programs are expected to last ve years, with the rst year devoted to planning, according to the Alaska Energy Authority. Rep. Mary Peltola, D-Alaska, said she and the other two members of Alaska’s congressional delegation urged the EPA to select the AEA-AHFC and Tanana Chiefs Conference projects for funding. Delegation members sent letters to EPA Administrator Michal Regan, Peltola said in a statement. “Investing in energy projects across the board–solar, wind, hydro and more–lowers utility bills for Alaska families and creates new jobs!” Peltola said in the statement. “I’m proud to have advocated for this funding and to be able to bring it home to our Alaska.” Peltola, elected in 2022, was not yet in o ce when the In ation Reduction Act passed, but she has praised it. The other delegation members, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R- Alaska, and Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, voted against it, as did all Republicans in Congress. ✉GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUBSCRIBE REPUBLISH 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 website. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics. 4/23/24, 9:03 AM OPINION: Alaskans need a modern electric grid - Anchorage Daily News https://www.adn.com/opinions/2024/04/22/opinion-alaskans-need-a-modern-electric-grid/1/7 Obituaries •Games •ADN Store •e-Edition •Sponsored Content • Promotions •Get our free newsletters ADVERTISEMENT Opinions OPINION: Alaskans need a modern electric grid By Arthur Miller, Tony Izzo, John Burns and Brad Janorschke Updated: 20 hours ago Published: 23 hours ago Alaska News • Politics • Anchorage E • Opinions • Talk to us Get our free newslettersSections 4/23/24, 9:03 AM OPINION: Alaskans need a modern electric grid - Anchorage Daily News https://www.adn.com/opinions/2024/04/22/opinion-alaskans-need-a-modern-electric-grid/2/7 Power lines are highlighted by the setting sun along Turnagain Arm and the Seward Highway south of Anchorage, Alaska on Sunday, March 26, 2017. (Bob Hallinen photo) Alaska is at a critical juncture. The Railbelt’s four electric cooperative utilities have expanded since they were created in the 1940s but transmission connections between regions have not kept pace. Alaska, through the Alaska Energy Authority and Railbelt electric utilities, was recently awarded a $206.5 million federal grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, or DOE, for the first of two phases of a project to strengthen the electric grid between the Kenai Peninsula and the Interior. While the grant will substantially support the project, the State of Alaska must provide matching funds. The goal is for all Railbelt electric customers, more than 75% of Alaskans, to access the lowest cost power from wherever it is generated along the grid. The Railbelt regions are currently connected through a single transmission line, which is limited in how much power it can carry between regions. The initial step to decongesting power movement, Phase I upgrades, will construct an additional line from the Kenai Peninsula to Southcentral. Phase II upgrades will construct an additional line from Southcentral to Healy. In addition to increased reliability and resiliency of the transmission grid, the upgrades will allow more clean energy to be 4/23/24, 9:03 AM OPINION: Alaskans need a modern electric grid - Anchorage Daily News https://www.adn.com/opinions/2024/04/22/opinion-alaskans-need-a-modern-electric-grid/3/7 integrated onto the grid. While the natural gas issue has understandably been front and center, how electricity moves to its destination is equally important. These critical upgrades will create a redundant and more resilient system that will help utilities diversify energy resources. Keeping the lights on in Alaska homes, schools and businesses is a 24/7/365 responsibility. History shows that economies with access to affordable and dependable energy thrive. We know the value of reliable energy, and our goal every day is to deliver it safely, efficiently and for the lowest possible price. Being not-for- profit means costs are borne by our members and cost savings benefit members directly in the form of lower electric rates. We are committed to our respective energy diversification goals, to generating power as cheaply as possible, and to doing our part to make our state a place our kids and grandkids want to call home. If we do not take advantage of this grant, the full costs of modernizing our grid will ultimately fall entirely on our customers. The first step is a commitment to fund the initial work ahead of the main constructure stage, which would signal to DOE our long-term commitment to the full project. Gov. Mike Dunleavy has submitted a budget amendment that would fully fund the near-term work and the Senate took the first step by including funding in their version of the fiscal year 2025 capital budget for Phase I — upgrades from the Kenai Peninsula to Southcentral. Members of the House have been working diligently on a bipartisan basis to make matching federal funds a priority. Working with the Alaska Energy Authority, the application for Phase II which adds new infrastructure from Southcentral to Healy has been submitted to the DOE. Work for the two phases of this project will take up to 10 years, employ hundreds of Alaskans, and pave the way to integrate and dispatch new sources of power that cannot be developed without setting the stage now. Thanks to the governor and the tireless efforts of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Sen. Dan Sullivan, and Congresswoman Mary Peltola, the Railbelt grid has been elevated to 4/23/24, 9:03 AM OPINION: Alaskans need a modern electric grid - Anchorage Daily News https://www.adn.com/opinions/2024/04/22/opinion-alaskans-need-a-modern-electric-grid/4/7 national prominence. With support from the DOE, we can demonstrate how a modern electric grid can drive innovation and keep consumer costs down to encourage economic development. We thank the Alaska Legislature for their efforts and urge them to continue working together to ensure funding is included in the final budget, so the federal dollars for the project are not left on the table. The vision is within our reach. Arthur Miller is the CEO of Chugach Electric Association; Tony Izzo is the CEO of Matanuska Electric Association; John Burns is the CEO of Golden Valley Electric Association; and Brad Janorschke is the general manager of Homer Electric Association. The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here. Most read by subscribers 1 State of Alaska requests pause in homeschool ruling blocking public funds at private schools Sign up for our opinions newsletter Commentary, letters to the editor and more: Hear from different voices around Alaska in our free opinions newsletter, sent every Monday. Email* Type your email Sign Up 4/22/24, 4:23 PM Community, residential solar energy projects boosted by $62.5M EPA grant https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2024/04/22/community-residential-solar-energy-projects-boosted-by-625m-epa-grant/1/2 44° Anchorage, AK ADVERTISEMENT ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) - The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) will receive a total of $62.5 million in grant funding that will pay for residential solar energy programs. In a press release Monday, the AEA announced they have been selected as a recipient of the competitive grant offered through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Solar for all program. The program “is designed to deploy residential rooftop and residential-serving community solar projects benefitting low-income and disadvantaged households”. Executive director of the Alaska Energy Authority Curtis W. Thayer hopes that the grant will allow Alaskans to benefit from solar energy who may not otherwise have had the opportunity. “Alaskans face some of the highest energy costs in the nation,” Thayer said. “The Solar for All program helps to level the playing field by making solar energy solutions more accessible.” Community, residential solar energy projects boosted by $62.5M EPA grant Morning FastCast April 22, 2024 By Shannon Cole Published: Apr. 22, 2024 at 3:42 PM AKDT |Updated: 41 minutes ago ADVERTISEMENT 4/22/24, 4:23 PM Community, residential solar energy projects boosted by $62.5M EPA grant https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2024/04/22/community-residential-solar-energy-projects-boosted-by-625m-epa-grant/2/2 The application for the grant was submitted in October of 2023 by the AEA and AHFC with each organization planning to get an equal share of the funds to utilize in each of their planned projects. The AEA plans to use the grant to fund the development of community solar arrays that benefit disadvantaged communities. According to a press release from AEA, that will also include battery energy storage systems which will help “fortify electrical distribution in rural Alaska communities, delivering resilience and reliability for the foreseeable future”. AHFC plans to use their share of the grant to fund a statewide program that will subsidize rooftop solar installations “for utility grid connected low- income in disadvantaged households where net metering applies”. The funding is expected to pay for solar energy programs for five years. Solar for All program grants are funded by the Greenhouse Gas Fund authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act. How to watch Alaska's News Source your way with our family of streaming apps Copyright 2024 KTUU. All rights reserved. REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG RGYAUTHORITY.ORG 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 Email: info@akenergyauthority.org PRESS RELEASE Brandy M. Dixon Communications Director (907) 771-3078 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 22, 2024 AEA and AHFC selected for $62.5 Million EPA Solar for All Grant Program will enable low-income and disadvantaged households to benefit from solar energy (Anchorage) — The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and its partner, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), announced today that they have been selected for a $62.5 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Solar for All program. The Solar for All program is a $7 billion competitive grant program through EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Fund authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act. It is designed to deploy residential rooftop and residential-serving community solar projects benefiting low-income and disadvantaged households. The EPA’s program does not require a cost match from the grantees. “Alaskans face some of the highest energy costs in the nation,” said AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer. “The Solar for All program helps to level the playing field by making solar energy solutions more accessible.” ”AHFC and AEA have a long history of working together to assist Alaskans with their energy efficiency needs and this is the next chapter in our relationship,” said AHFC CEO/Executive Director Bryan Butcher. “Today’s announcement reflects a spirit of collaboration that will lead to access and advancement of emerging alternative energy technologies.” In October 2023, AEA and AHFC submitted a coalition application to be shared evenly between the organizations. This will fund a two-pronged Solar for All program for Alaska, supporting community solar installations and residential rooftop solar for low-income and disadvantaged households. With funding, AEA will administer a grant program to develop community solar arrays, including battery energy storage systems (BESS) that benefit customers in disadvantaged communities. BESS will fortify electrical distribution in rural Alaska communities, delivering resilience and reliability for the foreseeable future. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 AHFC will administer a statewide residential program that provides subsidized rooftop solar installations for utility grid connected low-income in disadvantaged households where net metering applies. With the final award, Alaska’s Solar for All program is anticipated to last five years, with the first year set aside for planning. ### About the Alaska Energy Authority The Alaska Energy Authority is a public corporation of the state. Its 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. To learn more visit akenergyauthority.org. About the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Alaska Housing Finance Corporation is a public corporation with a long history of providing Alaskans access to safe, quality, and affordable housing through home financing programs, energy efficiency, public housing and more. Since 1986, AHFC has contributed more than $2.1 billion to the State of Alaska’s General Fund. To learn more, visit ahfc.us. REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG RGYAUTHORITY.ORG 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 Email: info@akenergyauthority.org Solar for All Program Fact Sheet The Solar for All program is a $7 billion competitive grant program through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Fund authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act designed to award grants to states, territories, tribal governments, municipalities, and nonprofits to deploy residential rooftop and residential-serving community solar projects benefiting low- income and disadvantaged communities. In October 2023, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) submitted a coalition application for funding to be shared between the organizations, to fund a two-pronged Solar for All program for Alaska. On April 22, 2024, the EPA announced award selections for the Solar for All competition. AEA was selected to receive an award of $62,450,000. Selection for an award does not guarantee a final award. A final award is contingent on compliance with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies and agreement with the terms and conditions of the award agreement. EPA anticipates making the awards no later than September 30, 2024. The EPA’s program does not require a cost match from the grantees. With funding, AEA will administer a grant program to develop community solar arrays, including storage, that benefit customers in disadvantaged communities where modeling shows high potential for both the solar resource and ability for microgrid integration; and, AHFC will administer a statewide residential program that provides subsidized rooftop solar installations for utility grid-connected low-income households in disadvantaged communities where net metering applies. AEA will model its financial assistance on its Renewable Energy Fund program, which has successfully awarded 15 rounds of grants to communities statewide. Alaska’s Solar for All program is anticipated to last five years, with the first year set aside for planning. The Solar for All program offers an opportunity to reduce entry barriers for underserved Alaskans, enabling them to enjoy the advantages of residential rooftop, and community-based solar in disadvantaged communities in rural Alaska. The collaborative approach between AEA and AHFC will result in lower energy costs for disadvantaged Alaskans and provide access to critical resilience assets in rural Alaska. 4/18/24, 10:49 AM Chugach Electric Association board candidates differ on approaches to renewable energy, natural gas crisis - Anchorage Daily N… https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2024/04/17/chugach-electric-association-board-candidates-differ-on-approaches-to-renewable-energ…1/8 Obituaries •Games •ADN Store •e-Edition •Sponsored Content • Promotions •Get our free newsletters ADVERTISEMENT Energy Chugach Electric Association board candidates differ on approaches to renewable energy, natural gas crisis By Alex DeMarban Updated: 38 minutes ago Published: 16 hours ago Alaska News • Politics • Anchorage E • Opinions • Talk to us Get our free newslettersSections 4/18/24, 10:49 AM Chugach Electric Association board candidates differ on approaches to renewable energy, natural gas crisis - Anchorage Daily N… https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2024/04/17/chugach-electric-association-board-candidates-differ-on-approaches-to-renewable-energ…2/8 Chugach Electric board candidates, from left: Mark Wiggin, Dan Rogers, Sam Cason, Todd Lindley. (Photos courtesy Chugach Electric) Two incumbents on the board of the Chugach Electric Association are facing two challengers as the utility grapples with crucial questions, including how to respond to a looming natural gas shortage that could drive up electric rates. The election at the utility, the state’s largest power cooperative with 91,000 members, started on Wednesday. It ends May 17 when candidates with the most votes will take the two seats. Todd Lindley and Dan Rogers are running for seats held by Chair Sam Cason and board member Mark Wiggin. The election comes as the utility scrambles to find alternative sources of power to Cook Inlet natural gas after Hilcorp warned utilities in 2022 it may not be able to renew expiring natural gas contracts, including the Chugach Electric contract in 2028. 4/18/24, 10:49 AM Chugach Electric Association board candidates differ on approaches to renewable energy, natural gas crisis - Anchorage Daily N… https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2024/04/17/chugach-electric-association-board-candidates-differ-on-approaches-to-renewable-energ…3/8 The utility is working to find solutions. It’s expected to import liquefied natural gas that will raise costs. It’s also pursuing wind and energy projects that could hold down long-term costs. Lindley and Rogers are running separately, but they have teamed up on a campaign website to help get their views out. Lindley is a mechanical engineer for Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. and previously worked for ExxonMobil. Rogers is an electrical engineer who has worked for Chugach Electric and has experience integrating renewable power into electrical grids in Alaska. Rogers said the website is aimed at counteracting the support incumbents have received from The Alaska Center, a progressive group that works on a range of issues including conservation. ADVERTISEMENT The Alaska Center has endorsed Cason and Wiggin. Cason is a former public advocate before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Wiggin is a former deputy commissioner for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The Alaska Center website calls the incumbents “proven community leaders who support the development and harnessing of renewable energy here at home.” The Renewable Energy Alaska Project and the local chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers have also endorsed Cason and Wiggin. Addressing the gas crisis Lindley and Rogers distinguished themselves from the incumbents on some issues at a Chamber of Commerce lunch forum on Monday. The four candidates all indicated that natural gas imports will be necessary in the short-term. For long-term solutions, the candidates expressed varying levels of support for renewable energy, like wind and solar, as part of the solution. 4/18/24, 10:49 AM Chugach Electric Association board candidates differ on approaches to renewable energy, natural gas crisis - Anchorage Daily N… https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2024/04/17/chugach-electric-association-board-candidates-differ-on-approaches-to-renewable-energ…4/8 But the challengers emphasized the importance of relying on firm sources of power. They highlighted the importance of hydropower, a renewable energy considered more reliable than wind or solar power that’s not always available. And Lindley and Rogers suggested coal could be part of the mix as well. A study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks this year has recommended that a coal-fired power plant be built in Southcentral Alaska to generate electricity for the Railbelt. The study assumes that a coal power plant would be built off the contentious West Susitna Access Road near proven coal seams. Rogers called himself a “hydro guy” and said he understands coal is a “dirty word.” But he suggested a coal plant could be developed quickly and be fitted with new carbon capture and storage technology to allow carbon dioxide emissions to be stored underground. Lindley said “renewables have their place.” “But when we’re looking at meeting the mission of affordability and reliability, you gotta look at firm power sources and those come from natural gas, coal and hydro,” he said. The costs of renewables also have to be considered and Alaska has abundant sources of firm power that can lower costs, Lindley said. Wiggin said he’s a “longtime oil and gas guy” with experience working in that industry. But it’s “insanity” for the utility to continue relying on natural gas for more than 80% of its power, he said. Renewable use needs to be expanded, which can offset the cost of importing liquefied natural gas, Wiggin said. Cason emphasized that the utility has a “generational opportunity” to diversify its assets. Integrating renewables cost-effectively will require learning from other entities around the world, he said. 4/18/24, 10:49 AM Chugach Electric Association board candidates differ on approaches to renewable energy, natural gas crisis - Anchorage Daily N… https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2024/04/17/chugach-electric-association-board-candidates-differ-on-approaches-to-renewable-energ…5/8 Differences on a renewable power standard Lindley and Rogers said they don’t support a renewable portfolio standard for utilities. ADVERTISEMENT Bills before the Legislature in recent years have proposed a renewable power target for utilities in Alaska of 80% by 2040, with penalties for noncompliance. Lindley called the proposals “irresponsible” and said a renewable portfolio standard would lead to higher costs for ratepayers. Rogers said he doesn’t think the Legislature should be directing the experts at the utilities how to do their jobs. Cason and Wiggin said they support a renewable standard, though they do not support the potential penalties for utilities the bills have called for. They voted in support of a standard when the Chugach Electric board approved one earlier this year, though that resolution did not include specific targets. Wiggin said the problem with the proposed penalties is that ratepayers would be responsible for the costs associated with the fines. Cason said 80% renewable power by 2040 may not be the right target. “What we do believe is that whatever we can do to decrease the cost of financing to make our energy market more competitive is a positive and good thing for the ratepayers, for our members, for the long-term sustainability,” he said. ADVERTISEMENT He said the utility needs to reduce its dependence on natural gas. “No investment adviser worth his salt will tell you to put all of your assets in one security,” Cason said. “We have 80% of our assets in one security. We need to diversify.” Page 6Alaska Legislative Digest No. 14/2024 Watch for action soon on Pharmacy Benefit Manager regulation This is in HB 226 in the House and SB 121 in the Senate. We expect the House Labor and Commerce Committee to move the House version to House Finance soon, and we hear Senate Labor and Commerce may move its bill soon to Senate Finance (there may be a Committee Substitute coming in the Senate, too). At that point, both bills would be positioned well for the end of the session a month from now. Phar- macy Benefit Managers have become controversial nationwide, with 40 states including Alaska consid- ering legislation to rein in PBMs in over charges of excess profit-taking and squeezing out locally-owned independent pharmacies. In Alaska, the concern is that PBMs will increase the push for medications de- livered by mail from out of state. Alaska medical providers and particularly tribal heath organizations are really concerned about that because of the loss of quality control and temperature control during transit through the postal service. HB 307, SB 217, SB 257: “Railbelt” power transmission regulatory changes These bills, now in labor and commerce committees in both the House and Senate, make major chang- es in how power is transmitted, and at what costs, through the “railbelt” (Southcentral-Interior) electric transmission system, much of which was paid for by the state one way or another. A major objective is to make regional utilities’ “wheeling” rates, or charges for moving power for others, uniform through the system so as to not discourage Independent Power Producers, or IPPs, from selling power to custom- ers. The bills would also equalize tax treatment between nonprofit electric cooperatives and IPPs, which would be mostly private. Cooperatives (mostly the existing utilities) currently have a tax advantage over IPPs, who are competitors. HB 307 and SB 217 are the governor’s bills essentially assigning responsibil- ity to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska to set up cost recovery mechanisms for utilities to build new generation and transmission systems, and to require utilities to set up an association to administer cost recovery. SB 257, by the Senate Resources Committee, would have the state’s Alaska Energy Authority set up a Railbelt Transmission Organization within the AEA to plan and build new generation and trans- mission facilities. The bills are complex and railbelt utilities, as usual, have differing views. However, changes to the current fragmented system of charging for power moved through the system is considered essential if large new renewable energy projects are to be built to offset use of natural gas for power production. Match to federal grant for railbelt grid update is in the budget “Railbelt” electric utilities are focused on ensuring federal “match”money for the $206.5 million fed- eral grant for phase one of the railbelt (Southcentral-Interior) power grid. The governor asked for a $12.7 million amendment to the operating budget, which will be combined with $20 million from Alaska Ener- gy Authority bond proceeds for a $32.7 million first-year match for the federal grant. The match can be funded yearly over the eight years needed to build the project, a sub-sea cable across Cook Inlet to create a looped power grid for Southcentral Alaska, adding capacity. The AEA will apply April 17 for second federal grant for the “phase two” upgrade of the Alaska Intertie connecting Southcental with the Interior. . . . Business/Resources . . . An array of solar panels stand in the sunlight at Whistle Hill in Soldotna, Alaska, on Sunday, April 7, 2024. (Jake Dye/Peninsula Clarion) Renewable Energy Fund: Key to Alaska’s clean economy transition AEA will continue to strive to deliver affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy to provide a brighter future for all Alaskans. By Curtis W. Thayer Friday, April 12, 2024 3:03am ❙OPINION News Sports Outdoors and Recreation Opinion Life Arts and Entertainment Jobs Obituaries Marketplace In 2008, the 25th Legislature unanimously approved the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) competitive grant program. More than 15 years later, REF remains an integral part of Alaska’s toolkit for exploring, developing, and integrating renewable energy in Alaska. By statute, REF is administered by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), a public corporation of the State of Alaska. AEA serves as the State’s energy o ce and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” Created to diversify Alaska’s energy generation portfolio by harnessing Alaska’s vast renewable energy potential, REF is a proven vehicle for realizing the long-term bene ts of renewable energy. Such bene ts include mitigating Alaskan communities’ reliance on carbon-based fuels such as diesel and natural gas, which are subject to price volatility; reducing harmful airborne particulate matter through the o set of diesel generation; lowering and stabilizing the cost of energy through fuel savings via o set by low-cost renewable generation; increasing energy security; and creating jobs through continued investment statewide. To date, REF has secured more than $317 million in state-appropriated grant funding. REF’s bene ts are presented in an independent impact analysis conducted by BW Research Partnership, a third-party research consultancy, completed in December 2023 on behalf of AEA. Per the report, REF has o set approximately 85 million gallons of diesel fuel (e.g. ve percent of all petroleum consumed in Alaska in 2021), 2.2 million cubic feet of natural gas, and 1,063,500 net metric tons of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, cumulative net energy cost savings are estimated at $53 million, with the avoided cost of ne particulate matter (PM2.5) from o set emissions estimated to range from $29 to $40 million. REF’s impact on Alaska’s workforce is estimated at 2,931 added jobs. REF has also catalyzed investment in renewable energy development with over $300 million secured in non-grant funds. REF funds have been utilized as match for federal funding, to incentivize local contributions, and applied as capital to loans via AEA’s Power Project Fund. With the passage of the Federal Government’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the In ation Reduction, REF’s ability to leverage additional investment continues to grow, as seen with the Department of Energy’s recent announcement of $125 million for solar and hydroelectric projects in rural Alaska. Several of these projects bene ted from seed money from REF totaling almost $12 million. ©2024 Peninsula Clarion + Sound Publishing, Inc. + Black Press Media + Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Comments Policy REF is unique in its ability to fund all phases of project development from reconnaissance and feasibility studies to design and construction, encouraging prudent investment practices. The eligibility of both nascent and proven technologies under REF is a boon for projects applying innovative technologies, or adaptations to existing technology. In May 2023, with support from the 33rd Legislature, Governor Dunleavy renewed REF into perpetuity with House Bill 62. This renewal attests to the Governor and state legislators’ recognition of the e cacy of REF, its complementary nature to energy policy priorities, and the economic bene ts statewide, with more than 80 percent of grants awarded to non- Railbelt communities. With a ordable energy, diversi ed energy generation, and energy security at the forefront of Alaska’s energy transition, REF remains an established program to address these complex challenges. AEA, in partnership with its Board of Directors, the Governor, and the Legislature will continue to strive to deliver a ordable, reliable, and sustainable energy to provide a brighter future for all Alaskans. Curtis W. Thayer serves as the executive director of AEA, 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.” News Sports Outdoors and Recreation Opinion Life Arts and Entertainment Obituaries Search E-Edition Classi eds Weather Newsletters Media Solutions Subscribe About Us Contact Us Printer’s Ink Accessibility Subscribe Today Bringing you the news, and views, of the Kenai since 1970 Subscribe Today View this email in your browser Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Newsletter, April 11, 2024 Plan Spotlight It’s time for another Plan Spotlight! This month’s topic is the Contracting section of Alaska’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan. As electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure is developed throughout the state, this section and the contracting process play a pivotal role. We’ll recap the process in this newsletter. However, we encourage everyone to refer to pages 24-32 of The Plan to read the full section and get all the details. Step One: The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) advertised a Request for 5/1/24, 10:31 AM In this issue: Plan Spotlight, Share Your EV Data, and Fairbanks an North Pole EV Survey https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=7782b50df7 1/7 Infrastructure (NEVI) funds. Step Two: Applicants prepare applications! During this time AEA held a pre- application public meeting to spread the word about this opportunity as well as answer any questions prospective site hosts had. Step Three: Time to review applications. An AEA-established committee with members from AEA, the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), and our consultant partner reviewed applications and issued a Notice of Intent to Award funds to successful applicants. Step Four: Our original plan was that AEA would develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that would be incorporated into Alaska’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) by amendment, but we put the projects straight in the STIP, no TIP required! Step Five: (We are working on this step!) AEA and DOT&PF will provide project information to the Federal Highway Administration for Authorization to Proceed. Step Six: (We are working on this step!) AEA and DOT&PF will enter into project agreements with each site host. Step Seven: The moment we’re all looking forward to… design and construction of charging sites! Step Eight: Operation and maintenance of charging stations. Own an EV and want to share data? ApplicationsPast Issues for Phase One Alaska’s rollout of the National Electric Vehicle 5/1/24, 10:31 AM In this issue: Plan Spotlight, Share Your EV Data, and Fairbanks an North Pole EV Survey https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=7782b50df7 2/7 The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) is leading research about EV potential in Alaska as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Electric Vehicles in the Arctic (EVITA) project. The EVITA project team is especially interested in data on electric pick-up trucks and SUVs driven through winter in areas that get to -30F or colder. Data will help update the Alaska Electric Vehicle Calculator and inform further research. If you are interested in participating and want to learn more about the project, email Michelle Wilber at mmwilber@alaska.edu. The team will work with you to collect energy-use data available from your vehicle and provide a small incentive for participation. Looking for EV numbers before buying? 5/1/24, 10:31 AM In this issue: Plan Spotlight, Share Your EV Data, and Fairbanks an North Pole EV Survey https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=7782b50df7 3/7 As mentioned above, ACEP has developed an Alaska Electric Vehicle Calculator. This can help calculate how much it could cost to charge an EV at home and what the carbon emissions could be! This calculator is fully customizable with options to inform the calculator whether you’d be parking in a garage, how far you typically drive in a day, the town you live in, and more! Alaska EV News The Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation (FAST) Planning has kicked off the development of a local EV infrastructure deployment plan for the Fairbanks and North Pole area. This planning effort is funded through the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program. FAST is in the early stages of plan development and recently held a public open house. At this open house they shared educational information about EVs, solicited feedback from the public about where people would like to see chargers installed, brainstormed the proposed vision, goals, and objectives of the plan, and conducted a survey so that participants could ensure their input was recorded. Additionally, FAST is forming a steering committee composed of key stakeholders (including AEA) that will guide plan development. You can watch local news coverage of this event on the KTVF webpage. Live in Fairbanks? Take the survey! It will remain open until April 19. Don’t live in Fairbanks? That’s okay! Survey results are tabulated in real-time. Click on the survey link and scroll to the bottom of the page to view the survey results about people’s attitudes about EVs, their barriers to adoption, and charging preferences. Past Issues 5/1/24, 10:31 AM In this issue: Plan Spotlight, Share Your EV Data, and Fairbanks an North Pole EV Survey https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=7782b50df7 4/7 What does this sign mean? Whether or not you drive an EV, you might have noticed these signs popping up around the state. These signs are displayed at EV chargers installed with Volkswagen (VW) Environmental Mitigation Trust funds. When Alaska became a beneficiary of $8.125 million of VW funds in 2018, the Governor designated AEA as the lead agency for EV planning. As part of this responsibility, we administered the VW funds, of which 15 percent were used to deploy EV charging infrastructure throughout the state. AEA helped guide the process to award these funds to individual site hosts from Healy South to Seward and Homer to build, own, and operate charging stations. All of the charging stations that were built with VW funds are privately owned and operated but remain publicly available. Alaska’s NEVI funds will be awarded similarly. AEA and DOT&PF administer the funds, but once the money is awarded to individual site hosts and the charging stations are built, everything will be available for public use but privately owned and operated by the site hosts. Latest Alaska EV Count Keep an eye out for more news about FAST’s Fairbanks and North Pole Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan as the year progresses. 5/1/24, 10:31 AM In this issue: Plan Spotlight, Share Your EV Data, and Fairbanks an North Pole EV Survey https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=7782b50df7 5/7 What We're Reading Fairbanks and North Pole EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan (arcgis.com) More EV chargers around the corner for Fairbanks: Where will they go? (webcenterfairbanks.com) Alaska Electric Vehicle Calculator Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program 5/1/24, 10:31 AM In this issue: Plan Spotlight, Share Your EV Data, and Fairbanks an North Pole EV Survey https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=7782b50df7 6/7 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 © 2024 Alaska Energy Authority, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. 5/1/24, 10:31 AM In this issue: Plan Spotlight, Share Your EV Data, and Fairbanks an North Pole EV Survey https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=7782b50df7 7/7 4/11/24, 8:55 AM Do electric vehicles even work in Fairbanks? | Community Perspectives | newsminer.com https://www.newsminer.com/opinion/community_perspectives/do-electric-vehicles-even-work-in-fairbanks/article_80a21e50-f457-11ee-86b4-cfd2072d…1/3 https://www.newsminer.com/opinion/community_perspectives/do-electric-vehicles-even-work-in- fairbanks/article_80a21e50-f457-11ee-86b4-cfd2072def5a.html Community Perspective: Philip Wight Do electric vehicles even work in Fairbanks? Philip Wight Apr 7, 2024 Jorden Perez, Kachemak Communications An electric vehicle plugs into a fast-charging EV station in Homer, Alaska, developed by FreeWire Technologies of California. The station can accommodate two vehicles at a time. Jorden Perez, Kachemak Communications The world is abuzz with talk of electric vehicles. For residents of Interior Alaska, one key question looms: do these vehicles even work in our frigid winter conditions? 4/11/24, 8:55 AM Do electric vehicles even work in Fairbanks? | Community Perspectives | newsminer.com https://www.newsminer.com/opinion/community_perspectives/do-electric-vehicles-even-work-in-fairbanks/article_80a21e50-f457-11ee-86b4-cfd2072d…2/3 As a historian of energy and technology, I was interested in this question and purchased an electric car two years ago. I found a used 2019 Chevy Bolt (58,000 miles) for $22,000 and drove it from Ohio to Fairbanks in May, 2022. I’ve been surprised by what my wife and I discovered after driving the car for two years, through two Fairbanks winters. Let’s dispense with the elephant in the room first: range. Cold weather significantly impacts the performance of lithium-ion batteries. During the coldest periods of the winter (30 below and 40 below zero), the range can get cut in half. This means my Bolt, which usually has a 260-mile range, can only go 130 miles for some of the winter. While I’ve driven the car to Healy and Chena Hot Springs in the winter, another issue is that DC fast chargers (the fastest chargers, most often used for longer-distance driving) charge significantly slower when temperatures are below freezing. This means that practically EVs aren’t well suited for winter road tripping. Another downside is that the economics take a significant hit in the winter: since it’s roughly half as efficient, each mile costs roughly twice as much in January as it does in July. One more consideration is that lithium-ion batteries need to stay above freezing. So if one does not have a heated garage (as I didn’t for my first winter with the Bolt), the car will use some electricity to keep the battery warm when parked. However, even in the depth of winter an EV driven around town will still cost less than most internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. What’s surprised me are not these downsides, but rather EVs unexpected benefits. First, the winter driving performance. With heavy batteries situated along the floor, EVs have a low center of gravity that provides superior traction and handling. With 100% torque at 0 RPMs, EVs are famously zippy and accelerate far faster than ICE vehicles. What is less well known is that this instant torque helps deliver power more precisely, which improves confidence and performance in snowy conditions. Regenerative braking also provides more control (except in icy conditions) and allows “one-pedal driving” where the car automatically brakes when you ease up on the accelerator. Another unexpected benefit is that EVs are exceptional at towing; I have pulled out numerous stuck cars with my little electric tractor. Second, EVs are far more comfortable in the winter. You don’t need to wait for a combustion engine to warm up — hot air begins blowing from the electric heaters within a minute of startup. 4/11/24, 8:55 AM Do electric vehicles even work in Fairbanks? | Community Perspectives | newsminer.com https://www.newsminer.com/opinion/community_perspectives/do-electric-vehicles-even-work-in-fairbanks/article_80a21e50-f457-11ee-86b4-cfd2072d…3/3 Because creating heat from a battery is thermodynamically inefficient, most EVs come standard with heated seats and sometimes heated steering wheels. My very modest Bolt even comes with heated rear seats. If one has the luxury of a garage (heated or unheated), EVs are wonderfully convenient because you can preheat the car inside without suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. And since nearly all new EVs come with AutoStart, one can seamlessly preheat your vehicle without causing any tailpipe emissions. It’s also nice that you never have to spend time outside at gas stations (no one will miss pumping gas), since you can easily plug-in overnight or while at work. Fairbanks must be one of the most electrified cities per capita with our head bolt- heater outlets all over town; all throughout the winter EV drivers can recharge while parked. Finally, the all-around driving and owning experience is superior. EVs are addictingly fun to drive, are blissfully quiet inside (often with mellifluous sound systems) and cost far less to fuel and maintain than an ICE vehicle. My Bolt has also required zero maintenance in two years. It’s also nice to know that EVs help our air quality problems as they produce no tailpipe emissions. Even when fueled with 100%-coal fired electricity (GVEA’s mix is currently 30% coal), EVs contribute far fewer carbon emissions per mile than petroleum-fueled vehicles. And I’d rather keep my money in Alaska with our local electric cooperative GVEA than send it out of state to purchase a gallon of gasoline. In the summer, one can use our abundant sunshine to directly power an EV with solar panels. There’s nothing better than having your own “gas” station. Nine times out of ten, if driving locally, I’d pick an EV. My family and I find it more comfortable and affordable, not to mention safer and cleaner, to drive electrically. This is why there are now 150 EVs in the Interior and growing daily. For many Alaskans, especially those with one-car families, plug-in hybrids are probably the best choice right now. This kind of vehicle allows 30-50 miles of electric range but also has an internal combustion engine for longer trips. What’s clear is that Alaska’s best mobility future is increasingly electrified. I originally thought of this EV as my car, but it works so well that that I seldom get to drive it anymore. It’s my wife’s car now — and it’s nice when she lets me take it for a spin! Two years into owning an EV in the far north, it continues to outperform. Philip Wight teaches energy and environmental history at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 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 Funding Opportunity: AEA Solicits Second Round for RE-VEEP AEA is soliciting a second round of competitive applications for its Renewable Energy- Village Energy Efficiency Program (RE-VEEP) from qualified applicants to award sub- grants that will finance building-scale renewable energy, energy efficiency, and conservation projects in public buildings and facilities located in rural Alaska. Through these projects, communities with high energy expenses will reduce energy consumption and costs. Applications are due by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, May 28, 2024. For information on RE-VEEP and to apply, visit https://www.akenergyauthority.org/re-veep.